Some people keep insisting that the war on terrorism isn’t a real war, because you can only be at war with a country, and “terrorism” isn’t a country. The problem is, a worldwide network of well-organized and well-funded terrorists has declared war on us. When someone declares war on you, and demonstrates the ability to effectively attack you on your own soil, killing thousands of civilians and attacking the Pentagon, you are at war with them whether you call it a war or not. It’s pointless to say “they aren’t a country so we can’t be at war with them,” when they’re clearly at war with us.
There’s a significant difference between the war on terrorism and any previous wars we’ve fought. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a war. We’re at war with an international network of radical Islamic terrorists. The fact that the enemy isn’t one sovereign nation makes this war extremely difficult to prosecute, because it’s literally a war without borders. But does that mean we should give up and go home?
Their leaders have declared that they will not stop until they’ve succeeded in annihilating our culture. Because they’re fanatics, I believe them. These are not rational people. They believe they will defeat us. If they perceive that we’re too weak to continue the battle, it will give them strength to pursue it more vigorously.
There are radical Islamic fundamentalists just about everywhere in the world. Wherever they are, they’re a potential or actual threat, not just to us, but to anybody they deem is an infidel. We need to stop them, both because there’s no other nation on earth powerful enough to do it, and because we are, have been, and will be again, targets of their terrorist activity.
The people who say we should have stayed in Afghanistan because that’s where Bin Laden was before 9/11, or that we should focus on Pakistan because he’s probably there now, don’t understand that Osama bin Laden is not the enemy. He’s only one leader in a vast network of terrorist cells, spead throughout the world. You can’t kill the Hydra by chopping off its heads; you have to disembowel it. That means cutting of its source of funding. Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are the biggest sources of funding for Islamic terrorism. (Saudi Arabia is ostensibly our “ally,” so they will undoubtedly be the last one with which we engage, if it should come to that…)
IMHO, this war will ultimately be fought in every country that harbors or funds terrorists, because it’s a war on terrorism, not on a particular country. The countries that fund terrorism, and the countries where the terrorists organize, plot, stage, and train their operatives, will either fight with us or against us. If they commit to eradicating the terrorists within their borders, we will fight alongside them. If they side with the terrorists, we will fight against them.
Withdrawing our troops now, as the Democrats want to do, would leave the spoils to the enemy, and give them a chance to regroup and grow stronger. And they will attack us again. I’d rather the war be fought over there by trained soldiers who volunteered to fight for their country than have it come here and be fought by suicide bombers against civilian targets.
Do you remember 9/11? Do you remember how you felt inside when you first learned what had happened? Or has it been glazed over by the media bombarding you with the same images over and over until you were finally inured to the reality of it, and it became just another media event? It was real. And it can happen again. And again. And again, and again. And, if you don’t believe me, ask an Israeli what it’s like to never know from day to day if the bus you take downtown, or the pizza shop your kid stops in with their friends after school, is going to be blown up by terrorists. Do you think it can’t happen here? Don’t forget, it already has.
Government is Not Your Daddy 
“The problem is, a worldwide network of well-organized and well-funded terrorists has declared war on us.”
Yea, and it’s called Al-Qaeda…that’s who we’re at war with BTW. This baloney “War on Terror” is being used my many different countries just to supress their own people. Terrorism is an act…the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. You can’t be at war with an act, period.
I say again that the “War on Terror” is ruse…read 1984. To my knowledge, Iran and Syria are not funding Al-Qaeda. We can never rid the world of an act, and to try so is a futile effort.
I don’t care how many posts you make here to say the *exact same things that you’ve said before*…the American people are not being fooled anymore. It’s time for a change, and fear mongering isn’t going to work anymore. Just look what happened to Giuliani.
I apologize if I repeat myself. It’s only because I don’t feel like I’m getting through.
It seems that you agree that we’re at war, but you don’t like the name of the war. That’s cool. Call it whatever you want, as long as you’re not in denial about the fact that we’re at war. You also seem to agree that the reason we’re at war is because we were attacked by terrorists. If so, there may actually be some possibility of communication here.
Are you aware that Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization that has attacked America? The current president of Iran was a member of the terrorist organization that took 52 American hostages in Tehran in 1979. Hezbollah, which is funded by Iran, killed over 300 Americans in 1983 alone, and many more since then. The Wall Street Journal reported last year:
So perhaps we are at war with more than just Al Qaeda. (Or, at least, perhaps they’re at war with us.)
nuke zem
nuke zem all
I understand your frustration…I’ve felt it for the last 7 years. It would be nice if we were asked to sacrifice for this war effort though…just like people were asked during other wars. Al-Qaeda has been attacking U.S. interests for longer than since 2001.
Look, I fully understand that the hostage situation that came about after years and years of us supporting the Shah of Iran is still to this day coloring our view of Iran. The fact is that there are plenty of people in Iran that want desperately to be friendly with us again, and the Bush Regime rebuffed them completely earlier this decade. Iran was even willing to give up aid to it’s proxies across the world then!
Hezbollah merely wants Lebanon to be free from outside influence on all sides. I think that they deserve independence just like the Palestinians do. Hezbollah is not going to come over here to attack us. I understand that you’re a “friend of Israel” (whatever that means), but the fact remains that if the Palestinian question is resolved…Israel will be able to live in peace with all its neighbors.
After 9/11, Hezbollah condemned Al-Qaeda for targeting civilians in the World Trade Center. They’ve condemned the murder of Nick Berg and all violence against American civilians.
Israel has tried to resolve the Palestinian situation peacefully. The terrorist organizations who seek the destruction of Israel, and use the Palestinian population as pawns, have never allowed that to happen. Any time peace has threatened to break out, the terrorists have struck it down.
Israel could care less about Lebanon, except that it has been used repeatedly to launch missile attacks on Israel. Israel needs to enforce a buffer zone there to be able to protect itself.
What you don’t seem to understand is that the Islamic extremists don’t want peace with Israel. They want the destruction of Israel. They want Israel wiped off the map. They have declared that openly time and again. Why don’t you believe them?
“Israel has tried to resolve the Palestinian situation peacefully.”
No, it hasn’t. An apartheid mindset will never help Israel out. Walls don’t work.
“Israel needs to enforce a buffer zone there to be able to protect itself.”
This didn’t work for the Soviet Union, and it won’t work for Israel. Occupying someone else’s land is wrong, period.
“What you don’t seem to understand is that the Islamic extremists don’t want peace with Israel.”
Who cares what they think! When we take the Palestinian issue off the table, they will have little left to gripe about and recruit people over. Israel is not going anywhere.
It isn’t their griping that concerns me (or Israel). It’s their blowing people up. I don’t understand what you don’t get about that.
They are not going to stop until Israel no longer exists. That’s what they say. Why don’t you believe them?
Mo Kadafi once said during the 1980s that he was going to conduct naval exercises off the U.S.’s coast after we had our navy off his coast. The problem was…he didn’t have one ocean-going vessel is his navy. Whether I believe this or that terrorist organization’s propaganda is not the question.
They blow themselves up because they are misguided or desperate. If they had tanks and planes, they’d use them, but they don’t and they never will. If you take away the reasons for their desperation, they will stop getting people that are willing to blow themselves up. I don’t see Bin Laden and his buddies blowing themseleves up…because they know better. Just about every Arab country is willing to formally recognize Israel if they end the Palestinian problem. The Palestinians can’t end it themselves…they don’t have any power.
I don’t think that the Bin Laden’s of the world will ever like Israel, but the plan is that they’ll be pushing up daisies if we get our act together and take the fight to them where they actually are…not where they aren’t.
I agree with what you said above, Nacho, but I think in this regard you are too……dare I say it? Liberal. ;~)
I say we are not fighting it like a real war: See my reply to “There are things worse than Mccain” on this website.
1.Let loose the hounds of Hell. Scorched earth policy. If you’re going to a gun fight, don’t bring a knife. We need to strangle our “allies” if we have to, to get them to find and kill Al Queda, to the last of them. Or we need to walk into, oh, say Pakistan, and scour those hills for Bin Laden and the rest of the scum. If the villagers wanna stand with them? Go to Allah, do not pass go. Get your Virgins on the left. Destroy the Madrassas that preach the fundamentalism that develop suicide bombers.
2.Failing that, we have to institute a draft immediately and withdraw the troops in the field RIGHT NOW. I have no idea who told Bush it was fine to leave combat troops in the field for 4 years, but whoever it was should be sent to a line unit in Iraq until the troops come home. Disgusting and unconscionable. Those are YOUR soldiers being burned to a crisp.
3. For everyone that thinks that things are going swimmingly in Afghanistan and Iraq, and want to stay the course, ’cause “the surge is working”, get your ass down to the recruiter and sign up, maybe one of my brothers in the field can come home for a rest. Put your ass where all that online bravery is.
Or:
We need to get the hell out NOW. This IS an either/or proposition, isn’t it? What we’ve been doing so far is NO WAY to win a war.
It is war, isn’t it?
I could not agree more with scumby.
The Truman concept of “limited war,” “police action,” or “containment” is an abomination. War is Hell as somebody said. It should be avoided at all cost. When it becomes necessary, it should be fought to be won as quickly and decisively as possible. If we are not willing to do what it takes to accomplish that, be it waterboarding, nuking, whatever, we should run away and hide.
We have no right to ask any American to go and get killed while we refuse him any means to win.
You can blame Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart for the limited war concept. I agree though with him that “where both sides possess atomic power, total warfare makes nonsense” and that any unlimited war “waged with atomic power would make worse than nonsense: it would be mutually suicidal.” You can commit suicide on your own time, not mine thanks.
“It should be avoided at all cost.”
That’s one of the fundamnetal problems here…the War in Iraq was a war of choice, an unnecessary war, period. Waterboarding is torture, and torture is against both federal and international law. We’re supposed to be the good guys here, remember? “Nuking” people isn’t going to solve anything either, and I think it’s irresponsible to talk that way.
In another thread, Mr. Guy said “How did we beat Japan during WWII? They had some of the exact same beliefs about self-sacrifice, and defeating that *entire* country and their empire took less time than this baloney ‘War on Terror’ has so far.”
Now he says “‘Nuking’ people isn’t going to solve anything either, and I think it’s irresponsible to talk that way.”
Just how do you suppose we beat Japan in WWII, Mr. Guy?
If you think all we did to beat Japan during WWII was nuke them, then I don’t think we need to go any further here. Hint: It was a LOT more than that.
No one needs to be nuked in order to beat Al-Qaeda. Do you think it’s just a coincidence that no one has been nuked since we dropped those atomic bombs on Japan in 1945?
FTR, I agree that we can’t just nuke ’em. It goes back to the central problem that makes this war so difficult to prosecute. We aren’t at war with a single country, but with an international network of terrorist organizations. So, who do you nuke, and how do you nuke ’em?
We’re going to have to come up with a better solution. And the first thing we need, IMHO, is better military intelligence.
Liddell Hart’s book was a history of the second world war which was the antithesis of a limited war. His concepts of strategy espoused therein related primarily to the old Chinese maxim: make a noise in the east and strike in the west.
An excellent discussion of the advent of the “brush fire war” appears in Fehrenbach’s “This Kind of War.”
The fact that you cannot figure out whom to target with a nuke does not at all mean that an appropriate target does not exist.
I believe that the justification for a war is rooted in the right to self-defense and it is a matter of self-preservation. Being a good guy has nothing to do with it. (Unless one has a martyr complex which I do not.) If you are trying to kill me, I will attempt to kill you first. No Marquis of Queensbury.
Read it again, and read what I quoted him as saying again.
“The fact that you cannot figure out whom to target with a nuke does not at all mean that an appropriate target does not exist.”
Sorry again, but you’re crazy IMO…commit Armageddon on your own time please, not mine. We must work together to eliminate war, or we’re all doomed in the long run.
“If you are trying to kill me, I will attempt to kill you first. No Marquis of Queensbury.”
That’s right. Breaking into my house is easy. Getting out alive is going to be more problematic.
“We must work together to eliminate war, or we’re all doomed in the long run.”
First rule of war: avoid it if at all possible.
Second rule of war: if rule one fails, don’t lose.
I guess I’ll point this out for the last time…the Iraq War was a war of *choice* where nowhere near all the other options were fully explored first.
*the Iraq War was a war of *choice* where nowhere near all the other options were fully explored first.*
That’s exactly right – and you can take your choice as to reasons: oil grab, or so Shrub could show up his daddy and finally get to eat at the table with the grown ups: A constant desire among drunks and other utter failures.
The Neocons yanking him around like a pull toy didn’t help.
Our fundamental source of disagreement is the concept that the “Irag War” is a war. In a purely myopic sense, you can say that. Widen your field of vision and it is only a front in the war where we happened to take the offensive.
Like that particular theater or not, its the one that was chosen. (And I dearly wish it had been for the oil.) Isn’t there supposed to be a tradition: to the victor go the spoils?
“Widen your field of vision and it is only a front in the war where we happened to take the offensive.”
No, in order to believe that, you have to believe the *lies* that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda, which it didn’t, period. If you don’t call invading a country, deposing it’s leader/regime & then killing him, then basing our troops in that country a war, then maybe we need to start defining what a war is…sheesh…
“Isn’t there supposed to be a tradition: to the victor go the spoils?”
There’s a more simple phrase for that…it’s called empire, and it’s wrong IMO.
Until you grasp for yourself the idea of who the enemy is and what he is all about, you will not comprehend. You will necessarily be dependent upon the ideas of Bush, Kerry, FOX news, or the NY Times. That’s simply a matter of pick your poison.
Believing for a second that there is no enemy is a recipe for disaster.
As for the “spoils” vs “empire” thing, remember the second rule of war: if you can’t avoid it, don’t lose it.
Who said there was no enemy?? You’re repeating yourself again and again Jackson…time for some new medication…
“time for some new medication…”
Here we go again.
Terrorism is every where and it has its own empire with in the nations and is trying to take over the nations. So war is inevitable.
There is no “terrorism empire”…let’s not get too hyperbolic here…
War:
Iran and Lebennon and Hezbolla. DOES anyone know their history? In 1953 the US and the UK gave money to a militant group in the Iranian government to over throw a democratically elected Prime Minister named Mohammed Mosaddeq who was pro-west. However, Mohammed Mosaddeq wanted to nationalize the oil fields and other resources for the purpose of rebuilding the infrastructure of Iran and to help his poor people. However, US and UK oil companies did not want to loose their 80% profits (Iran got 20% or less) off the country. Thus, our government paid to stage a coup and 12 ministers died as a result, then the Shaw came into power. The Shaw was as cruel as any dictator was. The people hated the US and the UK for destroying Iran’s democracy. Over time anti-US groups grew. In 1979 the country fell apart, hostages, and more anti-US sentiments grew.
Get this! None of this would have happened if the US and the UK and other European countries would leave foreign countries alone and let them share their resources to help end poverty.
Hezbolla (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah) has 3 objects in 1985:
the three objectives of the organization are:
* To expel Americans, the French and their allies (sic) definitely from Lebanon, putting an end to any colonialist entity on our land.
* To submit the phalanges to a just power and bring them all to justice for the crimes they have perpetrated against Muslims and Christians.
* To permit all the sons of our people to determine their future and to choose in all the liberty the form of government they desire. We call upon all of them to pick the option of Islamic government which alone is capable of guaranteeing justice and liberty for all. Only an Islamic regime can stop any future tentative attempts of imperialistic infiltration onto our country.
Note: “end to any colonialist entity “. That is ending US imperialism. Something we never hear about in the news. Not even the liberal news, which no longer exists on TV. Yes, they will (wrongly!) use violence to achieve their objective. But the USA started the conflict by interfering and taking resources away from 3rd world countries, thus, keeping them in poverty, which is where they get most of their recruits.
Yes, we have donated more resources to poor countries, but we have also created more poverty than most countries. This is why they hate us. Not because we are mostly christians, but because our country is lead by false greedy christians who ignore Matt.5 and Matt.25. YOU can ignore the facts, but the USA and its large multi-national corporations are causing more pain, suffering, and even death in the name of profits.
You can make jokes and criticize, but your job is next unless you vote for progressive people.
T, you’re conveniently ignoring the part of Hezbollah’s mission statement titled “The Necessity for the Destruction of Israel.”
You’re also conveniently ignoring the fact that most of the Islamic nations are not poor — at least their governments aren’t. Most of them are oil-rich countries, with a lot of poor citizens. That isn’t America’s fault. That’s the fault of their own corrupt governemnts.
i don’t recall anyone declaring war on the US. I believe the US assumed a bunch of Islamic Terrorist got on four different planes, made it threw security without anyone noticing the bombs, or knives, or whatever weapons they had, crashed into 3 Huge buildings, Flight93 mysteriously just left a giant hole in the ground with a bunch of little metal pieces, no bodies ever found for any of the planes, no terrorist ever recorded to of been on the plane, oddly enough they found the pass port of one of the supposed hijackers [who is still alive], some how that survived threw fire and explosions, but the planes and bodies did not. That seems a little fishy to me. Now We the Patriot Act and homeland security bull shit so the government can spy on us, and easily claim anyone to be a terrorist.