Would Liberals oppose the war if a Liberal President had sent us to war?

badjanssen

first off...a liberal president probably would still be "negotiating" with the terrorists, while they were arming themselves to the teeth and infiltrating this country and waiting for their moment...thenof course, they would find some way to toss the blame to conservatives who had somehow "brought it upon ourselves" by some slight to the terrorists...such as calling them violent or even suggesting they give up their anti-american rhetoric in their mosques and churches which we all know are just meeting places for their plots, and covered by the american idea of a church is a religious place and not to be messed with....then if the terrorists were caught, it would have to have a sympathethic trial as to not offend the rest of the religion that believes they were just doing what god told them to...all the while ignoring the christian faith and those who are not violent and as just "radical christian rightists"....then there probably would be a deal struck where whoever was involved in the terrorism act would be sent back to their own country for punishment (or awards) because we "just dont understand their suffering through the ages"....

xialou1

A liberal president would not have sent us to war for oil and his corporate friends....and it may have been for a better reason,,,

ExSarge

You mean like President Clinton's "invasions" of Bosnia, Somalia, and oh, don't forget, Operation Desert Fox against Iraq in 1996 because of WMD!!!

HarryMay

all liberals I know who are opposed to war were against clinton's invasions...

there were many protests during clinton's periods - the media didn't want to give them any attention cause the media were all in love with clinton...

My Lord

Yes. Would Republicans support the war if Clinton ran it the same way as Bush.

longleggedfirecracker

I don't think that the current war was a good idea in any case, regardless of who would have ordered the troops. The war has been and will always be a stalemate while playing by the rules and code of the Geneva Convention. It is unfortunate. Now we will have to deal with thousands of mentally ill soldiers and to what avail? We have not won a war, we have not liberated a people, we have most likely made everything worse, and now we are in a catch 22 situation! Damned if you do (stay), damned if you don't (leave).
PS What chance do you really think a "liberal" candidate has of winning a presidential election? Let's be realistic here!

Philip L

No they would not. They hate the war not because it is right or wrong but becasue it is "Bush's war." They hate Bush so much that they pray the US loses in Iraq.

Dogzilla

Personally, I don't oppose war....just THIS OilWar! It's all about the oil, Babe!

Also, didn't we already WIN the "war"?? Isn't this just "insurgents" trying to run us out??

The bush administration is just in this for their personal profit. It's just fianance to them.

The Instant Classic

No, and they had no problems with clinton using air power to decimate the serbian population. Why? Because serbs are white. Sadly, racism only counts one way in our p.c. society. Then again, we were made vulnerable to terrorism because 'ol Billy Boy gave the arabs start-up money for businesses and also fully paid scholarships for whatever they chose after he brought them in ahead of European, Asian, Hispanic, and African immigrants. Whoopee! Now that hag shillary is acting as one would expect, blaming our current President for her husband's endless stupidities. Hopefully she won't get elected as she would ruin our county as she is an atheist self-worshipping America hater. But once again, the left gets away without condemnation thanks to pinkos like Dan Rather (he's back) and his ilk.

nospamcwt

Which war?

If you're talking about the war on terror, the one chiefly fought in Afghanistan, then they wouldn't oppose it. They don't oppose it now.

If you're talking about the war in Iraq, the one fought for Big Oil and to get revenge on Saddam for attempting to kill Bush senior, then you can be sure they would oppose it.

lorrnae

It depends what the liberal president is fighting for.

I mean a Republican wouldn't always support the war if a Republican President had sent us to war, Right?

mike b

they didn't when Clinton did

Akilee

yes.

Roadrunner58-79

N O!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tokoloshimani

Everybody would support a war for a just cause.
Nobody supports 'war' to stop a 'civil war' and to top it all, a 'war' with an idiot Commander-in-Chief'.

I AM THE RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY

five months ago I would have said yes, but with the hippies and tree huggers turning against one another who knows?

curious_One

highly doubtful

nicole

This is such a good question because it allows people to look at both sides. Simply put, no they wouldn't object if Clinton was president. Thank you for shedding some light.

donaldblake2007

no, of course they wouldnt

Politically Wrong

As cowardly as the Liberals are, it would be doubtful they would go to war. They would be trying to make friends with the enemy, ehile he was plotting our destruction. Then when we were attacked, they would blame someone else for not paying attention.....
If Clinton did his job, we might not be in this today

STIFLE YOURSELF LIBS 3

The libs didn't utter a word when Clinton bombed an aspirin factory.

fr_chuck

of course not, then our soldiers would be freedom fighters and we would be helping the poor oppessed people gain freedom

pbleek

Yes, if i remember correctly it was a liberal who started Vietnam. For whatever reason liberals are less likely to blindly follow a course of action which is clearly bad for the country.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: