Why do Liberals feel it necessary to to surrender to terrorist?

Question

Over and over on news in all media the liberals want to run from fighting terrorist. Even in the chat rooms where you fine many liberals they all call for us to withdraw from facing any terrorist on every front. Why?

Answer 1

Oh, please!! Wanting us to leave Iraq where Bush went because of the oil not because of terrorists or as he had admitted WMD that did not exist, does not mean we want to surrender to terrorists.

I say get Bin Laden and kill him. Don't invade countries that do not have the military power to defend themselves.

By the way, Bush is breeding terrorists by his actions in Iraq. People are learning to hate us and Arabs have long and bloody memories.

Answer 2

I think for the most part many people, not just Liberals, are wanting a withdrawal because they do not understand the complexity of the problem. They think that if we leave the area that the extremists would be happy. The terrorists will not be happy because there are many things they think are evil or bad in their daily lives they blame the western world for. Western support for Israel being a major factor in this.

Going back to isolation by not trying to confront the terrorists like called for by many is a bad idea. Obviously it did not work during WWII (Japan brought us into the war) as it did not work recently (over 20 major terrorist attacks culminating in the trade towers).

Answer 3

I'm liberal and I do not want the US to retreat from any enemy.
However, I do feel offended at being lied to from the jump by Bush et al. The trail on bin Laden ('if' he was indeed responsible for 9-11) has grown cold and Iraq has been destroyed! WHY? And when the conservatives and everyone else who supports the BUSH-administration's reasons for going to war come clean and tell the truth about the matter, then maybe, just maybe some of the ambivalence on both sides (liberal and conservative) will dissipate. BUT...perhaps, we'll never know the real truth and this is because Bush and his people wouldn't know how to tell the truth if someone put a loaded AK-47 up to their nut-sacks!

Answer 4

What?

Let's take another look at this -- with rational eyes, shall we.

Let's look at several different items:

1. When we knew where Osama bin Laden was -- President Clinton launched a missile strike. What was the conservative response? The Republicans attacked him for his unprovoked attack on the floor of the congress and suggested that he wasn't trying to safe guard America, but was trying to deflect attention from Monica Lewinsky. So fevered was the response that we did not make another attempt on bin Laden, though we could have.

Had bin Laden died in that missile strike, or had Clinton been allowed to continue to pursue him, and subsequently the CIA had killed him -- there would have been no terror attack on 9/11 -- would there?

2. The Invasion of Afghanistan as a response to the attack on the WTC. Nearly everyone supported this. My lover of nearly 15 years considered concealing his sexuality (difficult at best since we were a registered domestic partnership in NYC) and entering the military. With deep misgivings I did not try to talk him out of it. The deep impracticality of "don't ask, don't tell" finally did talk him out of it. We supported the invasion and we continue to support an Afghanistan free of religious fascists.

3. The invasion of Iraq -- THIS IS OF COURSE WHAT YOU WERE REALLY TALKING ABOUT. There was not, and is not any evidence that Iraq was involved with terrorism prior to our invasion. There is not and was not any evidence that Iraq was creating weapons of Mass Destruction. The apparent evidence was, as we now all know -- manufactured.

Yes, Hussein was an awful man, but America is not the world's policeman -- as it evidenced, for example, by allowing the Sierra Leone disaster continue. While being an awful man Hussein created a climate in which secular democracy could begin to grow. He suppressed the Islamo-fascists by force, supported secular education and allowed rights to women (who have actually gone backwards from equality under the present constitution). He controlled sectarian killing (brutally yes, but he controlled it) and he advanced science.

Our invasion was, whether anyone likes it or not, an immoral act of aggression toward a sovereign power, no different than the acts that were made by Germany in WWII. If nothing else, many of us on the Left are consistent. If what Germany did, and for which they claimed the EXACT SAME EXCUSE, is wrong -- then the US doing it is equally wrong.

What makes it far worse is that we failed. We have created the terrorist breeding ground that we said we were trying to eliminate. On 9/11 the vast majority of the terrorists were Saudi and none were Iraqi -- I very much doubt that a similar attack today would have the same mix of participants.

I have incredibly confused feelings about what we should do now. I hate seeing our kids dying in a lost cause, and it is now a lost cause. The best thing for us to do is probably partition the country in three parts and have the oil revenue shared so that all the people can survive.

I have very, very close Arabic friends, ranging from my age (a couple in Milwaukee, who are Arab Americans) down to the youngest being a gay boi of 15 in Iraq who communicates with me by email and is so scared. Before he would be second class, but now, he is sure that once the Americans leave, he will be put to death under Sharia law. He has been trying to find an American officer who will love him and have the clout to take him with him out of the country -- but, while he has found some Americans who are willing to..... be satisfied.... with him, none will destroy their careers by admitting they are gay. So he is beginning to prepare to die, which makes me so sad.

Other Arabian bois I know have said that we invaded wrongly. They said overwhelming force, shooting all opposing Imams at once, the moment they spoke -- would have won the day for us and now the country would be quiet and peaceful. They said that the Imams only understand force.

They also say its too late now. Two of them have told me in the last few days that although we don't understand it, there is a full scale civil war happening around our troops now.

If that is true I don't know what good we can do.

Regardless, the War in Iraq was NEVER about terrorism, that was a front from the beginning. It was about oil, and avenging Saddam's threat to Bush Sr. And opposing anti-democratic Imperialism is much different from opposing pro-democratic intervention.

Regards,

Reynolds

Answer 5

They are spineless. They feel the UN will solve all problems, yet the forget the UN is the most corrupt incompetent organization on the planet.

Kofi Annan should have been ousted and imprisoned years ago.

Almost 100% of the problems we now face are the direct result of failed or non-existent Carter and Clinton policies.

You want to continue the trend vote democrat. In a few years you will be part of N.Korea. They are total failures.

Answer 6

I don't know where you get your info but I don't see too many of anybody saying we shouldn't be fighting terrorists. Maybe your confusing this with the war in Iraq. We made a hell of a mess out of that country.

Answer 7

What has the war in Iraq got to do with terrorism? Even Bush admitted that were no ties between Ben Laden a and Sadam .We should fight terrorism but we should not wast our resources in a war that only fits Bush's personal agenda.

Answer 8

Liberals don't feel it necessary; they PREFER to surrender. After all, Libs and terrosists share the same philosophy and view of the world.

Answer 9

I am not a liberal, but it is clear that you are not listening very well. You are drawing an incorrect conclusion and using it to discredit a particular group. This is why there is no answer to your question. Besides you cannot generalize like you did.

Answer 10

WHy do you think it's alright to allow our fighting men and women to drive down a road and get BLOWN UP? Or walk a street and have someone put a bullet in the BACK OF THEIR BRAIN? Those who fail to study history are domned to repeat it. Vietnam. Hey, Don't get mad at me, you asked.