?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Dumb Question, Terrorist, Democrats

Dumb question, but I'm serious.

If the presidency is won by a Democrat in 2008,
do you feel the terrorist will leave us alone?
Why?



PARIS HILTON
IS AN F-ING COPOUT!!




Join The NRA

"The Right Of The People To Keep and
Bear Arms, Shall Not Be infringed."

Comments

( 32 comments — Leave a comment )
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
dumpsterdiva
Jun. 8th, 2007 12:03 am (UTC)
1. No.

2. It has been inculcated into the hearts and minds of 'terrorists' that anything Western, mostly American but including the UK and Australia, is evil and against God. They have been taught, perhaps more accurately they have been brainwashed into thinking that all westerners are evil and must be wiped out in the name of G-d.

Although terrorists represent only a small portion of the population, they are powerful and believe in what they are doing.

I recently made the flight from South Carolina, USA, back home to Australia. I spent some time in Chicago at the airport and I kept hearing that the Homeland Security had raised the terror alert to Orange.

I wonder why?

So, my dear girl. What do you reckon as to your own question?
playgirl
Jun. 8th, 2007 09:10 pm (UTC)
Silly me!
An Orange alert? I wonder why, also. I also wonder how many Orange alerts there have been that we haven't been aware of.

So, my dear girl. What do you reckon as to your own question?

Silly me! I was hoping the election of a Demo President bring us all back the life as we once knew before 911. How I wish we could all go back to those days when the only thing we had to worry about was mass and serial killers!
Yep. - jasonecaesar - Jun. 9th, 2007 03:42 am (UTC) - Expand
sputnik
Jun. 8th, 2007 12:03 am (UTC)
I don't think it matters who's in office. There have always been terrorists, there probably always will be. Remember the Atlanta Olympics? Timothy McVeigh? Various nutcases making pipe bombs? These are all home grown terrorists.

Terrorists win when they get the people they are terrorizing to react. Our country reacted big time. Someone will do something when we least expect it, and in a way we don't expect. Every measure that has been taken to stop them will be for naught. We need to carry on with our lives and stop worrying about terrorist attacks.
playgirl
Jun. 8th, 2007 09:22 pm (UTC)
worrying about terrorist attacks
We need to carry on with our lives and stop worrying about terrorist attacks.

You're right! I go about my daily life without a care in the world when it comes to terrorists, because I know for a fact, that if I should find myself a victim, I'll NEVER know what hit me!
(no subject) - dumpsterdiva - Jun. 8th, 2007 10:37 pm (UTC) - Expand
ajokercard
Jun. 8th, 2007 12:05 am (UTC)
I don't think so, I think it'll get worse and I think that we'll have another large attack, like 911 if a Democrat is voted into office.

Terrorist know that a Democrat, is less likely to go to war against them, because they want the peaceful alternative. So I think some terrorist will lull a new president, if he's a Democrat into a false sense of security, and then they'll attack.

Some people may not like Bush, but he has stopped anymore attacks from happening since September 11th, well attacks against the US mind you. I mean they are finding cells and shutting them down on a weekly, if not daily basis.

I'm a republican so you know I don't want a Democrat in office. I'm still iffy about the republicans that are running, I don't know who I want to put myself behind.
tigron_x
Jun. 8th, 2007 01:02 am (UTC)
From watching the debate, Giuliani and McCain have the strongest presence. But personally, I really like Ron Paul's position except his take on the war. If he changed his take on the war, he'd be the strongest candidate in my opinion. But since we need a war time president, it's gonna be a Giuliani/McCain combo for sure.
adameros
Jun. 8th, 2007 12:05 am (UTC)
No, I don't think it will make a difference. I just hope the next President will actually strike at the terrorists instead of creating more trouble in the middle east.

I said it back then and I'll say it again. We needed to finish Afghanistan before starting another conflict. We should not have gone unilaterally, and we should go after known terrorist strong hold (Syria) or countries that we know supply terrorist with conventional, chemical, and possibly nuclear weapons (North Korea).

I am not a pacifist, but rather I believe that if you are going to resort to force you need to make sure you use force only where is will do go and not stretch your forces too thin.
dumpsterdiva
Jun. 8th, 2007 10:40 pm (UTC)
"We needed to finish Afghanistan before starting another conflict"

Do you reckon that Afghansitan was simply a 'convenient' jumping off point for the attack on Iraq? Do you think that something will happen with Iran next?

It's a mess. However, I wonder about the above two questions, based on your answer.
(no subject) - adameros - Jun. 8th, 2007 10:57 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - dumpsterdiva - Jun. 9th, 2007 02:29 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - dumpsterdiva - Jun. 9th, 2007 02:32 am (UTC) - Expand
neo_prodigy
Jun. 8th, 2007 12:06 am (UTC)
they'll probably regroup and rethink their strategy because their leader will be out of a job. i mean i don't think there's much bush can do once he's--oh--you mean the other terrorists.
tigron_x
Jun. 8th, 2007 12:07 am (UTC)
I don't think terrorist will be our biggest worry if demos win. Their whole platform is, "Let's unit and be socialist!" If they get eleceted (which I don't think they will), then I hope terrorist do blow things up.
aamusedinatx
Jun. 8th, 2007 12:34 am (UTC)
At the risk of sounding all Doomsday...

Terrorism is here to stay. It has been for generations already. We're one of the last countries in the world to have it visited upon us, on our soil. This is nothing new, sadly. Desperate groups with a zeal will resort to desperate measures.

Putting a democrat in office won't make any zealot leave us alone. My hope is this:

What it will do is return to this country some credibility, if we elect the right person. (I'm not saying WHO right now, though my primary vote is with Obama.)

We need a president who leads with compassion, who restores the respect of other countries so they are more willing to work WITH US on this GLOBAL issue of terrorism.

We need a president who is not so willing to suspend the constitution and argue that removing our freedoms ENSURES our freedom from fear--because it doesn't.

We need a president who will ensure that our fighting men and women are not killed in vain. That they are adequately equipped and trained rather then funnel billions of dollars to corporations to fund weapons research and prototypes that never reach the battlefield to make a difference.

We need a president who doesn't cut the benefits to military widows, widowers and children. A president who does not cut the medical benefits to wounded veterans.

We need a president who is more concerned with diplomacy and cooperation with nations in this world before we get left behind in a global economy and collapse into a tiny entity--much like what happened to the United Kingdom after WWII.

We need a president who listens to advisers, even when they tell him things he doesn't want to hear. A president who appreciates learning over loyalty. A president who READS.

We need a president who is not so willingly isolated in a bubble of cronies to protect him from the public.

A world leader must lead, must listen, must cooperate, must negotiate, must threaten and bully and resort to military force as a last resort, not first resort.

There is not a single Republican, with the exception of Ron Paul (who bless his heart, won't get elected, but I'd vote for him) who I believe can do any of the points I listed above.

We have a lot of repair to do at home and abroad.
stevie_stever
Jun. 8th, 2007 12:48 am (UTC)
Having a Democrat in office won't make the terrorists so much less likely to plot against the US. However, it should be noted that perhaps a Democrat wouldn't throw us into a war that had virtually nothing to do with terrorism, get our troops demoralized over time in said war, bottom out the economy such that we can't even bail out a port city when it gets trashed by a hurricane, gut many of the programs that were supposed to be bolstered by homeland security, hire judges at the federal level whose agenda it is to undermine civil liberties and women's reproductive rights, or push forward xenophobic legislation aimed at alienating the immigrant segment of the working class, ignore that another cold war seems to be in the making with Russia now that we're entertaining a missile shield in collaboration with Europe, destroy credibility with almost every member nation in both the UN general assembly and the UN security council...do I really need to go on?

Why exactly is terrorism such a major concern, as well as the perceived strength of a president. Terrorism at the level of current concern has preceded this administration by more than 30 years...that it hasn't been the focus of US foreign policy doesn't mean that previous presidents haven't had it on their agenda. Nor should earlier presidents be perceived as weak for not doing what this one has done.

Your question isn't dumb; what's dumb is that it's being used as a rallying call for shaping the political landscape. I just named at least five points that are as important or MORE important than terrorism. Why are THEY not at the forefront of political discussion? Why is terrorism being used as a bludgeoning device against worthy candidates on both sides?
harley1456
Jun. 8th, 2007 12:51 am (UTC)
I doubt it will make any difference.....

I think that being in Iraq is generating hatred...so getting out of Iraq might help...but they were attacking us during the Clinton years.....they don't care who the president is...they care about themselves and perhaps Israel...
davev1968
Jun. 8th, 2007 01:17 am (UTC)
No.

Because they hate the U.S. regardless of who is in power.
typewriterking
Jun. 8th, 2007 03:06 am (UTC)
Lots of folks in the comments seem to think war isn’t real if you fight it at 35,000 feet, or just lob cruise missiles from sea. Every time I bring it up, I’m supposedly blaming Clinton for something, but Desert Fox and a lot of other short bombing campaigns did actually happen, and killed real flesh-and-blood people. Americans are good at pretending it isn’t ‘real’ when it’s just an air campaign and no Americans are even injured, but people in the so-called “gap” countries knew the deaths were real.

Unfortunately, a lot of people believed it was feasible to launch punitive strikes that would purely be “surgical,” leave without negotiating a cease-fire, and never hear from the “gap” again. That didn't happen, and Official Washington and the punditocracy doesn't really get it. The wounded limped over after we forgot about them and left them for dead.

Anyway, this question makes an interesting Rorschach Test. It takes some absurd minds to do some of the magic thinking I see in the comments.

This is all pretty simple, actually, if you want to get to the broad truth of it. If you're a worldwide player, you'll make enemies worldwide. Sometimes there will be violence over it. It doesn't matter what kind of magic shield you fight under. Fighting for universal 'human rights' generates enemies, or 'universal suffrage.'
The Somali Warlord Aideed didn't care if the mission was labelled a humanitarian one, or that the Rangers were there under a UN mandate.
If someone were confiscating items from people here, I wouldn't care if it's under a big league of nations, or one nation.

Slogans don't matter, and if someone dies, it isn't better if thirty nations sign off on it, or 130.

Some may notice I don't see a distinction between Desert Fox, Desert Storm, or Iraqi Freedom. Hell, I see them as the same war. America has been fighting the same war with Iraq since 1990, during Desert Shield. It takes magical partisan thinking to believe otherwise.
see_dog
Jun. 8th, 2007 04:57 am (UTC)
Even more of a dumb question.
If the democrat's win presidency. Do you think the terrorists will instead take up baking. And possibly be known for their world renown over ready spring roles instead of terror?
donchep
Jun. 8th, 2007 06:50 am (UTC)
LOL..yeah I'm sure Al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, The Mahdi Army, Hezbollah are all awaiting the results of the next election. "Ahmed, call a conference the democrats have taken over "The Great Satan" the antifadah is now over. It is time to break bread with the infidels"
warpedpuppy
Jun. 8th, 2007 06:53 am (UTC)
AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

*snort hack cough*

HHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
( 32 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

May 2015
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com