Is the War On Terror Succeeding?

Question

The war on terror isn't working and I personally think its an excuse for George "Dubya" Bush to bomb people he doesn't like. Also the biggest reason is OIL isn't he friendly with the Saudis so bombing iraq and iran will appease the saudis. The war on terror isn't really working because it is alianating The US and the UK and making the UK a sitting target to bomb plots

Answer 1

Hell NO!


We're a poor people because of it. We are spending over 60% of ALL AMERICA'S MONEY ON WAR ---MURDER, while libraries are shutting down, schools are understaffed and underfunded. And we are being taught to hate the Middle East, when in fact, we are on THEIR land, killing their people. I think the only terrorists around, are the ones sitting in our federal offices.

Answer 2

No it is not working nor will it ever work.

The idea of a "war on terror" is unfortunately a handy and rather pathetic soundbite created by George Bush's speechwriters - it is actually impossible to wage war on terror but by encapuslating complex and akward ideas into a soundbite the President and his cohorts including Bliar were able to ensure an easy ride from the media and the public. It gave a "sense" that there was a focus while ignoring the fact that "terror" was often wrought by those that had received financial and military aid from their former Allies to whom they had now started bombing - e.g. Taliban were our friends when we didn't like Russia in Afghanistan - Saddam Hussain was our friend and receipient of arms and money when he fought Iran and we didn't like them, now we don't like either of them as yes we do want their oil.

"Job done" - remember that? Ouch nope war on terrror can not be won. Afghanistan off the pages as a n oil pipeline gets negotiated that is out of media way until people start dying again.

Terror is ever fluctuating, the aims, groups and participants always changing the idea of a war on terorr enables a controlled and controlling sense of the masses when panic is what is really being felt by govenments who knopw they can't win and ever more draconian measures will simply fuel those disaffected and disenfranchised.

By the way Margaret Thatcher and Reagan and others once siad (not so many years ago) that Nelson Mandela was the world's biggest terror. Welcome to Govt. speak and welcome to a world eroding Human Rights for gas to SUVs and a world that has little interest in understanding big issues...I would also mention war on drugs but hey that came t nothing for the smae reasons....!!

Answer 3

I think you have to answer your own question here. What is it to suceeed at? Take the top three things which you feel are important national issues. Then ask how has this war affected them. You'll get your own answer.

For me:
1. Are schools and libraries being well funded? No. The increase in spending have gone to military security.

2. Is America becoming a safer place? No. The security measures put into place are jokes. If someone wants to perform terror, they can do it.

3. Are my civil liberties safe from being infringed upon? No, and my fellow Americans seem increasingly affable for the fact for big brother sticking his nose where it don't belong.

So on my balance sheet no, it is not suceeding at making my life better. Only 10 more years until 1984!

Note: To all those who like to imply that one might be "wrong" or that it "hurts" America for making such points or asking such questions or having such an "attitude", you are already in 1984.

Answer 4

First, what is terror? Terror is fear of random attack. The uncertainty felt in conducting day to day things when these very things are open to deadly attack from anywhere. Since the "war on terror" was launched are we more or less afraid of being blown up on a bus, plane or train? The answer is "more" without a doubt.

Wars are fought between armies for a purpose. Country A might invade country B so as to claim territory. That is a clear purpose. But how do you fight a ware against how people feel? How can you launch a war against my fear?

When you have a dangerous moron sitting in the most powerful office on earth, whose actions are condoned by a spineless poodle across the Atlantic, you have a recipe for disaster.

Iraq and Afghanistan have made it more not less likely that I might be blown up on the Tube tonight.

Answer 5

To Downing Street and the White House YES, but to the rest of the world NO.

Every day we hear some tourist or solider has been killed or injured in the news, but it's really a continuation of the Holy War that dates back to the crusades. The ulitimate agendas might have changed but the two factions are fundamentaly the same.

Only problem is we have world news and media to fuel the fire, ie why would you expose and tarnish your own troops for one or two incidents of mistreatment to prsioners, and but them all at even greater risk. These types of stories may be true and people have to know but how will that not fuel the fires of these terror groups.
It will never end, the best solution is to control it, but attacks will happen and the wrong people will get arrested or mistreated, the focus will be back to the police and other agencies as to why they didn't prevent the incident or why the innocent was arrested for links to terror incidents. which will feed fuel to the younger generation of fundamentalists.
It's a never ending circle.

Answer 6

War is state terror. The war on terror will only escalate terror, since is is using terror to combat terror. Its just a cover up for US and UK geo-political ambitions, just as anti-comunism was a cover up for economic imperialism in Latin America, Africa, and South East Asia.
The US and UK intelligence services both warned their respective heads of state that an invasion of Iraq would increase the risk of terorism (by removing the secular government, and creating a training ground for Jihaddis, as well as angering muslims globaly), but Bush and Blair went right on with the invasion, provinf that the 'war on terror' is a mere front to cover up an agenda of greed and imperialism.
If terrorism is politically motivated violence, then the US is the greatest terrorist state of the modern era, and places like Iran and Syria are only minor offenders in comparison.

Answer 7

The war on terror is not succeeding simply because they cant say exactly who is a terrorist.Terrorists are civillians and they are not of a specific colour that you can identify,therefore,the war on terrror is not succeeding because everyday peoples have been threaten by terror attacks all over the world especially America and The UK.

Answer 8

How can one start or even win a war against an invisible enemy?
The whole War on terror was a sham to put through a few controversial laws. Control Iraqi oil(at which they still haven't succeeded). But have you actually heard of them activly searching for State enemy nr 1 since things went quiet in Afghanistan? It's easy to have a scape goat to refer to whenever something happened. And how easy would it be if the US actually had that scape goat in their pocket

Answer 9

you have a chip pan on fire what do you do? Bush and Blair would throw water onto it. What happens next? the fire spreads and before you know it your house is nothing but a burned out shell. Thats how they are dealing with 'the war on terror' neither of them have a clue. They are trying to deal with terrorists the same way the allies dealt with the nazis but its not working.
they are just pushing the extremists further and further underground. You hav more and more british born terrorists everyday wiho knows one day you could be working side by side with a bloke one day then the next he is all over the papers for blowing something up. It is 100 pure crazy

Answer 10

There never was a "war on terror".
That was always a ploy of th US gouvernment to get the gullible ones on their side and shut up the bright ones.
They did manage to convince an awful lot of Americans that the 11th September bombings were masterminded in Iraq, didn't they?
So it's succeding all right.

Answer 11

I agree with your thinking, but I think there is a huge pickle that the US is going to have to deal with. I do believe getting the troops home, as I see Bush using his power to push his personal interests. I think event after the Republicans lose Congress and the Presidency they will still have some influence so long as America's troops are stationed there. I really think Bush should be put on trial for War Crimes as he looks just as bad as Saddam Hussein. So I think the debt should be focused on when to withdrawal with a clear timetable and the goals of American's interest should be outlined with a clear and cut mandate.