NationStates Jolt Archive

"The war against Iraq helped the war on Terror because..."


:)

"The war against Iraq helped the war on Terror because..."


:)
...because war is a disagreement between two sovereign nations and without labeling a country as terroristic, the "War on Terror" is a paradox.

It removed another dead end.
Or
It caused more obvious terrorist incidents to happen for the US to fight.

it made loads of people terrified. *whisper* Oh it is war on Terror. I thought it was the war for Terror.

My bad.

"The war against Iraq helped the war on Terror because..."

...it led to skyrocketing enrollment in terrorist organizations, a fracture in relations and good will between Western countries and a deepening of Anti-American sentiment world-wide.

You never said it had to help the US...

...because we caught wiped out a potential den of terrorists (yeah right).

"The war against Iraq helped the war on Terror because..."


:)


comfort food consumption levels are at an all time high. :cool:

because... I said so and that should be good enough. Question me and I will call you anti-american and a freedom hater. If you dont like it, yer just thin-skinned. Now stay over there in the free-speech zone where you belong you hippie.

Because...It proved, once and for all, that George Dubya Bush hasn't got the brains of a lobotomised carrot.

Is this like a word game? :headbang:

There was no war on terror prior to Sept 11

Is this like a word game? :headbang:

There was no war on terror prior to Sept 11

I think we're into a grey area here, but I wondered the same thing.

Let's enjoy it while it lasts!

because... I said so and that should be good enough. Question me and I will call you anti-american and a freedom hater. If you dont like it, yer just thin-skinned. Now stay over there in the free-speech zone where you belong you hippie.

I was just about to say that...

"The war against Iraq helped the war on Terror because..."


:)

it is causing Bush's popularuty to go down to the point we may get him out of here. And then we can actually work on things that will actually make America safer.

Interesting.

I don't think too many Bush supporters completed the sentence. ;) I was kinda hoping for a serious answer though.

The question is: Can there be one?

Well it's funny. When the whole thing started, the moment they started calling it the War on Terror, I pretty much knew how things would go. I knew the jingoism would prevail as would the hawks, because of american media appeals to emotion. At that time, I often tried to make the case that you can't wage war on an abstract concept, and that you certainly won't win using concrete weapons. And that terrorism is pretty much just another form of warfare; armed conflict designed to achieve political agenda. So waging a war on terrorism was like waging a war on war itself. Or as Stephen King said in somebody's forumsig, it's like fucking for chastity.

But any time I tried to make these points, I was labelled as a terrorist, commie, lefto pinko pacifist appeasement Clintonite.

It's just interesting that now, couple years later, it's hard to find anyone who DOES support the War on Terror (at least in the way Bush is waging it). Even the jingoists are starting to think it over now. Hmm, maybe you can't fight a forest fire by dropping napalm on the Antarctic!

Is this like a word game? :headbang:

There was no war on terror prior to Sept 11

Bush got re-elected..

...it created a battlefield where the terrorists fight the U.S. military instead of bombing U.S. civilians. Much to the chagrin of the Iraqi civilians living there.

...It eliminated Saddam Hussein, a man who was a sponsor of terrorism and was developing WMDs.

Can we NOT gravedig?

"The war against Iraq helped the war on Terror because..."


:)
"...killing people encourages - er i mean discourages terrorism."

:rolleyes:

it eliminated a ruthless dicatatorship; it cut off a major source of funds for suicide bombers and their families; the terrorists are popping out of the woodwork allowing us to find them easier; it gets a democracy besides Israel in the middle east which is important because the general populations in the area have an example of a democracy that isn't inhabited by jews, a group of people most of them are indoctrinated against to hate; eventually it'll wean us off of Saudi oil which is good because we can start actually applying pressure on them to stop their human rights violations; if the general population of Iran rises against the mullahs, which may happen relatively quickly, we have two points of entrance.

... because a large flock of chickens attacked a young man by the name of Charles Jones in Greensboro, SC, on April 24, 1837 and for this reason it is imperative to operationally disintegrate all such chicken-related disasters with a large mouse pad made of pure polonium bromide and cuttlefish bile.

translation: ask bush.

"The war against Iraq helped the war on Terror because..."


:)

...its a war that can't be won, but it help the US get oil.

Not really, Kahta. There is a reason that oil prices have risen...

Okay, listen, I don't post on these forums, but here's the deal. The issue with the Middle East is the fact that they're still accustomed to the 'tribal' governmental structure. Basically, whoever can get the most people with the best guns rules the nation, and everyone who doesn't like it eventually gets beaten into submission. The problem with this is the fact that in order to keep their populations from rebeling against them, the 'government' uses excessive force to take out any 'trouble makers' before they can gain support, which also allows the gov to make an example out of them. The other problem arises with the issue of succession. If Suddam had died naturally, he then has a good amount of people who are going to fight for rule of his country, causing a civil war, or 'bloody tanistry' as it was called during the early years of the Ottoman Empire. Just these two issues aren't very condusive to a fair shot at life for the average citizen of these countries. The other problem comes when you have a trianical dictator who uses a corrupt system like the "palaces (err food) for oil" program that the United Nations just somehow didn't notice was only giving money to Saddam to become more rich and leave his people starving outside. The issue of the 'war on terror' is the fact that people can only see the twisted view that the media shows them, and most people don't have a long-term vision of life. The media will only show things that get them ratings, and if they have to only show one side of the war, then thats what they're going to do. People won't care as much about the war if it looks like a normal operation, with good stuff as well as bad happening. Now, the long-term view. With democracy slowly being spread, it opens the door for people to see the good that can come from peaceful protests and being a part of the larger political system of the world without murdering thousands and thousands of innocent people just to try and get your way. But thats just my thought on the matter.

"The war against Iraq helped the war on Terror because..."


:)
it sends a message that our government is crazy soooo to hell with all of you that plot against us cause we will bomb you and probably "accidentally" hit your mother, your uncle, and your nephew.....and we'll do it with a smile on our faces :)

.......it helped the terrorist cells define 'Satan of the West' more accurately. No longer will they use it to refer to any country but the good ol' USofA.

Every other 'Western' nation thanks you.

"The war against Iraq helped the war on Terror because..."


:)

1) it has allowed us to rapidly modernize our military to more efficiently combat unconventional enemies

2) it has created a foreign center of focus for terrorism

3) it has eliminated a source of funding for terrorists

4) it has allowed us to place a massive military force in the middle east

"The war against Iraq helped the war on Terror because..."
it killed many terrorists.

It made me horny.

"The war against Iraq helped the war on Terror because..."

That should be "the war against Saddam" or the "the war *in* Iraq".

In the short term: because every terrorist feels they must fight us there, diverting their attentions from fighting us here (the flypaper theory).

In the long term: because if we win, the pro-terrorist governments in neighbouring countries will find their position untenable.

The reason why they feel they must fight us there at all costs is because if they didn't and we were successful, we would once again have proven we can defeat them *on their own turf* (the first time was in Afghanistan). In terms of perceptions, a huge victory for us. This is indeed soaking up a huge amount of money and manpower for them and for us, but the hope is that it costs them more than it does us, in relative terms. So far I would say that is true. In any case the "schwerepunkt" is now there, not here. Baghdad has been historically seen as the capital of the Caliphate, and its transformation into the capital of a pro-American democracy would be hugely significant on all levels.

The reason why this will have an effect on neighboring countries is because borders are not (and cannot be) closed... information, money and weapons pass through. Right now the Syrians might be smuggling aid to Sunni terrorists, but they have to deal with aid going the other way from the Iraqi Kurds to the Syrian Kurds... they have problems in that regard which are only likely to get much worse as the Iraqi government gets stronger. Iran also has a problem, more in the nature of war-of-ideas, because the leading Iraqi Shia clerics believe in *separation of chirch and state*. If that becomes a dominant view among Shia, the ruling Iranian mullahs will be in trouble.

"The war in Iraq helped the war on Terror because..."

"...because as a result, Natalie Portman, Bruce Springsteen, and Snoop Dogg were especially active during the election season: during which time they might have otherwise continued their terror campaigns on the US public's eyes and ears."