Wouldn't the US be better "protected " from terrorist attacks if our military was home?

Question

I'd feel safer if the Marines were here, instead of being killed by the warring factions in the Iraq Civil War, wouldn't you?

Kill "who" before they get to our shores?? Iraqis are not the "terrorists" that we fear. There are probably 100 or more terrorists in our country right now.

As for our "intelligence" agencies: they're batting 1000 now, aren't they? (Note: sarcasm.)

My lineage?? Belgian, actually.

I guess I was too sarcastic to get my point across.

Our soldiers, fighting against God-only-knows-who in Iraq are NOT protecting me from anything!! The terrorists who struck the WTC on 9/11 were NOT from Iraq, not paid for by Iraq, not supported by Iraq. Our soldiers are not fighting the people or the country of Iraq; we supposedly support the government there, as we are the ones who "created" it!!!
Usually warring means having an enemy! Where is ours? If they were easily detectable, they'd be an opposing army, not "terrorists" (who "create" terror by coming from clandestine places, doing clandestine things---duh!)

Our "dipping" into the politics and civil wars of the ME is creating more and more people with the hate that is needed to give birth to terrorism. We are creating our own enemies! Is that the real reason we are there? If we have someone over "there" to fear, we will be distracted from our own internal problems.

EricR--you are a beautiful thinker!

Answer 1

If we continue to refuse to reform our foreign policy, it won't matter where the troops are.

The best way to fight terrorism is to judge our leaders, our allies, and ourselves by the same standards we judge our enemies. If human rights, instead of cheap goods and labor, were the focus of our foreign policy, we wouldn't be resented by half the world.

Those who are serious about "fighting terrorism" need to demand equal justice for the people (not necessarily the leaders) of countries affected by the crimes of American and European colonialism.

The US has a nasty habit of supporting terrorism whenever it suits our short-term goals. As Kissinger admitted, "Covert action should not be confused with missionary work."

We've supported some pretty murderous leaders and genocidal regimes. If we truly care about spreading democracy (or at the very least if we expect the rest of the world to believe our rhetoric), doesn't it follow that we have to acknowledge past and present crimes? And if not make amends, at least reform our policies?

While it's easy to heap the blame on neanderthals like Bush or Machavellians like Cheney and Rumsfeld, equal blame belongs to those who supported the war either through word, deed or legislation - namely 99% of the Democratic Party. Until those of us who oppose the war hold individuals like Hillary Clinton, Joseph Lieberman and other legislators responsible for their pro-war/anti-civil liberties voting record, nothing is going to change.

Answer 2

whats up. i actually appreciate your opinion. i'm a 15yr veteran. Served in 3 different wars and that i surely comprehend your question. the component you at the instant are not taking into attention is the protection tension's function in not purely responding to assaults on our soil, as we did with 9/11 in Afghanistan, yet in addition to evade destiny assaults. we would be a unfavorable united states if we purely spoke back to assaults. We additionally could ward off those assaults from happening. I on no account get dissatisfied whilst somebody criticizes the protection tension or the wars we are in, yet we at the instant are not all sheep sir or ma'am. we are in actuality struggling with to make confident that no person ever will become efficient adequate to eliminate your freedom to jot down freely on the information superhighway, to freely communicate undesirable approximately your government and it fairly is protection tension. because of the fact of human beings like me, and those of your friends and kin that serve, you isn't tracked down and crushed or imprisoned for what you have written here right now. additionally, in case you do not think of there are international places available that could desire to take us down and spoil our freedoms, you're very naive. i might advise to you to be sure some books on distant places coverage, not political books, I agree, politics in this united states are screwed up, yet actually distant places coverage books so which you would be able to extra useful comprehend the want for a protection tension in this united states besides because of the fact the could sometimes have preemptive offensive action. thank you returned for expressing your opinion however.

Answer 3

The National Guard protects us. We have Marines here too. The war is larger than you will ever know, or consider. So, I feel safer knowing that our military fights the battle off of our shores and in the enemy's backyards, not our own. And that you are not our country's leader.

Answer 4

Leave the mrines for what ever Bush wants. National guards should be brought home to GUARD or NATION. THis is not what the national guard was built for. I thought it was a refuge for rich kids to hide from fighting during war times. I think Bush forgot that or he was AWOL when they were teaching that when he was there.
Also the National guard was the military that the state uses. It was created just incase we have a mad man in office and the state or the people want to overthrough a corrupt Federal government. We need the authority of the National Guards returned to the governor. We need them here now.

Answer 5

Definitely !!

But in that case your country would not be able to enjoy that benefit of "Oil" from Iraq and Middle East !!

Ahh ....America is a suppur power this time and why Bush governament is feeling so unprotected that they need to send troops to other country for invasion in order to make them safe?Doesn't make any sense at all......He is just misguiding americans and the world ! The only danger to your country is your president...........mark my words !

Answer 6

Well...that's the way it should really be. As George Washington said....The United States should not meddle in other countries affairs.

The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. It says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, 'Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they've found -- then we'll figure out what we're going to do. The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq -- which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter. George Bush also lied through his teeth when he said that Saddam was addicted to WMD.

Fact is...if the U.S. wasn't so well established in the middle east there probably wouldn't be a whole lot of terrorist that would be out to get their revenge against us.

Answer 7

That's hard to answer....But I'd feel a whole lot better If the Damn boarders were sealed up and there were soldiers, veterans(lots would be there) , volunteers or immigration personnel there to ENFORCE the desire of the American Public.........

Watch Glenn Beck.......

Answer 8

By your lineage, your local police should stay in their precinct HQ's, rather than go out looking for bad guys.

I'd rather they "get" those folks before they come to my home, or town.

Answer 9

No. Kill them BEFORE they get to our shores. That's the idea of taking the fight to the enemy.

Answer 10

protecting us from an terrorist attack involves intelligence not our troops, they have no idea what the terrorists are doing.

Its our Homeland Security, the FBI and the CIA that protect us from terrorists.