Who are we really protecting in this War on Terror?

[TexicanKid]

Seems that the purpose of the War on Terror is to (as needed) spread democracies throughout the world (starting with Iraq, Afghanistan) so that when these smaller nations do develop WMD someday, they will be mature enough not to arm terrorist groups with them. And thereby, large coastal cities such as New York, Los Angeles maybe, and a host of large European cities will be safe from being targeted by terrorist attacks.

As fantastical as this may seem, I think the threat of the future is terrorists + nukes + some large Western city. That's the scenario we're all trying to avoid. The irony is that the biggest opposition to conducting the War on Terror comes from the citizens of the very cities we are trying to protect.

So why are we spending soldiers' lives to protect those who appear to be ungrateful or unmindful of what's going on? Why trade the life of a soldier to potentially save that of a New Yorker? And, are the citizens of these large cities not the greater base of the anti-gun crowd anyway?

If the folks in these large cities want to abandon Iraq and other fronts of the War on Terror, trusting instead to "diplomacy with terrorists" to keep themselves safe, then perhaps we ought to allow them to proceed with their experiment.

I don't want to sacrifice another soldier's life for some anti-gun New Yorker, and certainly not for your standard resident of Los Angeles. I support our troops and I believed in the initial strategy, but I cannot support protecting those who neither appreciate nor deserve it.

Let the "anti's" have their way and write their own destiny.

[Frenchy]

NO!...The WoT has nothing to do with spreading Democracy. It has to do with finding and killing those that want to do the same to us.
You can't force Democracy on a nation or people that don't want it. The US needs to figure that one out.

[Cryogaijin]

What is this war on terror of which you speak? No seriously, who is the enemy here?

You talk about it as though we were fighting some tangible enemy which we could simply engage. That is NOT the case. The war on Terror is, in truth, psychological and ideological. There is noone for us to Invade. There is noone for us to bomb. The enemy here is spread out throughout the entire world, and has the entire world's population to hide in.

Our efforts should be focused on denying them recruits and motivation, and let our intelligence agencies hunt them down like the dogs they are.

[TexicanKid]

Originally Posted by Cryogaijin

What is this war on terror of which you speak? No seriously, who is the enemy here?

You talk about it as though we were fighting some tangible enemy which we could simply engage. That is NOT the case. The war on Terror is, in truth, psychological and ideological. There is noone for us to Invade. There is noone for us to bomb. The enemy here is spread out throughout the entire world, and has the entire world's population to hide in.

Our efforts should be focused on denying them recruits and motivation, and let our intelligence agencies hunt them down like the dogs they are.

That could work, some intelligence war with assassins and spies and such.

[Jettubby]

Simple. An enemy that is on the run and in hiding is one that's is seriously hampered from carrying out offensive operations against us. They try. They try and you don't hear about it. Belive me.

[bd]

Originally Posted by TexicanKid

So why are we spending soldiers' lives to protect those who appear to be ungrateful or unmindful of what's going on? Why trade the life of a soldier to potentially save that of a......

I thought until you got to that point you were describing citizens of Baghdad or other Iraqis who want us out of their country.

bd

[TexicanKid]

Originally Posted by bd

I thought until you got to that point you were describing citizens of Baghdad or other Iraqis who want us out of their country.

bd

BD, in twenty years when about 30 of these Third World nations are developing nukes or other WMD, are you going to live in a large city? Would you feel safe?

I don't think a Third World nation is equipped to secure a nuclear arsenal in the long-term, and most of these countries are just one coup away from such an arsenal (once they have one) changing hands.

Heck, I'm tired of arguing the point. Just let those in large cities rely upon diplomacy for their own safety. They're the ones most at risk of being attacked, so maybe they should call the shots. After all, you can't keep the stubborn from meeting their destiny. Let 'em meet it head on, I say.