If War is not the Answer, than how do we defend ourselves from terrorists?

Question

Liberals are against war and my question to them is how does a free society like ours sustain itself in a world filled with radical terrorists that will stop at nothing to kill Americans? Should we just sit back and let them keep attacking us? Is there a different way to fight terrorism and defend the free world without engaging in war? I am asking this question to give the opportunity to anti-war liberals to propose their solution before I can make the claim that they have no solutions.

Answer 1

Iraq has to get off its butt and start defending itself. Then we can back out. To defend ourselves against terrorists we need real intelligence and satellites and informants. Then we can send in strategic strikes on the strong holds where these radicals are training. 911 showed us that there are radicals who want us dead, but we do not need to occupy a country to fight this so called war on terror. If a Nation occupied my Country I would be just as angry. You say that liberals have no plan - I am a independent thinker. Why then has our Government refused to kill Al-Sadr a known hater of America and a known killer of American soldiers? We have had 3 opportunities. Why is he still breathing? The President stated after 911 that we would track down and kill every terrorist. What kind of message are we sending when we let him live.

Answer 2

Your main question is a very good question. Of course the rest of it just argument-bait and that probably means you won't hear the answers presented to you but just in case, here's your answer:

Pick and choose your battles! Sometimes war is the answer.

We didn't need to take afghanisthan to get Bin Laden. Cheney was just making good his threat to Talinban to "bomb them back to the stone age" if they didn't let Halliburton build the pipeline crossing thier country. Our forces were ordered to let Bin Laden go at least twice and now he's retired peacefully in NW Pakisthan.

Iraq had ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING to do with terrorism. Again that was all about Halliburton, the Carlyle group and other Saudi-Owned companies. IT's not just about money and power but it's a Sunni-Shia thing. Terrorism nor WMD had anything to do with it.

What would have been better "battles"?

Capturing Bin Laden no matter what country he's in.

Saudi Arabia (remember that's where the 911 hijackers and Bin Laden are from) are major funders of terror. IF we were going to take over any country, that should have been the one.

Even better would be to head these things off before they happen.
How?
Well here are some thing going on now that will undoubtedly cause more terrorism in the future.

Sudan - needs a stable governement
Somalia - needs a stable government
Isreal - If they decided to make the state where you live the new Isreal and treated you the way they treated the Palestinians, you'd fight any way you could too.
Iraq - needs it's own army and the US Military removed (Hmm why doesn't our governemnt want that . . .?)



I

Answer 3

First America is NOT a free society. Is is still dominated by the wealthy. American governments don't give a damn about their underclasses.

America has invaded directly or with covert operations dozens of countries especially during the Cold War. And what about poor old Nicaragua? Mexico etc

So my answer is simple. Stop pissing everyone else off and America will need less military aggression. Besides in an asymmetrical war America just loses many soldiers without winning the War. As in Vietnam!

A "genuine" winning of the hearts and minds of people will remove the need for aggression. And sorry to the Conservative that asked this question, this will mean a marked shift to the left in World politics.

Answer 4

Liberals aren't against wars, they're against stupid wars that have done nothing to make us safer and quite possibly made us less safe. I haven't heard one Liberal say they were against the war in Afghanistan where we could take the fight to at least some of them.

Maybe the Liberals have no solutions but its better than your ill-conceived, built on lies, stupid solution that the conservatives continue to back with no matter how wrong it has proven to be. If we want to start with a solution, I say we get the "free world" back on our side. I gotta believe that most of the people in the world want to live in peace. Lets get the majority of the world to back us on this terrorist thing then maybe we can come up with a solution world-wide.

Sorry to tell you this but this terrorist thing is not going to be solved on a battlefield. I wish the US could invade some country, defeat all the terrorist and call it a day but it ain't gonna happen. The sooner you figure this out, the better. The problem is your convential thinking about what a war is.

BTW, I don't consider myself liberal nor conservative. I'm just someone who can decide things for myself without toeing either party's line.

Answer 5

oh... you're offering us this opportunity before you make the claim we have no solutions? well woopity doo... conservatives have been saying that for a year or more... and no one has really cared... but I'm sure someone would care what you're opinion on the matter is?

but moving on... first read the 9-11 report and realize we're not going after the terrorists... and that's the major problem that most dems have...

many would support action taken against the terrorists listed there... all democrats I know supported Afghanistan...

so.. go after the terrorists and the terrorist leadership... it lays it out in the 9-11 report...

there are some that say war is not the answer at all... but those seem to be few... most are saying "the IRAQI war is not the answer"... that's totally different than war is not the answer...

I would love it if we went after Osama... maybe even hezbollah and Hamas leadership... but we're not getting anyone but the foot soldiers in Iraq... which doesn't really do anything to kill them when they have 5 waiting to replace them...

Answer 6

That wouldnt be smart to tell us we dont have any solutions. Want to know why? Liberals and Conservatives are now starting to join the same side in not supporting the war. My question to you is why are you getting blinded by the media by beliving that this is a "war on terror"? Think about this for a second. Even if we were to capture and kill Osama...you honestly think that it will be over? No. Someone will come to take their place.

We are against the war for one big reason. Why should we be the world police and try to force our ways onto them. How long did it take us to ratify our constitution; and somehow we expect them to do it in 2 years. Iraq is a country with three major religions and they grew up with religion being a major part of their everyday lives and they already dont like each other so why would we expect the immediate outcome of "freedom of religion". We should go after the ones who attacked us yes, but we dont need to try and change the world, esspecially when they dont want the help or want to change their ways.

Answer 7

It seems that negotiations are the only key, although not much effective against die hards.. As the Pope once said, Islam is also for good, but some leaders just use it for evil... If Muslims become resistant to their propaganda, talking about holy jihads and such... then surely the only terrorist we'll be fighting today are those of Radical revolutionist who think of a global cleansing, or crazed evil brotherhoods. Which I think are very few in numbers....

Answer 8

Easy! We go after the TERRORISTS! Not engage in war with a country that had little to nothing to do with 9/11 and then change the agenda to "Liberation" when it is revealed that it was based on lies. I realize that going directly after terrorists like Bin Laden in AFGHANISTAN is a radical idea to conservatives, but it just might have been worth a try after 9/11, instead of losing more troops than the amount of lives lost in 9/11.

Answer 9

we defend ourselves from terrorists without resorting to war by several means:
1. port and border security. this does not mean making the US an isolationist state, it merely means using existing technology to be aware of who and what is coming in and going out of our country.
2. stop creating more terrorists. by engaging in war in the middle east, we are radicalizing many people, especially youths, against us, which effectively creates more terrorists for us to have to deal with in the future.
3. engage in more humanitarian work around the world. we have the capability to ensure that no human being on this planet goes to bed hungry, or without clean drinking water. we should be much more willing to give foreign aid to those around the world who want it. feeding someone is a much more effective way of ensuring a safer, more peaceful world than pointing a gun at them.
4. improve intelligence gathering and policing of terrorist cells. if clinton era intelligence briefings had been taken seriously by the bush administration, there is a chance that 9/11 could have been avoided. by the same token, police and intelligence agencies are much better equipped to handle terrorist threats than the military is.
5. reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, particularly middle eastern oil. the less we depend on middle eastern oil, the less we will give the impression, true or not, that we are only involved in the region because we want their oil.
6. work on finding a lasting peaceful political compromise on the israel-palestine issue. now that yassir arafat is no longer in the picture, it SHOULD be easier to broker peace between israel and the arab street, but our involvement in iraq complicates the issue and makes us appear just as imperialistically agressive as israel.
7. once we leave iraq, remove all permanent military bases in the region. once again, whether it is the case or not, having permanent military bases in the middle east makes us appear to the rest of the world as imperialist aggressors, which causes certain factions in the middle east to want to attack us.
8. cooperate more with the united nations, even though it pains many of us to do so. note that the united nations did not raise the objections to us going in to afghanistan like they did when we were going in to iraq, and look where we are in iraq now. after 9/11, the vast majority of the world was behind us with the war on terrorism, but iraq caused us to lose the majority of those allies. international cooperation, along with intelligence and policing, are the keys to solving the global problem of terrorism, not war after war, and we can't solve this problem alone.

Answer 10

Well of course Fox News and John McCain tells us "if we bring the troops home then they will follow our troops home."

I wonder if the terrorists came to the US to fight or troops, would George Bush will give them blanket amnesty like he does with all the rest of the illegal aliens?

It's a good question if you think about. We're fighting "boogiemen terrorists" but the borders are wide open. I wonder why all you pro-war fake *ss conservatives aren't running to join the Army. At the very least, could you chicken hawks hook me up with whatever it is you're smoking?