2006-06-18 22:44:23 · 8 answers · asked by JoeThatUKnow 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Strength of the military plays a key role, but determination is equally important. If the soldiers aren't focused on their missions and determined to win, victory can't be assured.
2006-06-18 22:48:18 · answer #1 · answered by Greg 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, it should be common sense that you study a problem before you attempt to solve it. If the US was serious about fighting terrorism then the first thing they should have done is to find out what causes people to undertake this action. They would definitely find out that terrorists have one common rationalization and that is dissatisfaction. Now it gets complicated because terrorism is not an entity that one can wage war against. It is an abstract noun and it has been around since people have been persecuted by authoritarian states (since ancient times.) By declaring war on terrorism the US has placed itself in both a permanent state of war and in a war that can not be possibly won, especially through military means.
My answer to your question is obvious. Military might is not needed at all and it should be equally obvious to all that correcting the problems that cause terrorism is the only way to prevent it.
2006-06-19 06:01:13 · answer #2 · answered by Weatherman 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Military might is actually the LEAST effective method for fighting terrorism. For military might to work, all of the terrorists would need to conveniently sit around in one country and wait for us to invade. It was somewhat effective in Afghanistan when a terror-supporting group controlled the country. We were able to remove them from power (sort of. The Taliban now apparently controls large parts of southern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan). But when fighting multi-national organizations like Al-Queda, it is basically useless.
We spent $250 billion to invade a country with no weapons and no terrorists, and basically CREATED a generation of terrorists, who we now spend billions more to fight. It's rather a sad joke.
We need to attempt to infiltrate these groups. I'm hoping the CIA has Muslim agents at the mosques and universities throughout Europe and the Middle East, but I doubt they do...
2006-06-19 08:39:19 · answer #3 · answered by lamoviemaven 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
Military might might be an effective answer to terrorism if it was applied to remove all the persons involved with the terrorists acts but in reality, each death results in the creation of more potential terrorists due to the need for revenge, or the pragmatics of patriotism to the cause.
2006-06-19 06:13:24 · answer #4 · answered by centurion613 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course not, even though surgical method sometimes is good for cancer treatment. But as every doctor will tell You - prevention of disease is much better and cheaper than actually treating it, i.e. have a healthy life, don't smoke, drink, go for sports, read books etc.
This allegory is applicable to terrorism as well.
2006-06-22 04:05:58 · answer #5 · answered by MA IR 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I think we should just discuss the problem and hope it goes away. How else would you like to fight terrorism? What I don't get is why we're trying to rebuild Iraq. Why we didn't just get Sadaam and get out. Of course, then we'd be accused of being inhumane.
2006-06-19 14:22:17 · answer #6 · answered by irishharpist 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well we could sit down and smoke a peace pipe with them like the Democrats would if in office. Of course they just might lose their heads over it.
2006-06-19 05:58:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no
2006-06-26 00:08:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋