What strong measures do democrats support using against terrorists in the war on terror to keep USA safe?

Answer 1

The following poem from the Democratic Party sums it up:

The Democratic Party. Hard on fetuses, soft on terrorists;

We declare war when he hear "Jesus, bible, Pledge of Allegiance, Boy Scouts, or jew"

But keep in mind that when we hear "jihad, terrorist, Al-Qaeda, or Hezbollah," we're eager to declare peace with you;

Not funding our military is perfectly fine, and its even better to have no spine;

Don't tell your kids about Hillary until after 2008, because by then it'll be too late.

Answer 2

While the world is not safer, it is unfair (and somewhat petty) to blanket the US with the blame. What do I think needs to be done? Simple. Allow the UN to have the power to remove dictators instead of just containing them. I do not for a moment believe that the US asked for the 9/11 attacks. That is short sighted. The problem is that we fight by a set of rules against groups and individuals who break those rules to achieve their target. Many people criticize the war in Afghanistan, and wonder why we aren't achieving the desired results. When we build a bridge or a school or a road way, the terrorists destroy it. We try to fight back, and our own population complains that we are not there doing what we are sent to do. The simple truth is that the world is not safer because we all believe that we know better than everyone else. I mean this on a national and an individual matter. Before 1939, people left a tyrant named Adolf Hitler alone until it was almost too late, and look what happened then. Have we forgotten that when a tyrant arises in the world, when groups use terror to get there way, that the world is worse of if we "leave them alone"? No. We must stand up to these monsters.

Answer 3

I always support strong measures. A double Scotch, for example. At last something I can agree with Dems about!
I have often wondered if all the iced water that Americans drink confuses their brains.

Answer 4

The function of ‘The War on Terror’ does not lie in the instruction of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain 'facts', processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision.

The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since ‘The War on Terror’ is not and cannot be the necessity in itself, since its function, like a poster or billboard, consists in attracting the attention of the crowd, and not in educating those who are already educated or who are striving after education and knowledge, its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect.

‘The War on Terror’ must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in ‘The War on Terror’, the aim is to influence a whole people, it must avoid excessive intellectual demands on the public, and too much caution cannot be exerted in this direction. The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of the ‘The War on Terror’ campaign, and not success in convincing a few scholars or young intellectuals.

The art of ‘The War on Terror’ lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our people do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.

Once we understand how necessary it is for ‘The War on Terror’ to be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results: It is a mistake to make ‘The War on Terror’ many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.
The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda such as ‘The War on Terror’ must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want them to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely canceled out.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration and its supporters, foreign and domestic, have taken extensive measures to ensure that this does not happen—at least until now. It’s a war of words, and the message that these criminals have propagated for 8 years is finally being seen for the fraud that it is.

Remember this when you vote in ’08.

Answer 5

If a political party wanted to save lives in the USA, the best way to do it would be to put measures in place to cut obesity and infant mortality.

The USA has the highest rates of obesity and infant mortality in the developed world and these factors kill thousands more people ever year than terrorism ever could.

The whole "war on terror" thing is a load of public hysteria. The IRA killed more people in their time than 9/11 did, so it's not a new, or even rapidly growing threat.

Answer 6

Well there's the official tongue lashing then if they are really bad they get the finger shook at them. If they kill Americans then we will bomb and aspirin factory at night. That is all to appease the Republicans though. To other liberals, they make deals and supply foreign aid or build nuclear facilities, then look surprised when terrorists attack anyway.

Answer 7

Making "Rosie" ambassadore to terrorists,she a strong woman,with feelings.

Answer 8

First remove the Terrorists who occupy the White house.These haters of the Constitution and destroyers of anyone that gets in their way deserve that special place in Hell where they can continue their Texas barbecues fired by the flames of the people's disgust of them.

How is it possible for the United States, a nation once viewed by the world as a protector of human rights, to have become a nation that condones torture? Look what they have done to our country! The Bush regime has no qualms about bending the Constitution and international law to fit its greedy needs. Its operating paradigm is that the ends justifies the means.

Strolling through life with at least $9 million in inherited wealth, our president could not begin to fathom the plight of the working or middle class, let alone the poor. He has failed or underperformed at virtually every endeavor of his life, but that is not a problem. Wealthy friends and family have been there to bail him out nearly every step of the way. His alleged empathy for the plight of the common man is a fraud. With his MBA from Harvard, I am betting that "W" is not nearly as ignorant as he portrays himself to be. He is strong and resolute in his beliefs, but given his power, money, and support network, how difficult is it to be "strong and resolute"? While it was his strength and resolution that captured the hearts and minds of many American voters after 9/11 rattled their psyches, what they failed to realize was that Bush would use those very qualities to advance a cause that under-mined many aspects of their well-being. Middle and working class Americans who support George Bush need to awaken from their intellectual slumber.

Answer 9

0.

For Libs who can't see the above very well, that's a ZERO, not an o (oh!)

Answer 10

God forbid it's the same tactics they used during the Clinton administration.