Do you think that the war on terror is nessasary?

Answer 1

Absoloutely not. First, is terror defined as action by non governmental organizations, not action by governments? What started the war on terror? There seems to be general concensus among question answerers that Israel was established on land claimed, not necessarily owned, by Muslim Arabs, the Palestinians. Clearly that can only be solved by Israelis and Palestinians. Instead, the US got involved supporting Israel, and undefined Arab countries supported Palestine. Britain, with its involvement in the Middle East for close to a century, supported the US. Other nations got involved in the first Irag War. What an insult to countries surrounding Iraq! The countries which forced Iraq out of Kuwait were saying you - Iran, Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia,with Israel around the corner, could not control Iraq! Imagine Russian troops getting involved in Mexico's difficulty with guerillas! So the war on terror is not required. What is required is for ALL countries which have become involved in the Middle East, specifically in the fight between Israelis and Palestinians should apologize for getting involved, and get out. Leave it to the only people who have a hope of solving the disagreement - the Israelis and Palestinians.

Answer 2

No I don't think so because I'm pretty sure we already didn't like terrorism before we were attacked. I think it's just a way to take away rights in war time but I agree with fighting terrorism.

Answer 3

Of course, America should always try to protect itself. However that does not mean invade every country where a terrorist group is. Diplomacy should always be used first with other countries when we disagree with their policies and we should all work together to rid the world of terrorists. Just because Iran wants nuclear energy doesnt mean we should invade them. As the Bush Administration has done, (THIS time at least) we should pressure countries into doing the right thing (as in N. Korea too) but at the same time respecting that countries deserve the ability to improve the lives of their citizens. Dictators should be removed, not demagogues...though they often are as dangerous :)

Answer 4

well I guess if you think like president clinton, it was okay for terrorist to target and kill Americans around the world. You could go on TV and talk really really tough, maybe even lob a bomb at something, then when the camera's are shut off go back to his blow-jobs and business as usual. This President however just happens take issue with those terrorist that think targeting and killing Americans is acceptable. So yes, I along with most Americans and people around the world support the war on terror.

Answer 5

the umberella term no,

Defending the country from our eniemes, obviously yes yes and yes.

The beauty of the umbrella term is that Iraq is not the war on terror it was something else.....the trick was getting you to associate the two........

Terro has always existed...
Just as we had before, all the instutitions that exisisted before were effective, most of the intellegence we gather is still in the old fashion informant.


CIA anylyst knew there was something going down...they made a PDB for the president......

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/interviews/drumheller.html

The term war on terror, is like the war on drugs...
war of concepts or words of abstracts....

there exsisted terror attacks before.
The umberella trerm is not against a specific nation, as terror is an abstract.

terror is not a nation state, it will never declare surrender or sign a peace treaty.......hence it will always exist......hence there will always be a wartime president....

if there is a never ending war then the president will try to expand his power during a time of war...insert any excuse.or justification..........and our constititoun grows weaker and our freedoms disolve......


President BUsh FLIP FLOPED
then......
Osama "wanted dead or alive"

now
"i don't know where he is, no, frankly i just don't spend that much time on him"-

a few days ago it was reported that the counter terrorism unit specifically assigned to find him was shut down....

Answer 6

Hi, Cyndi. My name is Hank. The "war on terror" is not necessary. We have laws to deal with criminals, whether they are homegrown or international. The term war on terror is an erroneous way to explain what has happened to us here in America, anyhow.

Terror is a tactic of war. How can we wage war against terrorists when terrorists are in most every nation in the world? Are we going to wage war against all the countries in which terrorists are based? Personally, so far, I think we have been very selective of the countries in which we fight.

Just because someone from England is angry with the United States and does a suicide bombing here in America, does that give us the right to bomb London? No. What if Richard Reid had managed to get his shoe bomb lit? Would Big Ben be in rubble now?

Timothy McVeigh was from a Midwestern state when he bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City. Did we bomb Kansas? No.

What's happened is our overzealous misleaders in this country have seized an opportunity to do what office-hungry zealots have always done when they realize war can be used to advance their own interests.

No matter what their real interests, though, they will try to use war to maintain their office. Speaking of interests, have you ever noticed how the reasons for this war in Iraq keep changing? The reasons for war, like a river's current, flow wherever the least resistance is.

When it was discovered there were no w.m.d.s, or viable ones anyhow, the reason for war was changed to fighting for democracy. Now it has changed again to democracy and freedom from tyranny.

Isn't Saddam Hussein in jail now? Why are we still there? The river changed its course, again, to fighting terrorism there, instead of in the streets here.

Why are we building the largest embassy building in the World there? Why are our soldiers continuing to do their jobs with a huge target on their back?

This Administration is not the first governmental entity in history to wage war to increase their chance of remaining in office. There is nothing at all original in what these criminals are doing.

What you have asked Cyndi is an extremely complex and difficult question. There is no easy answer to it.

As an aside: If I was an Iraqi National, I would be extremely mad at America. What gives us (U.S.A.) the right to take the "so-called war on terror" to their streets. That faulty logic is often quoted as the reason we haven't suffered terrorists attacks here in our country.

Tens of thousand of Iraqis have been killed in our "war on terror" that this Administration so conveniently managed to export to Bagdhad. We have no right to cause the Iraqis to suffer because Osam Bin Laden is angry at us.

Did you know Bin Laden's father, a Yemini construction company owner at the time, seeded, ($50,000), George Bush's first public company?

We should be fighting Bin Laden and not his surrogates whom he and George Bush have decided to fight in their war of proxies. The day will come when the people, responsible for these heinous crimes against humanity, will be prosecuted for their proxy-fought wars.

Some of those involved might be dead by the time it happens, but, believe me, History will correct itself. It always does.

Hank Feral

Answer 7

It's necessary because now Al Qeada is weaker than 9/11 and we need to show these assholes that if they're gonna crash planes in our buildings then we're gonna come after them and **** them up. They attacked our interests for long enough taht we need to put down these terrorists in order to weaken their networks and to show them we won't be pushed around. It may unpopular but i'd rather these threats be weakened or gotten rid of instead of them being powerful and planning more attacks in our childrens future. Now if the rest of the world would stop being a bunch of ******* and actually help out instead of just hiding in the corning then these threats would've been done with long ago.

Answer 8

Terror is certainly to be eliminated but the methods, which are being adopted by u s in Afganistn and Iraq, by Russia in Chechenia or like-wise are of no permanent use.These methods are just balance of terror.Requarement is to make-up mind of peace for eleminating terror.

Answer 9

What warfare on terror? The 911 adult males all died. We all started a warfare adverse to Iraq and were very fortunate that they did not wrestle back. the only answer to truly win is to vote out the Republicans and New Labour on the subsequent elections.

Answer 10

There is no war on terror. It is a joke and a political scam. If there were truly a war on terror...the main focus would be on the hunt for Osama and his pathetic cohorts. Apparently...he is not a priority.