2006-12-01 02:24:25 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
There are those who would stand behind their party no matter what side they are on.
It is rather silly though. I think the majority of people look at issues that are most important to them. People don't vote down party lines anymore, but they vote for what they believe in.
I voted for Bush both times, and I would again. I believe his first responsibility is to protect us. I support the war. I think that we should be doing more to cut out terrorists.
It isn't the religion that causes them to do these awful things, these are some serious cults that claim the religion, no different than the ones in America who claim that God wanted them to do committ mass suicide or shoot kids at schools. It's the same thing.
President Bush cut taxes. This helped me to be able to feed my family rather than standing in line at the soup kitchen. I think this is very important to everyone. And really, it's not only the WEALTHY that it affected (as we are definitely not).
We are encouraging all of our children to go fight the war on terror. They are ages 8-18, and the 18 year old is already on her way. 4 of the 5 are girls, but they are butt kickers and we believe in EQUAL rights and expect EACH AND EVERY one of them to stand up for what they believe in. They don't expect special treatment because they are girls.
2006-12-01 02:27:32 · answer #1 · answered by Jade 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
how many liberals supported the revolutionary war? the war of 1812? the civil war? the spanish american war? the first worl war? the second world war? and how amy conservatives supported the?
support for or against a war, for whatever reason, is not a leberal/conservative position, but a question of why we should go to war.
the current war against terrorism was, ans is supported by most people. it is the unnecessry war in iraq, which was based on false information, false assumptions, and out right lies, which ,many have come to disagree with.
i went to viet nam willingly, but returned convinced that we couyld not win because the politicians were waqging the war and not the military who should have been given anything needed to win. the political climate, which continues today, only starts but will not lead to winning a war. the military can winn, but not unless their is a real desire on the president's desire to win, and not just play general at the expense of american lives.
2006-12-01 02:37:36 · answer #2 · answered by de bossy one 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'm an ardent student of history and in my studies I have yet to find a problem that was solved by talking. WAR IS THE ONLY TYPE OF DIPLOMACY THAT HAS ALWAYS WORKED. Talking has only ever delayed war. Neville Chamberlain was a perfect example. If he had just listened to Hitler's own words, that he planned to take over the world and exterminate the Jews, Chamberlain could have gone on the offensive earlier in the war and perhaps stopped the German advance far earlier, saving countless lives. Instead he listened to Hitler's empty peaceful overtures and left office in disgrace when war finally broke out.
Diplomacy only works when you're talking to someone reasonable who doesn't pathologically hate you. It requires mutual trust, and you can't trust terrorists any more than Chamberlain could trust the Nazis.
2006-12-01 02:35:22 · answer #3 · answered by Daniel A: Zionist Pig 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You're not going to find any liberals willing to say that...Because every liberal knows the best way to avoid war is to close your eyes to everything but what's in front of your face....Terrorism will go away if we just leave it alone!!! That's the battle cry of liberals and democrats everywhere!! It's enough to make a sane person sick!!!
2006-12-01 02:26:22 · answer #4 · answered by Sarsippius 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
LOL!!!!!! No they won't admit to the truth, they will never ever ever admit to this truth. Not for any amount of liberal dollars! But it is the truth and they won't question the cost and say how brave out military people are to fight such a good cause.
2006-12-01 03:03:08 · answer #5 · answered by Brianne 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Popquiz, Matt. What president of what party started the Vietnam war, a war that was highly opposed by the Liberals long before 007 got into office? If you know the answer, that solves your question.
2006-12-01 02:30:40 · answer #6 · answered by Huey Freeman 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
i am liberal in ways.
I love war, it makes for some really cool video games down the road.
Seriously though: I support the war. Fought in the war. Served. done. home now.
2006-12-01 02:32:57 · answer #7 · answered by devilduck74 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Saddam Hussein was a murderous S.O.B. Taking that creep down was not only a good thing, but a GREAT thing. However, being lied to about the reasons for taking his sorry butt out is NOT cool... why not just tell the truth: "We have to take him out because he's a murderous tyrant S.O.B. that poses a threat to the stability of the entire region and (for us "lefties") has caused one of the biggest environmental disasters ever"? Taking Saddam down = GOOD. Lying about the reasons to do it = BAD.
2006-12-01 02:31:58 · answer #8 · answered by Paul H 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
actually we support the war on terror (republican waged war) and we didn't support Vietnam (wasn't that started by a democrat?) but we don't support the war in Iraq (a republican version of Vietnam, we learned our lesson, why can't you guys learn too?)
2006-12-01 02:32:05 · answer #9 · answered by pip 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I don't like any kind of war, but I do support the people that are fighting in it.
2006-12-01 02:30:11 · answer #10 · answered by Violante 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋