Do libs understand national security AT ALL???

Question

If you are a conservative chime in.

If you are a lib, please enlighten me as to how you believe the govt should go about this thing called "national security" (that means keeping the country safe from foreign invaders and attacking tyrannts)

And how about the war on terror? Is the liberal idea "leave terror alone and it will leave you alone" a good policy? What do you libs think we should do about state sponsors of terror? (evil countries that fund and plot disasters like the tokyo subway, the subway in Spain, 9/11, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings in East Africa, the marine barracks bombing in Beirut?

Please dont be stupid and hatefilled. Lets see some honest, thoughtful, and objective answers for a change. And no..."I hate Bush" is not an answer. Id like to hear if any libs have an honest way forward on these issues or if youre just as lost as the fools in congress.

Wow what shockingly bad answers.

I agree the borders arent perfect but they are secure enough that no army would dare cross it without fear of being annihilated by our military.

And yes, going to other countries IS necessary. If we didnt go to germany in WW2, a TYRANT would be ruling Europe to this day and maybe us!

Still not hearing any anwers on state sponsors of terror, just crickets.

Answer 1

Well, it's clear after 6 years, you Con don't.
BTW...We want out of Iraq..a War that shouldn't be...we said nothing about NOT going after the terrorists in Afaganistan, Silly NeoCon.

Answer 2

When Ronald Reagan removed the tariffs that protected the economic industrial base of the United States of America for it's first 200 years of existence, he in effect cut the throat of the American economy. Bill Clinton nailed the coffin shut with NAFTA & GATT, the America began it's slow and calculated decent into third world status.

The end result will be a Super Power without the economic industrial base necessary to support it's population or equip it's military. The Federal government, both Dems and Reps, liberal and conservative have long since delegated actual "governing" of the people of the U.S. to the State governments, and have for over twenty years now served corporate interests. Facsim is defined as "corporate run government", we in the United States are slipping dangerously close to such a government.

We are not at war with Islamic fundalmentalists, we are at war with economic globalists, todays version of yesterday's fascists. The European Union and it's sister wing the African Union are portions of this globalist agenda. But before one can speak of a "New World Order", one must be aware of what the "Old World Order" was that is being replaced by the new one. The old world order was a plot of land, with a border, supporting a population of people, governed by a elite class of people. It didn't matter if the rulers were Kings, Presidents, Dictators, or Popes, the order was the same for the Ming Dynasty, Rome, Greece, America and all other societies mankind created in their history. The powerful got their power from the people and land they governed.

The new world order has an elite class of people who have no social obligation to a given population, no environmental or physical responsibility to any plot of land and owe their power not people and properity but to wealth alone. They do not even need a physical board room from which to run their corporate structure, they need only the political power to move money. The conquered Europe, not with bullets, but with Euros, and took Africa without anyone even noticing. They are currently engaged in creating the North American Union, and this my friend is what faces you.

It is not liberal or conservative it is globalist, and while libs and cons snipe at each other, the noose tightens.

Answer 3

The only solution to right-wing religious fundamentalism is LIBERALISM.

This is a war of ideology. Terrorists must be defeated in that realm. You do that by supporting secular schooling in the middle east, taking religious out of government, holding the right-wing religious media accountable, using alternative media to your advantage in the propaganda war.

How did liberals defeat right-wing conservatives in the South? We did it by staging peaceful protests and then having all the right-wing nutsoes go all crazy on us. Step three was having the media come over and put everything on tape so we could the country to shame. Seemed to have worked great. The same tactic can be used in the middle east.

There are so many ways to bring liberalism to the middle east. You can do it by supporting the feminists, secularists, humanists, and liberals of that region and you can do it by destroying the creditibility the religious right in that region hold. Think adultery scandals, etc.

Answer 4

If you quit believing everything you hear on FOX News and Hate Radio and take the time to do some REAL Independent research on the issues you gain gain a clearer understanding of the issues we face. Don't let the politicians give you simple solutions to complex issues. People and their interactions are complex. Cultural differences are important. History and past experience play an important role in how we react to current events. It is not as easy as "Stay the Course!"

Answer 5

Does national security mean having less than 5% of cargo containers inspected? Outsourcing our ports to countries that support terrorism (UAE is one of 3 countries that recognized the Taliban, the others are SA and Pakistan). Do you think a nuke will be delivered in an ICBM from the Mid East (NOT).. It will be postmarked in a cargo container to Main St. USA. Why did GWB cut funding to technology to inspect containers? Is that your idea of homeland security, national security. How is the kool aid boys?!?

Answer 6

I don't know but please read these definitions so that you can see just how lame it is to attact such a loose group by calling them liberals, conservative or neocons.

Many new liberals advocate a greater degree of government influence in the free market to protect what they perceive to be natural rights, often in the form of anti-discrimination laws, universal education, and progressive taxation. This philosophy frequently extends to a belief that the government should provide for a degree of general welfare, including benefits for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick. Such publicly-funded initiatives in the market are rejected as interference by modern advocates of classical liberalism, which emphasizes free private enterprise, individual property rights and freedom of contract; classical liberals hold that economic inequality, as arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify the violation of private property rights.

This doesn't really sound like the classic Democrat.

How about the conservative?

Conservatism is a relativistic term used to describe political philosophies that favor traditional values, where "tradition" refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term derives from the Latin, conservāre, to conserve; "to keep, guard, observe". Since different cultures have different established values, conservatives in different cultures have different goals. Some conservatives seek to preserve the status quo, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time, the status quo ante.

Hm....I don't recognize a lot of drum beating war monger Republican in that definition, do you?

How about the neocon? Well this is a very complicated issue as it has changed in meaning since 1960's but in todays climate:

Neoconservatives also have a very strong belief in the ability of the United States to install democracy after a conflict - comparisons with denazification in Germany and installing a democratic government in Japan starting in 1945 are often made - and they have a principled belief in defending democracies against aggression. This belief has guided U.S. policy in Iraq after the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime, where the U.S. insisted on organizing elections as soon as practical

The media teaches us to hate because hate sells. I've run into some pretty smart folks on these pages but we need to stop generalizing so much. Instead of saying LIBERAL, specify, people that are protesting against the war, or whatever. Makes for better responses.

America Rocks

Answer 7

So why does another western pleasant armed forces interior the international (i.e. tremendous Britian, France, Spain, Germany, Korea, Japan, and so on. enable brazenly gay human beings of their armed forces? do not they care about nationwide safe practices? would having an brazenly gay man or woman in a armed forces unit been a issue interior the 1940's? probable certain. would the same complications get up interior the 2010's? more suitable than probable no longer listening to the various service females and men those who've spoken up on the issue.

Answer 8

Well we keep the country safe by providing proper border patrols and not keep our ports vulnerable by waging an invasion in a foreign country for corporate interest.......and thats just for starters. Something this administration has passed up on for 6 years in a row.

Answer 9

National Security does not only involve making sure we are safe at home. It involves hunting down and destroying the enemies which threaten our well being.
How many Europeans died in WWII attempting to defend themselves from the Nazis? Would it not have saved millions of lives and trillions of dollars for the European countries to have marched into Germany when they realized Hitler was violating the Treaty of Versalles?

People are naieve to think that we are safe in this world. There are evil forces in this world who want us dead. People who vow to destroy all of western culture.

We have but one obligation in this world and that is to protect the American way of life.

Answer 10

well, i am liberal, and no i dont think you should "leave terror alone and it will leave you alone", and i do think we should have national security,,,,, but i dont think we have it right now,,,,,, i think that while some progress has been made,,,,,,there is so much wasteful spending and focus on the wrong things, that we are still at risk,,,,,,,
i also think its wrong to try to put most people, intelligent ones, into a conservative or liberal category,,,,,, as most of them view each issue individually...and even within an issue, you may have various opinions,,,,,,, such as myself,,,,, i am for defending our country,,,,, i am opposed to violence,,,,,, if it can at all be avoided,,,,,,,yet i recognize sometimes war is necessary,,,,,, i am opposed to the war in Iraq,,,,, as i think it was entered into for the wrong reasons,,, i think we have gotten ourselves in the midst of a civil war,,,, just like Vietnam,,,,, and i think our government is not being honest with us about it,,,, (they dont even "officially" say we are at war)
sad to say, i think we are fighting the war on terror just like we did the war on drugs,,,,, not so well
finally,,,, please dont buy into the labels,,,,,, thats promoting prejudice,,,,,, to say liberal means,,,,,,,,blah blah blah,,,,,, and conservative means,,,,, blah blah blah,,,,,, only very few people are extremist each way,,,,,,, and its going to take all the rest of us ,, and the moderates,,,,,,, getting along and getting together to come up with solutions to our problems

Answer 11

Yeah. I think it's a great idea to let our borders be completely porous, that's a start, let's just let them all come flooding in to stay...
Let's also sell our ports to Arab countries,
let's still not examine cargo going into planes,
Let's keep supplying the controversial country of Israel with weapons and money

and most of all, Let's just keep pumping that oil unabaited and filling the pockets of terrorist harboring countries,
let's keep money going to those countries and make sure our corporations and therefore government are in constant involvement with the middle east.