2007-07-22 05:40:56 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
There always be terror and evil people, so my answer is no...
2007-07-22 05:43:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
You can never fully win a war against terrorists. What must be done is to make the cost of terror so high that it is unfeasable to perform it.
If a terrorist cell knows that in retribution for blowing up a building their entire city and/or country will be invaded, occupied and leveled the amount of bombings will decrease.
It is a very similar situation to the cold war. Both sides had the means to destroy the other, yet no one did because the devestation would nullify their own attack.
2007-07-22 05:47:50 · answer #2 · answered by Josh 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it can not be winnable in a classic militia experience. even with the undeniable fact that, there are different outcomes merely as proper. to illustrate, this is available that over the years, the present form of terrorism we are dealing with will merely disintegrate by utilising itself. evaluate historic previous: The IRA, Bader-Meinhoff, and pink Brigades are the two long gone or have stated as off the assaults. Even the Sendero Luminoso is waning. some could argue that Fatah (or a factor of it) ceased its militancy and became to politics. What approximately Hamas? i comprehend they're on the instant a 17 November. even with the undeniable fact that, sometime they're going to ought to attain that they are going to in all probability accomplish extra while they provide up the weapons now that they actually ought to manipulate. for the duration of historic previous, civilization has confronted terrorists. Pompey vanquished the Mediterranean Pirates in sixty 9 BC. regularly they disappear after working their direction. i could say that such disappearance arises out of a mix of extremely some anti-terror and counter terrorist strikes, with the aid of extremely some social classes subsidized by utilising government to win hearts and minds, with the aid of the political technique and finally, human beings interior the affected international places develop weary of their presence. i'm useful approximately this. Regards.
2016-10-22 08:41:33 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
John Edwards got slammed by the media for saying "the war on terror" is a bumpersticker. Of course, he meant the phrase, not the concept. This inept administration has used the phrase to cover any illegal, un-American or profit-grabbing activity they could come up with. So we as a country need to move on to a more sophisticated concept of what we are up against and how to defeat it. I'm hoping that one or more of the presidential candidates will address this in the next year and a half.
2007-07-22 06:12:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
First off, it isn't a War on Terror'...It's an operation against terrorists. There are dozens if not tens of dozens of individual 'cells' of terrorists and each cell is composed of people with names and addresses. Each of these people must be treated and tracked as any other criminal or criminal organization. Seventy ton tanks tearing up the pavement in Iraq isn't going to do the job. Building and maintaining 'Fort Green Zone' in downtown Baghdad isn't going to do it either. We don't expect criminals to surrender and we don't expect them to 'negotiate' either. We expect our police and security forces to arrest, capture or kill these people...one person and one cell at a time. Occupying Iraq simply ain't gonna' do that!
2007-07-22 05:49:43 · answer #5 · answered by Noah H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We need to just protect our own borders which for some reason seems impossible to do because any Tom, Dick or Habib can walk right in with any type of weapon and do anything they want to do on our soil. I think there is too many Chiefs and not enough Indians. No one pays attention to what's really going on and that opens the door to terrorists. There will never be surrender of any kind we just need to practice defense here at home in America.
2007-07-22 05:45:59 · answer #6 · answered by jacquie 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You're so right!
You'll notice that Winston Churchill didn't declare "War on Blitzkreig". He declared war on those PERPETRATING blitzkreig!
There's three requirements for winning a war:
1. Identify the enemy
2. Define victory
3. Engage the enemy with overwhelming force (the Powell doctrine).
This is precisely how World War 2 was won.
2007-07-22 05:45:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
People that want to terrorize others are not going to negotiate. What are you going to offer them? Let them blow up a few buildings occasionally in exchange for not hunting them down?
Yes, it is meaningless, in short we just just, ignore the terrorist and let them do what they want because we can't beat them.
2007-07-22 05:43:56 · answer #8 · answered by eldude 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
Because "terror" is a concept and "terrorism" is a model of behavior -- both as old as civilization.
Having a "war on terror" is like trying to marry "idealism" -- looks great on paper, utterly meaningless in practice.
2007-07-22 05:44:51 · answer #9 · answered by coragryph 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Yes it is winnable. Failure is not an option that I'm willing to live with.
2007-07-22 05:43:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋