Why haven't we declared war on Al-Qaeda?
155919
War can only be declared on a recognized country.  Since Al-Qaeda is not a country, we have not done that.  We did declare war on Afghanistan when the Taliban were there and supporting Al-Qaeda.  We won and Taliban has been pushed out of power in Afghanistan.
743370
The war on terrorism will never end. No matter how vigilant or steadfast we are. This is because you cannot completely eliminate the ideology and conditions which breed terrorists. This does not mean we shouldn't be vigilant though. Terrorists cannot be allowed to act with impunity. There must be consequences for actions. The reason we need the war on terror is because it is more preferable to fight these ideologies somewhere other than our own soil. This is selfish I admit, but it is also a reality. We cannot sit and wait for attacks to occur before we act because this tactic will only cause the scope of the attacks to grow and while terrorism cannot be completely defeated we can, esepcially if we are not willing to strongly defend our freedom and way of life.
1045997
america is surely "looking" for bin laden, but even if we do get him, he probably will not die. the u.s. needs people like him to cause trouble so it gives us a reason to place troops in different areas. in a perfect world, the u.s. would keep their noses out of other nations' business. the majority of the terrorism that we suffer from basically started when we recognized israel as a country. it also doesn't help that we are predominately christian and they are muslims either.
998148
and while this war is going on, there has not been another attack on US soil.  We are making some serious headway in the global war against radical Islam. Money well spent to me.\n\nHere are the facts.\n\nWe invaded Iraq in March of 2003, can you tell me of a terror attack that has happened on US soil since then?
1153959
Um, yeah.  You're right all the way.  We left the job half finished and ran off to start another war we didn't need to.  Now Osama is still out there, terrorists have a new breeding ground in the chaotic Iraq, and druglords and the Taliban are resurfacing in Afghanistan.  I wish I had a better answer for you.
733215
I'm not sure what your point is - they never did find evidence of WMD's in Iraq, and there was no legitimate connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government.  (I'm with you on the 9/11 bit.)  What do you want the extreme-liberals to learn - to deny reality?
918692
Bound's hubby here:\n\nYes, absolutely ... there hasn't been a week since 9/11/2001 that the terrorists have not attacked key targets throughout the U.S. ... and here we are defenseless against those scoundrels! How dare George leave us here without protection!\n\nHonestly, and realistically, we have been fortunate that there has not been any more bonafide terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11. Perhaps that is because our troops have been overthere, taking the fight to them! Chances are very good they were hesitant to act here, because we were close to their loved-ones and their training facilities!\n\nI think the Dems have actually jumped onto another popularity bandwagon, and given the Islamic forces against us a "moral" victory and exposing us to greater threats!
216319
The war on drugs has been such a huge failure. Think about this: what if all the money and resources spent between 1992-2001 spent fighting a war we can't win had been spent infiltrating and neutralyzing Islamic extremists ? 9/11 would have never happened. Instead, to this day, we fight an herb put on this earth by God which has never killed anyone. A war which we can never win.
686124
"It's not the...": why would Al Qaeda be in Iraq? And even if they were, they were not the government of Iraq. There were supposedly Al Qaeda in Britain but we aren't declaring war on Britain and taking them out.
761460
I believe we are fighting a war of \nPEACE THROUGH STRENGTH\n\nThe radical terrorists believe we are wrong - YES - but they also think we are weak and that is one of the reasons they attacked us.  We have to show them we are not.  Will that solve the problem  entirely - NO.  We'll work on the next phase after that.  this is not a ONE STEP war on terror.
26486
We have been in it since 1979. And just didn't admit it until 9/11.  With the Islamic Fundamentalist bombing in places like Sri Lanka, Israel, Spain, Great Briton, Egypt (the Coptic Christians are being hounded pretty good right now), Phillipenes.  It wasn't until Afganistan that we have taken the threat seriously.
437407
Officially, we aren't at war.  Only Congress can declare war.  AND war can only be declared against a nation with boundaries.\nThis war on terror is about as lame as the war on poverty and the war on drugs back in the 80's.\n\nI hate the fact that friends of mine have been killed defending a foreign policy that will only keep us embedded in turmoil for years.  It discusts me!
897885
Simplistic to the extreme...Osama is pretty much out of the picture. He can't do much from a cave in the wilds of Pakistan. Sending orders by Carrier pigeon doesn't work in this era. \nWe are fighting a losing war because we are *far* to worried about world and leftist US opinion. We should take the gloves off and not be bothered about civilian deaths or a blown up Mosque or 50.
781496
I believe they are behind much of it, yes. Usama Bin Laden made the statement years ago that the US does not have the stomach for this fight. If certain domestic factions have their way, he will be proven right.
971359
Something perhaps they should have thought of BEFORE they invaded. \n\nOh yea and Bush LIED about that. There was no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda until AFTER we invaded.
1100479
That would be better especially because as we try to eliminate terrorists were just making more enemies. However, how are  you supposed talk to them, and what are you goin to say? It's best if we wouldn't get people angy in the first place. Besides were not having a war on terror, thats just an excuse to get Iraq's oil.
692598
A couple of things for you to consider.\n\n1. Bush _was_ warned about 9/11. There are numerous different reports that were not followed up on, including one titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US". It would have been relatively easy to stop the attacks if the pres had paid attention to that. Not to mention, it's not the job of ordinary citizens to notify Bush of pending attacks. He's the president - you shouldn't expect people on Yahoo Answers to know more than the president.\n\n2. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were in Afghanistan. Most of the US (myself included) supported going to war there. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so saying that people who are against that war are weak on terror is disingenuous.\n\n3. Yes, we are at war, and yes, there are people fighting. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't protest the president's choice to go to war. People aren't protesting the soldiers, they're protesting the administration. That's not only an American right, it's a responsibility.\n\n4. Even if Iraq was the right war to fight, it hasn't been fought in the right manner. Good intentions don't go very far, sorry.\n\nInstead of telling people to shut up, why don't you try researching the actual facts of what's going on with this war and this president? Stop hiding behind the Fox News "terrorists are going to attack us" thing and think for yourself.