Are American and its Allies winning or Losing the War on Terror? (413 hits)
Category: Politics -> IraqLabels: Posted-for-heat
Rating: -0.33 on 26 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Beano (View user info) at 2006-09-19 08:48:36 EDT
After reading on the 'good old' BBC web page a couple of days ago that Police in Baghdad had found 47 corpses on the streets in ONE day, I got to thinking. Are we actually winning or losing this war on terror?
Into Afghanistan, where of course the War on Terror actually started (if you rule out Manhattan as it's starting point) and Taliban guerrillas have in recent weeks killed some two dozen western troops, including two US soldiers in a suicide bombing on Friday.
The Alliance currently needs (by some estimation) 2,500 additional troops, as well as additional planes to bolster its operations in southern Afghanistan, of which large parts are supposedly back under Taliban control.
(There are 140,000 troops in 'the arena' at present compared to the 130,000 at the beginning of the summer).
Meanwhile on the Afghanistan border, Pakistan have agreed to withdraw its troops and hand back control of that region to militias dominated by close allies of the Taliban. Potentially giving more help and protection to any undesirables hiding out in that area or training further terrorists.
In all President Pervez Musharraf's Pakistan regime could well be considered to be hindering the anti terrorism war.
Back in Iraq and they could well be moving toward a civil war, that the alliances will find very difficult to stop.
There continues to be reports of bombing, killings, assassinations.
Are we actually winning or losing this war?
User Reviews
Submitted by Linus (user info) at 2008-11-29 15:43:39 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Congratulations.
Submitted by Judgement (user info) at 2008-11-22 16:32:36 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-07-26 12:58:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by maf54 (user info) at 2008-05-14 05:14:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Just to counter what that idiot Director did to you.
Submitted by Director (user info) at 2008-05-13 17:41:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by ballsonurchin (user info) at 2006-09-19 14:12:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
skidmark is a dumbass.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-09-19 13:01:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by ICO (user info) at 2006-09-19 09:01:21 (#)
Ranking: -1
'American' isn't losing or winning any war, they're causing it, in the same way violently poking a stick into a beehive isn't a good way to kill bees.
The things the pope said, the cartoons drawn by that silly old Dane, Bush efforts to 'free the world from terrorists' is only fuelling their hatred.
-----
All these things happened WAY after they decided to go after us.
al-Queda gave the Americans the perfect chance they were waiting for go after them - if they have stayed in their shitholes we would have never come after them.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-19 11:39:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bizdorph (user info) at 2006-09-19 11:27:40 (#)
Ranking: 0
Do you really have to ask? When you conduct war on a noun (can you fight "yellow" or "bread"? no? then how can you fight "terror"?) you will always lose.
Firstly, it should be called the war on terrorISM, just to be slightly less annoying. Not that it's any more viable a fight, but for sensibility's sake. Not terror, terrorism. I'm terrified of wolves, does that mean you should go out and kill wolves until they're extirpated from North America, to "fight my terror"? No.
Second, no matter how many terrorists you kill, there will always be a hundred thousand more in the making. Not that fighting the terrorists will MAKE other people become terrorists, but people are always pissed off about something, and chances are a good number of those people feel strongly enough to takes the lives of themselves and others to prove their point.
You cannot fight terrorism. You just can't. It's like the war on drugs, or sweeping a parking lot. It's a makework project that makes the populace think the government is looking out of them while they steal your pension and sign your kids up to fight people you don't care about and will never see.
-----------
I couldn't agree more, and am somewhat puzzled by the thought process of people who think that I somehow condone the war or misunderstand the terminology around it.
Perhaps I should have posted.
The 'supposed' War on Terror, are we winning or losing? (not withstanding the fact that a war on terror is actaully a war on a noun etc and so on....)
From what you posted I think you fall into the 'losing' team.
Submitted by Bizdorph (user info) at 2006-09-19 11:29:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Wait. I've changed my opinion to that of Antioxident [sic]
Submitted by Antioxident (user info) at 2006-09-19 09:03:01 (#)
Ranking: 2
Its hard to say at this point because its just a big clusterfuck.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-19 11:29:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Wicked (user info) at 2006-09-19 11:07:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
Everyone loses an arbitrary War.
--------------
Touche
Submitted by Bizdorph (user info) at 2006-09-19 11:27:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Do you really have to ask? When you conduct war on a noun (can you fight "yellow" or "bread"? no? then how can you fight "terror"?) you will always lose.
Firstly, it should be called the war on terrorISM, just to be slightly less annoying. Not that it's any more viable a fight, but for sensibility's sake. Not terror, terrorism. I'm terrified of wolves, does that mean you should go out and kill wolves until they're extirpated from North America, to "fight my terror"? No.
Second, no matter how many terrorists you kill, there will always be a hundred thousand more in the making. Not that fighting the terrorists will MAKE other people become terrorists, but people are always pissed off about something, and chances are a good number of those people feel strongly enough to takes the lives of themselves and others to prove their point.
You cannot fight terrorism. You just can't. It's like the war on drugs, or sweeping a parking lot. It's a makework project that makes the populace think the government is looking out of them while they steal your pension and sign your kids up to fight people you don't care about and will never see.
Submitted by Wicked (user info) at 2006-09-19 11:07:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Everyone loses an arbitrary War.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-19 11:07:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2006-09-19 09:55:29 (#)
Ranking: 2
I guess even I have to give Bush credit for how monumentally fucked up the entire thing is--I mean, I never figured it was humanly possible to screw up as much as he has.
The answer is no--it's a stalemate. Which is exactly what he wants.
-----------
Very interesting answer shitfuck.
You believe that he wants some kind of never ending conflict. I can see where you are coming from with that.
Is that to distract from the real reasons for going to war do you think or to remain in control of the masses through endless fear tactics and the constant 'threat' of terror?
Or do you have other reasons for saying this?
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-19 11:04:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by sexualchocolate1984 (user info) at 2006-09-19 09:45:27 (#)
Ranking: -2
The world wouldn't have this problem if the US (Bush) had kept his filthy, tainted, dripping nose out of everyone elses affairs.
I agree that the Middle East in general is a shitty place, and I really don't agree with the Muslim ideals (mostly as their pretty similar to Bush's), but why try to convert them to democracy while they're trying to convert us to Islam?
Just leave the fucking dirty sand niggers to destroy themselves. It won't take long, let the Jews bomb the Muslims and the Muslims bomb the jews. I don't give a fuck as long as they keep it away from my home.
Don't "do a Bush" and run in there headlong trying to fix their mess and worm your way into sme cheap oil. They like their mess, they've spent thousands of years perfecting it, and they sure as hell don't want to give a sly scumbag like Bush their oil!
-----------------
Absolutely, I could hardly agree with you more. But I didn't ask for your opinions of the War on Terrorism, you views on Bush, or on oil.
So I am a little puzzled why you had this rant at me like I had condemned this war. I merely asked a question.
Are we winning or losing?
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-19 11:02:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-19 09:37:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
although its a joke it is also accurate that the war on terror will never be won because you can't declare war on a noun.
----
While true, we are not 'in reality' fighting a war against a noun.
And while I agree with a few of the other comments that this war cannot be won does that mean we are losing?
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-19 10:59:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-09-19 08:55:37 (#)
Ranking: 1
It depends. If you mean did we win by destroying their government, yes. You can only really declare war on organizations (Before all this I would have said governments) so in essence we aren't *losing* to anyone.
But then again we are fighting with both hands tied behind our back. If we assume that certain people responsible for all this are hiding within the populace we could just wipe out the populace. We have that power. But no one wants to use it because it is way too extreme. We have the methods to *win* decisively, we just don't want to enough. Because to do that would mean a war of genocide trying to wipe out everyone.
-----------
So can it ever be won in the traditional sense of war?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-19 10:45:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ICO (user info) at 2006-09-19 09:01:21 (#)
Ranking: -1
'American' isn't losing or winning any war, they're causing it, in the same way violently poking a stick into a beehive isn't a good way to kill bees.
The things the pope said, the cartoons drawn by that silly old Dane, Bush efforts to 'free the world from terrorists' is only fuelling their hatred.
That's right; we need a Terrorist Fumigator.
----------------------
You are comparing the anger caused by some cartoons to an invasion?
Are you really dumb enough to think that if the US wasn't interefering in the middle east that no other foreign countries would? There has never been a vaccuum of international powers in the middle east since oil was found there.
Seriously what are you 10? Does your understanding of history go back before 1995?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-19 10:11:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by sexualchocolate1984 (user info) at 2006-09-19 09:45:27 (#)
Ranking: -2
Don't "do a Bush" and run in there headlong trying to fix their mess and worm your way into sme cheap oil. They like their mess, they've spent thousands of years perfecting it, and they sure as hell don't want to give a sly scumbag like Bush their oil!
---------------------------------------
Yeah there was no problem with terror before Bush went to Afghanistan, or Iraq.
The bottom line is we can never ignore problems in the Middle east until we don't need their oil, or they don't need our technology.
I don't think we can win a "war on terror", I don't think the world is more stable, but we can't ignore problems there
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2006-09-19 09:55:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I guess even I have to give Bush credit for how monumentally fucked up the entire thing is--I mean, I never figured it was humanly possible to screw up as much as he has.
The answer is no--it's a stalemate. Which is exactly what he wants.
Submitted by sexualchocolate1984 (user info) at 2006-09-19 09:45:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
The world wouldn't have this problem if the US (Bush) had kept his filthy, tainted, dripping nose out of everyone elses affairs.
I agree that the Middle East in general is a shitty place, and I really don't agree with the Muslim ideals (mostly as their pretty similar to Bush's), but why try to convert them to democracy while they're trying to convert us to Islam?
Just leave the fucking dirty sand niggers to destroy themselves. It won't take long, let the Jews bomb the Muslims and the Muslims bomb the jews. I don't give a fuck as long as they keep it away from my home.
Don't "do a Bush" and run in there headlong trying to fix their mess and worm your way into sme cheap oil. They like their mess, they've spent thousands of years perfecting it, and they sure as hell don't want to give a sly scumbag like Bush their oil!
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-19 09:37:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
although its a joke it is also accurate that the war on terror will never be won because you can't declare war on a noun.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2006-09-19 09:19:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Antioxident (user info) at 2006-09-19 09:03:01 (#)
Ranking: 2
Its hard to say at this point because its just a big clusterfuck
Submitted by BranDo (user info) at 2006-09-19 09:06:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
There shouldn't be a war on terror in the first place as it can't be won.
Peace.
Submitted by Antioxident (user info) at 2006-09-19 09:03:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Its hard to say at this point because its just a big clusterfuck
Submitted by ICO (user info) at 2006-09-19 09:01:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
'American' isn't losing or winning any war, they're causing it, in the same way violently poking a stick into a beehive isn't a good way to kill bees.
The things the pope said, the cartoons drawn by that silly old Dane, Bush efforts to 'free the world from terrorists' is only fuelling their hatred.
That's right; we need a Terrorist Fumigator.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-09-19 08:55:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
It depends. If you mean did we win by destroying their government, yes. You can only really declare war on organizations (Before all this I would have said governments) so in essence we aren't *losing* to anyone.
But then again we are fighting with both hands tied behind our back. If we assume that certain people responsible for all this are hiding within the populace we could just wipe out the populace. We have that power. But no one wants to use it because it is way too extreme. We have the methods to *win* decisively, we just don't want to enough. Because to do that would mean a war of genocide trying to wipe out everyone.