or aid to individuals or organizations committed to futher attacks on America? Why or why not?
2007-06-22 04:11:31 · 10 answers · asked by Cherie 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Hey Josh--why don't you quit whining and answer some Q's? You rarely answer anyone just reply with useless comments. Frankly--you're getting tiresome.
2007-06-22 05:04:40 · update #1
The evidence that those governments are supporting and supplying the terrorists would have to be overwhelming. How many people in the US are plotting against our allies?
I do believe we need to strenghten our national security first. Post our national guardsmen at the borders and issue the national id cards (much like Gingrich proposes--outsource it to Visa/Mastercard) . This would be done with 'guests' of our country too. When the expriation date hits--they can no longer work, attend school etc........they're escorted to JFK to go back home. The best defense is a good offense.
2007-06-23 00:13:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, that sounds like a slippery slope to a US vs The World conflict for several reasons.
One is that it is difficult at best to determine which individuals or organizations are "committed to further attacks on America". We have learned at Guantanamo that it is all too easy to sweep up people who have nothing to do with terrorist groups (based on the say-so of someone seeking a reward for turning in terrorists), and then not only are we stuck holding them, but they are ultimately more likely to have terrorist tendencies once they ever do get out.
One is that it would be difficult to prove that it is a country providing official support to our adversaries. Do you propose also bombing countries that are unable to control some of their citizens? If it came to that, we would have to be bombing Pakistan right this minute.
What about our treaty obligations? Would we be obligated to attack those countries from which terror attacks were launched against our allies? If we go that way, we'd have to attack our Kurdish allies in Northern Iraq in retaliation for their attacks against our NATO allies in Turkey.
I guess at the root of things, I think that it is counterproductive to swagger through the world talking about all of the places you're going to bomb if they don't behave the way we want them to.
2007-06-22 12:00:31 · answer #2 · answered by oimwoomwio 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes we should.
To fail to do so shows a lack of resolve in this World War against mohammedan terrorists.
President George W. Bush has already warned that any country which harbors terrorists will be considered a terrorist allay, and therefore a target. So lets roll !
2007-06-22 12:46:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If we can prove some country is still giving or gives in the future aide and comfort to an organization that attacks us again either in the US or to our citizens/soldiers abroad yes we should use air strikes against that country's military installations.
2007-06-22 11:16:48 · answer #4 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
There is no prove. Prove to who? The "International Community"? The American People? There is no "prove it" clause about the president being commander in chief of the military. It's a shame we no longer understand the simple truth that the only way to win a war is to utterly decimate the support structure underlying the battle force. General Sherman did it in the south and the north won the civil war. We did it in Germany and Japan and we won. We didn't do it in Korea and Viet Nam, and we lost. HELL YES. Take them out. Airstrikes, assassinations, boots-on-the-ground, whatever it takes. As long as they have support, they'll keep attacking us.
2007-06-22 11:30:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Any country that aids and abets terrorists is committing an act of war against the United States. It is well within our rights to launch attacks against those that attack us.
2007-06-22 11:19:55 · answer #6 · answered by biologist1968 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, air strikes are unacceptable is any situation. Domestic defense should always be #1 priority instead of offensive tactics that kill civilians, waste trillions of dollars, enflame unfounded fears, and contribute to the energy and environmental crisis.
2007-06-22 23:17:08 · answer #7 · answered by London 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course. Terrorists must be destroyed utterly. I'm not sure Air strikes are the most efficient way though.
2007-06-22 11:14:09 · answer #8 · answered by John L 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Aiding those who are trying to kill us is an act of war & should be a causus belli.
2007-06-22 12:26:29 · answer #9 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Air strikes in Iran and Syria would be a good start. I dunno why some people always think being bold in war is somehow NOT helpful.
2007-06-22 14:23:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋