The war on terrorism will end when the terrorist is voted out of office.
2006-07-17 04:38:40
·
answer #1
·
answered by Hillaryforpresident 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
There is no "war on terror" it is geopolics, like it always has been. The only difference between this "war on terror" and Ronald Reagan's in the 80's is it is directed at the middle east rather than latin america. The same neo-cons are running the show now as were then. It is about restructuring the world.
We were in a chess game with the USSR, that is no longer a reality, we are the lone superpower now. We proceed as such by structurally adjusting the world to serve our (elite power business) interests. We have no problem supporting the most horrid dictators (Indonesia, China etc) if it serves our interests.
On a micro level, we are (at this time) supporting many terrorists who operate out of Miami who do bokbings, crop poisonings, etc. in Cuba. We harbor terrorists like "Bambi" Posada who blew up a passenger plane killing 7o+ people in Venezuela, mostly German tourists. We harbor Pinochet and many brutal terrorsts from Haiti. We supported Saddam remember?
It is not a matter of "terror" that is a noun, you can't have a war against a noun.
This is a brutal and violent way to control the world. It is run liek the Sopranos, not like some WW II mythology, of men fighting and women melting down pennies for bullets, honor and all that... it is a big lie.
This war in Iraq is like a bank robbery. We sent in the boys to rob the place, we thought it would take two months, now we have civilian resistance... Every American would do the same if the Iraqis were kicking in our doors, bombing us, killing us on our soil.
9 - 11 opened a door for the neo-cons to walk through.
It allowed all thier plans to become reality. Plans to roll back the NEw Deal policies, that our forefathers (mothers) fought for, with thier blood. To repeal our freedoms. And these young Republican types just tow the line, they love fascism.
There is no democracy here, it is what is called a plutocracy.
The world, and the US citizens would be far safer if we did not aggress against others and militarize the world. This is the very thing that got us attacked in the first place.
We need to spread peace as a superpower, not spreading war, unless we want the same treatment coming home to roost. The seeds are sown, then the crops grow. We have planted many terrorist trees now. Things will get worse.
Americans need to see this, and understand that we still do have some power to vote out these warmongers, or to lend some power to those who do not want to be a rougue superpower, isolated, and ignorant, ready to fall as an empire. We need to put people before profits.
2006-07-16 09:56:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well you asked 3 different questions. I am going to answer the first one because that's what I get the 2 points for.
First you have to realize that the war on Terrorism is not Bush's war. It is all of Americas war no matter if you are for it or against it or you like it or not. Terrorists didn't cut George Bush's throat and fly an airplane into his house. Terrorist cut American citizens throats and crashed planes into symbols of American success so it was an affront on all Americans not Bush. The sooner we all realize those facts the better off we will all be and the safer we will become.
Terrorism is not just affecting America. It is affecting a lot of different Countries. Terrorists do not discriminate with there killing. They kill Muslims Americans British Russian French, Mexican's and the list goes on even now to Spain and India Israel Turkey Afghanistan even the Philippines and they do not care who they kill or hurt. To them, when they blow themselves and others up they get 7 virgins and a place in heaven.
The way to win the war on terrorism is to get every country involved and to offer no safe haven for them to go. Instead some are sympothisers and hide them and fund them. When the support stops so will the terrorism. That is the only way and with swift fair immediate punisment for those that kill using terrorism. One more thing i would suggest and that is that each terrorist that is blown up or killed be burried with rotten pig intrals to keep them company along with there imaginary 7 Virgins and any supporters that helped them go in the hole with them..
2006-07-16 10:00:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
War on Terrorism?
OK, what is terrorism, some examples please? Aside from proper nouns like Al Qaida, Islamic Warriors, and Mohammad's Army then, what is terrorism? According to the dictionary, terrorism is "use of force or threats of intimidate by terrorizing as a political policy".
OK, did you notice that there was no mention of the poor verses the rich, or well dressed verses the uncouth nor the uniformed national soldiers and special private armies verses the shabbily dressed, weakly armed, non-professional dissidents of a way of life, a shared religion or national identity without a Nation.
In other words, purity of intent or being invulnerable by way of despicable actions or even right and wrong are not a definition of terrorism.
Giant and powerful Governments can also have a policy of terrorism. For example, German and Japan during WW11 used terrorism as a weapon in the "Bombing of London" and the attack on "Pearl Harbor." It did not work. Also, many think that the second Atomic bomb dropped on Japan was terrorism which did work.
So, In all honesty, wasn't "Shock and Awe" terrorism?
2006-07-16 10:46:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by zclifton2 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
How could the world be safer if we let ultra-violent Muslim extremists just do whatever they want? You obviously weren't in the WTC on 9/11.
And, Miss Cynical, George Bush didn't check to see if the people in the WTC, or their families, were Republicans before he set out to make sure it didn't happen again.
Without the war on terror, the terrorists would've taken down the Sears Tower in Chicago, the NYC subway, and God knows what else by now.
Muslims are the problem. Not George Bush. Not the U.S. Not Tony Blair or the U.K. Not Israel. M-U-S-L-I-M-S!!
2006-07-16 09:48:11
·
answer #5
·
answered by Farly the Seer 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't believe terrorism has anything to do with any religion, even Muslim. Most Muslim people resent the way terrorists are twisting and misrepresenting their faith. It has far more to do with power (or lack thereof) and poverty in the Islamist regions.
The war on terror is more of a "serve and volley", than it is something that will ever be won. However, I do believe many of the statements that George Bush had made in recent years had the potential of getting many would be terrorists more agitated than they would have been otherwise.
2006-07-16 10:19:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by Angela B 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe the problem is radical Muslims believe that all non Muslims should be killed or converted.
This is a war of self defense. Our alternatives are to try to appease our enemies by being nice to them and making concessions (ask Israel how this works out), do nothing and put up with being attacked every once in a while (a suicide bomber here and there, a building blown up over there) and wait around until they have nuclear weapons and can destroy us, try to talk sense into them (I probably have a better chance of making Barbara Boxer into a right wing conservative), or go after them and eliminate them from the planet before they can eliminate us.
Do you have any better ideas?
2006-07-16 09:56:06
·
answer #7
·
answered by Chapin 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The war that Bush has declared "war against terrorism" is not even fallible. Terrorism is an Idea and one cannot wage a war against an Idea. Idea's do not have nationalities or country's of origin. For all it takes for an Idea to spread is an open ear. Time will tell of this countries mistake.
2006-07-16 09:53:17
·
answer #8
·
answered by j.spear 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Thats a good question. I think what GWB is attempting to do is put democracy in the middle east in an attempt to win this war. How you ask. Well a person is alot less likely to Blow themselves up if they have Freedom of religion, a job, a safe place to raise there families. The question is though can democracy defeat 1,000's of years of fighting and killing and hating.
2006-07-16 09:46:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
As an indpt, i understand that John McCain as a senator represented various sturdy concepts approximately government reform and changing our regulations on our environment. regrettably, he's now crippled with the aid of the conservatives to proceed regulations alike to the bush admin. the ppl in his white domicile and his appointees will frequently be hardcore bush clones. So possibilities for replace with McCain are slender. And with Obama, dont anticipate replace in how politics is run, only replace in regulations.
2016-11-02 04:22:24
·
answer #10
·
answered by shuey 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
If your home is on fire and you put a bag over your head are you now safe from the fire. You can not see the fire so you would be safe. This is what you are saying. Bush in no way started this war.Think back to the 1990s what was going on then US embassy bombings the USS Cole and so on. Bush has only been in office for 6 years.
2006-07-16 10:02:58
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋