...would that end terrorism?
2007-10-22 07:23:30 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Probably not, terrorist have existed for years in every country in the world. America has just been luckier than most countries about it, until the September 11 attacks. Germany had Red Army faction terrorist back in the '70 and we had to be aware of that when I was stationed in Germany in the '80s. I was in Berlin when the LaBell's Disco was bombed, killing two American service members. My room-mate in the Army was killed on Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerby Scotland and 241 service members were killed when the truck bomb destroyed their barracks in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983. Terrorist continually attack foreign interest every day throughout the world, tourist massacres in Egypt and Algeria, IRA attacks on British troops, Khymer Rogue, Tamal Tigers, MS13, just to name a few. The middle east is just a current hotbed for many well-funded attacks against the troops we have deployed there, and has the most media/political coverage in the US during presidential election times. A US presence in the area will deflect terrorist attention away from US targets, but terrorism is a far larger, world-wide problem than just the United States.
The only real US export these days is our legal system. Many countries have and are modelling they're legal systems after ours. As flawed as it is, it is still better than 80% of the worlds legal systems. Our resources our still the best for solving crimes as well. The FBI has offices and agents in many countries to help set-up similar agencies in their countries.
Terrorism is basically a crime. It is not a military activity. Any Military would be answerably for any crime it commited. It's commanders and government held responsibly for it's actions. Terrorist use military weapons and tactics to commit acts of violence against military and non-combatants alike. They do this without culpability. No entity answers for their actions. That is why they are the target of such intense violence. The US military does not normally target an enemy officers home. But the homes of known terrorist are commonly bombed. Military soldiers do not use civilians as shields, terrorist do, including they're own families. Military's are required to wear a distinct uniform to indentify them as soldiers, the US military even has service identifiers sewn onto they're shirts. Terrorist commonly do not identify themselves as combatants, much like a common criminal.
Terrorism is formost a crime, a crime used to build power and profit. Al-Qeida has no more credibility than a Columbian drug-dealer, dispite it's religious perversions.
2007-10-22 08:17:18 · answer #1 · answered by John S 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Only if we stay the course. People say that we are the reason there is conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. But look at the whole picture not what you hear and see on the news. Iraq will be a better place when the book is closed and the middle east will be better for what it will become. there will never be an end to terrorists but controlling them is what will make the area safer.
2016-04-09 21:53:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I understand your question, you want to know if the US successfully established a self-sufficient and continuing democracy in Iraq, and that democracy then spreads across the region to other countries now in monarchies and dictatorships, will that end terrorism?
Well, it might. But we'd be too busy ducking all the pigs flying around to care about terrorism any more.
2007-10-22 07:28:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Where have you been?
The democracy was establish, constitution voted on, and a government dully elected by the enfrachized population two years ago.
Result: the civil war and terrorism goes on in Iraq.
Same for the Palestinians
They have had their democratic elections. Problem is, they elected the terrorists!!!
Does that answer the question?
2007-10-22 07:32:45 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There already is a democracy in the Middle East. It is called "Israel". All that a democracy in the Middle East does is cause the non-democratic states to fight harder to stay in power.
There is nothing that causes a regressive regime to fight harder than proof that another way works better.
2007-10-22 07:28:02 · answer #5 · answered by buffytou 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No this is an ideological war that truly has no boundaries.
A free and democratic Iraq would hopefully be more stable and serve as a spring board for any future military operations.
2007-10-22 07:30:10 · answer #6 · answered by CFB 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, Iraq did not attack us and the war on Iraq was never about terroism.. It was about Weapons of mass destruction that never exsisted... Terroism will allways be around, internal and external terroism will never end it is part human nature part government conspiracy... When horrible events occur like 9/11 the government uses that to it's political advantage.
2007-10-22 07:35:50 · answer #7 · answered by Looking for the REAL answer! 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, of course not. Even in President Bush's fondest dream of the middle east abandoning all their own philosophies and adopting our way of life unquestioningly, stable democracies in that region would be allies in the war- not the ultimate solution to it.
2007-10-22 07:28:31 · answer #8 · answered by Beardog 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Isn't Turkey a democracy (well it's a Republic, but that's what you meant) ? And how does one country establish "deomocracy" in another country? That's an oxymoron.
2007-10-22 07:29:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
You can't end it, but you can reduce it to a mere nuiscance by destroying all the states the sponser it
2007-10-22 07:30:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋