Is the "War on Terror" real?

[BodiSatva]

Is the "War on Terror" a real and viable action?

By this, I mean is Radical Islam actually conducting a War against Western Societies, mainly the United States? They have said that tehy are, but do you believe it? Yes or NO and WHY...

Go ahead...

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: Is the "War on Tear" real?

Yes.

We can argue all day over who started it-- because I'd place its origin in the 18th Century-- but they are morally opposed to the cultural values of the West, and because of our economic power and the power of our entertainment media, they view our existence as a threat to the moral values that they believe that everyone should live by.

 

[saggyjones]

Re: Is the "War on Tear" real?

Yes there is a war, but it's not in the normal sense of the word war because there is no specific territory for each side and there's no standing army being used by our enemies. I think that most wars in the future will be fought this way, with the defenders using guerrilla tactics and a foreign army occupying their cities, so it might become normal.

 

[BodiSatva]

Re: Is the "War on Tear" real?

YES!

As KTR mentioned...this is an issue that is steeped in history. From the Ottoman Empire to the British Mandate, the Arabs have been subjegated to the whims of other Imperialistic peoples.

Since 1928 and the emergence of The Muslim Brotherhood, the West has been targeted for a variety of things...it values, its culture, its laws...

What are we to do? Seriously!

If a people, as small as they seemingly are, start out be hating everything we stand for. What should we do? I think that this is a very real issue and that it is being neglected by the Western Media, or at the very least it is being misunderstood...

 

[saggyjones]

Re: Is the "War on Tear" real?

YES!

As KTR mentioned...this is an issue that is steeped in history. From the Ottoman Empire to the British Mandate, the Arabs have been subjegated to the whims of other Imperialistic peoples.

Since 1928 and the emergence of The Muslim Brotherhood, the West has been targeted for a variety of things...it values, its culture, its laws...

What are we to do? Seriously!

If a people, as small as they seemingly are, start out be hating everything we stand for. What should we do? I think that this is a very real issue and that it is being neglected by the Western Media, or at the very least it is being misunderstood...

We need to send more troops to fight groups like Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, not the Iraqi insurgents. And I think we need to fight more like them using guerrilla tactics and such (I've never been in the military so I don't know too much about it) because conventional warfare doesn't work very well against insurgencies, which is what we would face in a war with factions like Al-Qaeda.

 

[The Mark]

Re: Is the "War on Tear" real?

We need to send more troops to fight groups like Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, not the Iraqi insurgents.

As far as I am aware, the "Iraqi insurgents" are terrorists. Why then should we avoid fighting them?

And I think we need to fight more like them using guerrilla tactics and such (I've never been in the military so I don't know too much about it) because conventional warfare doesn't work very well against insurgencies, which is what we would face in a war with factions like Al-Qaeda.

As far as I am aware, we are doing so already.

 

[Flea]

Re: Is the "War on Tear" real?

I think that we are fighting terrorists now in Iraq, but we are doing it on their terms. They are bogging us down. We should not re-enact Stalingrad. We should be on search and destroy SpecOps Delta Force type missions more and this huge depleting quamire less IMO.

We here nothing of successes, and we hear less about tactics. It can't be that big of a secret. "We are using blah blah in this method to achieve blah blah" If the government could win the support of the people, the government could streamline their...oh, what am I talking about? The government streamline and become effecient at anything?

 

[saggyjones]

Re: Is the "War on Tear" real?

As far as I am aware, the "Iraqi insurgents" are terrorists. Why then should we avoid fighting them?

The insurgents don't have the capabilities to attack us, or at least not as much as Al-Qaeda, etc. Insurgents in Iraq, the Sunni extremists for example, only want control of Iraq, they aren't just fighting us to kill Americans. Terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda want to attack us for more ideological and religious reasons. So I think the "war on tear" should focus more on those groups rather than the insurgents in Iraq.

As far as I am aware, we are doing so already.

There are some special forces teams that use guerrilla-like tactics but for the most part we are clearing out buildings and keeping the peace. I recommend the book The Last True Story I'll Ever Tell by John Crawford, it's a good story and it sheds an interesting light on the war because it's told by a regular infantryman.

Anyway I think we need to use disguises and hiding tactics like the insurgents do because conventional warfare doesn't work very well against them. Right now we are basically keeping the peace rather than going on the offensive.

 

[DeeJayH]

Re: Is the "War on Tear" real?

Yes there is a war, but it's not in the normal sense of the word war because there is no specific territory for each side and there's no standing army being used by our enemies. I think that most wars in the future will be fought this way, with the defenders using guerrilla tactics and a foreign army occupying their cities, so it might become normal.

which is specifically why i believe we can not cut and run in Iraq
we have to learn from our mistakes
we have to adapt to the circumstances
we must face this enemy now and crush them

 

[saggyjones]

Re: Is the "War on Tear" real?

which is specifically why i believe we can not cut and run in Iraq
we have to learn from our mistakes
we have to adapt to the circumstances
we must face this enemy now and crush them

But how do we crush the enemy since there are no set armies? There are always more religious fanatics being born and I don't see the war in Iraq ending anytime soon, unless we get out and let them have their civil war without getting involved. Removing an oppressive dictator is fine with me but I don't think we're doing much in Iraq except hindering the process of necessary civil war. Once that war is over then we can step in and help rebuild, perhaps creating a government and economy similar to our own.

 

[DeeJayH]

Re: Is the "War on Tear" real?

But how do we crush the enemy since there are no set armies? There are always more religious fanatics being born and I don't see the war in Iraq ending anytime soon, unless we get out and let them have their civil war without getting involved. Removing an oppressive dictator is fine with me but I don't think we're doing much in Iraq except hindering the process of necessary civil war. Once that war is over then we can step in and help rebuild, perhaps creating a government and economy similar to our own.

that certainly could be one way
not a way i am jumping all over
i would rather see us, coupled with the Locals (Iraq Military) going street to street, city by city, wiping them out
allowing civil war would upset the left just as much as the current situation
taht is a lose/lose situation

personally i have no problem with some innocents dying with suspected terrorists
i remember so many poo poo-ing how we killed Zarqawi because some innocents were killed with him
war is ugly
too f'n bad

 

[BodiSatva]

Re: Is the "War on Tear" real?

I have yet to see anybody express that the War on Terror was real. So far people are just rehashing crap about Iraq.

 

[saggyjones]

Re: Is the "War on Tear" real?

that certainly could be one way
not a way i am jumping all over
i would rather see us, coupled with the Locals (Iraq Military) going street to street, city by city, wiping them out
allowing civil war would upset the left just as much as the current situation
taht is a lose/lose situation

Well if you want to make generalizations about the left that's fine as long as you don't include me in them, because I would be happy for a civil war. I see it as a quicker end to this war and the lesser of two evils.

Also, going street to street doesn't really work because our style of warfare isn't all that effective against insurgencies. Our enemies don't have camps for their troops; they live in houses like civilians. Unless we either send a whole lot more troops to cities like Baghdad and start going on the offensive or we leave, this war won't end anytime soon.

personally i have no problem with some innocents dying with suspected terrorists
i remember so many poo poo-ing how we killed Zarqawi because some innocents were killed with him
war is ugly
too f'n bad

I think we should limit the number of civilians we kill but I agree that sometimes it's necessary to get the job done.

 

[saggyjones]

Re: Is the "War on Tear" real?

I have yet to see anybody express that the War on Terror was real. So far people are just rehashing crap about Iraq.

Maybe you should read all the posts then.

Yes there is a war, but it's not in the normal sense of the word war because there is no specific territory for each side and there's no standing army being used by our enemies. I think that most wars in the future will be fought this way, with the defenders using guerrilla tactics and a foreign army occupying their cities, so it might become normal.

 

[BodiSatva]

Re: Is the "War on Tear" real?

I read them all, but I didn't pay attention to this one at least. Ask my wife, sometimes I don't listen (or hear).

Good show old sport!

But you did not address whether or not Radical Islam is really out to destroy the West and all that. THAT is what I am looking for, so when I glazed this post and did not see anything specific, I wrote it off as half assed

 

[saggyjones]

Re: Is the "War on Tear" real?

I read them all, but I didn't pay attention to this one at least. Ask my wife, sometimes I don't listen (or hear).

lol my dad always used to get in trouble for that. I'm not married but when/if I do I'll probably know the feeling.

Good show old sport!

But you did not address whether or not Radical Islam is really out to destroy the West and all that. THAT is what I am looking for, so when I glazed this post and did not see anything specific, I wrote it off as half assed

Just because something isn't specific or doesn't relate to the topic 100% doesn't mean it's half assed... you really shouldn't be so critical, but who am I to tell you that.

Anyway, to answer the question, I think some groups are out to get the "white devil" AKA the west. These groups include Al-Qaeda, but do not include the Sunni extremists IMO, because the Sunnis want control of Iraq but Al-Qaeda wants to actually wants to kill Americans.

 

[Willow]

Re: Is the "War on Tear" real?

I think the Terrorists are very cleverly using propaganda, religion and the long time antipathy towards the West to their advantage, instead of actually doing something about their social problems they use the West as a scapegoat in the name of their God and as long as the population blames the West for their social problems then they can control them and recruit them. There's a great deal of money to be made for the terrorists if they can control the population. Call me a cynic but I believe money has more to do with their desire to control then religion does.
The minute they started taking lives for their "cause" the War on terror began, it does exist and we do need to defend ourselves from attacks but I think the War on Terror has been overblown for the personal glorification of some western politicians and in the case of Iraq went too far.
Pretty soon in a matter of months, the War on Terror will have taken more American lives then the 9/11 attacks..is it worth it? I don't think so, I think the money and manpower could have been used more effectively along our borders and securing our ports. That being said it's too late now and now the question is how long should we continue to fight the War on Terror outside of this country with a massive military action and when should we start really making sure Americans are safe by inspecting cargo at ports and keeping our borders secure and illegal immigrants out. There seems to be no real plan in this War on Terror. And we need a plan, not a paranoid jerk reaction but a real plan.

 

[saggyjones]

Re: Is the "War on Tear" real?

I think the Terrorists are very cleverly using propaganda, religion and the long time antipathy towards the West to their advantage, instead of actually doing something about their social problems they use the West as a scapegoat in the name of their God and as long as the population blames the West for their social problems then they can control them and recruit them. There's a great deal of money to be made for the terrorists if they can control the population. Call me a cynic but I believe money has more to do with their desire to control then religion does.
The minute they started taking lives for their "cause" the War on terror began, it does exist and we do need to defend ourselves from attacks but I think the War on Terror has been overblown for the personal glorification of some western politicians and in the case of Iraq went too far.
Pretty soon in a matter of months, the War on Terror will have taken more American lives then the 9/11 attacks..is it worth it? I don't think so, I think the money and manpower could have been used more effectively along our borders and securing our ports. That being said it's too late now and now the question is how long should we continue to fight the War on Terror outside of this country with a massive military action and when should we start really making sure Americans are safe by inspecting cargo at ports and keeping our borders secure and illegal immigrants out. There seems to be no real plan in this War on Terror. And we need a plan, not a paranoid jerk reaction but a real plan.

I agree. We shouldn't have gone to war in the first place, or at least not in the manner we did, but now that we're there it's a little too late, like you said. In the case of Iraq I think we can leave for reasons I posted above but the overall war on terrorism is something we are too deep into to get out.

 

[BodiSatva]

Re: Is the "War on Tear" real?

saggyjones

Not half-assed...quite right, but that was my misunderstanding, as I already mentioned.

I have always been considered an Empathetic and Understanding A-Hole, A contradiction to be sure, that is just my way... But I would really feel blue if you didn't accept my apology.

 

[saggyjones]

Re: Is the "War on Tear" real?

saggyjones

Not half-assed...quite right, but that was my misunderstanding, as I already mentioned.

I have always been considered an Empathetic and Understanding A-Hole, A contradiction to be sure, that is just my way... But I would really feel blue if you didn't accept my apology.

Don't worry about it, it's not even something you need to apologize for, but thanks.

 

[BodiSatva]

Re: Is the "War on Tear" real?

Well then, what is the next phase?

What do the "Coalition of the Willing" do now?

Should we step back and NAvy Seal the **** out of terrorist camps and leaders? Are we doing that already?

What I am amzed about...seriously, is that all these people on this forum bitch and whine about how bad Bush is and the policy and how we should withdraw and such, yet none of these cowards will admit or dismiss the war and if the threat is real. WTF?

 

[Iriemon]

Re: Is the "War on Tear" real?

Well then, what is the next phase?

What do the "Coalition of the Willing" do now?

Should we step back and NAvy Seal the **** out of terrorist camps and leaders? Are we doing that already?

What I am amzed about...seriously, is that all these people on this forum bitch and whine about how bad Bush is and the policy and how we should withdraw and such, yet none of these cowards will admit or dismiss the war and if the threat is real. WTF?

I don't know about the other bitchers and whiners, but I don't think cowardly is my issue -- I'm not getting sent to Iraq. Nor do I deny that there is a real threat. I disagree on how to fight it.

I don't have a problem with Navy Seals taking out camps. Don't you think they'd be doing that if we knew where the camp was and where their leaders were?

That is why the navy seal approach we've been using for 3 years doesn't work. We don't know who the enemy is.

 

[BodiSatva]

Re: Is the "War on Tear" real?

Ouch! Yeah, it is difficult to discern who our enemy is. But I am hoping to find out how many people actually think that there is a legitimate enemy in the first place...

It seems that you do, and that is well and good. Realistic.

What course of action do we take?
Should the government tell us more of their tactics so that we support their actions more?
Why do people insist that there is no issue, or that the issue is all the USA;'s problem?
Will Radical Islam mellow out if we back off?

There are more questions, but what are the answers?

 

[Billo_Really]

Re: Is the "War on Tear" real?

The war on terror is a bunch of bullshit! I've said it many times, you cannot have a war against an ideology. There is no tangible enemy and no way to predict an ending. We are now in a perpetual state of war with no end in sight. And because of this, the government is taking away our rights, playing the god-damn fear card everytime they want un-Constitutional legislation passed (ie, MCA, Patriot Act, etc.) that is just accepted by the many chicken-littles of this country because they think there's a terrorist on every street corner.

This is the same lame rap they [the government] used in the War on Drugs, War on Crime and War on Whatever. And the same organizations that fought and lost those wars, are fighting this one too! I don't buy the rap. You know what the War on Terror means to me? If I see UBL in my neighborhood, I notify the AHJ. And that's all it means to me. If I see a crime, I report it. That's it.

What we need to do is question why our defense budget is over $500 million next fiscal year. That's 44 times more than the next country in line (China). Does anyone know that this war in Iraq is costing every single household in the United States $18,000.00 dollars a year.

All of us are paying $18K each for this war!

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Re: Is the "War on Tear" real?

The war on terror is a bunch of bullshit! I've said it many times, you cannot have a war against an ideology. There is no tangible enemy and no way to predict an ending. We are now in a perpetual state of war with no end in sight. And because of this, the government is taking away our rights, playing the god-damn fear card everytime they want un-Constitutional legislation passed (ie, MCA, Patriot Act, etc.) that is just accepted by the many chicken-littles of this country because they think there's a terrorist on every street corner.

This is the same lame rap they [the government] used in the War on Drugs, War on Crime and War on Whatever. And the same organizations that fought and lost those wars, are fighting this one too! I don't buy the rap. You know what the War on Terror means to me? If I see UBL in my neighborhood, I notify the AHJ. And that's all it means to me. If I see a crime, I report it. That's it.

What we need to do is question why our defense budget is over $500 million next fiscal year. That's 44 times more than the next country in line (China). Does anyone know that this war in Iraq is costing every single household in the United States $18,000.00 dollars a year.

Well said, I couldnt have said it better myself, its a shame that the republicans dont realize this and favor such a policy for short term military based economic growth.

What will happen when the military "party" is over and the US is stuck with the biggest debt in history? Will the economy collapse because of incompetent Republican party national spending?

Give the US a new Clinton! I think Hillary Clinton could take on this mess the republicans have created the last 8 years(then), and fix the republican mess with the help of her genious husband Bill Clinton.

I think exactly what the US need is a female president to grab all the testosterone policies by the balls and introduce solidary policies and fix the mess the US have domestically before looking outward.