People who think like that are the only reason they could EVER win. I am hearing people talk like that more and more and it needs to stop. Live not in fear, live in caution. There is a HUGE difference between being cautious and being scared. The government is not setting up restrictions on things because they are scared. They are doing it to be cautious. We HAVE to change to defeat this new type of war because it surley will not go away if we simply "Go on about our business" like some suggest. We need to FIGHT it not ignore it. People think the terrorists are winning since we are being cautious. I say NO WAY. The only way they win is if we do nothing and ignore it and allow them to kill us, because make no mistake they WANT to kill us no doubt about it. I say lets not make it easy on them by simply going on with life as normal. I say we put more money in defense and more money into this war. Iraq may not have been the right place to start but it could be the place to finish it. Agree?
2006-08-31 16:54:36 · 16 answers · asked by ? 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Seal the border to Iraq and do not let anyone in. I'm sure the terrorists have a lot of resources in Iraq and if we boxed them in, then really hunted them down, we could cripple them. The way they are fighting now, occupation, is too slow. They should step it up and FINISH THIS!! Then again, what the hell do I know huh?
2006-08-31 16:56:30 · update #1
You are right David C, it is just an opinion. If anyone disagrees, I would enjoy some criticism.
2006-08-31 16:59:01 · update #2
I respect your answer coragryph, but your post quick, finish later answer approach, while clever, isn't fair to the rest of the answerers, so I will not consider it.
2006-08-31 17:01:04 · update #3
Make no mistake, jellybean. I do not agree with how the war on terror is being handled, but we are in Iraq now and there is only one way we can leave, and that is as winners. If the U.S. pulled out now, it would be seen as a victory for the terrorists and would fuel their ambitions. We would also lose what little support we have from the world. And to your last remark, I had two pounds of shrapnel taken out of my leg from a roadside bomb in Afghanistan. I no longer serve in the military, but I think I deserve to be able to make such comments as I have.
2006-08-31 17:05:21 · update #4
You know what, it should have been finished a long time ago. I don't have a problem with Bush attacking Iraq, I have a problem with the way he went about it. 1st off you don't ask permission from other countries when you go to war. You just do it. Secondly if you do ask permission and they deny it and you decide to go ahead with it anyhow, you don't pussy foot around about it, you don't announce it to the American public before you go, and you certainly don't worry about being humane, theres a reason it's called war. And you certainly do not capture the leader of the country you're going to war with and then just set him free again, hand him back to his own people. What kind of a war is this? This should have been finished as soon as it was started. No, I don't think nukes are the answer. I think he could have carpet bombed the **** out of them from day 1 and not announced it to anyone until after Iraq was already half way wiped off of the map, then took their oil and declared it property of the United States. This is much more of a fiasco than a war if you ask my opinion. Hopefully the next president will be smart enough to do it the right way. Proud to be a democrat!!!
2006-08-31 17:07:37 · answer #1 · answered by Tammy C 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
you dont have a realistic understanding of what is happening in iraq. the vast majority of the violence in iraq is from iraqi fighting iraqi, sunni vs. shia. the "terrorist", foreign fighters are a small part of a big conflict.
they are not all terrorists, united, wanting to kill us.
the problem is, the only way to end it is for one side to ahnialate the other. which side do we choose to support? we cant choose a side, because we are there under the pretense of creating democracy. if we support one side, then we are participating in genocide.
to compound the problem, the real terrorists are mixed in on both sides, not wearing uniforms, not easily identifiable, and we get very little cooperation from the locals. they like the terrorist better than they like us.
its a no win situation. the terrorist will come closer to defeating us by bankrupting us than by any act of violence that they are capable of commiting.
2006-08-31 17:34:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Winning in Iraq is not any way to end terrorism. It is just a way to keep enough government spending to increase our economic output. There is an economic benefit to this war. Closing the borders and internal policing of our citizens and current immigrant population are better ways to combat terrorism.
2006-08-31 17:00:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
that's the way that Propaganda works. they conflict to physique public opinion by ability of utilising diverse buzzwords to portray the comparable image from diverse perspectives. Bush's grandpa funded Hitler and his daddy ran the CIA. Bush knows all approximately a thank you to apply propaganda. The PKK has been attacking Turkish civilians in Turkey with American weapons that have been funnelled to them. Even the puppet government of Iraq considers the PKK to be a Revolutionary Organization 17 November.
2016-11-06 04:52:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is easy said than done.Will you volunteer to go to Iraq ?Please do it, you have excellent ideas.This is what Mr Bush & Blair thought and that;s why they went in but the reality is completely different.Never consider your enemy as weakThere are about 150000 troops and there are over150 deaths daily.I think ,the present regime of US cannot manage,need fresh minds and approach probably towards dis-engagement.
2006-08-31 17:08:48 · answer #5 · answered by khan a 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Disagree.
The goal of the terrorists is to make people afraid. So afraid, that they react based on fear and emotion, rather than logic. So afraid, that they discard the rule of law, trample on civil liberties, ignore the Constitution, and generally cause as much disruption in society as possible.
And with the help of our govt, they have achieved that goal. In spades. Caution is one thing. Claiming that the courts do not have the authority to even hear cases about whether the govt is breaking the law is another.
As far as Iraq, it's a huge waste of lives, money and manpower. But that's only going to be proven in hindsight.
{EDIT}
If you want to disregard the content of my message because you don't like the order of the posting, that's your choice.
2006-08-31 16:56:16 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋
I don't think the terrorist are winning as much as the U.S. is losing. We shouldn't even be involved in "Georges War". The problem is obvioous. There is no way of winning and there is no way to exit.
2006-08-31 17:00:33 · answer #7 · answered by EMAILSKIP 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think you are wearing blinders with a picture of your avatar stamped inside. That's what I think. Get damn near blown to smitherenes a few times in Basrah and holler back at me, cat. Okay?
2006-08-31 17:00:37 · answer #8 · answered by Goddess of Nuts PBUH 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree with some of your sentiments, but can't you ask a thought provoking question? Thought provoking questions make people think.
2006-08-31 16:58:12 · answer #9 · answered by The Bible (gives Hope) 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"The terrorsts are winning!!!" is what liberals are whining!
I'm more in favor of stirring up the groups and letting them vent their anger on each other. That way the French and Russians can sell arms to them, China gets the oil, and us? we get to watch it all happen.
2006-08-31 16:57:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋