Is the War on Terror the right solution?
The attack on USA on 9/11 led to "The War on Terror". In order to defend USA, the country invaded countries, which was a treath to the US.
- But is the war on terror the right solution?
- Do you think, America should have acted differently? Why/why not?
- What do you suggest, is the right solution to fight terror?
- - And is it even a realistic thought to defeat terror, or is terror a conflict without end?
We want YOUR opinion! 
|
3
points
Interesting enough of a question. -Personally I do not believe terror is as tangible as the "war" would have people think. You cannot defeat something that arises subconsciously within humans. It is like trying to fight the ideas of good or evil. -No a war is not the right solution, take out the possibility that the US went into different countries for resources or personal gain and you are left with a pointless war. To protect oneself, ones people and one's country are fine, but to bombard other countries because of one attack? If I recall I do not believe contact was even made to attempt to solve things peacefully. - Perhaps work toward a more peaceful solution. Also I don't believe that the US or any country should try to push their ideas onto a struggling nation. (Democracy.) Freedom was fought for by countries in the past; now it would seem that those who fought for it are trying to simply hand it to other countries who do not have it. While "freedom" is great, what happens after they have it? Without having to struggle for freedom and without having to come together as a nation or obtain it what will they do? Would they know to band together and maintain peace and freedom or would they split into factions of people again. -Would have, could have, should have. -I'm not sure if there is a right solution to fight a thing such as terror. -Personally I do not believe it is realistic to believe that you can fight terror or defeat it. By defeating one person's terror (one nations: the US) you cause another nation immense amounts of what you fought. Was it worth fighting to "end" terror for one country put cause it in several others? Who really benefits? Side: No
2
points
Good question. But there's not a simple yes or no-answer on this one. This goes deeper than that. Terror has to be fought. Mainly, the countries that bases Al Qaeda (and other terror organizations) don't have the power to defeat the organizations themselves. Those countries need help from other countries to do the fighting. And that's where USA stands up. They want to help fighting terror. USA doesn't invade the country just like that - it goes through the government. And even though the people in the country might not like it, the ministers in the same country have agreed to get help. So to say it simple - USA doesn't invade. They help. If the countries didn't allow USA to enter, the terror would have been much more tough today. The "war" on terror is a must. But it's not a "war". It's a help-cooperation between countries. Side: No
1
point
I mentioned it in another post. The USA did go into a few countries without the Government's knowledge/ approval. The example I used (because it pertained to that post) was Pakistan. The United States' military and Government did not have the approval of the Pakistani Government or the people. Invasion implies exactly that. The "War of Terror" is a war of revenge and want. You cannot wage a war against a feeling that is imbedded into the human psyche. By removing one people's terror you create terror for another body of people. Side: No
2
points
I believe, US did the best they could. The terrorattack 9/11 shook the entire world. In order to defend the world against terror, they had nothing else to do but attacking places, they thought were a threath to the US. Another reason for, why i think it's the right solution is, think about it, they've caught Osama bin Laden. If they continue this way, wonder what they can achieve.... Side: No
1
point
The problems I have with your argument, in the most respectful way possible, is that the attack didn't shake the whole world. Many countries at the time hardly knew of it. They did have an alternative, peaceful negotiations. Many of the places that have been attacked at civilian areas. Not military bases. Sure many organizations housed up in said civilian hot spots but does that warrant bombings? The USA caught Osama Bin Laden without the authority to enter into Pakistan and hunt him down. They did not go to the Government prior to enacting their plan to capture (or as it turned out, assassinate) Osama Bin Laden. This arose a lot of annoyance from the Pakistani Government/ their people and surrounding areas. Side: No
1
point
|
