Was declaring a "war on terror" a bad idea?

[Wilber]

Terrorists are only low on your list of fears because you or someone close to you has never been a subject of one of their attacks. You fear only what you see as an immediate threat to yourself and kiss off the rest of the world accordingly.

I never said that gov't should ignore terrorism. I simply stated that terrorism is one problem amoung many and that it a mistake for gov't to focus too much this particular problem. That is one of the reasons why calling it a 'war on terror' is a big mistake - it makes people think the problem is more important than anything else.

A war does not have to be more important than anything else to still be a war. There have been plenty of wars in history that have not been the most important thing going on to countries that were involved. They were still wars just the same.

[Riverwind]

A war does not have to be more important than anything else to still be a war. There have been plenty of wars in history that have not been the most important thing going on to countries that were involved. They were still wars just the same.

How many times have politicians tried to stifle opposition to policies by claiming 'we are at war so you cannot question my decisions'. War is a term that should not be used unless there really is an immediate threat to our society.

[Wilber]

A war does not have to be more important than anything else to still be a war. There have been plenty of wars in history that have not been the most important thing going on to countries that were involved. They were still wars just the same.

How many times have politicians tried to stifle opposition to policies by claiming 'we are at war so you cannot question my decisions'. War is a term that should not be used unless there really is an immediated threat to our society.

Then what do you call it when organized groups are trying to kill each other for political, idealogical or religious reasons. When those people are prepared to give their lives for a cause. They are not mere criminals. Criminals do it for profit. They have no intention of dieing to accomplish their ends.

I don't dispute that politicians sometimes use the word War to further their ends but that doesn't mean there is no war.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Wilber,

They are not mere criminals. Criminals do it for profit. They have no intention of dieing to accomplish their ends.

Very true, well said.

I don't dispute that politicians sometimes use the word War to further their ends but that doesn't mean there is no war.

I don't dispute that the US thinks it is, and is pretending to be, at war. However, they have pussy-footed around declaring a real war, and that is not a winning strategy. Declaring war on an idea is a waste of resources.

[KrustyKidd]

Declaring war on an idea is a waste of resources.

What resources are being wasted because of naming it thus?

[gerryhatrick]

Declaring war on an idea is a waste of resources.

What resources are being wasted because of naming it thus?

Read the original post link.

sheesh.

[KrustyKidd]

Read the original post link.

sheesh.

Did. It's hubris. The War on Terror or action against conservative Wahhabism whichever you prefer is a necessary one. To leave it unchecked leaves them full field for their plan to succeed. Anybody that thinks Muslim terrorists only wish to kill themselves and a few people along with them is a moron. There is a whole movement working towards the same goal and, they don't even have to know each other. Just that they are doing their own little part. Weaken already weak governments by agitating the people and turning them against their government by conducting random violence and displaying their govenments inaqbility to protect them, display their power by making western people flinch and, with any luck, combine the entire Muslim world under their organization or movement by creatuing a western Muslim backlash.

Incidently, that's one of the reasons why societies are so cautious to finger the culprits in actions such as the recent Toronto arrests and why the mowque vandalism is taken so seriously. To vandalize the mosque plays right into the game plan in a smaller scale.

sheesh

[Riverwind]

Incidently, that's one of the reasons why societies are so cautious to finger the culprits in actions such as the recent Toronto arrests and why the mowque vandalism is taken so seriously. To vandalize the mosque plays right into the game plan in a smaller scale.

And the invasion of Iraq played into the Islamist game plan on a massive scale.

[KrustyKidd]

And the invasion of Iraq played into the Islamist game plan on a massive scale.

No. The intent was an invasion of the nest itself - Saudi Arabia. The nation that was home to Al Qaeda and was so afraid to take care of that problem that they knew they would someday have to or face destruction themselves. Iraq was the next best option. Making a deal with Saddam to allow US bases in Iraq in return for full resumption of trade and disolution of the no fly zone was the one after.

To invade SA was unthinkable as it would have certainly galvanized the Muslim world exactly the way AQ wanted but the royals were afraid to take action as AQ had support from many radical clerics and much of the population. Hence, the human rights changes made in the past few years there. In any case, getting rid of a dictator who is an Aposphate and replacing his regime with a democracy chosen by the people themselves is hardly a terrible thing, especially when the US has actually saved over a hundred thousand lives compared to what the damage Saddam on average caused over the years. Now, with SA knowing the US is there and is capable of entering SA to take care of what they will not, they took care of their problem and continue to do so. So much that the lack of AQ activity in Iraq is conspicuous as next door, they are fighting to remain even an idea, much less a movement and are inable to conduct operatuions abroad. Another thing, with OBL lowering his sights from the ME and attacking America as he ususally goes on and on about, he now moves his sights to a shithole at the horn of ASfrica as his next conquest.

Now, you want to have an example of what a massive retalitaion would look like - watch some nuclear tests or those weapons demos on the discovery channel. There is no hint of establishing democracy or anything like it. When the US wises to kill, it can. Afganistan and Iraq were big time kid gloves.

[newbie]

The U. S. is no saviour in this. Think of all the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children killed, and mabye in some cases murdered by some stressed-out marines. Bombs still going off everyday. Yeah, the people of Baghdad have great freedom; to walk down the street and get blown up.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KrustyKidd,

What resources are being wasted because of naming it thus?

You give the answer...

Afganistan and Iraq were big time kid gloves.

And the invasion of Iraq played into the Islamist game plan on a massive scale.

No.

Yes. It put fuel in the tank of the extremists. The strategy adopted by the US was not a winning one, it was one done to help their own interests.

It may now be too late to point fingers at the US' mistakes, history will do that. We are soon to be faced with something far more sinister than simple terrorism. There is a real war brewing.

[KrustyKidd]

Yes. It put fuel in the tank of the extremists.

When you hurt terrorists what action do you think they will take in defense? Build Habitats for Humanity? Knit quilts for needy children? When under threat they do one thing - kill.

We are soon to be faced with something far more sinister than simple terrorism. There is a real war brewing.

Hello! Bout time you figured that one out. You think that war brewing wasn't brewing in 2000? You think OBL had too much time to kill? The war has been brewing for over fifty years for crying out loud.

The U. S. is no saviour in this. Think of all the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children killed, and mabye in some cases murdered by some stressed-out marines. Bombs still going off everyday. Yeah, the people of Baghdad have great freedom; to walk down the street and get blown up.

On average, Saddam killed fifteen hundred people a month. The past three years, less than seven hundred a month have died. Your point is crap.

[Wilber]

I don't dispute that the US thinks it is, and is pretending to be, at war. However, they have pussy-footed around declaring a real war, and that is not a winning strategy. Declaring war on an idea is a waste of resources.

Approximately 200,000 military personnel committed, approaching 400 billion spent, approximately 18,000 official casualties (could be much higher). It may not be a winning strategy but it doesn't sound like a virtual war to me.

[gerryhatrick]

I don't dispute that the US thinks it is, and is pretending to be, at war. However, they have pussy-footed around declaring a real war, and that is not a winning strategy. Declaring war on an idea is a waste of resources.

Approximately 200,000 military personnel committed, approaching 400 billion spent, approximately 18,000 official casualties (could be much higher). It may not be a winning strategy but it doesn't sound like a virtual war to me.

You're confused. You included statistics from Iraq. That was a war on Iraq, not terror.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KrustyKidd,

When you hurt terrorists what action do you think they will take in defense? Build Habitats for Humanity? Knit quilts for needy children? When under threat they do one thing - kill.

They were doing this anyway, though on a much smaller scale. There might have been a time when dialogue might have made a difference, but the US stubbornly refused to acknowledge that there might have been something wrong with their foreign policy. Too many 'what ifs' now.

On average, Saddam killed fifteen hundred people a month.

You know as well as I do that this is a less than honest representation of the facts.

[Wilber]

I don't dispute that the US thinks it is, and is pretending to be, at war. However, they have pussy-footed around declaring a real war, and that is not a winning strategy. Declaring war on an idea is a waste of resources.

Approximately 200,000 military personnel committed, approaching 400 billion spent, approximately 18,000 official casualties (could be much higher). It may not be a winning strategy but it doesn't sound like a virtual war to me.

You're confused. You included statistics from Iraq. That was a war on Iraq, not terror.

Actually it is Iraq and Afghanistan combined. You say that the US is pretending to be at war. I say they are very much at war. Whether it is against terror in the case of Iraq is debatable I admit.

[GostHacked]

KrustyKidd.

By your posts it seems (I am extrapolating) the War on Terrorism should have focused on Saudi Arabia first. So why did we not go there first? Instead of waging war in countries where the root of the problem is not there.

[gerryhatrick]

You're confused. You included statistics from Iraq. That was a war on Iraq, not terror.

Actually it is Iraq and Afghanistan combined. You say that the US is pretending to be at war. I say they are very much at war. Whether it is against terror in the case of Iraq is debatable I admit.

You're confused again, I did not say the US is pretending to be at war.

I say a war on terror is a bad idea.

[Machinations]

KrustyKidd.

By your posts it seems (I am extrapolating) the War on Terrorism should have focused on Saudi Arabia first. So why did we not go there first? Instead of waging war in countries where the root of the problem is not there.

I think most reasonable people ask this. Why do we shake hands and smile at the Saudis, when Arabia is the capital of this kind of extremism, but invade others? Because the simplistic reasons given for the way the 'war' has been fought are paper-thin. By the current logic in vogue, democratization is necessary in these 'extremist' countries. Why then ignore the #1 problem?

More importantly, to the OP's question - how can you declare war on a word? The whole endevour to me has been about as effective as the war on 'drugs'. Not exactly a sparkling track record.

Hows the opium crop in Afghanistan this year? Oh, ANOTHER record crop? Really!

[Wilber]

You're confused. You included statistics from Iraq. That was a war on Iraq, not terror.

Actually it is Iraq and Afghanistan combined. You say that the US is pretending to be at war. I say they are very much at war. Whether it is against terror in the case of Iraq is debatable I admit.

You're confused again, I did not say the US is pretending to be at war.

I say a war on terror is a bad idea.

Confused you with someone else. As the terrorists are at war with us, I find it difficult to see how we cannot reciprocate. "We declare war on you" No you don't. "Yes we do" You can't. "Yes we can" Can not. "Can to". Well then, we just won't call it a war. Sounds like something out of a Monty Python skit.

[gerryhatrick]

Confused you with someone else. As the terrorists are at war with us, I find it difficult to see how we cannot reciprocate. "We declare war on you" No you don't. "Yes we do" You can't. "Yes we can" Can not. "Can to". Well then, we just won't call it a war. Sounds like something out of a Monty Python skit.

Quite alright.

Reciprocating against terrorists does not require a declaration of war. Saying it does is just silly.

It is more than acceptable to take any and all actions against perpetrators of terrorism or conspirators of terrorism without labelling it a "war on terror".

I have to agree with the points made in the original link.

A war on specific enemies would have been much wiser all around.

[Riverwind]

Confused you with someone else. As the terrorists are at war with us, I find it difficult to see how we cannot reciprocate.

Why should we? They are small groups of criminals who have the capacity to cause sporadic damage to public infrastructure and kill a small number of people. They are not an army nor do they represent a sovereign state that can defeated with a military force. Calling it a war is a ssilly as anything monty python could come up with.

[Wilber]

Confused you with someone else. As the terrorists are at war with us, I find it difficult to see how we cannot reciprocate.

Why should we? They are small groups of criminals who have the capacity to cause sporadic damage to public infrastructure and kill a small number of people. They are not an army nor do they represent a sovereign state that can defeated with a military force. Calling it a war is a ssilly as anything monty python could come up with.

The only reason they are not an army is because the US, Britain and other countries went into Afghanistan and took a way their base of operations. The only reason they do not have a sovereign state backing them and giving them a base of operations is because the US, Britain and other countries went into Afghanistan and got rid of the regime that supported them. I believe they did with military force. Some people would call that at war.

If the US, Britain and other countries had not done this they would still be there recruiting and training in camps that were supplied, aided and abetted by a sovereign country. To do that we, the West needed an army, an air force, guns and a bunch of other stuff that goes boom. Like in a war. We still do. Like in a war. If the terrorists of today are just a bunch of small groups that are relatively isolated, it is because of the above. A war.

[Riverwind]

The only reason they are not an army is because the US, Britain and other countries went into Afghanistan and took a way their base of operations.

Some military action was required to shut down the Al Queda bases in Afganistan. That operation did succeed in shutting down those bases. That said, you could call that military operation a 'war against Al Queda' - a war which is now over.

Unfortunately, the US and Canada got sucked into the Afghan civil war - a war which has nothing to do with terrorism. So it is accurate to say the Canada is an active participant in the Afghan civil war, however, Canada is not at war with Afghanistan.

The US deliberately started a war with Saddam's Iraq. That war is now over and the US is responsible for preventing a civil war in Iraq. You could say the US is an active participant in the Iraq Civil War - however, the US is not at war with Iraq.

In short, the 'war on terror' does not accurately describe anything that is going on.

[GostHacked]

On average, Saddam killed fifteen hundred people a month. The past three years, less than seven hundred a month have died. Your point is crap.

Cite your sources, and I will reply with

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5053134.stm

The numbers look like they are over 1000 for every month this year, even last year many months had over 1000 civilians dead per month. Also this looks like just the Bahgdad mortuary reporting. What about the other morgues.

Under 700?? Again, cite your sources.