For both liberals and conservatives: Which party has the better idea for national security?

Question

Conservatives want to annihilate those that wish America harm, which is understandable.

Liberals want to get along with them and maybe see why they hate us so much. Honestly, that idea isn't all that terrible.

But which can be more realistically done?

Answer 1

Confront our enemies and deal with them from a position of strength, not weakness.

I agree with the conservatives. The liberals' program, to the extent there is one, could destroy the country. They have no understanding of what we face.

Answer 2

The conservatives figure that dropping the nuke on to every country that MAY pose a threat is a great way of solving a problem. Look at Britian when their naval officers were captured. They used DIPLOMACY. WHO ever would have thought dipolmacy would have ever worked? I mean I'll be dammed Britian used a couple of long distance phone calls and some gas to transport their people back home and the US well one word: Defecit (Look it up and see how much it is now) - Bush deserves a standing ovation for this one.

Answer 3

Which is better... talking about peace and love with intollerant radicals that want to annialate your culture?

Or going over there to get them before they kill you?


lets see...

Words of Mass destruction...

or Weapons of Mass destruction...



well..

Talk is no subsitute for action.


and Sanctions and peace talks arfen't working with Iran...


So... should we act like the libs, who want to eliminate the military option... even at the price of their own lives... ?

or ...should we act like conservatives... and go get them Sandistanians before they nuke us?


hmmm?


-Splinter_In_Finger

Answer 4

The liberals want to avoid war through dialogue. That only works if both parties want to talk. The libs want to talk, the jihadis want to kill us. Seems like an issue to me.

Answer 5

so genocide or play patsy in the park? neither is a realistic choice.


dallas: well said.. you are absolutely correct - democrat

Answer 6

Any human with Brains.

Answer 7

Both useful when used properly. It is more realistic to start out with what costs the least (blood or money), has greatest potential, and history of best results, and it is the “liberal” philosophy.

As most terrorist groups born from oppression, human rights violations, or from an attempt to obtain political fairness, best way to prevent terrorism is to have impartial means to resolve disputes, (UN) to resolve borders, and for individuals to have fair and equal participation in government and economy. Best resolution is to address political grievances and negotiate resolution. When the public support swings to support the peaceful solution, diminishes support for the terrorist platform, is best solution for long standing disputes.

Ethnic or religious conflict needs to be resolved with education, community action and legislation. Young people, born in poverty with no hope and nothing to live for are an easy target for those who teach radical means and suicide bombing portrayed as honorable. Economic justice and meeting human basics of food, water, shelter, self actualization is important to prevent terrorism and the recruitment for terrorism.

To reduce terrorism, the Israel/Palestine conflict needs an honest resolution. Israel has been both victim and aggressor, but as it holds the lands in dispute, holds more power, and seems to have the US on its side, it needs to take a bigger step towards peace. Hamas was formed due to territory dispute of West Bank and Gaza strip, and at bare minimum, should be resolved. Palestinians also believe they live under Apartheid, which should be addressed.

Hezbollah was formed to get rid of Israel and Syria influence in Lebannon, as well as to support the Shia Moslem minority vs the Sunni/Christian Majority. Since about 2005, both countries no longer occupy Lebannon, Hezbollah is less radical, and has been elected into some political offices. Hezbollah gets money from Iran and Syria, which is used for their arms and also, for the social services they provide to the Lebannese..schools, hospitals, and even for rebuilding after Israel bombed Lebannon last summer. Political option should be priority.

In tandem, use counterterrorism/police tactics: Intelligence, surveillance, deterrence, cooperation both local and international called for, but not to an excessive degree that freedoms are suppressed.

Historically, conflicts with terrorist groups have been concluded with negotiation and change in policies...remember
IRA; Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland.
PLO recognized it needed to work with the US if they were to realize their goals, and in 80-90’s, the US was in dialogue with them.
Basque in Spain, negotiated settlement
Black September organization, multiple countries shut down.
Lehi Jewish group formed to evict British from Palestine. They were called terrorists by the British and the UN. At the end, they were integrated into the Israel Defense forces, were found to operate outside of the IDF, and then were forced to break up their activities by Israel.

Terroristic activities can lead to self-destruction
66-73 C.E. Jewish Zealot provoked acts on Jewish Civilians and the Romans to bring about end times, and they were exhiled.
Terroristic activities can be surgically terminated.
Baader Meinhoff (RAF) started by peaceful student protests, met with police brutality and oppression, the group opposed the Vietnam war, was then aggressively attacked by the secret police who imprisoned members, and assassinated the leaders. The group was gone by 1998.

The Democrats/liberal policy allows for all of the above, including the Homeland security measures recommended by the 9/11 commission report, which has been legislated and funded in 2007 as part of the first 100 days in office Democratic policy. This includes border and port security measures. We believe that fighting the war on terror is different than conventional wars. There are no uniforms and no borders, headquarters of the enemy are fluid. We believe in justified wars and not throwing our military at every problem. We don’t want them in the middle of a civil war…a war between religions, between tribes and gangs. A war where the enemy can not be identified. We care about our military and ARE the military.
The Democrats still hold to the actions we are taking in Afganistan as justified, not Iraq. Even if we wanted to be in Iraq for 10 more years, we prefer to live in the real world where we realize it is not sustainable, and leaves us vulnerable to other unforseen threats.

As far as I can honestly access the conservative position differences, they don’t believe in the peaceful/society/human rights measures or negotiation as means to prevent terrorism.
Instead of cooperating with international intelligence, or using UN, would rather use unilateral action against countries, with massive force, despite collateral damage. Many conservatives seem to salivate at use of tactical nuclear weapons.
Conservatives seemed to prefer big corporations spying and maintaining data bases to profile possible terrorists, even it it is on every US citizen.
In my opinion, the conservatives are probably more genetically suited to deal with the Hitlers...China or Korea, not the problem of terrorism, since they don’t seem to realize the difference. Even if they are more suited to deal with big countries, still think Democrats do better there as well.

http://terrorism.about.com/od/groupsleader1/p/Hezbollah.htm
terrorismexperts.org

Answer 8

i am a conservative that believes we need to do a little of both.

Answer 9

Who is better for security?Cons or libs---- better put, patriots or cowards. It's obvious.

Answer 10

Republican Party!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!