What do liberals prefer?Fighting the terrorists over there or having to deal with them here?

Answer 1

Fight? They don't do no stinking fighting!! I guess it will be easier to suck up to the terrorists here since none of them have the stomach for protecting our freedoms.

Answer 2

Well, conservatives aren't qualified to speak on what liberals want, so any answer by a conservative is conjecture at best, bovine fecal matter at worst.

This liberal would prefer to fight them at home.
And here's the plan:

Illegal aliens if caught- expelled
Students from foreign nations - out ya go. (my wife sits in engineering school with students from the middle east. Are they terrorists, probably not, but why take a chance)
Tourists, visitors, etc - out, everybody out

Now you bring the troops back, and put them at the borders.

Now if you want back into this country, you get a tracking chip imbedded.

All containers, every single solitary one inspected by dogs and radiation detectors. (We now have troops to do that, remember?)

Nationalize all the assests of all middle east countries that do not agree to fight terrorism...and if they don't actually do it, nationalize them.

Instead of investing trillions on foreign adventures like Iraq, invest in alternative fuels and power sources. Our debt is approaching 9 trillion dollars. FOR CYIN' OUT LOUD, DO YOU THINK WE COULD BE ON THE ROAD TO ENERGY INDEPENDENCE WITH THAT INVESTMENT? INSTEAD, MOST OF IT WENT TO THE BUSH CRONIES.

Answer 3

Please define who the terrorists are, how large is their Army, where are their bases, how many ships, submarines, planes do they have? How many missiles? Who are the commanders?

How do you think "the terrorists" will come over here.....what system of transportation would they use?

Don't drink the kool-aid of the warmongers. There is no terrorist army capable of invading the U.S., no ships or submarines to creep up our coastal rivers and start firing on New York or Los Angeles. They have no air force, so they can't fly in.....no aircraft carriers anyway. They have no ICBM's, no leaders, no structure.

Just a bunch of disaffected young people who think they are doing Allahs work. Like young people everywhere, they listen to all the wrong people and come to the wrong conclusions...and the handful of old farts who spew the garbage sit on their collective butts and let it happen.

Answer 4

There are THOUSANDS of Alcaida in Iraq right now. Leaving would ultimately give them MORE power...most wars take more time than 3 years to end. Read a history book. Rebuilding a nation takes time.
Now to answer your question - I feel liberals would rather there be no war and no fighting. They would rather spend their money on their salaries then taking out those that plot to kill us. What will be interesting to see is a liberal president that has an attack during his/her term. What will the response be?? Terrosim is growing, these countries that aid them have to see we are NOT weak and that we WILL fight them, here or there.

Answer 5

Those fights are mainly with Shia and Sunnis that want to take over Iraq, and neither is really all that concerned about blowing up buildings in NY. So, genius, the majority of our brave fallen troops in Iraq have died fighting people that NEVER would have attacked the US. Are you proud of that? I wonder what happens to the morale of our troops when they realize that Bush sent them over there under false pretenses and that they're fighting people that we'd never have had to fight if we hadn't invaded.

God bless our troops, and let's protect them from people like Jenna who only see them as a tool to impose Jenna's will on the rest of the world. Those men and women are here to fight wars like Afghanistan and WWII, not to pis_s around breaking up a fight that never would have happened if our president hadn't lied to us. They're here to protect us, and Bush has sorely abused their faithful service.

Answer 6

Uhhh, the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and Iraq have nothing to do with each other. Saddam did not fly the planes into the WTC.
No wonder republicans are always caught up in lies, the wouldn't know the truth if it hit them in the @ss with a 2 by 4.

Answer 7

What on earth makes you think there's a connection? Tactically, it makes more sense for them to attack us NOW, because the entire National guard is depoloyed in Iraq- so nobody's watching the borders. Over extending our military on foreign soil does not make us stronger or safer. Once our troops are back home, we'll be better defended against any attempted attack.

Answer 8

Well, either way, Americans die, and I am not in favor of that. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and we bought into a big lie. Most of us are seeing through it now, unfortunately you and the rest of Bush's lackeys aren't.

Answer 9

Well, let's see? Bush...Texas and Alabama National Guard Units during VIETNAM...you know, the War?. Declared 4-F for failure to stay fit for flight.. No combat. Cheney? Assorted health and physical maladies. No combat....except the Great Texas Likkered-Up Pheasant Hunt of 'O6 :). Rove? Are you kidding? No combat. Rush Limpboy? Bad butt. No combat. Shawn Hannity? No Balls. No combat.

It looks like whether we fight "them" over there or deal with them over here, it will most certainly be LIBERALS DOING THE ALL OF THE FIGHTING. So...thank you for asking....and you're welcome. :-)

Dreadneck- US Air Force. Desert Storm.

Answer 10

Here's a news report for you. It's a civil war in Iraq, not a war on terrorism. It's obvious you don't know anything about what is going on out there. The more you ask insipid questions the more you reveal your ignorance on the subject.

Answer 11

you bought that one hook, line, and sinker....

If and when the terrorists choose to attack the U.S. they will do so. It has nothing to do with Iraq other than the fact that Iraq has become a recruiting tool for the terrorists and there are now many more of them than there were in 2003. There are terrorists all over the world. what you have bought into is 100% b.s.