What would've been the alternative to the "War on Terrorism"?

Question

I'm a loyal Conservative anyday, and I don't think it was strictly to save the Iraqis from Saddam's tyranny. So, supposing it was oil. Besides the fact that we went to Iraq, what else would we have done? If some other tyrannical weirdo came into great power over there, wouldn't they cut off our oil, officially sending our economy down the chutes of Hell? Or else jack the price up to the great Oil Well in the Sky?

What else was there to do?

Wow Randy, I've never been accused of being a "RINO". No, I'm definitely conservative. There isn't anything wrong with fighting for oil. Did you not bother to read my details? I didn't say anything bad about Bush, or even the war, for that matter. I just want anti-war people explain what they would've done. As I said in another answer, if it wasn't for oil, we should've just left the entire Middle East to deal with their own problems. They've been at it since the Crusades; what makes anyone think we can change it?

What I was worried about was oil. Millions of American livelihoods depend on it. If some weirdo US-hater cut it off (our oil) or over-priced it, it would send our economy to hell.

God Bless you back. I give you an F in reading comprehension. You're the type of person those weirdo Liberals always complain about.

Why would we be wearing veils? They could never over-power us.

Answer 1

YOU're a conservative?? Maybe a RINO (Republican in Name Only). Instead of the war on terrorism? You could be wearing a completely encompassing headwear and veil and long black gown, and learning to speak Iraqi or whatever language the tribe-in-power that week speaks. And abuse? You ain't seen nothin' yet compared to abuse against women in Iraq. Your question, which, in your own words "supposes" way too much to be a sensible, objective question, reveals your bias and ignorance. God Bless you.

Answer 2

You propose we invaded Iraq: "because some other tyrannical weirdo could have come into great power over there and cut off our oil. Thus sending our economy down the chutes of Hell"
That's about the fifth or 6th reason I've seen for invading Iraq which is a little disconcerting, but OK... Anyway, I see 2 problems with that argument:

1) it's probably not a good idea to invade countries because of the possibility that a hypothetical future leader may be a tyrannical weirdo and cut off our oil. Under that same reasoning we could invade any country with oil.

2) Our economy is going down the chutes of hell with this war anyway. It's costing billions which we don't have; all of which we have borrowed from China.

So what else was there to do?

We could have waited until there was a possible weirdo ruling Iraq, actually cutting off our oil, which may or may not have happened, and then handled the situation at that point, which of course may never have happened. There may be a worse situation in another country first like Iran or North Korea for example. I think it's a matter of setting priorities, and Iraq probably was not our highest priority in terms of terrorism or nuclear threat to our country.

Answer 3

The oil is a double edged sword, the ME countries depend on the oil money more than we depend on the oil itself.
The bad news is that they are using the oil money against us, biting the hand that feeds them is a good analogy here.
Another bad news is that we have been overcharged for oil for decades now, it used to cost a few cents per barrel to extract, and nowadays it's $2-3 at most, do the math, we've been ripped off all the way. We have to work to pay for oil, the ME countries don't have to do anything, not only that they spend most of that money to destroy us from within by spreading the terrorist propaganda with some help from our older enemy, the communists.

Iraq was under control already, it wasn't an immediate threat, we should have invaded Iran, the head of terrorism instead, they do have WMD's and 100 times more terrorists and terrorist training camps that Afghanistan and Iraq combined.
And we should have cut off the Arabia's oil imports ourselves, less oil is a very small price to pay for defeating the terrorists a humiliating defeat in pain.

If we expect to keep up a luxurious lifestyle at the time of a very serious war, we might as well give up and hand over our land to the terrorists.
United we stand. And the way we are divided over the war on terrorism has only one meaning, that the enemy among us is doing well.
A war has only one purpose, to defeat the enemy. And it will not end until we go all the way, or give in at some point.
I suggest our beloved lefties to live in a shria ruled land for some time to really understand what they are goiing to bring upon our nation, Somalia, Sudan, Iran and Arabia will be good choices for such people to move to to improve their understaning of what we're up against.

Answer 4

Brother! American way to bring change in hostile Government policy is to pressurize group in power for a change of policy. This is correct approach. In Afghanistan a chance was given to Government in power to hand over the man responsible for bombing WTO. Group in power has no perception of risk involved. In Afghanistan Government was not recognized by international community and was helpless. Therefore, stability was required. This approach may have been successful in Iraq as Saddam has better perception about USA. Sanctions only affected poor Iraqi people. Limited war might have been more useful instead of removing Saddam.Those who are at the helm of the affairs have better knowledge of the issue.

Answer 5

Iraq's part in the "War on Terror" is... hmm... well, our armed forces in Iraq are a lighting rod for terrorists. Under Saddam it was not particularly a hot-spot for terrorists, because the kind of extremists who perpetrate those activities would have been suppressed. If one thing can be said for totalitarian regimes, it would be that they are not likely to harbor destabilizing groups.

So, when we sent forces to Afghanistan, we had intelligence that indicated Osama bin Laden was located there and had built an army of followers there. The USA had some experience with Afghanistan as we had helped them repel a Soviet invasion in the 1980s. If bin Laden was there and was the reason for the 9 /11 terror attacks, then it behooved us to go in and get him. A majority of Afghani citizens would agree in principle.

When we invaded Iraq, we did so under the impression that Saddam's regime was possessing and producing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Our impression of that being the case was strongly influenced by the Bush Administration's insistence that it was, in fact, the case that Saddam's regime possessed and was producing WMDs in violation of UN resolutions. So, given the information at hand, we (USA citizens) gleefully gave our government the go-ahead to invade Iraq in spite of the fact that the UN wanted to look at the problem more closely.
Later, we learned that we had been lied to on a huge scale, and wanted nothing to do with decisions that had been made on the basis of those lies. Now, our troops are still a lightning rod for any terrorists within 500 miles of their location. It isn't that the terrorists, or terrorism, are FROM Iraq. They are GOING THERE. And that encapsulates Iraq's involvement in the "War on Terror."

As for alternatives, understanding that terrorism is perpetrated by small cells within larger and unrelated social systems would indicate to me that you can send the WHOLE armed forces of the five nations with the largest armed forces into a place and short of killing EVERYONE, you're not going to get all the terrorists. Historically, the people who do the most damage in our lives will tend to engender the greatest hatred and distrust. So, it kind of makes sense for Americans whose fathers died at Pearl Harbor to distrust the Japanese. And it makes sense for a 10-year-old Iraqi kid who saw his father blown away by Americans to hate Americans. Now we have whole generations of America-haters.
Lastly, everytime an American President declares "War" on something that DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A REAL MILITARY RIVAL, the result has historically been an abject failure. Viz the "War on Drugs."
Being a conservative is about loyalism? Tell it to the Tories.
Thank God I am a loyal American without loyalties to any party. I think i can make better decisions that way.

Answer 6

Anything else will probably work better than what we are doing. If you think that we are totally imunes agaist this horrible thing you are wrong. America is not any safer than it used to be before sep 11. Changing Bush's administration could be a great start. He is creating more hate among other nations in the world towards us.. Rome was a great empire and it fell due to the number of enemies they had in the past. Are we going to have the same fate?

Answer 7

Bringing home our troops will not end this war. America's biggest problem is not terrorism. America's biggest problem is itself. We are slowly destroying our country from the inside out. The terrorist and oil prices are simply a distraction from all of our other problems. I support our troops! I support our president, even though I don't agree with all of his choices. I do believe he is sincere in his efforts to solve our problems, but he is just one man. He is not perfect. Our country has lost sight of what is right and just and true. We will probably never resemble our original colors and we will probably be a distant memory in the world's future. The Middle East is part of a bigger picture. Israel is the center of that story, not America. Israel will be the last one standing.

Answer 8

I think your question may be about Iraq War. Which many would argue should not have been part of war on terror. Saddam have been around forever and did he ever cut off our oil before? No. Did he ever launch terror attack against the US? No, he invaded Kuwait which we went into stop.

Truth is that Saddam actually didnt like extremists either. He didn't want extremists bombing things in his country either.

War on terror may include 'democracy promotion' but that shouldn't be done militarily. Let me ask you when will Iraq become model democratic nation like US? The president said something like 50 years or more. So if it takes 50, 60, 70, 80 years for Iraq to become model democratic nation, could they have done it without the US military?

War on terror is intelligence, CIA, FBI, and hopefully some type of muslim out reach programs to curve extremisms & anti US sentiments. Democratic countries like the US have seen terrorism like the Oklahoma bombing. Even if Iraq become democratic nation extremists can blend in and hide. Since that's what they always have been doing.

People are going to feel real stupid after Iraq become peaceful nation, but they have groups like al quida still running around bombing people in Starbucks and shopping malls.

Real war on terror should be done behind the closed doors, secret agents tracking down terrorists, breaking up al quida networks. Its not about 'look everybody the US saved Iraq from Saddam!' War on terror isn't big parade of 'heroes.'

I got no problem with declaring 'war on terror.' But I got problems when people overlook real 'war on terror' for other political motives and personal philosophy, ideaology, 'hunch' that someone have WMD.

We never needed to go to Iraq. We simply over reacted like a crazed husband buying machine guns after someone stole his tool box.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/

Answer 9

I think Smoking Cannabis and drinking wine in the sun is a much better philosophy.

Answer 10

You have just made a most eloquent case for developing and using our own resources for energy.