|
Below, you'll find extensive information on leading
iraq videos articles and products to help you on your way
to success.
Is The War On Terror Worth The Cost?
By BAM
The war on terror may be the single most divisive issue facing us today. There's not much middle ground, you either totally oppose it or strongly support it. And opinions are strong both ways. So should we continue the fight or withdraw our troops?
What's the point of having our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq? The events of September 11, 2001, provoked us into bombing Afghanistan and public opinion was almost unanimously in support of it. Not many had even heard of the Taliban before then.
Our attack of was based on perhaps inaccurate intelligence. Did really have weapons of mass destruction? To date our intensive search for weapons of mass destruction has come up empty. Did Saddam Hussein have a part in planning the September attacks? It appears the answer is no. But do you think there was wild celebration at the palace in Baghdad the day terrorist flew two planes full of passengers into the World Trade Center? No doubt about that.
Saddam himself could have easily prevented the invasion by letting the inspectors in to prove he had no weapons of mass destruction. The former Iraqi dictator was a murderer who thought nothing of slaughtering his fellow countrymen. He repeatedly violated United Nations sanctions against and refused to let inspectors in to prove he had no weapons of mass destruction. And as Saddam ultimately discovered, it's not wise to piss off those who can destroy you.
Using common sense, what conclusion would a reasonable person come to? Could you reach any conclusion other than that was being less than truthful? He was flat out told that if he did not co-operate, the bombing would commence at a specific time. And he sat there and did nothing. Big mistake on his part. Considering where he is now, do you think he would do things differently if he could?
We've had a lot of success in the war on terror to date:
1. The ruthless tyrant Saddam Hussein has been deposed, tried in court, and sentenced to death.
2. Mommar Qaddaffi, the terrorist leader of Libya, heard footsteps and surrendered before he suffered the same fate as Saddam. The bombing of Pan Am flight 103 was just one of the myriad of terrorist acts carried out or funded by Qaddaffi over several decades. Has that made the world a safer place without a single loss of life?
3. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, second in command of terrorist group Al-Qaeda, was killed in a air raid and put the rest of Al-Qaeda on notice that they are being tracked and will be killed on sight. Can Al-Qaeda's leaders really orchestrate its terrorist activities effectively when their primary concern is for their own survuval?
4. The Taliban has been decimated and Afghanistan is no longer the safe harbor for terrorists it once was.
5. No major terror attacks have been carried out on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001, - that's over five years.
The last point is a big one. There is no way of knowing how many terrorist acts have been thwarted and how many lives have been saved due to our proactive stance
in the war against terror. As you can see, our efforts to date have been quite effective in stopping terrorism at home.
But this progress has not come cheap. Thousands of soldiers have lost their lives. Has the price been too high? Is the best course of action to stop fighting the war on terror in Irag and bring our soldiers home? Will myopic, isolationist policies such as this be as effective at preventing terror as our current course of action? Have we not learned from history? Will we make the same mistakes over and over?
Why did World War II happen? Because World War I ended prematurely with unfinished business. Intead of destroying Hitler, he was appeased. Troops were withdrawn and we were lulled into a false sense of security. And less than a generation later, the world was at war again. And as evidenced by the thousands of crosses on the beaches of Normandy, many young lives were lost because of this bad decision.
We frequently talk of making the world a safer place for generations that follow. Are we really serious? Or is it just lip service? Will we complete the task at hand? Or should we bury our heads in the sand and leave our toughest challenges for future generations to face?
Withrawing our troops from now is a short-term solution to long-term challenge. We can bury our heads in the sand now, but sooner or later we'll have to revisit the problem. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. It only makes it worse. To put in a business persepective look at Enron. Enron repeatedly chose short-term solutions to a long-term issue. To keep investors happy, the staged sham transactions to inflate profits until finally the bubble burst, billions of dollars were lost, and lives were shattered. But in the war on terror, it won't be money. It could cost thousands of lives.
Remember, the old Midas commercials? "You can pay me now or you can pay me later" are the words of wisdom from the mechanic." He means you can bring your car in now and pay a little for a new muffler or you can ignore the problem, put it off until it becomes a bigger problem in the near future, and pay a lot more than you had to later to clean up the mess.
And the same could be said about the war against terror. It would be with disregard to future generations that we would withdraw our forces and allow the terrorists to rebuild their terror networks. Not doing all we can today to eradicate terrorism tomorrow would be to act with apathy toward future generations. Article Directory: http://www.articlecube.com Is the United Nations squandering your money? Discover the dirty little 'secrets' the United Nations doesn't want you to know. The truth may surprise you. Find out at United Nations Secrets.
|
