Why we won't win.

[CharlestonChad]

If history repeats itself, the USA will once again lose a war against a "word".

We cannot wage a war against an enemy we cannot stop from regenerating. The war on drugs and war on poverty are great examples. If we arrest a drug dealer, another takes his place. If we kill a terrorist, another just takes his place. I hope most Americans realize that we will never win the war on terror. IMO there's no reason for the Bush admin. to want to start pulling our troops out, b/c his and Cheney's financial ties with the war effort are way to prosperous to throw them away.

 

[Said1]

So, you'd be satisfied if terrorists stayed confined to one area, content with blowing one another to bits far, far away?

 

[PsuedoGhost]

The problem is that there will always be people who disagree with other people. Eventually one group will resort to violence to ultimately try and prove their point, and then the cycle will restart. There will never be an end to terrorism, and this whole "war" on terrorism is a farce. The best we can hope to accomplish is to cripple those who attacked us, and not create a shitload of terrorists in the process. Ultimately we have to ask ourselves, if we create 4 terrorists down the road for every one we kill now, are we helping the situation?

 

[CharlestonChad]

The problem is that there will always be people who disagree with other people. Eventually one group will resort to violence to ultimately try and prove their point, and then the cycle will restart. There will never be an end to terrorism, and this whole "war" on terrorism is a farce. The best we can hope to accomplish is to cripple those who attacked us, and not create a shitload of terrorists in the process. Ultimately we have to ask ourselves, if we create 4 terrorists down the road for every one we kill now, are we helping the situation?

exactly!!!!

I wanted retribution as much as any red-blooded American after 9/11, but now it's becoming a reality that the longer we stay in the middle east the less effective and meaningful our productive our presence is becoming. Not to mention the American lives and innocent civilian lives that are taken daily in the "war on terror".

 

[CharlestonChad]

So, you'd be satisfied if terrorists stayed confined to one area, content with blowing one another to bits far, far away?

Of course I'm not satisfied, but I'm disgusted with the idea of us being in Iraq while they blow each other to bits, and blow our men and women up as well. There may or may not be peace in that region of the world, but that outcome will not be affected by America's involvement.

 

[Said1]

Of course I'm not satisfied, but I'm disgusted with the idea of us being in Iraq while they blow each other to bits, and blow our men and women up as well. There may or may not be peace in that region of the world, but that outcome will not be affected by America's involvement.

As long as your sure.


How about Afghanistan, that was all well and good?

 

[Psychoblues]

Think about this, my friends. Not "one" but MANY followers of the martyrs are generated by the death of each. Not that I agree with all the "martyrs" but the prevalence and righteousness of their argument with status quo are important to the human experience and debate. To ignore them is quite simply suicidal.

The Constitution of The United States Of America and interpretations as put forward by our Supreme Court, to the consternation of ALL political parties through the history of this Republic, tend to rectify in very fair ways the legal disagreements of our laws and American purpose. Even then, the Supreme Court gets it completely wrong sometimes.

Personally, I think that anytime the Supreme Court decides against the rights of average Americans to the benefit of corporations, one racial or ethnic group against another or religious group against another are completely flawed. Common Americans have absolute rights to a clean environment, a just and responsible legal system and to worship without governmental regulation or oversight. That said, I think it also the absolute duty of the American Justice system to fully prosecute and institutionally punish the violators of these rights.

Who and when will Americans be held accountable for their own violations as "Terrorists" even by the definitions as proposed by the present administration? I'll be testifying that I as an American was not included in the process of determination. I'll also testify that I recognised the danger of supporting such an internationally recognised moron as George W. Bush and I subsequently voted for his opponents in the years 2000 and 2004.

Psychoblues

 

[Mr.Conley]

I wouldn't say that Vice President's Cheney supports the war because it makes him richer. While Cheney did earn several million last year, he donate nearly 70$% of it to charity. Unless the Iraq war is a trillion dollar expense the Vice President uses as an excuse for donating a few more dollars to the Red Cross, I highly doubt that Vice President Cheney instigated the Iraq War for financial gain.

 

[CharlestonChad]

As long as your sure.


How about Afghanistan, that was all well and good?

nice try

 

[CharlestonChad]

I wouldn't say that Vice President's Cheney supports the war because it makes him richer. While Cheney did earn several million last year, he donate nearly 70$% of it to charity. Unless the Iraq war is a trillion dollar expense the Vice President uses as an excuse for donating a few more dollars to the Red Cross, I highly doubt that Vice President Cheney instigated the Iraq War for financial gain.

I don't believe they instigated the war for fianancial gain, but I do believe they do not desire to reslove and/or quit this conflict in Iraq, which is not soley, but somewhat based off of their financial relations with the war.

 

[Said1]

nice try

Nice try at what? Id I was doing anything other than attempting to discuss what YOU wrote, I would have called you a moron right away. I'm not very subtle.

Anyway, thanks for the colassal waste of time, moron.

See, I'm polite.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Nice try at what? Id I was doing anything other than attempting to discuss what YOU wrote, I would have called you a moron right away. I'm not very subtle.

Anyway, thanks for the colassal waste of time, moron.

See, I'm polite.

lol, I'll answer the question then, but you'll probably call me a moron b/c I'm not a conservative.

 

[CharlestonChad]

As long as your sure.


How about Afghanistan, that was all well and good?

The Taliban was a tangible group. Our attacks were justified retaliation, unlike what we're doing in Iraq.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If history repeats itself, the USA will once again lose a war against a "word".

We cannot wage a war against an enemy we cannot stop from regenerating. The war on drugs and war on poverty are great examples. If we arrest a drug dealer, another takes his place. If we kill a terrorist, another just takes his place. I hope most Americans realize that we will never win the war on terror. IMO there's no reason for the Bush admin. to want to start pulling our troops out, b/c his and Cheney's financial ties with the war effort are way to prosperous to throw them away.

Actually it's a war against Islamic fundamentalist, but we're to pc to tell the truth. It bothers me too. But in reality, there are concrete enemies. No worries.

 

[Annie]

The Taliban was a tangible group. Our attacks were justified retaliation, unlike what we're doing in Iraq.

But if your point is that 'we are creating terrorists', the same premise would exist there, justified or not, retribution or not.

"If we leave them alone" they may or may not have peace. Then again, we're hoping 'they will stay over there.' It's worked out well in the past, whoops...

 

[CharlestonChad]

But if your point is that 'we are creating terrorists', the same premise would exist there, justified or not, retribution or not.

"If we leave them alone" they may or may not have peace. Then again, we're hoping 'they will stay over there.' It's worked out well in the past, whoops...

That is not my point.

With Iraq, we went in b/c it was "convenient", not b/c they did anything to us.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That is not my point.

With Iraq, we went in b/c it was "convenient", not b/c they did anything to us.

No. Quiktrip is convenient. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

[CharlestonChad]

No. Quiktrip is convenient. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

lol


We were already near Iraq, so it didn't take that much to get to go ahead to invade Iraq.



con·ven·ient ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-vnynt)
adj.
Suited or favorable to one's comfort, purpose, or needs: a convenient time to receive guests; a convenient excuse for not going.

Easy to reach; accessible: a bank with branches at six convenient locations.
Close at hand; near: an apartment that is convenient to shopping and transportation.
Obsolete. Fitting and proper; suitable.

 

[Said1]

Go ahead from whom?

 

[Said1]

The Taliban was a tangible group. Our attacks were justified retaliation, unlike what we're doing in Iraq.

Considering cause was justified when, for starters, he breech conditions of the no-fly zone(s), I'm wondering how long he was supposed to stick around?


And further more, how long do you think it takes terrorists to organize, arm and infiltrate and area? One week, month, year? How do you know civil war wasn't imminent prior to the invasion?