Do you believe there is a real "War on Terrorism" (1 Viewer)

[champ76]

Yes, I love the circular logic in those quotes. Good job Champ. Hey if the problem cant be attacked all at once simultaneously all over the globe and be instantly successful, then I guess its just not worth solving!

I'm sorry. I don't understand. What "circular logic" are you talking about? Someone complained we weren't attacking the problem in Pakistan and the Phillipines. We are, although very surreptitiously in Pakistan. There is a war going on in more places than Iraq and Afghanistan. That's the only point I was trying to make. :dunno:

 

[bop]

What would signify complete victory in the war on terror? What would equate to utter defeat? Will capturing Bin Laden equal victory or will this war go on and on throughout eternity?

I think American leaders are using this as a geoplitical strategy to maintain our dominance. Terrorism will never be completely defeated just look at Israel. They have the best of the best in terms of security. The war on terror is the pretext used to achieve their geopolitical goals. They couldn't accomplish this without the "threat" out there.

So because you cant think of a way to take out every single terrorist on the planet you think we shouldnt take out any of them? Again I ask what you think we should have done in response to being attacked by terrorists other than to defend ourselves with force? Ask them nicely to stop? Ask for a list of demands from them so that we can submit to those demands? Seriously, what do you think we should have done?

 

[kcirdor]

No ***** we sold weapons to iraq to counter Iran you must be sleeping late. What else ya got

they solely used those weapons for iran? WAKEUP! And get a new phrase. You've already used the sleeping late one.

They used the technology we sold them to develop their WMD program that we just HAD to go to war with them and stop.

 

[saintkev]

I'm sorry. I don't understand. What "circular logic" are you talking about? Someone complained we weren't attacking the problem in Pakistan and the Phillipines. We are, although very surreptitiously in Pakistan. There is a war going on in more places than Iraq and Afghanistan. That's the only point I was trying to make. :dunno:

Global War On Terrorism (come on man)

 

[Utah Saints]

I'm sorry. I don't understand. What "circular logic" are you talking about? Someone complained we weren't attacking the problem in Pakistan and the Phillipines. We are, although very surreptitiously in Pakistan. There is a war going on in more places than Iraq and Afghanistan. That's the only point I was trying to make. :dunno:

Sorry dude, I was agreeing with you

Maybe circular logic is the wrong turn of phrase. Im sick and woozy forgive me. Was talking about the commonly thrown around argument that the poster you quoted is making. 'Oh yeah, well what about (insert some other country that has problems with radicals)' As if that is any sort of argument at all...

 

[saintkev]

they solely used those weapons for iran? WAKEUP! And get a new phrase. You've already used the sleeping late one.

They used the technology we sold them to develop their WMD program that we just HAD to go to war with them and stop.

Yes you are right,but also stuck in the 80's and has no relevence in our discussion tonight, YEA YEA we sold weapans to IraQ to counter Iran 20yrs ago. Everybody knows it. So bring something else to our Geopolitical spectrum. Our go home.

 

[kcirdor]

Yes you are right,but also stuck in the 80's and has no relevence in our discussion tonight, YEA YEA we sold weapans to IraQ to counter Iran 20yrs ago. Everybody knows it. So bring something else to our Geopolitical spectrum. Our go home.

woo hoo a new phrase. seriously though, I understand your personal involvement in the war. But don't tell me to bring anything new to the geopolitical spectrum because you are bringing up a discussion that involves YEARS of development. It has every relevance to this discussion. Every action today has a lasting effect that will be the cause of something in the future. What new stuff do you want brought to the table? There is nothing NEW to discuss these current events. All current events had to start somewhere? Dude get off you high horse and accept the discussion for what it is a discussion.

 

[amused]

...and they don't like dogs either .

http://www.saintsreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60703

 

[Utah Saints]

That is a sweet avatar amused

The wing is good for 10 more horsepower....

 

[dtc]

So how do we go about fighting the war on terror? Will it take another 9-11 type attack to get people to support the idea that America has to do what it takes to hunt these people down?

We don't. We secure our borders, invest in technology and allow our intel community to do its job. When we're attacked, we root out the attackers and kill them and any who knowingly aided them.

 

[amused]

I'm saving up for some stickers .

 

[bop]

We don't. We secure our borders, invest in technology and allow our intel community to do its job. When we're attacked, we root out the attackers and kill them and any who knowingly aided them.

I thought thats what we were trying to do now....

Either way, rooting out the attackers and anybody who aided them and killing them involves using our military to do so, so how can you say "we dont."

I agree we should secure our borders but some of the people who would like to commit terrorist attacks against the US are already right here within our borders and I dont care how good your intel is, you cant watch 300 million people at the same time. Its a complicated problem with no easy solution.

 

[St. Widge]

Well,some political parties down play it,the other doesn't. That was the reason for the post.

No, the reason for your post is to bash the pinko, commie, liberal Democrats and paint them as terrorist appeasers who just want to give into the terrorist. Which of course makes it obvious that any right thinking, god fearing, red blooded American must realize that unless you hate America and want to see it destroyed by terrorists, you will vote for the Republicans.

This post is the worst form of fear mongering.

No one and I mean no one, be they Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Constitutional party, etc. thinks that we don't need to do something about terrorism. The only question is what should we do? Call it a war, call it a police action, it doesn't really matter.

But, you keep talking as though Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 and you know they didn't. AQ didn't even exist in Iraq until after the Iraq war started. I respect those who went there to fight, but that doesn't mean that the decision to fight there was the right one.

Perhaps we should have finished cleaning AQ out of Afghanistan before we moved on to a country that did not have AQ in it. Maybe then AQ wouldn't have had the ability to set up in Pakistan. Maybe we could have used the Bully Pulpit and international good will that we had after 9/11 to gain the support of governments where AQ was active so that we could have used special forces and surgical strikes to find them and kill them. Instead, we started a conventional war to fight an unconventional enemy. You don't stop insurgents, terrorist and guerrilla fighters using a conventional military campaign. I would have thought we would have learned that lesson in Vietnam.

To suggest that the only possible way to fight the "War on Terror" (specifically radical, fundamentalist, Islamic terrorists) was to go into Iraq, a country that was not ruled by radical Islamic clerics, and remove a secular leader is disingenuous at best. Saddam was a horrible human being and deserved to die, but any claim that it had anything to do with a War on Terror was an after the fact justification. It wasn't even mentioned until they could not find WMD's and things started to turn bad. I know you fought there, and again I respect what you did, but that does not mean it was the right fight to pick.

Put simply either those who planned and carried out the war in Iraq were incredibly misinformed about AQ and terrorist activity in Iraq or they had another goal in mind. If that goal was to create some sort of world wide U.S. military presence akin to the British Empire they were just foolish.

 

[lapaz]

Link? Sorry man ya gotta back that up.

I won't provide a link that Iraq weren't responsible for 911, but everything that I've ever read that wasn't a opinion piece noted that the terrorists did not come from Iraq. Most were Saudi's. Anyway, why don't you provide a link that shows Iraq was behind 911?

We had a legit reason to attack Afgan, because they were harboring Al Queda, and we probably could've squashed Al Queda, but instead we gave them the inspiration to recruit new terrorists by attacking Iraq. We should've devised an approach to continue to destroy any remaining places that harbored them, but instead we've given them a new harbor in Iraq.

 

[bop]

I will admit that Iraq was far from the best place to take the war on terror to, but the Iraq war is another topic. I thought we were discussing whether or not we should even be fighting the war on terror in the first place. Im not trying to sound like a smart *** posting this either, Im just saying I dont think saintkev was talking solely about Iraq when he started this thread and I know I havnt been with my responses.