Is the United States war on terrorism working? - Page 4

View Poll Results :Is the United States war on terrorism working?
No, the war on terror is just a media tool in order to make Americans feel comfortable. 5 16.67%
Yes, though I feel the U.S. government could do more. 15 50.00%
No, we are fighting a losing battle. 8 26.67%
Yes, definetly. There is nothing more the U.S. Government can do to thwart terror. 2 6.67%
Voters: 30. You may not vote on this poll

December 2nd, 2004  
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.
December 3rd, 2004  
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.
December 3rd, 2004  
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.