NationStates Jolt Archive

so, is the "War on Terror" one with a definite victory?

Generally, wars have to exist in order for them to be won. As in, actually be going on, instead of being convenient propaganda references in the speeches of certain politicians.

Only if we kill all those who have dissenting opinions and we don't care about morality.

It's unlikely that the War on Terror will be won with force.

It's double unlikely that it will be won by the United States or Israel.

It's triple unlikely that it will be won by them without help.

You need China and Russia to win the War on Terror. You can't win it without them.

We can't stop terrorism. But we can quiet a region. Simply pull a media curtain over the middle east and tell Israel to kick ass. I give it a year, and the region will be pacified. What do we have to lose except for a possible invasion of Germany by the new Israeli super-power to get back at them. :p

Your poll options really suck...why did you bother with a poll if all you are doing is trying to make a political statement ?

I don't believe we've won the war against skirmishing, yet. I feel that must be defeated first and then we can move the war towards things like terrorist tactics.

Your poll options really suck...why did you bother with a poll if all you are doing is trying to make a political statement ?

Political statements?

On NS GENERAL?

...devious!

War on Terror. A war against an emotional state. Hum, that one is not going to be easy to win. Perhaps enough mind altering substances in the water supply would work. Then afterwards we can have a War on Sadness.

War on Terrorism. If you view terrorism as the willingness to use any and all means to promote/defend a particular cause, I think we are back to the mind altering drugs again.

War on Specific Terrorists. Now that one you can win. Just kill off the specific people concerned. Of course this is likely to result in an exponential increase in the number of new terrorists that you will have to face in the future, but at least you won against the last one.

For every AQ/Terrorist suspect that we catch we need to cover them in pork grease, force-feed them liquiefied bacon, and shoot them in the back of the head.

But I'm perfectly fine with hunting them down using Grunts and going house to house.

For every AQ/Terrorist suspect that we catch we need to cover them in pork grease, force-feed them liquiefied bacon, and shoot them in the back of the head.

But I'm perfectly fine with hunting them down using Grunts and going house to house.
Then backtrack to house to house. Then go forward house to house. Then backtrack again.

Perpetual War... FUCK YEAH!

The day we can win the War on Terror, I will personally beat, torture, abuse, and painfully murder the first terror we capture.
Untill then, I maintain that you can't win against an abstraction.

No, it isn't.

The day we can win the War on Terror, I will personally beat, torture, abuse, and painfully murder the first terror we capture.
Untill then, I maintain that you can't win against an abstraction.

Here, Here; but seriously you cant kill an idiology you can phase it out, but you can't kill it. And by killing terrorists we create only martyrs for other lunatic fringe element Muslims. In such a situation like this it makes more sense to use surgical strikes against the leaders, and launch a massive propoganda campaign to convince the peons to give up the fight.

You cann't win a war on a tactic, what we can fight(and resonably beat) is Islamic Fundmentalism, but not by starting war after war, these people feed on war, what the U.S. needs to do is
A) nation building
B) stop states from failing
C) Develop a diplomatic corps cappable of fostering peace in the Mid-East and Africa
It occures to me that a and b is one but meh

so, is the "War on Terror" one with a definite victory?
Your poll sucks.

There will never be an end to terrorism as long as there's someone with a grudge. The best we can hope for is to limit its impact.

War on Terror. A war against an emotional state. Hum, that one is not going to be easy to win. Perhaps enough mind altering substances in the water supply would work. Then afterwards we can have a War on Sadness.

War on Terrorism. If you view terrorism as the willingness to use any and all means to promote/defend a particular cause, I think we are back to the mind altering drugs again.

War on Specific Terrorists. Now that one you can win. Just kill off the specific people concerned. Of course this is likely to result in an exponential increase in the number of new terrorists that you will have to face in the future, but at least you won against the last one.

Hmm as usual you hit the nail on the head with your nitpickery. :p

Winnable? Sure. If we can find Batman.

Winnable? Sure. If we can find Batman.
What's up? What do you want?

What's up? What do you want?
I'm not Batman.

if by winnable you mean "disarm all the terror organizations and stop all the terror attacks then no, it isn't.
still it don't mean we can stop fight it. we need to harm the terrorists seriously enough so they will have less abilities to attack us, use intillegence to stop most of the terror attacks before they happned and restrict those organization by sanctions or restriction which make it harder to them to act.
it isn't short solution nor it is bloodless, but this is all we can do about it.

unless you are going to wage a war againts everything that people are terrified of,then its so not going to be won.we may have to wage war on spiders or heights or even responsibility.Can you imagine us forces taking on suicide spiders, and child support doging dads, no, I dont think so.
They should have named it, the war against terrorism rather than war on terror.(such a stupid soundbite)

Here, Here; but seriously you cant kill an idiology you can phase it out, but you can't kill it. And by killing terrorists we create only martyrs for other lunatic fringe element Muslims. In such a situation like this it makes more sense to use surgical strikes against the leaders, and launch a massive propoganda campaign to convince the peons to give up the fight.
Agreed. And make sure that everything we do -- and I mean everything -- is so incredibly legal and positive that it sucks the wind out of the terrorists' counter-prop. Put them in the position of pointing at us and shouting, "See! See how those immoral satans feed ... our hungry children ... and make working people's lives a little better ... and give arrested bombers fair and public trials with lawyers and ... *sigh*... shit."

We already lost.

For every AQ/Terrorist suspect that we catch we need to cover them in pork grease, force-feed them liquiefied bacon, and shoot them in the back of the head.

Too bad most Christians choose to pick through Leviticus like a salad bar, otherwise every Christian terrorist and guerilla can be forcefed shellfish before we shoot them in the back of the head.

:rolleyes:

You're just giving lip service about wanting the terrorism to end, if you're just going to advocate something that'll convince their target audience they were right all along. But hey, you're probably one of the few who picked the Final Solution option.

I'm not Batman.
I'm Batman.

your half right and to the half you mentioned you need to add economy building.

That's the "carrot" the other half to the equastion is the stick....
we need to show those that harbor and support terrorists that they will pay.



You cann't win a war on a tactic, what we can fight(and resonably beat) is Islamic Fundmentalism, but not by starting war after war, these people feed on war, what the U.S. needs to do is
A) nation building
B) stop states from failing
C) Develop a diplomatic corps cappable of fostering peace in the Mid-East and Africa
It occures to me that a and b is one but meh

so, is the "War on Terror" one with a definite victory?

For that u need to do a regime change in KSA (for funding and spreading salafi ideology) and Pakistan (for providing shelter, training, arming, funding, directing and exporting jihadis) and destroy their capability to do the above and 99% of international jihadism of the salafi variety will disappear.

But KSA and Pak are the tightest al-lies of Bush admin and apparently Iran is supposedly the biggest terrorism exporter per American media and administration. :rolleyes:

The wo on terra is nothing but a tool for PNAC.

The War on Terror is winnable, but not through more terror.

Of course not. There is an optimal level of terrorism, and that level is not zero.

Which, I might add, is a position not reflected in any of your poll options.

War on Terror. A war against an emotional state. Hum, that one is not going to be easy to win. Perhaps enough mind altering substances in the water supply would work. Then afterwards we can have a War on Sadness.

War on Terrorism. If you view terrorism as the willingness to use any and all means to promote/defend a particular cause, I think we are back to the mind altering drugs again.

War on Specific Terrorists. Now that one you can win. Just kill off the specific people concerned. Of course this is likely to result in an exponential increase in the number of new terrorists that you will have to face in the future, but at least you won against the last one.

You know what is meant by "War on Terror," you are playing with semantics here (much like those who invented the phrase).

I will not deny that both the term "War on Terror" and the concept that backs it are political ploys, but you dismissed it far too callously.

I think your second definition is by far the most accurate, but is still intentionally vague.

No. Fighting terror with bombs and bullets is like trying to kill smoke with a sword. The only way to defeat an idea is with a more powerful idea.

No. Fighting terror with bombs and bullets is like trying to kill smoke with a sword. The only way to defeat an idea is with a more powerful idea.
But that is slow. We like super fast gut decisions, no matter how ridiculously ill-planned they are.