The dem,s talk of one thing peace,I do not think they are capable of first strikes to saves there own lives,and at that point Americans would want revenge.that means killing people.after a major attack on america,if it ever happens.just seems like talks and approvals take more time than real americans have the patiance for,what you think?.go team bush
2007-05-04 00:15:35 · 17 answers · asked by freepress 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No cities would burn. The Democrats would be on top of the intelligence and not allow a terrorist attack to happen.
2007-05-04 02:55:12 · answer #1 · answered by Stephanie is awesome!! 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Probably none. Nations all over the world have had to live with terrorist attacks. While they might sting, they are no threat to our nation, our government or way of life. We are easily strong enough to surmount this challenge. The fear mongering and exaggeration of the strength of the terrorists is a cynical ploy to keep people from thinking in a clear-eyed manner. A cynical ploy which you have bought into whole-heartedly, apparently. I guess the terrorists really have you scared crapless. When did Americans become so soft and wimpy that they're willing to surrender all of their freedom and liberty at the first angry look from someone darker-skinned and poorer?
A much bigger threat is from a government that tries to grab unprecedented control over our lives, and the gutless cowards who are willing to give up that freedom to avoid discomfort in their lives.
Remember, Bush invaded Afghanistan in REACTION to 9/11. Remember, when Clinton tried to take strikes at bin Laden BEFORE a major attack on US soil, he was blocked, mocked and decried BY REPUBLICANS - "wag the dog...."
Remember, Bush had ample warnings and advice BEFORE 9/11, and they didn't even have meetings about terrorism.
Remember, the only "strike first" action by Bush has been Iraq - no support of anti-American terrorism, no WMD programs, no WMDs, no threat. Bush's "strike first" action took a non-threat, and has cost us as many American casualties as 9/11, has cost us much more economic damage, has damaged our prestige and ability to act, has helped to create a terrorist recruiting, training and breeding ground where none existed before, and, most of all, has diverted resources from the REAL fight in Afghanistan, which we are now also losing.
go team bush? He's done more to aid worldwide terrorism than bin Laden could ever have dared to dream of. There's a reason why they only gave Barney Fife one bullet, and he had to keep it in his shirt pocket.
2007-05-04 07:42:31 · answer #2 · answered by ? 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
If the Terrorist are savvy, they will strike, at Red States only,
Leave the Blue States, untouched, therefore not have to
worry about a response.
2007-05-04 10:27:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only courage they can muster is the courage to cut and run and then they got the gall to say the America people wanted them to do it cause they won and off year election to take control of a do nothing Congress when in fact they should have picked up over 80 seats but only got what 30.
2007-05-04 07:27:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
If I remember correctly he was president during the attacks. So what does that say? I'd say the dems wouldn't make other countries hate us, therefore no need for first strike. But that wouldn't make sense to you now would it?
2007-05-04 08:40:46 · answer #5 · answered by adddictedtomonsterenergy 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
None. Homeland security isn't just a Republican idea. If so, all Republicans would enlist in mass with the Marines or Army, and I don't think that's happening. Talk is cheap when the security of the nation is at stake.
2007-05-04 07:28:36 · answer #6 · answered by gone 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Depends on how many delegates the city represented and which way that district went in the last election.
2007-05-04 07:42:59 · answer #7 · answered by ray4vp 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
A lot of 'fly over towns' wouldn't make a difference to include my home.
they wouldn't care, I feel till they're supporters were affected, unless it started affecting the taxpayer base to the point they couldn't take care of their pets!
You cannot reason with someones goal is to die taking you and yours out!
2007-05-04 07:37:43 · answer #8 · answered by robyn o 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think its really how many cities would remain untouched before they took action, and even then it would entail much pork with any bill passed
2007-05-04 07:59:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Wow, I don't even want to think about it. It's too scary.
2007-05-04 08:33:11 · answer #10 · answered by southfloridamullets 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋