AI: After Iraq?
 

So I've been wondering about terrorism and how the U.S. will fight it after pulling out of Iraq. I wouldn't be in college if I had a nickel for every time I heard "Iraq is distracting us from the REAL War on Terror". So what do we do after Iraq? And is the War over if we "defeat" Al Qaeda and capture bin Ladin? I'm particularly interested in the Dem/lib response...

Re: AI: After Iraq?
 

[ QUOTE ]
So I've been wondering about terrorism and how the U.S. will fight it after pulling out of Iraq. I wouldn't be in college if I had a nickel for every time I heard "Iraq is distracting us from the REAL War on Terror". So what do we do after Iraq? And is the War over if we "defeat" Al Qaeda and capture bin Ladin? I'm particularly interested in the Dem/lib response...

[/ QUOTE ]

Its hard to say, 2020 is a long way off.

Re: AI: After Iraq?
 

I think the problem with America's war on terror is that the people really think a war on terror can/ will be won. If anything I think the Iraqi war has done more to swell the ranks of Al Qaeda type terror groups than anything.

When we pull out of Iraq I think that there will be a lot of politicians telling us that we are safer and that we made the world a better place by killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people. This will be generally well accepted and the war will be forgotton, until the next big terror attack.

Despite popular belief terrorism is rarely solved by killing terrorists. There are very few major counter-terrorist (by terrorist I mean any intangible armed force) operations which have been successful. Cuba, Vietnam, France, hell almost the entire new world, all were taken overby "terrorist" forces.

Terrorism exists as a response to a stimuli. There are precious few things that would drive me to explode myself in order to kill a few foreigners. When the root of the terrorist's stimuli is found, and dealt with, the terrorist will no longer fight.

The most dangerous man is one who has nothing to lose, as long as terrorists feel they have nothing to lose then the "war on terror" will last forever.

Re: AI: After Iraq?
 

I'd prefer if people actually answer the question. What should be done about terrorism?

Re: AI: After Iraq?
 

you asked what happens after Iraq, the answer is nothing. A fanatical terrorist is not going to step back and ask himself why hes fighting a group of people who just "rebulit" dictatorship, he is going to ask why his family was killed in the war.

Iraq is a meaningless badge of our "war of Terror" which will give us no long term results.

Terrorism cannot be fought by killing terrorist wholesale, the root of the problem must be discovered and dealt with. The peopl of the thrid world have serious and legitimate greviences against the US and many other Western powers. A terrorist is not born because Saddam Hussain is in power, ratherhe is born because of the dire straights his area of the world is in (these dire straights also lead to men like Saddam hussain being in power).

Terrorism will be solved when there is no one willing to blow themselves up anymore. This will only happen when 1)all the candidates for terrorism are dead or 2) when these people find themselves not in the situation where exploding yourself is a sane option. When the first world begins to treat the third world with decency perhaps peace is obtainable.

Re: AI: After Iraq?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd prefer if people actually answer the question. What should be done about terrorism?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that if we left the Middle East and never went back to rebuild another country, we'd be doing our country a huge favor. It's impossible to say exactly how much of a "terrorist threat" there'd be if we left them alone, but I'd be very surprised if things got any worse, or even didn't get better, than what they are now. I can't see how the "bring the fight to them" strategy can really be effective.

Our country has plenty of problems here. The real threat of terrorism isn't very large. I'm sure that, even for people in New York, DC, and the other major metropolitan areas, the danger from terrorism is far less than from other activities, and certainly much much less than the news and government (Democrats and Republicans alike) would like us to believe.

I think we have enough things to spend money on here, and plenty of things that need fixing. I'd rather us not rebuild countries on our own, or invade our "enemies" without very real consequences otherwise. And if that doesn't work, we can evaluate our options and try again.

I strongly believe that if we can stop meddling in every corner of the world, and get rid of this "you're with us or you're against us" attitude, etc., we'll be much safer and much better off.

Define your assumptions
 

We have to choose between two assumptions:

(a) the United States is truly interested in ending the war on terror and severely scaling the military down to primarily defending the country?

or

(b) the United States wants this low-intensity war to keep burning and American might to continue being projected all over the globe?

Re: AI: After Iraq?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd prefer if people actually answer the question. What should be done about terrorism?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why theweatherman is right and you are part of the problem.

Re: AI: After Iraq?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd prefer if people actually answer the question. What should be done about terrorism?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why theweatherman is right and you are part of the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brutal way to say it, but I agree.

Re: AI: After Iraq?
 

I think it was very unfortunate that Bush was president when 9/11 occurred. Another administration might never have uttered the phrase "War on Terror" and treated the event like the horrendous crime it was, by focusing on apprehending and bringing to justice the perpetrators.

That's the best outcome we can hope for if we have no intention of dealing with the underlying complaints of the people attacking us.