How do liberals want the War on Terror to be fought?

Question

"Surrender" will not be a sufficient answer, libs.

Answer 1

I would like the cause fought more than the symptoms.

You can brush it off as wishy washy softish etc, but you wouldn’t be that narrow minded would you?

I’d like to start by saying that I don’t blame all terrorism on Western violence and exploitation. We will always need a secret service to hunt out the bad apples who need no excuse to commit terrorist acts. But the problem is that our current blunt and ruthless strategy is pushing sympathy towards the terrorists.

How it is now: Your average Muslim citizen who is critical of the western world is unlikely to be sympathetic to the terrorists. Then the invasion of Iraq comes, which is supposed to be a war to bring liberty. Then your citizen notices that no other non-Muslim, non-oil rich countries are being freed from slaughter and tyranny (Zimbabwe, Burma, North Korea, Sudan…). You quite fairly don’t buy the moral story. We talk about the importance of democracy, while the governments of undemocratic countries that the west profits from remain Allies (Saudi Arabia, China, oil rich Africa). You see Iran sanctioned for trying to build a Nuclear weapon. You see American investment pour into Israel despite the levelling of surrounding Muslim cities and the knowledge that they actually do have nuclear weapons. Then your citizen starts, again fairly, to think there might be race issue here.

Then George Bush says, “you're either with us or against us!”. Well, “I’m certainly not with them” you would say. Obviously most Muslims will not be killing westerners at this stage, but when the security forces knock on their door and say “will you rat out your neighbour who we think is an enemy” they are hardly going to oblige.

I am not one of those liberals who think that the west makes people blow themselves up. But while our brutality continues these people will be sheltered by the communities that don’t perceive our behaviour as a reason to ally with us.

I would:

Liberate other countries to show that out desire for freedom is not racist or bias.
Close down Guantanamo
Charge terror suspects or let them free
Stop spending more on arms in 2 hours than we spend yearly on medication. Does this give out the right message?
Seek diplomacy before invasion
Condemn Israel’s atrocities, as well of Hezbollah’s of course.

Does this make sense to you?

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

Hopefully they would like it to be fought intelligently.

It shows how narrow and limited the republicans AND democrats have been over the alledged war on terror. that the phrase 'war on terror' is STILL being used at all.

1. So far, the aim has been to be tough on terror. This is a mistake, nobody has even considered being smart on terror. Clearly this is beyond the capability of the US administration, whatever their hue.

This means understanding the enemy, you know, actually getting a clue? When the head of the DOD admits that he doesn't know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia Iraqi, you know that you have already lost the war in Iraq. Dems and repubs alike have fought the stupidest, most brainless, thoughtless and idiotic strategy in military history.

They have already lost Iraq. Why? because they are too stupid to be able to defeat Iraqis on their own soil.

2. Why are you having a war on a concept? Not a war on terrorists, but a war on terror? That vapid phrase is an embarrasment to intelligent, thinking humans.

You cannot win a war on terror, war creates terror, it's like trying to soak up a flood using water. It's totally illogical.

You will never and I mean NEVER defeat terrorism using the indescriminate and unjust use of overwhelming force. If I have to explain why, then you are clearly too stupid to understand the very basic psychology used by nearly all humans relating to family relationships. If you kill terrorists, you create more terrorists, if you kill innocent people, you create a LOT more terrorists. It's like a chinese finger trap, the harder you fight, the worse it gets!

You fight and eradicate terrorism with justice, truth, honesty, kindness and all the good things that America used to represent. Like Truth Justice and the American way.

I am still waiting for any polititcian in America to start using the phrase smart on terror, understanding and eradicating the forces and reasons and causes of terrorism. Rather than the pathetic and idiotic ramblings of Bush, Cheney et al about they hate us for our freedom. Utter BS!

You cannot hope to win any conflict until you understand your opponent. Saddam did not create terrorism in Iraq, stupid arrogant and idiotic things like dropping bombs on innocent wedding parties from 20,000 feet certainly did though!

Answer 4

I love the answers from some of these liberals it makes you realize how we got to this state the answer from Daddacoolo is typical of the immature juvenile not in the real world of the average liberal.
(Why don't we try and understand where they are coming from just talk to them and hold hands and we will probably come up with some kind of consensus...aghh).

When a poison snake is trying to bite you there should be only one thing on your mind keep whacking until the threat is no more.

Answer 5

I would guess that nothing I have to say would convince you, but here goes:

First, by recognising that you can't make war on an abstract noun; in other words, there will never be an act of victory or surrender, and so the phrase 'war on terror' can and will be used as a justification for all sorts of acts that would not otherwise have been permitted in the free society that the USA and Britain were proud of - I'd advise you to read about McCarthyism, because this is the closest analogy we have, and McCarthy was able to do all sorts of foul things in the name of HUAC.

Then we have to engage in a slow process of rebuilding trust, world-wide, accepting that (i) we all share the same planet, and (ii) people have genuine differences about what is and what isn't important to them, and (iii) we can't ask other people to be honest if we ourselves set examples of dishonesty. And it will be slow, it will be ground-up as well as top-down, there will be setbacks ... but we have to remember that there was a time in living memory when black people were routinely discriminated against in the USA, that Protestants and Catholics took the view that those who didn't subscribe to their affiliation were going to go to hell when they died, that Aborigines in Australia were not counted as human beings in any census and could be hunted and shot at will, and that a black person in South Africa could never aspire to be a manager - but somehow we have overcome those dreadful scars on our history and if we are only prepared to learn, with humility where necessary, we can do the same again.

And what I'm suggesting demands a hell of a lot more courage than spending money on armaments or patrollling from in and out the Green Zone.

Answer 6

Liberals would love to meet with the terrorists over milk and cookies while playing the board game "Risk".

Answer 7

Well,it looks like they'll be stuck with bush's mess soon,hopefully they will not jump the gun and get into something we can't get out of,go after bin laden,which is what we should have done in the first place,and concentrate on the defense of our own country first.

Answer 8

1. It's not a war on "terror", it's a war on islam. You can't wage war on a tactic.

2. Attacks on the US (ie. 9/11) were provoked by US terrorism. Pretending the US didn't bring it on itself is either lying to yourself or lying to others.

3. If the US stopped its terrorism that's annoying the muslims, the attacks would stop. The muslims have said it from day one and all US governments since 1953 (when the US helped the Shah overthrow the DEMOCRACY in Iran) have ignored it, continuing US terrorism against them.

That is took the muslims until 1970 to start attacking westerners (nearly 20 years after Iran and half a century since US and UK terrorism against Iraq and Egypt) shows remarkable patience by them. The US attacked Iraq in 2002, and they hadn't even done anything. Or are you one of the illiterate who believed the lie about WMDs?

Hey, coward, if you want the US to "win the war on terror", sign up for the military. Chicken George plans to send 30000 more troops, so go stand up for what you believe in instead of running away.


.

Answer 9

The war should be fought by electing Barack Obama to office. He can fix everything.

Answer 10

They have already stated a lot of their plan:

No eavesdropping on International Calls from known terrorists.
Kill the Patriot Act
Defund the Iraq war
Give the Gitmo detainees civil rights like we have in America so they can have jury trials. (like OJ Simpson)
Negotiate with Terror Sponsor states like Iran and North Korea.
Withdraw support from Israel

I am sure there is more they can do (against U.S.)