Are ther any Liberals who take the war on terror seriously?

Question

Serious answers, please.

I personally feel that Islamic terrorism is presently the greatest threat to our way of life since WWII.

Even if they don't directly attack us, their tactics are slowly eroding our personal freedoms and privacy.

I can't help but get the impression that the Democratic agenda is cut and run, and I believe this would be an extremely bad and dangerous policy.

The Democratic party just doesn't seem to get it? They don't seem to take the war on terror seriously.

What do you think?

Answer 1

Joe Lieberman to name just one

Unfortunately, it appears that many in the liberal set have given in to the most extreme among them. They would have you believe that they are willing to defend American interests, but what I perceive is they are willing to defend us only so long as it just involves talking. Once the shooting starts all bets are off. Liberals believe that if you keep talking everything will be okay, because after all if they understand us they can't really want to kill us. Right? Liberals believe that if they were in power again nothing bad would ever happen, of course to believe this you have to overlook the first World Trade Center Bombing, several U.S. Embassy bombings, and the attack on the U.S.S Cole to name a few. Most liberals just do not have the will for the fight, it began with Korea, gained strength with Vietnam, and is still present with Afghanistan and Iraq. I wish we could believe otherwise, but this is the face they show us. You are right to fear terrorism, it is the single greatest threat to world peace in our times.

Answer 2

I take terrorism very seriously and I disagree with radical Islam totally. I don't think I'm either Democrat or Republican though, I will say I am a social liberal and fiscal moderate. Thus, represented by who? =) I think that the difference between the Democrats and Republicans is not so much one takes it seriously and the other doesn't but a difference in how they see the best approach to dealing with it.

To me there was no link between Saddam and 9/11, in fact he was a secularist and enemy to many of the more religiously radical regimes in the area, particularly Iran. The bulk of the terrorists came from Saudia Arabia, none came from Iraq. Saddam was a horrible despot but the Iraqi people are now suffering more under the war than they were under Saddam. This is not a conventional war against a well defined opponent. Many innocent civilians, including many children have been killed. Most want us to leave their country now. This worries me because I think that what causes terrorism is people becoming radical due to feeling they have been horribly wronged. Thus, my fear is that some people who lose a child or family members in the war in Iraq will now be motivated to become terrorists. I think the main causes of terrorism by Muslims have been the situation between Israel in Palestine and generalized poverty and oppression. These conditions often make people become more psychotically religious in response. I think Israel has a right to exist and be safe but so does Palestine and they have not been granted these rights. I think establishing a viable border between the two countries would help the political situation immensely.

I also think that post 9/11 we had an great opportunity to band together with countries around the world to create more powerful anti-terrorism networks and prevention programs. My husband is European and we were in a foreign country when 9/11 happened. So many people who heard I was American were coming up to me and hugging me even though they really didn't know me well. I couldn't stop crying that day, because of the shock and horror of what had happen but also because of the incredible outpouring of emotion and support from these people. The last time I visited however, I had people with concerned faces asking me if America really thought letting Israel bomb children was going to solve anything. If we are involved in creating peace in a fair and neutral way I think that will go a long way to helping the terrorism problem.

I think becoming a global partner in solving terrorism is the way to go. I think there is more chance of this with Democrats, whereas Republicans have now pretty much all thrown themselves behind an ill conceived war. In fact, all the things that have stopped the continued attempts are due to the anti-terrorist actions of individual countries. I am concerned about things like the coverage not long ago about how many cargo loads come into our ports without inspections from Middle Eastern countries. I think paying more attention to stuff like that would do as much to secure our safety. I don't see evidence that war has stopped or helped the problem at all.

Lastly, the war is draining our coffers. The national dept is 8,511,918,568,550.04 and growing now by over 1.7 BILLION dollars a day! This is not healthy for our economy and continued economic prosperity. It worries me. The war is tremendously expensive. Some companies are going to get rich from it and the weapons manufacturers are happy but the average citizen is going to get screwed. Sorry to be so long winded but it is complicated and hard to sum up briefly.

Answer 3

Why don't you define your terms--War? What war? War must be declared by the United States Congress, no such thing was declared.

Your message is nothing more than the usual baiting of those who oppose the so-called "war." You suggest that anybody who opposes this "war" is in some way not serious, not opposed to terror or not, ahem, patriotic. The usual charge of the Cheney's, Bushes and Rumsfelds of the world--all while they are personally profiting on the so-called "war."

Notwithstanding my "liberal-ness" (which has only become apparent since the first election of the current boob-in-office) I am quite serious about terrorism. The real question is, is the boob-in-office serious about it? Since in fact, he and his government seem to have forgotten about Bin Laden, while attacking Iraq which had no terror connections. In fact, it is now such an unstable place that Iraq is now a hotbed for terrorists--all thanks to the current boob-in-office. It is a breeding ground made fertile by local hate for America. Why hate? Because the US destroyed and destabilized the place. Oh yes, this war was going to pay for itself from the oil--do you see Iraq paying us back for the debt we've incurred? I don't.

So while you question my seriousness about the so-called "war" I question whether you can see with your own eyes and hear with your own ears, for if you could see and hear and didn't subsist on the trype the White House and Fox News feeds you, you too would be wondering what the hell is this government doing and what is it doing about terrorism. For, you are no safer from terrorists today than you were 5 years ago and applying the Ronald Reagan test, if you're no better off now, then its time for a change.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding about your personal freedoms and privacy-it is not the "tactics" of the terrorists that are eroding them, it is the "tactics" of those who purport to be responding to them. I use the word purport because, as I said before, attacking Iraq was not/is not a counter-terrorist measure. It was just another invitation to another Viet Nam.

Answer 4

I think you are wrong,, I am a Democrat,, the attacks of 9-11 were acts of terrorism by Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network,, US troops were sent to Afghanistan to kill or capture the #1 terrorist in the world, and kill or capture the Taliban militia,, then Bush decided to topple Saddam,, go after WMD,, ,, can't remember all the other reasons he gave after his MISSION ACCOMPLISHED DRESS SHOW,, although 3 years later, he has admitted Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11,,, so now he says Iraq is the 1st front on his war on terror,, meanwhile in Afghanistan,, the Taliban were disbursed, Osama sill roams free in Pakistan or wherever,,, the US is no longer pursuing the worlds #1 terrorist,, Bush says now we are in a global war on terror,, a world war,, we fight them there so we don't have to fight them here,,, so where ever US soldiers are, that's where the terrorist will go,, their all in Iraq now,, right?,, they will follow our troops who are allowed to come back home? right?
wrong,, terrorists are all over the world,, Osama is free,, the Taliban and al Qaeda have re-disbursed throughout the middle east,, your either with Bush or your with the terrorists,, he, Cheney and Rumsfeld have a new mission calling Democrats names,, there a bunch of bully's gone wild,, their war plans were made before 9-11 to go into Iraq,,, Bush started WW111,, and he wants to divide Americans,,, by name-calling,,, he is high-minded and piously defending his mistakes,,,, he has offended veterans and citizens of the USA
God Bless Our Troops, whether fighting for truth or lies, they defend America and freedom, Democrats, Republicans, Veterans and all US citizens, not just the Christian Right Wing (fiscal conservative-born-again),, for Bush to politicize the war he started is not only, sanctimonious but dangerous for Americans and the world and excessively hypocritical....

Answer 5

Sure, plenty of 'em!

The politicians play their game to pander to the far left-wing (read: party "activists") and to be seen to be "not-Bush".

The mainstream media makes its money feeding pap to the masses and, in their case, it's left-of-center pap because that's what the mainstream media is: left-of-center.

For the most part, the voices of regular people go unheard - unless, of course, you go out and talk to your family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. And then it's pretty easy to see that there are plenty of liberals who take the war on terror seriously.

And if they elect one of their own like, say, Queen Hillary the Great, she too will be seen to take the war on terror VERY seriously. No Democratic president will be able to afford to be seen as anything other than hawkish on the war.

Answer 6

I think every American takes the threat seriously. The differ however on how to respond to it. This threat is really no different than any other threat that face us.

As with any threat, the first thing you have to do is to figure out why we are facing this threat. Then we need to figure out who or what is posing this threat. Without knowing that we can not respond effectively.

The main problem with the current response is that it is not objective. We were angry and shocked and wanted revenge. While this is understandable it is not very effective. We may indeed have increased the threat instead of reducing it.

Answer 7

Are you talking about the war on terror or the war in Iraq?
I believe that we do not belong in Iraq. I also believe that not every terrorist is in Iraq.
We will never eradicate terrorism as a tactic, as long as bombs are easy to make and small minded people want the world to listen to their bs. We have to prevent it through vigilance in our seaports, airports, and borders, not by attacking the wrong country.

By the way, I am a Democrat and I FOUGHT in the war on terror, so you might want to watch the overgeneralizaions. How many neo-cons fought for anything, ever?

Answer 8

I'm a liberal. I served my country for 10 years. I totally believe in the fight against terrorism. But I seriously doubt that Administration does though.

This is a whole new style of warfare fought out through information and misinformation. This is a war that requires not just bombs and bullets, but education and job reforms.

Bush's entire War of Pre-emption was to force North Korea and Iran to reconsider their stances on WMDs, particularly their nuclear programs. Instead of abandoning their programs, as the Bush Administration had hoped, they accelerated them.

We're losing the war in Afghanistan. The Taliban is now making in roads to retaking the country. The same warlords that once helped us oust the Taliban are now allying with them. Opium production has enabled Afghanistan to once again become the crop of choice.

We never finished the job we set out to do in Afghanistan and now we're paying for it.

Answer 9

I take the war on terror very seriously. I'm a Liberal, ex-military and agree that we were justified going into Afghanistan. If you're buying into the Fox News/Conservative rhetoric that if we leave Iraq we're "cutting & running" then consider me "cut & run"....Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. My fellow military personnel are getting killed over there almost on a daily basis. Iraq didn't have any connection to 9/11 and there were no WMD's.

Answer 10

curiously once you could no longer think of of something smart to declare, demeaning, rude barbs and insults will suffice. This "conflict on terror" is taken heavily by ability of maximum individuals, yet maximum individuals additionally comprehend that in the event that they anticipate to proceed to be a loose society, that involves a modicum of danger. No government can guard its voters from each possibility, and no government might desire to be predicted to; voters might desire to take some duty for his or her very own protection and protection. All this "conflict on terror" has executed is enable the Bush administration to cringe basic American freedoms, yet - interior the approach - it has no longer made any individuals any extra secure. mutually as an smug, lazy, shiftless, cowardly, corrupt Republican-led Congress became its back as George W. Bush violated our rules and our shape, the White homestead took away, or minimized, our basic rights and freedoms: a) we are able to now anticipate the government to eavesdrop on our telephone conversations and study our e-mails with out warrant; b) we are able to now be 'detained' in a federal penitentiary with out due technique, with out being represented by ability of a criminal expert, and being presumed to blame till shown harmless; c) With Bush's railroading the overturn of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, he can now declare martial regulation with out even having to tell Congress or the individuals; d) we are able to now no longer protest interior of such numerous yards of a President's public speaking engagement, opposite to our top to particular ourselves freely against our government. finally, an the two lazy, shiftless, cowardly and corrupt Democratic-led Congress, which promised to end this 'conflict' if elected, has sat back and executed little to maintain that promise. Such state of being inactive purely infringes on our basic rights and freedoms as persons and voters. all those issues should additionally be taken heavily, because of the fact in the event that they at the instant are not - that's purely a remember of time till we sooner or later awaken to locate ourselves residing in a totalitarian government the place we've no options, no rights and no freedoms. -RKO- 08/20/07