About the War on Terror?

Question

Every front on the War on Terror, both abroad and here at home, seems to ask one simple question: how far are we, as a country, willing to go to win the war? I think that as long as we hold back, there will always be places the enemy can go where we can't follow, places they can hide where we can't look, and things they can do that we can't stop. So, just how far should we take this thing? Where, if anywhere, should we draw the line? Would drawing the line anywhere be worth the possible loss of more American lives?

Here's another way to ask this; Are you more worried about going too far, or of not going far enough?

Answer 1

Your are so right!
This is a WAR and we can not hold back.
We need to operate within the confines of the Geneva Convention, yes. But we have so far and there is no reason to think that will change.
The simple fact is, as simple as it sounds, either fight them there or fight them here.
Who would not prefer there!
No living American remembers but during the War of 1812 we were invaded. The White House was burned, many Americans died here on their home soil.
Let us do what we must to prevent the same happening again!

Answer 2

The answer is that we need to draw the line at violating the basic principles of what it is to be Americans. Otherwise, why are we worth saving?

Or to put it another way, doesn't anybody remember "Give me liberty, or give me death" anymore? "Live free, or die." Do these not ring a bell? Have we become a nation of wimps who have lost that kind of courage?

Yes, we could enact all sorts of practices both here and abroad to further this "War on Terror." We could just arrest people without trial, wiretap every phone, monitor what people read and say, attack other countries without national provocation, etc. But at what point have we destroyed America in order to "save American lives"?

Americans are not cowards, willing to give up the freedoms we find *fundamental*, in order to feel a little safer.

So the answer is that we come down LIKE A HAMMER on people who kill Americans, as we came down on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan immediately after 9/11 (the best thing Bush has done). But we do not use this as a convenient opportunity to attack countries that have *not* directly attacked us, or to abandon our HAMMER when we can't find the enemy and turn instead to more convenient foes, as we did when we went into Iraq (the worst thing Bush has done). Otherwise we just make more martyrs, swell the recruiting ranks and training fields of our enemies, and send the message "if you stay out of our way, we will attack you anyway, so you might as well attack us now."

So we should draw the line at cowardly compromise of our own freedom, and at stupidly expanding the ranks of our enemies.

Answer 3

Definitely more worried more about not going far enough!
There is no doing things half *ss in a War...either do it accepting nothing short of victory or don't bother.
Terrorists have no limit to what they will do,nor a conscience about how they do it....and as long as we do then they win.
It is time that the gloves come off,and that the spineless liberals stop yacking about how this and that cannot be done...all IS fair in love and war.
All the way or no way.

Answer 4

Defiantly more worried about not going far enough. Here is a way to look at this war. Take baseball. You have away games and you have home games. It's the same with war. This one, thank God, is an away game. I know that my husband would rather be fighting this war away, over there rather then at home where I could be driving home with our children one day and get blown up by a road side bomb. Believe me if we don't go and fight them over there then we will be fighting them here. They already proved that with 9/11. They will bring this war to us if we set back and let them.

Answer 5

Why are American lives worth more than non-American lives? And what kind of crazy pills do we have to be on to think that demolishing countries and causing massive suffering to people of other countries is going to reduce the number of people wishing to attack the American establishment? Violence breeds violence. Put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi citizen who has lost family members for no reason they can figure out. Would you be angry, or happy that the US has come and 'saved' your country? Check out some of the source material, especially the video section.

Answer 6

When fighting war, one must accept that it is both a dark art and a skill requiring deep understanding.

http://modern-warfare.org

Listed on this web site are the 144 immutable articles of war. Interestingly, the US government has failed on just about every single one of them. There is nothing more terrible that incompetence in prosecuting war. If only they'd be better students of it, fewer military would have and will lose their lives.

Answer 7

Your question is well reasoned, but you forgot one salient point: we're not going to be alone in fighting this soon. Iraq will gain enough stability to begin shouldering the burden of governing itself, policing itself, and sustaining itself.

Soon, the Iraqis will be looking for these terrorists. Public opinion and local enforcement will make it harder for terrorists to get new recruits.

We have to see this to its conclusion. The war on terror will be a slow, tedious, and methodical process. It's not like WWII where we get to celebrate and have splashy headlines and parades.

Answer 8

i'm worried about not going far enough to protect ourselves. they want to take our guns and they want us to trust them (government). but when things like 9/11 happen i just want to arm myself and protect my children. if terrorist can do that who says they won't hurt our children next.

i think we need to be at war with the terrorist to protect what is called freedom and liberty. without that we are not a county,but individuals



oh and for those who watch the news for every bad thing they show on the news 7 good things happen. but the good things isn't what we want to hear about. we want to hear how many deaths there were to day and how many bombs went off. but regaurdless if we were there or not the bombs would still be happening and the iraq's would still be miserable

Answer 9

ya, since when is it the states' job to police the world, eh? And why do they think that they can eradicate everything that is against them? It's just like the nazis, even if they had taken over the world, the world would always bite back. Why don't americans see the obvious similarity between them and the nazis? very scary.

Answer 10

I think if we'd have nuked the middle east on Sept. 12th 2001, no one would have blamed us. We should have been quick and decisive, now it's a media war and it might end up like Viet Nam, with no winners.