NationStates Jolt Archive

As I keep tabs on the War on Terrorism/War in Iraq, I cant help but think to myself "is the war really necessary?". I mean, yah we are trying to do good, but will we get more good than bad out of this? In Iraq and surrounding countries there was almost no violence, until the US interfeared. Now almost everyday there is an article about a bomber, explosion, etc. I think that this war has gotten out of hand. But besides my reasoning, I would like to hear other people's responses as to what their view on the War of Terrorism really is.

As I keep tabs on the War on Terrorism/War in Iraq, I cant help but think to myself "is the war really necessary?". I mean, yah we are trying to do good, but will we get more good than bad out of this? In Iraq and surrounding countries there was almost no violence, until the US interfeared. Now almost everyday there is an article about a bomber, explosion, etc. I think that this war has gotten out of hand. But besides my reasoning, I would like to hear other people's responses as to what their view on the War of Terrorism really is.

it can only be won by addressing the root causes of the problems, killing/invasions,bombing people will only make it worse and create more converts to their cause......these militants didn't one day wake up and decide to bomb someone, something got them really pissed.....silly talk like "they hate us because we have freedom and democracy" is stupid and avoiding the real issues......centuries of Imperialism created a lot of animosity, add the creation of Israel against the wishes of inhabitants, expulsion oppression of those inhabitants and you have a created a serious religious confrontation......

War on terror fought in Afghanistan, good. War on Iraq, stupid.

I think both the "root causes" theory and the "bomb 'em all" theory are wrong.

The first is wrong because the root cause of Islamist Terrorism is unfortunately neither poverty nor exclusively political in nature. You can't argue about religion, and you certainly can't make concessions to people who'd only be happy if everyone adhered to their particular brand and interpretation of religious oppression.
Even the political elements...sure, the US could leave Saudi Arabia. But Israel cannot and should not be removed. Most of their political demands are outrageous - and not actually shared by most people in the Middle East.

Terrorism may have political dimensions, but ultimately it's still more like a crime than an act of war. To go after terrorists, you don't need fighter jets, you need investigators.

I think that's where the whole thing went wrong. The pictures on 9/11 were monumental enough to make people conjure up all sorts of ideas, when a bit of rationality would've said: "Ok, we've got CIA people after this guy. We've got the FBI that can trace what happened. Let's put more serious effort into this, and try to arrest or assassinate him."

Unfortunately, whether for political expediency or because they really felt it was necessary, the response to the perceived act of war was an actual war. Not that I disagreed with removing the Taliban, but they probably would've had a better chance at getting Bin Laden if they'd waited a few more months, shadowed him and then put some Spec Ops on the ground to arrest him.

As it was, it was thanks to the neoconservative guys in the White House that people seemed to immediately connect this "War on Terror" with democratising places and "spreading freedom". I think that was an achievement on their part that rivals how they managed to somehow convince people to get into Iraq.

the "war on terrorism" is the lie of the century terrorism is a crime and like all crime you don't beat it by being tough on it, you beat it by ignoring it and getting on with your life thus destroying terrorisms very objective

The War On Terror is politically useful.

For those who subscribe to the theory that governments like to accrue power and are not terribly likely to use it for anyone's ultimate benefit but it's own (like me, it's historical fact that this kind of thing happens, Rome being a prime example) it is clearly an excuse to do just that. The PATRIOT Act and the various equivalents in the UK (look up UK Antiterrorism Laws, they tried to take away Habeus Corpus amongst other things, nearly did it too) are clear evidence of governments trying to use a mre compliant populace to step in and take a tighter control.

I'm not accusing Blair or Bush themselves of attempting dictatorship. In fact I think both to some extent believe that they are genuinely defending their people BUT, with a nebulous threat such as 'terrorism' this can be strung out so no-one can repeal the acts without being accused of 'helping the terrorists'. And down the line we WILL have someone who, for whatever reason wants to rule as dictator.

And they will only have it easier was we sign our rights away to the government.

Say what you will about Thatcher, at least she didn't suspend Habeus Corpus over the IRA...

No, it is not necessary, in fact like 'the war on drugs' it's counter-productive in a variety of ways.

It'd be funny if it were not so tragic and scary.

Say what you will about Thatcher, at least she didn't suspend Habeus Corpus over the IRA...

No, she used my country's dictatorship as an excuse for war, a war against nineteen year old conscripts from tropical areas. She didn't need a local enemy at first.

Reagan did the same in Grenada.

Jolly good people.

No, she used my country's dictatorship as an excuse for war, a war against nineteen year old conscripts from tropical areas. She didn't need a local enemy at first.

Reagan did the same in Grenada.

Jolly good people.

True. Never said she was NICE. In fact she's an unpleasant bitch with no real sense of morals from what I've seen of her but even she had something going for her.

the "war on terrorism" is the lie of the century terrorism is a crime and like all crime you don't beat it by being tough on it, you beat it by ignoring it and getting on with your life thus destroying terrorisms very objective


I used to subscribe to the ignore it and they can't acheive their objectives theory. But then i was thinking about what their real objectives are. Their stated objectives are to turn the world muslim. I really don't see how tighter security makes us muslim but whatever.