What prevents liberals from joining this war on terror?

Question

To start, I'm a moderate not a conservative. I've posted several question regarding my concerns about the war on terrorism, which is a new struggle against fascism. The answers I get seem to only come from conservatives. Liberals avoid them altogether.
I don't accept the notion that liberals are unAmerican, cowards, or stupid. Liberals have championed great causes in America. I don't understand your reluctance to help preserve freedom and liberty.
Fascism is a real threat. Our way of life is in peril. America needs you. Why are you not on board?

Those of you who say the situation has been botched will get no argument from me. I couldn't agree more.
Invading Iraq was a misstep, in my opinion. It has complicated the solution.
I don't agree with those who say we are fighting an ideology. The ideology is being used to raise an army. It's the same story that has repeated in history.
Nor do I accept the notion we brought this trouble onto ourselves.

Thanks for the link, dstr. I, for one, am looking forward to the new congress for the much needed oversight any administration news.
I think it was a grave error on the American electorate not to have had an opposing party in control of at least 1 house of the congress.

The theme to most answers seems to be suspicion and mistrust. Perhaps the new congress will settle those fears.
Cross your fingers.

Answer 1

Take the basic premise we invaded Iraq: WMD's. We didn't find any. We never went to dethrone Saddam, or bring Democracy. There was no terrorist threat coming from Iraq.
I'm all for going after terrorist. I even think we should send all 140,000 troops after Osama! Scour the Earth for that scumbag, but what did Bush do? He cut-and-run there, and the real threat is still running around.
I don't think Dem's mind the war, but just want to be doing the war for the right reasons, in the right place.

Good Question!

Answer 2

Of course I agree that fascism is a real threat, I'm a liberal - a big one. And I'm not against the war on terror, or I wouldn't be against one, if I thought it was actually being fought. But what I see instead is a failed war in Iraq that had no bearing on the WOT, and now might actually make it harder to fight terrorism. We've pretty much abandoned Afghanistan, the Taliban are gaining strength there everyday, and if they're not a terrorist organization I don't know what is. Furthermore, if we're going to fight against fascism, we need to watch our own behavior carefully. Fascist regimes have their beginnings in fear, and the conservative powers that be (and I include several democrats in that category) have played on people's fears masterfully in the last five years. Every time there's a new domestic policy justified by the WOT, it's a curtailment of civil liberties. Let's not fight fascists by becoming fascists.

PS I also take issue with the presidents term "islamofascist" but that's another discussion...

Answer 3

I happen to be on board with the war on terror, but I would want a startegy that would work, not the helter skelter mission that we are currently on. I believe that Al Queida (sp?) is a huge threat and is still operating in Afghanistan. Why we're in Iran makes no sense except to access the oil. If our forces were focused in Afghanistan, then there would've been some serious butt kicking and more than likely would be finished with helping the pople there to establish there self rule and gov't. As it happens, we are now on a 2 front war, as a nation we've isolated ourselves from our allies, we've not made any real headway in stopping terrorists and most importantly there isn't any real option as to how to end it all.

Answer 4

I don't know about liberals. I am an anarchist. I think that both conservatives and liberals are foolish dupes of power elite in this country.

Howerever, if you really want to get heavy-handed, and not go to war there are a number of things that can be done. Just forbid anyone from the middle east from coming in here for ANY reason. Then tell the people who are not citizens that they have to leave NOW. While were at it, we confiscate all the cash of any one from any of the countries that attacked us. Seize all their assets. Shut them down. Don't buy their stuff. When they whine tell them to shut-up, we're not interested in having anything to do with you.

Answer 5

I disagree with the way terrorists are portrayed. The word has become a catchall for anyone who seems to our enemy. There is really no such thing as a War on Terror. Terror has been around throughout history. We might just as well declare war on dandruff. In the US everything we try to accomplish is a War. War on Drugs. War on Poverty and the like. Palestine militants are portrayed as terrorists. To me they are like the American Indians in the 19th Century. We took their land and now they are on reservations. Today they would be called terrorists. Should we give the Palestinians be given casinos? Only the US uses the term War on Terror. It has done nothing but create more unsettling situations. There is more terror practiced here by US citizens than done by non-citizens. We even have our own suicide killers. They go into a school, restaurant, workplace and shoot the place up then kill themselves. Try walking in the rundown areas of metropolitan cities especially after dark.

Answer 6

First there is no war on terror.

It's all a media hype.

Go to Frontline and watch the latest New from the Taliban or Look at the rising Body count from Military unites in Afghanistan.

Look at the rise in the strength of the Muslim Brotherhood.

WAR indicates a conflict involving 2 or more armies. America is setting on their hands letting goat herders kill any one, any time, any where.

And we pay the bill for this debacle.

Go big Red Go

Answer 7

A lot of Liberals do want to fight terrorism, just not the way Bush has gone about it. I don't personally back any of it because I think it is nearly (if not entirely) impossible to defeat an ideology. You can limit it and control it, but you can't eliminate it. And our presence in the Middle East has only aggravated tensions there. I hardly see how that can have a positive outcome.

Answer 8

Liberals are not against the war on terror, they are just against some of the ways it is being fought.

Iraq, for example, should never have been part of this. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, had nothing to do with terrorism against the US, and had no way of attacking us.

And it wasted resources that should have been used in Afghanistan to catch Bin Laden. Why havent we caught him yet? And why did Bush disband the task force that was tasked with catching him?

Answer 9

Are you under the impression that Bush and Co. are fighting a war on terror? Are you under the impression that they're winning?

First of all, TERROR is an emotion. TERRORISM is a tactic. Declaring war on either of these is ridiculous. They coined the phrase "War on Terror" because it's snappy, and because it makes things seem very clear and straight-forward to simple people.

I'm a liberal, and I despise religious extremists, and those who would kill innocent people for their cause. This is why I oppose both Al Qaeda *and* the Bush administration. I support relentlessly hunting down and killing murderous religious zealots. I wish Bush would have done that, instead of stupidly concentrating on Iraq, and creating MORE murderous religious zealots.

"War on terror?" You need to do some thinking, my friend.

Answer 10

Liberals are often too busy fighting the fascists within the U.S. political right (i.e., those who would strip all of our rights away).

Plus, some of us (in the ultra-left) don't even believe there is such a thing as a "war on terror." So far, we've committed or allowed more acts of terrorism than Al Qaeda could ever dream of. Think South American death squads for our active involvement, think Darfur for our terrorism through negligience. Stopping terror starts with stopping the terrorist acts that we perpetuate first. Then we can worry about stopping the terrorist acts of others.