Who would we surrender to?

Question

We are not fighting a country, or an army. Who would we surrender to? And if you say 'the terrorists' does that mean that we aren't done until everyone who is a terrorist is dead in the world? How long do you think that will take?

Hey, stupid? You forgot to answer the other part of my question...how long will that take? Oh and sorry about calling you stupid, but that is what you named yourself...

Answer 1

That is the problem there will always be terrorists in the world, just like criminals. The best thing we could have done was go after Bin Laden. We didn't, we went into Iraq. And we surrendered to people like him when we allowed them to change our lives. We traded our liberty for safety, and allowed the government to use this as a constant scare tatic to keep us living in fear.

Answer 2

It is only when you are on defense that you issue a surrender. Coming home before the job was done admitting it was too tough would be defeat, not surrender. Kind of like when Hitler tried to invade Russia, he was forced to abandon that campaign so he resigned to defeat much like democrats have wanted to do in Iraq. (but not Afganistan?)

While are primary objective in the war on terror is to disrupt and defund terror networks as well as capture or kill suspects, Iraq need not be terrorist-free before we leave, but merely that the Iraqi govt is able to handle security on its own.

If we leave before such time, a real civil war will break out with death tolls in the millions, mass-graves, and the potential for another tyrant to step forward or worse yet, Iran.

Answer 3

Good question. The sad truth is that we are not fighting a defined enemy, nor is the occupation of Iraq a war on terror. It is, however, a privatized war designed to control Middle East oil and to ensure that major corporations in cahoots with Bush and Cheney make millions. If tomorrow, Congress passed a law forbidding private contractors from signing multi-billion dollar contracts to "support" the war effort, the Iraqi occupation would be over in a nanosecond.

Answer 4

We would be surrendering Iraq to the terrorist , most likely Al-Qaueda. The object under the war in Iraq is pressure on Iran. They are the main source of terrorism in the world today but a direct attack would turn the vastly pro-western proud population of Iran against us. We would lose tens of thousands of American lives by attacking them directly. Iran will fall from within and a more secular government will emerge. Do some research as to their economy and how their population feels about their extremist government and you will see. We are taking out the economic head of terrorism by forcing so much pressure on Iran. Even the attempt to create a democracy on both sides of their country sends shivers down their spine forcing them to poor ALL of their monies towards gaining nukes as it is their last gasp to remain in power.

It is important to note that we are losing the least amount of American lives by operating in this fashion. Yes it will take years but it is better than returning to a more organized and strengthened enemy at a later date. Mind you with the hate extreme Islam has for us it will be a necessity.

Answer 5

Look up Wahhabi. If I've got the spelling right. It's the engine behind most of the terrorist attacks. World wide. They've got a long history. They also are the extreme of the extreme.
They are headquartered in Saudi Arabia, and the Saud Monarchy is afraid of them. The more you learn of these creeps the more you'll be concerned about them.

Answer 6

Despite the fact that much malevolence emanates from America , there are many Americans who want no part of the Bush government, the true source of the malice. Humanity around the globe is vulnerable to the ruthless ambitions of the powerful nexus of plutocrats and corporations that comprise the American Oligarchy. They possess the potency of immense wealth and an unparalleled military arsenal, but are spiritually bankrupt. Therefore, the answer does not lie in other nations waging war against the US , or in American dissidents perpetrating acts of violence. Protests; education of our children, ourselves, and the uninformed; shining the light of truth into the shadows in which the Oligarchs lurk; verbal and written dissidence; moral and financial support of organizations like Amnesty International; acts of civil disobedience; boycotting the products of the administration's corrupt corporate allies; legal pressure and prosecution; and the impeachment process are the weapons we can use as we wage peace against the Oligarchs of the United States of America. As citizens of Earth, we share a common blight on our existence, and Washington DC is its epicenter. Waging peace will put this abomination in its place.

Answer 7

we should surrender to stupidity because it seems that the same mistakes that we made in vietnam are being made again..i kind of wonder how history will look at us?

Answer 8

Good luck getting a rational answer to this question.

The fact is, we're not fighting the war we're being told we're fighting. Right now, we are fighting an insurgent sect of the Iraqi people - people who oppose the American intervention in their country and are fighting it. These are not people who, if we don't fight them in Iraq, have any interest whatsoever in bringing the war to our shores. But we're being told that, because a people in fear is a people that is easier to control.

Kind of like the terrorists' theory.

Answer 9

We aren't in this war to surrender! We are in it so the Iraqii people may set up their own free government. Terrorism will NEVER go away but we need to keep our message to them strong!!!!!

Answer 10

Osama's fatwa lists three "crimes and sins" committed by the Americans:

U.S. military occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.
U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people.
U.S. support of Israel.

Funny, cause I think his demands were reasonable...He will never get them now. What he really wanted was to escalated the whole conflict. He wanted wars...he got them.