What should the USA do in the war on terror?

Question

What do you feel we should do in the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq?
1.Keep fighting until we are victorious in crushing the enemy and stabilizing the new governments.
2.Admit our defeat to an unbeatatble enemy and pull our troops out now.

Please adhear your answers to picking one the two given choices.

Answer 1

Admitting defeat and retreating isn't going to make terrorists go away nor will it alleviate Iraq's problems, so that's out. It will actually bolster terrorists, claiming victory and declaring that they've defeated the most powerful military in the world; and that will not only make it harder for us to control them later, but make it easier for them to recruit in the future, much easier.

Staying and fighting won't be easy, but it will have better long-term consequences down the road; only those who have no concept of the long-term or who have no ability to look further into the future than a year, at most, think that retreat is preferable... especially those who care more about winning what they think is a political victory here than a real-life victory elsewhere. This war is all about a battle of fortitude: who has the staying power, the guts to stick with what they believe to be right, who is willing to sacrifice and who is willing to do what is necessary to achieve victory. Considering that this war has not once inconvenienced nor caused harm to any American on US soil, I'm appalled that people here are acting as if they're "tired" of a war they have yet to lift a finger to contribute to, much less be affected by. Never, in the history of the United States, has this country been at war this long while still being able to enjoy all the comforts and relative security that the citizenry enjoy during times of peace; the attitudes and amenities we enjoy would have seemed like impossible luxuries to Americans at home during either World War, the Civil War... etc. People draw similarities between this war and the one in Vietnam; but they're completely, absolutely different wars, fought for different reasons, in different places in the world with different cultures. If anything, the only thing about the two that is similar is the amazing hostility and lack of support the American people are showing to their own government, President, and military. People in this country have gone far too long without actually having been inconvenienced, troubled, or threatened with real and present danger; and frankly I doubt even that would wake them from their stupor. So-called "popular" attitude towards this war is self-evident of that; and as a veteran of this war, I confess myself to be deeply disappointed with the lack of consideration AND the deliberate ignorance of reality most Americans are now displaying.

Answer 2

Hi.
You are not going to get good answers by restricting people like this.
I would say nr 1 BUT something needs to be changed! Did anyone ever think about why the "terrorists" bring terror on the USA and the western world? What causes people to blow themselves up, for instance?
The western world needs to take a good look at it´s foreign policy. Why do some Muslims hate the western world? To me it is amazing that those in power in the west seem to have never thought about this.
This enemy is not unbeatable but it needs to be fought with more than weapons!

Answer 3

unfortunately for the president, he has backed himself into a corner with the afgan. theater. this is also true with the UHC issue. i feel sorry for a man that knows what he should do but has too many masters to appease. he knows he used the iraq and afgan theaters to his advantage during the run-up to the election by stating that the real war was in afghanistan and said that was where he would put a 110% effort in ridding the taliban and finding bin laden and finally getting some form of democratic government. he has two things going against him at the moment...the results of the election...which is in dispute...and the ultra left in this country. UHC is a "major" domestic issue in which he knows if he doesn't get it at least out of the one of the houses by the end of this month or first week or so in october, it's a dead issue that will be used by the right during the 2010 run-up. unfortunately, as always, it is our men and women in uniform who are going to suffer along with the credibility of the US. bush was reluctant to surge troops in iraq which only extended the outcome and caused more death and grief, and it appears obama hasn't learnt from that all the while making it a campaign issue. what we are seeing is a man who is quickly proving himself to be exactly what hillary clinton and others said during the primaries....he is not experienced enough to be commander in chief. the afgan. theater is of utmost importance right now in protecting this country, the UHC "crisis" is an imaginary issue only in the minds of the ultra left that should be totally scraped and more complex issues taken care of first to open up the market via free market thinking and see where it goes. to the poster that said 45k thousand die because of no health insurance, he needs to look at the study that was done, it has proven to be "junk science" in the fact that the people involved were polled over ten years ago, and only once. while they may have died, the people performing the study did not follow up with these people during that ten or so years and they have absolutly no idea what the outcome of their deaths were tied to. this is a "scare" tactic being used by the left (which i might add, they have been accusing the right of doing) to tug on the hearts of the uneducated and uninformed.

Answer 4

There's no other reasonable option than option 1. If we pull out, the situation in Iraq and the rest of the middle east will become a lot worse than it ever has been. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations will be able to recruit a lot more people. Any terrorist organization in the world will think they have what it takes to defeat us. Al Qaeda will definitely attack us at home if we pull out of Iraq. From what I have heard the people of Iraq are increasingly becoming more and more anti-Al Qaeda, if the people in Iraq no longer supported Al Qaeda and less people were recruited by Al Qaeda, a good government can be set up in Iraq with a military to protect itself.

Answer 5

We will NEVER win the WAR ON TERROR. Terror is defined as a state of fear, an overwhelming sense of imminent danger. How the hell do you fight terror. Where is the border for Terror? What does the flag of terror look like? It's all a big scare tatic that races in your mind!!!

t's not like flying over Japanese airspace and droping a bomb becuase they started it. It's not running through jungles in Vietnam to stop those damned commies because they think different. (Shaking my head as I pour another drink).

To answer your question I would have to go with #2 which is what I'll feel like tomorrow.

Answer 6

The answer to this whole war thing has always been right in front of eveyone.


Get out, the middle east has never done ANYTHING to us that we didn't PROVOKE.
Thats the first thing people need to understand, WE created the hatred of american by interfering in other countries politics and way of life etc.

Mind our own business, don't want trouble, don't start trouble.

Second NO ONE EVER WILL WIN A "WAR ON TERRORISM" why ? because you cannot defeat a belief.

The only way to stop "radical islamist" is to simply wipe out the entire area/race that has these archaic beliefs to begin with, yes i said it, nuke, flaten, disintagrate the entire middle east and every indigineous creature in it.

This area of the world has been fighting and shedding blood over bullshit ideas and religous nonsense since the BEGINNING OF TIME, it will never stop, not ever. so either LEAVE THEM ALONE, or wipe them out plain and simple.

Answer 7

Your question is what thinking people call a false dichotomy. "Either one extreme or the other" is not the way the world works. Of course, unless you want simple-mindedness and stupidity to prevail.

If you care about your country, you'll drop the blind partisanship, the slogans, and the false dichotomies, and you'll start asking the right questions, like how do we become more secure? (And no, you don't already have the answer to that).

Answer 8

I'll vote for half of one. Stabilizing the government is the top priority, but outright crushing the enemy is not. Their submission or surrender will be adequate, as well would their cooperation be.

Answer 9

Neither! We should be keeping some troops at the borders of Iraq and some in Afghanistan to find bin-Laden and bringing the rest home. The National Guard would be used for fires, floods, weather disasters, etc., as they are intended to be used, besides protecting our ports, airports, various facilities and our own borders. Hand-to-hand and sniper combat on the streets of Iraq cities seems archaic and ineffective, since the terrorists just keep moving around....and multiplying. Stop the madness!

Answer 10

war causes terror

a war on terror is self defeating

to your questions:

1. nobody wants an occupational army from halfway around the world on their streets, we'll always have enemies there as long as we are there

2. we need to define our enemy, we haven't done a good job of that, whether we were defeated or not depends on how we define the enemy, for instance if Saddam and the Baathist Party are defined as the enemy we won

there are more than your two options available