Republicans and Liberals?

Dolly · Mayor Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 247

Before I start, I would just like to say that I'm not trying to flame here, just trying to get things clear in my own mind regarding US politics. I'm in the UK by the way.

From what I've read, the Republicans are reputed to support the war on terror and Iraq invasion. Now maybe I've got this wrong, but on these boards, there are more people against the War on Terror (or is it simply the Iraq invasion?) and not a lot of folk actually like Mr Bush.

This being a non-liberal forum... I'm confused.

It doesn't take much...believe me.

Please somebody clarify!

MHJ · Mayor's Aide Joined: 12 Jun 2006 Posts: 118

The general consensus in the USA is the public supports defensive actions against terrorism, but sees the Iraq War as a bungled war of choice.

Dolly · Mayor Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 247

So was it supported originally when the USA first went to Iraq? Because that after all, was done under defending the US against terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction and all that.

Nogard · Mayor's Aide Joined: 14 Jun 2006 Posts: 130

Dolly, Bush lead the American public to believe that Saddam was hiding WMD, but he wasn't. Well we haven't found them yet at least. Everyone was for this war and now after they don't find any WMD, people or saying they wasn't for the war from the start. How can someone just support something than turn around and claim they don't support it? What would of happened if Saddam did have a WMD and we didn't take him out? What if they used it on America?

Dolly · Mayor Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 247

Well, we more or less had the same thing here, Nogard.

Bliar, gave us the WMD argument and therefore, although many people were against the war, they were swayed by the WMD argument.
Now they feel deceived by Blair and that factor has been compounded by his relationship with Bush.

At the time there was a lot of stuff in the press about B.liar being Bush's poodle and it was shrugged off.

Since the G8 summit, when Bush said he didn't see their relationship as "Quid pro quo," Blair has lost nearly all his support.

So now we are in the position where we invaded a country that didn't have WMD, and have been told that we wouldn't receive the same support if we needed it. Mugs or what?

The thing is, with the whole WMD argument, you could say the same about any country. China could say it about the US and start an invasion if that was the justification.

If Saddam had been pointing missiles or some other weapon against us and saying "we are gonna blast you from the planet" then I could have understood it. But he wasn't. Do we invade every country that we think, may have a grievance against us and may, possibly have weapons?

And additionally isn't Bush a big religious fella - isn't all this against the teachings, full stop?