Is the US reducing terror or increasing it through aggressive military action (including torture of prisoners)

Question

Is the US reducing terror in the world or increasing it through aggressive military action (including torture of prisoners)? (I resent 360 saying this is a similar question to wether Bush is the antichrist ... that is a joke of a question ... I intend mine to be taken seriously ... war is serious stuff. Many Americans have become complacent about it ... including Yahoo360)

Answer 1

(OMG! Luekas above has never heard of Guantanamo?)

--and BTW--You have just as much "right" to ask and re-ask and re-word what you already asked on this message board, and the people who complain just have their conscience irked by your question.

Many Americans are looking for a cause-and-effect relationship between the war in Iraq and there having been no successful terrorist attacks on American soil since Operation Shock and Awe commenced. The truth is that you cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship because there are a multiplicity of other factors involved--and one of them is simply that terrorists such as AlQaida typically plan their attacks for years. They have attacked other countries (as in the Mumbai train attacks) around the world. To believe that the war in Iraq is CAUSING there to be no terror attacks on U.S. soil is particularly naive, but it helps some Americans clear their conscience as well as provide an excuse for why it's okay to have civilians in Iraq sacrificed as some bogus "necessary evil."

What is probably reducing terrorist attacks is better intelligence and more focus on domestic security weaknesses.

Answer 2

You fell for it too. The terrorists want us to think that we are torturing those prisoners so the prison gets shut down. That is exactly their plan and you are going along with it and spreading the word. I"m not saying that nothing wrong there has ever happened. I'm sure things have happened there that shouldn't have... along with tons of other prisons in our country.

We cannot sit down with these terrorists and solve these problems by talking. It simply doesn't work when dealing with sick irrational hateful people. Aggression was necessary to solve World War II and I think it is unfortunately necessary in this case too.

Answer 3

The US is reducing it but not fast enough. You need to get on your knees and kiss the feet of the next military man that you see. If it was not for the US military, you would be speaking German, Japanese or by now, have your head sliced off. You are obviously an ignorant disrespectful twit who has no clue what is going on in the world outside of your Sponge Bob Square Pants episodes.

Answer 4

You don't stop terrorism by invading countries, bombing them with depleted uranium and then torturing and raping it's citizens. You destabilize the region, cause the people to fight amongst themselves and kill each other, as well as the occupying troops. But that kind of environment is conducive to war profiteering. It also leads to more terrorism abroad and at home, requiring governments to take away liberties of it's citizens and slowly form into a police state under the pretense of security.

Answer 5

Certainly has reduced the number of domestic attacks in the US since 9-11...

What prisoners were tortured, or do you mean the soldiers and Americans that have been captured and butchered overseas?

Answer 6

What do you think. The "peace" or cease fire as I would like to call it that aggressive military action creates is only temporal, as Gandhi once stated. Permanent peace can never be achiveved via violence as violence only solves solutions when other parties, ideas, nations, etc are utterly obliterated. Logically, the US in the eyes of many foreign countries are distubers of the peace. In fact, the USA has always been in a state of formal or informal war, it as born in the blood of rebellion and it spills the blood of rebellion.

Answer 7

a million) Bush operated on a similar intelligence Clinton had. Do i favor to illustrate you dozens of expenses from Democrats, consisting of Clinton, dated beforehand 2001 (even as Bush took place of work) that reported Iraq had WMDs? with the exception of, Bush did no longer have the skill to commence a conflict himself. Congress had to authorize the conflict, and that protected thousands of Democrats authorizing the conflict as well to Republicans. 2) Bush did not order using depleted uranium. Depleted uranium is a generic armor penetrating round utilized by all branches of the military. As a former fireplace Controlman with the U. S. military, and as a holder of the 1121 NEC (Phalanx Technician/Operator), I easily have wide own adventure with DU. DU is extremely possibility-free. it is halflife is so short that by the point it receives to the battlefield, you get extra radiation from the picture voltaic in a unmarried day than you do from being uncovered to DU for years. 3) Bush did not order torture. 4) Bush isn't in charge for a global kidnapping ring. 5) truly? i'm pretty particular al-Qaeda suicide bombers killed extra possibility free human beings in Iraq than our military did. 6) call one chemical weapon Bush used against everybody. purely one. and make certain it is valid - white phosperous hasn't ever been categorised as a chemical weapon and under no circumstances will. 7) pass to sleep. do not you've college contained in the morning?

Answer 8

The Afghans I see every day are pretty happy with the fact that they aren't tortured by the Taliban anymore. bet you a dollar for a doughnut the Iraqis feel the same way

Answer 9

Are terrorists reducing the chance of U.S. military action by chopping-off heads of innocent civilians and filming it on T.V.?What exactly is your idea of torture?

Answer 10

Honestly...there's alot of things people don't know about our government and mind you there just rumors but it's very believe able. Did you know Busch is friends with the Bin Ladens that they own about 5% of america...again just rumors. Check out some of these sites if Yahoo allows them.