PDA

View Full Version : When Will the War on Terror End?


SilentScope001
05-14-2007, 01:48 AM
Well, here we go. Big question.

It's not that I am against the War on Terrorism, or that I am anti-War. I am Pro-War, and I am indeed somewhat supporting America...I do pay tax dollars after all.

But, well, I think I speak for a small minority of people when I say that I am very, very bored of this current "War".

In World War II, cities were being fought over and territories were taken over. In the Cold War, the USSR and USA were staring each other down. Those were great wars. Wars are bloody, but at least these wars were interesting to watch on television, and people actually care about them.

Now, on TV, all we have to watch is American troops storming caves in the middle of a desert. Arresting people in houses. A couple bombings here and there in retaliation, but that's about it.

I mean, come on! You are battling against a military tactic, and against a small, pathetic army of gurellias who hate you. They target economic targets, but you are more likely to be struck by lighting than you are hit by a terror attack. Arrests, storming of caves, and lots of phamplet droppings...they are, essentially, uninteresting...and tedious.

I don't want to be seen as quite cold, but I rather that America's great military might not be wasted on this "war". Russia and China are growing powers, they could wage a war against us, if we accidently provoke them. Iran might become a regional power and gain much influence. EU might become strong and united. India is becoming pretty mighty. It is all these nations that have the potential to be superpowers, to be mighty and grand...just like America. It is these nations that we should fear, and we should care about. A war against them would be quite interesting to watch, and it would be a great match. Whomever would win that war would inherit the whole world...

Instead, America is stuck battling a bunch of insurgents in the middle of nowhere, in an endless war with no end, and no begining. We can't win, in fact, we can't lose either. We're just staying there, battling the modern equviliant of barbarians. Is this how America is going to die, to be fighting this annoying little "War on Terror", to be forced to watch headlines that "America killed terrorist leader", "America shut down Terror Cell", "America decreases terrorist attacks by 5%"...instead of battling those who are just as powerful as we are and engage in an actual contest?

Hopefully, the War on Terror will last 50 years before America unilaterally declares victory and engage in what I see as far more interesting conflicts...but what do you think? How long will this war last? Should it end?

mur'phon
05-14-2007, 07:08 AM
Since there is little chance that terrorism is just going to stop, the war is likely going to last until the u.s decides that it isn't worth fighting anymore. If that's in 2, 10 50 100 or a thousand years, I don't know, but hopefully it won't be too long.

stoffe
05-14-2007, 12:07 PM
Those were great wars. Wars are bloody, but at least these wars were interesting to watch on television, and people actually care about them.
(snip)
...they are, essentially, uninteresting...and tedious.


I think you've been watching too many movies or played too many games. Wars are not meant as entertainment. Wars are not fought for fun. War is a way to settle differences when all other options have been exhausted, which inevitably will bring great cost and suffering to all parties involved in it. :roleyess:

ET Warrior
05-14-2007, 12:10 PM
Those were great wars. [...] these wars were interesting to watch on television,[...]A war against them would be quite interesting to watch, and it would be a great match. Is this some kind of sick joke that I just don't understand? Do you seriously want America to engage in wars simply to entertain you?

I also want the so-called "war on terror" to end, but I want it to end because I think war is disgusting, and admittedly I find that I am also repulsed by the idea of war as some manner of entertainment.

edit - Additionally, I find that the very concept of a "war on terror" is as winnable as a "war on drugs". In fact, a war against drugs is easier to win because drugs are an actual physical entity. Terror is a concept, and there are no actual methods for waging war against an ideal.

SilentScope001
05-14-2007, 01:28 PM
Is this some kind of sick joke that I just don't understand? Do you seriously want America to engage in wars simply to entertain you?

Er.

Wars are going to happen anyway, to be quite fair. I believe that, and I understand that lots of things happen in war. Truth be told, I don't want to be in the crossfires of a war. I am not heartless, I know the consquences of war.

But, well, this quote "Peace is boring. War makes good history" explains what I mean. The war we have is just about as boring as the Roman "peace". And if we are going to have to deal with wars, at the very least have the wars be about something much more important than...well, this.

And if we are going to be stuck in a war, at least have it be a consolation prize that the conflicts look to be very, very important to the future of humanity. We don't even have that in this current conflict, hence me a bit disappointed.

I don't want America to engage in war purely for my own entertainment. These nations could, in fact, pose a threat to America's interests. America should be worried of them, not, well, of an abstract construct that America will always score victories against...but never truly defeat. If you want to wage a war, fine, but wage a war against enemies your own size, where you have a chance of losing, not against weak enemies.

mimartin
05-14-2007, 01:46 PM
Wars are not meant as entertainment. Wars are not fought for fun. War is a way to settle differences when all other options have been exhausted, which inevitably will bring great cost and suffering to all parties involved in it. :roleyess:

This is a very good way to define when war should be fought. However, most jump the gun and declare war before exhausting all the other options.

The war on terror is not likely to end anytime soon. Especially with the great job America is doing recruiting new terrorist. There is no easy answer on how to end this never ending cycle. If you hunt down and capture or kill the terrorist, then another will see you as the oppressor and join the ranks of the terrorist. If you do nothing they see you as a coward and continue their campaign to destroy western society. If you give into their will then you are condemning yourself to a never ending list of demands. Someone infinitely smarting then me will be needed to solve this riddle. Trying to win their heart and minds is the only solution I can see, but that is much easier said than done.

The only way this war will ever end is when we all see the futility of killing another human being for political or religious reasons. A lesson man has refused to learn thus far in our brief history on this planet.

Additionally, I find that the very concept of a "war on terror" is as winnable as a "war on drugs". In fact, a war against drugs is easier to win because drugs are an actual physical entity. Terror is a concept, and there are no actual methods for waging war against an ideal.

OFE

SilentScope001
05-14-2007, 01:55 PM
There is no easy answer on how to end this never ending cycle.

Sure there is. Surrender. No American will ever consider that though. ;)

Totenkopf
05-14-2007, 01:55 PM
Actually, just as drugs are a physical entity, so are the purveyors of terror. The problem becomes does the side doing the fighting (be it the DEA, police, military, etc..) have the permission to take off the gloves and do whatever is necessary to defeat the enemy. It appears not. Whether it's because the people who start these "wars" actually wish them to continue into perpetuity (or till all the $$ runs out) or merely don't have the ability to bring them to a successful conclusion is anyone's guess.

I would say, SS, that one of the frustrating aspects of the way this war is being conducted is that it's being done in half-measures. This alone will force the war to be drawn out and may even result in more deaths than had a more direct and arguably heavy hand been taken. It will also assure that the current crowd in US politics will continue to push for a w/drawl and further enhance the view that America is a paper tiger with no willpower. The idea that the post WW2 era has been "peaceful" is a self-delusional conceit. The last 60+ years has been full of proxy and small scale wars which have entangled the major powers to one degree or another. I do find it interesting that the people who want the US to pull out of a "civil war" in Iraq are many of the same ones who want to bog us down in another "civil war" in Darfur (or really anywhere else that we have no strategic interests).

JediMaster12
05-14-2007, 01:56 PM
The concept of the War on Terrorism is a broad category. It is not even, in the literal sense of the word, against a single person or persons. It's not even against a nation. Before Sept. 11 we have had incidents of terrorism and yet why is it now that we decide to act? Anyone remember Munich and other events like that like the hostage situation at our embassy in Tehran? All I'm saying is that the war on Terrorism itself is against a nonenitity.

As far as the war ending anytime soon, since it is a broad category, it's like what someone else mentioned, until we decide it isn't worth the trouble anymore. Terrorism isn't going to go away anytime soon. It has been going on long before Sept. 11 and will continue to do so because the radicals believe that they are on a mission to rid the earth of all things that are considered the devil's own invention and that includes democracy.

SilentScope001
05-14-2007, 02:00 PM
I would say, SS, that one of the frustrating aspects of the way this war is being conducted is that it's being done in half-measures.

Maybe, but I think that if it was done in full-measure, I would still be upset, if only due to the fact that 1) terrorists will get even more angry, and 2) we're still fighting against Terror, an abstract construct. But anything to end the war so that we can move onto something else is a good thing.

mimartin
05-14-2007, 02:06 PM
Sure there is. Surrender. No American will ever consider that though. ;)

Iíve already looked at the option of surrender.
If you do nothing they see you as a coward and continue their campaign to destroy western society.
Personally doing nothing or giving in to their demands is the least attractive options I can see.

Iím not saying that we shouldn't listen to their demands and correct anything we are doing that is truly oppressing or unfair. Not because of their use of terror, but because it is the right thing to do.

SilentScope001
05-14-2007, 02:10 PM
Personally doing nothing or giving in to their demands is the least attractive options I can see.

I know that, which is why Americans will not consider it. But a bit of a surrender would end the war, especially if you decide to surrender totally, you know. How can terrorists destroy Western Civilization if the Americans surrender and destroy Western Civilization themselves? :)

(EDIT: there was a typo)

Totenkopf
05-14-2007, 02:17 PM
Perhaps the "terrorists" should throw in the towel, concede defeat and then sit back as the West stumbles over itself to rebuild them ala a modern Marshall Plan. ;)

ET Warrior
05-14-2007, 02:50 PM
Actually, just as drugs are a physical entity, so are the purveyors of terror. It is not called the "War against Terrorists" or the "War against bad guys". While we may be attempting to succeed in a war against terror by attacking the purveyors, it still does nothing to stop terrorism itself, because terrorism is still not a physical entity that can be attacked, rather it is a method of offense against an enemy. Would it be logical to try and wage a war on carpet bombing?

Totenkopf
05-14-2007, 04:40 PM
Neither is the war on drugs called the war on dealers or kingpins. The war on poverty is also a concept, like that on terror. The "war" itself is being waged not against some airy ideal but in the real world against concrete things like people and money trails and weapons. The war on drugs is not merely a war to interdict drugs coming into the country but also to change behaviors by using what some would argue are draconian methods (stiff prison sentences, property seizures..). Or perhaps the war on racism via hate-crime legislation, EEOC set asides, PC thinking, etc.. This is also a war fought against racists, not merely racism. Ideas are like genies in a bottle. Once out, they are awfully hard (if at all possible) to place back under lock and key. "War on Terror" is just a label to describe something.

Besides, if the war on drugs was really only against drugs......it would have been won long ago b/c drugs are an inanimate object that can't fight back. ;)

SilentScope001
05-14-2007, 04:44 PM
Thing is, as long as people say:

"Hey, you know, if we cause terror, we'll get our goals..."

"Really? Cool! Let's do it!"

Terrorism will still continues.

...And while drugs are easily destroyable, as long as people say:

"Hey, drugs are cool! Let make more of them!"

There may be too many drugs in the world for the US Army to destroy. :)

EDIT:
Would it be logical to try and wage a war on carpet bombing?

Well, the war on Landmines (http://www.newsweekeducation.com/extras/landmines1.php) is going pretty well.

Emperor Devon
05-14-2007, 10:07 PM
If you want to wage a war, fine, but wage a war against enemies your own size, where you have a chance of losing, not against weak enemies.

Wars are not fought on the grounds of giving the parties involved a fair fight. If anything, making it an uneven fight is the ideal.

How you can find wars a form of entertainment I have no idea. Put yourself the shoes in the people who've lost their loved ones to it - I'm sure it would seem far less entertaining to you then. :rolleyes: Honestly, I'm not even sure if you're being serious about this. I would hope you aren't.

How can terrorists destroy Western Civilization if the Americans surrender and destroy Western Civilization themselves?

The war on terror isn't a war that can be described with terms like 'surrender' or even 'war', (contrary to how Bush seems to make it out) but one of ideals. It's more of a constant state of skirmishes than something involving massive fronts and armies, and will only be 'won' when the people involved change those ideals. Words like 'surrender' distort what it really is IMO.

Jae Onasi
05-14-2007, 11:54 PM
OK, when you have taken care of veterans whose minds are shot because of all the horrors they've seen, whose vision is gone because of being in the wrong place at the wrong time in a war, or whose arms and legs are gone from stepping on an IED, when you've visited the grave of a family member lost in a war, and when you've sat and prayed that the explosions in Baghdad you're seeing on Fox and CNN don't involve your friends or family members who are there right that moment, then you come back and share how 'entertaining' you think war really is.

The only thing I want it to be at this point is 'over'.

JediMaster12
05-15-2007, 12:29 AM
How you can find wars a form of entertainment I have no idea. Put yourself the shoes in the people who've lost their loved ones to it - I'm sure it would seem far less entertaining to you then.
I study battles. I studied the Battle of the Somme and I have seen the pictures of the trenches. I don't see it as entertainment. War is something that I wish we didn't have but we do.
My cousin served in Iraq and thank the gods that he came home safe. I am happy that I am able to see him again.

The only thing I want it to be at this point is 'over'.
I'm with you on that one.

True_Avery
05-15-2007, 01:18 AM
You cannot declare war on a noun. It is as simple as that my friends.

And I fully and completely agree with you Jae.

SilentScope001
05-15-2007, 01:45 AM
Erm...maybe it wasn't such a good idea to phrase it that way I have.

Death and misery is terrible, but it is a part of this Earth, and we're going to have to deal with it anyway. It doesn't matter if you get killed in Iraq or you die of a terminal illness in a retirement home...you're still dead, and that's tragic. I dislike death...alright? I know the pain and feeling of loss.

But, well, we're stuck with it. We're stuck with wars, and we're stuck with tragic events. We're always stuck with them, and we're forced to watch them over and over again, unless we wish to ignore them. I would rather want a boring but fun life, but I will never have it, and we are doomed to live in "interesting times". Except, well, we are denied even that here...

And, somehow, this "war", whatever it is, whatever it is waged against, is too terrible to watch, too tragic...because it seems unfitting to America. An interesting war is a terrible war, yes, but it would be better than basically battling in the middle of nowhere, throwing money and lives, for nothing, not even battling other nations, those who actually pose a threat to America.

The war on terror isn't a war that can be described with terms like 'surrender' or even 'war', (contrary to how Bush seems to make it out) but one of ideals. It's more of a constant state of skirmishes than something involving massive fronts and armies, and will only be 'won' when the people involved change those ideals. Words like 'surrender' distort what it really is IMO.

I know that. The term "surrender" would be referring to the Americans changings their ideals.
===
Maybe it might be better not to speak anything else on the matter...because I guess I was a bit disappointed on what happened here, and how we are stuck fighting something for 50 years because of a concept I personally disagree with and seeing as a bit demeaning. I do not wish to be seen as a cold person, I just feel that this War is paid so much attention that it makes me upset and bitter about it.

I guess I did went a bit too far here, and my reasoning may not been a bit too harsh...Er, I do apologize for my views, and wish there was a better way of expressing them.

True_Avery
05-15-2007, 01:52 AM
I think I understand what you mean.

You meant to phrase it as "This war is paid so much attention to that it seems like it has come as some form of entertainment to the American People," instead of the aparent "War is a form of entertainment, even though it is terrible in all ways."

If you mean it like that I would agree with you. I know plenty of people who see this war as "entertaining" in their own way. It is sad, but true.

I hope that clears it up so people don't come to hate you for this.

Det. Bart Lasiter
05-15-2007, 02:12 AM
You cannot declare war on a noun.
'Iraq' is a noun.

>_>

True_Avery
05-15-2007, 02:36 AM
'Iraq' is a noun.

>_>

Alrightly.

You cannot declare war on a word.

Terror is a word. A noun. A Person, Place, or Thing that symbolizes a feeling of anxiety, fear, and sometimes pain. Usually associated with death and violence.

It is so vague to say this is a war on "Terror" or "Terrorism". Terrorism is so widespread and so relative that the people we claim to be protecting can see us as Terrorists to their lives and well-being. Claiming someone is a Terrorist is a point of veiw, as one persons Terrorist is another persons Freedom Fighter. I am at least glad that some News stations will call this the "War on Iraq" or at least the "War on the Middle East" even though none of this is at all classified as a war. Bush calls it a war, the Congress calls it a Police Action.

But thats really all I got to say. Over the years I have learned my lessons on staying away from "Friendly discussion on serious topics" Forums. I respect everybody's opinion and I find little comes out of these topics but fighting. I don't really know why I am posting in this thread right now >.>;;

ET Warrior
05-15-2007, 02:45 AM
You cannot declare war on a noun.Errr...what do you declare war on then? Verbs? Dangling participles? :xp:

True_Avery
05-15-2007, 02:52 AM
Errr...what do you declare war on then? Verbs? Dangling participles? :xp:
Well, it is good to know that my misunderstood saying at least got people off Silentscope's back. :lol:

Windu Chi
05-15-2007, 07:05 AM
Since there is little chance that terrorism is just going to stop, the war is likely going to last until the u.s decides that it isn't worth fighting anymore. If that's in 2, 10 50 100 or a thousand years, I don't know, but hopefully it won't be too long.

Try until such a time the sun fissile out. :lol:

There will always be terrorist to fight here and if it ever happen (our society travel the Milky Way), out there.
Terrorist will follow us wherever we go, as a society.
There will always be people who will make demands for politcal or personal reasons, by taking hostages.
Like al-Qaida has taken hostage of our society's future, with this distracting war. :disaprove

Nancy Allen``
05-17-2007, 10:47 PM
As soon as the Democrats get into power I think we will see a massive troop withdrawal from Iraq and the war on terrorism, things such as Afghanistan and the security measures that are in place, scaled right down. That's not to say that with the Democrats in power there won't be efforts to stop terrorism, but I think it will be less proactive, going after terrorists before they attack.

GarfieldJL
05-17-2007, 11:10 PM
As soon as the Democrats get into power I think we will see a massive troop withdrawal from Iraq and the war on terrorism, things such as Afghanistan and the security measures that are in place, scaled right down. That's not to say that with the Democrats in power there won't be efforts to stop terrorism, but I think it will be less proactive, going after terrorists before they attack.

You left out pardoning terrorists just in a bid to get votes in elections.

Nancy Allen``
05-17-2007, 11:18 PM
You mean when Osama Bin Laden got off for the terrorist attacks when Clinton was President? That was to appear sympathetic to the Muslims wasn't it? September 11 changed the world, in this day and age showing leniancy would be political suicide.

Windu Chi
05-18-2007, 04:41 AM
You left out pardoning terrorists just in a bid to get votes in elections.
If they do that, they will be hang high to the sky. :lol:

Rabish Bini
05-18-2007, 08:02 AM
When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die

I hope the war will end soon, as heaps of innocent lives are being lost, for no purpose.
I pray it ends soon.

Nancy Allen``
05-18-2007, 08:12 AM
It'll end in November next year, when the Democrats get in. After Bush the chances of them losing are about as good as Indonesia letting Schapelle Corby free.

Totenkopf
05-18-2007, 11:18 AM
If they do that, they will be hang high to the sky. :lol:

Actually, the terrorists in question were Puerto Ricans. It's pretty safe to say that no one has been hanged high to the sky over that so far. Actually, the FBI list of terror groups is pretty ecelectic, covering everything from eco- terrorists to Hamas to skin heads and even militias.

JediMaster12
05-18-2007, 01:03 PM
Actually, the FBI list of terror groups is pretty ecelectic, covering everything from eco- terrorists to Hamas to skin heads and even militias.
Well that would make sense wouldn't it? After all we are in a war against terrorism. That must mean that it includes those other groups that have been giving us hell as well though we really don't hear much about it in the news. :xp:

SilentScope001
05-18-2007, 01:41 PM
Don't forget the Cuban terrorist who hijacked an airplane and is currently seeking asylum in the USA. He is fearful that he might be tortued and beaten if he is handed over to Venuzeula (who is holding him on another charge) and Cuba.

Pho3nix
05-18-2007, 01:44 PM
As long as Homo Sapiens lives on this planet war and terrorism will always exist.

GarfieldJL
05-18-2007, 01:53 PM
You mean when Osama Bin Laden got off for the terrorist attacks when Clinton was President? That was to appear sympathetic to the Muslims wasn't it? September 11 changed the world, in this day and age showing leniancy would be political suicide.

No Clinton didn't pardon him but he called off an operation that would have killed Bin Laden, then there was the incident where Clinton refused to take Bin Laden into custody when another country offered him up.

As far as the pardoning terrorists, he did that just before he left office. It's in the book Because He Could by Dick Morris (a Democrat Strategist).

Totenkopf
05-18-2007, 02:21 PM
Well that would make sense wouldn't it? After all we are in a war against terrorism. That must mean that it includes those other groups that have been giving us hell as well though we really don't hear much about it in the news. :xp:


Windu seemed to be suggesting that the terrorists in question were of the alqaeda variety (hence his comment about hanging). Though he's free to correct me on this. However, I doubt even Clinton could have gotten away with exonerating alqaeda types even pre-911 (I think those pardons came at the end of his second term). Somehow, though, I doubt the "war on terror" is aimed at most of those other groups.

Windu Chi
05-18-2007, 07:52 PM
As long as Homo Sapiens lives on this planet war and terrorism will always exist.
It it will exist when we leave this planet, war is a normal part of civilization. :)

mimartin
05-18-2007, 11:33 PM
No Clinton didn't pardon him but he called off an operation that would have killed Bin Laden, then there was the incident where Clinton refused to take Bin Laden into custody when another country offered him up.


Osama bin Laden was offered to Saudi Arabia under the provision that they pardon him in the mid 1990s. The US wanted the Saudis to take him in because it would get him out of Sudan. However, they refused because they had already revoked his citizenship. This was between the years 1996 and 1998, before the 1998 embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. Without bin Laden committing a proven crime against the U.S, I donít see how we could have taken a Muslim man from a Muslim State without looking like the imperial slime they believe us to be.

There are also reports that bin Laden was offered to the US in July 2000. This was after the embassy bombings, but a few months before the attack on the ďCole.Ē The reports are an Arab country offered the US bin Laden in exchange for a State visit. I question this one for several reasons. First it does not name the Arab country. The most logical is Saudi Arabia. They had the most to gain by getting rid of bin Laden, but it can not be the Saudiís. Osama bin Laden is a cold blooded murder, but he is not stupid. The only reason he would be allowed home is for something like this. Remember he was already living in Afghanistan at this time. Canít see it being Pakistan, even now if they handed bin Laden over to the American swine President Musharraf would have moments in office before his head was handed to him. So do we really believe it was either Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan the country willing to hand over bin Laden to Americans. That is what we have to believe and I canít see a President of the United States visiting any of them at that time. Republicans would have made Clinton into a bigger devil than they already made his wife.

There is a question in the fall of 2000 when an unmanned and unarmed spy plane took live photos of a tall man walking at a known al-Qaida camp. Being that Osama bin Laden is a tall man and was in Afghanistan and a member of al-Qaida it had to be him. What if it wasnít bin Laden? Remember this is before 9/11, before the notion of preemptive strikes. Were we at war at the time with Afghanistan? Did we want to go to war with Afghanistan at that time? I consider American a nation of laws and one of the most fundamental is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the right to a trial. Without absolute proof that the man was Osama bin Laden I wouldnít have acted either. Some will say he didnít give the 2973 people on 9/11 a trial, to them Iíd say now, do we want to be like him?

Since 9/11 the world has changed. We realized the enemy does not fight by any rules and we have had to modify our rules. I do not believe however that we should give up the things that make our country great. Should we give up our fundamental beliefs and laws, then who cares about bin-Laden or any other terrorist because they have already won the war.

Nancy Allen``
05-18-2007, 11:48 PM
This is most informative, in that it details the opportunities we could have gone after Bin Laden but didn't, and why we didn't. One of the main problems as have been pointed out is that by taking action against Bin Laden beforehand we woud have caused civil unrest not just with the country he was hiding in, for reasons ranging from not wanting America sticking their nose in their affairs to sympathy and allying with Muslim terrorists. AkumaSF, if you recall the uproar over Australia's interest in Schapelle Corby's case in Indonesia, imagine a worse reaction had anything been done.

By the same token there was the option of covert operations. This was before all this took place, but for example Commander Richard Marcinko, who commanded SEAL Team Two and formed SEAL Team Six, was also reportedly in command of a counterterrorist group called Red Cell. Now Red Cell's mission was to act as terrorists and break into military installations, testing their security. But if the stories are to be believed this was a cover for their real mission, the proactive elimination of terrorists despite all the laws that forbid it. Covert operations in foreign countries, such as infiltrating nuclear reactors in France to see if they are breeder reactors, developing waste to use in weapons. Whether or not the stories are true unfortunetly Red Cell was decomissioned in 1995. Could something similar be done, or have been done? Is Clinton to blame for not doing anything? Perhaps, but I think not being allowed by law to act this way is more responsible.

TK-8252
05-19-2007, 12:05 AM
The problem with the War on Terror isn't that it's incorrectly named, or that it's too small-scale... it's that it's retarded. Plain and simple. Like any other government-waged war, it's retarded. Usually when a government tries to fight something, it only makes it stronger. Drugs are as available as ever, poverty is as bad as ever, and terrorism is flourishing under George W. Bush.

Islamic terrorism is a problem basically created by the United States. During the Cold War, we funded anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan, which eventually became al-Qaeda. Then they turned on us when we put our troops in Saudi Arabia to defend the oil there against Saddam Hussein. Couple that with our rabid support of Israel and you get Islamic terrorism, 9/11, and all that jazz. Tada.

urluckyday
05-19-2007, 12:11 AM
good to hear that you get "bored" of war. That's the kind of thing America needs...

urluckyday
05-19-2007, 12:18 AM
I actually find it sickening that people look at war as almost like a sporting event. Where it is just a spectator sport, and only the professionals "play." War is not a pretty thing, and no war is a "good" war. We remember wars by their outcome. Vietnam was considered a "bad" war to a lot of ignorant people today because America supposedly lost...all wars are bad...sure, stopping the massacre of millions of people is very noble, but it is still a failure of diplomacy, common sense and understanding in terms of world affairs. It truly does sicken me that someone would say that they want to see a "match" between the two biggest powers in the entire world. I'm not saying that we would "lose" the war (which we probably wouldn't), but everyone would instead "lose." It's hard to explain, but believe me...wars are bad, no matter how glorified they are in media.

Nancy Allen``
05-19-2007, 08:34 AM
Seeking war is the signature act of tyrants who have no leadership of the people, to be forever condemned by history, and responding to war is the last resort of brave men and women willing to die fighting against such tyranny. A proactive stance against those who seek to harm others should be what everyone strives for, and in the war on terror under such ideals Bush would be in the crosshairs for his invasion of Iraq. For if nothing else it has condemned the country and the world to chaos.

mimartin
05-21-2007, 02:16 PM
This is most informative, in that it details the opportunities we could have gone after Bin Laden but didn't, and why we didn't.

Just remember the ďwhy we didn'tĒ are my personal views and should not in anyway be considered facts. I took information from varies sources both conservative and liberal including the 911 Commissions Report before making any kind of judgment. Although I am not unbiased as I voted for Clinton twice, but to be fair I also voted for the current President once. For all I know Clinton didnít do it because he was out womanizing at the time, but Rush Limbaugh, Bill OíReilly or anyone else does not know either even if they continue to make that accusation.

Part of the problem with the media and politicians for that matter is they give everything in 30 second sound bits instead of giving us the facts. That allows political commentators to spin the sound bits anyway they like.

JediMaster12
05-21-2007, 02:33 PM
Part of the problem with the media and politicians for that matter is they give everything in 30 second sound bits instead of giving us the facts. That allows political commentators to spin the sound bits anyway they like.
A sad but true fact. Or we get newcasts like those by FOX that spend more time srguing with each other than reporting the news. Since that is the case, I listen to BBC when I get the chance. Less headaches that way.

urluckyday
05-21-2007, 06:11 PM
BBC isn't as "non-bias" as everyone makes it out to be just so you know...

SilentScope001
05-21-2007, 06:39 PM
Anyone read Reuters or Associated Press? Those are very useful articles that tell you: "So-and-So blows up a building" without saying, "They are terrorists! Smash! Smash! Smash!"

Even then, I'm hearing rumors that Associated Press is pro-Israeli and Retuers is pro-Palestiain, but at least they try to report the news without offering any sort of viewpoint. I rely on them a bit, altough I would rather use Google News and search for other biased informations. Left wing and right wing sources sort of cancel themselves out.

Kas'!m
05-23-2007, 02:01 PM
Well, here we go. Big question.

It's not that I am against the War on Terrorism, or that I am anti-War. I am Pro-War, and I am indeed somewhat supporting America...I do pay tax dollars after all.

But, well, I think I speak for the majority of people when I say that I am very, very bored of this current "War".

In World War II, cities were being fought over and territories were taken over. In the Cold War, the USSR and USA were staring each other down. Those were great wars. Wars are bloody, but at least these wars were interesting to watch on television, and people actually care about them.

Now, on TV, all we have to watch is American troops storming caves in the middle of a desert. Arresting people in houses. A couple bombings here and there in retaliation, but that's about it.

I mean, come on! You are battling against a military tactic, and against a small, pathetic army of gurellias who hate you. They target economic targets, but you are more likely to be struck by lightning than you are hit by a terror attack. Arrests, storming of caves, and lots of phamplet droppings...they are, essentially, uninteresting...and tedious.

I don't want to be seen as quite cold, but I rather that America's great military might not be wasted on this "war". Russia and China are growing powers, they could wage a war against us, if we accidentally provoke them. Iran might become a regional power and gain much influence. EU might become strong and united. India is becoming pretty mighty. It is all these nations that have the potential to be superpowers, to be mighty and grand...just like America. It is these nations that we should fear, and we should care about. A war against them would be quite interesting to watch, and it would be a great match. Whomever would win that war would inherit the whole world...

Instead, America is stuck battling a bunch of insurgents in the middle of nowhere, in an endless war with no end, and no beginning. We can't win, in fact, we can't lose either. We're just staying there, battling the modern equviliant of barbarians. Is this how America is going to die, to be fighting this annoying little "War on Terror", to be forced to watch headlines that "America killed terrorist leader", "America shut down Terror Cell", "America decreases terrorist attacks by 5%"...instead of battling those who are just as powerful as we are and engage in an actual contest?

Hopefully, the War on Terror will last 50 years before America unilaterally declares victory and engage in what I see as far more interesting conflicts...but what do you think? How long will this war last? Should it end?

I assume you meant to ask when imperialism will end. It won't end, because you'll always have some country trying to take over another country for "humanitarian reasons". And the Iraqi War won't end until we have stolen Iraq's oil which will be used by all you teenagers who think you need to have a car. By the way, I fixed your errors, and I have no idea what you mean by Russia has the potential to be a superpower when it already is. They are, after all, experts when it comes nuclear bombs. Hell, they even sold some of their nuclear missiles to Iran.

JediMaster12
05-23-2007, 02:01 PM
BBC isn't as "non-bias" as everyone makes it out to be just so you know...
Less drama in my opinion. Here in the states everything has to be dramatized but at least the Brits can tell it as it is. Plus I love the Brit humor, a liking I developed from my dept chair since he is a Brit.

Prime
05-23-2007, 02:32 PM
BBC isn't as "non-bias" as everyone makes it out to be just so you know...Can you cite some examples then?

Totenkopf
05-23-2007, 05:22 PM
When Will the War on Terror End?

Probably with the next democrat administration......especially if John Edwards had any say.

JediMaster12
05-23-2007, 09:43 PM
Totenkopf: With such a broad intangible thing being declared war on, I do not forsee in the near future an end to it. Unless they run out of money if Congress refuses to divulge the funds or if our national interests shift towards something else.

Totenkopf
05-23-2007, 09:59 PM
JM12, it was just a joke. I originally typed something about how the war on drugs and poverty haven't ended either, then deleted it. Guess I should have used an emoticon.....

The "dig" at Edwards came from the following:

Edwards: Move Past 'War on Terror'
May 23 11:36 AM US/Eastern
By BETH FOUHY
Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK (AP) - Democrat John Edwards Wednesday repudiated the notion that there is a "global war on terror," calling it an ideological doctrine advanced by the Bush administration that has strained American military resources and emboldened terrorists.....

Nancy Allen``
05-23-2007, 10:02 PM
There is one war that unfortunetly we will never ever ever end.

The war on stupidity.

Prime
05-23-2007, 11:46 PM
I think stupidity is winning. :)

Totenkopf
05-24-2007, 12:17 AM
I think stupidity won a long time ago, which is why most of us don't realize it yet.... :laugh6: ;)

JediMaster12
05-24-2007, 02:26 PM
I would have to agree on that. Otherwise we would be on a different level of intelligence by now :D