Seems to me it would be a lot easier and less devisive,more decisive..Any thoughts??
2006-12-22 04:15:26 · 17 answers · asked by festeringhump 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Okay - editing my first reply because it was rude.
Are you serious?!? Your statement is so....
Well, I can't seem to find words that aren't rude, so I'll just say Merry Christmas.
2006-12-22 04:18:19 · answer #1 · answered by Jadis 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
In a word No. Why would we want to subject people to terrorism when we can take the fight to them. Selfish I will admit, but the reasoning is sound. Patton said it best "The trick is not to die for your country, but rather to make the other guy die for his". You think we are divided over a foreign war? You have not seen anything like the way we would be divided if we were experiencing terrorism daily on our own soil. However, I would like to expound on your theory a bit.
People say we are creating more terrorists by our actions in Iraq. I personally believe that we are not creating more, we are just bringing the existing ones out of the woodwork. Iraq has become the poster campaign for the war on terror. If they are willing to come out and play there it saves us from having to chase them all over the world. I think we should take the opportunity presented here to heart and kill as many of them as we can while they have their heads up because once this thing ends and they go back underground again it becomes infinitely more difficult and dangerous.
2006-12-22 12:23:52 · answer #2 · answered by Bryan 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
For your information, we are fighting terrorism on our own soil, but thank God it isn't as bad and bloody as it could be if we weren't fighting in other places to help keep it from spreading more.
2006-12-22 12:24:53 · answer #3 · answered by J T 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No - absolutely NO.
The terrorists would have the benefit of planning and plotting their attacks - and our response would be more than often AFTER the fact.
Much better to be pro-active and try and hit them before and hopefully gather more intelligence and PREVENT the attack in the first place.
2006-12-22 12:30:49 · answer #4 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah if you can get the 70% of rose colored foggy brain people to identify who the real enemy is "our Representative government & their wealthy ruling class puppet masters," that hide behind the scenes! Its amazing how many can not follow what is really going on "you'll never learn on T.V.!" They also can not focus on the only common denominator that serves everyone's needs & how to seize rule & control of it!
2006-12-22 12:27:36 · answer #5 · answered by bulabate 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting question. The positive would be less people protesting an "unjust" war. But, I am sure this administration would still be called incompetant because we lost 3000 military personell to cowardly foreign suicide bombers.
2006-12-22 12:20:43 · answer #6 · answered by e.sillery 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In one "battle" as you would call it 21 men killed about as many civilians as we've lost soldiers in Iraq in 3 years. Moreover we've killed thousands more of them than we've lost of our own soldiers.
How are you going to fight a war on our own soil where they can kill 100 people to every one terrorist they lose?
Wise up.
2006-12-22 12:26:12 · answer #7 · answered by CP 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'll bet that you are the First person to come up with that idea.
I was thinking that it was a silly question.
BUT, the Democrat Party might go along with your idea.
Maybe a lot of Democrats already think that.
Good Question, maybe......
2006-12-22 12:20:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Should we send the terrorist to your ;house then? Then we can rocket your neighborhood, and don't let your little brother out to play, someone may hand him a grenade to play with and a soldier will have to shoot him. Your mother must have dropped you on your head once too often. jeez......
2006-12-22 12:18:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, and let's start with the White House!
2006-12-22 13:27:57 · answer #10 · answered by suester3223 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋