Winning the War on Terror

[carepov]

Introduction:

The US is the greatest superpower that world has ever had. The US people, government and military do many great things and I am thankful that we Canadians (and the rest of The West) enjoy the peace and prosperity we do in large part from the protection of the US. This overall support for the US does not mean we should not criticize some policies and actions – au contraire!

Winning the War on Terror – who’s side are you on?:

Of course no reasonable person would support the repressive/terrorist regimes of the Taliban or Saddam Hussein (wait a second, didn’t the US support these groups in the past…) Of course we want to defeat terrorism. The US is doing many things right but have made several major blunders that IMO have been counter-productive.

1. The War in Iraq

2. Breaking international laws (torture, rendition, Guantanamo Bay)

Boiling it down to “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” is simplistic, ignorant and wrong. I am with the US, against terrorism, but I am not going to agree with counter-productive policies.

Getting to the truth - who do you trust?:

The US administration and military are masters of propaganda and it is naïve to blindly believe them. I will put my trust in multiple sources dedicated to impartiality, for example: Amnesty, HR Watch, the US Supreme Court, the Red Cross, EU courts and parliamentary committees.

The enemy does not follow international laws so neither do we:

IMO, one of the keys to winning the ideological war on terror is the West’s respect for the law and all human life. The US has squandered a big part of this advantage we have over the terrorists. This ideological war is not to be directed at he terrorists – the purpose is to isolate terrorists from as much support as possible.

Conclusions:

-The argument that we need to sacrifice personal freedoms and rights for security is false. We need to protect human rights to help win the war!

-After 11 years, how would you judge the results of the War on Terror? What policies and tactics worked and which ones backfired? Were resources wasted needlessly? What is the enemy thinking and planning? What should be the next steps in the War on Terror? These types of questions need to be addressed objectively.

[Signals.Cpl]

Introduction:

The US is the greatest superpower that world has ever had. The US people, government and military do many great things and I am thankful that we Canadians (and the rest of The West) enjoy the peace and prosperity we do in large part from the protection of the US. This overall support for the US does not mean we should not criticize some policies and actions – au contraire!

I agree with you on this point.

Winning the War on Terror – who’s side are you on?:

Of course no reasonable person would support the repressive/terrorist regimes of the Taliban or Saddam Hussein (wait a second, didn’t the US support these groups in the past…) Of course we want to defeat terrorism. The US is doing many things right but have made several major blunders that IMO have been counter-productive.

Honestly the US and the west have done some pretty stupid things which have actual made the world much more dangerous even if those actions were deemed necessary at the time and I would say that the Taliban and Saddam were not the worst of it.

1. The War in Iraq

Was a mistake because now, to prove that a nation is dangerous we would need pretty much a smoking gun to intervene. To me that is the biggest blunder of them all, knowingly making false accusations hoping that you get lucky and find something along the way to support your initial reasons for going to war. To me this war put us all at a greater degree of danger.

2. Breaking international laws (torture, rendition, Guantanamo Bay)

The "people" you are talking about have made sure that they do not fit in to the categories of the geneva convention, they do not fit in as a legal combatant nor do they fit in as a civilian so if they want to fall under a certain category they should work to do so or the international community should redefine the categories and create a suitable category for people who use human shields, murder young girls for seeking education, use IED's which go off indiscriminately and injury anyone within their danger radius both civilians and military.

Boiling it down to “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” is simplistic, ignorant and wrong. I am with the US, against terrorism, but I am not going to agree with counter-productive policies.

Getting to the truth - who do you trust?:

The US administration and military are masters of propaganda and it is naïve to blindly believe them. I will put my trust in multiple sources dedicated to impartiality, for example: Amnesty, HR Watch, the US Supreme Court, the Red Cross, EU courts and parliamentary committees.

None of those organizations are in any way impartial, they all have their own agenda which means that everything said and done is to further their own goals.

Amnesty and HR Watch both do some good work, but many times they work without distinction between criminals and innocent people and sometimes overdo it just a tad. This "people" who are being held by US authorities for the most part earned their stay in US detention camps by committing war crimes yet those organizations would like to force inadequate organization and institutions to deal with this so called "people" which may lead many of them to be set free.

I am interested to see your source from the USSC out of curiosity I would like to read it, as for the European courts and government institutions I have little faith in those organizations as in my opinion they are taking potshots at the US seeing as likely 1) they have no access to documents or the information that matters which is in US custody thus rendering their opinion near useless and 2) they have no authority over the US or any agency therein nor is there any international body that has authority to persecute or even place demands on the US.

As for the red cross, their position I would love to read about as I have not had the time to read up on anything from them.

The enemy does not follow international laws so neither do we:

The enemy knowingly places themselves in a category that for all intents and purposes was and is not covered by the Geneva convention.

IMO, one of the keys to winning the ideological war on terror is the West’s respect for the law and all human life.

In my opinion the way to winning this war would be to respect the law(those"people" fall outside the law) and protect all important human life, by important human life I mean the people in Afghanistan and Iraq who want to live in peace and without the fear that sending your daughter to school would mean that she is killed or maimed by this "people". Our job is to protect the people who need protecting rather than let the war criminals free so that they could terrorize innocent people which for the most part happen to be Afghan and Iraqi and once in a while a western power.

The US has squandered a big part of this advantage we have over the terrorists.

I believe that elements within the US military have squandered certain advantages and for the most part they have been dealt with, but by no means is the US at level with the terrorists or even close to it. The US has to do some pretty awful things for a pretty long time to even come close to be seen as an equal and I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

This ideological war is not to be directed at he terrorists – the purpose is to isolate terrorists from as much support as possible.

Yeah, take the terrorists and execute them for whatever warcrimes they have committed and the rest throw in jail.

Conclusions:

-The argument that we need to sacrifice personal freedoms and rights for security is false. We need to protect human rights to help win the war!

Not really part of this argument, this are two separate points but to a degree I agree with you.

-After 11 years, how would you judge the results of the War on Terror?

Not good, but for the most part I think it is a political failure rather than a military or moral one.

What policies and tactics worked and which ones backfired?

There is a long list for both and I think that is a thread in and of its own.

Were resources wasted needlessly?

This ties in with the previous question and I would have to say that there was a lot of waste over the last decade or so due once again to improper political decisions.

What is the enemy thinking and planning?

They are thinking that they do not need to militarily defeat the forces of the west, they just need to outlast the political will to stay in Afghanistan or help Iraq.

What should be the next steps in the War on Terror?

Reassess our strategy and learn from our mistakes in order to avoid a defeat in this war.

These types of questions need to be addressed objectively.

I agree 100% with you on this one.

[dre]

I agree with you on this point.

Honestly the US and the west have done some pretty stupid things which have actual made the world much more dangerous even if those actions were deemed necessary at the time and I would say that the Taliban and Saddam were not the worst of it.

Was a mistake because now, to prove that a nation is dangerous we would need pretty much a smoking gun to intervene. To me that is the biggest blunder of them all, knowingly making false accusations hoping that you get lucky and find something along the way to support your initial reasons for going to war. To me this war put us all at a greater degree of danger.

The "people" you are talking about have made sure that they do not fit in to the categories of the geneva convention, they do not fit in as a legal combatant nor do they fit in as a civilian so if they want to fall under a certain category they should work to do so or the international community should redefine the categories and create a suitable category for people who use human shields, murder young girls for seeking education, use IED's which go off indiscriminately and injury anyone within their danger radius both civilians and military.

None of those organizations are in any way impartial, they all have their own agenda which means that everything said and done is to further their own goals.

Amnesty and HR Watch both do some good work, but many times they work without distinction between criminals and innocent people and sometimes overdo it just a tad. This "people" who are being held by US authorities for the most part earned their stay in US detention camps by committing war crimes yet those organizations would like to force inadequate organization and institutions to deal with this so called "people" which may lead many of them to be set free.

I am interested to see your source from the USSC out of curiosity I would like to read it, as for the European courts and government institutions I have little faith in those organizations as in my opinion they are taking potshots at the US seeing as likely 1) they have no access to documents or the information that matters which is in US custody thus rendering their opinion near useless and 2) they have no authority over the US or any agency therein nor is there any international body that has authority to persecute or even place demands on the US.

As for the red cross, their position I would love to read about as I have not had the time to read up on anything from them.

The enemy knowingly places themselves in a category that for all intents and purposes was and is not covered by the Geneva convention.

In my opinion the way to winning this war would be to respect the law(those"people" fall outside the law) and protect all important human life, by important human life I mean the people in Afghanistan and Iraq who want to live in peace and without the fear that sending your daughter to school would mean that she is killed or maimed by this "people". Our job is to protect the people who need protecting rather than let the war criminals free so that they could terrorize innocent people which for the most part happen to be Afghan and Iraqi and once in a while a western power.

I believe that elements within the US military have squandered certain advantages and for the most part they have been dealt with, but by no means is the US at level with the terrorists or even close to it. The US has to do some pretty awful things for a pretty long time to even come close to be seen as an equal and I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

Yeah, take the terrorists and execute them for whatever warcrimes they have committed and the rest throw in jail.

Not really part of this argument, this are two separate points but to a degree I agree with you.

Not good, but for the most part I think it is a political failure rather than a military or moral one.

There is a long list for both and I think that is a thread in and of its own.

This ties in with the previous question and I would have to say that there was a lot of waste over the last decade or so due once again to improper political decisions.

They are thinking that they do not need to militarily defeat the forces of the west, they just need to outlast the political will to stay in Afghanistan or help Iraq.

Reassess our strategy and learn from our mistakes in order to avoid a defeat in this war.

I agree 100% with you on this one.

They are thinking that they do not need to militarily defeat the forces of the west, they just need to outlast the political will to stay in Afghanistan or help Iraq.

Thats close but not QUITE it. What they are thinking is that we will assume spending levels that cannot be sustained, and we will essentially bankrupt ourselves, and tax payers in the west will no longer be willing or able to keep funding the project.

They call the plan "Bleed until bankruptcy". Bin Laden outlines it here.

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden said he is trying to bankrupt the U.S. through its war on terror, a strategy he says felled the Soviet Union two decades ago in Afghanistan, according to a translation by al-Jazeera television of his full, videotaped statement.

``The mujahedeen recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the bleed-until-bankruptcy plan -- with Allah's permission,'' bin Laden said in the video that aired on the Qatar-based satellite network, according to the translation, posted today to al-Jazeera's Web site. The channel aired portions of the statement on Oct. 29.

President George W. Bush's administration plans to seek an additional $70 billion from lawmakers for Iraq and Afghanistan, the head of the U.S. Army Materiel Command, General Paul Kern, said on Oct. 26. The U.S. Congress last year approved $87 billion for military operations and rebuilding in the two countries.

Bin Laden's video appearance, his first since September 2003, came four days before the Nov. 2 presidential vote in which Bush's anti-terrorism policies will play a central role. Bush's challenger, Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, said in debates and campaign speeches that the president should have focused on capturing bin Laden rather than invading Iraq.

Financial Impact

Saudi-born bin Laden, who aided the Muslim resistance against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, boasts in his latest message of how little the Sept. 11 attacks cost and how large a financial impact they had on the U.S. Bin Laden accuses Bush of waging war to benefit Halliburton Co. and other contractors, and leaving American taxpayers with the bill. The Bush administration has rejected such linkages.

The terror leader cites a speech by an unidentified British diplomat at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, which he says outlines the financial impact of Sept. 11 by comparing the estimated $500,000 spent to carry out the assault with the damage caused.

Bin Laden said ``every dollar of al-Qaeda defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs.''

The Bush policy of mounting a global war on terror has made it easy for al-Qaeda to ``bait'' the U.S. government, bin Laden said.

``All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies,'' bin Laden said, according to the al-Jazeera transcript.

And if you think about it, its worked out pretty well for them.

911 only cost AQ a few million dollars to perpetrate. That was BAIT.

Since 911, the US/west was baited unto two massive nation building projects, and created the 40 billion dollar DHS. Total price tag for the war on terror? Nobody knows but we are talking 3-6 TRILLION dollars making it the most expensive project in the history of the universe.

This is classic guerilla strategy. They dont have the funds or military assets so they need to make sure that for each dollar they spend the superior power they are fighting spends millions. So far its working.

Read this last part especially carefully.

All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies

Not only does he talk about the idea of tricking the US into fighting expensive wars by creating a symbolic AQ presense. But he also talks about "benefits for private companies" which is basically the suggestion that profiteers in the west will actually HELP Alqeada bankrupt their enemies.

Its not about militarily defeating us, its about tricking us into spending more money than we can afford to spend.

Edited September 11, 2012 by dre

[eyeball]

What is the enemy thinking and planning?

Where to hoist their Mission Accomplished banner.

[dre]

Where to hoist their Mission Accomplished banner.

No the enemy is thinking about how many trillions they can trick the west into spending. How many nations they can trick the west into spending hundreds of billions EXPLODING then hundreds of billions REBUILDING.

All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies

Send a small presense to country X or area Y. Visibly hoist the AQ flag. Then grab some popcorn and enjoy the show.

[The_Squid]

The US is the greatest superpower that world has ever had.

The USA actually controls a very small portion of the world.

As a percentage of the world's population, the Mongol Empire controlled about 25%. That's a far greater superpower than the world has ever seen.

[Bonam]

The "war on terror" is a nebulous and ill-defined conflict. What is the metric for victory? Is it to get rid of regimes that help and harbor terrorist organizations? Is it to destroy all terrorist organizations? Is it to ensure no terrorist attack happens on Western soil again?

Now dre does have a good point about war spending and how expensive it has been. On the other hand, the spending of WWII is what jolted the US out of recession. Military spending is actually some of the most effective stimulus. It's not like the money is actually spent in Afghanistan and Iraq, most of it is spent at home.

From the US point of view, the war could probably be called a success: there have been no further significant successful attacks by a terrorist organization on US soil, bin Laden is dead, Iraq is done and Afghanistan is being wrapped up, and popular uprisings are sweeping across the Arab world.

What are the next steps? Same as always. Support governments in the Muslim world that are more friendly towards the West, and where possible at the same time not too tyrannical. Keep using counter-terrorism measures where applicable, keep hunting terrorists wherever they hide, keep them fighting to save their own skins from death or capture so that they don't have time to plan and execute attacks on the other side of the world. Keep improving security measures, hopefully in a way that reduces inconveniences to citizens at home rather than increasing them. Keep building international alliances and coalitions so if and when we have to fight any future wars, it can be done with the support of many other nations. But most important of all, focus on fostering an economic recovery, as all Western power, both cultural and military, relies on its economic engine.

[Signals.Cpl]

Thats close but not QUITE it. What they are thinking is that we will assume spending levels that cannot be sustained, and we will essentially bankrupt ourselves, and tax payers in the west will no longer be willing or able to keep funding the project.

They call the plan "Bleed until bankruptcy". Bin Laden outlines it here.

And if you think about it, its worked out pretty well for them.

911 only cost AQ a few million dollars to perpetrate. That was BAIT.

Since 911, the US/west was baited unto two massive nation building projects, and created the 40 billion dollar DHS. Total price tag for the war on terror? Nobody knows but we are talking 3-6 TRILLION dollars making it the most expensive project in the history of the universe.

This is classic guerilla strategy. They dont have the funds or military assets so they need to make sure that for each dollar they spend the superior power they are fighting spends millions. So far its working.

Read this last part especially carefully.

Not only does he talk about the idea of tricking the US into fighting expensive wars by creating a symbolic AQ presense. But he also talks about "benefits for private companies" which is basically the suggestion that profiteers in the west will actually HELP Alqeada bankrupt their enemies.

Its not about militarily defeating us, its about tricking us into spending more money than we can afford to spend.

It might be some sort of strategy for al Qaeda but for the Taliban it most likely it is not so. In Afghanistan the Taliban are well aware that give enough casualties to the western powers and they would soon enough pick up and leave. There is a financial aspect to it, but considering that now every dead NATO soldier has a face and is not just a number in the news paper as well as seeing more unclose and personal coverage of the war people are becoming more averse to casualties. I don't think the US will reach their financial breaking point before they reach their casualty limit.

[Signals.Cpl]

The USA actually controls a very small portion of the world.

As a percentage of the world's population, the Mongol Empire controlled about 25%. That's a far greater superpower than the world has ever seen.

Yeah but as of this moment, not only does the US have the stingiest military in the world but their navy is more powerful then all of their enemies combined. As well the Mongol Empire never had the ability to blow up the entire world.

[eyeball]

From the US point of view, the war could probably be called a success: there have been no further significant successful attacks by a terrorist organization on US soil, bin Laden is dead, Iraq is done and Afghanistan is being wrapped up, and popular uprisings are sweeping across the Arab world.

Much like the popular uprising that swept across Iran in 1979 during the Cold War that our side likewise called a success. And yet, notice how there's still a commie under every motive and behind every plot and woven deeply into every fear that still sweeps across western mindscapes.

We're not done, we're wrapped even more tightly than ever. There's nothing ill defined or nebulous about it at all.

[carepov]

Nice to see you again Signals.Cpl, it is encouraging to see that we agree on several key points, yes some points are best left to future discussions, however I strongly disagree with almost every single point you make below:

The "people" you are talking about have made sure that they do not fit in to the categories of the geneva convention, they do not fit in as a legal combatant nor do they fit in as a civilian so if they want to fall under a certain category they should work to do so or the international community should redefine the categories and create a suitable category for people who use human shields, murder young girls for seeking education, use IED's which go off indiscriminately and injury anyone within their danger radius both civilians and military.

…

The enemy knowingly places themselves in a category that for all intents and purposes was and is not covered by the Geneva convention.

In my opinion the way to winning this war would be to respect the law(those"people" fall outside the law) and protect all important human life, by important human life I mean the people in Afghanistan and Iraq who want to live in peace and without the fear that sending your daughter to school would mean that she is killed or maimed by this "people". Our job is to protect the people who need protecting rather than let the war criminals free so that they could terrorize innocent people which for the most part happen to be Afghan and Iraqi and once in a while a western power.

I believe that elements within the US military have squandered certain advantages and for the most part they have been dealt with, but by no means is the US at level with the terrorists or even close to it. The US has to do some pretty awful things for a pretty long time to even come close to be seen as an equal and I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

Yeah, take the terrorists and execute them for whatever warcrimes they have committed and the rest throw in jail.

My principle disagreement is with your multiple assertions that: “those "people" fall outside the law”. This is flat-out wrong! Also, this de-humanizing attitude is, as I mentioned earlier, counter-productive towards winning the War on Terror.

Please read through the ICRC web site and you will find refutations of many of your points, for example:

“In contemporary armed conflicts, the challenge of upholding humanitarian values is not the result of a lack of rules but a lack of respect for them.”

http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/contemporary-challenges-for-ihl/overview-contemporary-challenges-for-ihl.htm

“…no one can be outside the law”

http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/resolution/30-international-conference-resolution-3-2007.htm

“What is important to know is that no person captured in the fight against terrorism can be considered outside the law. There is no such thing as a “black hole “in terms of legal protection.”

http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/faq/terrorism-faq-050504.htm

And for a more technical report:

http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/article/review/review-857-p39.htm

None of those organizations are in any way impartial, they all have their own agenda which means that everything said and done is to further their own goals.

Amnesty and HR Watch both do some good work, but many times they work without distinction between criminals and innocent people and sometimes overdo it just a tad. This "people" who are being held by US authorities for the most part earned their stay in US detention camps by committing war crimes yet those organizations would like to force inadequate organization and institutions to deal with this so called "people" which may lead many of them to be set free.

I am interested to see your source from the USSC out of curiosity I would like to read it…

Regarding Amnesty and HR Watch, what “agenda” and what “goals” do you think they are pursuing? Perhaps after informing yourself of the ICRC positions you will see that these groups are consistent, correct, and impartial. Please note that no one is interested in letting criminals set free – au contraire!

Regarding the US Supreme Court, I suggest that you start with wiki then follow-up with the footnotes is you are unconvinced:

“The Supreme Court stated that the Geneva Conventions, most notably the Third Geneva Convention and Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (requiring humane treatment) applies to all detainees in the War on Terror…

The ruling also disagreed with the administration's view that the laws and customs of war did not apply to the U.S. armed conflict with Al Qaeda fighters during the 2001 U.S. invasion of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, stating that Article 3 common to all the Geneva Conventions applied in such a situation, which—among other things—requires fair trials for prisoners.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#Legal_issues

[carepov]

The USA actually controls a very small portion of the world.

As a percentage of the world's population, the Mongol Empire controlled about 25%. That's a far greater superpower than the world has ever seen.

Sorry, I was vague in my assertion that "The US is the greatest superpower that world has ever had." By greatest I meant most virtuous, (or perhaps "least evil"?).

[carepov]

Thats close but not QUITE it. What they are thinking is that we will assume spending levels that cannot be sustained, and we will essentially bankrupt ourselves, and tax payers in the west will no longer be willing or able to keep funding the project.

They call the plan "Bleed until bankruptcy". Bin Laden outlines it here.

And if you think about it, its worked out pretty well for them.

911 only cost AQ a few million dollars to perpetrate. That was BAIT.

Since 911, the US/west was baited unto two massive nation building projects, and created the 40 billion dollar DHS. Total price tag for the war on terror? Nobody knows but we are talking 3-6 TRILLION dollars making it the most expensive project in the history of the universe.

This is classic guerilla strategy. They dont have the funds or military assets so they need to make sure that for each dollar they spend the superior power they are fighting spends millions. So far its working.

Read this last part especially carefully.

Not only does he talk about the idea of tricking the US into fighting expensive wars by creating a symbolic AQ presense. But he also talks about "benefits for private companies" which is basically the suggestion that profiteers in the west will actually HELP Alqeada bankrupt their enemies.

Its not about militarily defeating us, its about tricking us into spending more money than we can afford to spend.

dre, I 100% agree and thanks for the quotes of Bin Laden.

I recall from a Mansbridge interview with Malcolm Gladwell where Gladwell said (paraphrase): "a better reaction to 9/11 would have been to pretend that it never happened [instead of wasting over $1,000,000,000,000 dollars]".

[Moonlight Graham]

You can't win the "war on terror". Terrorism is a technique, a method. Terrorism existed before 9/11 and will exist decades and centuries from now. Therefore, terrorism can't be defeated, only contained and prevented.

The problem with the label "the war on terror" is that since terror can't be eliminated entirely it perpetuates warfare indefinitely. If Canada is committed to the "war on terror", we will then at a state of war indefinitely with no clear victory parameters. This gives the government something to legitimate continuous operations abroad and implementing different security measures domestically. Sounds like b.s. to me.

Instead, we should be measuring our attempts to contain and prevent terrorism. Some successes against old enemies. But if recent events are any indications, there's likely still a ton of people in the middle east who'd like to take out a few more planes and buildings and embassies, and I'd wager post-911 western military operations across the middle east have fed this sentiment and created new enemies.

[bud]

How many nations they can trick the west into spending hundreds of billions EXPLODING then hundreds of billions REBUILDING.

the military industrial complex and the 'rebuilding' companies such as halliburton are thinking the same thing.

[carepov]

You can't win the "war on terror". Terrorism is a technique, a method. Terrorism existed before 9/11 and will exist decades and centuries from now. Therefore, terrorism can't be defeated, only contained and prevented.

The problem with the label "the war on terror" is that since terror can't be eliminated entirely it perpetuates warfare indefinitely. If Canada is committed to the "war on terror", we will then at a state of war indefinitely with no clear victory parameters. This gives the government something to legitimate continuous operations abroad and implementing different security measures domestically. Sounds like b.s. to me.

Instead, we should be measuring our attempts to contain and prevent terrorism. Some successes against old enemies. But if recent events are any indications, there's likely still a ton of people in the middle east who'd like to take out a few more planes and buildings and embassies, and I'd wager post-911 western military operations across the middle east have fed this sentiment and created new enemies.

You are probably right; perhaps the thread should be called: “Successful containment and prevention of terrorism”. However, “War on Terror” rightly or wrongly is the term used in the mainstream. Also, even though we are fighting a “War on Terror” we are not in a “State of War”.

I agree that the government is feeding us B.S. and that many of our actions have created new enemies.

[Moonlight Graham]

You are probably right; perhaps the thread should be called: “Successful containment and prevention of terrorism”. However, “War on Terror” rightly or wrongly is the term used in the mainstream.

I'm not criticizing how you labelled your topic, because that's what politicians (and he media) have labelled it. I'm just commenting on the term in general.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[Topaz]

Just stop and think....there's a family in the Middle-East, the same kind you'd find in the US and Canada and they too are wondering are about the war on terror or the terrorist, which North America has become to THEM. The only ones winning is the companies that sell war weapons.

[Topaz]

Just stop and think....there's a family in the Middle-East, the same kind you'd find in the US and Canada and they too are wondering are about the war on terror or the terrorist, which North America has become to THEM. The only ones winning is the companies that sell war weapons.

[Guest Manny]

Did anyone read the article came out today, US suspends military joint operations with Afghanistan? Due to internal attacks, and consequences of recent civilian deaths by air strikes. The relations have deteriorated to the point, US will be glad to get the hell out of there. Winning the war on terror?

[bud]

read a good article by stephen walt who puts it in perspective. we all know about the west's adventures, specifically america's adventures in the middle east and the muslim world.

Why they hate us (II): How many Muslims has the U.S. killed in the past 30 years?

link

here is a conservative look at the number of deaths experienced by america and the muslim world. image

i'd hate us too.

[carepov]

read a good article by stephen walt who puts it in perspective. we all know about the west's adventures, specifically america's adventures in the middle east and the muslim world.

Why they hate us (II): How many Muslims has the U.S. killed in the past 30 years?

link

here is a conservative look at the number of deaths experienced by america and the muslim world. image

i'd hate us too.

Thanks for the link it is a good article indeed.

Yes, if I were a Muslim in the Middle East I would probably hate the US Administration too. But I would still hate my own government leaders even more.

[bud]

Thanks for the link it is a good article indeed.

Yes, if I were a Muslim in the Middle East I would probably hate the US Administration too. But I would still hate my own government leaders even more.

this is why we saw the protests in iran and the successful arab spring in tunisia and egypt. there are also protests in bahrain and saudi arabia which we don't hear about.

[carepov]

this is why we saw the protests in iran and the successful arab spring in tunisia and egypt. there are also protests in bahrain and saudi arabia which we don't hear about.

Hey bud,

I am curious, if you don't mind me asking, on a scale of -10 (pure hate) to +10 (pure admiration) how would you personally rate the following administrations/regimes:

Harper CCP?

Obama?

Bush II 2001-2008?

Israeli?

Hamas?

Saudi Arabia?

The Taliban when they ruled Afghanistan?

Russia?

China?

North Korea?

Syria?

Iran?

Venezuela?

Columbia?

Any others you care to rate?

What countries' government, present or past, would you rate the highest?

[eyeball]

Thanks for the link it is a good article indeed.

Yes, if I were a Muslim in the Middle East I would probably hate the US Administration too. But I would still hate my own government leaders even more.

You might like to think and profess that you'd act or feel a certain way here and now but this seems a lot more like projection than speculation.

Edited September 20, 2012 by eyeball