Is a War on Terror even plausible?

Question

Does that even make sense?

Isn't what the Bush Administration entirely more terrorizing than anything the "terrorists" have done since 9/11?

Shouldn't the American government be able to protect it's citizens with the combined efforts of the CIA, FBI, and Dept. of Homeland Security?

Why do we need to invade other countries? Since most people would agree that "we are the greatest country in the world" why cant we use our trade powers, naval blockades, etc to impose our will instead of invading...

Is Bush just using the War on Terror to scare Americans into supporting his cause? Aren't the most ignorant/less-educated Americans the only ones who trust/beleive him?

Exactly Joe..

Why don't we use our political might instead of our miliitary might..

like you said sanctions are often more effective than soliders..

The only reason we dont do it is because our President is a drunk cowboy.

Canela, get off your MORE PATRIOTIC THAN THOU high horse.. Why dont you have an AK 47 in your hand and your boots in the sand?

I dont think the invasion of Iraq has been fruitful at all.. It has cost us more than it has given us..

Like I said, the CIA, FBI, and Dept. of Homeland Security should be the ones fighting "The War on Terror" not the military. The military should be used to fight enemys "in uniforms" etc.

Answer 1

Hard to impose naval blockades when China and Russia have other ways of delivering their products to other countries.

No need to scare Americans into supporting him. We were attacked and we are going to finish the fight. Fascists won the first fight but we will win the war if we can get cowards off our backs.

No, the less educated Americans are the ones supporting the liberals.

Answer 2

Yes it makes sense. It's very hard work that will never end, but it is plausible.
No, what the Bush administration's done is not more terrorizing than 9/11 and since. They have gotten somethings wrong, but people who go around blowing up themselves just to kill people they feel are heathen are MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than anything the Bush administratino has done or will do.
We are protected. When was the last time since 9/11 that Al-Queda attacked US soil?
Blockades and sanctions don't work. The rich and elite who rule countries and support terrortists can still eat and live in luxury. It's the innocent who suffer from sanctions. We have done the Iraq the perfect way, but it's much better than it could be.
The war on terror is a serious thing. As soon as you start trivializing 9/11 as Bush's fault like you are, you open us up for another attack.

Answer 3

No, it isn't. It's as silly as characterizing WWII as a war against blitzkrieg.

The war is Jihad. From our standpoint it is a war to defend against jihadists.

Even if people want to put their heads in the sand and pretend that the jihadists are just a few bad apples who have taken a peaceful religion started by a peaceful man and corrupted it, even if this can be considered a rational viewpoint, it cannot be considered rational to ignore that there are jihadists, that they share a cause and that that cause is destroying us, and that that's who is attacking us, and that they will not stop until we put them down.

If the PC, the liberals, the fearful or a combination of them want to pretend that the jihadists are a different phenomenon apart from Islam itself, they can do this, they can be wrong about this, and we cans still fight the jihadists, but some of them take it so far as to say there is no such thing as jihadists, that there are just a few hundred or few thousand disorganized crackpots out there who are not part of a cohesive front any more than common criminals are - - that attitude is how to lose this war.

Answer 4

Blockade? What are you stopping? Opium? We're not trading with terror countries to start with. And, we're not the only people in the world with buying power. We can only ask our allies to help with an embargo. But lets say there was money to be made, would you hurt your (China/Russia) own economy to make a political statement? No is the answer.

Bush has no agenda in the invasion. He would be a much more popular president if he never went in or pulled out right now. But there is a long term need here and he has made the decision to try to face reality now rather than later.

Answer 5

It takes hard decisions to run a country in this moment. Not all of which are going to be popular or understood. There has to be a fine line danced by the President, and explaining things to the citizenry is one of his last concerns.
Unfortunately, you are entitled to your opinions and fears, but before you get too carried away with your holier-than-thou rants, try to see the larger picture. The best way to protect your own borders is to carry the battle away from them. It's not popular, but it works.
Of course, it does give the extremists an awful lot of fodder with which to influence the young and malleable.
What surprises me is that the Arab world hasn't come down on the extremists for slaughtering their own people. The bombers aren't targeting the US forces in Iraq, but rather just random innocents. Why is there no outcry? Why is everything the fault of the US? Why are we the only ones to care?

Answer 6

Oh, are you naive. As Ann Landers used to say, "Wake up and smell the coffee, Bub". These guys don't wear uniforms. They're the guy next door whose kid is in your son's class. See subway bombings in London, train bombings in Spain, Irish Republican Army attacks all over the freakin' UK, numerous attacks on civilians in Israel, Chechnya, Bosnia, the WTC (twice) and etc. The fact that we have become complacent doesn't mean that the efforts are not fruitful. It means their efforts are working. It's no accident we haven't been attacked again. There are guys out there putting their lives on the line to root out these people to make sure your fat a-- is secure and you can write thankless inquiries like this. Blame Bush? I don't think so. Thank him for having the guts to push on in spite of criticism and a thankless citizenry like you is more like it. Now, go join an armed service and, as John Kennedy once said, "...ask what you can do for your country".

Answer 7

Your question is a point I've been trying to make since people started using the phrase "war on terror."

Essentially, what they're saying is that we've declared war on hatred. But hatred will never go away. Someone, somewhere, is always going to hate us. And someone, somewhere, is always going to want us all dead.

The thing to do is not declare war on an ideology (after all, invisible enemies are impossible to defeat) but to try to keep ourselves safe from its effects. So instead of invading Iraq on the premise that we're making the world safe from terrorists (I doubt Londoners who were in or near that train in 2005 would agree that we're doing that), perhaps the thing to do is tighten OUR security, rather than providing it to the Iraqis.

Just a thought. Be more vigilant here, and let the world either embrace or kill each other as they will. Survival of the fittest.

Answer 8

I do not consider myself ignorant or uneducated! How exactly do you think that President Bush is terrorizing anyone -besides the terrorist themselves? You rant & rave about injustice, but what do you do about it? At least President Bush & our military are fighting to preserve the freedom so many Americans' have grown to take advantage of. To answer your question I will ask you one - Is Saddam still in power? - Has there been any more terrorist’s attacks on our soil? Looks to me like President Bush & our military are doing an outstanding job!

Answer 9

the whole theory of a 'conflict' on terrorism is ridiculous in the beginning. The term 'conflict on terrorism' is a propaganda word tossed around by our government to instill worry and to further the assumption and feeling of there being an us and a them. by attempting to combat an particularly conflict to triumph over terrorism and by attempting to create worry in voters the government is in simple terms turning out to be yet another resource of worry and a probability itself. Terrorism could not end any time quickly. the only way that the worldwide will see a decline and end to terrorism is that if the worldwide as an entire can convey forth peace between international locations, manage human beings justly, make constructive that there is nutrition and medical look after each and every individual, etc. it particularly is repeated hardships and unrest in societies that finally supply beginning to terrorists and their followers.

Answer 10

Yes to all questions except the first two. A war on terror is like the war on drugs. You can kill a few dealers, but more will replace them. Even some of the stupid Americans are starting to understand Bush is a retard. However, we have far too many retards in the country for this to change much. :-( It's all good, the world is gonna end by 2012 anyway.

For further proof that there are too many retards in this country just read some of the other comments to this question.