Are we winning the war on terror?

You obviously did not understand my response.

I say we fight terrorism. Liberals complain about the war on terrorism. I ask for an alternative. You suggest doing nothing but leaving the region. I point out that would risk losing the governments that are friendly towards us because of the threat terrorist pose. They don't want America destroyed, they want power for themselves and the beliefs they hold. You offer courage and convictions as a response to terrorism. That and $.50 will get you a cup of coffee.

The reason Osama and Arafat (as examples, there are many more terrorists who wish to control the middle east.) do not control oil is because of the US interventions and protection we provide.

We support governments and regimes that are beneficial to the American people. Forgive us for wanting our own country to be the primary benefactor of our foriegn policy. I don't recall our government being formed to protect citizens of other countries.

I say we fight terrorism too. It just seems like Bush supporters believe that any military action we take is the right choice. I don't believe that is the only option. It also seems that people who support Bush believe that the only alternative to doing exactly what Bush and his people are doing is nothing. That is obviously a bunch of crap. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have used intelligence and police actions in their own states to root out terrorists, and that, I believe is going to be more effective in the long run. I think we should support them in that, and attack terrorist organizations by gathering information and going after them, and use our military as a last resort. How's that for an alternative?