Raise your hand if think there is a Global War on Terror.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by obeygiant, Apr 27, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #1
    ....................^you

    fox

    Hillary Clinton
    Barack Obama
    Chris Dodd
    Bill Richardson

    ...think there is a war on terror.

    John Edwards
    Mike Gravel
    Dennis Kucinich
    Joe Biden

    ..all think there is no war on terror.
     
  2. Scarlet Fever macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Location:
    Bookshop!
    #2
    "war on terrorism" is an oxymoron. How do you think the Iraqis feel now? Terrified of death? Is that not exactly the same thing the Americans are "fighting" against?

    I think the whole idea of terrorism is a scare campaign. There may be 'terrorists', but the death and destruction they have brought is nothing compared to the death toll caused by the US-lead massacre occurring in Iraq at the moment. If people believe there are others out to kill them, they are scared, and the government has power and control over them.
     
  3. obeygiant thread starter macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #3
    A plastic glass is an oxymoron, so is jumbo shrimp. Yet they both exist.

    If you can think of a better name for the "war on terror" I would love to hear it. There is a real enemy out there, and their main tactic is terrorism.

    Proclaiming that there is no war against islamists who seek to kill us is a little nuts.
     
  4. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #4
    Oh, please. The War on Terror is a marketing scam, nothing more. We're no more "at war" with "terror" now than we were right after Oklahoma or WTC1.

    Right now we're occupying Iraq. We're creating more terrorists. We're wasting hundreds of billions of dollars, not to mention thousands of lives, in order to keep Republicans in power.

    If Bush hadn't dropped the ball in '01 and refused to follow the Clinton administration's advice about staying on top of terrorism through investigation and criminal prosecution then nobody today would have to go shoeless at the airport.

    The fact that he let it slip and then tried to compensate by lobbing missles at a convenient and toothless old enemy is pathetic, dangerous, and speaks poorly of his moral and intellectual standing.

    edit:

    Oh, and on topic - guess I won't be voting for Hillary, Obama, Dodd or Richardson. It's obvious they're all playing the safe political game and that's what I'm tired of.

    I liked Kucinich in '04. Hasn't been afraid to call BS on Iraq and WoT since the beginning.
     
  5. Kashchei macrumors 65816

    Kashchei

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2002
    Location:
    Meat Space
    #5
    Obey Giant, could you cite one example of a "war on terror" in the past that's been won through military means? I'm thinking of the IRA in northern Ireland, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the PLO in the Palestinian Territory, the Red Brigade in Italy, the ETA in Basque/Spain, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, etc. Each of these conflicts is either still trying to be settled through military means or has been reconciled through some political process.

    I understand that 9/11 made the nation feel vulnerable. Let's not, however, allow emotion to dictate our foreign and domestic policies. Chris Matthews likes to refer to the Democrats as the "Mommy" party while the Republicans are the "Daddy" party. I'd like to add to this and say that, in general, Republicans such as yourself use emotional arguments to support their positions while Democrats use logic. This explains why Democrats can admit when they are wrong and agree with conservative ideas on occasion, yet Republicans react stridently when questioned about even the most transparent of their talking points.

    Let's let history be our guide for the future of our war in Iraq. The British--like all the colonial powers--did the world a disservice when they drew arbitrary boundaries to create countries like Iraq. As unpleasant as the idea might be, the Sunnis and Shiites both think they can win a civil war and so the fighting will continue whether US troops are there or not. There is no military solution to a conflict such as this, only a political one. It is deeply distressing that the US efforts in Iraq will have been a failure, but we lived through Vietnam and Korea before that; we can certainly survive another defeat in Iraq. Emotion may argue to "stay the course" and support the surge, but such thinking simply puts off the inevitable and costs further US lives. Let's use our heads and pull out of Iraq now. If we announced this, the rest of the world, united against our president and his preemptive war, would gladly send UN troops to patrol Baghdad and stave off another genocidal situation like Rwanda or Darfur. The only reason our president won't allow this to happen is because he is unwilling to admit any error, even egregiously obvious ones like this war.

    Confront the hold your negative emotions have on you and think rationally about what I have written above. If you use logic rather than fear, you will have taken the first step towards throwing off the hold that the GOP has had on you for the last six years. This would be a step in the right direction, one I would hope that you would recommend to your like-minded friends.

    Let's take another lesson from history. After the Nazis were driven from France and the country was liberated, the French resistance inflicted swift justice on all known collaborators. Women had their heads shaved so that they were easily identifiable, and men were beaten within an inch of their lives. This was done not just for revenge, but to show the collaborators that such behavior was not acceptable and would never be tolerated again. American needs to have such a cleansing against all those who propped up the GOP for the last six years. The process began last November and will continue (I am not condoning physical violence, only political retribution). While Rove, Delay and Bush may have hoped for a defacto single-party system (much like the PRI had in Mexico), the backlash has begun and such political chicanery is accepted only by those who buy into the emotional arguments put forth by all those that make up the Republican echo chamber.

    Do yourself a favor, Obey Giant, and stop listening to Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly et al and give yourself a chance to think for yourself. Without the constant reinforcement of the GOP talking points, your emotional reactions may calm a bit and allow you to think clearly. I'm sure there will be a withdrawal period--this behavior is undoubtedly integrated into your life and any change from this ritual would upset your routine--but the benefits far outweigh the discomfort of withdrawal.
     
  6. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #6
    Well, there's a war in Iraq and a war in Afghanistan. No one is arguing that. But what does global war on terrorism mean? Define your terms. Global war I think was meant to indicate that we are part of a coalition of countries that will face the problem of (non-state) terrorism anywhere in the world. Obviously there is some coordination of terrorism policing and intelligence sharing between countries, but I think that's pretty limited. There is a coalition in Afghanistan and a coalition (if a declining and principally binary one) in Iraq. The real question, to me, seems to come down to whether you really see a connection between terrorism as a global threat and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what the nature of that connection is.
     
  7. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #7
    Well, as thanatoast stated, the phrase 'War on Terror' is a marketing term, the phrase "War on Terror" is the kind of easily-stated, easily-swallowed sound-bite that politicians love.

    You can't fight a war against terror because terrorism is a method of war. A cruel, cowardly way to fight a war, but a method of war nonetheless. It's like stating you're fighting a war against carpet bombing or naval blockades.
    Also, Scarlet is incorrect, "War on Terror" is not an oxymoron, a "war for peace" however would be.

    Now, with that said, it's also obvious that we are in direct conflict with a specific set of people who do wish to do us, and apparently anyone who doesn't agree with them, extreme harm. And, we should fight back.

    The problem with the term war is the assumption that only military means can be used—although many past leaders have understood that diplomacy and economic power also play a role. In fact, our victory over Al Qaeda and various cohorts will happen because of direct military action, diplomacy and economic manuevering to name but a few options. Our initial first strike against Al Qaeda, when we hit them with B-52s delivering bombs from above the clouds, while coordinating with German and British intelligence operatives in Europe and cutting off funding through contacts in the World Bank, nearly decimated the terrorist group. We cornered their primary leadership in the hills of Afghanistan and we had severed their ability to coordinate with the rest of the world. For a moment Al Qaeda was going to be a memory.

    This is how you fight 'terror' not by forming up armored columns and invading Iraqi cities, but rather through small groups of men supported by the rest of the US military, while diplomats and intelligence agents help to break the back of their supply lines.

    And, that's what's wrong with the phrase "Global War on Terror" it implies the wrong paradigm.
     
  8. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #8
    I respectfully disagree with this. The French response against collaborators was revenge, pure and simple and cruel. Allowing the mob to drag people from their homes, beat them, shave their heads, and sometimes execute them was an atavistic response and not a rational 'lesson.'
    People who supported the GOP in 2000 and 2004 were lied to, they were tricked by relentless spin supported by lazy journalists and even lazier citizens.

    I tremble anytime someone mentions it's time for a 'cleansing' and they're not talking about the bathtub.
     
  9. yojitani macrumors 68000

    yojitani

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Location:
    An octopus's garden
    #9
    This article doesn't really make a lot of sense. What was the question that they obliquely refer to? Was the question, "is the united states involved in a war on terror"? If so, then Kucinich et al must have his head in the sand. Methinks this is more to do with poor journalism.

    There's no doubt that the US is involved in a war on terror. This is not an ethical or even strategic question. Whether the US should be at war or, as people here seem to be noting, whether a war on terrorism is an effective way of preventing terrorism - those are ethical and strategic questions.
     
  10. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #10
    Beautiful! I really cannot add more to this masterpiece.
     
  11. Kashchei macrumors 65816

    Kashchei

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2002
    Location:
    Meat Space
    #11
    We apparently disagree in our interpretation of history--I can live with this. My stroll through history was in the service of a larger point: the French made it clear that there would be a penalty for similar behavior. Without the fear of any penalty for GOP politicians, I believe that they will continue their scorched-earth political tactics. The midterm election represents a tangible penalty and behold the results: the GOP presidential candidates are already distancing themselves from the current administration. Imagine how much more pronounced this will become once it is obvious the first act of the 44th president (regardless of party) will be the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. The continued hearings and investigations are also showing the GOP that there are consequences to their actions. All this is to the benefit of democracy.

    My main point is this: I don't wish to see the politicians who enabled this administration's abuse of power to rewrite history in two years and portray themselves as blameless. Are my motives here selfless? No, I admit that I will derive great joy in seeing these political hacks publicly disgraced. My Schadenfreude will be eclipsed, however, by the belief that a permanent course correction in current politics can only be achieved through just such a cleansing. As I wrote, I am not advocating physical violence. I am in favor of metaphoric violence--speaking truth to power as frequently and as forcefully as possible--since the GOP pols that I despise are bullies and bullies understand only one thing: a sharp punch in the nose.
     
  12. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #12
    I disagree. The world would be incalculably worse off if the US and UK succeed in Iraq. At least as long as it ends in a bloody nose, the defeat of the politicians who initiated it and a discredited policy, we can hope that future politicians will not be so easily tempted into such adventures again.
    Most of those in France who dragged the "collaborators" out onto the streets had themselves been quite content to collaborate passively with the Germans. They were salvaging their own consciences, as is often the case. "The louder they talked of their honor, the faster we counted the spoons", to paraphrase Emerson. Witch-hunts are rarely an honest response. They're too bloody easy.

    As for the alleged Global War on Terror, it's bollocks. The biggest terrorist in the world is sitting in the White House.
     
  13. sushi Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
    #13
    I would think that the answer is rather obvious if you look around the world and see the bombings and such by groups linked to AQ.
     
  14. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #14
    Not so obvious if you compare body counts.
     
  15. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #15
    It's a stupid question. The candidates who answered "yes" did so in recognition of the fight against al Qaeda. Those who answered "no" did so because the phrase is a misleading propaganda tool, not an accurate description of what is really going on. For Fox News or anyone else to make a big deal over the different responses of the candidates as if it signified anything is just an example of the bias of the "reporters" looking to make a story out of nothing. Both responses are correct.
     
  16. OnceUGoMac macrumors 6502a

    OnceUGoMac

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    #16
    Where's Joe Biden in that lineup? Did Faux News forget it was an eight man debate?

    Edit: Nevermind, I see that obeygiant just forgot to include him.
     
  17. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #17
    Obeygiant will neither read nor understand your post. His thing, as well as Swarmlord's is "kill 'em all, let God sort them out". They care only for what is in their own best interests, not for the country as a whole.
     
  18. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #18
    Like everything else Dubya has put his greedy corporate draft dodging hands on, this war on terrorist is a screwed up mess. Instead of going after terrorists he created a lot more of them with his Iraq thingy. All the truths and facts are now leaking out of this administration like water through a cheesecloth. So our pretend draft dodgers who were in charge have made such a mess with Iraq it will be up to a new president to clean it all up. Thats what happens when you have charecterless people running our govt, the republican draft dodging brigade, couldnt serve in Nam but all jumped at the chance to create another Nam. How much military time do you get if you put Bush,Cheney,Lott,Frists,Rove,Libbey,O'Rielly,Limbaugh,Gingrich,all together? None, and these guys made this thing happen. This war is the republicans doing period.

    Now we will get to hear lots of spin,lies and made up truths from them so they can "Try" to put the blame on someone else. Raise your hands republicans.
     
  19. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #19
    The "War on Terror" was never really anything more than a soundbite, but whilst I don't doubt the "Global" term applied in the beginning, I think once international support for BushCo drained away it got a bit harder to use that term.
     
  20. Glen Quagmire macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    "War on terror"? A convenient phrase that governments like to use to scare people. Remember all those terror alerts before the 2004 elections? All those hordes of terrorists waiting to kill innocent people in small-town Alabama? What happened to them? Where have all the terror alerts gone? Has the system of lights blown a fuse? Or has the need to manipulate people passed now? Vote Bush and he'll keep you safe from terrorists. Just like he did on 9/11.
     
  21. Scarlet Fever macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Location:
    Bookshop!
    #21
    just wait till the next election...
     
  22. Kashchei macrumors 65816

    Kashchei

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2002
    Location:
    Meat Space
    #22
    In the excerpt you cited I was arguing from an emotional standpoint.

    This is an extraordinarily cynical statement! Most of the French mob was complicit to some extent in collaborating with the Nazis? I'm perfectly willing to admit that some of what you suggest surely happened, but to tar the entire event with this brush seems a bit of an overstatement, to say the least. I'm certain that the people in the resistance and those who supported the resistance would disagree with you as well.
     
  23. skinnylegs macrumors 65816

    skinnylegs

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Location:
    San Diego
    #23
    We were attacked by terrorists on 9/11.......hence the war on "terror." I'm not so sure we're going about it the right way (by invading/occupying Iraq) but our government certainly has a responsibility to protect its citizens. I mean......somone attacked us on 9/11 and killed nearly 3000 Ameicans. I would *hope* we would go out and get the bad guys to reduce the chances of it happening again. Sitting back and doing nothing would be very irresponsible IMHO.
     
  24. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #24
    I see your point, but whether the people in the Pentagon and the CIA ever saw it in the same way as The White House Press Office is another matter. A "War on Terror" suggests going after hundreds on independent groups, virtually all of which are operating subversively. Without massive international co-operation it's pretty much unachievable.

    I don't know though. There was a lot of goodwill towards the USA in the months directly after 9/11, so maybe it could have produced real results. One thing's for sure though. We'll never know now.
     
  25. skinnylegs macrumors 65816

    skinnylegs

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Location:
    San Diego
    #25
    Yeah.....how the heck do we fight this "war?" We can't really negotiate with a government 'cause they are pretty much self-governed. We can't really bomb a country into oblivion 'cause they are transient in nature.

    I suppose the best we can do is seek and....errr.....I suppose "neutralize" those individuals who organize terrorist efforts in the hope that eventually they will become too scattered and disorgazied and whither away.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page