On September 11th 2001 America was attacked by terrorist. America will recover from this attack but recovery is not enough. These types of attacks and the people who conduct them must be eliminated from the world. The attack on America was so savage and so unnecessary that any response short of annihilating the perpetrators is not only inappropriate, it is unconstitutional and inhumane. We hate war as much as anyone does it is ugly; it causes misery, suffering and death... Unfortunately, we have no choice but to protect ourselves.
In order to bring protection to the American people, the American people must be assured that the dangers are eliminated. The only reasonable way to do this is through war. In other words war is the answer and war should continue until Americans live without fear. If we do not protect ourselves... who will do it for us? Not to fight and let the attackers live to murder again only means that we accept and support the terrorists.
Opponents of the pro-war idea have argued that we should respond to the recent terrorist attacks against the U.S. without using military retaliation and instead use economic and diplomatic sanctions against the terrorist. They also believe that maybe we can negotiate with these mass murderers. Some go so extreme into this no-war' argument that they advocate a policy of pacification. Others believe that by halting the bombing in Afghanistan, all our problems would immediately cease.
And some feeble minded people suggest that "war is not the answer" but yet fail to state what the answer' is. History has shown us that this is not the first attack on America, and we should now try our best to make it the last. Bombing some of our Embassies was bad but now they brought terror to American soil destructing two US landmarks and at the same time killing over 5,500 Americans. This act cannot be forgiven and we can not let the terrorist slide, not this time.
Responding to the recent terrorist attacks against the U.S. without using military retaliation is waging a war on innocent civilians, not on terrorism. While many argue that the latest terrorist attacks can be combated with economic and diplomatic sanctions, the reality is that such a measure will starve countless innocent Afghans and have little effect on the ruthless Taliban, and the terror-sanctioning Afghan government
The Taliban was created in the early 1990s by Mullah Mohammed Omar to bring order to an increasingly lawless land. By the mid-1990s, the world began to see the Taliban as an experiment in pure fundamentalist Muslim rule. Today, according to CNN, the Taliban controls 90 percent of Afghanistan and has one of the worst human rights records in modern history.
The Taliban government demands that all Afghans live by the Taliban's strict interpretation of the Koran. Frederic Grare, director of Human Sciences in New Delhi, calls the Taliban "ruthless, very primitive and cruel" (Baldauf Scott). Thieves are often lashed to death in public and Afghan women who commit adultery are routinely executed as part of halftime festivities at soccer games. As a result, many Afghans detest the terrible actions of the Taliban.
In addition, the Taliban has been harboring and thus encouraging a group of radical militant terrorists headed by Osama bin Laden known as al Qaeda. Bin Laden has been a regular on America's Most Wanted list for a decade and is considered responsible for the Sept 11 terrorist attacks which left over 6,000 Americans dead or missing and countless others injured.
In theory, whenever possible avoiding military action is wise. In this instance, however, doing so is not humane. Relying only upon economic sanctions on Afghanistan, one of the poorest nations on Earth, will starve millions, many of who openly detest al Qaeda and the Taliban. According to CNN more than a quarter of Afghanistan's population is entirely dependent on aid agencies for food and medical assistance, and a third...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document