No, they are not similar, and to call a police action to reduce drug use a "war" is a misnomer. War is a brutal armed conflict of wills.
But you are on the wrong side of the war on drugs, as evidence by many of your previous Q&A.
2007-09-13 03:32:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by ? 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Here is my opinion. War on drugs was declared a long time ago and was never successful. Amount of money involved will make people go back a risk no manner how severe the punishment is... The only way to stop it is to legalize drugs and control it federally. It will eliminate black market and bring hefty profits.
As far as Islamic terrorism... no matter how good our security is, it's matter of time for them to penetrate it.... We can;t fight terrorism with full blown army attack like we are doing in Iraq. It's like trying to put out fire with gasoline
I hate to bring it up but Israel has tons of experience fighting terrorists -let's face it, America never had to worry about it until 90s - first attempt to bring down WTC. We need to work with countries that have experience fighting terrorist -UK, Israel, etc.
Secondly, and this is where I loose many people, we need to rethink our foreign strategy. Our superpower stance upsets many nations. Our image is very unpopular and it is something that can be addressed. Islamic leaders are using religion (Islam) to recruit more troops but in general, Muslims have no issues with Christianity.
War on terrorism is not a mission that can be accomplished in several years by occupying 1 country in the region. It is a long process with many small victories and defeats along the way...
2007-09-12 02:56:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by Mr. Beef Stroganoff 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
We've had mixed success in 4th-generation warfare, with some wins, some losses, and some quite mixed results. Cherry-picking examples isn't very useful, especially since it's quite impossible to "keep terrorists out of America." And it isn't the military that's causing the wars, so it's hard to see how withdrawing troops is a winning strategy.
The simple fact is that we have invested few resources in preparing to fight terrorism and went into this fight woefully unprepared. On the operational level, the war in Iraq until Petraeus took over was a barely updated form of the old blockhouse-and-rail operations used by the British against the Boers. The popular thing is to say we can't fight that kind of war, but we have had successes in the past, so that's obviously not true. We just don't take it seriously. It's long, nasty, and uncomforable, but far from impossible.
Dealing with networks in trans-national organizations isn't easy, and progress isn't easy to measure, but if we recognize what kind of war we're fighting (and the Bush administration was very slow on figuring it out), we do have people who can do it.
Dealing with trans-national organizations like al Qaeda is similar to dealing with Columbian drug-lords, but there's a difference: Americans want cocaine; we don't want terrorism in our backyards.
2007-09-12 03:55:51
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I wholeheartedly agree with you. However, since the Mexican border has just been open up to their trucking system that is not in any way regulated, seems our 'war on terrorism' is set up to fail automatically.
I also think our border with Canada should be secured, but that will never happen.
2007-09-12 02:10:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by Big Bear 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
insofar that they're both bogus and based on lies
2007-09-12 02:39:15
·
answer #5
·
answered by celvin 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
check this link its good
http://datentryworksworkathomeobs.blogspot.com/
.
2007-09-14 18:32:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by vini j 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ha, ha, ha!!!
2007-09-12 02:16:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋