I need both pros and cons for the statement above for a public debate. Pls feel free to answer it as you see fit without any restriction. Both pro "war on terror" and anti "war on terror" groups are welcome to answer this question.
2006-07-28 17:50:32 · 13 answers · asked by maxorian 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
"War on terror" what does that even mean? when it is a car bomb it is called "terrorism"...when it is a bunker buster or cruise missle it is called "war on terror"....it is all killing and the phrase "war on terror" is used to justify the killing of people we have designated enemy....and of course the innocent people caught in the crossfire which in Iraq is running over 30,000 now.
2006-07-28 17:57:50 · answer #1 · answered by Mac 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A valid reason to "do" war. Interesting question. What are valid reasons for war.
Preservation of our country? If threatened by another group?
Those seem reasonable to me. Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor and killed thousands of Americans. No warning.
Al Qeda has repeatedly told the world that their mission is to destroy the United States. They have attacked us in New York, Beirut, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and other places.
To get into WWII, which most people look back in history as the right thing to do, all it took was 1 attack on a military target. We then went to war against that country, as well as Germany. And Germany hadn't done anything to us directly.
It almost seems that there is more reason to be in the war on terror than their was to get involved in WWII. Al Qeda attacked multiple military targets as well as killed thousands of civilians. History judges that getting involved in WWII was the right thing to do, even though there were detractors at the time.
Now, with the war on terror, I believe that even though there are detractors to this war, I believe that history will judge it as the right thing to do.
2006-07-28 18:09:21 · answer #2 · answered by edaily777 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. We should have invaded Lebanon and Pakistan along with Afghanistan, not Iraq. Both of those countries have strong terror groups operating within them. The governments in these countries have no control over large percentages of their own territories. In the case of Lebanon, we should have invaded, removed Hezbollah, and then turned the secured territory back over to the duly elected government. The same thing with Al Qaeda in Waziristan province in Pakistan. Musharref could have consolidated his power and would be less concerned with Kashmir and India if he had a better grip on his own country.
2006-07-28 17:59:45 · answer #3 · answered by szydkids 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No,war on terror does not justify in any way going to war with certain country.
I think the civilized world has entered a new era,in terms of Diplomacy,Technology,and many other things that compensates dealing with weaponry.This rule - of course - does not apply on those " Savages " of any party, who do not respect human rights,and they attack and kill innocent people.
2006-07-28 20:01:30 · answer #4 · answered by Fadi 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would like to know what act of terrorism the Iraqi people did on the US. Even after they failed to find weapons of mass destruction after every stone was turned over at least nineteen times, the US thought it was a great idea to go to war in Iraq anyways ...
2006-07-28 18:16:39 · answer #5 · answered by Angela B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes if that country is supporting and funding the terrorists yet hiding behind the skirts of the terror organization as Iran and Syria are.
Trying to distance them selves yet funding at the same time, what hypocrites they are! What Liars. Yes they both deserve to be bombed, as tiny Israel MUST have the right to defend herself.
2006-07-28 17:56:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The war on terror is not necessarily a war upon another country. i.e. taliban in Afganistan; al-quida in Iraq and elsewhere (including U.S.), hamas in Palistine, hezbolla in Lebonon. The first and last are a good example of helping a country clean out terrorist elements,
that they are otherwise capable of doing on their own.
2006-07-28 18:06:04 · answer #7 · answered by jit 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the WoT is designed to be a perpetual cash cow and to eventually destroy human rights worldwide. Dropping a few nukes would contaminate our own interests and will eventually result in Russia and/or China dropping a few nukes on us. Nukes never solved any geopolitical problem. I hope your post was satire. HAVE A NICE DAY!
2016-03-27 05:04:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did the countries leader try to assassinate my Dad?
2006-07-28 17:54:55 · answer #9 · answered by phoephus 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if that country supports terrorists.
2006-07-28 17:53:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋