English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

will we hand out flowers to bin ladens nutters, will we give that screwball in iran a free hand to do what he wants, come on people wake up and smell the coffee,

2006-09-01 09:41:02 · 28 answers · asked by pat o 2 in Politics & Government Politics

28 answers

To stand tall against the worldwide terror movement that has taken hold since the late 1980's , it will take someone who has a rock solid set of nuts. You have to be able to stand up to a constant barrage of negative comments, news stories, public opinion polls and every kind of popularity contest. I am not saying that there are no Democrats that fit that bill, but if there are some, they should stand up and be counted. I am afraid the vast majority of citizens are failing to see the real threat here because of their blind hatred of all things George W Bush.

2006-09-01 09:47:55 · answer #1 · answered by united9198 7 · 0 3

Is the world a safer place than what it was 10 years ago? After the attacks 9/11 it would not have mattered whether there was a lefty or conservative in office. We would have went after the source of the attacks either way. The facts are that we have not found the source of the attacks and we are in a war based on reasons that have now been proven false (wmds). Because of this our credibility in world opinion is down. Like it or not, you need the help of other countries intelligence agencies to fight terrorism. How many terror attacks are there in the world compared to any other time in the history of this nation? Anyone can see that the numbers have risen considerably in the past 5 years. This not a matter of left or right. It is a matter of this administration using the publics emotion to further their own agenda. So sir, are we really safer today than the last time a democrat was office?

2006-09-01 10:20:33 · answer #2 · answered by GG1 1 · 0 0

The Bush and bin Ladens are both oil familys. The bin Ladens were flown out of the US on 9 / 12. Maybe it's YOU who needs to wake up and smell the coffee ? Clinton never ordered a attack on a country that was never a danger to us. It's against international law to attack and over-throw the government of another country. Get a clue, pal.

2006-09-01 09:53:07 · answer #3 · answered by Kaori 5 · 1 0

With the terrorist threat to the U.S. -This is what will make us more secure with democrats in charge. Much more secure sea ports and cargo containers, more secure planes and there cargo holds, more secure trains with dangerous cargo, more secure chemical and nueclear plants, rounding up all the radiological material we can as well as secure borders and an doubling of the special forces for counter terror operations.
Improving our health care infastructure would help in the event of a terrorist attack or pandemic as well as improve the health and productivity of all the people.
Ending torture and other policy's that alienate allies will allow us to work with other countries to cordinate an effective cold war stratagy against terrorists with special attention to lowering there profile and news coverage as much as possible because giving them air time is what they want. Spyying on every US citizen and especially political oppenents would stop and the already set up systems for obtaining wrrents would be adheared to and that would allow most of the hay to be takin out of the stack allowing more needles to be found much easier while ensuring our rights and liberties at the same time. More transperency and accountability would fight corruption, balence the budget and allow all governmental process' to run more effectively and smoothly which would help all situations including the fight on terrorism. This will make us more secure.

With the natural threats facing the country - Better disaster response and recovery, better enviromental protection, and the admission that global warming exsists and it's the largest threat the human race has ever faced and needs to be addressed aproprietly Becoming entirely energy independent with clean renewable energy would create jobs, stimulate the economy, lower gas prices, untangle us from the middle east and help ensure our continued prosperity. This will also make us more secure.


Iraq - Negociation of a cease fire on the condition of rebel groups working within the democratic process and american regular troops withdrawling and leaving practically invisible but still effective special forces in the country to clean up holdouts and terrorists who will leave once terror attacks and combat stops. Once america has a lower profile there the resistence will deflate and the real crazy's will get marginalized.
this will allow us to most of our distraction in Iraq and allow us to focas on terrorism around the world, this will make us more secure.


Iran - Signing of a non-agression pact on the condition of the cease of nueclear devolpment and allowing inspectors complete access everywhere anytime. It's my feeling they mostly want nukes to deter us from invading them based on how we've treated north korea. The loud mouthed president there is actually a figurehead without actual descion making power and spouts rhetoric and rattles his saber to rally his own people and I'm sure stroke his own ego (sound like anyone we know here in the US?)
They know as well as we do that war with us is not something they want, even if they talk tough. This will be at least a slight improvment and will allow for the cooling of tensions as it's my belief war should be avoided unless avoiding it is worse then fighting it. This will make us more secure

Better foriegn relations- Fair trade, social, economic and enviromental justice will lower the hatred of the US, regaining our international reputation and honor as well as futher deflating terrorism and improving the condition of the world. OK so call me an idealist but it's what i think could happen to make us more secure AND prosperous if it's done right.

2006-09-01 11:03:42 · answer #4 · answered by Stan S 1 · 0 0

Why could the media record any more effective lies than they already do? they don't record about what a criminal Bush is and how this bailout fiasco is his thanks to actual his dad's Silverado bailout which enriched his relatives to the song of thousands and thousands of bucks and fee American taxpayers billions. yet certain, undesirable Carter inherited inflation and extreme unemployment from Nixon and Ford and not in any respect managed to exhibit around the undesirable economic equipment Nixon left him to fix. Ford's idea to wrestle inflation replaced into to positioned on a WIN button that stood for Whip Inflation Now and Nixon tried to positioned value caps on each and every thing. so a ways as Iran no longer letting our hostages pass, the traitors Reagan and Bush illegally negotiated with our enemies, before the election. Reagan and Bush requested the Iranians to maintain the hostages until eventually after the election in go back for fingers. i comprehend you've must have heard of Iran Contra, if you're spouting your revisionist baloney, what did you imagine the Iran area replaced into about?

2016-12-06 02:59:49 · answer #5 · answered by salome 3 · 0 0

I find it amusing that when Reagen was in office we were in the middle east getting hostages back from Iran.
Then we have the old man Bush and we are fighting for the democracy of Kuwait ( his words) it is a kingdom BTW.
Then along comes dubbya the half wit is just doing what his daddy started.
None of this seems to have happened while any Democrats were in office.
So why don't you wake up and smell what you are shoveling.

2006-09-01 09:47:21 · answer #6 · answered by Biker 6 · 4 0

Does the US need to be more secure? The terrorists will eventually find a way through, and the government can't do a thing about it, no matter how draconian the laws they make. If the Republicans win again then they will take away more Ameican freedoms (the democrats may even yet do the same thing - but it's less likely) - and there will be no gain.

2006-09-01 09:44:30 · answer #7 · answered by Mordent 7 · 0 1

So you feel better with a coke snorting, alcoholic with no morals in the white house, makes sense to me. He is so wonderful. Why would we want to change the criminal and corrupt white house with a good honest democrat that is smart enough to think things through before he acts.

2006-09-01 09:51:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

oh at this point the major differences between democrats and republicans have long since kind or evaporated...at this point having a democrat in the white house will only mean that it will pretty much undo all that the last republicans did. we should vote you into office, it sounds like you seem to know what to do . i would love to see someone cuss and get all passionate in a capmpaign speech.

2006-09-01 09:57:15 · answer #9 · answered by scarlett.begonias 1 · 0 1

We won't have warmonger Republicans in there, lying about why they want to invade another country.

With a democrat, when/if we do go to war, it won't be to line the pockets of big business. It would actually be for a good reason.

2006-09-01 09:48:20 · answer #10 · answered by brian2412 7 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers