we are not fighting a losing battle. the battle might seem hopeless at times, but we risk more by not fighting at all. we've made so many strides in security since 9/11, next we need to make more effort to fix the political damage we have caused. it's one of those things that is easy to critisize since the progress made is usually covert and the public only notices when there is a screw up.
Is the United States war on terrorism working?
Lupos
Active member
I feel like I am the only one who believes that the goverment is doing all it could. It may seem like a losing battle, but remember, journalists do not report good news. It just does not sell the way bad news does. Anti American propaganda will make any conflict we get into more difficult, and we just cannot fight that. If we try to, more conflict will arise about us trying to control the world media. We are not the kind of people who use propaganda to further ourselves, however, we are not afraid to use it against ourselves. Strange???
Im not against the war on terrorism but i am kinda against the decisions Bush makes thats all because he kinda made the economy and our nations global status go down.
I think the United States is one of the greatest nations and is the best place to live in in my opinion too so don't get the wrong idea im anti-american lol :idea:
I think the United States is one of the greatest nations and is the best place to live in in my opinion too so don't get the wrong idea im anti-american lol :idea:
Chocobo_Blitzer
Active member
You know.. I think we're doing a good job, but the borders! Come on!
Young Winston
Banned
A long way to go but things have got to be better than say 4 years ago.
i believe the government is doing it's best to prevent another attack. but without someone pushing them to do more they'll only get complacent. at least that's the way i see it. sure the media only reports the bad news, they get better ratings that way.
seriously, the borders will always be a problem as long as we are a free democratic nation. they will never be completely protected because we don't want to force people through security and violate their privacy. let's not forget that the terrorist are using our own laws against us to hide from us and make our searches and investigations illegal.
seriously, the borders will always be a problem as long as we are a free democratic nation. they will never be completely protected because we don't want to force people through security and violate their privacy. let's not forget that the terrorist are using our own laws against us to hide from us and make our searches and investigations illegal.
Chocobo_Blitzer
Active member
egoz said:
Hey, ya know, I just mean with WMD coming through the border, you aren't gonna stop some jihad chump with coming through, but they can stop a truck.
i know where you're coming from, but even stopping a truck isn't that easy. the last numbers i heard was that 7% of all trucks coming across the border are now getting inspection. that leaves a lot of other possibilities. besides, who said it has to be a truck? immigrants sneak across the border using tunnels, who says they can't sneak material across the border the same way? the possibilities seem endless. but like the security guys said, that's 7% more than we were doing before. which is an improvement.
FlyingFrog
Active member
Not sure how many troops would be needed for Iraq action.
If USA got support from all major countries in the world, the thing in Iraq can be solved much easily, like each major country send in some 20,000 troops, no big deal, until Iraq is back in good track, retreat.
U.S. Troop Numbers in Iraq to Hit Record 150,000
By Charles Aldinger
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military will boost its troops in Iraq (news - web sites) to 150,000 this month, the highest level since the war began in March 2003, in order to improve security for scheduled Jan 30. elections, the Pentagon (news - web sites) said on Wednesday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27015-2004Dec2.html
If USA got support from all major countries in the world, the thing in Iraq can be solved much easily, like each major country send in some 20,000 troops, no big deal, until Iraq is back in good track, retreat.
U.S. Troop Numbers in Iraq to Hit Record 150,000
By Charles Aldinger
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military will boost its troops in Iraq (news - web sites) to 150,000 this month, the highest level since the war began in March 2003, in order to improve security for scheduled Jan 30. elections, the Pentagon (news - web sites) said on Wednesday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27015-2004Dec2.html
Damien435
Active member
Yes, I believe it is working, but just remember this. WWII got worse before it got better, this is not going to be a rout by America against the terrorists, they struck first and it was a might hard hit, it caused the US to swagger, it showed our weaknesses while also giving us a chance to show our resolve. Afghanistan and Iraq were the only two countries not to condemn the attacks of 9/11, coincidence that those were the two countries invaded shortly there after? The war on terror is going to take a while. It may take more attacks from the terrorists to open the eyes of the world to the horror that is terrorism. Will every country in the world need to be attacked in order for the world to figure out that terrorists know no bounds? How much more can Russia take? But the US is taking a half *ssed approach to the war on terror. If any country gets in our war we should use our military to force them to turn over any terrorists they may be harboring. Starting with Pakistan. They are making no attempts to capture the members of the Taliban that fled into their country, and it is not like they are in hiding either. We should utilize our special forces to make precision raids in any country that the terrorists may hide in. We should go on on full military production til terrorism has been abolished from the face of the earth, or at the very least minimized to the maximum extent possible. Will some civilians die? Probably, it is inevitable, but their is a difference between when one American bomb or missile goes astray and kills 10's of people, and when terrorists hijack planes with the intent of killing as many innocent civilians as possible.
Face it people, nobody is safe from terrorists, international or domestic, but with a combined international effort we would be much more successful, or for that matter with a combined American effort, Democrats and Republicans working together, we would be much more successful.
Is Iraq part of the war on terror? Yes. Saddam used terror tactics to rule his own people, just because his actions very rarely had effects outside Iraq does not mean his actions were any more right or any less wrong than those of Osama's.
Face it people, nobody is safe from terrorists, international or domestic, but with a combined international effort we would be much more successful, or for that matter with a combined American effort, Democrats and Republicans working together, we would be much more successful.
Is Iraq part of the war on terror? Yes. Saddam used terror tactics to rule his own people, just because his actions very rarely had effects outside Iraq does not mean his actions were any more right or any less wrong than those of Osama's.
I agree with you on a few points you made Damien. Except that I believe Saudi Arabia has a lot to do with terrorism also and they get off the hook because they're "allies." Just because a country condemned the attacks that doesn't mean anything. The Saudi government knew they were housing known al-Qaeda operatives previous to 9/11, but they didn't do a thing about it. Not much has changed since then. My CT professor says this all the time, "just because they're allies, that doesn't mean they aren't bastards." He didn't mean any country specifically, but he makes a good point.
Realistically though, with Saddam in power in Iraq there was a 0% chance of terrorists being there. Why? Because Saddam would have had them killed because they could threaten his own government. (There is a long list of countries that threaten the US by supporting terrorism, Iraq wasn't high up on that list.) It's true he committed many acts of domestic violence on his people. But did they effect the international community? I mean seriously, do 90% of the US population care if an oppressed religious group in Iraq was getting killed by Saddam? They didn't, at least not until we made it our problem by going in there. I can ask the same of the European population. They only care if those people dying are someone they know, or if it's in their own backyard.
Sorry
fftopic:
Realistically though, with Saddam in power in Iraq there was a 0% chance of terrorists being there. Why? Because Saddam would have had them killed because they could threaten his own government. (There is a long list of countries that threaten the US by supporting terrorism, Iraq wasn't high up on that list.) It's true he committed many acts of domestic violence on his people. But did they effect the international community? I mean seriously, do 90% of the US population care if an oppressed religious group in Iraq was getting killed by Saddam? They didn't, at least not until we made it our problem by going in there. I can ask the same of the European population. They only care if those people dying are someone they know, or if it's in their own backyard.
Sorry
fftopic: