Thats bollocks. Were i live its a very multi cultural area and it's all the young white people who are claiming unlawful benefits, committing crimes and causing fear. The Asian families are actually contributing to the area by working hard and make it a better place to live.ELITE-UK wrote:
ni i dont think so....personally i think that all asians apart from chinese and japanese should be banned from the western world, it might be harsh but it might work, we dont need them so we should shut them off for good!!!!
First, the topic is a poll, 4 options, and I don't say where should US spend its taxes. You are assuming. But, if you answer me I think the first money always should be in domestic issues, then if you have spare money do whatever you want with it.Pug wrote:
Ironic that you bring up Osama - you have a parallel thread which indirectly says "US should spend its taxes on domestic issues". We left Afghanistan out in the cold after the Soviet conflict...by not funding foreign aid we pissed him off.sergeriver wrote:
You should know, you trained Osama.
Regarding Osama, you trained him. Then, he made a lot of trouble. No Osama training, no funds needed to stop him.
The U.S. trains most of the world's dictators and tyrants. Saddam was once a blackhawk pilot in training for us. We trained Noriega who then went to odds over the Panama Conflict. We trained Osama because we needed a radical with radical ideals to fight a puppet war against the invading Russians during the Afghanistan war. There's no point in dwelling on how much the U.S. has screwed up...it's obvious, however, this 'war on terror' doesn't necessarily mean a definite end. I saw someone post about 'can't fight an idealistic concept' and that is very much true. Myself being very involved with the U.S. Military, i see first hand how this 'war' affects us all here in the armed forces. Would the world rather America roll over and take 9/11 up it's pooper? No one expected us too, and now that we've acted in retalliation, people are double talking all of their former support for us. The bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mentioned earlier as "terrorist attacks." The bombing of Pearl Harbor wasn't mentioned though...Now granted, America took it to a different level, but that's what America does. We come full force because we are not to be walked all over. I know toes get stepped on in the process, but it's impossible to play to everyone's demands in this white collar society that expects perfection with only the mentioning of the world. The war on terrorism is an ideal of our, and we fight it because if we don't, who will? I for one would not sit idly by if i knew my family was in danger, and that goes for my idea of how a country should work. We're defending our values just as the terrorist think they're defending theirs. I'm not saying the U.S. is perfect, and i'm not saying questionable calls haven't been made, but i am saying this....don't slap a man in the face and expect him to take it like a good dog. Fight on.
Last edited by Kyouteki (2006-09-12 07:52:49)
Whoops - sorry I inferred. Looks like today's not my day.sergeriver wrote:
First, the topic is a poll, 4 options, and I don't say where should US spend its taxes. You are assuming. But, if you answer me I think the first money always should be in domestic issues, then if you have spare money do whatever you want with it.Pug wrote:
Ironic that you bring up Osama - you have a parallel thread which indirectly says "US should spend its taxes on domestic issues". We left Afghanistan out in the cold after the Soviet conflict...by not funding foreign aid we pissed him off.sergeriver wrote:
You should know, you trained Osama.
Regarding Osama, you trained him. Then, he made a lot of trouble. No Osama training, no funds needed to stop him.
We also did not hang around after the Soviets left to rebuild Afghanistan = creating reason for Osama to use this training. And arguably - No Osama = someone else takes his place.
Which is why CamPoe is right - terrorism cannot be "fought".
HOWEVER - "War on Terror" means we don't just sit back and take it. I prefer being proactive. It will create more problems in the future, but waiting until after the attack is not acceptable to me.
no, you can't achieve victory over an abstract concept or idea, and therein lies the fatal flaw in every "war on X" concept that has been introduced. It is an attempt to capture the catalyzing affect of struggle in an "Us vs. Them" mentality. This itself has varying degrees of success, but the inevitable failure comes when people want closure, or seek definition to this newfound struggle. There is no closure, there is no victory.
The perfect scenerio occurred in the Cold War when open hostilities only took place through vicarious venues and never through the main players themselves. The largest fighting took place in policy and technology. There was a strong "Us vs. Them" mentality and no open fighting between the two players occurred, yet victory was still easily defined as the defeat of the opponent. In fact, that ended up being an issue. We achieved victory in that our opponent crumbled. So, we were left without an opponent. We have been so desperately craving an opponent since that we try to artificially inflate anything and everything back to that level to achieve the solidarity of the Cold War era.
The perfect scenerio occurred in the Cold War when open hostilities only took place through vicarious venues and never through the main players themselves. The largest fighting took place in policy and technology. There was a strong "Us vs. Them" mentality and no open fighting between the two players occurred, yet victory was still easily defined as the defeat of the opponent. In fact, that ended up being an issue. We achieved victory in that our opponent crumbled. So, we were left without an opponent. We have been so desperately craving an opponent since that we try to artificially inflate anything and everything back to that level to achieve the solidarity of the Cold War era.
I think you can fight terrorism, and your first tool is not supporting them (Osama, Israel). You create the monster then you can't control it.Pug wrote:
Whoops - sorry I inferred. Looks like today's not my day.sergeriver wrote:
First, the topic is a poll, 4 options, and I don't say where should US spend its taxes. You are assuming. But, if you answer me I think the first money always should be in domestic issues, then if you have spare money do whatever you want with it.Pug wrote:
Ironic that you bring up Osama - you have a parallel thread which indirectly says "US should spend its taxes on domestic issues". We left Afghanistan out in the cold after the Soviet conflict...by not funding foreign aid we pissed him off.
Regarding Osama, you trained him. Then, he made a lot of trouble. No Osama training, no funds needed to stop him.
We also did not hang around after the Soviets left to rebuild Afghanistan = creating reason for Osama to use this training. And arguably - No Osama = someone else takes his place.
Which is why CamPoe is right - terrorism cannot be "fought".
HOWEVER - "War on Terror" means we don't just sit back and take it. I prefer being proactive. It will create more problems in the future, but waiting until after the attack is not acceptable to me.
at the time he was the lesser of two evils, remember it was either him or the USSR who the Americans had something against. though it is true that bin laden expanded his local jihad against an invasion of a "Muslim" country into a view that all the world should follow those ideals the Americans can be accused of adopting similar tactics for much longer, regime change is a pretty frequent thing for the American military to try to do (Iraq twice, Vietnam even back as far as 1900)sergeriver wrote:
Regarding Osama, you trained him. Then, he made a lot of trouble. No Osama training, no funds needed to stop him.
no side can win a war on terror, its ideological differences that fuel these conflicts and its not a type of ideology that can be changed or imposed onto another nation simply by invading or attacking it. the insurgency in Iraq continues despite democratic elections since the nation finds it hard to trust a nation that attacked it then pushed their country back to the stone age for the second time and terror organisations like Al-Qaeda grow stronger because of the fairly widespread (and not totally unfounded) view that the US will stop at nothing to further its own ends, i.e. gain as much control of the world's oil as possible.
eventually "victory" in once senses will be claimed by one side or the other though i don't believe it will be truly attainable in the long run unless both sides change their views radically (which is never going to happen, as the hardliners are the problem in the first place)
Nicely put. To piggyback that real quick...the U.S. military is structured around ideals and concepts of facing enemies of solidarity. Our war machines are built for the purpose of fighting armies and countries, not of fighting 4-6 man cells of conspirators holed up in a dark hole. Let's face it, the new era consists of urban and economical warfare.PuckMercury wrote:
no, you can't achieve victory over an abstract concept or idea, and therein lies the fatal flaw in every "war on X" concept that has been introduced. It is an attempt to capture the catalyzing affect of struggle in an "Us vs. Them" mentality. This itself has varying degrees of success, but the inevitable failure comes when people want closure, or seek definition to this newfound struggle. There is no closure, there is no victory.
The perfect scenerio occurred in the Cold War when open hostilities only took place through vicarious venues and never through the main players themselves. The largest fighting took place in policy and technology. There was a strong "Us vs. Them" mentality and no open fighting between the two players occurred, yet victory was still easily defined as the defeat of the opponent. In fact, that ended up being an issue. We achieved victory in that our opponent crumbled. So, we were left without an opponent. We have been so desperately craving an opponent since that we try to artificially inflate anything and everything back to that level to achieve the solidarity of the Cold War era.
That's part of the reason i like bf2...gives me a face to take my frustration out on .
Last edited by Kyouteki (2006-09-12 08:11:49)
With respect to this so called 'war on terror':
1) Can a battle against an abstract concept be 'won'?
NOT UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO FIGHT
2) What form will 'victory' take?
WHEN PEOPLE WHO STRAP EXPLOSIVES ON AND WALK INTO A CROWD ARE ALL DEAD DEAD DEAD
3) Can 'victory' be achieved at all?
WITH ENOUGH RIVERS OF BLOOD
4) Is this 'war on terror' just rhetoric, serving as a convenient label for western nations actions abroad given that the handy pretext of the Cold War has been removed?
COULD BE YOU HAVE A VALID POINT
5) How do you see 'victory' being achieved?
WITH THE RISE OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER AND OUTLAWING OF ALL RELIGIONS AS A THREAT TO MANKIND
6) How long will this 'war on terror' take?
i GUESS 10-25 YEARS
7) Who are 'the terrorists'?
THOSE WHO THINK THAT RELIGION IS A RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE MURDER OF THEIR FELLOW MAN. THOSE THAT IGNORE FREE ELECTIONS AND INTERNATIONAL BORDERS. FREELY ELECTED LEADERS THAT MEDDLE IN OTHER COUNTRIES WHILE THEIR OWNS BORDER IS BEING RUN ROUGGHSHOD OVER.
PS What do YOU define as 'terror'?
The daily bombardment of evidence that our President and other elected leaders are fucking incompetent and/or purposely acting against the obvious best interest of our nation towards some ill-defined yet likely evil goal.
Flame off
1) Can a battle against an abstract concept be 'won'?
NOT UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO FIGHT
2) What form will 'victory' take?
WHEN PEOPLE WHO STRAP EXPLOSIVES ON AND WALK INTO A CROWD ARE ALL DEAD DEAD DEAD
3) Can 'victory' be achieved at all?
WITH ENOUGH RIVERS OF BLOOD
4) Is this 'war on terror' just rhetoric, serving as a convenient label for western nations actions abroad given that the handy pretext of the Cold War has been removed?
COULD BE YOU HAVE A VALID POINT
5) How do you see 'victory' being achieved?
WITH THE RISE OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER AND OUTLAWING OF ALL RELIGIONS AS A THREAT TO MANKIND
6) How long will this 'war on terror' take?
i GUESS 10-25 YEARS
7) Who are 'the terrorists'?
THOSE WHO THINK THAT RELIGION IS A RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE MURDER OF THEIR FELLOW MAN. THOSE THAT IGNORE FREE ELECTIONS AND INTERNATIONAL BORDERS. FREELY ELECTED LEADERS THAT MEDDLE IN OTHER COUNTRIES WHILE THEIR OWNS BORDER IS BEING RUN ROUGGHSHOD OVER.
PS What do YOU define as 'terror'?
The daily bombardment of evidence that our President and other elected leaders are fucking incompetent and/or purposely acting against the obvious best interest of our nation towards some ill-defined yet likely evil goal.
Flame off
^^^Amen
Xbone Stormsurgezz
1 [C or U] (violent action which causes) extreme fear:
They fled from the city in terror.
There was sheer/abject terror in her eyes when he came back into the room.
Lots of people have a terror of spiders.
What he said struck terror in my heart (= made me very frightened).
The separatists started a campaign of terror (= violent action causing fear) to get independence.
Heights have/hold no terrors for me (= do not frighten me).
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. … ;dict=CALD
They fled from the city in terror.
There was sheer/abject terror in her eyes when he came back into the room.
Lots of people have a terror of spiders.
What he said struck terror in my heart (= made me very frightened).
The separatists started a campaign of terror (= violent action causing fear) to get independence.
Heights have/hold no terrors for me (= do not frighten me).
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. … ;dict=CALD
Umm you wan't to look up terrorism, not terror.mikeyb118 wrote:
1 [C or U] (violent action which causes) extreme fear:
They fled from the city in terror.
There was sheer/abject terror in her eyes when he came back into the room.
Lots of people have a terror of spiders.
What he said struck terror in my heart (= made me very frightened).
The separatists started a campaign of terror (= violent action causing fear) to get independence.
Heights have/hold no terrors for me (= do not frighten me).
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. … ;dict=CALD
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. … ;dict=CALD
Brits always confuse me .
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Guys,
To be honest the 'war' on 'terrorism' will end, but not for a few more years. For the British among us, remember northern Ireland, bombs here there and everywhere. We may still patrol in NI but its a peaceful area now. Unless the USA pull there finger out, it will never end. terrorism is a belief, faith, led by powerful leaders who will never stop. smart bombs may be destructive, but a dumb bomb 'Mr jihad and his home-made cluster fucking bomb' gives more of a impact due to his life has ended. So the war of 'terrorism' is possible to stop, but actions must be made quick and no bull shit *BUSH!*
Chud . the average Brit.
To be honest the 'war' on 'terrorism' will end, but not for a few more years. For the British among us, remember northern Ireland, bombs here there and everywhere. We may still patrol in NI but its a peaceful area now. Unless the USA pull there finger out, it will never end. terrorism is a belief, faith, led by powerful leaders who will never stop. smart bombs may be destructive, but a dumb bomb 'Mr jihad and his home-made cluster fucking bomb' gives more of a impact due to his life has ended. So the war of 'terrorism' is possible to stop, but actions must be made quick and no bull shit *BUSH!*
Chud . the average Brit.
He asked for a definition of "terror"Kmarion wrote:
Umm you want to look up terrorism, not terror.mikeyb118 wrote:
1 [C or U] (violent action which causes) extreme fear:
They fled from the city in terror.
There was sheer/abject terror in her eyes when he came back into the room.
Lots of people have a terror of spiders.
What he said struck terror in my heart (= made me very frightened).
The separatists started a campaign of terror (= violent action causing fear) to get independence.
Heights have/hold no terrors for me (= do not frighten me).
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. … ;dict=CALD
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. … ;dict=CALD
Brits always confuse me .
Kmarion Confuses me
Last edited by mikeyb118 (2006-09-12 08:58:02)
Not to sound cliche, but one man's terrorist is another man's freedon fighter.
*edit* Tell me the difference between a guy who bombs an abortion clinic and a guy who bombs a bus.
*edit* Tell me the difference between a guy who bombs an abortion clinic and a guy who bombs a bus.
Last edited by FoShizzle (2006-09-12 09:07:59)
1) Can a battle against an abstract concept be 'won'?
Not at all, for concepts are not physical things that can be destroyed or killed. Ideas can be violently oppressed, but as the saying goes, "Ideas are bulletproof." Abstract concepts reveal truths to those on both sides of an issue...one side will always view it as a negative, the diametrical opposite side viewing it as a constant positive. A 'battle' against a concept is merely a political play-toy, allowing those in power to have a quotable catch-phrase to be used to rile up support in those who do not fully understand what is being supported.
2) What form will 'victory' take?
Again, there is no Victory in a war on a concept...you can oppress it, but you will never destroy it. To destroy a concept, you'd have to eliminate all things that can harbor concepts (thus ending Humanity itself)
3) Can 'victory' be achieved at all?
In a numerical sense where military might can crush undertrained rebels in this current "war," but that is only to the appeasement of the military commanders and to those that think that killing everyone will acheive "victory."
4) Is this 'war on terror' just rhetoric, serving as a convenient label for western nations actions abroad given that the handy pretext of the Cold War has been removed?
Yes, as I briefly explained in my first answer. It's a handy label that can be plastered over actions and events that are ultimately set in place to achieve a goal of resource and region control in the Middle East.
5) How do you see 'victory' being achieved?
Never. This "war" failed from the first moments we entered Iraq. The assault on Afghanistan was justified, but the segway directly into Iraq was a convenience that the Bush administration was looking for in order to forward their agenda, riding all the support out of the emotion of an American public struck by fear. The amount of fear present in our society (and continuously updated by the actions of the Bush administration) is proof alone that the "terrorists" have already won.
6) How long will this 'war on terror' take?
Hopefully this will all end as soon as possible. There was no point to begin with, no point now, and thousands of American soldiers have died in vain. Serving their country, yes, but at a "War" with no goals other than those that Bush and his cronies set apart in their PNAC doctrine, and absolutely no forethought put into it other than day-by-day kneejerk reactions of the US Government. Right-wingers tend to not look very far ahead in their actions; there is almost no concept of Causality to them, especially now that they've all been suckered hook, line, and sinker into supporting a war with no other goals than "Ta get them turrists!"
7) Who are 'the terrorists'?
Anyone who violently goes against the leading way of thought or system. People who have to cause atrocities in order to get their political views known. They are freedom fighters that don't have the financial backing and/or support of a nation of 200+ million people. In the context of this so-called "war," plus the image that has been ultimately embedded into everyone's mind is the idea that a terrorist today is an Islamic extremist. No one seems to care about the past actions of the IRA, or aum Shinrikyo in Japan, or the KKK here in the States...
The terrorists, as all Nationalist americans are being brought up to believe, are pretty much anyone who goes against their idea of a "war." The "terrorists" we are fighting in Iraq do not believe that what we have done over there is the best course of action for Iraq to take. They do not want our ideals, they do not want our system of government, and they are doing what they can in every element that they can to make that known, and will try to kill as many people as they can in order to get that point across.
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, War is the terrorism of rich, wealthy nations." -Sir Peter Ustinov
Not at all, for concepts are not physical things that can be destroyed or killed. Ideas can be violently oppressed, but as the saying goes, "Ideas are bulletproof." Abstract concepts reveal truths to those on both sides of an issue...one side will always view it as a negative, the diametrical opposite side viewing it as a constant positive. A 'battle' against a concept is merely a political play-toy, allowing those in power to have a quotable catch-phrase to be used to rile up support in those who do not fully understand what is being supported.
2) What form will 'victory' take?
Again, there is no Victory in a war on a concept...you can oppress it, but you will never destroy it. To destroy a concept, you'd have to eliminate all things that can harbor concepts (thus ending Humanity itself)
3) Can 'victory' be achieved at all?
In a numerical sense where military might can crush undertrained rebels in this current "war," but that is only to the appeasement of the military commanders and to those that think that killing everyone will acheive "victory."
4) Is this 'war on terror' just rhetoric, serving as a convenient label for western nations actions abroad given that the handy pretext of the Cold War has been removed?
Yes, as I briefly explained in my first answer. It's a handy label that can be plastered over actions and events that are ultimately set in place to achieve a goal of resource and region control in the Middle East.
5) How do you see 'victory' being achieved?
Never. This "war" failed from the first moments we entered Iraq. The assault on Afghanistan was justified, but the segway directly into Iraq was a convenience that the Bush administration was looking for in order to forward their agenda, riding all the support out of the emotion of an American public struck by fear. The amount of fear present in our society (and continuously updated by the actions of the Bush administration) is proof alone that the "terrorists" have already won.
6) How long will this 'war on terror' take?
Hopefully this will all end as soon as possible. There was no point to begin with, no point now, and thousands of American soldiers have died in vain. Serving their country, yes, but at a "War" with no goals other than those that Bush and his cronies set apart in their PNAC doctrine, and absolutely no forethought put into it other than day-by-day kneejerk reactions of the US Government. Right-wingers tend to not look very far ahead in their actions; there is almost no concept of Causality to them, especially now that they've all been suckered hook, line, and sinker into supporting a war with no other goals than "Ta get them turrists!"
7) Who are 'the terrorists'?
Anyone who violently goes against the leading way of thought or system. People who have to cause atrocities in order to get their political views known. They are freedom fighters that don't have the financial backing and/or support of a nation of 200+ million people. In the context of this so-called "war," plus the image that has been ultimately embedded into everyone's mind is the idea that a terrorist today is an Islamic extremist. No one seems to care about the past actions of the IRA, or aum Shinrikyo in Japan, or the KKK here in the States...
The terrorists, as all Nationalist americans are being brought up to believe, are pretty much anyone who goes against their idea of a "war." The "terrorists" we are fighting in Iraq do not believe that what we have done over there is the best course of action for Iraq to take. They do not want our ideals, they do not want our system of government, and they are doing what they can in every element that they can to make that known, and will try to kill as many people as they can in order to get that point across.
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, War is the terrorism of rich, wealthy nations." -Sir Peter Ustinov
1) No.CameronPoe wrote:
I feel like introducing a fiery new topic....
With respect to this so called 'war on terror':
1) Can a battle against an abstract concept be 'won'?
2) What form will 'victory' take?
3) Can 'victory' be achieved at all?
4) Is this 'war on terror' just rhetoric, serving as a convenient label for western nations actions abroad given that the handy pretext of the Cold War has been removed?
5) How do you see 'victory' being achieved?
6) How long will this 'war on terror' take?
7) Who are 'the terrorists'?
PS What do YOU define as 'terror'?
Flame on.
2) It won't.
3) No. But you can reduce the amount of terrorism, which is a partial victory.
4) Yes.
5) I don't.
6) Ages.
7) Hmmm. Al-Qaeda are some of them. There are lots of other Islamic terror groups, but then there are also lots of other terrorists around the world. Some groups fall into a grey area, guerilla freedom fighters etc. For example some say Hezbollah are terrorists but some say they're not, they certainly fight dirty - but when you're fighting a much more powerful aggressor what other option is there?
"Because, behind this mask, there is an idea, Mr. Creedy.... and ideas are bulletproof"
1) No, but terrorist activities can be greatly reduced
2) Some form of peace/understanding
3) Too broad of a question, I think peace is the only way you can win against violence
4) Yep. This isn't "US vs. al-Qaeda" or "US vs. Insurgents", it's "US vs. Terrorism", oversimplified, scare and marketing tactic to help whoevers running for president/other high positions
5) Any form of victory would be a lasting peace, but we all know that has almost no chance of ever happening.
6) It will probably go on until the end of the world
7) It's too broad of a question, there are terrorists on both sides. Moreso with the Islamic extremists, but these nuts who say "It's either us or Islam" are just as bad as the Islamic extremists themselves
1) No, but terrorist activities can be greatly reduced
2) Some form of peace/understanding
3) Too broad of a question, I think peace is the only way you can win against violence
4) Yep. This isn't "US vs. al-Qaeda" or "US vs. Insurgents", it's "US vs. Terrorism", oversimplified, scare and marketing tactic to help whoevers running for president/other high positions
5) Any form of victory would be a lasting peace, but we all know that has almost no chance of ever happening.
6) It will probably go on until the end of the world
7) It's too broad of a question, there are terrorists on both sides. Moreso with the Islamic extremists, but these nuts who say "It's either us or Islam" are just as bad as the Islamic extremists themselves
Last edited by Spearhead (2006-09-12 12:03:38)
Read the transcript for the interview with VP Cheney and Tim Russert. Russert asked the same question, his response in my opinion was very "general" leading me to believe there is no definition in this administrations mind.CameronPoe wrote:
I feel like introducing a fiery new topic....
With respect to this so called 'war on terror':
1) Can a battle against an abstract concept be 'won'?
2) What form will 'victory' take?
3) Can 'victory' be achieved at all?
4) Is this 'war on terror' just rhetoric, serving as a convenient label for western nations actions abroad given that the handy pretext of the Cold War has been removed?
5) How do you see 'victory' being achieved?
6) How long will this 'war on terror' take?
7) Who are 'the terrorists'?
PS What do YOU define as 'terror'?
Flame on.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14720480/
MR. RUSSERT: ...complete the mission, finish the job. How do you define victory? And why have the American people turned against the war?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, Tim, I think people obviously are frustrated, because of the difficulty, because of the cost, because of the casualties, but you cannot look at Iraq in isolation. You have to look at it within the context of the broader, global war on terror. Remember what we’ve been involved in here. We’ve been involved in Afghanistan, take down the Taliban, stand up to the regime, etc. Pakistan, we’ve gone in and worked closely with Musharraf to take down al-Qaeda. Saudi Arabia, same thing. In all of those cases, it’s been a matter of getting the locals into the fight to prevail over al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda-related tyrants.
Now comes Iraq. Now we’ve got people saying, “Gee, get out of Iraq. You ought to pack it in and go home. It’s unrelated.” Now you’ve got hundreds of thousands, millions of people out there who have staked their fate in some extent on the United States. Think of all those people who turned out in the face of assassins and car bombers to vote. Think of the hundreds of thousands of folks who’ve signed on to the security forces of Iraq and Afghanistan. Think of Musharraf who puts his neck on the line every day he goes to work, when there’ve been attempts on his life because of his support for our position. And they look over here and they see the United States that’s made a commitment to the Iraqis, that’s gone in and taken down the old regime, worked to set up a democracy, worked to set up security forces, and all of a sudden we say it’s too tough, we’re going home. What’s Karzai going to think up in Kabul? Is he going to have any confidence at all that he can trust the United States, that in fact we’re there to get the job done? What about Musharraf? Or is Musharraf and those people you’re talking about who are on the fence in Afghanistan and elsewhere going to say, “My gosh, the United States hasn’t got the stomach for the fight. Bin Laden’s right, al-Qaeda’s right, the United States has lost its will and will not complete the mission,” and it will damage our capabilities and all of those other war fronts, if you will, in the global war on terror
Last edited by GATOR591957 (2006-09-12 14:47:46)
Or do what they want to do , convert us or kill us .Flecco wrote:
Terrorism is an idea. You can't kill an idea unless you control peoples minds. To do that you essentially have two choices:-
a) Become a police state and try to control everybody (1984, Stalin's vision of the U.S.S.R and many other examples abound...)
b) See option a.
Any country or organization that supports, funds, harbors, allows terrorism is a potential target. . .
If you do any of the above, chances are sanctions, severed diplomatic ties, and war might be brought upon you!
Avoiding fighting doesnt stop terrorism, in fact, the avoidance of fighting terrorists had been US policy up until 2001. Obviously we had to learn the hard way didnt we. . . Letting terrorists plot, letting nations support the plotters is a recipe for disaster. You Europeans DO NOT understand the nature of this enemy, and their means to impose their will. You simply dont get it. . . . .you guys have no clue as to the gravity of these threats are to our civilization.
Only until an attack is severe enough on European soil, will the Euros understand what to do. . .Its sad that you people continue to bash our efforts and ablities to try and rid the world of these parasites! We're by no means perfect, but at least we understand who were up against, and are willing to sacrifice our lives to preserve our freedoms(freedoms that we obtained ONLY by waging war against the British!!)
If you guys think the world is some big utopia, and that "talking it out" is the best means of disolving Islamic extremism, than you are SORELY mistaken. . . . All the various terrorist attacks over the last 40 years should have demonstrated that point IN SPADES!
Keep in mind, all the various civil liberties, voting, womens rights, free speech, democracy was achieved by WAGING WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE EARNED THOSE RIGHTS THROUGH FIGHTING FOR THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
These rights we all enjoy in our democratic republics respectively, were earned through years of bloodshed and hardships! If you want to be ruled under an Islamic Caliph, then move to Iran! If they have all the right answers and are under such unwarranted western scrutiny, then JOIN THE ISLAMIC fight against the west!!! Join the insurgency, join al-Qaeda!! I would love to have some of you guys in my gun sights!!!!
If you do any of the above, chances are sanctions, severed diplomatic ties, and war might be brought upon you!
Avoiding fighting doesnt stop terrorism, in fact, the avoidance of fighting terrorists had been US policy up until 2001. Obviously we had to learn the hard way didnt we. . . Letting terrorists plot, letting nations support the plotters is a recipe for disaster. You Europeans DO NOT understand the nature of this enemy, and their means to impose their will. You simply dont get it. . . . .you guys have no clue as to the gravity of these threats are to our civilization.
Only until an attack is severe enough on European soil, will the Euros understand what to do. . .Its sad that you people continue to bash our efforts and ablities to try and rid the world of these parasites! We're by no means perfect, but at least we understand who were up against, and are willing to sacrifice our lives to preserve our freedoms(freedoms that we obtained ONLY by waging war against the British!!)
If you guys think the world is some big utopia, and that "talking it out" is the best means of disolving Islamic extremism, than you are SORELY mistaken. . . . All the various terrorist attacks over the last 40 years should have demonstrated that point IN SPADES!
Keep in mind, all the various civil liberties, voting, womens rights, free speech, democracy was achieved by WAGING WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE EARNED THOSE RIGHTS THROUGH FIGHTING FOR THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
These rights we all enjoy in our democratic republics respectively, were earned through years of bloodshed and hardships! If you want to be ruled under an Islamic Caliph, then move to Iran! If they have all the right answers and are under such unwarranted western scrutiny, then JOIN THE ISLAMIC fight against the west!!! Join the insurgency, join al-Qaeda!! I would love to have some of you guys in my gun sights!!!!
Ah, but what if Iran started building factories to produce Tab?sergeriver wrote:
Coke ftw.the_hitman_kills wrote:
Im a Pepsi man myself.IG-Calibre wrote:
Coca-Cola factories in Iran; then the war is won
http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/art … N-COKE.xml
Then you'd be buggered ;-)
Hopefully the kids all around the world get tired of all the pointless violence in the name of religion...
I thought religion was based on peace ,love and understanding... its not killing people because they dont believe what you believe... Pray for the kids all over the world that they make better decisions and want to live in peace...
I thought religion was based on peace ,love and understanding... its not killing people because they dont believe what you believe... Pray for the kids all over the world that they make better decisions and want to live in peace...
Love is the answer
1. It can only be defeated by another abstract concept, not by bombs.CameronPoe wrote:
I feel like introducing a fiery new topic....
With respect to this so called 'war on terror':
1) Can a battle against an abstract concept be 'won'?
2) What form will 'victory' take?
3) Can 'victory' be achieved at all?
4) Is this 'war on terror' just rhetoric, serving as a convenient label for western nations actions abroad given that the handy pretext of the Cold War has been removed?
5) How do you see 'victory' being achieved?
6) How long will this 'war on terror' take?
7) Who are 'the terrorists'?
PS What do YOU define as 'terror'?
Flame on.
2. The news will start talking about useful things.
3. It isn't a real war, so there's no real victory condition.
4. Yes, as long as you can brand someone as 'bad guys' you can do what you like to them. For example use them as a means of keeping your weapons sharp.
5. Victory will be achieved when everyone has long forgotten what the original quarrel was about and goes home.
6. Probably a few decades.
7. The other side.
Terror? Take my mother in law - no really... *badabing*
C'mon Poe, like the US could win any kind of war anyway.CameronPoe wrote:
I feel like introducing a fiery new topic....
With respect to this so called 'war on terror':
1) Can a battle against an abstract concept be 'won'?
2) What form will 'victory' take?
3) Can 'victory' be achieved at all?
4) Is this 'war on terror' just rhetoric, serving as a convenient label for western nations actions abroad given that the handy pretext of the Cold War has been removed?
5) How do you see 'victory' being achieved?
6) How long will this 'war on terror' take?
7) Who are 'the terrorists'?
PS What do YOU define as 'terror'?
Flame on.