It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Will Democrats stall war against terror? Consequences?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 11:22 AM
N. Korea sells technology and atomic bombs to Iran, which forwards them to their terrorists militias. We will then have nuclear terrorists on European or U.S. soil before or during the next president's term! Perhaps even an explosion which no one will be able to trace ... what are the odds?

posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 11:43 AM
I don't know about you . . . but I see it more as an European problem that our problem.

After all we have more important issues like immigration and our economy to worry about now.

Let our allies and business partners like China to deal with it.

Occur Bush should have done something about NK a long time ago, instead of channeling his war on terror on a country that had nothing to do with terror at the time of invasion . . . Iraq.

I guess priorities about the war on terror were only to meet certain goals like holding to oil reserves.

You know Americans already has shown that they know exactly what the war on terror is all about they showed yesterday in the polls.

Now let target the real problems.

posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 11:54 AM
The war on terror is going to be drastically hurt. There is going to be less money put into the military and IF a democrat is elected president there will be no war on terror either.

Were damned either way. I support the war on terror, but not the way it is going now. But I don't want to see it go back to head in the sand like in the clinton years either.....

posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 11:55 AM
I see it both as a European problem and American. That's why we now have NATO and not just the U.S. alliance in Afghanistan. But NATO cannot act, against Iran for example, if there is no political will in the U.S., even if it is the wisest thing to do.

posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 11:59 AM
"The war on terror is going to be drastically hurt. "

For now, but if we sleep on our guard, it just means we will have to spend more money on it in the future. Even if the next president will be democrat.

posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 01:10 PM
From an Independent's point of view...

Iran - U.S and E.U. HAVE to work together along with Russia and China and other wealthy nations to prevent them from developing nukes (or buying them from North Korea). Democrats need to push hard for more diplomacy on the part of the U.S AND other world leaders to come to a solution with the nuclear issue. SAME AS NORTH KOREA (below).

Iraq - The damage is already done as the U.S. led invasion 'undid' Saddam's rule which was largely Bush's (The Father) answer to Iranian Shiite Fundamentalism in the 1970's (in other words, Saddam's Iraq was a 'Buffer' against Shiite fundamentalism in Iran). The Shiite majority has now been unleashed and the international community has got to get involved to help bring civility and unity to Iraq. No military can stop the Sunni-Shiite religious war BUT the military CAN seal off Iraq's borders with Syria and Iran to prevent foreign fighters/terrorists/weapons from flooding in as they have been and fueling the bloodshed and killing U.S./coalition soldiers (recently retired generals have been stating that for a while). Democrats need to help get the international community involved.

Afganistan - Democrats need to INSIST that the Generals run this WAR instead of beaurocratic politicians. Eliminate Al Qaida once and for all and get Bin Laden dead or alive. Give the military what they need and get some financial accountability in the Pentagon.

North Korea - international community has to prevent N. Korea from selling nukes. SAME AS IRAN (above).

posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 03:47 PM
Well Prokurator I didn’t see much in your post about why you think the democrats will hurt the war on terror. Aimlessly said more through…

Firstly: I think the U.S military has all the money it needs. Rumsfeld had been tight on troop commitments, but I think this was because he figured more troops equals a higher rate of politically troublesome troop deaths. This has clearly backfired more than most people expected with us loosing control of much of the Iraq and Afghanistan situation. However I find it hard to understand exactly why it has anything to do with a shortage of money, rather only a shortage of political will to accept bad news for the longer term. Since 9/11 U.S military spending has risen by about 200 billion. I think Rumsfeld simply took a risk; and the has price failed it.

Secondly: I do not understand why there will be no war on terror with the democrats in power. It’s absurd. Do you mean they’re just going to let terrorist come in and blow up our buildings? And then expect to get re-elected? How many democrats aren’t career politicians? Or are they all ideological men who believe in doing the right thing? (the type I would say western countries need). (Make up your mind because both is a contradiction).

Reality is that the Democrats and the Republicans are so equally baffled by the war on terror that they are talking of working together. This is a no-brainer for the Republicans as it will deny the Democrats less opportunity when things go wrong because the Republicans can say “the Democrats would have done the same” both parties should say “your choice has been successfully limited by our new found relationship”.
People are angry with the Republicans because of their corruption; and because of their lying (particularly over Iraq). Hence its Iraq and not Afghanistan that’s the big issue (even though Afghanistan seems to have turned into a bit of disaster too). Soldier’s deaths aside one way to measure the Taliban’s success is the countries ever bigger annual opium crop.

top topics


log in