Why are Democrats pro-terrorism.?

Question

They always complain that we shouldn’t be in Iraq. That we can’t win. Don’t they realize you can’t make deals with them? Terrorists will become stronger over the years to come. I care about the future of our nation and my family’s safety. I want sincere honest answers from Democrats on how their party will abolish terrorism. This is not an attack; tell me how they will do better. Thanks

its been less than 5 minutes and not one of you can answer my question. Typical, like i said complain but never have an answer. Im sure someone can think here

Answer 1

The main reason i guess would be that there were no terrorists in Iraq before the war.

Answer 2

We would go after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda as opposed to countries that did nothing to us. Saddam was a bad dictator that killed a bunch of people, but he didn't cause any terrorist attacks against the United States. The Iraq war has nothing to do with terrorism. Even if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, there would have been better countries to invade in the name of terrorism. Iran, for example, has been trying to get nuclear weapons for years with the stated purpose of wiping Israel off the map. North Korea has nuclear weapons and has been known to fund terrorism. I don't think that invading North Korea is really doable, but it would have made more sense than invading Iraq if you're looking to stop terrorism.

On the other hand, if you're invading Iraq to stop an evil dictator, there are still worse dictators that we could have targeted. Moammer Khadafi in Lybia comes to mind. The aforementioned North Korea with Kim Chong Il would have made more sense too.

I say that we shouldn't be in Iraq because I honestly have no idea what we're doing there. It has nothing to do with whether or not we can win. Every reason that I've heard (including the oil excuse) doesn't make any sense to me. There were better targets for every stated reason that I've heard. The fact of the matter is that we CAN win the Iraq war, and we can do it pretty easily. The answer is pretty simple, and John McCain has been an advocate for as long as I can remember. Winning requires increasing the number of troops. If you talk to any soldiers that are in Iraq, they'll tell you that one of the major problems is that we can take over an area, but we don't have the manpower to hold that area. Once we leave, the area is taken over again by terrorists, Sunnis, or Shiites. If we increase the troops, we will be able to control more area and (eventually) accomplish our stated goal (which still doesn't make sense to me). Unfortunately, that will never happen. The public and congress are both against increasing troops. With the viewpoint that congress has on the war, we can't win it. I don't see that changing either. The best we've done in Iraq so far is create a state of anarchy that will collapse as soon as we leave. We're dropping way too much money into it that I would rather see go to something useful like education or cancer research. If we had all this money to begin with, why weren't we using it for something good? Nothing about the Iraq war makes any sense to me.

EDIT: Sorry I couldn't get this answer out in 5 minutes. I'm at work, and people kept coming into the store. That, and it's kind of long. Anyway, those are my thoughts on your question.

Answer 3

Well, I'm not a democrat or a republican, although I am disgusted with the Bush administration, as well as with republicans who should know better than to support him.

As far as the war in Iraq, there are two answers that I have. First, there was no reason to invade, because there was no evidence suggesting that Iraq was in any way connected to terrorists, and the WMD issue was based on faulty evidence.

Second, we're not winning in Iraq, and we need to spend our energy protecting our homeland. You want safety, there's safety for you. Here's something else: the more chaos that occurs there, with us present, the stronger the terrorists will become, because the more resentment will build up against us.

In regards to making deals with them, no, we can't make deals with them. We shouldn't try to appease them either. However, that does not mean that we shouldn't watch how we're perceived by the rest of the world, the Middle East in particular.

There are a lot of Muslims who may never have been fond of the US, but who would not have hated us enough to join the terrorists before the Iraq war. Every debacle like the Ahu Grahib incident gives us a lot of new enemies.

Finally, in regards to your last question, how would the democrats do better, beats the hell out of me. I was kinda hoping they might actually answer that question themselves, but so far, they haven't.

Answer 4

Being against a needless war isn't being pro-terrorist. You need to get your facts straight. I doubt that many people would argue we SHOULD be in Afghanistan because that's where bin Laden and his cronies are hiding. On the other hand, there were no terrorists in Iraq until Bush and his little war came along using 9/11 as a pretext for getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Now that all hell has broken loose in Iraq, and a civil war is raging, there are terrorists, but they weren't there until Bush sent the troops in. And what's more we can't win in Iraq - its a no-win situation. The best we can hope for is to get the troops out and let the Iraqi factions fight it out amongst themselves.

Bush was the one who said he was going to abolish terrorism - don't recall ever hearing a Democrat say that. We've had terrorism in one form or another for several thousand years and to think that it can be abolished is living in a fantasy world. Bush is and has been living in a fantasy world and if he thinks he alone can abolish terrorism, that would make him the greatest leader in the history of the world. And that is certainly a fantasy and is taking place only in his little feeble mind.

Our best bet is to CONTAIN terrorism and put plans in effect to keep our borders safe and the terrorists out of this country.

Answer 5

YOUR MYTHS DEBUNKED:
America isn't about Dems and repubs. It's abbout the majority, and only repubs are pro-terrorism. Look at all the terrorsm they've created. Look at all their dealings with the 911 terrorist family and governement (Saudi Arabia and the Bin Laden family), look at how many times they've let Bin-Laden go when they had him cornered.

We know exactly where he is today (Northern Pakishan, retired comfortably)and theydon't go get him.

The people the world is talking aboput negioting with are the governments of the nations surrounding Iraq. Not Al-Queda.


HERE'S YOUR ANSWER:
If you really "care about the future of our nation and my family’s safety" then drop all party affiliations and try to stop the problem.

Anyone could do better, here's the dems plan (not the best but it's better than bush's): Stabilize Iraq, get out of Iraq, capture Bin Laden, Hunt down real terrorists. Doesn't that sound better than "Stay the course?"

Answer 6

When you say "Win"..what do you mean? Win what? The war on terrorism?
American attitude and actions in the Middle East is what has these countries the way they are. They hate us and lets face it, they should. What have we ever done for them? Be honast.....nothing. We use them and drop them when it suits us. We explain our actions by telling ourselves that our government is doing the right thing. But are they? If I grew up in the Middle East I would probably hate us to. I would probably be a "Terrorist"...
These countries are not democratic they are not capitalist and they should be left alone. We have had our civil wars without much interference from others, they should have the same. You cannot preach 21st Century Democracy to countries back in the stone age!
Bush's comment. "Unprovoked" attacks......my ***..It's amazing that it took them so long to get here. We were asking for it.
Lets say we "WIN" the war.....then what....they'll think we are nice people ....we didn't mean to blow up your country and kill lets face it thousands...but it was for the best????? ......now be nice and put those guns down........f*** off!!!!

Answer 7

It's not about doing. The same question can be addressed to the president but his answer would most likely be stuttered through. There really is no definite answer on how to win form this stand point. Bin-Laden is nowhere to be found and the focus shifted and was put on Saddam so for a war that has shifted focus so many times an end in my opinion is no where in our near future with this president.

Answer 8

The more we stick our nose in the affairs of other nations, the more terrorist attacks we will suffer, and the more Nazi "anti-terrorism" laws we will be saddled with.

Both Democrat and Republican politicians are equally guilty of carrying our the agenda of the Council on Foreign Relations, the globalist group that has been running our foreign policy since WW2. We need to withdraw from the UN, and steer clear of foreign entanglements. We can't allow our politicians to make secret deals with other governments. After all, they work for us.

We need more contact between the American people and the people of other nations, and less between our government and theirs.

Answer 9

Terrorism has nothing to do with Iraq. To fight terrorism we should have beefed up our paltry number of troops in Afghanistan, kept the global support for the mission there, and captured/killed Bin Laden. In the meantime we may have stood a chance of creating a viable government in Afghanistan, instead of a government that controls a handful of cities while the Taliban and warlords control the rest.

Answer 10

Please name ONE Democrat who has publicly stated they are pro-terroists. You sore losers just resort to your one trick pony and call people names and just flat out lie with a statement like yours. I hope the Dems at least go after real terrorist targets instead of going after a country for their oil reserves. You must be one of the few humans on Earth that still think we are going to find WMD's in Iraq.