Whether you choose to believe it or not, this is a big issue. The democrats believe there are diplomatic ways to solve our national security needs. And they seek fair and reasonable treatment for citizens of America and insurgents.
And republicans are obsessed with taking out all of the 10's of thousands of insurgents, whose numbers grow exponentially, whether it be in a blatanty immoral or moral manner.
So another question is, which party's ideas about the war do you follow more?
2006-10-18 09:13:11 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
They're not mutually exclusive. Its not an either or situation-- you need both.
Being immoral in how you execute plans for National security undermine your national security since people like the insurgents and terrorist will only be emboldened. Every time we do something evil, it only reinforces their mantra that we are an evil nation.
2006-10-18 09:19:40 · answer #1 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In order to answer your question fully you need to leave out the liberal spin. The diplomatic ways you talk of are surrendering and letting our country fall into being a second class nation. Fair and reasonable treatment? Yeah right, tell me the ACLU is fair and reasonable. You think their association with NAMBLA (National American Man-Boy Love Association) is reasonable and fair? Should insurgents be treated fairly...remember, they are insurgents. Non defined combatants from a country outside of the battleground...that makes them terrorists. By the way, if you let the "10's of thousands of insurgents" grow exponentially, think about how many there would be if we didn't kill them. Do the math. I would have to say that although I disagree with the Republicans view of 'military transformation' because it does not use enough ground troops to quell the opposing force, I would rather stick by them because at least they are fighting back. The Liberals ideas about the war are...well they have no ideas. All they have are complaints. Complaints get you NO WHERE!!
2006-10-18 09:26:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm not sure what, but there is a trend running among some foreign countries. US cuts a deal (treaty) with them and they laugh if we actually believe they mean to stand by it. Look at Kim Jong 2. I'm sorry but I don't think what you are saying is true. I haven't seen a country invaded yet without the president (Democrat or Republican) trying diplomacy first. I think Congress has a say about that. And b4 you get mad at me I'm registered Independent. Want the results not the parties. As for your answer, I don't think it's morality or national security. It's both. We have to have both. And Luna please tell what we should do when dialogue fails.
2006-10-18 09:22:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
This can be best answered by asking "Is it wrong to torture someone, if it can stop an attack that will save thousands of innocent lives?"
The Dems have clearly shown that their position is that the humane treatment of one terrorist is more important that protecting thousands of your fellow innocent men, women and children.
Is that the moral position you are talking about?
The Democrats believe in talking and trying to appease our enemies so they won't hate us any more and will leave us alone. When has that ever worked?
All the talk and negotiations with North Korea and Iran have been fruitless, and will continue to be, because these countries are not interested in living side by side and being left alone. They are bullies bent on expansion.
Republicans believe that peace is achieved through strength and victory. When these bullies are so fearful of the consequences if they attack or oppose us, or have been vanquished, peace follows.
2006-10-18 09:40:35 · answer #4 · answered by Uncle Pennybags 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It is a big issue, and not a simple question. But the fact of the matter is: if the nation is not secure, notions of morality become irrelevant. Security must come first.
2006-10-18 09:44:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Without national security morality will not matter. I do believe the Republicans are by far the best at protecting our national security. I do not want to see anyone hurt or killed but when it comes to me and my family or a terrorist that believes in a twisted perverted form of Islam and doesn't even care about his own people the decision is very easy.
2006-10-18 09:19:03 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Democrats are no longer susceptible in protection. that's what repulicans % the persons to think of. Democrats dont rush to conflict like republicans. Democrats attempt to make certain a topic by using speaking it out first. Republicans shoot first ask later. (nevertheless havent discovered those WMD's) Democrats dont spend the money that republicans do on the militia for that reason. Democrats % border administration too. they simply % immagrants to have a legal path to alter into an american. endure in strategies: we are all derived from immagrants... till you're one hundred% indian.
2016-10-19 23:02:12 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally for me its morality, but I would hardly call the democratic party moral as a whole. Before you jerks slam me, the Republican party arent saints either, I know this.
2006-10-18 09:15:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Morality. True morality from all of us whether we're politicians or citizens. Rich or poor, old or young. Morality.
2006-10-18 09:21:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
MORALITY...and it should start on a more individualized personal level before it can be recognized on a national level
I believe in Democracy
2006-10-18 09:22:01 · answer #10 · answered by mørbidsшεεŧnεss 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋