NationStates Jolt Archive

A recent poll showed that the majority of british people do not think we are winning the war onterror, and many more do not believe the war on terror will end in their lifetime.
Other than the fact that a war on 'terror' is probably an incorrect term(war on terrorism would have been more accurate),do you think the awar on 'terror' can ever be won.As it is the anniversary of 9/11,and the beggining of the war on terror,do you feel safer or more at threat from global terrorism?

A recent poll showed that the majority of british people do not think we are winning the war onterror, and many more do not believe the war on terror will end in their lifetime.
Other than the fact that a war on 'terror' is probably an incorrect term(war on terrorism would have been more accurate),do you think the awar on 'terror' can ever be won.As it is the anniversary of 9/11,and the beggining of the war on terror,do you feel safer or more at threat from global terrorism?
Postulate 1: Right-wing Islamic fundamentalist terrorism against Western nations (and Israel for that matter) is based off of and sustained by hate.
Postulate 2: All wars have unintended civilian casualties
Postulate 3: Civilian casualties foment hate among the victimized party

Therefore, fighting a war against terror will only propagate the problem we are trying to get rid of.

A recent poll showed that the majority of british people do not think we are winning the war onterror, and many more do not believe the war on terror will end in their lifetime.
Other than the fact that a war on 'terror' is probably an incorrect term(war on terrorism would have been more accurate),do you think the awar on 'terror' can ever be won.As it is the anniversary of 9/11,and the beggining of the war on terror,do you feel safer or more at threat from global terrorism?

Terrorism is a method of waging warfare and as such, you can't defeat it by waging warfare. The concept is absurd.

"War on Terror" sounded more dramatic than "War on Terorrism" or even "War On Certain Select Terrorists and/or People We Assume are Terrorists since they Got In The Way of our Bombs" hence the term was used. For marketing purposes.

Postulate 1: Right-wing Islamic fundamentalist terrorism against Western nations (and Israel for that matter) is based off of and sustained by hate.
Postulate 2: All wars have unintended civilian casualties
Postulate 3: Civilian casualties foment hate among the victimized party

Therefore, fighting a war against terror will only propagate the problem we are trying to get rid of.

So by fighting terrorists(and as a by-product kill civilians)you create more terrorists...I gettit,it seems as though the more we try in Iraq and Afghanistan the more the people there hate us, even if they thought that we we liberating them in the first place.This is most likely because of our disorganisation,and a certain forces 'trigger happy' attitute,and possible guantanimo bay.

So by fighting terrorists(and as a by-product kill civilians)you create more terrorists...I gettit,it seems as though the more we try in Iraq and Afghanistan the more the people there hate us, even if they thought that we we liberating them in the first place.This is most likely because of our disorganisation,and a certain forces 'trigger happy' attitute,and possible guantanimo bay.

Exactly. And yet the Bush Administration, the Blair Administration, and certain others amongst other governments refuse to acknowledge this obviously proven FACT. Not to mention the sheer number of idiot sheep, like Deep Kimchi.

Not militarily, no.

Not militarily, no.

How then?that is, if you believe it can be 'won'.

How then?that is, if you believe it can be 'won'.If I knew that, I'd be eligible for a nobel peace prize :p

Exactly. And yet the Bush Administration, the Blair Administration, and certain others amongst other governments refuse to acknowledge this obviously proven FACT. Not to mention the sheer number of idiot sheep, like Deep Kimchi.

It does seem stange how they refuse to acknowledge that by fighting this war on 'terror',( many muslims actually belive its more like a war on Islam)that they are making the world a more dangerous place and putting their fellow country men and women at more risk of terrorism.What would be terrifically funny(if it wasnt so damm stupid and serious)is that the british gov't said they wanted the input of the muslim community,so they set up a commitee.Then when the commitee of british muslims said that the war on 'terror' was increasing the risk of terrorism,the gov't ignore them.
I was trying to explain to DK before(he is not an idiot-he just has a different point of veiw that may or may not be proven right)by waging this war, and changing our countries laws, the terrorists win!

Global nuclear holocaust = end of terror

It's also the only way you can end terror by blowing up innocent civilians alongside terrorist, which seems the popular means of fighting terrorism at the moment..

If I knew that, I'd be eligible for a nobel peace prize :p

Good point.:p .The problem is, its all well and good saying that the war on terror is ill-planned and stupid, but unless we have a better option then its all just talk isnt it?Do you think that the situation can be improved by 'talking' with the terrorists?It certainly seems to be a catch 22,if we talk it looks like tehy have won, if we dont they win by blowing more things up?

Good point.:p .The problem is, its all well and good saying that the war on terror is ill-planned and stupid, but unless we have a better option then its all just talk isnt it?Do you think that the situation can be improved by 'talking' with the terrorists?It certainly seems to be a catch 22,if we talk it looks like tehy have won, if we dont they win by blowing more things up?

Just because you can't think of a good solution doesn't mean an obviously bad action is acceptable. Invading Iraq wasn't just a poor way to conduct a war on terror - it basically had nothing to do with it at all.

Fucking spiders.

One CAN wage a war on terror, though this would be a terribly misguided effort. As others have already said, it merely intitiates a cycle of violence. In the case of the present conflict, we've essentially imported the endless conflict which has plagued the Middle East into the West. What fun...we can now be a part of the NEXT millenium of that bloody conflict. I know, someone will say, "Well they brought it to us!" Yes, we got splashed because our business dealings brought us close to the pool. The next move was ours, though, and we just jumped right in.

But, I digress...ultimately, the only way to defeat terror is by ratcheting up the terror with which you fight it. Bigger violence by bigger governments, until the enemy is defeated. Of course, by that time, the side remaining is a terror itself, and the only way to prevent uprisings is to maintain it as such.

How then?that is, if you believe it can be 'won'.Buy the people, corrupt them with trinkets, wash their brain in modern entertainment. Take away their will to fight (rather than strengthening their resolve)
Would you go out to blow people up, if you had the alternative of staying in and watching stargate SG1?

Just because you can't think of a good solution doesn't mean an obviously bad action is acceptable. Invading Iraq wasn't just a poor way to conduct a war on terror - it basically had nothing to do with it at all.

what is with you?Did I suggest that it was a good idea to invade Iraq because we couldnt think of anything else better?I agree with you!Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11,and the invasion was based on lies and deception.What I was trying to say is that we on this thread may be able to point out what went wrong with American(and allies) foreign policy, but unless we have a viable alternative then the criticism doesnt do much good.
Please,please,please, read my posts properly before you jump down my throat!If you do,you may find that I dont agree,and have never agreed with the war on terror,I think its idiotic and only makes things worse.Itb would have been a better course of action to wait and plan,attempting to improve relations with the middle east, rather than jumping into afghanistan and then Iraq.
I dont want to argue with you, there is no need to ,we agree!

Buy the people, corrupt them with trinkets, wash their brain in modern entertainment. Take away their will to fight (rather than strengthening their resolve)
Would you go out to blow people up, if you had the alternative of staying in and watching stargate SG1?

swap SG1 for star wars(or even star trek) and I can agree!

One CAN wage a war on terror, though this would be a terribly misguided effort. As others have already said, it merely intitiates a cycle of violence. In the case of the present conflict, we've essentially imported the endless conflict which has plagued the Middle East into the West. What fun...we can now be a part of the NEXT millenium of that bloody conflict. I know, someone will say, "Well they brought it to us!" Yes, we got splashed because our business dealings brought us close to the pool. The next move was ours, though, and we just jumped right in.

But, I digress...ultimately, the only way to defeat terror is by ratcheting up the terror with which you fight it. Bigger violence by bigger governments, until the enemy is defeated. Of course, by that time, the side remaining is a terror itself, and the only way to prevent uprisings is to maintain it as such.

So in other words turn the middle east into a kind of terror state to keep them all in line?Doesnt really sound great?(is that what you meant, I dont want to misinterpret you)

So in other words turn the middle east into a kind of terror state to keep them all in line?Doesnt really sound great?(is that what you meant, I dont want to misinterpret you)

The Middle East, United States, the globe...the problem is that once you've accomplished the task of crushing all human resistance, you're the terrorist. No, it does not sound great - that is why I voted that terror could not be beaten, but many lives will still be lost.

what is with you?Did I suggest that it was a good idea to invade Iraq because we couldnt think of anything else better?I agree with you!Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11,and the invasion was based on lies and deception.

I meant a general "you," not "you" specifically.

The Middle East, United States, the globe...the problem is that once you've accomplished the task of crushing all human resistance, you're the terrorist. No, it does not sound great - that is why I voted that terror could not be beaten, but many lives will still be lost.

I gettit, sorry if I sounded ratty(I havent slept for 2 days)Ive got to say, I agree with you, you cant crush terror without becoming a terrorist.I dont know whose song this is(it may be u2)but It says that you become a monster so the monster doeasnt break you.Its naff but appropriate.
In this case, do you suggest that turning the other cheek would be a better option?and would the american people accept this kind of action?

I meant a general "you," not "you" specifically.

okay,thats cool,I got the wrong idea....sorry I tend to do that!

I gettit, sorry if I sounded ratty(I havent slept for 2 days)

Oh, don't worry, I have a MUCH thicker skin than that.

Ive got to say, I agree with you, you cant crush terror without becoming a terrorist.I dont know whose song this is(it may be u2)but It says that you become a monster so the monster doeasnt break you.Its naff but appropriate.

In this case, do you suggest that turning the other cheek would be a better option?and would the american people accept this kind of action?

Turning the other cheek is not the only other option. One could ask the same question you've asked about crime, rather than terror. We could likely never do away with all crime unless we made our government so pervasive and oppressive as to hold the populace in submission. In doing so, however, we would likely cultivate a greater evil, but this is not our only alternative. This would be the brute-force method, the effort needing the most power and least intelligence. The more intelligent solution, to crime or terror, is to do the investigative work to determine just who the dangerous parties are and how to stop them without making the situation worse. The key is to eliminate the threat of the most extreme and attempt to quell unrest amongst those who would be their recruits. We must undermine terrorists' efforts, because if the last five years have shown us anything, it is that old methods of direct warfare are even less useful now than they were in the days of Vietnam. Some people, even decades later, simply have not learned this lesson and think that there is still a Hiroshima to bomb to end this war.

The best response to 9/11 would, I feel, in the interest of long-term results, would have been to look at aeroplance security, make sure such an attack could not happen again, then to let it lie. But that wouldn't have been politically expedient.

Now I can live with the invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban, Al-Quaida, and Osama were all directly linked. May not have been good in all respects, but it was a fairly direct response.

Then Iraq.

The US has not only painted itself into a corner in terms of how to handle the war, but they've managed to piss of a hell of a lot of the Middle East in the process. And a lot of Muslims. And quite a lot of other people while they're at it.

Results: The downfall of Saddam (Bad man, and he killed a lot of people. Fair enough if you really must wage war, he wasn't a bad target), the destabilisation of the Middle East (Whoopee), the enmity of many many more people than when you started, and a lot more terrorism.

The war will go on for a long time. And America sure as hell isn't going to win it.

To win the war on terror you must either

A) Kill everyone on Earth

B) Go back in time and stop all religion from happening

C) All the countries on earth must completely isolate themself from every other countries

We cant win the war, but if I was the President of some country i would
A) Impeach Bush and Blair and get someone smarter

B) Stop enforcing the very stupid/useless laws that make muslim extreamist unhappy. Example, France has a law that bans muslims from wearing headscaffs this nearly set the eiffle tower on fire. Is it too hard to just repeal this law! whats the worse thing that happens?

B) Go back in time and stop all religion from happening

“The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum.” Havelock Ellis, 1914

As to the semantics of the matter...

We Americans have waged 'war' on poverty, crime and drugs. The term war is just a matter of semantics, used to represent an organized effort to accomplish something. The war on terror is equally winnable as those are.

Good point.:p .The problem is, its all well and good saying that the war on terror is ill-planned and stupid, but unless we have a better option then its all just talk isnt it?Do you think that the situation can be improved by 'talking' with the terrorists?It certainly seems to be a catch 22,if we talk it looks like tehy have won, if we dont they win by blowing more things up?

Does it in any way matter what it "looks like"? I'd say what counts are the results.
If we look at the general history of dealings with terrorists, it's more than just obvious that a "strong stance" on terrorists and an outright denial to even talk to them resulted in more terror and in an increased support of terrorists in parts of the population.
Deflating the issue, diplomacy and communication on the other hand have disarmed a good number of terrorist groups in the past, just look at the IRA as the most recent example.

Edit : Note that this WON'T make terror disappear. That'll never, ever happen. But it might disarm the biggest groups, those who pose the most direct threat.

wether the war on terrorism is winnable or not is a moot point,You cannot talk and use diplomacy with these people,they have a totally different mindset to us,they want to destroy everything that represents us and have things put their way,to them we are infedels,we are the equivelent of animals,we are corrupt and ungodly,if they kill us they will go to heaven,and be on their gods right hand side,in their eyes the killing of non believers is a god given instruction,you may as well say that the jews should have tried talking to the nazis.There is no real answer to this issue.People who beleive they are in a holy war will never listen,they believe they are doing gods work and will not be deviated with words.It is a sad truisim of this world that we are left with no choice other than to fight fire with fire,do you honestly beleive that if you turn the other cheek they will leave you alone!!!!!You have to stand strong in your beliefs and fight back the best you can.It is time the western world woke up and realised WE ARE AT WAR,in 98 Bin Laden issued a 23 page declaration of war against the U.S and allies,it is time we woke up and acted as if we were at war.just my two pennys worth.

Postulate 1: Right-wing Islamic fundamentalist terrorism against Western nations (and Israel for that matter) is based off of and sustained by hate.
Postulate 2: All wars have unintended civilian casualties
Postulate 3: Civilian casualties foment hate among the victimized party

Therefore, fighting a war against terror will only propagate the problem we are trying to get rid of.

wow, post #2 and my exact opinion has already been spelled out (a damn sight better than i would have said it, too :eek: ;) )

Grammar, Punctuation and Capitalisation are your friends.

How exactly is attcking them going to do anything to persuade them that we aren't out to get them? You can't win a war against an idea. And for every terrorist you kill, you will probably create another one to "avenge" his death. They are humans just like us, to dismiss them as being anything less is to send them the same message that they believe as things stand; that we oppose them, and think of them as evil, that we wish them ill.

All very conducive to positive vibes, wouldn't you say?

The only way to win a "War on Terror" would be to basicly kill everyone who in every group that is against us. :\ The cure is worse than the disease in that case.

so that bacisly means killing all muslim.....wow the extremination of over 100million people, tell me are u related to Hitler in anyway

wether the war on terrorism is winnable or not is a moot point,You cannot talk and use diplomacy with these people,they have a totally different mindset to us,they want to destroy everything that represents us and have things put their way,to them we are infedels,we are the equivelent of animals,we are corrupt and ungodly,if they kill us they will go to heaven,and be on their gods right hand side,in their eyes the killing of non believers is a god given instruction,you may as well say that the jews should have tried talking to the nazis.There is no real answer to this issue.People who beleive they are in a holy war will never listen,they believe they are doing gods work and will not be deviated with words.It is a sad truisim of this world that we are left with no choice other than to fight fire with fire,do you honestly beleive that if you turn the other cheek they will leave you alone!!!!!You have to stand strong in your beliefs and fight back the best you can.It is time the western world woke up and realised WE ARE AT WAR,in 98 Bin Laden issued a 23 page declaration of war against the U.S and allies,it is time we woke up and acted as if we were at war.just my two pennys worth.


Nobody is doubting the fact that we are under attack. Almost nations have been, for almost all the time of their existance. It's nothing new, unfortunately.

Experience teaches us that the threat of terror will never go away completely. The question is, how do we make the danger less dangerous.
Considering that "strong actions" always have the disturbing tendency to create martyrs, and that martyrs in case create people who want to follow them and do exactly as they did, any kind of indiscriminate killing, holding fiery speeches and all other forms of jingoism and paranoia will directly serve the terrorists cause rather than stopping them.
I once saw an interview with a Palestinian (I think he was some form of spokesman for Hamas) who said that "the harsher Israels repercussions against the Palestinians are, the esasier it is for us to find volunteers for suicide attacks"

If you seriously think that the entire Muslim world, or even just the entire Arab world wants to see the West destroyed, you definitely need to get out a bit more often. The people who want that are extremists. Go in there and kill the normal people, and soon you'll only be left with the extremists ones.
Go there and help the normal ones, talk to them, make sure that you are friends, and you rob the extremists of all support from their own base.

Dude ...

a) Re-read his post. He basically says that you would have to kill everyone everywhere who even seemed to be looking at you in a funny way. He wasn't saying that such a measure was a good idea.

b) You think Muslims are the enemy?

Dude

a) i know

b) no

c) Its just a joke

Rather than wage a pointless and utter phony "War on Terror," we should do the following:

1. Completely and permanently cut off all aid to Israel.
2. Openly support a two-state solution in Israel.
3. Condemn Israeli atrocities as strongly as we do Palestinian atrocities.
4. Exchange embassies with Iran.
5. Pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq immediately.
6. Stop propping up corrupt, unpopular dictators like Musharaff, the Saudi monarchy, and Karimov.
7. Withdraw all our troops from abroad.
8. Strengthen our border security.
9. Withdraw from every entangling alliance we're currently in.
10. Sign a non-aggression pact with every nation in the world.
11. End all foreign aid.
12. Pursue a non-interventionist (not isolationist; there is a difference) foreign policy, emphasizing diplomacy and trade with all, and placing greater emphasis on dialogue than force.
13. Issue an open apology to the world for the Iraq war.
14. Impeach the Bush Administration.

so that bacisly means killing all muslim.....wow the extremination of over 100million people, tell me are u related to Hitler in anyway

More than a billion, actually.

Of course, it could be that there actualy isnt a "war on terror" happening at all. Might it just be the most powerful country in the world taking actions to protect and promote its influence and prosperity? And finding ways to describe those actions as "against terror"? It might sound cynical, but its a lot more plausible than the moral crusade were supposed to believe is going on.

i like number 14 best :)

@Arronax: Sorry man, I thought you were serious. I have sadly met a few people who would actually say that and mean it.

@Congo: Good luck with that. Points 1, 5-7, and 9-11 (Now that last grouping is ironic) are either not possible, or completely counter-productive. The rest could possibly work, but wouldn't be very politically expedient.

And, realistically speaking, none of them are going to happen in the near future, and quite a few will more probably never happen.

i like number 14 best :)

Same here. :D

5 and 7 could work if a certain president's butt *cough bush cough* got impeached first.


USA is liked in a damned if they do and damned if they dont situation

If we keep looking to punish them for what they did instead of beating them to the punch, we will lose this thing.

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/print/articleprint.html

Yep...The American Conservative Magazine....

Guess they must be getting fucked off with the neocon chickenhawks.

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/print/articleprint.html

Yep...The American Conservative Magazine....

Guess they must be getting fucked off with the neocon chickenhawks.

I love it when people who probably haven't been in combat use the term "chickenhawks" to describe other people who haven't been in combat.

Yes, the war on terror can be won, but it can't be won the way it's being fought now. In fact, the way the war on terror is being fought now exacerbates the issue because it shows the power that acts of terrorism can have on foreign policy.

I love it when people who probably haven't been in combat use the term "chickenhawks" to describe other people who haven't been in combat.

back to your trolling ways I see...

back to your trolling ways I see...

Nothing trolling about pointing out hypocrisy.

Nothing trolling about pointing out hypocrisy.

Oh do tell....

So coming back to the original point of this thread and the article I linked...

As it seems most terror activity has more to do with issues of territory rather than religion (or using religion as a 'above n beyond motivator) it would be sensible to perhaps leave the territories involved...and involvement in the regional politics as well.

Not sure how this will run in the West given our multinationals would revolt if there was a restriction on what they can do.

So coming back to the original point of this thread and the article I linked...

As it seems most terror activity has more to do with issues of territory rather than religion (or using religion as a 'above n beyond motivator) it would be sensible to perhaps leave the territories involved...and involvement in the regional politics as well.

Not sure how this will run in the West given our multinationals would revolt if there was a restriction on what they can do.

It's rather difficult to abandon the entire planet. Al-Qaeda has expressed the desire to make the entire world Dar al-Islam (and it's a favorite topic of Salafists) by force, to solve the Western problem once and for all.

If it's a matter of territory, how do you propose that we hand over the territory we live on, and leave the planet?

The war on terror is not supposed to be won but to guarantee a constant demand for the merchandise of Bush's sponsors.

It's rather difficult to abandon the entire planet. Al-Qaeda has expressed the desire to make the entire world Dar al-Islam (and it's a favorite topic of Salafists) by force, to solve the Western problem once and for all.

If it's a matter of territory, how do you propose that we hand over the territory we live on, and leave the planet?

Besides the fact that AQ do not represent all muslims I would say that you have a rather nice way of strawmanning threads. Or trolling them.

Either way....your arguement has no basis.

Lets look at the IRA. Do you see a unified Ireland? Do you see IRA terror activity on a gross scale?

The answer to both is....No.

Besides the fact that AQ do not represent all muslims I would say that you have a rather nice way of strawmanning threads. Or trolling them.

Either way....your arguement has no basis.

Oh yes it does. Right after the US took its troops out of Saudi Arabia (a key al-Qaeda demand), they changed it to wanting the rest of the world.

And even if everyone else except al-Qaeda stops being a terrorist, they will still continue, until their goal is reached.

So, you can't win it by giving up just some of the planet. They want it all.

And that's not trolling, it's the facts.

No I am too scared .

Oh yes it does. Right after the US took its troops out of Saudi Arabia (a key al-Qaeda demand), they changed it to wanting the rest of the world.

And even if everyone else except al-Qaeda stops being a terrorist, they will still continue, until their goal is reached.

So, you can't win it by giving up just some of the planet. They want it all.

And that's not trolling, it's the facts.

I notice you have avoided to tell more re your post regarding hypocrisy...no surprise there!

And as for this post of yours....once again....AP do not represent all Muslims. Making your posit ...well rubbish really.

Deep Kimchi - must try harder.

I notice you have avoided to tell more re your post regarding hypocrisy...no surprise there!

And as for this post of yours....once again....AP do not represent all Muslims. Making your posit ...well rubbish really.

Deep Kimchi - must try harder.

You need to try harder. I haven't said that al-Qaeda represents all Muslims.

Just that al-Qaeda is a source of terror, and you can't placate them with offers of territory. Wishing won't make it so.

I love it when people who probably haven't been in combat use the term "chickenhawks" to describe other people who haven't been in combat.
The people who use the term "chicken hawks" are not hawks themselves so there's no hypocrisy involved.

Just that al-Qaeda is a source of terror, and you can't placate them with offers of territory. Wishing won't make it so.
Rubiconic isn't exactly saying that we need to give back Spain to the Caliphate.

The people who use the term "chicken hawks" are not hawks themselves so there's no hypocrisy involved.

Sure there is. They are castigating someone for not having served in the military.

Can't really do that, unless you've served in combat as well.

War on Fight. War on Karate Chop. War on Swords. War on Bullet Headed Right For Me. War on Cavalry. War on Soup.

War on Fight. War on Karate Chop. War on Swords. War on Bullet Headed Right For Me. War on Cavalry. War on Soup.

Winston, it sounds like you are questioning the Two Minutes Hate.

Are you? Who are we at war with?

War on Fight. War on Karate Chop. War on Swords. War on Bullet Headed Right For Me. War on Cavalry. War on Soup.

Here's a war I'd like to see...

War on Crappy Reality TV Shows!

(war on soup LOL...nearly made me choke on my coffee....had it been soup I would have choked....then I'd have hurled the container to the ground and declared war!)

WAR!!! WWWWOOOOOOT!

*ahem*

Winston, it sounds like you are questioning the Two Minutes Hate.

Are you? Who are we at war with?

Drugs and whatever is hiding under our beds at night. Other than that we're in the middle of an occupation.

BB! BB! BB!

Rubiconic isn't exactly saying that we need to give back Spain to the Caliphate.

Yep...over my dead paella!

The War on Islamic Terrorism can be won. We need different policies though.

1.)Support for Israel is making us the target of terrorism that otherwise would not be aimed at the US, Israel doesn't need our help anymore they can handle things on their own.

2.)Instead of using the stick method exclusively we should try using the carrot once in a while, we should give aid and support to ME countries that take an anti-terror stance and make progressive reforms. Like Jordan, Turkey, Algeria, and Morocco. This will hopefully give an incentive to stop harboring terrorists and modernize their countries.

3.) get the hell out of Iraq, this one doesn't really need to be explained. pointless war, no connection to 9/11, making us the target of terror.

4.) start using mass propaganda, as ugly as it sounds we need to convince the ME that we are not the enemy. The government funded Al-Hurra arabic language news is a weak attempt at best.

Rather than wage a pointless and utter phony "War on Terror," we should do the following:

1. Completely and permanently cut off all aid to Israel.

Yes, let's stop supporting the one truly democratic government in the Middle East, which also happens to be the one which neighboring Arab countries wish to be "wiped off the map" -- and I'm not talking about Iran. Hezbollah, Hamas, etc., do not recognize Israel right to exist. If Israel ever lays down its arms, there will be no more Israel. We have to provide the money for Israeli arms so it can protect itself from Arab extremists and terrorists on all sides.

3. Condemn Israeli atrocities as strongly as we do Palestinian atrocities.

The problem is that there are not that many Israeli atrocities. The Palestinians shower Israel with rockets, and then the media castigates Israel when it strikes back. What is Israel supposed to do -- allow such terrorist actions to continue, or to defend itself?

4. Exchange embassies with Iran.

Yes, we all know how that last episode ended up -- you know, with all the Americans being taken hostage by an Islamofascist regime. I wonder if we should risk that again...

5. Pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq immediately.

Yes, allow the countries to fall into decades of unremmitted bloodshed and tribal/sectarian warfare. Genial idea -- maybe we should just nuke them, no? It will have exactly the same effect, only it would take a lot less time.

6. Stop propping up corrupt, unpopular dictators like Musharaff, the Saudi monarchy, and Karimov.

The US said that Karimov's election "was neither free nor fair and offered Uzbekistan's voters no true choice." We are not "propping up" these rulers -- we are simply trying to allow them to help us in our war on terror. It doesn't mean we're bosom buddies.

7. Withdraw all our troops from abroad.

Yes, encourage other countries to commit belligerent actions, knowing full well that there are no US troops capable of stopping them nearby.

8. Strengthen our border security.

I agree. We need to tighten the leash on illegal immigration.

10. Sign a non-aggression pact with every nation in the world.

Yes, let's send a message to all the nations of the world: "you can do whatever the fuck you want, but you won't have to worry about an US invasion. Go nuts! Ethnically cleanse your country if you wish. Invade a smaller neighboring country. We won't stop you!"

11. End all foreign aid.

Yes, let's allow people to die in poor countries because they have not received aid from the US. The tsunami victims? Nah, let's not send aid, despite being the richest country in the world. We'll let them work out their own problems.

12. Pursue a non-interventionist (not isolationist; there is a difference) foreign policy, emphasizing diplomacy and trade with all, and placing greater emphasis on dialogue than force.

13. Issue an open apology to the world for the Iraq war.

Yes, let's say "we're sorry we removed a genocidal dictator with strong ties to terrorist organizations who has oppressed his people for decades."

14. Impeach the Bush Administration.

It's the only good thing that has happened to the US since the end of Reagan's term. We should put a bronze statue of W in Washington, DC, not impeach him.

Begoner21;11668863']Yes, let's stop supporting the one truly democratic government in the Middle East, which also happens to be the one which neighboring Arab countries wish to be "wiped off the map" -- and I'm not talking about Iran. Hezbollah, Hamas, etc., do not recognize Israel right to exist. If Israel ever lays down its arms, there will be no more Israel. We have to provide the money for Israeli arms so it can protect itself from Arab extremists and terrorists on all sides.

Israel doesn't need our aid, they have one of the best and most well funded militaries in the world, our handout make up around 2% of the IDF's income. Israel needs no help, the recent invasion of lebanon demonstrates this fact. As for Iran, Israel has a nuclear deterrent, as well as the ME's best air force if the iranians start some shit they can expect to get bombed back to 1979...

Israel doesn't need our aid, they have one of the best and most well funded militaries in the world, our handout make up around 2% of the IDF's income.

That means that most of our money is being spent on non-military production. We give Israel ~$2,000,000,000 dollars each year, and Israel's defense budget is ~$7,700,000,000 per year. That is much more than 2%. In fact, for that to be true, only 7% of our aid would be spend on Israel's military.

Israel needsno help, the recent invasion of lebanon demonstrates this fact.

No, it doesn't. It demonstrates that more aid must be given. Over 100 Israeli soldiers died -- not much less than the amount of Hezbollah terrorists killed. The war was a victory for Hezbollah. To counter Iranian funding that equips Hezbollah with very modern weapons, we need to give more money to Israel.

Begoner21;11668961']No, it doesn't. It demonstrates that more aid must be given. Over 100 Israeli soldiers died -- not much less than the amount of Hezbollah terrorists killed. The war was a victory for Hezbollah. To counter Iranian funding that equips Hezbollah with very modern weapons, we need to give more money to Israel.
Or maybe you just need to realise that Geurilla fighters will always win any kind of war, against any military in the world, and fund some kind of "stop being utter wankers and bringing this kind of business upon yourselves fund".

War on terror is just an excuse for the USA to punish those that do not obey them.:)

War on terror is just an excuse for the USA to punish those that do not obey them.:)

Oh, so it's ok for them to fly airliners into US buildings, and any retaliation is just an excuse...

I don't believe that any one strategy will work. Not genocide, not education, not police states, nor religious crusades.

I believe the war can be won. First, use the military in intelligent ways, i.e. putting bullets in terrorists, not civilians. Second, use education. Open free secular schools for men and women in the countries we are occupying. Three, use the almighty dollar and the globalisation of culture. Four, support NGOs that are currently rebuilding the middle east. Five, ask the locals what they want. Six, provide clean water...etc, etc, etc,

In other words, use a multi-pronged approach. Don't get caught in this idea that there is a simple solution. There are many solutions, and they are complex.

Sure there is. They are castigating someone for not having served in the military.

Can't really do that, unless you've served in combat as well.
Yoiu misunderstand. They are castigating someone for not having served in the military but still advocating the unnecessary deployment of troops.

Notice how they don't castigate non-veterans who don't advocate the deployment of troops.

Begoner21;11668863']Yes, let's stop supporting the one truly democratic government in the Middle East, which also happens to be the one which neighboring Arab countries wish to be "wiped off the map" -- and I'm not talking about Iran. Hezbollah, Hamas, etc., do not recognize Israel right to exist. If Israel ever lays down its arms, there will be no more Israel. We have to provide the money for Israeli arms so it can protect itself from Arab extremists and terrorists on all sides.
I certainly want Israel to continue existing and we should aid it if Israel needs it, but I don't think they do. None of the countries that share a border with Israel want it wiped out. Except perhaps Syria.

The problem is that there are not that many Israeli atrocities. The Palestinians shower Israel with rockets, and then the media castigates Israel when it strikes back. What is Israel supposed to do -- allow such terrorist actions to continue, or to defend itself?
Israel tends to over-retaliate which just encourages more violence.

Yes, allow the countries to fall into decades of unremmitted bloodshed and tribal/sectarian warfare. Genial idea -- maybe we should just nuke them, no? It will have exactly the same effect, only it would take a lot less time.
I agree with you here.

The US said that Karimov's election "was neither free nor fair and offered Uzbekistan's voters no true choice." We are not "propping up" these rulers -- we are simply trying to allow them to help us in our war on terror. It doesn't mean we're bosom buddies.
But the military aid does.

Yes, encourage other countries to commit belligerent actions, knowing full well that there are no US troops capable of stopping them nearby.
How do you know that this would happen?

Yes, let's say "we're sorry we removed a genocidal dictator with strong ties to terrorist organizations who has oppressed his people for decades."
Removing Saddam wasn't the problem; it's what you allowed to replaced it that you need to apologise for.

Begoner21;11668863']It's the only good thing that has happened to the US since the end of Reagan's term. We should put a bronze statue of W in Washington, DC, not impeach him.
Comedy gold. Are you against free trade then?

Begoner21;11668961']No, it doesn't. It demonstrates that more aid must be given. Over 100 Israeli soldiers died -- not much less than the amount of Hezbollah terrorists killed. The war was a victory for Hezbollah. To counter Iranian funding that equips Hezbollah with very modern weapons, we need to give more money to Israel.
No matter how big your hammer is, not every problem is a nail.

Israel didn't win this war, but Hezbollah certainly didn't either.

Oh, so it's ok for them to fly airliners into US buildings, and any retaliation is just an excuse...

I don't think anyone had an issue with taking military action in Afghanistan after 9-11. Only die-hard peaceniks would have protested that invasion.

Iraq is of course another matter.

Oh, so it's ok for them to fly airliners into US buildings, and any retaliation is just an excuse...
When the US stopped seriously going after the people who attacked the US in favour of concentrating on long-begrudged targets, is when your reply became redundant.

War on Fight. War on Karate Chop. War on Swords. War on Bullet Headed Right For Me. War on Cavalry. War on Soup.
Dont you touch my soup!

Yoiu misunderstand. They are castigating someone for not having served in the military but still advocating the unnecessary deployment of troops.


Still hypocritical, since these same folks certainly didn't protest NATO's un-necessary intervention in Kosovo. If the "we're intervening to liberate oppressed people" argument doesn't work for Iraq, it certainly doesn't work for Kosovo.

When the US stopped seriously going after the people who attacked the US in favour of concentrating on long-begrudged targets, is when your reply became redundant.

Bingo, we should concentrate on afghanistan, where the terrorists are. The US also should also make a deal with Musharraf so U.S. troops can move into pakistan, by allowing Bin Laden to sneak over the border into that tribal area is without being able to follow him, is essentially fighting the war with one arm tied behind our back.

Still hypocritical, since these same folks certainly didn't protest NATO's un-necessary intervention in Kosovo. If the "we're intervening to liberate oppressed people" argument doesn't work for Iraq, it certainly doesn't work for Kosovo.

As I recall, they got UN authorization completely after the fact.

When Canadian planes were bombing the Serbs, they didn't have UN permission to do so.

Sure there is. They are castigating someone for not having served in the military.

Can't really do that, unless you've served in combat as well.

Ok...my mistake...I thought you knew what a chickenhawk was...

As I recall, they got UN authorization completely after the fact.

When Canadian planes were bombing the Serbs, they didn't have UN permission to do so.

:confused: I thought it was the UN that invaded and occupied. Did we bomb them before-hand?

Still hypocritical, since these same folks certainly didn't protest NATO's un-necessary intervention in Kosovo.
Yes they did.

Though it is hypocritical for you to oppose the Balkan war, but to support the Iraq war. Oh, but I see from your signature that you call yourself "conservative" which apparently means you have to support everything Republican and oppose everything with a smattering of the Democratic party. Even if they're the same. Yay doublethink!

:confused: I thought it was the UN that invaded and occupied. Did we bomb them before-hand?

In bombing Yugoslavia from March 24 into June 1999, NATO was guilty of the serious crime of violating the UN Charter requirement that it not use force without UN Security Council sanction. It was also guilty of criminal aggression in attacking a sovereign state that was not going beyond its borders. In its defense, NATO claimed that “humanitarian” concerns demanded these actions and thus justified seemingly serious law violations. Apart from the fact that this reply sanctions law violations on the basis of self-serving judgments that contradict the rule of law, it is also called into question on its own grounds by counter-facts. First, the NATO bombing made “an internal humanitarian problem into a disaster” in the words of Rollie Keith, the returned Canadian OSCE human rights monitor in Kosovo. Second, the evidence is now clear that NATO refused to negotiate a settlement in Kosovo and insisted on a violent solution; that in the words of one State Department official, NATO deliberately “raised the bar” and precluded a compromise resolution because Serbia “needed to be bombed.” These counter-facts suggest that the alleged humanitarian basis of the law violations was a cover for starkly political and geopolitical objectives.

NATO was also guilty of more traditional war crimes, including some that the Tribunal had found indictable when carried out by Serbs. Thus on March 8, 1996, Serb leader Milan Martic was indicted for launching a rocket cluster-bomb attack on military targets in Zagreb in May 1995, on the ground that the rocket was “not designed to hit military targets but to terrorize the civilians of Zagreb.” The Tribunal report on the Croat Operation Storm in Krajina also provided solid evidence that a 48 hour Croat assault on the city of Knin was “shelling civilian targets,” with fewer than 250 of 3,000 shells striking military targets. But no indictments followed from this evidence or for any other raid.

The same case for civilian targeting could be made for numerous NATO bombing raids, as in the cluster-bombing of Nis on May 7, 1999, in which a market and hospital far from any military target were hit in separate strikes—but no indictment has yet been handed down against NATO.

But NATO was also guilty of the bombing of non-military targets as systematic policy. On March 26, 1999, General Wesley Clark said that “We are going to very systematically and progressively work on his military forces...[to see] how much pain he is willing to suffer.” But this focus on “military forces” wasn’t effective, so NATO quickly turned to “taking down...the economic apparatus supporting” Serb military forces (Clinton’s words), and NATO targets were gradually extended to factories of all kinds, electric power stations, water and sewage processing facilities, all transport, public buildings, and large numbers of schools and hospitals. In effect, it was NATO’s strategy to bring Serbia to its knees by gradually escalating its attacks on the civil society.

But this policy was in clear violation of international law, one of whose fundamental elements is that civilian targets are off limits; international law prohibits the “wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages or devastation not justified by military necessity” (Sixth Principle of Nuremberg, formulated in 1950 by an international law commission at the behest of the UN). “Military necessity” clearly does not allow the destruction of a civil society to make it more difficult for the country to support its armed forces, any more than civilians can be killed directly on the grounds that they pay taxes supporting the war machine or might some day become soldiers. The taking of an entire population hostage is a blatant violation of international law and acts carrying it out are war crimes.

I certainly want Israel to continue existing and we should aid it if Israel needs it, but I don't think they do. None of the countries that share a border with Israel want it wiped out. Except perhaps Syria.

Many neighboring Arab countries implicitly want Israel wiped off the map. The do not discourage terrorist groups which launch rocket attacks on Jewish settlements. They choose not to take action against such groups and thus condone the war crimes perpetrated by these groups. Hezbollah and Hamas, for example, are dedicated to destroying Israel.

Israel tends to over-retaliate which just encourages more violence.

Israel has tried every single kind of retaliation, and none of them have worked. Peaceful negotiation has not worked. Unilateral withdrawal has not worked. Invasion has not worked. They're trying every trick in the book and they're getting nothing.

But the military aid does.

Imagine how hard it would be to control Afghanistan if we weren't allied, in a way, at least, with Pakistan.

How do you know that this would happen?

It might not, but there would be nothing stopping it if it did.

Comedy gold. Are you against free trade then?

I am not proud of every single one of Bush's decisions and I happen to be very much in favour of free trade.

No matter how big your hammer is, not every problem is a nail.

If your hammer is big enough, it won't look like a nail anymore after you're through with it.

Yes they did.

Though it is hypocritical for you to oppose the Balkan war, but to support the Iraq war. Oh, but I see from your signature that you call yourself "conservative" which apparently means you have to support everything Republican and oppose everything with a smattering of the Democratic party. Even if they're the same. Yay doublethink!

I oppose(d) both. For the same reason: if you disapprove of a government, feel free to place sanctions on it all you want; but regime change must always come from within... unless that regime attacks you, which wasn't the case in either war.

Rather than wage a pointless and utter phony "War on Terror," we should do the following:

1. Completely and permanently cut off all aid to Israel.
2. Openly support a two-state solution in Israel.
3. Condemn Israeli atrocities as strongly as we do Palestinian atrocities.
4. Exchange embassies with Iran.
5. Pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq immediately.
6. Stop propping up corrupt, unpopular dictators like Musharaff, the Saudi monarchy, and Karimov.
7. Withdraw all our troops from abroad.
8. Strengthen our border security.
9. Withdraw from every entangling alliance we're currently in.
10. Sign a non-aggression pact with every nation in the world.
11. End all foreign aid.
12. Pursue a non-interventionist (not isolationist; there is a difference) foreign policy, emphasizing diplomacy and trade with all, and placing greater emphasis on dialogue than force.
13. Issue an open apology to the world for the Iraq war.
14. Impeach the Bush Administration.

I get all of your points,except the two I have higlighted in bold.To point no 11,how will ending all forign aid make a difference,and to 14,how will getting rid of bush make any difference,he is not the only person in the american administration to advocate the 'war on terror'.In fact,due to bush and company, islamic militants are braded as facists,sadaam is equated with hitler.Detaching invovement from the war on terror would have been like not waging war against Hitler.The americans have trapped themselves in this war with their own words(as have the british)

I love it when people who probably haven't been in combat use the term "chickenhawks" to describe other people who haven't been in combat.

but it is often directed at people who support military engagements(often appearing to love them)but who were/are not brave enough to actually fight.
Hell, I wouldnt be brave enough,but then I dont support premptive wars...(but thats a different matter)

Besides the fact that AQ do not represent all muslims I would say that you have a rather nice way of strawmanning threads. Or trolling them.

Either way....your arguement has no basis.

Lets look at the IRA. Do you see a unified Ireland? Do you see IRA terror activity on a gross scale?

The answer to both is....No.

This was because the IRA were involved in the democratic process(on the condition of disarming)They soon realised that although it may be more dramatic to kill and blow things up(which they still have the potential to do)that it is easier to be taken seriously, and implement changes when you dont kill people(at least, that is my point of view, and crazies will always want to blow up something, there is just less likleyhood if the group is involved in the democratic process)

Begoner21;11668863']Yes, let's stop supporting the one truly democratic government in the Middle East, which also happens to be the one which neighboring Arab countries wish to be "wiped off the map" -- and I'm not talking about Iran. Hezbollah, Hamas, etc., do not recognize Israel right to exist. If Israel ever lays down its arms, there will be no more Israel. We have to provide the money for Israeli arms so it can protect itself from Arab extremists and terrorists on all sides.



The problem is that there are not that many Israeli atrocities. The Palestinians shower Israel with rockets, and then the media castigates Israel when it strikes back. What is Israel supposed to do -- allow such terrorist actions to continue, or to defend itself?



Yes, we all know how that last episode ended up -- you know, with all the Americans being taken hostage by an Islamofascist regime. I wonder if we should risk that again...



Yes, allow the countries to fall into decades of unremmitted bloodshed and tribal/sectarian warfare. Genial idea -- maybe we should just nuke them, no? It will have exactly the same effect, only it would take a lot less time.



The US said that Karimov's election "was neither free nor fair and offered Uzbekistan's voters no true choice." We are not "propping up" these rulers -- we are simply trying to allow them to help us in our war on terror. It doesn't mean we're bosom buddies.



Yes, encourage other countries to commit belligerent actions, knowing full well that there are no US troops capable of stopping them nearby.



I agree. We need to tighten the leash on illegal immigration.



Yes, let's send a message to all the nations of the world: "you can do whatever the fuck you want, but you won't have to worry about an US invasion. Go nuts! Ethnically cleanse your country if you wish. Invade a smaller neighboring country. We won't stop you!"



Yes, let's allow people to die in poor countries because they have not received aid from the US. The tsunami victims? Nah, let's not send aid, despite being the richest country in the world. We'll let them work out their own problems.

12. Pursue a non-interventionist (not isolationist; there is a difference) foreign policy, emphasizing diplomacy and trade with all, and placing greater emphasis on dialogue than force.



Yes, let's say "we're sorry we removed a genocidal dictator with strong ties to terrorist organizations who has oppressed his people for decades."



It's the only good thing that has happened to the US since the end of Reagan's term. We should put a bronze statue of W in Washington, DC, not impeach him.
Looks like someones been brainwashed.....

This was because the IRA were involved in the democratic process(on the condition of disarming)They soon realised that although it may be more dramatic to kill and blow things up(which they still have the potential to do)that it is easier to be taken seriously, and implement changes when you dont kill people(at least, that is my point of view, and crazies will always want to blow up something, there is just less likleyhood if the group is involved in the democratic process)

And the reason for this is that Thatcher had removed any political prisoner aspect...she legislated/criminalised the terror organisations to the table....

And forced them to the table...what chance of the Rev Smiler or King George doing that?

And the reason for this is that Thatcher had removed any political prisoner aspect...she legislated/criminalised the terror organisations to the table....And forced them to the table...what chance of the Rev Smiler or King George doing that?

I dont undersatnd this bit,Im having the kind of day where I read everything thrice and still dont understand..:p

[/B]
Looks like someones been brainwashed.....

Yes, because supporting a great leader and a uniter is a symptom of being "brainwashed." Perhaps cleaner brains vote Republican.

Begoner21;11670006']Yes, because supporting a great leader and a uniter is a symptom of being "brainwashed." Perhaps cleaner brains vote Republican.

Great leader??? Yer a comedian....the only thing Biush could lead is a bunch of fucking lemmings off a fucking cliff! And yes...you are a lemming.

Uniter??? is that why the political system is so divided that you have 'freedom zones' instead of all people of all persuasions allowed to line the streets when el Presidente comes a' calling?

I dont undersatnd this bit,Im having the kind of day where I read everything thrice and still dont understand..:p

She removed their status as political prisoners (both Loyalist and Republican groups)....hence the conversion of 'The Maze' into an ordinary prison.

Begoner21;11670006']Yes, because supporting a great leader and a uniter is a symptom of being "brainwashed." Perhaps cleaner brains vote Republican.
Somewhere around 40% of the nation believes President Bush is doing good. Only two states has a majority that believes he's a great leader.

He's a uniter in that he's managed to unite most of the country against him.

(And the great leader comment has me laughing so hard I can't respond to it).

Begoner21;11670006']Yes, because supporting a great leader and a uniter is a symptom of being "brainwashed." Perhaps cleaner brains vote Republican.

Great leader my arse.He has emotionally blackmailed much of america into supporting the war on terror.He has exploited the tragedy of 9/11 to suit his own political longings(deep down we all know that he wants to convert the middle east to christianity)Not only that he has led my country and the us into a badly planned war in afghanistan(justified-but badly planned)He lied to get an invasion of iraq.He has succeeded in turning the rest of the muslim world against america(Im the first to admit that anti western sentiments were around before gwb-it would be stupid to deny-otherwise why would 9/11 have happened)
He has lied to the american people,and yet people like you love that.I guess its like an abusive relationship, you secretly miss it and dont know how to function without gwb spinning some lie,and helping to kill more people than can ever be justified.
After all this you believe hes great,if thats not brainwashing(or at least emotional blackmail that appeals to the worst sentiments of born again christianity)then I dont know what is!

She removed their status as political prisoners (both Loyalist and Republican groups)....hence the conversion of 'The Maze' into an ordinary prison.

Yeah, I thought you were talking about this.That is true, and it seemed to help...

Begoner21;11670006']Yes, because supporting a great leader and a uniter is a symptom of being "brainwashed."

The fact that you think Bush has united anyone makes my seriously wonder if your brain-washed.


Perhaps cleaner brains vote Republican.



well arent we pretentious little neocons

Yeah, I thought you were talking about this.That is true, and it seemed to help...

aye....afterall the Maze was a powerfull symbol....and allowing Bobby Sands to stand as an MP and then going on hunger strike until he died.....yet another powerfull symbol....

Criminalise and that power is gone.

Uniter??? is that why the political system is so divided that you have 'freedom zones' instead of all people of all persuasions allowed to line the streets when el Presidente comes a' calling?

You know, we tried not screening anyone when the Presidente "came a' calling." Do you recall what happened? JFK got shot in the head. It is much safer to screen people who pose a risk to the President when he is holding a speech or such. We learn from our mistakes -- we do not allow possibly violent protesters to stand near the President.

great leader huh?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/r1066002127.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/r2976054383.jpg

He's a uniter in that he's managed to unite most of the country against him.

He's a uniter in that he managed to unite the country behind him in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and took action against those seeking to harm us for our freedoms and affluence. Unfortunately, the liberal media has hounded him at every turn, driving his approval ratings slowly and inexorably downward. However, he does not give up, and continues to make choices a large percentage of the country disagrees with, because he knows it's right. For example, his first veto was dedicated to a bill which an overwhelming majority of Americans supported. He deserves praise and applause for such brave actions.

(And the great leader comment has me laughing so hard I can't respond to it).

He has successfully led us to war against Islamo-fascist enemies worldwide. He has successfully protected us against Islamic jihad, which claimed the lives of thousands of Americans on 9/11. We have liberated the Iraqi and Afghani people and we are steadily rebuilding their countries. We have been a beacon of democracy to the world and we have spread that democracy to some of the most horrible dictatorial regimes the world has ever known.

Begoner21;11670138']You know, we tried not screening anyone when the Presidente "came a' calling." Do you recall what happened? JFK got shot in the head. It is much safer to screen people who pose a risk to the President when he is holding a speech or such. We learn from our mistakes -- we do not allow possibly violent protesters to stand near the President.

Seems other countries don't have a problem with their leaders being able to go out and about...even after assassinations...

Democracy is not about shutting yourself away from your electorate is it?

Postulate 1: Right-wing Islamic fundamentalist terrorism against Western nations (and Israel for that matter) is based off of and sustained by hate.
Postulate 2: All wars have unintended civilian casualties
Postulate 3: Civilian casualties foment hate among the victimized party

Therefore, fighting a war against terror will only propagate the problem we are trying to get rid of.
Ah should someone not have told that to the Japanese and Germans? That they should be committing terrorism. You know. Suicide bombing, shooting up crowds of people, and other such stuff. In restaurants, bus and train stations, schools, weddings and airplane etc. In the US and UK, as well as other WWII allies.

Well better late then never. So do you want to break it to them or should I?

Democracy is not about shutting yourself away from your electorate is it?

Democracy cannot survive if the leaders of a country keep getting shot. The only thing a democracy depends on is free and open discourse -- the President engages in such at press conferences. That is all that is required.

After watching a movie about Islamic extremist ideology, I have come to the conclusion that our current methods of waging war against terrorists (at least these ones) are ineffective. I propose a new, two-pronged strategy:

Prong 1: Moderate Muslims
We must lend our support to the moderate Muslims who oppose terrorism. Encourage them to speak out. If necessary, find ways to protect them from radical Muslims. Fund pro-tolerance education programs in Muslim schools (I cringed at images of Muslim preschoolers crying out "Death to America" - and I looked at the images of violence straight on). The moderate Muslims are the only ones who can defeat the extremist ideology.

Prong 2: All-Out Shadow War
This is a war, and we must fight those who seek to destroy us. However, sending in massive armies is no longer effective. This is asymmetrical warfare. In order to root them out, we must expand our intelligence services and special forces. And when I say "expand" I don't just mean "increase funding". I mean special forces DIVISIONS. I want armies of spies. My only worry is that there may not be enough men of sufficient caliber to do this.

A word about Iraq
Iraq did not start out as part of the war on terror. Saddam was not an Islamic extremist. He was just a psychotic dictator who occasionally used religion to rile up the masses.
However, Iraq has BECOME a major front on the war on terror. In pure numbers, one of the largest fronts. I believe that if we withdraw under extremist pressure, then they will be able to call Iraq a victory. If, on the other hand, we outlast the extremists in Iraq, then all the resources and men that they have poured into Iraq will have been wasted. Iraq will not be a peaceful democracy. It will be rife with sectarian tension and the occasionally killing. However, these will be things the Iraqis can handle themselves. The "meat grinder" in Iraq affects both sides.

A word about Israel
Our support of Israel is not the reason the Islamist extremists want to kill us. They want to kill us because we are not Muslims. Israel is merely their first target, if nothing else because it's nearby.
The advice earlier applies to Israel as well. Israel should start training fewer tank drivers and train more commandos and Mossad agents. ESPECIALLY Mossad agents.

Oh, and there are parallels between the Islamic extremists and the Nazis. Their propaganda is very similar - including the brainwashing of children.

Begoner21;11670189']Democracy cannot survive if the leaders of a country keep getting shot. The only thing a democracy depends on is free and open discourse -- the President engages in such at press conferences. That is all that is required.

4 US Presidents have been assassinated. Out of 43. Hmmmmm not THAT many then really...two in the 19th century, one in 1901 and JFK in 1963. Out of 43 Presidents in total.

Guess what....America is still here.

Free and open discourse....to be found at press conferences where the President chooses who he speaks to???

Your reality is un-nervering.

4 US Presidents have been assassinated. Out of 43. Hmmmmm not THAT many then really...two in the 19th century, one in 1901 and JFK in 1963. Out of 43 Presidents in total.

Guess what....America is still here.

Free and open discourse....to be found at press conferences where the President chooses who he speaks to???

Your reality is un-nervering.

Im pretty sure he was talking about Iraq there quick one...:headbang:

Begoner21;11669209']Many neighboring Arab countries implicitly want Israel wiped off the map. The do not discourage terrorist groups which launch rocket attacks on Jewish settlements. They choose not to take action against such groups and thus condone the war crimes perpetrated by these groups. Hezbollah and Hamas, for example, are dedicated to destroying Israel.
Hamas operates in Palestine. Hezbollah operates in Lebanon, in which case the government is too feeble to get rid of them. Again, of Israel's neighbours none save for Syria and Lebanon have anti-Israel terrorists launching from inside their borders.

Israel has tried every single kind of retaliation, and none of them have worked. Peaceful negotiation has not worked. Unilateral withdrawal has not worked. Invasion has not worked. They're trying every trick in the book and they're getting nothing.
Is this supposed to be a reason to support Israel repeating its failed policies?

Imagine how hard it would be to control Afghanistan if we weren't allied, in a way, at least, with Pakistan.
I'm talking about Uzbekistan.

It might not, but there would be nothing stopping it if it did.
Fuck it, I don't want the US running the world.

I am not proud of every single one of Bush's decisions and I happen to be very much in favour of free trade.
So wasn't NAFTA signed after Reagan but before Bush II?

If your hammer is big enough, it won't look like a nail anymore after you're through with it.
If it was never a "nail" in the first place of course it wouldn't.

I oppose(d) both. For the same reason: if you disapprove of a government, feel free to place sanctions on it all you want; but regime change must always come from within... unless that regime attacks you, which wasn't the case in either war.
Sorry, I thought I remembered you supporting the Iraq war, my bad.

Begoner21;11670006']Yes, because supporting a great leader and a uniter is a symptom of being "brainwashed." Perhaps cleaner brains vote Republican.
How is Bush a uniter? The world is at its most anti-American point ever.

I won't even touch the "dear leader" comment.

Begoner21;11670162']He has successfully led us to war against Islamo-fascist enemies worldwide. He has successfully protected us against Islamic jihad, which claimed the lives of thousands of Americans on 9/11. We have liberated the Iraqi and Afghani people and we are steadily rebuilding their countries. We have been a beacon of democracy to the world and we have spread that democracy to some of the most horrible dictatorial regimes the world has ever known.
Why is it that only the American right feels this way? If it were true we'd all support Bush.

Wat has liberating Iraq to do with fighting terrorism?

If it weren't for the Bush war in Iraq 191 Spaniards and 57 Britons would still be living today.

After watching a movie about Islamic extremist ideology, I have come to the conclusion that our current methods of waging war against terrorists (at least these ones) are ineffective. I propose a new, two-pronged strategy:



Prong 2: All-Out Shadow War
This is a war, and we must fight those who seek to destroy us. However, sending in massive armies is no longer effective. This is asymmetrical warfare. In order to root them out, we must expand our intelligence services and special forces. And when I say "expand" I don't just mean "increase funding". I mean special forces DIVISIONS. I want armies of spies. My only worry is that there may not be enough men of sufficient caliber to do this.

While I agree with what you are saying here, we already do have the numbers. In US Army Special Forces (Green Berets) which are the best of the best, there are 7 Special Forces Groups, and 3 Battalions of men to each group. Lets say there are about 500 men in a battalion, that is 1500 men per group, and 10,500 total. Plus there are thousands of SEALs, hundreds of USAF Pj's and CCT's, and then there is Combat Applications Group (aka Delta Force) plus the 75th Ranger Rgt.

The way the United States fights terrorism is like throwing gasoline on a fire to put it out. "They are thrown into a panic over an old man pulling an election lever."-G.W. Bush, just in. When discussing terrorists, kinda says it all