The USA at war against 'Terrorism' is like being at war with a tactic ... not an enemy. Agree or Disagree?
151676
I agree that it is a tactic. I simply can not understand why we have not declared war on Al-Qaeda. The only reason I can dream up is that we are not interested in capturing bin Laden. With a declaration of war against them we could pretty much let all the countries know (including our own country) that we will get each and every member of Al-Qaeda that we can find. It is about time that we get some serious intelligence against these guys and actually "take it to them"\n\nI for one am sick and tired of us screwing around with this issue.\n\nIf I have to hear one more time "We havent been hit since 9/11" I am going to hurt someone. (We hadnt been hit for the eight years before that, but it did happen and it will happen again)
285435
The war on terror will probably never come to a complete and absolute victory regardless of who is sitting in the White House.  As long as there are haters of freedom and democracy there are apt to be terrorists.  \n\nPresident Bush warned us that this was going to be a protracted war.  He wasn't lying about that.
498482
I believe the USA is committing acts that constitute as terrorism due to the protection of economical investment.\nWe also have to keep in mind that invasion of countries by the USA have been recurrent trough out USA history that represent no real threat and have been accomplished to defend different ideals. First the ideals started as a form of economical gratitude in which USA would become wealthier,next to defend their economical posts in Latin America, then came war on drugs, and now the war on terrorism has given USA the right to invade countries with cultures and beliefs they know nothing and surely do not respect, therefore labeling the USA as terrorists.
85094
The US is at war with terror, which includes all terrorist organizations.
618507
United States is at war to defeat "terrorism." Unless you want your own busses and shops being exploded everday here in the U.S., then take my word that fighting in Iraq is for the best.\n\nBelieve me, someone had to take action in order to prevent more planes exploding, car bombs, or possible nuclear attacks.
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.
482405
Is not considered but it is. You own people which you treat bad and beat them or even if you want you could kill them. That is terrorism because you are attacking people that do nothing against you.
153235
The 'War on terror' is just a political stunt/excuse! Its never waste of time to the war mongers. Establishment of political & economic suprimacy over the others is the main theme of such act of barbarism. The tragedy is, the invaders dictate relationship, they neither make it nor shape it. Its just muscle-men's theory, which don't last long as we see in the history.\nIn the name of war on terror, protection of human rights, democracy, good governance bla-bla-bla, they are trying to destroy peace & harmony in today's world. But in the end, we understand, they will not be spared by the people in the Globe in tomorrows.
65058
What exactly is your definition of terrorist.\n\nDOD defines it as follows: The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. \n\n"The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear" <-- The US broke international law. Yeah Yeah I know, The US does not need anyone's permission to go to war, but let us be literal with the definition.\n\n"intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."   <--Intimidate governments(pre-emptive strikes)  Ideological goals <--bring democracy.\n\nOr are you referring to those other people that the government and media can't make up their mind on what to call them? Terrorist or Insurgent.\n\nDOD defines insurgent as follows: Member of a political party who rebels against established leadership. \n\nEvery dissenter here would then be an insurgent. Or shall we get explicit on what exactly rebel means. \n\nMaybe we should ask how many American terrorists (only following orders from command) have killed Arabs.\n\n\n\n***alexbharris*** It is not a matter of being an apologist. Your reasoning is illogical. You justify dropping bombs on a nations to rid the nation of murderers, rapists and torturers? Saddam was not the worst dictator. That war is based on lies and close minded sheep keep coming up with different excuses as to why we are there. Why not drop a bomb or two on Uzbekistan, or in the Sudan. Or how about the United States. Did you happen to read the article or two about CIA and Army Intel officers torturing prisoners. Or how about imprisoning people for years with not only due process, but no charges. This war is all about the 'ism!!\n\nImperialism! Capitalism! Materialism!!! Racism!!!   What statistics did the common person keep on Arabs before all this happened. It is at minimum, a subtle form of racism!\n\n\nhttp://www.darkwingbird.com/bombs-away4.wmv
805219
I believe Bush is different from terrorist.  They are fighting the only way they can to try and free their countries from our economic and military domination, fighting for their homeland and families; and Bush is making our young people fight, die and kill innocent people for oil profits for the wealthy.
37401
It's not really a war on ideology. It's more of a war to keep them from killing us.
882091
You have to love sheeple like true2it. \n\nIts all about them - the neocon sheeple who never question their government. They also ignore those in government who question the president and his minions: \n\n"This fraudulent war has done such enormous damage to the reputation and prestige of the United States and its military forces." - James Ryan, Westpoint Alumni \n\n"Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It’s a tactic...The notion of a global terror war also marginalizes and discriminates against Muslims and raises the specter of hypocrisy, because the U.S. itself uses terror as a tactic."  -General William Odom, US \n\n"I think the current administration repeatedly ignored sound military advice and counsel with respect to the war plans. I think that the principles of war are fundamental, and we violate those at our own peril. And military leaders of all ranks, particularly the senior military, have an obligation in a democracy to say something about it. " - Maj. General John Batiste, US \n\n''We went to war with a flawed plan that didn't account for the hard work to build the peace after we took down the regime. We also served under a secretary of defense who didn't understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, and who didn't build a strong team." - Maj. General John Batiste, US \n\n"Regardless of whose responsibility I think it is, somebody has screwed up. ... it should be evident to everybody that they've screwed up. And whose heads are rolling on this?" General Anthony Zinni, US \n\n"We didn't have enough troops on the ground. We didn't impose our will. And as a result, an insurgency got started and ... got out of control." Former Secretary and General Colin Powell \n\nWe were told that we were to go there to disarm Hussein for WMD's. There were no WMD's. We were warned by people like Gen. Shinseki that is we were to invade, we would need several hundred thousand troops. Rumsfeld and company insisted doing it on the cheap with just over 100,000. That frugality on the part of this administration has cost the lives of nearly 3000 American soldiers. Nearly 20,000 American injuries. And over 500,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.  \n\nBut then they played politics with the war when we were told that we were there to bring Democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people. These days, their civil war seems to indicate they don't want us there. The daily bombings and in-fighting show they want to kill each other. Yet, despite the warnings, we have people in this administration who ignored the threats that sectarian violence would ensue after an invasion. And when you look back, we essentially disobeyed the UN to invade a country for disobeying the UN. That was the excuse. \n\nSo where is your party handbook, true2it? \n\nWhen you have scores of generals and other military personelle coming out day by day to expose the gross incompetence and negligence of this administration, how does it feel in your cold hands? Does the book get heavy? Does the book cause you any pain as soldiers die by the day and go nameless on the tv because there are too many to count? \n\nOr do you tear pages out as you accuse others of doing to fit your own twisted agenda. Have you looked recently at the chapter in your book that outlines the unconditional allegiance you should have for a president who could care less about the men and women who serve in uniform like the ones mentioned above?
258851
No, the only thing we can do is deter terrorism.  We do this by being a "hard target"... which means making it difficult for terrorists to attack. Being a hard target entails passive and active measures... elevating our defensive posture (extra security at airports, etc) and implementing stringent criteria for foreign visitors/students coming into the US and better coordination between local, state, federal and international intelligence agencies. Perhaps this coordination between agencies is most crucial to successfully deterring terrorism. But, I doubt they will ever all be able to be on "the same sheet of music." As well, we need to maintain an open and active dialog with all nations... we need to better understand them and seek their cooperation in deterring terrorism.\n\nKeep in mind:\n\n- The US has its own "terrorists" organizations which wish to overthrow the government (Anarchists, some militias, etc)... just because someone is foreign does not automatically equate them to being a terrorist.\n\n- During the Revolutionary War...England labeled our soldiers as "terrorists" as well. "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter."\n\n- Terrorism comes in many forms (religious, political, social, economic, military, some animal rights and environmental groups).\n\n- Terrorism has been around since the dawn of man. \n\nThe bottom line is we can’t be everywhere...but can make it difficult for a terrorist to attack...by being a "hard target."
1001061
Yes because until we do we will be trying to win this war by force and we should have learned by now that WE ARE NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO DO SO. No one has beaten the arabs and yrs they are VERY VERY strong and VERY well organised.\nIt's our own arrogance that will keep us fighting and dying. For what????????????An Ideal that can never be reality given that countrys political background\n We always think our way is best.\n\nThe idea that by negotiating with them we are helping them or harming ourselves is utter nonsense and and irrational.\nIts in our INTERESTS to negotiate with them Sum ppl just can't see that. What do they think will happen if we do?? More bombings?? NO!!! It will create LESS danger for us and more calm in Iraq  if we give to them LESS reason to fight.\nAnyone who says we should'nt negotiate can't have thought past the whole knee jerk reaction from this. We arent harming ourselves by negotiating. We aren't and I challenge anyone to try and prove how if they think we are.\nDid pride ever get results and end wars? No pride carries them on and yes one might say without pride we would never win anything BUT  our pride is rooted in crushing them and destroying them which, as I have already pointed out, is not the only way of getting what we want out of this. \nWhat do we want? Most ppl don't know and I suspect that is why they can't see that non-negotiation is the equivalent of refusing to be resonable and puts the US and Iraq in more danger.\nTerrorists dont want bad things, they just go about in mercenary ways to get them and they will continue to do so, are we so unbelievably arrogant and self decieved to think we can beat them in their own territory? If it was on US soil maybe we could but not over there. We have an oppoutunity to improve the situation but we seem to want it ALL your own way so carry on trying to crush them. Well as I have said before the US army and terrorists in Iraq are probably two equal forces and so will be fighting for YEARS unless we face up to the reality of the situation.
720643
No it is not true. fight against terrorrism for british& USA is very easy but they play with terrorrism in order to get the permission to stay longer in middle east and allover the world.this fight is somthing like entertainment for them because it refresh the economy and social exercise
604086
this "crusade against terrorism" is just a lie and hidden tool to control the middle east and its oil. The actual US governement had said officially that its goal is to maintain USA hegemony in all ways, using everything they can (deinformation, mediatic manipulation ,lies, wars, military attacks, etc.). \nThis attitude is creating much more anger in all the world, and especially the in the muslim world, who feel the main to be targety. This anger mush a lot of muslims in the dark side of islamist terrorism.  The "war" against terrorism creates more terrorism..
820107
It is not the Liberals that oppose the war in Iraq.  It is the people that use their brains that oppose the war in Iraq.  It is not the war on terror that we should be fighting.  It has weakened the real war on terror and those of us that don't drink the kool aid , don't support a trumped up war.