At what point does the average liberal approve of engaging in war?

Answer 1

Depends, are we discussing their actions or their words?

If we go by words, they'll support almost any war you can come up with as long as they think it will never actually happen but publicly supporting it will get them votes. Examples: the Democrats' support of the current Iraq war when they were vote-whoring. The endless support they give for invading Liberia or Rwanda to get votes from black voters.

If we go by actions, then never. Examples: Afghanistan, which they fought tooth and nail to keep us out of, then demanded we withdraw from ASAP. The current war in Iraq, where even after voting for it to happen in the first place, they publicly denounce as "terrorism" and demand we surrender.

Answer 2

Two months after your country is conquered,your people are herded into reeducation camps,and the genocide has begun you can begin discussing the idea of fighting back.

Then you must begin talks in the UN to discuss sanctions against the country or people who conquered you,and appeal to the UN Commission On Human Rights to put forth a resolution condemning their actions.

At this point all member nations will begin discussions on when to hold the discussions on final approval of sanctions and statements of condemnation.If however you have begun to fight back by this point,there will also have to be statements condemning your use of force by fighting back,since self defense is clearly not something the UN advocates based on what I have seen.

Of course by the time the world community decides you may fight back,or decides to help,all the people in your country would be dead.

So the answer is Liberals believe one can go to war,after they have been conquered and killed off,which doesn't give them much chance.

Jack

Answer 3

When a military force is boarding ships and planes to invade our nation .
Kinda like Japan did and had we been able to detect them we could have stopped them .

Today we have a completely different situation . And out side of small wars between small states we will never see millions of troops going to war again .

I am called a liberal and my suggestion is to announce to the world our policy on combating terrorism .
That is to Level the capital city of the nation who the terrorist has spent the most time in . SO if you grew up in Saudi Arabia and went to terrorist training camp like kids here go to college then the target is clear when they graduate from terrorist training and then attack or kill civilians or anyone .

We will only need to do this a couple of times and it will come to an end .

Governments will not allow their people to travel outside the country if they are prone to becoming terrorists .

This will be hard on Islamic countries ,but in the long run they will learn to teach children it is wrong to behead those who are different then you regardless of what mohammad says .

Answer 4

When there is an immanent threat of invasion or severe economic harm from another country or political body.

For a war, there need to be explicit political objectives and a definite plan of action -- it's just like any project that a company would undertake.

Liberals will commonly object to military action (different from declaring 'war') when it causes harm to the economy, strains global relations, and has apparently no positive end result in sight.

Answer 5

When our nation is attacked by a known enemy that invades our borders, as was the case when Congress last declared war 66 years ago.

As the Dali Lama said in a recent magazine interview, "The use of the power of the gun is a sign of weakness."*

What most liberals disapprove of (and most Americans these days agree, regardless of their political persuasion) is an attack on another sovereign nation that in no way threatened, provoked or attacked the United States, and that was attacked solely for the purposes of OIL and WAR PROFITEERING.

Anyone who assumes we're in this 'war' to defend our borders from 'terrorists' in an unknown 'evil empire' is just plain ignorant. Anyone who believes we're 'in' Iraq to establish peace in the Middle East is gullible. Anyone who thinks we're trying to bring democracy to Iraq is naive.

Bush lied to Congress, hoodwinked the American people, and conned our valiant U.S. troops into believing there was honorable purpose for this immoral, unconstitutional, illegal, and unjustifiable 'war'. As a result, 675,000 Iraqis and 3,800 U.S. soldiers have sacrificed their lives so that a handful of wealthy elitists, industrialists and power brokers can become wealthier and more powerful.

I would hope and pray that most liberals - and, for that matter most conservatives - don't approve of engaging in this kind of economic warfare that is nothing less than obscene carnage. -RKO- 09/20/07

Answer 6

When it's declared on the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, who were the perpetrators of the 9/11 murders.

Answer 7

When we have exhausted every other option, and there is a tangible, imminent threat to our nation.
And then ONLY when it's against the country that IS the threat or harboring the threat.

Right now, you're about 1425 miles too far west, Georgie boy.

Answer 8

Afghanistan was necessary. Ongoing genocide warrants military action. Direct aggression towards our security. WWII.

But, let me emphasize, the US must constantly work to solve problems that lead to war, poverty, inequity etc. That way most violent conflicts can be avoided.

Answer 9

Remember Bosnia?

Answer 10

Just like the conservatives, when it touches something important to them.

Remember anti-WW2 was a conservative position until Pearl Harbor