If terrorists set off suitcase nukes in several major U.S. cities in a coordinated attack killing tens of thousand of Americans, would liberals in our country be willing then to wage total war on terrorists or would they excuse it away.
2006-11-05 04:45:38 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I saw the show Obsession- last night on Fox. Very powerful stuff. I burned it on to a DVD if anyone needs it.
2006-11-05 04:51:34 · update #1
The first thing they would do is blame George W Bush, whether or whether not he was President. If we had a demacrat as a President they might be willing to do something about it, but probably not enough. They would probably want to try to appease the terrorists in some way. As long as there is a Republican in the oval office they will only play the blame game. Liberals dont have any kind of plan for the future , they just criticize whatever the President or the republicans do.
2006-11-05 05:01:25 · answer #1 · answered by Okie Guy 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Like in the TV series Jericho....
Well, first, you can't lump half of the country as "liberals" and assume they would all come to the same conclusion. It's a pretty broad spectrum. Someone who is liberal about the environment or education reform might be totally pro-attack. While someone who is conservative in all other areas of public policy might be a peace-nik and oppose any form of violence. It's not a bright line that divides the country into the same halves on every issue.
As far as waging total war on terrorists, who would you suggest we attack? Just keep attacking random terrorist groups until we eventually stumble across the people who did it? Do we use it as a reason to wipe out dozens of other terrorist groups, even if they weren't involved? Or try to figure out who did it and only attack them? How much proof is required before a counter-attack? Speculation? Hard evidence? Beyond a reasonable doubt? Do we stop with just the people who planned the bombs, or go after their funders as well? Or their suppliers? Or anyone who knew about it but didn't do anything to stop it? Lots of different lines.
I'm sure if you ask different people you'll get different answers to those questions. So, it's not as black and white as you might think.
2006-11-05 04:50:43 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
there have been plans in the course of the chilly warfare for a 4 minute early-caution equipment to inform the traditional public of an forthcoming nuclear attack. This became because they predicted we would in basic terms have 4 minutes if a nuclear attack became released from the U.S.. less than this plan RAF and defense force bases will be warned, and tv and radio stations would interrupt broadcasting to furnish a prerecorded message caution human beings to take hide (not that this would help you a lot). lately something similar would take position, or they in basic terms does not tell the final public (it might reason 4 minutes of entire chaos - of no income to everyone). Your possibilities of survival? None. relies upon on the length of the nuclear bast, obviously, yet you do not live to inform the tale a nuclear explosion - seem at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. everyone dies, except you're outdoors the radius, in which case you are able to in basic terms get radiation publicity, and be more effective in all chance to toughen cancers later in existence. To be completely straightforward, surviving a nuclear blast is both truly not likely, and fully undesirable - who would want to stay contained in the radiation-crammed desert that would want to be left in the back of? No nutrients, no secure water, no not something.
2016-11-28 19:32:13 · answer #3 · answered by rothberg 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This type of question just goes to show how out of touch with reality todays war mongering bush supporters are. You can't say we would do nothing. You should hope a liberal is in office if God forbid something like that happened, because we graduated college and can read a map and wont mistake Saudi Arabia(where the hijackers were from) with Iraq (uh no hijackers).
2006-11-05 05:01:38 · answer #4 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
"burned it"
Sir you are advocating crime on this forum that is a TOS violation.
Someone less tolerant than me will most likely report you.
However according to the Clinton GATT agreement if you live in a Nation that does not have copywrite laws it would be OK to copy a Faux Program. Or is you did it from a HongKong mirror site it would be just fine. In which case it would be not a reportable TOS violation.
Go big Red Go
2006-11-05 05:00:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They would do what they did after 9-11, look unified. It did not take long to go back to politics as usual. They would blame everyone but the terrorists. It would be the Republicans fault for not stopping it, then it would be the Republicans fault for going into Iraq and aggravating terrorists.
2006-11-05 04:49:29 · answer #6 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Liberals believe America is responsible for all the problems in the world. Probably because we don't raise enough to put everybody on Earth on welfare and pay for the entire planets health care. They don't need an excuse because they think it's our fault anyway.
2006-11-05 08:15:39 · answer #7 · answered by gunrrobot 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you suggesting you have inside knowledge of such an attack? Hope not, cuz I reported you to homeland security as a precaution. Enjoy the company.
Anyway...
Protecting troops in Iraq does not mean Democrats are soft on terrorism. Just that we value the life of an American hero more than the Republicans (and apparently you). Fighting an intelligent war rather than staying the course mired in an unwinnable situation in Iraq seems like a prudent approach. Funny how Republicans feel that they are the only ones with answers...even when their answers are not working...
2006-11-05 04:56:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Are you kidding? Liberals would be blaming America (and Bush) and advocating we pull out of the middle east completely. They would be bending over grabbing their ankles while sparing no effort to appease the terrorists so they won't hurt us any more.
2006-11-05 04:55:47 · answer #9 · answered by Uncle Pennybags 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It was a very powerfull show.
No they would just ask how they say how sorry they are and what can they do to pay for the suffering that the terrorist have gone through!
2006-11-05 04:58:41 · answer #10 · answered by fatboysdaddy 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋