How Do We Win the Three Front War on Terror?

Question

It could quite easily be called a million front war.

First front: fighting every insurgent, guerilla, nationalist who has raised arms against us.

Second Front: Iraq, where the country is collapsing into civil war and Bush says its crucial in fighting the war on terror.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070724/ts_nm/usa_iraq_bush_dc_3

Third Front: Afghanastan where the Taliban is inching closer to Kabul in ever increasing attacks.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070724/ts_csm/ohostages_1

Long ago I came to the conclusion, when there is a call to fight, follow the money.

A congressional report in 2005 said that the USA supplies 35% of the worlds arms. Some organizations put that figure at better then half.

How are we to "Win" the war on terror when we can't even win it on the second and third front.

This is not a republican vs democratic issue. Both are using the same "Win" at any cost rhetoric.

Follow the money

Comments?

Peace

Jim


.

BOB B

Your problem Bob is you are thinking about borders and countries.

So if a person from France blows up the Statue of Liberty are we to level France in response?

Think of something else, any country who dislikes another terrorizes America in the name of the other country and our response is we do their dirty work for them, while thinking we're ridding the world of scum and yet let the scum get away with it.

I hope you get my drift and understand your way not only has a lot of problems with it, but is inhuman, wrong and murderous. Plus will bring more terror in the USA then you can imagine in retaliation.

Peace

Jim

.

Answer 1

It cannot be done. Too many fronts, not enough people. Hitler tried it and it didn't work for him either.

Peace to you too!

Answer 2

The last two fronts can be fought. It will take time and lots of money, but it can be accomplished. However, the pains suffered will not be proportional to the gains won. The US should fight a war in Aphghanistan instead of fighting a war on both fronts, it would be easier and can be resolved easier. Also, there is only one force that can win a insurgent war. We need more soldiers. Not a crappy 20,000 man surge, but possibly even double if possible the size of our troops in iraq if it needs to win. No form of technology can beat an insurgent, we need more men if we are to be commited to this war. If the US feels it unnessecary in iraq, then they should do what should've been done, fight in aphghanistan. The people there more or less stand up for themselves, and there is no civil war there. There is much more hope for Aphghanistan than iraq. About the trail of money, we export a lot of weapons and it tends to end up in the wrong hands. The US actually supported Saddam's rise to power since he was fighting the soviets at the time.

Answer 3

I've never really thought that there were any conventional "fronts" in the war on terror. Obviously, the war in Iraq has become the focal point of our war on terror.
We are fighting an ideology of hatred and domination - it exists in many places, many countries. Their tactics include the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent men, women and children. Their objective is world domination - either by forced conversion or the death of those who question their beliefs. They have made both these objectives and their blood lust very clear.
I do not believe for a moment that this is not presently "a republican vs. democrat" issue - politically. This administration has made its objectives crystal clear - and the opposition has laid out their policy of defeat very clearly.
We cannot "terror-proof" our country.
The only way to assure the safety and security of the American people is to defeat this movement. Difficult task? You bet it is - but America is up to the task - are the people? Are the terrorists winning the public relations battle in this country with constant attacks and increased tactics of terror in Iraq? Is their objective to further divide this country in an effort to win the war by default? I ask that, because they damned sure can't defeat the United States militarily in the Middle East.
"Follow the money" doesn't explain the events of 9/11 - or the prior attacks that took place around the globe with pretty much impunity.

Answer 4

Terrorism is like a cancer. If you allow it to grow it will over take some important orgran and for the patient to continue to live, it will have to be amputated.

We need to fight terrorism at the grass roots level, before it spreads and metastasizes. In this way we can reduce the amount of collateral damage. Think of it as fighting cancer at the cellular level.

How can we beat terrorism completely? Think of the cancer model again accept this time we are not going to fight it at the cellular level, we are going to fight it at the DNA level. If you block certain enzyme changes with protrien combinations, the cancer will not be able to start. So to in terrorism if you block the causes you will keep it from starting.

Right now we are arresting or putting terrorism into remission. We need to take preventative measure too. Like... education, through freedom of speach and religion and increase the standard of living through business opportunities.

That is the answer. Since terrorism is a chronic problem (occuring over a period of time) it will not be solved over night. Instead, the answer lies with future generations.

The Iraq's are making the building blocks, a solid foundation from all the stones the terrorists are throwing at them.

We must support them and wish them all the best of luck.

Answer 5

Hi Jim,

America does supply weapons to others, Israel is one of the nations that buy key word buy not donate-weapons from the States. With out our weapons what would happen to Israel? I am not saying they deserve anything but I believe with out our technology they would be wiped off the map.

America would be foolish to not use strategy to keep a control on what nation gets what-because the facts are if we do not step in China, Russia, France etc will sell the weapons and it may not be a good result for our safety.

Politics can not be lets hold hands and talk all the time-You have to have all sides to want to strive for peace-if we are weak in dealing than we will pay a much higher price.

No one wants war! But if there is going to be a war how smart is it to have the upper hand in knowing what your enemy has in the ammunition stock?

Answer 6

This is a no win situation. We just keep putting out every little fire and wait to see where the next ones appear, not a real neat and tidy war. Too late, but we should be minding our own business, keeping out of their religious and political views and finding alternate sources of energy so they can flood the desert with their oil. I guess I should have bought stock in munitions, seems like that would be the only way to have any kind of "win" in this awful mess. I'm personally disgusted with a lot of people, not just politicians, but they come to mind first.

Answer 7

Unless we kill all the islamists, we will never win this war, so we just have to live with it i guess, remember they cant really beat us milatarily or financially they can just keep picking away at us slowly. The scary part is that a lot of the insurgent activity comes from usa, canada, britain, france, "coalition countries". You cant beat people who will die for there cause with no concern and unlike us they are often brainwashed at a young age just like the nazi kids or kamazis who will fight to the end, but we are in a different situation because global propaganda can reach anyone anywhere and sucker any unsuspecting believer in, and who pays for these mosques and that in our countries, saudi arabia supports it all. Remember to the islamist extremists they consider that anyone who doesnt believe in there religion should die (like Ive said before, watched banned by pbs: muslims against jihad) on fox news. You are a non believer you should not be alive and a lot of these mosques in our countries are the ones teaching this crap. Its time to lock down our borders and let them fight amongst themselves because I dont want to see any more of us good old boys die because of these pricks. If were willing to keep bleeding our resources we will always be able to maintain a prescense but they will always try to kill us.

Answer 8

War on terror no longer exist, its now war against Al-Qaida or a more better term "hunting worthless people called terrorist". How to win? Just keep fighting, don't give up. Guerilla warfare are alot more difficult and longer than conventional warfare.

Answer 9

Who ever said we can't win in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The only reason we haven't won already is that we fight such neat an tidy wars, avoiding civilian casualties at all costs and we're forced to pussyfoot around potential public relations disasters. We're not allowed to torture because we're too concerned about the rights of these sub-human pigs called terrorists, and we're not allowed to use the full extent of our firepower because we value innocent human life.

And yet, we're still winning, by any conventional standards, strategic advantage, casualty ratio... The only place we're not winning is on liberal news networks.

The only way we can lose is by giving up. If we committed ourselves to REALLY fighting and REALLY winning, we would.

Answer 10

Well I have an answer as how to win the war on terror, some might agree some might not. It may sound harsh and ruthless but remember it is a war. I say will pull all of our troops back and out of harms way as we unleash a full on air strike. I would level any man made object in exsistance over here ( currently serving in the middle east ). I would send these cultures back to the stone ages and let them begin from the begining again. They started off in the desert with nothing and since they messed it up the first time I do believe in giving second chances we can let them start all over with nothing and in another 2000 years will see if they get it right. This would also send a messege to the rest of the world that we will not sit idlely by and condone or turn the other cheek and let this type of behavior to continue. Remember we werent handed our country with out a fight and to protect our rights as americans and humanity as a whole we must fight to protect these rights. Our nation has gotten to soft and sympathetic to others which is weaking our nation, we can't even discepline our children with out fear of reprisal these days and that is sad and leads to the current lack of respect and pride in todays american culture. A simple analogy that I use is; If you have ants coming into your house, do you only kill the ants in your house or do you find the ant colony and wipe them all out eliminating the threat of them coming back. Again I know its sounds harsh and ruthless, but i am a firm believer in an eye for an eye, and yes my family, my country come first. They have been fighting this war over here for over 2000 years. The mistake they made was bringing there war to our way of life, our safety, our freedroms, our beliefs, as Americans but they also did this to all of humanity the terrorist attck in many different countries not just the U.S. It is our duty as Americans and protectors of the world weather we like it or not to set an example to all that it will not be tolerated. Does it mean alot of people will be killed unfortunately the answer is yes. But I would rather see them (Terrorist Communities) die, then my friends and family who had nothing to do with thier 2000 yr old war.


Jim,


Like I said I Know it sounds harsh, and ruthless, you do have a point as to what could happen and at what point do we act upon. I can only speak of the actions that have taken place since the early 90's and current countries involved with the war on terror, but think of this what if we continue to chase our tales and more americans continue to die trying to fight an enemy that has no rules no regard for innocent lives including their own country men, women, and children. I was just answering how we could end the war on all fronts, I would even be willing to give them time to evacuate temporairly with what they could carry in there hands walking to save lives but i would still put them in the stone age and set an example to the rest of the world. As far as France probally not a good choice to use them they are worthless in my opinion cause all they want to do is talk, sorry but this world needs discipline, and some country has to step up and play the parent if that makes sense. Harsh yes but cold hard truth doesnt always come with roses.

Again just my opinion.

Answer 11

A war on terror is like a war on dandruf-----you can fight and fight, but never totally solve the problem