why do liberals say the war on terror isnt working...?

Question

no attacks since 911..............what are they talking about....looks like al qaeda has given up................................and you guys say al qaeda isnt in iraq.............so where are they....????????

I dont quite get this............the dems seem to be saying that we would be better off if Al Qaeda was attacking the usa instead of Iraq............wtf?????? Whats next, a new bill to send aid to osama bin laden...wouldnt surprise me

Answer 1

If liberals win the 2008 election ,I truly fear for America's safety! They are so worried about someone hearing their phone calls,so worried about making sure the terrorist get proper representation by the judicial system(American tax payers will be paying for the lawers that represent these terrorist),instead of letting the military deal with them...,so worried about making sure their pork money,and peanut storage gets taken care of, that they can't even get money to the troops!!! When did they become so worried about everyone but true Americans? I'm sorry ,but there are such people as TRUE AMERICANS!!!! Anymore we're politically incorrect if we claim our own land as an American....we can't hurt anyones feelings,just in case they are not actual Americans...liberals act like we must welcome terrorist, and give them the same rights.....They are going to bring us down!!! I wish they could see! I mean we are going thru some of the scariest times we've ever faced as Americans, and all they want to know from the candidates is how they feel about abortion!!! Time to get REAL people!!!!

Answer 2

If Al-Qaeda Came into the US in mass force. I would suport that war with my life. I would grab a gun and get my *** to the ******* frontline. Then, we would actually get something done. And the liberals say the War On Terror isn't working because well, it isn't. And they have given up? That means nothing. "no attacks since 9/11" whatever. What does that mean? You have some serious issues.

Answer 3

Al Qaeda was not in Iraq until we were in Iraq. We have invaded a country that we had NO business being in and opened up an opportunity for Al Qaeda to come into Iraq and stir up the people and the terrorists that have been bred since our senseless attack on Iraq.
We didn't go to war with Al Qaeda, we went to war with Iraq, you know, the country that had nothing to do with 9-11.
We have all but abandoned our search for Osama BIn Laden, he is the enemy we should be looking for. Bush and his cronies started this war to detract from the fact he can't find a broken down old man on dialysis.
War on Terror...are you kidding me? Terrorism is an idea, we aren't ever going to be able to defeat it, it has no leader, no hierarchy, no form...it's an idea and we are fostering that idea in people who never viewed us as the enemy before we invaded a country that never did anything to us.

Answer 4

Oh, Al Qaeda is in Iraq now. But they weren't before the war. How many attacks were there before 9/11? Just one. And that was ~10 years before. An it's not working because you can't wage war on something that isn't tangible. you can kill terrorists, but you can't keep other people from becoming terrorists. In fact, when you kill terrorists you typically just create martyrs, which creates more terrorists. The real way to combat terrorism, would be to stick to the principles on which this country was founded-see the Monroe Doctrine. If we were to stay the hell out of the Middle East, where we have no business in the first place, and leave Israel to their own devices, which we should anyway, then largely, the terrorists would have no reason to bother us. This whole notion that they hate our freedom is obnoxious and ludicrous. they didn't hate our freedom before we started meddling in their affairs and stationing troops on their holy ground.

Answer 5

There is no "war on terror." The invasion and occupation of Iraq are not part of a "war on terror." Neither are the current threats and war preparations against Iran. The "war on terror" doesn't exist—no matter how many times the Bush administration cites it to justify its aggressions, no matter how often Republicans and Democrats debate how to best carry it out, and no matter how frequently it's referenced in the U.S. bourgeois media.

What does exist is a horrific and criminal U.S. war OF terror against the people of the world for greater empire. The attacks of Sept. 11 gave the U.S. rulers an opening to launch this war, but it has nothing to do with halting unjust violence or "terror," nor is it fundamentally aimed at stopping future Sept. 11's or "protecting" those living in the U.S. or anywhere else. Instead, it has everything to do with waging unbounded war to solidify and extend the U.S. imperialist system's killing grip on the planet and its people.

Neither Iraq nor Iran had anything to do with Sept. 11 (and the U.S. rulers have known this all along). So why have they become focal points in a war supposedly springing from Sept. 11? This doesn't prove Iraq is a "diversion" from a "war on terror," it proves that the "war on terror" is a fraud. In fact, Iraq shows what this war is really all about. The Bush regime saw conquering this ancient land as a key step in unfolding its broader global agenda: "shocking and awing" the world, strengthening the U.S. grip on the Middle East, turning Iraq into a military and political platform for further aggression, gaining tighter control of international energy supplies, controlling and reshaping the entire arc from North Africa to Central Asia, and strengthening the U.S. hand against rivals—current and future.

Answer 6

Wars are gained by technique of no individual. each body loses in a conflict. Liberals have no longer some thing to do with why we are dropping a conflict. it truly is fullyyt because of undesirable planning, low soldier morale [in case your father is on suitable of factors of an company, why isn't he doing some thing to make those depressed youthful adult men better perfect?!], and a conflict that each body realizes can't be gained that we are dropping. as well, how is hesitating to apply stress on a united states of america possibility free of conflict crimes undesirable? Iraq and Iran did no longer some thing to us, al-Qaida did. there's no tie between both countries and the terrorist team, the "President" himself admitted that. Hesitation in simple terms signifies that liberals [and some conservatives, do not reduce this to easily one team!] recognize it truly is immoral to wrongfully attack an possibility free united states of america. "there's no such ingredient as a sturdy conflict, or a nasty peace" --Bejamin Franklin

Answer 7

Terrorism is an idea. How can you declare war on an idea?
You combat that idea. Stop making the terrorists martyrs, and start making terrorists look like nutcases.
Nowhere are F-15s, toppling dictators, or missiles mentioned.

Answer 8

Um, Al Qaeda IS in Iraq. The irony is that they were NOT there when we invaded (though that was one of the 'reasons' for invading) and NOW they are. Ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy?

P.S. Multiple civilian and military deaths in Iraq at the hands of insurgents EVERY day IS terrorism. The fact that it's not on our soil doesn't make it any less terrorism.

Answer 9

Because if it were working we'd have Bush standing at a podium in the East Room holding Osama's disembodied head!

Instead we have a Civil War in Iraq that even the Iraqi government doesn't want to settle. If that's the definition of winning, I'll take losing any day.

Answer 10

alqaeda is in every Islamic country even if they deny that but in the same time some people there believe in alqaeda's policies and ideas and some people there show their happiness about alqaeda terror crimes even in USA or European countries or Iraq or any where ... i am a Coptic christian who live in Egypt and know what does this mean... i think the problem is there in every Islamic country and in every mosque ... they should be onset with their selves and love every persons with out any relation to his ethnic or religion