Why are liberals so result-oriented in the War on Terror?

Question

...but not the War on Poverty?

If only they were as result-oriented in the War on Poverty we would have abolished Social Security, welfare, food stamps and the like ages ago! Because theres more poverty than ever before, with trillions of dollars spent and no end in sight. Talk about a REAL quagmire!

All they do is complain: "moore troops" or "not enough troops", depending on what suits them at the time. They act all indignent when Osama isn't caught immediately or Al Queda isn't destroyed in a week's time. They get disgruntled when strategy needs to be adjusted.

But for the War on Poverty, they seem to have a wellspring of never-ending support; no cost is too high; no program is too inept; no funding should ever be curtailed; and new approaches are always welcomed, never criticizing the old failed ones. Because for liberals, I guess, the appearence of "fighting" poverty is far more important than actually defeating it.

What utter hypocrisy!

Answer 1

The same reason they support a woman's right to choose to kill her child, but then try to take away her right to decide whether or not to breastfeed it after it's born. See link:

http://www.banthebags.org/

The same reason they lambast us for being in Iraq and then demand that we go into Zimbabwe. See link:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhAntRx65wWtOxWtTh2.ZmLty6IX?qid=20070228233100AAPY3bb&show=7#profile-info-AWYYEY1Haa

They are impulsive and are all for self gratification. Having inane pet causes like this give them a feeling of superiority because they can say "See how good I am? See how nice I am?" It's not like they are activists to actually help anything.

Answer 2

Of course people want a results on the war on terror. Don't you? If we were actually fighting a war on terror we wouldn't be in Iraq. Even the CIA told Bush there were no al Qaida operatives working out of Iraq right at the beginning. Instead of listening to the CIA Bush was insistent that a case was made to make a case for al Qaida operating out of Iraq.

There was evidence of al Qaida in Afghanistan and a few troops were sent there. They couldn't find any but now we are at war in Afghanistan.

There is little or no search for al Qaida terrorists. These wars seem to be a smoke screen and we are being suckered into believing that we are looking for terrorists.

Its funny that you equate these wars with a fight on poverty. If we hadn't gone to perhaps the republicans could have addressed the issues of poverty rather than the wants of the rich and the corporations. They'd probably screw that up too.

Answer 3

You won't agree with me, so let me give you some things to think about instead:

1) When are we starting the War on Terror? We have been distracted by another war, and calling our enemies in that war terrorists doesn't make it a war on terror.

2) Compare how much has been spent on the War on Poverty in the past 20 years compared to the amount spent on the War in Iraq last year alone. Even when the democrats come into office and cut the military budget, the military budget remains the largest chunk of spending. Social programs get squat--even when bleeding heart liberals decide to spend more.

3) Social security is the most efficient vehicle to provide money for retirement ever. Administrative costs are less than 1%. 99% of the money taken in goes out in benefits. No financial planner can boast that. The limits on how much social security a citizen is expected to contribute mean that it is a program everyone pays for, not just the rich. Especially since you can't get money out if you haven't paid in.

4) Most of the anti-war democrats are more upset about being rushed into a war based on what are probably lies, and are at least huge mistakes from those responsible for giving intellegence to our leaders.

Funniest thing is, that most of the republicans who are so scared that some of their money might feed a poor person fail to realize that they are usually weathier when democrats run things. You don't get a tax break when the Republicans take office--they give it to their rich (not well-to-do, RICH) friends, cut your benefits, and then tell you it's right. Why do you pay taxes like a socialist without getting the benefits? If you don't think the government should provide benefits, this would be OK if I didn't still have to pay for it.

Answer 4

Whats funny is they want results on the war on terror, but they don't say what.

Let me give a hypothetical, lets say you wanted to not get AIDS, so you have protected sex, and don't do drugs, and in general do what you should do. How do you rate your success? You rate your success by whether or not you have AIDS. If you don't you are successful, and if you do, you failed. Terrorism is similar, we will not have been attacked in 5 1/2 years on Sunday. How are we not succeeding? But since its not something the liberals had their hands in, it needs to be stopped.

As far as poverty, how many people are poverty stricken because they have no choice? How many have 4 kids with 3 different fathers, or are addicted to drugs, or can't hold a job, or spend their money on getting drunk. Why should we help those people? Everyone has choices to make, and getting knocked up 4 times in 5 years is a choice, and being poor and poverty stricken is a consequence not bad luck. And if we are so worried about those children how come we don't put them with families that will love them and take care of them? What is better living in filth with a mother who apparently doesn't care whether she has kids or not, or living with a family who can't have kids, but will give the child everyhing they need?

Answer 5

Wars are won by no one. Everyone loses in a war. Liberals have nothing to do with why we're losing a war. It's solely because of poor planning, low soldier morale [if your father is in control of an agency, why isn't he doing anything to make those depressed young men better?!], and a war that everyone realizes cannot be won that we are losing. Besides, how is hesitating to use force on a country innocent of war crimes bad? Iraq and Iran did nothing to us, al-Qaida did. There is no tie between the two nations and the terrorist group, the "President" himself admitted that. Hesitation simply means that liberals [and some conservatives, don't limit this to just one group!] know it's immoral to wrongfully attack an innocent nation. "There is no such thing as a good war, or a bad peace" --Bejamin Franklin

Answer 6

Let's see on one hand we should defend ourselves but not go to war and on the other hand we are to stop poverty and give up our pay checks. Poverty is very high not just in the USA but in all countries. The only way to solve it is for all countries to become Socialistic Countries. People will have no freedom of speech freedom of movement freedom for basically anything. Personally I vote for the war so that the Afghanistan and Iraq become Democratic and that will spread as soon as the people of the other Countries see what type of life these other people get to live. We must finish the job, the government especially the Dems do not want peace they want upheaval so they can raise taxes so as to spend money where ever they say it is needed and increases their pay checks even more, how many jobs in American jobs get a 10% raise a year, I am lucky to get cost of living increases. To much to put here and the American people won’t evaluate all our problems as a whole they just want to peace mill laws together that don’t work and laws that are never enforced, way to many laws so what’s the use…

Answer 7

As far as the war on terror goes: Liberals, much like most Americans, are impatient with the war. Should they be? That's simply your own opinion.

Poverty is also a serious issue. It's okay to question why some Liberals don't do more to help poverty, but please do not question their character as to why they won't do more.

Answer 8

Here's a news flash, Bucko, there is no war on terror. And there is no war on poverty. There is, however, a war raging against democracy and the Constitution, and the only advocate that might save them is Liberal ideology.

Answer 9

Seems to me like liberals are the only ones who champion the cause of the poor and needy


oh yeah and regarding reform
Bill Clinton was the President that introduced and implemented Welfare Reform

Answer 10

How many trillions of dollars have been spent on a war that the American people were misled into supporting? Which government programs have had funds cut to support that war?