Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

If not the War on Terror, then what?

Ok, so lately everybody has seemed to slip into an isolationist frame of mind. With things not goining perfectly well in Iraq and to a much lesser degree Afganistan, the mentatlity today appears to be largely that of pre 9/11... that is, why are we bothering them... if we just leave them alone they'll leave us alone... maybe they'll even love us! So what should we do... if we don't want to agressivly take on terrorists, what's the alternative? Should we stop supporting Israel? Should we bomb Israel to show our support for the muslim extreemists? Should we help Iran and North Korea develop nuclear weapons? Should we help overthrow the Saudi Royal Family and help to replace it with a theocracy like in Iran? And perhaps we should save the terrorists the trouble of flying planes into our buildings and just nuke our own cities... maybe then they'll love us, ya think? Let me know... is this a better alternative to the War on Terror?

Update:

I would like to add, to all of you who think a better solution is not to be agressive, that for many years we tried just that... we were very non antagonistic, and yet the ideology of hate grew in the middle east, leading to such events as the bombing of the US Baracks in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, the attack on the USS cole, the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, PanAm flight 103, the 1998 US embassy bombings, the Khobar Towers bombing, not to mention hundreds of foiled plots, as well as terrorist attacks against our allies like Israel, and the UK... all of which took place before 9/11, and the start of the War on Terror. Well, I think this proves that ignoring the terrorists dosn't work...

Update 2:

XXXX-

Alright, how is diplomacy going to make any difference. I would venture that you must believe that all the conflicts in the world stem from your belief that conflicts occure primarily because nations do not understand each other... but I would counter that conflicts occur primarily because nations understand each other perfectly well, and hate each other. This is why I would say that the UN has been an almost complete failure. The primary function of the UN at it's inception was to provide a forum for nations to come to, to discuss their problems and work those problems out... it was designed to end all war.... how well did that work? If you think diplomacy is the answer, please ask Chaimberlan how well that worked for him! And how, may I ask are we going to force peace in Israel through diplomacy... this is a self-refuting idea. Only force can force... diplomacy is meant to convince... and in the middle east there is no convincing terrorists to give up their Jihad!

Update 3:

yabahoobuh -

So that's your solution? Close up the border, build a big wall, and make sure nothing ever comes through? No immigrants, no imports, no world economy? Sounds to me like you advocate returning to the middle-ages, where people lived in tiny city-states, made practically everything they used in their same town, and visitors from other places were distrusted, shunned, and often times immediately killed... I dunno, I think I prefer haveing the free flow of people, ideas, and goods which has led to the prosperity of modernity... the fortress America idea certainly creates more problems than it cures. Just as no man is an island, neither is any nation, except for those island nations... well, you get what I mean, in the modern world, our prosperity is based on the ability of people, ideas, and goods to flow smoothly around the world... I think it's a better idea to confront those who hate us, than to wall ourselves off, and forget about the rest of the world!

Update 4:

Open your eyes -

I would like to first of all point out that while we did have bases in the middle east prior to 9/11, we were there at the behest of those nations, such as Saudi Arabia who asked that we be there to protect them from Iraqi aggression! But further more, like it or not the world is a dangerous place... and the only reason the world isn't a complete bloodbath right now is because the USA is there as world policeman. I wish it didn't have to be this way, but as the sole superpower the USA provides a stabilitizing force in the world. It is the fear of US agression that keeps most countries which would otherwise distroy eachother from waging war on its neighbors... for instance, how long do you think South Korea, Japan, or Taiwan would exist without fear of US retaliation for invading those nations... much of Europe would have become part of the Soviet Union if not for the USA... and the India/Pakistan situation would be nuclear now if not for the USA.

Update 5:

Open your eyes -

So, let me get this straight... you're saying that a nuclear war between India and Pakistan is not only inevitable, but desirable? The entire world is interconnected. The USA as well as the entire world would be affected by a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. It sounds to me like you're a moral relativist, who believes that you cannot make a moral judgement about others... but relativism is wrought with problems. If the US cannot tell the Indian's and Pakistani's that we will do everything in our power to prevent nuclear war, then likewise, there is no point in having any sort of order. Why not eliminate the police, because morally a pshchopath may have no qualms about murdering their neighbor... and who are you to impose you're cultural view that murder is wrong on the killer? Yea, anarchy!

Update 6:

BTW, what's the point of learning from your mistakes, when a billion people are dead?

Update 7:

yupchagee -

Agreed, we should call this what it is... and War on Terrorism may not be the best term... afterall in World War II we didn't call it the war against Kamikasism... terrorism is a technique... the real war is against radical Islam, and the ideology of hate that pervades and perverts the middle east...

Update 8:

Open your eyes-

The US isn't stopping India and Pakistan having a war but merely prolonging the eventuality of it... All people must be given the freedom to learn from their own mistakes. I mean after all that is what you are supposed to be promoting isn't it?

Sorry, but this sounds to me like you're not only saying that war is inevitable, but that they should be permitted, even encouraged to nuke the **** out of each other and get it over with! Dosn't sound like a responsible foreign policy if you ask me...

BTW, you say that it won't be nuclear... but given that India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, and, as you pointed out, they hate each other, how long do you think it'll take before one side decides to use them?

Update 9:

Open your eyes -

Are you implying that the United States, or any other "western" nation gave India or Pakistan nuclear weapons? It sounds like this is the implication.... I have never heard this before... please enlighten me... when did the "west" give them nuclear weapons... please document with your source...

Update 10:

Open your eyes -

Why the need to be so hostile? I have not insulted you, why do you insult me? I think you need to calm down... don't take things so personal.

As for the information about the Indian and Pakistani nuclear program... first the Pakistani - a defector from Germany hardly constitutes western nations assisting Pakistan in developing weapons... this sort of treason can happen regardless of the nation. As for India, as I'm sure you know, the USA played only a minimal role in developing the CIRCUS reactor in India, and of course it was dictated that it only be used for peaceful purposes. Either way, India faced serious condemnation after the Smiling Buddha test, and Canada stoped supplying nuclear technology to India at that point. Either way, this is a great example of why this sort of practice, allowing unstable nations to develop nuclear technology for "peacful" purposes is a bad policy, eg Iran.

Update 11:

Open your eyes -

As for treating other nations like children... sorry that I sound that way, but so long as other nations act as children, they should be treated like such. I'm sorry, but not all nations exist with the same degree of responsiblity and civility. The USA is not without its problems, I admit, however the problems faced by the USA and other nations, like most of Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and much of the rest of the world cannot even be compaired to the issues in areas like most of the middle east, southeast asia, North Korea, much of Africa, the Balkans... these areas threaten their neighbors, they kill their citizens, they do not have modern systems, and they do not at all value freedom and liberty... and I do not, and will not respect such nations until they take steps toward recognizing at least the basic rights of their citizens. I'm sure even you would have a hard time standing up for despots that exterminate huge portions of their citizenry.

Update 12:

Open your eyes -

Oh yeah, FYI, Usama Bin Laden is on the FBI top ten most wanted list... and what do you mean we didn't go after Usama? What was the war in Afganistan about then?

Update 13:

Open your eyes -

All this being said, however, you have succeded in getting me away from the original intent of this question... If we should not fight the war on terror, then what?

You have given no answer to this question that was before you... all you have done is redicule the current "War on Terror". I take it from your response that you are against the war, and chances are pretty good that you're not an American either. Well give me some perspective then... please. What would you do to combat terror? Would you foolishly do nothing and allow your people to be blown up? I would argue that the single most important function of any government is the ablity to protect it's citizens... all other functions are secondary or terciary. So what good is a nation that cannot protect it's citizens from the threat of terrorism?

Update 14:

The common liberal response to the war on terror seems to be that it is a law enforcement problem... so if Bin Laden blows up another big building we should supponea his ***, and bring him into court to answer for his crimes? I don't think so. This is not a crime in the same sence as theft, rape, or any other crime is... this was an act of war... to treat it any different would be an failure on the part of the US government to perform its most basic function, to protect the US citizens.

12 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    The liberal mind set is a do nothing until we are attacked. Then find out who the one person is who was responsible for it and go hunt them and them alone down.

    That is like walking by five drug dealers on a block to get the one that sold to your kid. Never mind making the neighborhood safer. Never mind removing or clamping down on know threats that will in time escalate. Once you get outside your house just close your eyes and hope you make it back.... right?

    Source(s): scs
  • 5 years ago

    Times have transformed my pal. Im certain if that IRA stuff might be taking place now, plenty extra might have taken position. This is certainly no longer a War on Religion. There are terrorist in the market seeking to kill blameless persons. They are making use of the faith to again there schedule, so that you must ask the query WHY. We are browsing for a terrorist that has threaten our nation with killing of blameless persons. Yes we have now additionally killed blameless persons at the same time browsing for the terrorist and that's on the grounds that the ones Cowards cover among the civilians. If they wish to combat step out within the open and dont use blameless persons as shields. That is your opinion that Americans dont like Muslims, i in my opinion don't have anything in opposition to them. Just on the grounds that there are a couple of unhealthy apples does no longer imply the complete batch is ruined. In case you didnt understand, i've served 21yrs within the Military and feature been worried in each clash and conflict considering the fact that 1991. Here is a bit historical past for you earlier than you begin going off. Who helped Iraq for the duration of the Iran-Iraq War, sure it used to be the well historical US. Who helped the Al Qaeda construct the caves within the mountains of Afghanistan, over again the US. It is unlucky they became in opposition to us once we helped them combat there battles. The hyperlinks beneath gets you educated.

  • 1 decade ago

    I believe in diplomacy. We should talk and negotiate with all our enemies and "terrorists". We should not stop supporting Israel but we can make them change their behavior and force them to make peace. The war in Iraq cost nearly trillion $ and if we put this money to help nations in middle east and build their economy there will be much less terrorists and enemies. And America would be respected all over the world. With current policy we only created much more enemies than we had before and more attacks 911 style can be expected on our soil.

  • 1 decade ago

    I think the answer is to stabilize Iraq and then bring the troops home. We can deal with North Korea or Iran if that time comes. Unfortunately, we cannot just keep to ourselves and hope that the rest of the world plays nice.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Call it what it really is: A war against Islamofascism. Then fight it accordingly. You don't win wars by negotiating with your enemies. You don't win wars by pressuring your friends to make concessions to your mutual enemies. You win wars by destroying your enemies & that's what he need to do.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Are these real questions or do you like setting up straw men? If the ONLY options are the ones you are giving, then of course your choice sounds like the right one. Congrats on oversimplifying an extremely difficult problem.

  • 1 decade ago

    War on Terror-- yes it has been drummed into the minds of every American until they think that this is reality.

    Please please please tell me how Iraq was involved in 911.

    Did the terrorist learn to fly there? Where they funded by

    Saddam? I would bet that you think every Arab or Muslim is a terrorist.

    You have been sold a bill of goods and swallowed it hook line and sinker. There were many better ways to fight the true terrorists.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I vehemently disagree that the growing attitude in America is:

    "if we just leave them alone they'll leave us alone... maybe they'll even love us!"

    What's protecting this country is port security, TSA development, and essentially securing the borders of this country and regulating the flux of products and people over that border...NOT DROPPING BOMBS EVERYWHERE.

    THAT is how ''they'll leave us alone"...cuz they'll have no choice.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Close our borders, increase intel, protect our harbors, build multinational alliances to fight terrorism instead of going it alone, in other words....protect ourselves instead of chasing terrorists all over the globe.

  • 1 decade ago

    Well if it is the war on terrorism, why hasn't the supposed world leader of terrorism, the supposed mastermind behind the attacks of 9/11 Osama Bin Laden, not been apprehended or is not even being pursued? Why is Osama Bin Laden not on the FBI's most wanted list for 9/11 seeing as he is supposedly the world's number one terrorist? Why is the war on terror only confined to 2 countries of the world when terrorists exist all over the world? Why was Saddam Hussein included in the war on terror when he was once a friend of the US as was Osama Bin Laden? Did Saddam Hussein ever use terrorists to attack any countries from the west? If Terrorism is really such a Global threat then why are the US and Britain the only ones that are really interested in fighting it?

    You say that in your additional but you forget the fact that if there were no US bases in the middle east then they wouldn't be getting bombed now would they. How about you let the Muslim world try and tell the US how to run their lives and set up military bases in Washington and other cities in the US and see if you like it? Put yourselves in their position for just one minute and then you will understand why it is that they dispise the west. If someone came into my house and just put their feet up on my sofa with their muddy boots on and tried ordering me about and telling me what to do I would hurt them very badly and kick them out.

    They have taken on their Jihad as a struggle against their interpretation of tyrrany. If they have no feeling of oppression against them and their way of life they will cease to feel the need to struggle. I say get out of the middle east and leave them to it. It is not helping being over there and bombing the crap out of them and killing many thousands of people. All it is doing is helping recruit more terrorists to their cause as they have a reason to fight. You could stay there for a thousand years and they will continue to fight so what is the point?

    Lol all you have done is take yourself away from your first point which was the war on terror. If you ask me the US would be better off keeping their noses out of the other countries problems altogether. The US isn't stopping India and Pakistan having a war but merely prolonging the eventuality of it. The US isn't saving the world, it is only making the majority of it detest the militaristic step father who continues to punish them for disobeying their orders. Only one thing will end of it and that will be the downfall of the US, unless your government starts to change foreign policy. You cannot continue to force nations into doing your will. All people must be given the freedom to learn from their own mistakes. I mean after all that is what you are supposed to be promoting isn't it? If you waited for nations to ask for your help and leave when you are no longer needed, rather than intervening where it is not wanted and setting up bases in countries that don't really want you there, you would find other nations would have a lot better attitude towards you than they have today.

    Lol you like to put words in my mouth. Where did I say it would be desirable? Nowhere is the answer. Yes an eventual war with India and Pakistan is inevitable sorry but the two countries despise each other and their dispute over Kashmir does nothing to alleviate the animosity. I never said that it would be a nuclear war but if it was, you would have to ask yourself, how was it that India and Pakistan became nuclear powers in the first place? Wouldn't have happened to have anything to do with the west now would it?

    Pakistan Nuclear Weapons

    A Brief History of Pakistan's Nuclear Program

    Pakistan's nuclear weapons program was established in 1972 by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who founded the program while he was Minister for Fuel, Power and Natural Resources, and later became President and Prime Minister. Shortly after the loss of East Pakistan in the 1971 war with India, Bhutto initiated the program with a meeting of physicists and engineers at Multan in January 1972.

    India's 1974 testing of a nuclear "device" gave Pakistan's nuclear program new momentum. Through the late 1970s, Pakistan's program acquired sensitive uranium enrichment technology and expertise. The 1975 arrival of Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan considerably advanced these efforts. Dr. Khan is a German-trained metallurgist who brought with him knowledge of gas centrifuge technologies that he had acquired through his position at the classified URENCO uranium enrichment plant in the Netherlands. Dr. Khan also reportedly brought with him stolen uranium enrichment technologies from Europe. He was put in charge of building, equipping and operating Pakistan's Kahuta facility, which was established in 1976. Under Khan's direction, Pakistan employed an extensive clandestine network in order to obtain the necessary materials and technology for its developing uranium enrichment capabilities.

    In 1985, Pakistan crossed the threshold of weapons-grade uranium production, and by 1986 it is thought to have produced enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. Pakistan continued advancing its uranium enrichment program, and according to Pakistani sources, the nation acquired the ability to carry out a nuclear explosion in 1987.

    In 1955 construction began on India's first reactor, the 1 MW Apsara research reactor, with British assistance. And in September 1955, after more than a year of negotiation, Canada agreed to supply India with a powerful research reactor - the 40 MW Canada-India Reactor (CIR). Under the Eisenhower Administration's "Atoms for Peace" program the US agreed to supply 21 tons of heavy water for this reactor in Februrary 1956, and the reactor was dubbed the Canada-India Reactor, U.S. or CIRUS (now commonly written as Cirus).

    I said the west and there you have it. I am bored with you now as you know absolutely nothing and continue to try to put words in my mouth. Good luck in your life you will need it. All the information you require is out there all you have to do is use your brain. You talk about other nation's as if they are children and need the US to hold their hands to cross the road.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.