Poll

Was the war on terror a mistake?

Yes - Its been counterproductive63%63% - 39
No - Its worked just great27%27% - 17
Wut? There's a war of terror?8%8% - 5
Total: 61
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6410|eXtreme to the maX
The idea of a "war on terror" is a "mistake", putting too much emphasis on military force, (British) Foreign Secretary David Miliband has said.

Writing in the Guardian, Mr Miliband said the idea had unified disparate "terrorist groups" against the West.
He said the right response to the threat was to champion law and human rights - not subordinate it.
Mr Miliband is due to repeat the views in a speech later in Mumbai, India, the scene of attacks by gunmen last year.
Mr Miliband's warning comes five days before the end of US President George Bush's administration, which has led the so-called "war on terror".

The foreign secretary wrote that since 9/11 the phrase "war on terror" had "defined the terrain" when it came to tackling terrorism and that although it had merit, "ultimately, the notion is misleading and mistaken".
The phrase was first used by President Bush in an address to a joint session of Congress on 20 September 2001, in the aftermath of the attacks on New York and Washington.

Mr Miliband wrote that the phrase was all-encompassing and "gave the impression of a unified, transnational enemy, embodied in the figure of Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda" when the situation was far more complex.
Calling for groups to be treated as separate entities with differing motivations, he wrote that it was not a "simple binary struggle between moderates and extremists, or good and evil" and treating them as such was a mistake.

"Historians will judge whether [the notion] has done more harm than good", he said.
The phrase, informally dropped from use by the UK government several years ago, "implied a belief that the correct response to the terrorist threat was primarily a military one - to track down and kill a hardcore of extremists", he wrote.

But the stance he now promoted was international "co-operation".
Highlighting US President-elect Barack Obama's commitment to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre, Mr Miliband said it was time to ensure human rights and civil liberties were upheld.
He suggested that the different organisations took advantage of the belief that they had one common enemy and a key way to tackle them was to stop this.

"Terrorism is a deadly tactic, not an institution or an ideology."
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/ … 829946.stm
Fuck Israel
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7114|Nårvei

I think it seemed like a good idea at the time hunting Osama in Afghanistan etc etc ... it turned catastrophic half way into Iraq, that was the mistake, should have stayed focused on Osama tbh ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6791|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

Varegg wrote:

I think it seemed like a good idea at the time hunting Osama in Afghanistan etc etc ... it turned catastrophic half way into Iraq, that was the mistake, should have stayed focused on Osama tbh ...
I disagree and agree with this. We did do a good thing removing Saddam, but we fucked up trying to fight the war from Washington. A lot of these guys in congress grew up in that era and saw what happened in Vietnam, you think they would have learned from it.

But I don't think its a failure, I think its just a tad off course right now, lets see if the Black man can fix it.
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6873|Portland, OR, USA
There are so many ways to approach this question because first you have to determine what the hell terrorism really is.  There are those who believe that it is a faith based war on everything anti-Islamic, there are those who believe that it's a fabrication of the military industrial complex that keeps us in the desired state of "constant war," there are those who believe it's a general distaste for western society taken to an extreme.. I have no idea what terrorism is, but presumably, if one could identify what the 'terrorism' that we're facing is then the next logical step would be to try and identify what the roots of terrorism are.. from there we could develop a strategy that would rid the world of terrorism.

By looking at America's response, one could argue that the second definition I gave is the correct one... but we're no closer to "defeating terrorism" than we were in 2001.  Maybe that's the point, defense contractors and those in power are making ridiculous sums of money (Cheney has been rumored to have made ~60 million dollars during his stay in the white house (the VP gets ~$220,000 per year)).  I think that if we were serious about fighting terrorism, and terrorism was truly a conflict with the ideals of the people in the Middle East, the approach would not have been war because that would just (and has) exacerbate the problem.  The correct answer would have been to examine our imperialistic war mongering foreign policy in the middle east over the past couple decades and realize that terrorism probably draws more from this than anything else...

So to answer your question, I guess it depends on who you are.  If you're in defense contracts or in power, then no it wasn't a mistake.  In fact the war on terror has been a great success.  If you're the average person living anywhere, it has been a terrible mistake that has contributed greatly to the ever-growing tension in the Middle East and the destabilization of American foreign relations.
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7020
I just hope we continue to hunt these radical islam terrorist cockroaches that preach hate and want to destroy our way of lives...
it's not a war... it's a quest...
and hopefully one day we can all live in peace....and all my friends... catholic christian muslim and jewish and any other friendly group for that matter... can live freely... 



edit for spel

Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-01-15 01:21:11)

Love is the answer
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6797|N. Ireland
The "war on terror" was necessary. Imagine the uproar that would have been caused had the US just sat back after 9/11. And who knows what would have happened if that was the case. Call it a "mistake" if needsbe, but it was a necessary one.

Besides all that, US needs oillll!
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6846|Texas - Bigger than France
Conflicts can't be judged until over.  And in most cases, decades over.


edited for retarded grammar

Last edited by Pug (2009-01-15 06:42:36)

ATG
Banned
+5,233|6833|Global Command
It looks to me like it was a thing to destroy our economy, so it worked.
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6804|so randum
Meh, action was needed, but its just like the dragons teeth story
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6804|so randum

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

I just hope we continue to hunt these radical islam terrorist cockroaches that preach hate and want to destroy our way of lives...
it's not a war... it's a quest...
and hopefully one day we can all live in peace....and all my friends... catholic christian muslim and jewish and any other friendly group for that matter... can live freely... 



edit for spel
Whats the difference between the two groups you've just listed?
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Bell
Frosties > Cornflakes
+362|6853|UK

FatherTed wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

I just hope we continue to hunt these radical islam terrorist cockroaches that preach hate and want to destroy our way of lives...
it's not a war... it's a quest...
and hopefully one day we can all live in peace....and all my friends... catholic christian muslim and jewish and any other friendly group for that matter... can live freely... 



edit for spel
Whats the difference between the two groups you've just listed?
Jesus >  Mohamed tbh

@OP, ofcourse it was a mistake.  The whole reason for 9/11 was allegedly because some saudis where pissed at simply a us air base in there country.  So me thinks invading two countries doesnt help.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6904|132 and Bush

Mismanaged perhaps. But I really don't see how you can declare war on an abstract idea.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6975|UK

Bell wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

I just hope we continue to hunt these radical islam terrorist cockroaches that preach hate and want to destroy our way of lives...
it's not a war... it's a quest...
and hopefully one day we can all live in peace....and all my friends... catholic christian muslim and jewish and any other friendly group for that matter... can live freely... 



edit for spel
Whats the difference between the two groups you've just listed?
Jesus >  Mohamed tbh

@OP, ofcourse it was a mistake.  The whole reason for 9/11 was allegedly because some saudis where pissed at simply a us air base in there country.  So me thinks invading two countries doesnt help.
right, you're on the list.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6859
It was a divisive ineffectual witch hunt that consolidated and strengthened anti-western sentiment and the sense that the west was being culturally, economically and politically imperialistic. And ftr the Iraq war had nothing to do with 'warring against terror'. The Iraq war was a neo-imperialist venture.
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6975|UK

Kmarion wrote:

Mismanaged perhaps. But I really don't see how you can declare war on an abstract idea.
Because it's the best thing since sliced bread for your lockheeds, boeings and Northrops....
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Bell
Frosties > Cornflakes
+362|6853|UK

m3thod wrote:

Bell wrote:

FatherTed wrote:


Whats the difference between the two groups you've just listed?
Jesus >  Mohamed tbh

@OP, ofcourse it was a mistake.  The whole reason for 9/11 was allegedly because some saudis where pissed at simply a us air base in there country.  So me thinks invading two countries doesnt help.
right, you're on the list.
no u are
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6526|Escea

It put terrorism into the daily public light following 9/11, more people are on alert and so carrying out attacks is made far more difficult. Also proves that we'd stand up to them.
jord
Member
+2,382|6982|The North, beyond the wall.
Gave troops much needed combat experiance. A+
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6885|SE London

GG Miliband.

I heard this this morning and thoroughly approved - even though it's essentially old news domestically, it's good to see the foreign secretary publicising the fact. The phrase implies the solution to the problem is primarily military, which it most certainly isn't and it's nice to see that recognised in a less domestic forum.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6456|what

The war should have been declared on Al Q, the Taliban and Saddam. Not the axis of evil who fund the terror organisations as it was for such a long time.

The goal of terrorists is to create terror and draw attention to their cause. This "war" has done that unfortunately.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6955|USA

TheAussieReaper wrote:

The war should have been declared on Al Q, the Taliban and Saddam. Not the axis of evil who fund the terror organisations as it was for such a long time.

The goal of terrorists is to create terror and draw attention to their cause. This "war" has done that unfortunately.
Well I don't think Bush could have imagined the extent of how far the liberal jellyfish tentacles reached throughout the world. Anyway, no terror attacks in the US since 911!, I do know how the left hates that. They would love nothing better than to stick a good ole' fashion terror attack with countless dead in Bush's face so they could scream how his initiatives didn't work. Since they couldn't do that, they had to look elsewhere.
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6993|Tampa Bay Florida
Its just like the War on Crime and War on Drugs.  It should be constantly "fought", but turning it into a brand name with the word "war" in it suggests its something that can be won... when in reality its something that can never be won but constantly contained.

Terrorism is bad.  Terrorism should be fought.  But you cannot "win" against it.  It's not a war.  Don't call it one...

Last edited by Spearhead (2009-01-15 17:02:13)

AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6456|what

lowing wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

The war should have been declared on Al Q, the Taliban and Saddam. Not the axis of evil who fund the terror organisations as it was for such a long time.

The goal of terrorists is to create terror and draw attention to their cause. This "war" has done that unfortunately.
Well I don't think Bush could have imagined the extent of how far the liberal jellyfish tentacles reached throughout the world. Anyway, no terror attacks in the US since 911!, I do know how the left hates that. They would love nothing better than to stick a good ole' fashion terror attack with countless dead in Bush's face so they could scream how his initiatives didn't work. Since they couldn't do that, they had to look elsewhere.
Liberal-jellyfish tentacles did what exactly?

No liberal want's to see more victims of terror attacks lowing. I can't honestly believe you feel that way.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6955|USA

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

The war should have been declared on Al Q, the Taliban and Saddam. Not the axis of evil who fund the terror organisations as it was for such a long time.

The goal of terrorists is to create terror and draw attention to their cause. This "war" has done that unfortunately.
Well I don't think Bush could have imagined the extent of how far the liberal jellyfish tentacles reached throughout the world. Anyway, no terror attacks in the US since 911!, I do know how the left hates that. They would love nothing better than to stick a good ole' fashion terror attack with countless dead in Bush's face so they could scream how his initiatives didn't work. Since they couldn't do that, they had to look elsewhere.
Liberal-jellyfish tentacles did what exactly?

No liberal want's to see more victims of terror attacks lowing. I can't honestly believe you feel that way.
Nope, they would never admit that, but I believe, the democrats would like nothing better than to prove Bush wrong by having another terror attack under his new anti-terror initiatives.

But let me guess, you would never agree that Jesse Jackson would want to cut Obama's balls off either.
Liberal jellyfish screamed torture. close gitmo, and as a result of all of your bitching about civil rights for terrorists, we have now released 61 of them back into threat status.

Last edited by lowing (2009-01-15 17:09:06)

Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6993|Tampa Bay Florida

lowing wrote:

Nope, they would never admit that, but I believe, the democrats would like nothing better than to prove Bush wrong by having another terror attack under his new anti-terror initiatives.

But let me guess, you would never agree that Jesse Jackson would want to cut Obama's balls off either.
Liberal jellyfish screamed torture. close gitmo, and as a result of all of your bitching about civil rights for terrorists, we have now released 61 of them back into threat status.
You see lowing, that's why your chumps lost the election.  To you, 50 percent of the country is the enemy.  Hate like that doesn't go very far...

Oh ya and the liberal jellyfish that screamed torture?  A lot of them happen to be Republicans.  I guess they're just closet liberals. 

PS is it just me or does lowing seem like Joesph McCarthy reincarnated?

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard