In a conversation with a liberal, he said the US should give up its "attacks" on iran and north korea, and discuss terms of surrender. do liberals REALLY want to surrender to a lying communist and a religious fanatic? the guy sounded like he was going to cry...
2006-10-13 04:22:25 · 13 answers · asked by kunta kinte 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
nationofswine, then i guess your liberal friends arent as almighty as they like to think they are, assuming your accusations are true. stop watching CNN.
2006-10-14 01:22:45 · update #1
Sticky, life happens sometimes, sometimes you have to kill little baby girls, if it means saving thousands more lives.
Russ, its like you took reality and just said the opposite of it. are you being serious?
2006-10-14 01:28:51 · update #2
That's a gutless lib for ya, wave the white flag and give up all the freedoms that brave soldiers fought and died for in the last century. These commies need to wakeup and see that being nice to these terrorist scumbags doesn't work anymore!
2006-10-13 04:25:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
You must have been talking to a neocon that was afraid to admit it
#1 Liberals have never been afraid of a fight- if they had, this country would not have existed in the first place.
#2 Only conservatives ever talk of surrender!
#3 lying communist? Religious fanatic- have you looked at the whitehouse lately? The man in office is a religious fanatic and a lying fascist- so which do you believe?
We believed him over Sadam and found Sadam was the one telling the truth! There were no WMD!
2006-10-13 11:38:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anarchy99 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The person your talking to is not a liberal or your taking what he said out of context no one in america is going to surrender to either of those countries, remember liberals were talking to N. Korea and Iran 8 years ago and bush is just now starting to do the same thing it took him 6 years to catch up to liberal thinking.
2006-10-13 11:29:28 · answer #3 · answered by region50 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
First of all as a card carrying liberal I'll say this....
Let's forget about why we are where we are....
N Korea needs to be dealt with... this is scary... The veteran in me says they need an air strike at the least....but then we would have to worry about China... They got Nukes to....
However, the question is some what loaded by adding
"do liberals REALLY want to surrender to a lying communist and a religious fanatic?"
aside from communist... many from all political sides, including myself, think Bush is a :
lying Fascist religious fanatic....
2006-10-13 11:30:06 · answer #4 · answered by JWAV 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think people are just tired and upset. I don't know what to do in this war...that's why I elect people to make decisions. I would love to just say "get 'um outta there" but who knows if that would be good or bad. The fact is, NO ONE knows what will happen if we stay or if we go and anyone who sits here and swears on their mommas grave that they are right is essentially kidding him/herself.
Liberal by definition means:
1) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Do Republicans REALLY think those things are bad??
But I think in all sincerity, we just don't like seeing innocent men, women, children and babies killed by bombs. That is probably where the tears stem from. And I guarantee those tears come not just for those lost in war, but 9/11 and Katrina victims as well. It IS heart breaking, and If you really don't care about the innocent people dying over there (and all over the world) then your head/heart needs to be examined, because that means you have a big hole in one or both.
2006-10-13 11:39:45 · answer #5 · answered by Sticky 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
SURRENDER to Iran and/or North Korea? Okay, I'll have to say that he's a lot crazier than your average liberal. I consider myself a liberal in most respects, but at least I can see the value of a country defending itself.
2006-10-13 11:25:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
President Reagan had talks with N.Korea that were successful. President Bush Sr. had talks with N. Korea that were successful. During this time they hadn't started their nuclear program.
President Clinton had it a little harder. N.Korea tested a nuke. He decided to have talks and have a Peace treaty written up. It worked for the rest of his administration.
A new administration comes in and N.Korea flexes it's muscles again, threatening test and testing nukes.
This administration doesn't want to talk to N.Korea. They want to implement sanctions immediately. And this administration wants other countries to do the talking. Why? Why the sudden change in diplomatic behavior?
2006-10-13 11:33:41 · answer #7 · answered by Gettin_by 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Maybe YOU came on so strongly and with so little info, as conservatives usually do, that your poor, liberal "friend" was driven to madness! I feel that way all the time (not insane, just freaking PISSED!!!).
YOU blokes need to watch somthing besides Fox news!
2006-10-13 11:25:12 · answer #8 · answered by Gwynneth Of Olwen 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
How can you surrender to someone you're not yet at war with?
2006-10-13 11:24:46 · answer #9 · answered by Gene Rocks! 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
what attacks,Mr. Bush let them go and worry about Iraq.
2006-10-13 11:25:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋