Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gulik2 (Talk | contribs) at 17:25, May 10, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

I personally believe the Democrats have zero clue about the war on terror. So much so, they want to change the wording, terror on the yellow brick road. How about a little insight to how they think, I give Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., "You can't end the war if you vote against the supplemental". They want to end the war on terror using congress. I've got news for anybody and everybody- the terrorists are not laying down their arms surrendering. Quit what? They attacked us and they will attack us until we are all dead, that's all they want. Anything less, you are dreaming of negotiations and nice talk. You are thinking irresponsibly.--jp 19:28, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


absolutily not! Why did Osama endorse kerry? liberals are more cocerned with spending your money on crazy social programs than on defense. In the words of Benjamin Netanyahu, "Today we have the power to destroy them. Now we must summon the will to do so". Its as if democrats dont understand the threat at all. they are too worked up over "global warming" (which I am sure they think is 100% President Bush's fault!) Bohdan

Maybe he endorsed Kerry knowing that it would benefit Bush. Al Qaeda benefit at least as much from the wars as they would from a lack of wars - think about what motivates their recruits. Murray 11:57, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I think what motivates Al Qaeda is its success in striking American targets without fear of reprisal. e.g. '93 WTC, '98 African Embassy's, '00 USS Cole, '01 9/11. --jp 11:48, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

To say that global warming is less of a threat then terrorism is to show a blatant misunderstanding of both subjects. Terrorism has killed a couple of thousand people since 9/11. Now, that is a couple of thousand too many, however the amount that could die from the very real threat of global warming is up there in the millions scale. At the same time, the best way to treat terrorism is the same way you would treat a kid at the beach who kicks over your sandcastle. Pretend to ignore it, while using assasinations, guerilla forces, SAS, CIA, whatever you want to call it. Big wars achieve nothing and they never have. Look at the crusades. Look at the Japanese in WW2. Its a very simple equation, war does not equal success. Bolly Ottihw 19:55, 23 April 2007


1993 WTC bombing. Omar Abdel-Rahman was arrested, tried and convicted. That happened under Clinton. GWB hasn't even come close to trying, let alone convicting, any senior member of AQ that was behind the 9/11 bombing. Terrorism hasn't been reduced globally since the "war" began; if anything, it has spread. Now there are bombings in moderate Arab countries like Morocco. AQ almost stole Somalia from under our noses, and would have if it wasn't for Ethiopia stepping in. In no facet have the policies of GWB made a serious dent in terrorism.--Dave3172 11:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

have there been any terrorist bombings here? no. war=success. but would anything be better with democrats in charge? do you seriuosly think we would be better off with clinton?Bohdan
You mean besides 9/11? Or are you saying that the War on Terror begins and ends at the US Border? Because if you take it as a whole, terrorism has only comtinued to ramp up since 9/11. Would the Democrats be better? Until they show me that they are as incompetent as this Administration, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.--Dave3172 12:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
No bombings in the US--but we had the Beltway Snipers and the Anthrax Mailer since then, and now this thing on the news yesterday about a group of wanna-be raiders planning to attack Fort Dix. And the world that exists outside the US has had plenty more bombings since Bush announced the Tenth Crusade.
On the other hand, just imagine the mess we might be in if Gore or Kerry had been President on 9/11--Osama Bin Laden might have been captured near the Pakistan border, and US troops wouldn't be hopelessly bogged down in Baghdad. What a hideous thought. --Gulik2 13:17, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes. Flippin 11:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

unbiased liberal flippin can't give reasons why he feels that way. Democrats all claim they'll get rough with the terrorists, but they can't even participate in a debate hosted by Fox News Channel because their yellow.--jp 15:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Fox "Noise" Channel is a ridiculous piece of conservative propaganda. And fighting terrorism is stupid with an army. They don't line up to be slaughtered. On the other hand, every soldier we put in Iraq becomes an instant target. Good going there. Maybe part of getting tough is getting smart--something the republicans are incapable of doing. Flippin 15:24, 7 May 2007 (EDT)


Surprisingly. The real issue with terrorism is not that they want to just kill us. Were that the case, all they would have to do is start by killing every American they come across, around the world. This is not being done. Rather, the purpose of a terrorist act is the act itself. (I have spent significant time and energy studying this--even spoke at a conf. on the subject.) Take the example of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Now, as a thought experiment, ask your self, honestly, if no one had died in the buildings--if the terrorists were caught before they could kill more people than were on the planes--would it have still been a significant moment in American history? If you're being honest, the answer is yes. The sight of two enormous buildings collapsing is just too much for most of us to comprehend.
Now, looking at the same event, if the planes were empty, and the buildings were empty, would we still have been as awestruck? Again, if you're being honest the answer is yes. I argue that it is not the fact that people died in the attacks, but the attacks themselves are the reason we are affected by terrorism.
The message of terrorism is this: we (the terrorists) can do this to you whenever we want. We (Americans) are supposed to believe that if this giant building can be taken down, anyplace we hide will not be safe.
When we look at our national response to the attack, the Republican-led administration has done exactly what the terrorists wanted in the first place: they listened to the message and played it over and over again for everyone to see and (re)experience. At the risk of a lifetime ban, the Republicans could not have responded better had Osama bin Laden been in the White House. We were meant to be afraid--to disrupt our society--to fear their strength.
Now ask yourself this: Before 9/11 had you ever heard of Al Qaeda? More than likely you hadn't. A few of you might have--those i tune with the news cycles and so-on. Today, everyone knows the name Al Qaeda. Their name recognition is incredible. They are the Coca Cola of terrorism. When most of us ask for a tissue we say Kleenex, not thinking about the name brand, and now the same is true of Al Qaeda.
The reason I believe the Democrats can fight terrorism is because I believe they will go back to attacking it through anti- and counter-terrorism tactics, e.g. Intelligence. Think of the movie Munich if you want a good example. I have no problem in my liberal heart with one of our SEALs putting two in the back of a terrorist's skull. That is how terrorism needs to be fought--not drawn out into the open-that's what they want. Flippin 11:57, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
You want CIA to assassinate people.Jaques 19:50, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
What do you do when confronted by scary, shadowy people who have no qualms with killing? Release your own scary, shadowy people who have no qualms with killing on them: the CIA.Fuzzy901 18:41, 18 April 2007 (PDT)
Yes. That is how the game is played. Would you rather we line our guys up on one side of the field and wait until they line up on the other? That is what the current administration is doing right now, which is why Harry Reid is right, we've already lost this war. However, I maintain we did not lose it recently--we lost it on 9/12. The way we win is with our shadowy guys versus their shadowy guys. The blunt force of the US military is misspent on this kind of "war." If you play chess, you know your pawns have seldom the chance to catch the queen that, say, a bishop or another queen has. We would do better to match them this way than to keep sending our soldiers out to e targets for their snipers. Flippin 15:55, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I personally believe the Republicans have "zero clue" about the war on terror. It is a lot more complicated than "blow up the middle east." Flippin 15:57, 20 April 2007 (EDT)


They've always been capable. Question should be are Democrats willing? To put an end to terrorism? Nancy Pelosi showed us her willingness to appease those that sponsor it. If only she had waved a piece of paper upon her return and said "Peace in our time!" Or at least posed on an anti-aircraft gun overlooking the Golan Heights. But there are plenty of Democrats in the armed forces right now. The let down is the Democratic leadership at the State and Federal levels.--Roopilots6 20:02, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Are the Republicans capable of fighting terrorism?

Does the question "is X capable of fighting terrorism" mean anything? Probably not, but lets pretend it does.

How successful have the Republicans been so far? I don't think Democrats would have done any better, and let me put that in bold, but I certainly challenge any notion that the Republicans have got terrorism under control. "Republicans-can-fight-terror-Democrats-can't" is pure slogan, playing politics with national security, and oversimplifying a complex situation.

  • There have been no new major terrorist attacks in the U.S. But that doesn't mean anything one way or another. It was seven years from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing until 9/11/2001. You can't tell whether what's been done was effective or whether we've just been lucky. (I don't even want to think about Poisson distributions and how many terrorist incidents you'd need to have per year to have statistical significance as to whether things were getting better or not). The best you can say is that it would probably be more difficult to bring off a successful attack in the very same way.
  • On December 17, 2001, Bush said "Osama bin Laden is going to be brought to justice. It may happen tomorrow, it may happen in a month, it may happen in a year. But he is going to be brought to justice. He's on the run. He thinks he can hide, but he can't. We've been at this operation now for about two and a half months, and we've made incredible progress."[1] The administration has always stated its war aims so vaguely that you can never prove that they've shifted, but bringing bin Laden to justice was, absolutely, a goal of the "war on terror," and as nearly as I can tell the adminstration has successfully managed to change the subject. (The goal was not "to contain him" or "to make him hide" or "to render him unimportant," it was to bring him to justice.)
  • Homeland Security's response to Katrina was a reasonable indication of the effectiveness of that organization, which was created and organized and had its leadership appointed under Republican control.
  • The 2006 National Intelligence estimate, as characterized by the Christian Science Monitor, "contends that the war in Iraq has increased Islamic radicalism, and has made the terror threat around the world worse."[2]

Do I know what to do about terrorism? No. Do the Democrats? No. Do the Republicans? No, and they've had the chance to deal with it from 9/11 through the elections in 2006 with control of Congress and pretty much a free hand. Dpbsmith 08:37, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Republicans understand they are fighting terror today. Democrats understand they way to stop terror is to retreat. Democrats are not realists and are not capable of taking the fight to the enemy, even less capable of defending the nation from terror. As proof- they want to weaken the Patriot Act, point out USA strategies for tracking money transactions, eliminate eavesdropping, tell our enemies America has lost. What will democrats do next to fight terror, gut the missle defense shield to pay for peanut storage?--jp 15:27, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
You miss the point entirely. I have studied this--in college--and the surest way to lose to terrorists is to "take the fight to them." We do much better when we kill them quietly. Flippin 15:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

But colleges are liberal, didn't you know? You'd better get homeschooled about terrorism. Leopeo 15:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Missile Defense Shield? Unless the missiles in questions are RPGs, when do we need a "missile defense shield" for? The Soviet Union is DEAD, folks. Get over it and start strategizing for the enemy we have NOW. And against Terror, a Panel Truck Defense Shield would be a much better investment.
And here's a little much-needed perspective. --Gulik2 13:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Democrats are the most capable in fighting Bush only, Republicans are so much more concerned about the fight against terror. --jp 12:29, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

  May 10, 2007 10:32 a.m. EDT
  Hoekstra Ridicules Dems' Environmental Intelligence
  The 2008 intelligence authorization bill put before Congress this week diverts CIA and other intelligence resources away 
  from terrorism-related issues to study global climate change – and Rep. Peter Hoekstra believes that’s flat-out wrong.
Okay. Let's do a Pascal's wager. I hate to be 'making tallies of lives', but from a utilitarian perspective, it's right on.

Say (and I know I'm pulling figures out of the air) the likelihood of a major terrorist attack, that kills 10,000 (which, one must remember, is a massive amount - especially for terrorism, which generally tries to achieve its goals through 'style' rather than 'substance', to use rather blunt terms) is 50% in the next 50 years.

Thus, on average, 5,000 people would lose their lives.

Global Warming - in the next 50 years, the IPCC estimates that 150 million will be displaced - maybe 10 million (a very conservative estimate) will die as a direct result of climate change. Let's go with the average notion on this site - say that there is a 1% chance (I know it's more, because the evidence sort of shows it) of the above taking place.

Thus, on average, 1.5 million would be displaced, and 100,000 would die.

See? Terrorist bombs<Catastrophic sea level rise and desertification --WikinterpreterLiaise with the cabal?

Are the Republicans capable of fighting terrorism? YES, they are.

Then they ought to prove it. As it is, as many people die from terrorist attacks EVERY DAY in Iraq as died at Virginia Tech. --Gulik2 13:21, 10 May 2007 (EDT)