I agree...especially with your last paragraph.
2006-08-21 10:18:50
·
answer #1
·
answered by Kitten 5
·
0⤊
5⤋
The question that you should be asking is that what caused America and It's Ally the the UK to be the major targets for terrorism? Why not Japan? Why not Norway, or Finland? These countries have as much freedom as the US or the UK, so the "they hate our freedom" argument does not work.
The current Bush polices in the middle east have led to a huge increase in anti American sentiments. The answer is not to wage a war. The answer is to remove some of the major contributing factors to terrorism like the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and finding a balanced solution to the Palestinian/Israeli issue.
Bush once made a Freudian slip
"“I don’t think you can win” the war on terror. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.”
But then after criticism he decided to say something else.
From the John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt article
"Terrorism’ is not a single adversary, but a tactic employed by a wide array of political groups. The terrorist organisations that threaten Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or ‘the West’; it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonise the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits."
Also a very important article published 20yrs ago:
The Essential Terrorist By Edward Said.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/19860614/said
Finally to Understand the mess that America will get into if it attacks Iran, following is the link to an important New Yorker article:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact
2006-08-21 10:36:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by Mohammed R 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
What we need is to stop drinking the government and media kool-aid and rally as a nation to remove the threat that is called the Democrat and Republican parties. Leftist globalists have usurped our goevernment in an administrative coup d'etat. Once we get these fascists and their corporate support network out of Washington, maybe we can return to rational government and sound Constitutional rule. If you don't believe it, then why have your choices always been the lesser of two evils for the last several decades? We no longer have honest representation.
The terrorists reside in DC, on Wall Street, and in the media. Once we get rid of them and their globalist agenda we can begin to live in peace.
2006-08-21 10:25:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by shorebreak 3
·
3⤊
0⤋
Yes, we are at war with terrorist. But, every one is ignoring one factor. Terrorist have existed for ages, as one respondent pointed out. The difference today is that we are bankrolling these modern day pirates with vast amounts of money every time we gas up our cars. Oil rich regimes like Iran are using oil profits to train and arm terrorist. They are also using this money to develop nuclear weapons. How long do we have before they can deliver destruction at will on a global scale? 10 years perhaps?
Diplomacy simply isn't going to work. And war isn't going to work either. The only thing that will work in the long term is that we find another source of energy other than oil. The only way to deny these radicals the means to spread terrorism is to eliminate the money.
In the short term, we need strong and decisive retaliation to aggression. In the long term, we need a new energy source.
2006-08-21 10:41:29
·
answer #4
·
answered by Overt Operative 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
You got a significant 100% chance of going hungry,living in poverty or becoming homeless and living on the street or in the bushes cause of the corporate attacks on your financial security! Example you want ie look closely at the population of Americans force into retirement after age 65 whom only have social security benefits for income. They are suffering among the poor! Do not hand me example of the few who get by on better pension plans or the few lucky whom made rich, none of these are the majority!
2006-08-21 10:26:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by bulabate 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes some people need to wake up! There are many forms of terror today. They don't all wear turbans on their head and ride camels,some of them wear reg. clothes. Some wear a business suits. The ones that scar me most wear the business suits and sit in an "almost "round room! Not all terrorist blow things up, some like to control the mass by instilling fear! And what needs to be done to protect our grandchildren and their grandchildren is find away to reduce the debt that is being made for them to pay back!
2006-08-21 10:20:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by Jo 6
·
4⤊
0⤋
religious war? boo hoo...get a clue my friend..take a walk down town Rio, Caracas, Lisbon, Dublin, Katmandu,...and more and more...they're not muslims, yet most of them hate Bush as much as they hate the devil himself.
If we really want to help our children and grand children, we should ask Mr Wise Man Bush to:
1- get his hands off other nations' resources.
2-stop bombing civilians.
3-stop examining new weapons on other people.
4-stop abusing presidential powers.
5-stop harassing the independent media.
6-stop using the"Hokas Pokas! Mumble Jumble! Bed time Bible stories " !! as a global agenda.
7-stop acting like a monkey.
2006-08-21 11:35:53
·
answer #7
·
answered by Sheefa 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because society in general has been at war with terrorists for thousands of years, and always will be.
What we call terrorists used to be called names like "bandits", "brigands", "pirates" and the "barbarian horde". The names have changed, and so have the available weapons, but the threat has always been there. The term "terrorist" is just the lasted one to be used invoke fear and outrage at a bunch of criminals.
There will always be terrorists and criminals. At least as long as there is hatred and fear in the world. Living in terror and panic, sacrificing our liberties to cower like rabbits, surrendering the freedoms this country was founded on in the name of security -- these will not make the threat go away.
In fact, giving in to panic and fear and terror, letting go of our belief in the greater good, these are the goals of the terrorists. They want us to be afraid. They want us to close our doors and windows, to hide under the bed, to allow the police to break into our homes and private lives so we have no liberty or happiness. This is what they want to accomplish -- us living in fear.
The threat has been here for thousands of years, and is not going to go away any time soon. The only thing we can control is how we choose to live in response to it. And whether we allow that fear to justify criminal actions by our own government.
Using criminal and illegal methods, even if the goals might be valid, is not justified, especially when there are legal methods that just as effective and which comply with constitutional requirements.
Bush is a criminal. He broke the law. And not because he needed to. Only because he wanted to. And that's not something we as a nation should tolerate, let alone support.
2006-08-21 10:19:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
the only people who matter are the voting public because they are the only ones that speak out.
As far as bush being a criminal, corygraph or whatever his name is needs to do a little historical research of go back to his law school constitutional law class because I fear his understanding of constitutional jurisprudence is lacking, in layman's terms many of Bush's actions could fall under his duty to protect the nation as the president.
If Bush was a criminal and committed a criminal act, and with Democrats trying to take him down by any means necessary, why haven't they called him on it in an official capacity?
2006-08-21 10:45:49
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
do you really think that rallying around bush will help us? he's really the one that put us where we are now. we can't end this war by blowing things up, then we end up over there fixing things...it's a never ending cycle. the middle east will never see peace, because they don't want that. they are too busy 'avenging' their respective gods. we are all spending to much time trying to right, and not enough just being happy
2006-08-21 10:24:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by daniella s 1
·
5⤊
0⤋
I think you need to decide if freedom and liberty, the pursuit of happiness is what is truly important, or if simply being safe is.
America is the land of the free and the brave. Not the scared and the safe.
2006-08-21 23:23:27
·
answer #11
·
answered by cat_Rett_98 4
·
1⤊
0⤋