2007-03-18 06:49:56 · 24 answers · asked by Terrie 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
first off...a liberal president probably would still be "negotiating" with the terrorists, while they were arming themselves to the teeth and infiltrating this country and waiting for their moment...thenof course, they would find some way to toss the blame to conservatives who had somehow "brought it upon ourselves" by some slight to the terrorists...such as calling them violent or even suggesting they give up their anti-american rhetoric in their mosques and churches which we all know are just meeting places for their plots, and covered by the american idea of a church is a religious place and not to be messed with....then if the terrorists were caught, it would have to have a sympathethic trial as to not offend the rest of the religion that believes they were just doing what god told them to...all the while ignoring the christian faith and those who are not violent and as just "radical christian rightists"....then there probably would be a deal struck where whoever was involved in the terrorism act would be sent back to their own country for punishment (or awards) because we "just dont understand their suffering through the ages"....
2007-03-18 07:02:47 · answer #1 · answered by badjanssen 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
I don't think that the current war was a good idea in any case, regardless of who would have ordered the troops. The war has been and will always be a stalemate while playing by the rules and code of the Geneva Convention. It is unfortunate. Now we will have to deal with thousands of mentally ill soldiers and to what avail? We have not won a war, we have not liberated a people, we have most likely made everything worse, and now we are in a catch 22 situation! Damned if you do (stay), damned if you don't (leave).
PS What chance do you really think a "liberal" candidate has of winning a presidential election? Let's be realistic here!
2007-03-18 06:57:58 · answer #2 · answered by longleggedfirecracker 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It depends what the liberal president is fighting for.
I mean a Republican wouldn't always support the war if a Republican President had sent us to war, Right?
2007-03-18 07:01:16 · answer #3 · answered by lorrnae 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
you're completely incorrect. We were sending advisors as early as 1950. in the summer season of 1963, it replaced into obtrusive that President Diem replaced into out of control and necessary to get replaced. the alternative replaced into made that the U. S. might want to now no longer help the regime and needed out. The State Dept, Pentagon, nationwide protection Council or maybe the mendacity CIA made the alternative to get out. Kennedy completely agreed with that. in spite of the undeniable fact that, LBJ did not. It replaced into easily presented in the papers on the day Kennedy replaced into shot that he would not run for re-election with Johnson as a operating mate. Later that day, Johnson became President (I own a replica of the paper from that day with the article in it). Johnson escalated it into an finished scale conflict. Johnson replaced into no longer seen a democrat by ability of any stretch of the mind's eye. He may were the "Civil Rights President" yet he replaced into not oftentimes a liberal. leave Kennedy out of it. apparently Kennedy replaced into no longer even conscious that the CIA replaced into operating in Viet Nam undertaking assainations. It replaced into Johnson's conflict - no longer Kennedy's. Get your information immediately.
2016-12-02 04:34:22 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, and they had no problems with clinton using air power to decimate the serbian population. Why? Because serbs are white. Sadly, racism only counts one way in our p.c. society. Then again, we were made vulnerable to terrorism because 'ol Billy Boy gave the arabs start-up money for businesses and also fully paid scholarships for whatever they chose after he brought them in ahead of European, Asian, Hispanic, and African immigrants. Whoopee! Now that hag shillary is acting as one would expect, blaming our current President for her husband's endless stupidities. Hopefully she won't get elected as she would ruin our county as she is an atheist self-worshipping America hater. But once again, the left gets away without condemnation thanks to pinkos like Dan Rather (he's back) and his ilk.
2007-03-18 16:50:38 · answer #5 · answered by The Instant Classic 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As cowardly as the Liberals are, it would be doubtful they would go to war. They would be trying to make friends with the enemy, ehile he was plotting our destruction. Then when we were attacked, they would blame someone else for not paying attention.....
If Clinton did his job, we might not be in this today
2007-03-18 08:10:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Which war?
If you're talking about the war on terror, the one chiefly fought in Afghanistan, then they wouldn't oppose it. They don't oppose it now.
If you're talking about the war in Iraq, the one fought for Big Oil and to get revenge on Saddam for attempting to kill Bush senior, then you can be sure they would oppose it.
2007-03-18 07:01:15 · answer #7 · answered by nospamcwt 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
This is such a good question because it allows people to look at both sides. Simply put, no they wouldn't object if Clinton was president. Thank you for shedding some light.
2007-03-18 12:03:09 · answer #8 · answered by nicole 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Would Republicans support the war if Clinton ran it the same way as Bush.
2007-03-18 06:55:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
You mean like President Clinton's "invasions" of Bosnia, Somalia, and oh, don't forget, Operation Desert Fox against Iraq in 1996 because of WMD!!!
2007-03-18 06:52:47 · answer #10 · answered by ExSarge 4 · 6⤊ 1⤋