The Liberal solution to this situation

I always felt like it was important to have compassion for everyone, enemies and friends. I feel subhuman without it.

 

<B>Honestly, Shanna, I though of you when I added 'liberals like her'. </B>

I apologize on that remark -- somehow, I totally missed the "like her" part when reading it.

<B>Regardless of our semantics, am I mistaken that liberals, in general, are considered softer on crime? </B>

Depends on how you define soft on crime. In general, liberals tend to favor rehab over imprisonment, and life-sentences over the death penalty. However, neither of these say that a liberal has any less interest in eliminating crime, and in no way do these traits indicate that they are "softer" on crime.

Some people feel locking people up deters criminals the most. Others feel that rehabbing people helps try to reduce the number of crepeat-criminals in society. Both are different ways of dealing with it, but the goals are the same: to reduce or eliminate crime.

Beyond that, the "New Democrats" (1990's and 2000's) tend to have similar views on crime as do Republicans. Notice that Clinton was the one who pushed tougher laws (3-strikes) and more police.

The "soft on crime" label is a Republican-pushed label to make Democrats look bad, just as the intolerance label is one by Democrats to make Republicans look bad.

<B>What alternative implication then, makes sense when you have both a criminal and a victim?</B>

You can have both. Dealing with crime is not an either-or proposition if you believe you can rehab the criminal into a normal citizen (given that, except for some murderers, the criminal is going to reenter entire society at some point regardless)

 

Hey, I can understand how that can happen!

 

Well, I'm one who does believe that we need retaliation, but I'm not convinced yet that means full-out war or a 'gutting' of the entire Middle East. I don't think many of you understand the enormity of that.

But I also don't give a flying f*ck about 'liberal' or any other outdated label that still resides in those clinging to politics for a definition of everything in the world. So if that's what I am, whatever. I don't give my support through labels, only to people and causes that I feel are just.

That being said, if we are going to rush into retaliation soon, I'd want to see precise, surgical, ruthless strikes against terrorist leaders, organizations and 'camps'. We keep hearing about a 'New War' - let's see if that's true. This, obviously, means more than just Afghanistan - this is around the world. We don't need to simply blow up countries, because let's face it many types of terrorists aren't afraid to die, we need to take the kind of step that sets the mere existence of terrorism back to where they can't recover.

Like I said, this means more than just targeting one group in one country. It's time to see just how willing our allies are to back up their talk of a 'war against terrorism', and see us unite to try and end it once and for all.

Because, guess what folks - you go in, blow up Afghanistan, maybe even kill someone like Bin Laden, and it means two things: jack and sh*t. You can pack it in and call it a day if you like; but all you've done is buy time. For our children, or grandchildren, will be the ones to see the next event - which would probably be even more heinous then this.

Terrorism is bigger than that. You have to react bigger than that. Guess what? War sucks, particularly when it really accomplishes little. I'm surprised some of you have to learn that. We're supposed to be the most advanced nation in the world, and in the beginning of a new millenium; let's see if we can act like it. Let's do something that will TRULY impact the good of this world. Because otherwise, politics aside, <b>I</b> at least will know that all we've seen is something to ease the tide and quell the outcry of the general American public. Nothing more.

 

Nolen, yes, it was my post. I liked your ideas. To not only call yourself a liberal, but a "peace loving one probably caused some on this board to almost stroke out.

 

12) Stop the irrational backing of Israel. If they want to continually fight their neighbors over a few square miles of Jerusalem and additonal West Bank settlements, they have to do it on their dime. No more UN vetoes for them, which just generate hatred toward us and allow them to feel less isolated in their intransigience.

So stop backing our ONE solid ally in the middle east? That's not exactly wise

Timing, Ally or not it has been Isreals own aggresion (with the full backing ofthe American government) that has caused much of the problems that they are going through now.
And by the way, did you know they took military secrets that we gave them and sold them to China? Great ally huh?

 

Okay Timing, Lynus, at least a few people have responded. Where did you go? Waiting for your response to the topic you started.

 

He won't be taken alive. I was watching an interview with a Bin Laden biographer who said that his men have been ordered to shoot him rather than have him captured alive. He basically sees himself as dead already, and every day he lives is like borrowed time.

In this sense, I think it would be a coup if we were to capture him alive, give him a trial in which we would show the entire world his involvement and leadership in so many atrocities, and then execute him him in a civilized, unemotional, non-revenge-based manner.

But if not? Eh.

 

Timing- I must apologize for attributing that quote to you.

"We are at war, and if Afghanistan and other states end up as parking lots, then fu*k 'em - they started it." was stated by Treeman in the carve up the middle east thread, not you. Again, sorry about that.

Look, you were the one who created this thread pointing fingers and making categorical statements about 'Liberals.' You issued a challenge, it was answered, and it annoys me you would still ignore points you agree with, likely because they were stated by liberals.
So glynch or myself made some obvious points? What the hell do you expect? Very precious few on this board, regardless of political alignment, are going to have full understanding of tactical deployment in this area. To this day I'm still learning more, and you bet I'm doing hours of reading every day to educate myself on many areas of the topic. Dude, it's pretty clear your first post to open this thread was the typical right-wing accusation that peace-loving liberals would rather sit and talk and deconstruct rather than make a plan of action for a present problem. I think that accusation has been answered. Fact is, most liberal slanted posts have stated that they want something done, want the perpetrator apprehended. As you've stated, that's pretty obvious. We all want that. So what the hell else do you expect us to say?

The liberal slant on this often discusses prevention, action in other political arenas in other countries which could have a direct, long-term bearing on this. You know, a chance for peace, lame s*** like that. Of course we want the mother****ers who did this brought to justice! What else is there to say?

I agree, Bin Laden will almost never be taken alive. My point about him going to a world court is a best-case scenario.

And I still stand by my point that it's a waste of money sending billions of dollars to an ally that commits human rights atrocities.

 

I'm liberal except on the death penalty issue and I am a bit hawkish in areas that conservatives tend to ignore. I find the fault in this with Bush Sr. he had the chance to finish of Saddam and didn't. At that point Saudi Arabia needed our protection from Saddam and our troops had to stick around. Bin Laden is most angry at the presence of what he considers crusaders in the land of Mecca. Also Bush Jr. let the Israeli thing just happen he didn't criticize any of the bad things Sharon was doing to cause the escalation to its current state of crisis. I don't think it's been realistic that we would stop being allies with Israel but our responsibility as a "moral leader" of the world is to make sure that we do not become an abedder of this type of hedgemony. Let's get Bin Ladin and then Saddam and then lets try to make friends of the people who resent us reasonably by trying to do better by them. There will always be extremists and we have to be watchfull but our example as a nation has to be in line with our ideals. And the Star Wars idea is just going to get us into real dangerous territory. We need to spend the money on equipment to monitor nuclear packages leaving the former Soviet Union and coming here as well as chemical and biological threats. i have more but i gotta go.

 

From other postst of yours I've seen, it seems you have a depth of knowledge on the subject- I would really like to read it. Of course I'm gone for a day and there are 50 new threads.

Actually, I do think we're in agreement on Israel. We need to exert pressure on them. All I've seen is categorical agreement, which is ridiculous. Cutting off all aid would of course also be ridiculous; their neighbors would gladly eat them alive if abandoned. I don't mean cut all support, but at least save some of our cash for a better cause.