Being a liberal means...

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Being a liberal means never having to say you're sorry.

Was that a feeble attempt to portray the anti-war people as "liberals" when that's not the case at all. Sorry to disappoint you my friend, but a very large number of traditional conservatives opposed the war, based on conservative principles. This war was a product of NEOconservative principles. It had nothing to do with conservatism.

Charles,
Please stop it.

I am a liberal. I support this war. I don't support Bush.

Being a liberal means that you can listen to two sides of an issue and make an educated decision. It means you choose not to be a pompus dick head who will do something even when you 'know' that it is wrong.

I always confuse Search and Sacred...

I know that many of you guys who oppose this action are not just "peace freak" liberals. You have valid reasons to be cynical and real fears that this action costs us money (some of us actually have jobs and pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes per year), and increases the risk of terrorism. That's fine. This does cost money, American's are getting killed, and we have pissed off not a few islamic radicals,...

There are factors we didn't expect and can't control. Who'da thought the French would have taken such outspoken opposition to lead the "followers" into opposing the US for the sake of opposing the US (nothing to do with what's good for Iraq - honestly). This enterprise could still fail or at a minimum become brutally cumbersome. All they need is to keep up the (a)moral and financial support to radicals who can pick off progressive Iraqi elements and keep the people in terror.

The hard part starts now.

My original post was just a poke at those who for naive, clever, and questionably intellectual reasons have reached the conclusion that Iraq will not be a better place because of this enterprise, and that a change in the status quo of the middle east based upon a new Iraq would not infact benefit the United States substantially.

Search4Truth vehemently opposed this WAR as a conservative (!?!) but upon seeing that one of its outcomes does seem to be liberation and freedom for the Iraqi's from a brutal dictatorship, he concedes that it is a worthwhile endeavor.

While he does not think that anything is proven to refute his concerns about an increase in terrorism, etc., the "freedom" argument alone is enough to justify the effort.

This is a conservative who looked at the facts and the results, and openly admitted a principle change in his position. This is an honest and brave thing to do.

A liberal would never do this. They are far too panzy a$$ elitist to admit they could ever be wrong.

Sorry - just wanted to clarify my point.

The thing is, and I follow that wacko Pat Buchanan on this issue, something may be in the best interests of Iraq or Israel, but not in the best interests of the USA. Yes, maybe Iraq being "liberated" from Saddam is great for them, and maybe it's good for us...but that remains to be seen after we see the long term costs and consequences. The point being that the USA should determine "what's best" based on ONLY the USA, and if somethings great for another country (say Israel or Iraq) but not the best for the USA...then you don't do it. You think USA 1st.

And you say we're not patriots!

No, it implies nothing.

The only thing that it implies is that someone is making a statement bashing liberals 'as a whole'...so therefore it is bashing me, when in fact, I support this war.

Call me touchy, but how many times do I have to read the same thing and not say anything about it?

Yes, definately Touchy.

Really T.L.B., this thread did start as bashing Liberals 'as a whole' and that is wrong. You are in the 5 percent that it did not apply.

Regards,
John, Vet, Masters Degree, Christian, business owner and part time dick head