Do libs support any part of the war on terror?

I support ending the war on terror by accomplishing something positive and not just trying to scare every one into becoming republicans. The real war on terror needs to be fought right here at home by closing our borders to illegals and the Islamic extremist that can blend right in as just another illegal.The state of our border security is deplorable.Bring the troops home after establishing and placing in power whatever puppet Bush wants in power in Iraq.Bring them home and place them armed on our borders. stop the loop hole in our security.If Bush would seal our borders ,place the military on the border and start a zero tolerance .hell then even Id vote republican.......oh wait well at least Id think about it.

And I'm not a hugger Liberal. I'm a get out of my country,concealed weapon permit carrying, illegal

immigration fighting,money contributing,type of liberal.Does that answer your question.

We support the fight against terrorism, which is not the same thing. The "War on Terror" is a umbrella catchphrase designed to justify anything and everything that the current administration wants to do in terms of foreign military adventure or domestic expansion of executive power.

As to military action, I hear virtually no opposition at home or abroad to the decision to invade Afghanistan, because the Taliban government was clearly complicit in the Sept. 11 attacks. Iraq, on the other hand, had only the most tenuous links to al-Qaeda, and had no demonstrable connection to the attacks on WTC and the Pentagon. The attacks were simply used as a means to sell a plan that was in motion long before the attacks occurred.

(Note that we put over 100,000 soldiers into Iraq and caught Saddam in about five minutes, but we only put a little more than one-tenth as many men into Afghanistan and we're still nowhere near getting Osama almost four years later; what does that say about the real prioritiy?)

As to the expansion of executive authority, some of us think that liberty is worth preserving even when it becomes inconvenient. Yes, it would be easier to catch the bad guys if we just flat out suspended the Constitution, but if we did that we'd never get it back.

Once again, I must quote B. Franklin: "Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."

This is what our current leaders ask of us; that we sacrifice liberty for safety. They say it is necessary to fight the "War on Terror" and justified by the president's authority to command in time of war.

But this is by definition, an unending war. Therefore, the compromising of liberty will not be reversed if we do not oppose it now.

"But we're only going after the bad guys," one might say. Have you ever known government to use any power it has only for good and never for vile purpose? Someday those who support this president will regret giving the presidency this sort of unrestrained power.

There are a lot of us who love this country because of the Constitution that makes it free, and we are not disloyal simply because we dare to question authority. Love isn't blind, or at least shouldn't be.

I get the feeling that you dno't really want an answer - you just want to be an a$s. But, I could be wrong.

Everyone supports an initiative against terrorism. No one wants it in this country, except of course, terrorists and possibly governments who can use busts and arrests to their advantage. However, if your "war on terror" includes illegal tapping of phones, putting undeserved people on terror watch lists, invading the privacy of citizens, falsely infusing fear into society, lying to the public about invading countries, illegal wars, poorly fought wars, and ballooning budgets, then no, most "libs" are not for that. Which is ironic, beacuse it's always been the conservatives who are so adamantly against invasion of privacy and fiscal irresponsibility, and are usually for the protection of the individual from unlawful government stalking. Unfortunately, too many people only base views on if the person expressing them has an (R) or a (D) after their names. Imagine if this were Clinton doing all that Bush is and has done! lol. But since there's an (R) after the name of the politicians supporting these policies, the neoCONS (well, the dumb ones anyway) fall into line with it.

This is a false dichotomy, that is, this is a logical fallacy in which on presents two options as the only possible choices, when there are in fact, other options. For example "Either you lie or you tell the truth" is a logical fallacy of this sort, ignoring such possibilities as the honest mistake or silence. On the basis of such obvious dishonesty in the question, I 'thumbs down' it.

A closer allegory would be the notion that one either (A) supports the so-called War on Drug or (B) condones and encourages drug use of any and all kinds -- it ignores the possibility that one may feel drug abuse to be a bad thing, but disagree with current approach to addressing the problem.

Terrorism is a serious problem and should be addressed. The current administration's way of addressing it is stupid beyond belief.

Big misconception there buddy, I don't support the war on terror because the whole phrase is too broad. If it was such a big deal why hasn't the Republican government who is in office as we speak strickly tighten security at the borders and shorelines of the US to prevent possible terrorists from coming into the US? That would be a start, securing the borders to deter as much as possible anyone coming to the country through the borders and shorelines who could possibly or do have an agenda to cause mayhem and destruction in any way shape or form towards the US. Yup i'm a stupid liberal ain't I.

It is mischaracterized as a war for political purposes. It's a criminal prosecution. Only a State can conduct war.

To say it's war on terrorism is to put in the class of the war on poverty or the war on drugs, a never-ending struggle that ends up in the same place that the "war" on terror should end up, at the Supermax in Florence, CO, where Moussaoui (who was guilty of little except stupidity, but admitted to much and well deserved his conviction for that alone) is housed:

http://www.westword.com/issues/1995-07-12/news/fea...

"Liberal" or "Conservative" has nothing to do with this. Unless you are aiming at a One-Party State, and agreeing as some Y! members argue, that all liberals are commies and that being a Democrat should be an indictible offense akin to treason.

What are we doing on this "war on terror"? Having a war in Iraq that's had nothing to do with it?? I personally feel we need to bring our troops back to American soil to defend this country. I'm a Liberal and ex-military and I do not think being in Iraq is doing ANYTHING to fight the "war on terror". It takes a lot of intelligence to hide behind a keyboard and trash people. Try posting some questions that really have some meaning instead of childish rhetoric.

The attack on Afghanistan was justified and necessary. The motives behind the Iraq war were not. What's worse is that country will dissolve into civil war and become a training ground for more terrorists.

Why did Bush, Sr. leave Saddam in power? To avoid the mess Jr. has just created. There was NO ONE to replace him.

WE SUPPORT THE WAR ON TERROR...you know, the one where we were supposed to find Osama Bin Laden. WE DON'T SUPPORT THE WAR IN IRAQ...that's the one where we went looking for Sadaam Hussein. Wrong guy! The administration has tried to combine the two conflicts into one, but those of us with at least half of a brain realize that they were seperate. Of course now that the terrorists have migrated into Iraq to fight us there, they are forced to be the same fight.

I do. I don't think the war should have gone to Iraq and I'm REALLY PISSED that the m.f-ing Taliban is back in parts of Afghanistan and just blew up a bunch of people last week.

I want Osama head on a stick and his body swinging from a tree, I want these terrorist stopped. I really don't care that the Iraqi people are "free", I care that new terrorist groups are popping up and getting funding from AL QUEDA...THE REAL ENEMY - not the bloody bath party.

Hows that for support.

Why do people think libs stand for death on our front door with no recourse. We simply don't think the war was with Iraq and we should never have gone in there before getting the people who orchestrated putting 4 planes into buildings (only 1 failed)!!!!!