English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-09-28 22:48:24 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

22 answers

A realistic assessment would have to look at the recent past, the current situation and the strategy for the future. What do you think?

Here's a REALLY GOOD new article:

"Disguises Are Lifesaving in Iraq"
At checkpoints in Baghdad, fearful Sunnis and Shiites are hiding their identities to survive.

2006-09-28 22:50:18 · answer #1 · answered by ? 5 · 1 1

No, not in the Traditional sense of "Victory" as with WW I and WW II . Who is the "Leader" that can Sign a Viable Treaty that all "Terrorists" would Honor ? Even if all of the Leaders, Osama Bin Laden, and all of the others were to Sign a Treaty, the Vast Majority that wish to Hate and Kill wouldn't Honor it. And, there are no Clear-Cut National Boundaries to Conquer. The best that We can Hope for is to Limit the Un-Checked Spread of Terrorism. If We do absolutely Nothing, then the Terrorists will have Won. As President Bush Said, "We Have to be Right all of the Time,to Prevent Murder, and the Terrorists have only to be Right Once, to Accomplish their Goal to Murder." And now Al-Queda has made it known that They're in the market for Atomic Weapons, which I Suspect they were long before the Coalition Invasion. If only that could be Proven !

2006-09-29 06:05:39 · answer #2 · answered by gvaporcarb 6 · 1 0

Yes. That is providing the following happens:-

* Generals and commanders are allowed to fight the war their way with minimal interference from politcians whose main concern is votes rather than victory.

* The people support the war and in doing so accept that there may be casualties and set backs along the way. Wars don't happen like they do at the movies and always take longer than two hours and people should recognise that.

* The media provide a balanced view instead of continually portraying only the bad news. For example, most of the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan are not subjected to daily suicide bombings and shootings but we hardly ever hear about it. This unbalanced and negative portrayal of the situation is likely to turn public opinion away from supporting the war - which leads back to the policitians getting too involved and public support ebbing away.

* Everyone recognises that we are all on the front line. The War on Terror is being fought not just in Iraq and Afghanistan but right across the World - London, New York, Washington, Bali, Madrid and many other places have been involved. In order to defeat the terrorists in our midst we must all be vigilant and be prepared to accept additional hassles like more stringent security checks at airports.

* We win back the hearts and minds of young Muslims, not by bending over backwards and giving in to every ridiculous demand and suggestion but by reasoned argument, fairness and equality.

* We all recognise that the alternative to winning the War on Terror would be World domination by Islamic Extremists - which really would give the policitally correct do-gooders and bleeding hearts something to complain about.

2006-09-29 05:49:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

That's like saying - can we win the war on fear.

You can't.

You CAN reduce terrorism, by not focussing on it - but that is not what we are doing. We are giving into the fear and being terrorists ourselves.

Read George Orwell and Gore Vidal on the subject of the perpetual war and the loss of civil liberties. They have some big clues about what is going on at the moment.

2006-09-29 05:57:46 · answer #4 · answered by Tish-a-licious 3 · 0 1

It will run its course: these things, historically, run in cycles -- although modern communications and Internet may make the cycle run longer.

But will we wage a War on Democracy and all become losers in the process.

Imagine abolishing Habeas Corpus based on a phony war. After all, the "war on terrorism" is no more a war than the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty". It's a turn of phrase for political consumption.

"War" has a specific Constitutional and International Law meaning, and that's not it.

2006-09-29 05:52:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Finely something meaty. I think that the 'war on terror' is about revenge and looking good. If we were ever to win the 'war on terror' we would have to win the war with human nature. I think the 'war on terror' is a trap. I think the best way to fight these terrorists is to stop posting their propoganda in our media. I don't care about somebody's Jihad. The United States, Canada, and the European Union control most of the worlds wealth. Why is the U.S. buying Middle East oil? They have enough of their own. I know that Canada does. If we don't have dealings with these muslim terrorists and ignore them they will fade out. They are just to small.

It is like the devil. The devil is defeated we just chose to give him power. We give the devil power by listening to him.

2006-09-29 06:02:06 · answer #6 · answered by Just_A_Guy 2 · 0 2

Winning the war on terror needs the cooperation of everybody so that terrorists will be annihilated. People should support governments to identify and catch the terrorists.

2006-09-29 05:50:51 · answer #7 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1 1

Of course not...as long as America hides its true motives and keeps invading countries for oil and money they can never win the war on terror...each day innocent civilians are dying in Iraq...which adds upto more than 40,000...correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you supposed to protect these people...so see the real reason for which it is invading countries and not the one 'they' give you...Peace...

2006-09-29 05:57:27 · answer #8 · answered by Shahbaaz Ali K 3 · 0 1

Well that depends on the national attitude doesn't it?

We do have the capacity to go in and wipe out the terrorists and their aiders & abettors but collectively do we have the stomach to do the hard and ugly work that's necessary?

BTW we as in the US and as in NATO (in both Afghanistan and Iraq) are winning battles everyday but we have to come to the realization that it will cost us in time, money, and most importantly blood...

Note the following: "The blood has been spilled in Iraq of more than 4,000 foreigners who came to fight," said the man, who identified himself as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir — also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri — the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. The voice could not be independently identified.

The Arabic word he used indicated he was speaking about foreigners who joined the insurgency in Iraq, not coalition troops.

Al-Masri is believed to have succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who died in a U.S. airstrike north of Baghdad in June.
=============

Take a look at the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count...

Yes we are winning...

2006-09-29 06:20:45 · answer #9 · answered by juandos 3 · 0 0

Hi There,

I guess this is never ending series. Terrorism is not outside, its inside us. Its human being who is trying to prove its supremacy one over one... Osama's dead body can never be the guarantee of the same.

See what bush did in Iraq, you can pick up the history of last 75 years of Iraq there was no sign of Terrorism. But, once USA is done with their mission. See the result.

See what exactly is happening in Afghanistan. Is the issues resolved there? i am 100% sure defiantly NOT.

See whats happening in business. One business is trying to beat another one... no matter by hook or by cross... isn't that terrorism?

We need to kill our greedy spirit & thats it job done. Till then, we are never in a state to say that was is over.

Santosh

2006-09-29 05:55:58 · answer #10 · answered by Santosh Kumar 2 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers