WOT...a discussion.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by blackfox, Aug 18, 2004.

  1. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #1
    Since the "War on Terror" seems to be such a huge component of the current political landscape (at least here in the US)...I thought I might start a thread to clarify what it means and entails to us as individuals, as well as what it might take to "win" such a war.

    So I ask the following questions:

    1) What is the "War on Terror"?
    2) Who is the enemy?
    3) How should it be fought?
    4) Is the US fighting it effectively? Are other parts of the world? If yes, how and why? If no, the same...
    5) Is a victory possible for any side? Are there sides?

    There are of course many other important questions to be asked, but I thought this would be a start and perhaps illuminating to people to understand something that is bound to be a facet of of lives for the forseeable future...

    Have at it, and keep it civil...
     
  2. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #2
    Excellent topic BF, I promise I will come back to it with more later but time is short for me at the moment. I can only leave you with a quote from Jon Stewart's commencement address earlier this year. (I'll post a link too, it is an excellent read).

    "We declared war on terror. After we defeat it, I’m sure we’ll take on that bastard ennui." -Jon Stewart​
    :D

    Oops, We Broke the World
     
  3. Bobcat37 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Location:
    Colorado
    #3
    1) As mactastic (well really it was Jon Stewart) pointed out, "War on Terror" is kind of a stupid name. Terror is an emotion, a concept, you can't really fight that. It should be more like the "War on Terrorists". What is this "War on Terrorists"? Uhhhh that seems pretty dang self-explanitory. It is a war... on... terrorists. It is a battle or a fight to rid the world of people who terrorize innocent citizens.

    2) Who is the enemy? Well terrorists are. And despite how un-PC it might sound, most of the terrorists these days we have to worry about are the radical extremist Muslims. We have to face the fact that it wasn't Buddhists or Hindus or Christians or Jews or Athiests who flew planes into the twin towers almost 3 years ago. Even the 9/11 commission report identifed the enemy as "Islamist terrorism". (*see further down for a detailed description of the enemy)

    3) By bringing the fight to them. Terrorists should not be dealt with by means of law enforcement and policing, that has been done in the past and didn't work to well. We have to simply kill them. Again, might be un-PC, but that is my view on things. Some people argue that killing them just breeds more, but I subscribe to a different viewpoint. Really what else can you do? Negotiation would be a joke IMO.

    4) We're doing ok... but it's far from over. Ridding the world of Saddam and giving Iraq it's freedom will hopefully go a long way to help the Middle East in the long run. But where is Osama? Everyone agrees we need to catch him. Then there are nations that are a threat to us still like Syria or Iran or North Korea (that famous "axis of evil"). And what about nations that are self-destructing from internal terrorism like Sudan? I think we have a responsibility to help them out. We definitely need the help of the rest of the world in this fight, we can't accomplish it alone unless we plan to invade far too many countries, lol.

    5) Is victory possible? That's a tough question, it would all depend on your definition of victory. If victory means the elimination of all terrorists from the entire planet, then no, that is impossible. But I think it IS possible to make smaller victories in the war like capturing Saddam or (hopefully someday) caputuring Bin Laden. I would consider those victories, but I think as you said blackfox, this "war" will continue for a long long time.

    There are my short but sweet answers.

    *As for the extra info I had, here is our enemy:

    As the author of the article goes on to state, despite what it may seem, it's not just Americans who are the targets of these guys, it's just about anyone they deem an "infidel"

    Source
     
  4. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #4
    Our war is on those who are willing to "purposely" target civilians as an acceptable means to an end. I don't care what motivates them, once they start doing this the only objective is to stop them.

    It is not actually feasable to kill them all. It is feasable to prove to those who use these methods that doing so doesn't bring them closer to victory. That doing so makes more enemies then they had before. Some would use these tactics to try to turn apathy into sympathy, these folks need to be aware that apathy is better than hatred.

    For example allowing the Palestinians to win any consessions through their use of terroristic tactics could signal to the Kurds that in order to get our help they have to commit terrorism of their own. There are plenty of people out there who are stepped on or in desperate situations. We cannot allow them to think that terrorism is a means that will save them. Even if there is no other method available. We cannot be expected to save the world and we deffinitely should pay more "helpful" attention to those who gain our attention through the use of terrorism.

    Other reasons for terrorism that I appeared to ignore are also unacceptable. As long as they think they have a chance of winning they have no reason to stop. So we have to convince all terrorists throughout the world that things will be worse off for you if you try it on us.

    The US is fighting it as effectively as it can with our limited resources and lack of major ally support. We need to get Iraq under their own control so we can move on to Syria or Iran. Syria for stashing Iraqs WMD's and Iran for volunteering to be next by persueing their nuclear path, and support of the so called Iraqi resistence. Those against us need to understand we are not bluffing and then perhaps we could win the war against terrorism without actually fighting any war. But first we have to prove we don't bluff. Something that won't happen if Kerry is elected.
     
  5. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #5
    unneeded big words for the obvious
    some terrorists wanted a war against the US..with the US confirming this they played into their hands..aka. mistake numero uno

    the business like organization structures behind the actions..

    it should be treated like what it is: a crime...
    to fight crime with a invasion or pure force is a bad idea (also known as 'the israelian method') not only is it bad...it doesn't work too...
    police -> court -> jail with keeping all the democratic principles


    *no not really
    *examples: germany vs. RAF, italy vs. south tyrolian seperatists
    add 'adressing problems which cause terrorism the first place' to police work


    financial victory: hell yeah winning all the time on both sides
    yeah 2 sides : those who earn money/power with it,those suffering from it
     
  6. blackfox thread starter macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #6
    I will formally post a response later when I have the time, but for now a couple of comments...

    mac, great quote...as funny as it is insightful...I look forward to your response later...

    takao...excellent post, glad that you understand things so well...pity we don't...thanks

    bobcat and leo, more on your posts later...
     
  7. Bobcat37 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Location:
    Colorado
    #7
    Gee I can see where this is going :rolleyes:

    Frankly I thought takao's post was mostly dumb (sorry man), and you said it was excellent, LOL. Not to mention I had a very hard time figuring out what the heck he meant past the poor grammar. Now that is humorous...

    Oh well, I await you laying into my post later blackfox
     
  8. blackfox thread starter macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #8
    I thought you might feel I was implying that...not so. I encourage you to re-read takao's post more carefully...

    I will take issue with some of what you have written, bobcat, but don't get too defensive on me...you wrote a lot to respond to...

    you can lay into my post later, when it is done...
     
  9. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #9
    an ill-conceived idea that a technique (terror) necessitated by disenfranchisement can be fought with measures (violence, revenge, occupation, disrespect) that only increase that disenfranchisement.

    the actual enemies are the forces that drive people to desperate measures. unfortunately, those who are already desperate are being targeted, and the imprecision of such targeting methods does nothing but add to the rolls of the desperate.

    with compassion, aid and respect for other countries, their people and resources. the stuff that isn't about "being tough," which is why the "win at all costs" and violent nature of the US can end only in a losing proposition for the US. i'll repeat -- the US cannot win this fight. entropy begets only more entropy. and since the US has the most to lose -- it WILL lose.
     
  10. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #10
    another point of view

    1) the war on terror is an action against a country that has toppled legit governments and financed coups. they have exploited countries merely for resources and cheap labor and have turned a blind eye to dictators when it suited them. much of this exploitation is wrapped in the blanket of christian values although their bible seems at odds with their actions. our enemy has confused military strength and capitalism with God's will.

    2)the enemy is the politics of the united states of america.

    3)the war will be fought using any resources available. an ideal plan would have the enemy come to our territory making the conflict a neverending quagmire for their troops. the u.s. lost in vietnam and the ussr lost in afghanistan...superpowers can be defeated.

    4) no the u.s. is not fighting it effectively, fortunately for us.

    5) we will defeat the terrorists...they have already shown themselves to be liars...making false claims in order to occupy an oil rich country. the terrorists have lost the support of most of the free world and the majority of the citizens of their own country. their hubris will be their downfall.


    .....and before some wiseass says i must have enjoyed 9/11...let me say i'm not condoning either side...just merely pointing out that many innocent people have died outside of the u.s.....and that no matter how much we wave the flag, there is a large stack of documents detailing the horrible things we have covertly done to other countries and their people.

    paybacks a bitch.
     
  11. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #11
    A great point, 3rdpath. If we're going to use a generic term like "terror" to describe what we're fighting, then we need to accept that other people might have a very different definition of the word.

    1) The "War on Terror" is an invented concept into which political leaders can wrap the fears of a nation into a convenient package.

    2) The enemy is vague and amorphous. What they are called will change constantly, but they will never go away. Terror will always exist and can never be entirely defeated. Thus, the war will never end.

    3) It should be fought by whatever means are necessary to keep elected officials in office.

    4) If the people who are waging the war are reelected, then it is being fought effectively. All defeats for those fighting the war are victories for the terrorists.

    5) War is peace. Everyone who is not on our side is on their side.

    Sounds cynical, yes? But ask yourself: how close this is to our political realities in the United States today?
     
  12. diamond geezer macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    #12
    The problem is when both sides think the other are the terrorists and use that as an excuse to act in the same way.

    I think it's both the US Govt/military and the Muslim extremists who are *&^ing this world up, and they can both go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

    Here's some "extra info" from your enemy Osama.
    (note that this is an 1998 interview)

    Here he attributes the fall of the Soviet Union to God, whereas all good Americans know it was Ronnie R.

    He makes as strong a case for American terrorism as the US does against Muslims.
     
  13. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #13
    wonderfully cynical! excelsior!
     
  14. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #14
    I'm gonna only answer #2 at the moment, and point out that John Ashcroft has set the Justice department against pot smokers in California, women who've had abortions in the midwest, concert promoters in Montana, Haitian refugees in Florida, and dissenters in Baltimore and New York, all in the name of the War on Terror.
     
  15. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #15
    Religion dressed up as politics.
    Politics dressed up as religion.
    With humanity, humility, invention and imagination.
    No. This is a political conflict. It needs political solutions. These do not generally issue from the barrel of a gun, no matter how big the gun.
    Humanity always loses. Humanity is on all sides.
     
  16. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #16
    well it was 3:50 AM and english isn't my native language ..so perhaps that explains my bad grammar

    try and look at my examples.. how was the fight against the RAF won ? not with invading lebanon or invading russia (where some of them were trained..) no..police investigated and arrested them ..sure it took time but they got all important figures and put them in front of a court

    police is the sword of democracy _not_ the army

    and i'll point it out another time: with declearing it as "war on terror" you did the terrorists a favour...the german government always called it "fight against terror"

    the US did worst thing possible: they gave them the full attention _they wanted_ ...not only did the US gave them attention they changed their politics as well

    imagine the US as big container-freighter...then a small boat with a few guys come up who want to change your course and destroy your freight... they throw stones at you ,break a few windows but can't get on board,but what does the in impressed freighter do ? the captain turns the rudder to full left to follow the guys in the small boat. Sadly with turning so fast, 1-2 containers filled with the expensive freight called "democratic values" goes over board......sure the small boat was crushed by the giant freighter but the next day another boat will try it again...and sooner or later you run out of containers
     
  17. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #17
    Your grammar is better than that of many of the "native Americans" here...

    He's probably really confused because he thinks you're talking about the Royal Air Force, not the Red Army Faction.

    Fecking right!

    Nice analogy. :)
     
  18. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #18
    name a few major allies who are missing (german and french troops are in afghanistan and germany is already putting terrorist-supporters in front of court)
    for once and for all:
    war in iraq != fight against terror


    did you know that that the last election turnout in Iran was higher than last in the US .... oh the irony
    lets face it iran is heading towards a western democracy..sure not fast... but far from being something like saudi arabia
    i know you don't like the fact that iran is more secular than saudi arabia or pakistan who are your allies ... but stop with that made up axis of evil stuff... just because they don't like US politics doesn't make them evil

    how about sudan or north korea ?
    did you know that pakistan and saudi arabia vetoed UN interventions in sudan and _not_ iran ?... nice allies...nice allies indeed
     
  19. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #19
    And of course, the only other progressive secular country in the middle east is Syria.
     
  20. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #20
    You probably shouldn't take it personally. His rude behavior has been directed at nearly everyone here at one time or another.

    I am impressed by your ability to converse in English. I took three years of German in school but never felt entirely comfortable speaking it. I would certainly never attempt to participate in a board where German is spoken.

    So don't worry. I understand what you are saying, most of the time. :)
     
  21. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #21
    oh yeah? how's your german?

    have you ever left the country?
     
  22. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #22
    zim, when a guy like Osama bin Laden with a personal fortune of several hundred million dollars says his motivation for hatred of the West and for the 9/11 horror show was the presence of infidels on holy soil, I really don't think that "disenfranchisement" has much to do with problem.

    The disenfranchisement by the governmental entities which rule most Islamic countries may well indeed provide a bunch of potential "foot soldiers" who have a serious case of "fed up". Western, "infidel", nations did not cause that. The mullahs of the madrassas who preach hatred of all infidels didn't get that attitude about their version of Islam from Halliburton.

    Folks can natter all they want about the woulda/coulda/shoulda of western nations' foreign policies of the last hundred years. Pandora's box is irretrievably open and one of the Bad Things that is on the loose is a resurgence of the old Militant Islam vs. Non Islamics.

    Where is El Cid, now that we really need him?

    'Rat
     
  23. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #23
    Didn't you hear? They voted for the other guy.
     
  24. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #24
    The WOT is a convienent excuse to curtail our rights, install future human rights abusers into power, feed the military-industrial comples, and to allow polititians to sound 'tough on terror'. What the WOT is not is an actual war, nor is it helping to reduce the levels of terrorism. the WOT is highly analogous to the War on Drugs that our country has spent untold billions on with little or no result. Well except for all the fancy new weapons and task forces and confiscated property, and tens of thousands of Americans in jail for little more than posession.

    I predict the WOT will bring the military many new toys, will cost billions and billions, will cost us more of our constitutional rights, and will produce next to no improvement in worldwide safety. In the meantime many regimes will be toppled and replaced with 'friendly' regimes the way we did in Argentina, Chile, and Iran just to name a few. At least one or two of the actions we take today will come back to bite us in the ass down the road, much the same way our shortsightness in leaving Afghanistan to fend for itself after waging a proxy war against Soviet Russia. That sure had dire consequences that we didn't think of at the time. Only our interests were important.

    Of course radical Islam is the enemy, but my cynical view says that pan-Arab nationalists are hijacking Islam and using it to justify their actions. They would like to see a return of the dominance of the Muslim world, in the same way many people wanted to see the return of the Roman empire.

    With combined military and police tactics. Follow the money trail. Get some people on the insides of those organizations. Invade and occupy as little as possible.

    No, we aren't. We have played right into UBL's hands, our actions seem almost designed to swell his ranks. He WANTS an asymmetrical war, and we have given it to him. We need to find other ways besides trying to kill them all. If that worked, Israel wouldn't be under threat of terrorist attack today.

    Victory is possible, but only if there is something in it for both sides. Asymmetrical war is not something we have shown ourselves to be capable of winning decisively. We will win every battle, but that doesn't guarantee a strategic victory.
     
  25. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #25
    what about the last 100 months?...or 100 days? i'm unclear about the length of time that must pass before tactically abusive western policies become insignificant. i believe this " well, pandora's box is open" line of thinking is a cop-out...it has served the current administration well in diverting responsibility...."lets just focus on where we are, not how we got here". only holding osama responsible for past transgressions seems a little hypocritical doesn't it? will 9/11 be any less significant to us in 100 years? i doubt it.

    i truly believe that if we as a nation feel morally bound to wipe out terror, then we need to remove it from our political/corporate strategy guide also. our whole preaching of " high ideas" is nothing but rhetoric unless we implement it into our daily lives...regardless of whether its individually or en masse.
     

Share This Page