Terrorism

[Glendon]

Depends on your definition of "win". Winning can mean "reducing as much as possible". A war on any crime will fail, in the sense that crime will still exist to some degree. We still have theft, rape, and murder, on a daily basis. That doesn't mean we should give up fighting thieves and rapists and murderers.

After a quick google search, I managed to get a good quote from President Bush, in relation to what it means to win this war on terror.

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010920-8.html

From the quote above, it is safe to assume that when the president says "we are winning the war on terror", he is referring to being closer to the final goal, or win. My definition of winning was intended the same, to completely eradicate terror.

I agree that we should continue to fight terrorism as we do rape, theft, murder etc., I simply question the current strategy on doing so. Declaring to the world that we will win the war on terror by defeating every terrorist group that springs up every day by military force, is more than far fetched.

Our military strength could defeat this enemy. We could lay waste to the entire country; we have the strength to do that, if you could call it strength. Our values are what are going to defeat us, not our lack of strength. Historically, I think we are acting very strange, in NOT laying waste to the entire country. Historically that's what countries do in war. I think in this case, fighting this war as a WAR probably couldn't be justified, so we're only half-fighting it.

Ah, but this enemy is not a country, it is a collection of several international organizations. Their strongholds are in any country that harbors them (willingly, or unknowingly), and America cannot go around "laying waste" to every country with terrorists in it. Heck, we have them in our own country. Historically, allied countries fight together to eradicate enemy strongholds within their country to the point where they are forced to surrender or disband. I have never heard of any country laying waste to another (assuming that by laying waste you mean total destruction). This enemy is a phantom, not something we can target by traditional means, and they will gladly die before they surrender. The idea that we can simply kill every single terrorist in the world when they continue convincing others to join their cause more, now than ever, is being unrealistic.

Can we reduce terrorism on a global scale? Absolutely. Can we stop every single terrorist organization on the planet resulting in a big win? No, at least not by current strategies. As mentioned before, this enemy will die before it surrenders. The British learned this lesson the hard way after America declared independance, America learned this in Vietnam, and America is going to learn it again with the War on Terror (provided we continue on the same path).

[Dr Unne]

If the current administration believes that it's possible to get rid of all the terrorists forever, I certainly disagree with that.

I was only thinking about the war in Iraq, when I said that laying waste to the country would solve the problem. It wouldn't solve the terrorism problem in general. It would probably make other problems worse in the long run. But we'd win the war in Iraq. War isn't anything but killing people. I don't think it's accurate to look at war in any other way. War means killing as many people as possible and as necessary until you win. In contrast, we won't even blow up certain BUILDINGS in Iraq, because they're too valuable to someone or other, and so bad guys can hide in them with huge stockpiles of guns, etc. We've placed many other things above our desire to win this war, which is why we'll probably be there for quite a long time, and keep dying all the while In World War II, we'd go in and carpet-bomb entire cities, right? Today if one of our million-dollar laser-guided precision missiles goes 15 feet off-target, it makes international news for a week.

I'm not sure if I'm saying our policy of tip-toeing around Iraq is a good thing or bad thing.

[Glendon]

I was only thinking about the war in Iraq

In that case, sorry for my long-winded response.

In World War II, we'd go in and carpet-bomb entire cities, right?

Only if they contained enemy strongholds. I believe the exception was when we nuked Japan (?), but heck, there was no way non-militant targets wouldn't be hit from those kinds of attacks. We do the same in Iraq although we try to avoid religious shrines and such, but have targeted them when enemies were hiding there and posed priority threats. I think it was maybe 6 months ago when we recieved alot of flack for bombing a religious site?

The whole Iraq thing is a mess really. The majority of citizens there do not want us occupying them and actually preferred Saddam at the helm. It is far too late though, they are a failed state now and it will inevitably end up being a terrorist breeding ground if we cannot get a handle on things.

[Endless]

The majority of citizens there do not want us occupying them and actually preferred Saddam at the helm.

Just a quick comment on these two statements. The first one is most likely right, they do not want to be occupied. I think we can fairly assume that they'd much rather want to have their own government/administration and autonomy...
...which leads me to the second statement, which is most likely wrong. I think you will hardly (save in a few towns) find people who want Hussein back. Why? Because now disagreeing isn't a crime, you won't be randomly arrested, etc... and soon they get to use their newfound freedom to vote. Look at Afghanistan: did they vote the Talibans back in? And also, do you really think that a popular trial in Iraq would leave any chance to Hussein to get less than a few hangings, stonings, importing guillotine's from French museums, and whatever new technology they could get?

[Glendon]

...which leads me to the second statement, which is most likely wrong.

Very likely wrong, I based it off an article I read a long time ago, but couldn't get any viable results from news searches I just made. So I'll retract the statement.

And also, do you really think that a popular trial in Iraq would leave any chance to Hussein to get less than a few hangings, stonings, importing guillotine's from French museums, and whatever new technology they could get?

That depends. I'm sure certain religious factions that he targeted during his dictatorship would kill him on the spot. Not sure about his supporters though, or how many there are compared to the factions he had a habit of abusing. Overall I think Saddam is more hated by the western world than he is by his own people though. How do you choose between an abusive dictator, and seeing the dead faces of iraqi children after a vicious US bombing? Either way, they lose

[Turk]

Sadly, the "War on Terrorism" is not winnable with our current strategy. Much like the War on Drugs, it is doomed to fail. I think if we (the US) would seek out the source of the problem (why we are targeted in the first place), then a solution will follow. And no, I do not believe its because "they hate what we have".

America has the most overwhelmingly powerful, advanced, and destructive military in the world. Too bad that means precisely jack against this enemy. All our current strategy will accomplish is putting out fires and killing many, many innocent people. Edit: While making mad cash.

Actually this war has nothing to do with defending the constitution either. The neo-cons have taken over the country with little or no knowledge of what they have gotten themselves into (although Bush did not even run as a neo-con in the first elections).

And Glendon, that is sad, but I still must reiterate that it was the American government which brought Saddam and his party to power through a CIA organized coup. He was then supported massively especially in his war of aggression against Iran.

[Dr Unne]

The US supported Iraq 20 years ago and doesn't now; so what? We were on the verge of nuclear war with the USSR 25 years ago and now we're allies. Politicians aren't prophets.

[War Angel]

The US supported Iraq 20 years ago and doesn't now; so what? We were on the verge of nuclear war with the USSR 25 years ago and now we're allies. Politicians aren't prophets.

Yeah, I don't like when they say 'he was your doing, so don't fight him'.

Yes, the USA created lots of 'monsters'. They also created Bin Laden, back in 1983 in Afghanistan. Back then, it was (or seemed) more important to fend off the USSR, than to worry about the integrity of those assisted by the USA. Maybe the USA shouldn't have, in retrospect, helped Bin Laden and\or Saddam... but that's in the past. They're both our enemies now.

[theundeadhero]

You have to agree that those were different times and different situations. Things change. Sometimes things turn out for the better. Sometimes things turn out worse. These things turned out worse and if you look over the big picture the US is fixing it's mistakes. You can't argue with those morals. We made a mistake, now were trying to fix it instead of saying, oh well. What do you want us to do about it. People should look at the situation that way.

[Turk]

the big picture the US is fixing it's mistakes. You can't argue with those morals. We made a mistake, now were trying to fix it instead of saying, oh well.

Morals??? Morals?????????? How can the word morals be applicable to anything related to the American conduct of war this past half century??? America isn't trying to fix anything, only trying to reinforce its global economic and military domination, for both of which, lots and lots of oil is required.

[War Angel]

America isn't trying to fix anything, only trying to reinforce its global economic and military domination, for both of which, lots and lots of oil is required.

Don't forget the aliens.

No conspiracy theory is worthy of being called such, without aliens.

[Glendon]

People should look at the situation that way.

Or better yet, find out what exactly it is that influences them to attack us in the first place. The whole "they hate our democracy, our freedom blah blah blah" is not viable considering Saddam, the Taliban and al Qaeda were all once allies to the United States. And I'm not talking a hundred years ago... this has been in the last 20 years.

America is the very definition of decadence (don't believe me? Go to Las Vegas, the decadence capital of the world), a characteristic considered violently taboo by middle-east religion. Guess what... we were a decadent, capitalist nation while all three of the enemies mentioned above were allies, why didn't they "hate our freedom" then?

All conpiracy theories about ghosts, aliens, hell boy, and elvis living on the moon aside. It doesn't take much logic from even the most partisan individual to figure out these current events revolve around money in one form or another when said individual takes a step back from the propaganda for 5 seconds. Heck, corporate America & U.K. are making bank like Microsoft circa 1995 from these wars.

Here's and interesting read related to former allies and oil: http://www.mediamonitors.net/josephclifford2.html

[CloudSquallandZidane]

Don't forget the aliens.

No conspiracy theory is worthy of being called such, without aliens.

Ok War Angel the are NO conspriracies! The US government is open, up front, and honest about everything that they say. Whenever they make a mistake they admit it, also.
(/sarcasm)

Now for every1 who isnt brain washed or remembers the watergate scandel, i'd have to say dont trust that ur government is putting u first. Always question their motives and means because the smallest snowflake of an error can cause a avalanche of a problem (*Iraq*). Especially when it happens on the international level.

[theundeadhero]

It's not very cool hating a whole nation beause you don't like what thier government is doing. We don't have any control over it. Besides that, all governments do exactly the same thing. We're just the ones getting picked on right now. If your going to hate us, you might as well hate everybody, even your own country and government. Bringing up watergate doesn't prove anything seeing as how it happened so long ago. That's like saying I hate England because a couple hundred years ago they wanted to treat Americans unfairly and overly tax them so they can make lots of money.

[[c]]

when you ahve two antions...fighting eachother..they call eahcother terrorists..and they both some how kill innoccent people, and they both do the same crap?..who is more terrorist?...