worst. thread. ever.

Yes, I support it. It's easy to support when living in a country that has no stake in it. Other people do the dirty work and suffer the consequences.

The truth, as far as I can see, is that the problem of terrorism cannot be solved with guns. Unfortunately mankind is far too immature to try any other ways (and I'm not excluding myself here).

Ahahahah desert war!


ahahahahaha

hahahaha


haha

Being liberal doesn't necessarily mean someone is predisposed to being against the war on terror.

Well it looks like you failed.

How on Earth did this garner any QFTs? Let's break it down:



That's fine if this is your opinion however I would suggest that terrorists are "bad guys" therefore a war against terror[ists] is indeed a war with many a "bad guy".



I understand your thinking however I think it's misplaced. Terrorism fights ideas. That is why terrorists usually target civilians.



Of course not. One could easily say that no ammount of education will ever eliminate drug overdoses/drunk driving/spread of AIDS. But a certain ammount of fighting may reduce terrorism.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here. It just seemed to me that a little critical thinking makes Bill's post severely flawed.

I think he failed in that the poll question is not relevant to his objective.

Personally I think Massassi is fairly balanced as far as members go but that the liberal members may be more vocal giving the impression the forum leans left. Most polls will end up with fairly balanced results though.

But you fail to realize that our fighting terrorists seems to create more terrorists...

Before we entered Iraq, it was a bad place to live, sure, but at least there was some measure of control. Now that we're there it's a whole ****ing country full of terrorists running around rampant.

Us fighting the terrorists just pisses them off more. We'll never kill them all, and the ones that are left will just train more. It's like how we decided to fight communism in the late 60's and it cost us a hell of a lot of young men. This is a pointless war that cannot be won. Ever.

So you're going to place all your trust in the media? You've got to realize that EVERYTHING you know about the situation in Iraq is spoon-fed to you by news media. If they tell you it's a ****hole, then likely you'll believe them whether it's true or not. If they decide to run only the most negative stories, you geta skewed perspective of reality.

Mmm. I voted "meh" because, aside from woeful amounts of pent-up antipathy, it's nice to let off a bit of steam now and again.

A flat No.

Oh Bill.

I see what you're getting at, but this is just silly. "Some measure of control".

That would be the corrupt police with torture chambers would it now? Ah yes. That's the one. At least some good came of the toppling of Mr Hussein, any yes, perhaps the insurgents have more freedom to run around in, but you know what? At least people have the freedom now. Freedom to oppose the state, things you take for granted.

Anyway, I'm going to the pub.

How is corrupt police with torture chambers different than soldiers being ordered to torture captives?

Er, do you have a source for your claim? That's a pretty bold claim, Bill.

What claim? That soldiers tortured prisoners?

That they were ordered to torture prisoners.. Don't think you can weasel out of this one by changing your claim.

Tee hee.

Don't accuse me of trying to weasel out of it. Cause I'm not going to. Do you have proof that they were not ordered to do it?

First of all, I never made a claim; you did. Second of all, you generally prove the existence of something or the validity of a claim, not the other way around. That would mean the burden of proof is on you. I know, it's a terrible burden, but then again that's what you get for making outrageous claims.

It's about as credible as the moon base I think... I put all my bs in one basket.

i support it, the news coverage is entertaining and hey, if they kill a few people who could have blown themselves up otherwise, i can't complain.

Yes because we all know that woman and little kids in Iraq are born terrorists who will strap a bomb to themselves as soon as possible.

Do you have any proof that these claims are true? I don't support the war, but I'm not going to make any assumptions that it's done no good, until I see hard facts that it hasn't. If nothing else, it's nearly eliminated a horrible regime full of torturers and sadists, not to mention just generally bad people.

And those soldiers were court martialled themselves. That means they were under no orders to do it, otherwise their CO would've been court-martialled. Nice try, Bill, but even if they were ordered to, the magnitude and severity of the crime done there is NOTHING in comparison to what Saddam did to his own kind.

And Dizzy--Stafford meant terrorists I'm sure, not children and women. Personally, I hate it when people twist other's words around, though I'm sure spe could care less.

If it was a human right issue the UN should have stepped in not a hoard of gun slinging American Cowboys after Iraq Indians... I mean serriously they stormmed in there to find something that didn't exist then they ****ed up the country beyond anything Suddam ever did. I mean yeah they Suddam was evil no lies but they were doing better off as a whole... my only beef with the whole war is I would love to see some Weapons of Mass Destruction serriously... what a crock.

Uh, okay, they went in with false pretenses, that much is correct. But no one is yet able to determine whether or not they actually effed up the country, and not only that, but it's not like they did something bad. At the very least, the Iraqi's will have to come up with an alternative form of government...which we're going to help them with if it needs to be that way. Though the current democracy seems to be...okay at least.

Well I guess we'll have to let some more time go on before we can be sure...

I dislike how the US government abused the emotional/irrational mindstate its citizens were in post 9-11. There's no way Bush would've gotten away with it if the collective US mind wasn't ****ed over like that (and mine was too, I admit).

So far for my pop analysis. It's all I'm capable off when it comes to politics.

Ditto.

Yeah, I agree with that too, but I place most of the blame on the U.S. citizens for not being more critical and asking more questions.

That's a very interesting point. I find it interesting to ponder how popular a pre-emptive strike on Al Qaeda terrorists would have be received had it been suggested prior to 9/11. I'm not talking a few cruise missile strikes like Clinton did. A full fledged war like we waged in Afghanistan.

Thing is some people probably see 9/11 as a law enforcement issue. That had we captured or thrawted the 9/11 terrorists that the matter should be dealt with legally. I happen to think that there should be a military component to battling terrorism as well.

I'm sorry, but to boil down something like the War on Terror to a simple "do you support it or not" question is ridiculously stupid. Also, national defense has absolutely nothing to do with questions of left or right - the first so-called "neoconservative" was a Democratic senator from Washington. I say this as someone who voted for Bush specifically because of the way he's responded to terrorism.

I'll probably never agree with Mort-Hog again.

In a nutshell, I think Bush's policy of spreading democracy in the Arab and Muslim worlds is the only way to fight terrorism in the long run. Military action is necessary against terrorists in the short term as a matter of self-defense, but the conditions that fuel terrorism will never go away because of military force. By conditions, I don't mean hatred of America or Israel, or resentment of US support for Muslim autocrats, because that's bull****. Of course that's why they're angry, but it doesn't explain why otherwise rational people would give up their lives in suicide attacks. I mean the decrepit political and economic situation in much of the Muslim world and most of the Arab that prevents young men from living regular, productive lives. People on one side who say Muslims prefer dictators and kings to democrats are just as full of **** as those on the other who say Islam is incompatible with modernity. The formation of Islamism and the terrorists groups that grew outward from it absolutely cannot be boiled down into a nutshell, and as Mort-Hog will no doubt point out, it is not a simple matter of poverty. In any case, it's not really a discussion for this thread (or this forum, if the dearth of critical thinking in this thread is any indication).

Put differently, the only cure for terrorism is the birth of free, democratic capitalist societies that are at the same time compatible with Islamic tradition. This is not the imposition of Western ideas on an unwilling Eastern culture; the eight million Iraqis who voted a few months ago made that plain to all but the most delusional of Westerners. It is stirring in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and every Arab home with a satellite dish. It may take years and it will be painful. See Iraq. But it will take hold, and the blood that is being shed now in the pursuit of a real solution to terrorism is more palatable than the prospect of being on the defensive against Islamist terrorism with no end in sight.

The issue is that this is no longer a "war on terrorists". Afganistan was that perhaps, but this is now a "war on terror".

Were it specifically a "war on Al Queda", then it would make sense. "war on terrorists" is slightly more meaningless, but not completely useless.
"war on terror" however is completely devoid of any meaning, any logic or any reasonable plan for achieving anything. What is it even supposed to mean?
Anywhere in the world where there is terror, WE'LL BE THERE!

Because invading Iraq sure wasn't about 9/11. If you seriously think there is any link between Saddam Hussein and the WTC attacks, or any link between the Ba'ath party and Al Queda, then you are severely deluded.

Saddam Hussein was a tin pot dictator, just like every other dictator in the region, every dictator in Asia and Africa. He was nothing special. At all.

The current campagin against "terror" seems to be of the flavour "we know what is 'good' and 'right', and if you don't agree with that, we'll put in military action". Which is exactly the same as has been going on in the Middle East for the last 50 years. Every single dictator in the Middle-East, save for Iran and Palestine, is there because either the Soviets or the US, or both, started telling them what to do. The cold war is over, but the exact same thing seems to be going on. You'd think they'd learn.
Perhaps it's time to just leave the Middle-East to its own devices, let the Arabs actually rule their own countries, rather than the constant meddeling and constant disrespect for sovereignty.

Because the last policy of constant meddeling is exactly what has spawned Al Queda.

I'll take this point by point.



"War" is being used in two different contexts. The war against terrorists, which by the very nature of Islamist terrorism can only be a holding action, involves military action. See Afghanistan. The war against terrorism is more about allowing Arabs and Muslims to take control of their own destiny. The weapons in the war against terrorists are conventional; rifles, tanks, planes and bombs. But in the war against terrorism, elections in Iraq, loans to small businesses in Morocco and reform of Egyptian mortgage laws are far more deadly.



Your problem is that you see Arab states like you see the nation-states of Europe. The analogy does not hold up, because Egypt and Jordan have far, far, far more in common than Germany and France. Take into account their shared language, culture, religion and history and you realize that reform in one country will have a profound effect on the other. That is why Iraq is important in the War on Terror; not because Saddam was involved in 9-11, but because the free society that will flourish in the wake of his removal will be seen by millions of Arabs who long for a better life.



Except it's not. The end is not to bring to power dictators who like us and oppose our enemies; the end is democracy itself. The US State Department has made it reassuringly clear that we will accept the results of Arab democracy, whatever they may be. An unfriendly democracy is always safer than a friendly dictatorship.



You straight up have no idea what you're talking about. Al Qaida was born in the American and Gulf-funded jihad against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It turned into the modern terrorist organization it is today when Usama bin Laden opposed US troops being stationed on Saudi soil to defend against Saddam Hussein. It's able to recruit because it can build off the Wahhabi propaganda that the Saudis have been spreading to all corners of the globe since 1973, but since the Saudis destroyed their religious legitimacy through their actions in the Gulf War and their disgusting corruption, al Qaida can now claim to be the inheritors of Wahhabism. What do you get when you combine hoplessness and frustration with an Islamic sect that preaches global jihad? That's right, global jihad.

But yeah constant meddling or whatever

"Since they disagree with me, they must have been duped".

What you call pop analysis I call delusion. *shrug*

Who likes wars anyways?

Damnit Sine, I hate seeming like a sheep when I agree with you. Stop making so much damn sense.

But basically, I kind of think that this is a 'we know what's best (or in this case better) for you, so take it', but it's not like we wouldn't try anything else if other governmental systems didn't breed terrorist sects. Really, I can't see a worthy system that the US would use other than something democratic. The other systems are ones we wouldn't dream of condoning. Communism, Dictatorship, etc.

Bleh, just rehashing what Sine said. Damnit. I hate sheep too.

The economy.

Sine Nomen wins!

Oh, Crap! Not this again. People with no facts making wild claims about things that no one here can verify or disprove. This thread is going down the toilet fast.

You keep saying that but the thread seems to be going okay. :p