Debate Is The War on Terror Really Nessisary?

I think that this is an important matter to discuss, I have the personal opinion to say this, "The war is a good cause and is keeping us all safe." If you have a different oppinion please feel free to share, or if you have the same oppinion, please share that as well.

Of course, I parcially suport the war because of the fact that we are helping to make the world a better place, and I am going into the Marines when I turn 18.

Again, feel free to share your oppinion.

Thank You For Your Time,
~Spike Kenshin

 

A war like this was inevitable, name meant to placate the PC crowds and cow the fearful or not.

 

Of course it was necessary. It's kinda late to say it wasn't because it already happened.

Wow, your joining the marines when your 18? I wanted to.....but I couldn't. Anyway, that war was necessary. We didn't find anything there, but it was for our own safety.

 

I didn't support the war on Iraq, it was completely unnecessary. But something is true since a long time, the US is a target of many organizations. That's what 'War on Terror' is supposed to fight. But, is this necessary? I'm not the one to answer this question, but the CIA and FBI should stop lying and tell the thruth.

My question is: Is The War on Terror the Solution? I don't think so, it just will get the situation worse. If we continue like this, we'll see more wars and fear in the US will be higher, making more agressive answers to other countries.

 

I think the war would be better off there than here.

 

Lol!

When I glimpsed over the topic... i read:

"Is the war on terror real".

And I was going to reply "no!"

Frankly, what does invading Iraq have to do with getting Osama and stopping terrorists? NOTHING! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Anyway, I don't know why people call it "war on terror". That's a completely stupid (or very clever, actually) name. Because when people are asked: "Do you think the war on Iraq is necessary?" they'll reply: "No". But if they're asked "do you think the war on Terror is necessary?" they'll reply "yes".

It's twisted terms like this one, that make me hate Bush.


My two cents.

 

And let's not forget Bush's twisted quote:

"Iraq and it's allies will never stop thinking of ways to harm our country and our people, and neither will we."

Meaning he will always strive to harm the United States.

(Although, I can understand errors like that in speeches. A while ago, I had to do a PA announcement through our Safeway, and I accidentally said "Beef Strokin' Off" instead of Beef Stroganoff. :blush: )

Anyway, a "War on Terror" is destined to fail, because all it does is breed more hatred toward the United States. People will grow up under US occupation, and learn to hate the country as their predecessors did, and they will always fight back in the only way they can. Through so-called "Terrorism."

Here's another question. The US bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq. Was it really that different from 9/11?

 

I wouldn't say that Kerry is better than Bush though.

 

I see no need for this war ... bad enough it is called the war on terrorism, why that name?
You just made your self look dumb declaring war on a word that you are forced to feel or make someone else feel...
Terror first is just in your head and and as long as your afraid it well rip you apart, but in some cases it can save your very life...
Just like it once did to me...


[berry]
if you can take the time to misspell words, you can take the time to read the rules and know that i want things spells right. u isn't a word. you is.sum is some. spell it right or i'll just delete posts next time.[/berry]

 

War on Terror is not supposed to be only against US direct enemies, but also against terrorist groups from other countries (UK, Spain, Russia, etc.). It's message is to join everybody together to fight this menace for world peace. That's what I can understand here. But there are the US politics, which didn't start to be in the Bush administration, but since the US beginning. There's too little space to move on a history of centuries. The US need to protect themselves as any other country but there's a difference: anti-americanism, which is several spreaded through the world and it has proven that it can do a terrible damage to the US. So, War on Terror is necesary, but I don't support it. A radical change in the US is also needed. People must change, governors must change, EVERYBODY, so conflicts like this one wouldn't be necessary anymore.

(I wonder how a country with so much internal conflicts could be able to give peace to the world as the US say)

They're too different for me. How are they similar?
I'd change the question: Which was worse? Hiroshima/Nagasaki? or New York?

May I know who are these people? Are they who re-elected Bush? Are they from outside of the US? Most americans would answer yes both questions.

And twisted terms like that one make enjoyable this world

 

Yes,exactly how can sum country with hate give peace to other?!
It can't but, what it can do is rule them in fear of it .
US needs to be to a valuble lesson ,i am sry but it does.
and we did this to ourselves for the choices we have made and let him make for us...
that is why the american has turned rebellious, but still unlike others i am willing to fight for and against america not to proctect it and not even fighting for it,but to protect the ones i should have loved and hold more dearest to me

 

What?

I'm sorry to disagree here, but our soldiers aren't just oversea's to pay for college! I'm going to West Point Military Acadamy before I inlist so that I'll have a better chance of being exepted in, just the same as half of the guys oversea's.

And I know what it's like to loose a friend, I lost one of my best friends in the war because he was clearing a building and he got blown up with C4 Sorry, but it makes me ngry and sad to think about it .

Again, sorry if I sound rash, I'm not trying to be.

Thank you for your time,
~Spike Kenshin

 

I just wondering if you have noticed this. It's kinda late cause Bush was already re-elected. But have you noticed that you never see a support our troops sticker with a Kerry Edwards sticker?

Weren't we over in Iraq to rebuild their government so they wouldn't fight with Iran?

 

Answers to your questions:

1) I have noticed that. Makes me mad!
2) No, we took out Saddam and are looking for Osamma so that Iraq and Iran can be free countries like the U.S,

Thank you for your time,
~Spike Kenshin

 

To avoid offending people with what it should really be called: The War on Fundamental Islam.

 

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
George W. Bush - December 18th, 2000

"We’re at war. Iraq is a part of the war on terror. It is not the war on terror; it is a theater in the war on terror. And it’s essential we win this battle in the war on terror. By winning this battle, it will make other victories more certain in the war against the terrorists."

There are many quotes like these ones. There are many!

It's just another 'fear the world' phrase from the goverment

 

With all due respect, I don't feel any sympathy for people who join a volunteer army and then can't deal with when they actually have to go to war. Frankly it's a risk you have to take and nobody ever said you'd get to choose what to do. I have friends in both Canadian and American military; know a few people in Iraq as well.

Since Iraq has no Canadian troops involved, I'll stick with the American ones I know. For the most part, it's been accepting. There's some disagreement over their feelings on the war, but they all seem to knew what they'd be getting into when they signed up for the military in the first place. Have there been some who vehemently resent being sent there? Yeah, but ultimately they acknowledge it was their choice to be in the military anyway.

 

Yes, enlisting yourself to the military doesn't always mean you'll necessarily fight FOR your country. Sometimes it happens that you're just sent to die so the president in turn can become popular to the overfrightened citizens.