What other conclusion can a clear thinker come to?
2007-07-01 08:18:57 · 44 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Only a certifiable moronic imbecile and/or a deaf/blind person can possibly argue against this question.
I shan't even consider the attempted terrorist acts in the USA in my response.
The UK government under the stewardship of the mass murderer Blair willingly and enthusiastically joined into this 'war on terror' bullshite. Is any half intelligent person under the illusion the 7/7 and the recent attempted terrorist acts in London and Glasgow would have been contemplated should the UK have taken a more political and less military action against Iraq and the WMD?
Is it truly beyond the comprehension of imbeciles to see the correlation between those countries/governments who bought into the 'war on terror', and their enthusiasm in joining the coalition of the willing, and recent terrorist acts on their home soil or against their citizens?
Would the Madrid train bombings and the Bali bombings have been contemplated if Spain and Australia were not members of the above coalition?
Surprising is it not, that no act of terrorism has been attempted by Al Qaeda and it's minnions against France, Germany, Ireland, Greece, Sweden, and a host of other countries who were not so quick to join the half wit redneck's 'war on terror' from across the pond.
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, how many countries which have since experienced terrorism, had anything to be concerned about with the Muslim fundamentalist or suicide bombers on their soil?
The 9/11 act was against the USA foreign policy in general and American middle east coercion in particular, NOT the 'free democratic' world; no matter how many times the Americans claim it was.
At times, no matter how powerful you are, it is far wiser to let sleeping dogs lie. Wars are not fought on battlefields any longer. Thus, they are not won/lost there either.
2007-07-01 09:27:55 · answer #1 · answered by Devil's Advocate 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
First, there is no such thing as a War on Terror!
If terrorism is an act of someone, not a country, who is pissed at you it would seem the best thing to do is to open a dialog. Just the opposite of what Bush did!
I think trying to make your enemy's your friends is a better strategy to combat terrorist, and at least talking to them to find out why they are mad, helps more than attacking a country that had nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11.
All we have accomplished, besides the lost lives, both civilian and military, is to create more enemies. The Iraqi people were not our enemies before we got there, but they sure are now, and they have drawn a force from other places that makes them even stronger. We will never take down the middle east. The Romans tried and failed!
We are not going to win this war, the Iraqi's are not going to lay down. We have put them through too much.
And like an old commander I met said:
"And what the hell is terrorism, anyway? It's not a thing; it's not a place; it's not a person. It is a political and military strategy, that's all. Having a 'War On Terrorism' is as ridiculous as having a 'War on Flanking Maneuvers'. You'll end terrorism when there's no longer anything for anybody to get pissed off about."
Col David Hackworth
He said this before the war. It is as true today as it was then!
When we leave, what we will have left for the most part, are people who hate us! I would do the same if someone came over here with their bombs, tanks, aircraft and troops, and started killing 60,000 plus of my own citizens. Sure I want Bush out, but I don't want him out bad enough to watch my people blown up every single day for almost 5 years!
There were no training camps Locutus! That is another figment of Bush's imagination and some people can't deal with the truth, so the figure if the lie long enough it will become the truth! Well it won't! Keep spreading the lies. There were no weapons of Mass Destruction either! I bet you are one of the ones who claim they went to Syria! That is another lie!
2007-07-01 09:33:28 · answer #2 · answered by cantcu 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Absolutely! The terrorists know that the countries they hit will try to identify them, and capture them, of course. (If they have not committed suicide, that is.) But to "declare war on terror" is just what they were looking for. The very fact that we try to stop them, in a very public manner, with the president yammering on about the "evil axis" all the time, gives them the audience they crave, creates martyrs among them, gives them a very visible "enemy", gives them all the tools they need to gain new recruits.
People who never saw the US as their enemy are now finding us and our Western ways, our threats, our incursion into their lives, countries, religion and politics, very frightening. They feel their way of life is being threatened. (And, it is!) We are the "evil axis" to them. And, without armies, they will "fight" us any way they can---usually with terrorist acts or the threat of them. Look at what they have already accomplished here! We have a crazy man "leading" us, we have lost rights, we are cutting the Constitution to ribbons, we are scared!!! And what exactly is the purpose of terrorist acts?? To cause fear!! To disrupt daily lives!! To cause dissention among their enemies!
They are succeeding and multiplying!
2007-07-01 17:41:40 · answer #3 · answered by Joey's Back 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Anything the western civilization does creates more terrorists out of the middle east.
Lets take a look at the overall picture though. How many terror cells are in Europe? Asia? America? Australia?
Fact is, terrorists stem from the underdeveloped countries. It is part of their culture and jealousy for what others have that they don't.
In saying that, your telling me that by helping Iraq create it's own democratic system will not help the terror type violence?
Have you ever spoken to an Iraqi? I am gonna say no. I have. Two tours to Iraq, it's kinda hard not to. The upcoming generation of Iraqi's want satellite TV, fashion, iPods, Cable, etc. They are Iraq's "X" generation.
The current leaders in Iraq are the cause for secular violence. In time the new generation will move into power and the violence will cease. Just as it happened on the DMZ of South Korea.
Did it create more terrorists? I would say yes, currently. But in the future? Our actions will have prevented even more from becoming a reality, and that's is what I truly worry about.
2007-07-01 08:28:58 · answer #4 · answered by Q-burt 5 · 6⤊ 4⤋
I guess the question becomes what were the other options? Should we have done nothing and hoped they wouldn't hit us again? Should we have just launched a few cruise missiles and hoped that scared them?
If a lunatic is at your door waving a gun and saying he's going to kill you and your family would you ignore him, or confront him, or maybe call the police? If you do anything but ignore him then your logic would lead you to believe that the result of confrontation would only bring more lunatics to the door. That doesn't seem like clear thinking to me. A threat must be met and can not be ignored.
2007-07-01 09:12:46 · answer #5 · answered by jaromi89 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
The right one.
There will always be terrorists and there will always be people whose goal it is to cause terror.
The good thing about the war on terror is that many, if not most, of the higher-ups have been done away with. This is evinced by the fact that we haven't been attacked in six years. It is also evinced by the rather sloppy attack that almost happened in UK. If the terrorists were at the top of their game like they used to be, there wouldn't be five guys in the pokey right now -- 24 hours after said attack failed.
2007-07-01 09:08:37 · answer #6 · answered by Rebecca 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
No more than declaring war on Germany created more reinforcements for front line units in Western Europe. Or Japan and the Pacific theater. War is a contest of wills. Each side increases it's will until it is forced to submit.
Clear Thinker? You're a legend in your own mind. It is not clear to me how "clear thinking" means jumping to simple minded conclusions.
2007-07-01 09:16:44 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 5⤋
There was not a terroist cell in Iraq before Bush invited them.
2007-07-02 15:39:48 · answer #8 · answered by watcher 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is really silly. I just found a newspaper clipping from 1956, when Truman was inaugurated, and there was a story about an Egyptian mullah declaring jihad on England and France. He said it was the responsibility of every Muslim to die killing English and French people.
There is a social/political movement among some Muslims that is worldwide. It is very anti-woman. It is anti-voting. Wake up! Try reading the Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright. It covers the history and particular people and circumstances which have led us to today.
We didn't cause this behavior or mindset. It is peculiar to Arabs and Iranians in particular. It has been building from the Persian
claims on Mohamed, since the death of their prophet. The Koran calls for killing those who don't believe in the one God, and tolerating, but subjugating Christians and Jews. That has been hardened to kill everyone and let God judge.
That's what is clear to me.
2007-07-01 08:37:03 · answer #9 · answered by Susan M 7 · 3⤊ 6⤋
No. The training camps are gone and so is the infrastructure. What we are now dealing with are the dregs that can be scraped together.
We have forced them to expend many bodies and dollars on the battle field in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Hezbollah and Hammas are battling for survival. Syria and Iran need to be engaged also so that this thing can be put to an end in our life time.
It will not happen though. You can give any reason you wish but the truth is it won't happen because the Bible says that there will be a different outcome that depends on Iran and Syria in the future.
2007-07-01 08:41:19 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 4⤊ 6⤋