Who really believes we can win the war on terror?

As one who doesn't have any answers, I appreciate your question. IMO, no, terrorism will never end, at least not in our lifetime.

I do think we must fight terrorism, but invading Iraq has put the world in a much more tenuous position. I think they feel even more justified now than they did before.

There are charts and statistics that will tell you whatever you want to hear, but the fact that our position in the middle east (and the rest of the world) has always been one of expediency, helping tyrants if it was in our political interest, has caused much of the hatred the terrorists have toward the west, the U.S. in particular.

Democracy, in countries which have relied on religion as their form of government, isn't necessarily as desirable as our government wants to believe. Yes, they want more freedom, but that is based mostly on the fact that they have lived under the rule of a psychotic despot, not because they object to religious leaders running the government. At least, that is the impression I have after listening and reading about the middle east.

Terrorism seems to be the wave of the future. It will be interesting to hear from those who are more informed than I.

One other thing. Isn't this war killing more innocent people than terrorism it's self? We're killing more people than the terrorists are... How does that make the world safer?

If we spent 84 billion dollars on combating terriosm instead of invading Iraq we might have a better handle on destroying Al Queda. We have 180,000 troops in Iraq but only have about 5,000 troops in Afganistan where Al Queda is strongest. Explain to me how this makes us safer. Before the Iraq war there werent any Al Quida in Iraq to speak of but now all the nuts are going there from all over the Middle east. One more small mistake by an inept Bush administration.

That's because Bush never really cared about stopping Al Queda. He was more set on getting Saddam. 9/11 was just an excuse and Al Queda was just something who helped Bush in his reason for running for president. To get saddam. He doesn't care about terrorism. He just uses it to get what he wants. Bush is no better than Al Queda and he is responsible for killing more innocent people then Al Queda.

War On Terrorism?
Does that mean war on Al Q.?

There are more terrorists around. Can anyone name a few groups of terrorists, besides Bushco, in the USA?

Live n let live
LIVE AND LET LIVE...could be the obvious n only answer.
Haven't you seen a post titled "Save Our Souls!" here in "Human Interest Stories" forum here.
Its all for peace n purity of Souls, you'll like it n perhaps hv answer to your Q.

Noor

Live n let live (removed)
Removed being double post.

The war on terror is no more effective than the war on drugs.

Terror isn't something that you can completely get rid of. By making it a "war" terror probably appeals to more people who lean in that direction - all of a sudden they are "fighting a battle".

If it's a war it means that both teams have acknowledged they are fighting. This probably makes terrorists feel much more justified in creating terror.

If the US were to spend the next four years focussing on building things up in North America, making life better for the poor and middle classes - and not spending all that money overseas - they would likely have a similar amount of "terror" but would be much better off.

The rest of the world would probably like them better too.

There is no point in getting into a dick-measuring contest with terrorists - they are a moving target - the States are not going anywhere. What's easier to hit - a clay pigeon or a can on a fencepost?

I try to keep in mind that terrorism isn't as bad as TV wants us to believe. Don't get me wrong, 9/11 was horrible, but that made me think more about reforming the INS than of starting a War on Terror.

I think a lot of good things have come out of the war in Iraq, though... and maybe it will at least set an example to future terrorists, especially those who seek to make WMD's.