The End of the War on Terror
- Thread starter Phlegmak
- Start date
nonconformist
Miserable
When you learn to love Big Brother.
Riesstiu IV
Deity
Well, if real life is anything like GI Joe. Cobra Commander will escape to terrorize the innocent another day. Yet, no one will die and we'll all learn an important lesson on life by the end of the episode.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
When the "War on Mild Irritation" begins.
BirraImperial
Pura Vida!
When America deals with the real causes of terrorism and not just use violence.Military action will only create more terrorism.
What does Elrohir mean by 'in charge'? Once a certain threshold of civility is gained ("only three bombings this week! War on Terror is over")?
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
Why the blind faith in your government?VRWCAgent said:
BirraImperial
Pura Vida!
Elrohir said:
Even if the US eliminates Al-Qaida, there will be always other terrorist groups seeking to target US interests. The war on terror is against an invisible enemy with no known goverment or military structure, when a terrorist group is destroyed, 2 or more of these groups are founded.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Same as the War on Poverty or the War on Rape or any of a number of other "wars" that politicians have declared against various social ills.
Such "wars" are never won. Most of them, however, are still worth fighting.
Such "wars" are never won. Most of them, however, are still worth fighting.
Hey, with the War on Drugs, do the citizens get increased powers against drug dealers (killing them, taking them prisoner as illegal combatants, etc.)?
jonatas
tropicalista
BasketCase said:
Sometimes they're just illusions.
I've always found this "War on ______" phenomenon to be something really weird about American politics. In the rest of the civilised world, a government will generally "increase anti-drug policing measures", or "expand targeted health-care spending" or "make affordable housing a higher priority", instead of declaring wars against drugs, or AIDS, or poverty. It just strikes me as a really strange way to think about social problems.
The "war on terror" is a different kettle of fish entirely, though, because it involves actual warlike combat operations, and infringements on civil liberties, with the implication that these are temporary measures with defined goals. It's well and dandy to fight a definitionally unwinnable war against poverty in order to improve people's lives. The analogue of this would be to fight terrorism where possible, up to the point where fighting terror becomes too detrimental to other goods. The analogue is definitely not fighting The War On Terror in the particular form it currently takes, and it's a fallacy to say, just like we can never eliminate poverty but have to keep trying, we have to keep doing what Bush tells us is necessary to fight terror, and do it into the indefinite future. It's an important distinction to make.
The "war on terror" is a different kettle of fish entirely, though, because it involves actual warlike combat operations, and infringements on civil liberties, with the implication that these are temporary measures with defined goals. It's well and dandy to fight a definitionally unwinnable war against poverty in order to improve people's lives. The analogue of this would be to fight terrorism where possible, up to the point where fighting terror becomes too detrimental to other goods. The analogue is definitely not fighting The War On Terror in the particular form it currently takes, and it's a fallacy to say, just like we can never eliminate poverty but have to keep trying, we have to keep doing what Bush tells us is necessary to fight terror, and do it into the indefinite future. It's an important distinction to make.
It's funny how the entire al-Qaeda organization did not even enter into this sentence.Elrohir said:
I think most New Yorkers would rather give up Osama's head hanging from Times' Square and that we actually go after the people that still continue to target the city.
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Taliesin said:
Maybe OT can declare a war on the war on phenomenon.
Seriously, I agree with those that say that "the war on terror" cannot be definitively won. It is still important to pursue known terrorists though. If we didn't retaliate in some form against terrorism, that would only cause it to increase.
I find this very frightening. I sincerely hope you were being sarcastic.VRWCAgent said:
Why would the government declare it over if it has been such a valuable campaign issue?VRWCAgent said:
Though, it will have to end, at least in the American population, soon. We can't be on "high alert" forever. People go back to whatever it was that concerns them, like American Idol.
