NationStates Jolt Archive

this is my homework , which americans supported the war against terror

please keep replys to a minimum

this is my homework , which americans supported the war against terror
Which war against terror? The real one in Afghanistan and elsewhere that targets muslim extremists, or the Iraq war?

i'm not an american, but i voted anyway. am i evil? :D

yes you are evil


the war specifically in the middle east , inluding the principlas of war , e.g. oil , power money

right ( rolls up sleeves) , who voted For

I voted no. Since you said "in the middle east" I assumed you meant Iraq.

the idea was good, against terrorist and all...
but the way it's going now... it's just wrong

You've got this worded to open and ambigously. Focus the question. Am I for capturing those responsible for attacks against the US? Totally. Am i for a proxy war in Iraq to divert attention from the real issues and line the pockets of American business interests? Then no.

The "war on terror" is a misnomer anyways. Terrorism is a tactic, a weapon if you will. Impossible and illogical if you really think about it to wage war on a tactic, a strategem. War against terrorists would be more a more applicable term.

The War on Terror reminds me of the War on Drugs. Both are wars that will never be won, at least not in war standards. Both are intangible. Neither of which can be fought the way typical wars are. To me they are just rally cries. Both crusades have been used to whittle away some of our rights since their inceptions. Personally i feel we should fight the drug war with rehab and fight the terror war with diplomacy as primary tactics, from there resort to traditional measures we use now.

I voted no, period. The terrorism in the United States was caused by corporations running amok in the Middle East, and a few Arabs retaliating for it. My War on Terror would be assassinating CEOs and wealthy Oil-Barons, including Bush.

this is my homework , which americans supported the war against terror

please keep replys to a minimum

Total dumbasses who are afraid of walking out their front door.

You've got this worded to open and ambigously. Focus the question. Am I for capturing those responsible for attacks against the US? Totally. Am i for a proxy war in Iraq to divert attention from the real issues and line the pockets of American business interests? Then no.

The "war on terror" is a misnomer anyways. Terrorism is a tactic, a weapon if you will. Impossible and illogical if you really think about it to wage war on a tactic, a strategem. War against terrorists would be more a more applicable term.

The War on Terror reminds me of the War on Drugs. Both are wars that will never be won, at least not in war standards. Both are intangible. Neither of which can be fought the way typical wars are. To me they are just rally cries. Both crusades have been used to whittle away some of our rights since their inceptions. Personally i feel we should fight the drug war with rehab and fight the terror war with diplomacy as primary tactics, from there resort to traditional measures we use now.

I agree fully with this.

You've got this worded to open and ambigously. Focus the question. Am I for capturing those responsible for attacks against the US? Totally. Am i for a proxy war in Iraq to divert attention from the real issues and line the pockets of American business interests? Then no.

The "war on terror" is a misnomer anyways. Terrorism is a tactic, a weapon if you will. Impossible and illogical if you really think about it to wage war on a tactic, a strategem. War against terrorists would be more a more applicable term.

The War on Terror reminds me of the War on Drugs. Both are wars that will never be won, at least not in war standards. Both are intangible. Neither of which can be fought the way typical wars are. To me they are just rally cries. Both crusades have been used to whittle away some of our rights since their inceptions. Personally i feel we should fight the drug war with rehab and fight the terror war with diplomacy as primary tactics, from there resort to traditional measures we use now.

I agree with you too.

right ( rolls up sleeves) , who voted For

I voted FOR ... better bring a lunch pal

Total dumbasses who are afraid of walking out their front door.
Alanyism, just go away.

Diplomacy worked very well during Clinton era didn't it?

I believe there's a time to fight the war on terror, to take pre-emptive action. It keeps the terrorist on alert, that they may want to strike, but we're giving the message back that there's going to be hell to pay if they do.

You can't negotiate with this terrorists. Their not coming from the same mindset as us.

But I think the intelligence on Iraq was a big boo boo. I may not support the war fully, but I support the soldiers and Bush for sticking to their guns and help build up the country and getting rid of insurgents that are ruining the reconstruction of the nation.

And I agree SenatorHoser, to some extent, that this war is a neverending war. But it's a sign that we're not going to sit back and let those that have the intent to steal, kill and destroy do anything to our family and love ones.

-----------------------------------
btw, I'm not American, so I didn't vote. Anyway, have fun with your homework.

I voted no. Since you said "in the middle east" I assumed you meant Iraq.

iraq afganistan libya ..

Total dumbasses who are afraid of walking out their front door.
what

meh ,, its lost in thread underworld so don't reply , its sorted and i know i was vague and all that

The War on Terror is a sub-par idea with poor execution, especially since the War on Terror is impossible to win (even Bush admitted it, then promptly flip-flopped the next day and claimed we could win it). There is no concrete number of terrorists we have to kill before we win.

We should be looking to reduce the causes of terrorism, not killing the terrorists themselves. The way we're handling the War on Terror right now, for every terrorist we kill, there's another to take his place.