The British during the War of Independence? What about the Nazis During WWII Is war sometimes necessay?
Ok then How about the War on Terrorism?
2006-10-26 14:58:49 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I think your on the right track,UNFORTUNATELY,not only do i believe that the liberalistic society pushers are Antichrist,but,i also believe they are slowly destroying everything so so many patriots gave there lives for ,our freedom to choose to speak honestly and live god fearing lives as Americans. GOD BLESS YOU. hey pretty soon they will have a problem with saying that too.
2006-10-26 15:11:21 · answer #1 · answered by a1 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The first two have noting to do with the third. The first two were wars against other countries. The thirds is what you might call a war , but it is not against any one country. It might move that way some day, but it isn't that way today. You don't fight a war on terror by attacking Iraq. You fight a war on terror by using special forces, not an army. The should be small strikes all around the world where the terrorists cells exist. I repeat, an attack on Iraq is not the war on terror.
All the liberals I have ever met support the fight on terror. They just don't buy into the "attack Iraq" way of fighting the war. To suggest that any liberal or Democrat supports terror is to suggest that you are not qualified mentally to even make such a suggestion.
Note to all Conservatives: Liberals don't support terrorism or terrorists. Clinton hasn't been in office for six years, please stop bringing him up all the time. It is really old.
And finally, Jesus loved gays, why can't you?
Wow, I left you with absolutely nothing to complain about.
2006-10-26 17:50:58 · answer #2 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I personally think that the liberals do not believe that war is ever necessary. They speak out against our side in any war because they know they can. Had they have been in Britain during the war for independence, they would not have said a word because they know their @ss would have been in a sling. Had they have been here in the colonies, they would have been the ones that were not dependable soldiers and would have went AWOL at any time it was possible. Had they been in Nazi Germany during WW 2, they would not have said a thing because, again, they would have known their @ss would have been in a sling. Had they have been in the USA they would have been the conscientious objectors. Now, in this war on terrorism, they hide behind the freedom of speech and whine and moan. If they were in Iran, they would not be saying a word. THEIR TROUBLE IS THAT NONE OF THEM BELIEVE WAR IS EVER NECESSARY. IF THEY COULD UNDERSTAND THIS QUOTE, THEY STILL WOULD FIND THAT WAR WAS NEVER NECESSARY:::::::::::::::::::::::
Quote: Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!
Author: Patrick Henry 1736-1799, American Orator, Patriot
2006-10-26 15:13:12 · answer #3 · answered by just the facts 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Funny how you seem to forget. The people during those times were not lied to, and there was an ENEMY!! "War on Terrorism"? Define Terrorism. Isn't that when someone doesn't like you for your point of view, and therefore, attacks you? Well, I am thinking that GW isn't going to be going after Greenpeace or PETA anytime soon.
See, your "War on Terrorism" is selective - if you don't like the Terrorist, then you invade his country. When your prescious War on Terrorism will stand a chance in hell of really doing something to obliterate the Terror, then I will think about supporting you.
Narrow-minded, twisted, and oh-so snowed!!!!
2006-10-26 15:24:23 · answer #4 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I love you loons that ask questions without thinking. WWII against Hitler, Who was president when we got into that war and got out of that war. Democrats.
2006-10-26 15:09:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
... I support the war on terrorism... i'm just waiting for the Republicans to start fighting it... Osama's in Pakistan... now go get him!
and Republicans are always the ones that don't want to "say anything bad about our leaders"... a very Red Coat way of thinking in the 1700s...
and the Nazis? come on... are you even trying anymore?
2006-10-26 15:04:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
War is unfortunately sometimes necessary. The "war on terror" is a hoax--W wanted to go to Iraq to finish his daddy's battle and lied to the American people about why we're there. This "war" is unnecessary and ill-advised.
2006-10-26 15:02:38 · answer #7 · answered by N 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Liberals of today only support that which gives them power anything else is evil and unforgivable to them.
2006-10-26 15:22:37 · answer #8 · answered by mr_fixit_11 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They only suport wars that happened over 60 years ago.
2006-10-26 15:02:06 · answer #9 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Yes.
Yes.
Yes. And no. Intelligently, yes. Knee jerk, no.
2006-10-26 15:09:19 · answer #10 · answered by dbqdawg 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋