If a liberals win the next ten presidential elections will this end terroism in the US?

Question

If so how? All I ever hear is "terrorist hate us because of Bush, he is an %@^*!". Before I vote for a liberal I want to hear the plan. Name calling is not a plan. How would a liberal president end terrorism? Keep in mind they hated us for a very long time. For many presidencies. Would we stop supporting Israel and make the Muslim religion mandatory for all US citizens? Tell me what's the plan? Please I already know you hate Bush. What would be the liberal plan for the next ten presidencies?

Answer 1

A progressive thinking American, Benjamin Franklin (a suspected liberal) said something profound that applies today. “A person, who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security. “ As a liberal, I would rather go through 1000 events like 9-11 before I would succumb to allow my government to listen in my phone conversations without a warrant and probable cause in the name of protecting me. The list goes on about the disappearing civil rights and other violations of our country. These noble concepts of liberties, which many conservatives are so willing to give away in the name of security, are what a forefather died to create for us. Protecting each American Civil Rights listed in the Bill of Rights that’s the starting point. Next, I would issue my doctrine to the world…Let’s call it the John L Doctrine. I would notify the world that America is off limits to attacks. We welcome diplomacy to any disputes, but if we are attacked then our reprisal will be swift and devastating which means I use of our WMD. Similar to how Truman, a Democrat, ended WW2. So Conservatives, be mad at yourselves. You have gotten control so be responsible. The conservative doctrine has succeeded to shrink our civil liberties, got out military stuck quagmire and economy supporting an expensive nation building effort with the most likely result in turning a region of the world we depend on for energy into a civil war zone. I’m not Bush Bashing, but conservative should not follow a leader so blindly.

Answer 2

No it won't, but it's a step in the right direction.

President Bush went to Iraq with lies, not correct proof. That's why we supported him in the beginning, because we believed him. We all did. But now we know better.

There are better places to fight terror than Iraq. I would like all our soldiers back in the U.S., so when we get attacked again (unfortunately, it's probably a when, not if), all the heroes will be here to defend us.

Right now they are helping fight a civil war. Killings against troops, while still happening, have somewhat dropped, but civilian killings by insurgents have increased. Reguardless of what you believe about the U.S. invding, if you really look, all you see is a civil war. The most obvious comparison to this war is Vietnam.

A Democrat as President, ideally, would start a phased withdrawl, having the Iraqi soldiers start to take over control of their provinces as we pull out. With soldiers not in a dedicated war, they would be able to be deployed in the event we ever need to make a preemptive strike against another terror nation.

Iraq is so screwed up, the bad guys probably couldn't make another terror attack, given al-Qaeda is actually in that county. Al-Zarqawi's al-Qaeda was a different branch than the one who attacked us, and they WERE in Afghanistan; I don't know where they're at now.

A Democratic President can only help us be more organized in the event we are ever threatened again.

Answer 3

It is not possible to end terrorism against us, even if the liberals win the next ten elections. We need to be involved in the middle east in order to secure the position of our country as number one. Believe it or not, the Middle East is a beehive of hatred. I'm not saying all Muslims are hateful and violent, but there are enough of those types of people out there to put the security of our country at risk. Maybe the War in Iraq was started under false pretenses but something had to be done in the middle east. If not, the security of the world would be in danger. In the short run it has been shitty, but it will work out in the long run.

Answer 4

I think that a very small number of our enemies today are actually angered by our tolerance of non-Muslims and our support of Israel. Rather, the majority are upset by what they perceive as American insensitivity towards their human rights. Granted, many times, their cries are unfounded, but their anger, however unfair to us, makes them perfect soldiers for the bin Ladens out there who hate us simply for us.

President Bush has responded with physical force. I do sympathize with him, and I do agree that to bargain with the bin Ladens is naive at best, stupid at worse. However, this only scratches the surface of the problem, and while it temporarily disrupts terrorist operations, in the long run, it is dangerous to us in that any time we kill an innocent person by mistake, and **** does happen, what is to stop his angered brother from believing terrorist propaganda and joining their side?

A liberal president, with a more flexible Cabinet, would address these long-term issues, and realize that we cannot win against terrorism if we do not win over their supply of pawns, e.g. the citizens of traditionally Muslims countries. We win them over by treating them fairly and without any blatant favoritism towards their historical enemies (I will admit that they seem particularly sensitive, but that's the way things blow, I guess), by showing them that we sympathize with their plight of living under a backwards Islamic government that might not provide for their needs. Most importantly, though, we must show them that becoming a terrorist, or "freedom fighter", is not the way to a better tomorrow for their countries.

A more liberal leader might see this. I am no fool; I realize that physical is necessary at times, but not ALL the time...

Answer 5

NO, it would doom the USA. Appeasement will not work, bribes will not work..... Clinton tried those paths.... Extermination of the Muslim Brotherhood and its off-shoots/descendants is probably the only thing that will put and end to the terrorism by Islamo-facists.

Then there will be the eco-terrorists, etc. But, extermination will work. The Muslim religion should be banned in the USA, since most Muslims support fanatic Islam.... and very very very few Muslims speak out publicly against terrorism and Islamo-facism.

Read the Koran/Quran, if you really see what you read, you will see that the phrase, "Islam is a religion of peace", is a LIE. Propaganda from the lefties, including Bush.

Answer 6

terrorism has a new name and face is all .
you gotta realize that it has always been with us .
the threat of harm to ones'self and family has been a real threat for as long as i can remember and people are playing on your fear is all .
AS a nation it would take a 9-11 every month and still not effect more then .002% of the population .
MORE people die at work from heart attacks every week in america then died on 9-11 .
QUIT letting some one who will profit off your fear run your life .
GET over the terrorism threat thing and thing about the 15,000 deaths from not wearing seat belts or the number of construction workers killed 1200 or the 15,000 killed in falls each year life is not easy and people die all the time .
GET over this terrorism thing and live your life for GODS sake people .

A hole industry is rising up around terroism in place of the cold war now we have terroism .
we will always have difficultys but so few people are killed it does not make sense to change an entire way of living .

Answer 7

They could do a lot better than we're doing now.

How? Through law enforcement, counter-terrorism, and LEGAL intelligence. We've still got big gaping holes in our domestic security like a lack of confirmed checks of incoming shipping containers and aircraft holds. Know how much of that we could have accomplished with $300 BILLION dollars? I think the whole thing plus real border security would have been completely doable for that amount of money and we would have gotten real measures to defend American soil from more terrorist attacks to show for our money. That course probably wouldn't have left 2000+ of our young men and women dead and thousands more maimed, either.

However, a hundred presidents of either political party wouldn't necessarily stop all chance of terrorism whether it was foreign or domestic in origin. As long as we're a free society there will be holes in our security and freedom has to trump security or we've lost. But the neocon plan of making the world safe by conquering it isn't working and cannot work.

We can topple governments with no problems and relatively few casualties with our awesome conventional war capability but brute force alone can never take care of these people, especially when you're fighting them in their backyard where you're just a temporary visitor--even if you stay for years on end. Vietnam, Iraq, even Somalia should be ample illustrations of that. Once you're in one of those conflicts you're no longer fighting a military enemy--you're fighting ideas. They're much tougher to beat than armies.

I don't think we can expect these people to give up their gripes with America simply by adopting friendlier diplomatic stances or by trying to fufill their wishes--that's not practical and it's a serious misjudgement of the mindset of our enemies. However being on good terms with the other civilized nations of the world to advance cooperation is a good step in the right direction. If the U.S. had relations with lots of countries that were nearly as good as our relations with the U.K. imagine how much safer the world would be. The recent plot in the U.K. was mostly uncovered and handled by them (and their legal, warranted wiretapping) but we were able to assist using focused intelligence gathering and legal, FISA-court approved wiretaps. That's the way we make things safer.

10 presidents--and that's 40 years minimum--dedicated to alternative energy could also end our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and we could just get the hell out of there. If we left most of the hostile countries alone altogether they'd eventually have no reason to hate us and either get their **** together or focus their aggression on each other. Also, we would quit making them rich on oil profits that feed them and their autocratic governments--well, I think that would do a lot to end terrorism.

These are all things center-left presidents could accomplish.

Or we could just keep invading countries, knocking over governments and creating more unstable terrorist breeding grounds. Once the governments are destroyed all we've succeeded in doing is creating more unwinnable wars against a decentralized enemy employing terrorist or guerrila tactics--who also happen to be indistinguishable from the civilians in those countries. All the while we would probably be alienating the emerging economic powers of the EU and China with our aggressive foreign policy. They could just choose to cut us out and that would be a disaster for the America of tomorrow. Which alternative sounds more reasonable and more constructive to you?

****

Also, bear in mind that the actions and compromises the Bush administration and congress have taken have been inappropriate on a number of levels, the least of which is the compromising of our civil rights. That isn't necessary and frankly I think it's more dangerous to America than all the angry, desperate zealots in the world. I'm personally not afraid of the terrorists but I'm very afraid of what our government is doing and even more afraid when I hear so many people who seem to think giving up their freedoms is somehow patriotic... Very scary. Freedoms are a lot easier to give away than they are to get back. I hope we don't let things go so far that we have to learn that the hard way.

Answer 8

answers to question#:
1. only the full islamic ideology will end terrorism
2. by implementation of the rules (as-sharia) that God(Allah) has sent for mankind to be ruled by
3.your vote doesn't count, electorial college decides the president, not popular votes. A president, liberal or not, will not benefit anyone unless they devise better foreign policies that current rulers of other countries can show their people that america has "changed"
4.ending foreign aid to isreal is the number one way to get the ball rolling.Not even the islamic ideology calls for everyone to convert to islam...become informed,not paranoid.
5.the plan is absolutely learn about something the government doesn't want you to know about...learn about islam
(see "learn"below)
6.you nor any of the general public will ever have access to information like that. Only by being a highly astute political analyst watching unfolding events and relating them to past events and following the "who benefits from this" trail will you be able to keep sharp.Start with islam because unlike communism it IS going to return as an Ideology and immediate SUPERPOWER. (its prophecied)

Answer 9

How about this for a plan: get out of Iraq.

Yeah, we're doing soooo much to stop terrorism by standing around with our thumbs up our butts waiting to get car bombed.

Terrorism is best solved by police and spies. We're just wasting our blood and treasure by continuing the Iraq occupation. Can someone, anyone tell me why we're still there? Hello? Anybody?

PS, we don't have to tell you our plans, it's YOUR government -all three branches. It's ALL YOURS and YOU Republicans have F-ed it ALL up!! Besides, if we told you, you'd just point and say "cut and run! cut and run! neener neener neener."

Like staying in Iraq makes any sense at all. Dummies.

Answer 10

This is not a mater of Bush or any other president. As long as Osama and this Iranian president are alive, terorism will never end. Becouse that is the reason for their living.