View Full Version : How The Democrats Would Fight The War On Terror?
Should the Democrats gain control of Congress, they will first declare that the War on Terror is not a war at all. They will say it is a law enforcement matter. How do we know this? Because that’s what they have been saying all along. We are in a war which requires the use of every resource possible, the most important of which are our uniformed service personnel. The Democrats want to fight it with FBI agents in neat business suits.
Why have I taken the time to document the way the Democrats would handle terrorism? Because you are in grave danger. If the Democrats are able to take advantage of the Foley debacle, the timing of which they engineered to change the course of the election, it will become impossible to convict terrorists.
If they gain control of Congress, their rule will include reversing all the meticulous work the Republicans have put into devising a system of military courts which treats detainees fairly, while allowing us to interrogate them to prevent further attacks on America.
The Democrats are fighting for the terrorists, not because they care about them. They are using this situation as a political club with which to bash the Republicans so they can take power.
People often write and ask me how they can help win the war on terror. Here’s how. Do everything you can to defeat the 75% of Democrats who voted against the Military Commissions Act. By doing that, they publicly put themselves in the position of aiding and abetting the enemy. Let your conscience be your guide regarding voting for the patriotic Democrats who voted for the bill. But don’t let one of the 75% keep their power.
And don’t just go out and vote. That’s vital, because many Conservatives get complacent in mid-term elections.
But do more.
Encourage others to vote.
Give someone a ride to their precinct.
Talk about the issues with your friends.
Be a citizen.
How The Democrats Would Fight The War On Terror? (http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=3604)
Watch 12 minutes of the award winning film, Obsession; Radical Islam's War Against the West (http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/12min.htm)
As the November 7th election draws closer the political rhetoric on both sides of the aisle is heating up. One of the most deceptive notions coming out of the Democratic camp is that the Republican Party is campaigning on a “platform of fear.” Democrats advance this idea simply because Republicans are addressing the deadly serious issue of the war against Islamofascism. In reality, Democrats are either confusing fear with focus or they are intentionally deceiving the American people for political gain.
One thing is abundantly clear; the most important issue in this election is the on-going confrontation between the West and Islamofascism. It was the most important issue in the last election and the election before that. It will remain the most important issue until Western Civilization vanquishes the threat posed by radical Islamic fundamentalism.
The war against Islamofascism is more important than bickering over gay marriage or whether “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. It is more important than the endless debate over tax cuts and entitlement funding. It is undoubtedly more important than all of the inflated egos and political scandals in Washington DC combined.
There are many reasons why the war against Islamofascism is the most important issue facing the country. The fact that it has brought deadly terrorist attacks to the shores of the United States is paramount among them. So too is the fact that the enemy – radical Islamic fundamentalists whose ideology fosters the belief of a master race, a belief akin to Hitler’s – has declared that they want to see the end of the United States, Israel, Britain and Australia.
In the end, their goal is the extermination of Western Civilization. Add to the mix that nation states headed by radical Islamists have friendly relations with a nuclear capable North Korea and a Socialist, anti-American punk in Venezuela, and protectors in Russia and China, and only the terminally stupid can believe Islamofascism is, as many Democrats allege, a politically concocted illusion.
Confusing Fear with Focus (http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/fsalvato/war_on_terror/10272006.htm)
We've all witnessed the political pretenders who say they voted for the Iraq war, but then have no problem when leaked classified information is used against it. Nothing is prohibited in their two-faced attempt to gain power, even when their tactics do our nation lasting harm.
The spin is that, by fighting terrorists, we somehow are the ones creating the terrorists. That thinking harkens back to the pre-9/11 days of waiting to be attacked before responding. What these people don't understand is that our government's most sacred duty is to protect the American people.
Think about it. After 9/11, there were just a few options open to us and all involved invading somebody. The only way to fight terrorism was to go on the offense and hit them so hard that they can't hit back. And so we did. But invading Afghanistan alone was not enough to alter the root causes of terrorism.
The real reason for the Iraq invasion was that it was strategically necessary to influence the entire Middle East. The invasion was meant to show that we meant business in this war against al Qaeda.
Wavering members of congress have been calling for a timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq. This is all hot air in an attempt to score political points. They'll say anything to get elected. Nowhere in the history of warfare has a nation pre-announced such a timetable to their enemies. It would be disastrous.
Whether democracy succeeds in Iraq is up to the Iraqi people, not us. But they are watching our domestic politics too, and many more may decide to side with our enemies based on what the "loyal opposition" in Washington is doing to undermine the war. We cannot afford such irresponsibility.
It is naive to think that by getting out of Iraq, we can spare ourselves from the clash between radical Islam and the rest of the world. With Iran next door moving steadily toward a nuclear bomb, the question now is whether we are going to remain serious about terrorism, or frivolously pretend it is no longer important.
It's up to us, the ones with a personal stake in winning the war, to make our voices heard. We owe that to our nation's future. And we owe it to our sons and daughters who wear its uniform.
Folks, Let's Talk Seriously About The War (http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest/lukens/10282006.htm)
The Democrats' hang-up on Iraq exacerbates their underestimation of the global terrorist threat. Their mantra is that if we hadn't attacked Iraq, we could better deal with the real terrorists in Afghanistan. John Kerry even suggested the other day that terrorists are in 65 nations because we attacked Iraq.
The implication is that if we hadn't attacked Iraq and had focused on capturing or killing Osama, the terrorist threat would be all but over. Even now, if we would just withdraw, the terrorist threat to the United States would be dramatically reduced.
But Democrats refuse to comprehend that Islamic extremists were already at war with us before we attacked Iraq and no amount of appeasement short of our wholesale conversion to radical Islam would have enabled us to escape their violent wrath. Iraq or no Iraq, we were already in the midst of a 50- to 100-year-long war on terror. Foregoing Iraq would not have given us a get-out-of-war-free card. We never had that option.
The Democrats' fixation (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52643)
This month has been especially violent in Iraq. The reason? Dick Cheney, America’s vice-president, argued on Tuesday October 30th that Iraqi insurgents and al-Qaeda fighters are trying to influence next week’s mid-term congressional vote.
“It’s my belief that they're very sensitive of the fact that we’ve got an election scheduled,” said Mr Cheney. They are trying to “break the will of the American people.”
Quite what that would mean is unclear. Mr Cheney presumably wanted to imply that fighters in Iraq would rather see lily-livered, “cut and run” Democrats in control of Congress, not stout, “stay the course” Republicans.
But insurgents in Iraq, and certainly some in al-Qaeda, probably do have an interest in the poll. More bombs, bloodshed and misery may indeed persuade more voters that Iraq is mired in an unwinnable war, increasing the pressure on America to leave.
How the rest of the world sees America’s mid-term elections (http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8100654)
Many have referred to the opposing ideas coming from the Democrats and Republicans as "pre-9/11" and "post-9/11" - Democrats advocating the policies that were in place during the lead-up to the terrorist attacks and Republicans advocating those America has pursued since. The characterization is eye-brow raising, but the closer one looks, the more accurate it seems.
To Republicans, the lessons of 9/11 are clear. We are at war with Islamist extremists and have been since at least as long ago as the first World Trade Center bombings in 1993. More to the point, they are at war with us. The goal of our enemies - global domination through murder, terror, and, at the earliest possible date, the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction - was stated long before 19 young men hijacked four planes five Septembers ago.
They have no political agenda or list of grievances. Their perversion of a decent religion has left them with no incentive to pursue either peace or progress. They want, quite simply, to terror-bomb us and our values back to the Dark Ages. As far as we are concerned, our enemies present to us a choice not between war and peace but between war and chaos. They will fight us whether we choose to fight back or not. As far as Republicans are concerned we are in a fight for our freedom and even our lives.
Our national security policy will not rely on the kindness of terrorists. We are criticized for our lack of an exit strategy in Iraq, but our exit strategy has been clear from day one: winning. The divisions between these ideas and those espoused by Democrats on the campaign trail could not be deeper. Democrats have called for the immediate removal of troops from Iraq. They have opposed any effort to seal America's borders from infiltration. They have voted to cut our intelligence and defense budgets and against a missile defense shield. They opposed the Patriot Act and recent legislation necessary to allow our troops to interrogate terrorist prisoners.
In short, Democrats do not believe in the Global War on Terror. I don't mean that they don't support it, though they don't. What I mean is Democrats don't believe the war actually exists. While Republicans believe the biggest threat to American freedom and security is the evil ideology that planned and executed the murder of 3,000 of our countrymen five years ago, and continues planning today, Democrats think the biggest threat to America is... Republicans.
The Choice Could Not Be Clearer (http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2006/the_choice_could_not_be_clearer)
Like many Republicans, I am furious with the recent GOP leadership -- for pork-barrel spending, for jet-setting on convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff's dime and for showing more interest in retaining power than serving the interests of the American people.
Still, I see no remedy in replacing good and bad Republicans with Democrats who want to set a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Democrats argue that a timetable will put pressure on the Iraqi government to perform.
I know some voters want to believe that is true. But the one sure result will be to confirm to the followers of Osama bin Laden that bin Laden was right to dismiss America as a "paper tiger" that "after a few blows" runs in defeat.
The 2006 races have featured candidates who compete over who is the biggest victim, but I don't think Americans want to win the "biggest loser" title in the war against terrorists.
The Dubious Race to Be the Biggest Loser (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/the_dubious_race_to_be_the_big.html)
Watch 12 minutes of the award winning film, Obsession; Radical Islam's War Against the West (http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/12min.htm)
Sat., November 4 at 8 p.m. ET
This weekend, join host E.D. Hill as FOX News examines, "Obsession: The Threat of Radical Islam."
They are the most vital questions of our time: How deadly is the Islamic terror threat to the world and especially to the United States? Do terrorists really want to destroy our economy, our civilization, our way of life or is this just an exaggeration?
A frightening new documentary by filmmaker Wayne Kopping (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:siteSearch%28%27Wayne%20Kopping%27%29;) seeks to answer those questions. Kopping examined reels of Islamic news footage, interviewed former terrorists and obtained undercover footage from the lairs of the terrorists and jihadists.
What he found, is something FOX News believes every American should know.
It's a FOX News special that you can't afford to miss — "Obsession: The Threat of Radical Islam," Saturday at 8 p.m. ET
Obsession: The Threat of Radical Islam (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227057,00.html)
The most effective form of counterterrorism fights not the terrorists but the ideas that motivate them. This strategy involves two main steps. First, defeat the Islamist movement just as the fascist and communist movements were defeated — on every level and in every way, making use of every institution, public and private. This task falls mainly on non-Muslims, Muslim communities being generally incapable or unwilling to purge their own.
In contrast, only Muslims can undertake the second step, the formulation and spread of an Islam that is modern, moderate, democratic, liberal, good-neighborly, humane, and respectful of women. Here, non-Muslims can help by distancing themselves from Islamists (http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/227) and supporting moderate Muslims.
Although theoretically possible, the weakness of its advocates (http://misskelly.typepad.com/miss_kelly_/2006/11/more_on_imam_ma_1.html) at present makes moderate Islam appear impossibly remote. But however dim its current prospects, the success of moderate Islam ultimately represents the only effective form of counterterrorism. Terrorism, begun by bad ideas, can only be ended by good ones.
How to End Terrorism (http://catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0170.htm)
Randall271933
03-04-2007, 08:20 PM
Im overseas and will be in the army next year. Dont know if this war will ever end
CoreIssue
03-04-2007, 09:06 PM
We are in a loose loose situtation.
Muslims will never find peace.
Jessie
03-04-2007, 10:29 PM
hate to say it but things are going to get worse, God said it would.
does'nt matter what they will do.
Randall, may the Lord be with you!
a.baker
07-10-2007, 06:28 PM
Everything is such a mess. I don't think this or that will fix anything. I think it will just trade problems for problems. Republican or democratic views are both wrong and right. I also agree it will only get worse. I have a lot of hope that the end of times are now but its not for me to decide thats Gods. We have signs that it is now but we are still missing some. So that says to me that things are getting set up to get started for the end of times. Just know Him and have a good relationship with Him. That is the war. Gods war! Our earthly war over seas is there but it also points to signs of the end of times as it progresses and lingers.
kay-gee
02-25-2008, 09:27 PM
Starting to seriously worry about my girl Hillary. A nail biter!
all the best...
Christian
07-02-2008, 06:13 PM
Yea, God Bless man. Still awesome you're serving for the greatest country of course. But indeed the if we leave we lose, if we stay we lose. But if we leave now we lose 'worse' i guess so im proud if you go over there, etc. You can't really stereotype either party but the 'Popular Media Goblin Democrat' wants to reduce the war effort. Slow withdraw, cut back on 'big missions' etc. To answer the topic question the best i can being a news hound ;p
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.