What would be the worse thing to happen if the US lost the war on terrorism?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But you are not answering the question. Please do not derail this thread.

you cant answer the question because it simply isnt a viable question. Terrorism is an idea and you cant fight an idea. Now if you wanna bring in specific groups/countries and what not then that can be discussed.

the "wars" on ideals like terrorism and drugs were lost before they started also, unless we turn into some weird sci-fi movie world where no one can think its a losing battle. Its more about controlling the bleeding than it is curing the wound.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
What war?!? You cannot fight a war on "terror", it's even more nondescript than the war on drugs and the war on poverty. It is just a blanket term to be used when useful.

Where exactly is conventional warfare being used to "fight terror"? Iraq was not associated with Al-Qaeda until after it was invaded. There were no WMDs. There was no legitimacy behind the invasion.

I'm sure "terror" is shaking in it's anthropomorphic stylish-yet-affordable boots.

Haven't been keeping up with the news lately have you? Documents have been found linking Saddam to various terrorist organizations, including al qaeda. More than 500 canisters of mustard and sarin gas have been found since 2003. All the lefts talking points are being proven wrong.

And as far as where conventional warfare is being used to fight terror, iraq and afghanistan. Conventional warfare = uniformed troops take guns and shoot at the enemy, drop bombs, etc. What exactly did you think we were trying to do out there? Cause it sure wasn't about oil.

Originally posted by forumcrew
you cant answer the question because it simply isnt a viable question. Terrorism is an idea and you cant fight an idea. Now if you wanna bring in specific groups/countries and what not then that can be discussed.

the "wars" on ideals like terrorism and drugs were lost before they started also, unless we turn into some weird sci-fi movie world where no one can think its a losing battle. Its more about controlling the bleeding than it is curing the wound.

Excellent post.

Originally posted by docb77
Haven't been keeping up with the news lately have you? Documents have been found linking Saddam to various terrorist organizations, including al qaeda.

Please provide a link to that information.

Originally posted by docb77
More than 500 canisters of mustard and sarin gas have been found since 2003.

They have all been considered old stock that was pretty much useless and not a threat. It was impossible for Saddam to use these against the states and they are by no means the feared WMD's.

Originally posted by docb77
All the lefts talking points are being proven wrong.

No they haven't.

Originally posted by docb77
Cause it sure wasn't about oil.

Yes it was.

Originally posted by KharmaDog

Please provide a link to that information.

here's what's official: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

here's what isn't: http://tinyurl.com/remzr

Originally posted by KharmaDog
They have all been considered old stock that was pretty much useless and not a threat. It was impossible for Saddam to use these against the states and they are by no means the feared WMD's.

Old doesn't mean not dangerous. Do you know how we treat the stock still waiting destruction from 30-40 years ago. Top level hazmat that's how. It isn't something that you'd want in the hands of terrorists. It may not have been as dangerous as new stuff, but to say that it was useless is blind ignorance. The real significance of the finds though is that things have been found and continue to be found. Now if you were hiding weapons, would you hide the old stuff better than the newer stuff?

QUOTE=6818263]Originally posted by KharmaDog
No they haven't.[/QUOTE]

What are the talking points. Saddam wasn't a threat, he didn't have WMD's, and if we just got out everything would be better. Sounds like a load of BS to me.

QUOTE=6818263]Originally posted by KharmaDog
Yes it was. [/QUOTE]

If it was about oil, then why didn't we take any of it. Why is it that we've given the iraqi's full control of the oil reserves? In my opinion we should have taken enough to pay for the military actions in Iraq and left the rest for them, but we didn't even do that. No, it definitely wasn't about oil.

I would be more worried about what the "Controllers" are going to allow Iran to get away with.

To be honest, I don't believe that if any Nuclear attack comes from Iran within the next few years at all, that it's going to be from something that was produced there. I have a personal belief that any nuclear attack that is launched will not come from materials produced in Iran, but will instead come from materials that were put together in Libya. A country that we have all turned a blind eye towards just because they pretended to end their programs. Are you serious? These people have been preparing their weapons since they started them. Do people really believe Libya when they said they were sorry and that they gave up all their work on their nuclear research project?

It's a joke. The whole World has bought into the lie that Libya produced. I will bet any amount of money that Libya is still conducting it's nuclear research behind the scenes and that by now it has successfully developed weapons of some sort or another which are capable of nuclear destruction. Now it's just a question of when. Keep in mind though, just because Iran will not be producing these weapons any time soon, doesn't mean they won't be using the ones that will be available from their neighbors. Only by the time a nuclear attack finally commences, people all around the World will be left scratching their heads wondering how they were able to do it.

I doubt that they trust them completely at all. There must be inspectors like there were in Iraq pre-invasion. My guess is that they're getting cooperation like they never got in Iraq and that gives a little more peace of mind than what Saddam was doing, ie. trying to control the inspections.

Originally posted by docb77
here's what's official: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

here's what isn't: http://tinyurl.com/remzr

Originally posted by docb77
Old doesn't mean not dangerous. Do you know how we treat the stock still waiting destruction from 30-40 years ago. Top level hazmat that's how. It isn't something that you'd want in the hands of terrorists. It may not have been as dangerous as new stuff, but to say that it was useless is blind ignorance. The real significance of the finds though is that things have been found and continue to be found. Now if you were hiding weapons, would you hide the old stuff better than the newer stuff?

The Iraq Survey Group already reported knowledge of the existence of these degraded munitions:
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."

You obviously watch too much FOX news.

Originally posted by docb77
What are the talking points. Saddam wasn't a threat, he didn't have WMD's, and if we just got out everything would be better. Sounds like a load of BS to me.

Originally posted by docb77
If it was about oil, then why didn't we take any of it. Why is it that we've given the iraqi's full control of the oil reserves? In my opinion we should have taken enough to pay for the military actions in Iraq and left the rest for them, but we didn't even do that. No, it definitely wasn't about oil.

Originally posted by docb77
I doubt that they trust them completely at all. There must be inspectors like there were in Iraq pre-invasion. My guess is that they're getting cooperation like they never got in Iraq and that gives a little more peace of mind than what Saddam was doing, ie. trying to control the inspections.

Yes but doc...

Are you willing to base all your hopes on a "probably"?

Words like, "there must be" or, "I'm sure there is", just don't seem to give me that much confidence in Libya's promises. In fact to be honest...the thought of it just plain creeps me out.

Originally posted by Mindship
It was in the context of our whole series of posts. Had it been an isolated statement, I could well have come away with a different sense of your position regarding the US.

In fact, initially, I did not entirely disagree with you regarding China. Economically, I would imagine it will become an economic superpower, as, I would think, the European Union.

Curious. Would me hypothetically being anti-USA automatically make me arguments any less valid?? And initially the comment of China was exactly what made you decide I was somehow anti-USA.

Originally posted by docb77
I agree that there will always be terrorists until we eliminate the causes. But if we don't fight the war now, we won't be around to remedy the root of the beast later. Ideally the present war gets rid of the most intractable of the islamofacists leaving some sort of leadership that we can learn to trust and negociate with. We may not be able to completely rid ourselves of the threat of terrorism with conventional warefare, but without the conventional warfare, we'd be doing too much damage control to think about the ideological warfare.

“We” fight? Are you in the army? This war does exactly what we need to change – create more terrorists on a daily basis. And what are the armies in Iraq fighting?? A large conventional army is not cut out to deal with militias and guerrilla warfare on the scale taking place in Iraq – and which costs so many lives on a daily basis.
Any idea how the West could get rid of the most fanatical Muslims? Must leadership in the area be trustworthy in OUR eyes?

Originally posted by docb77
Documents have been found linking Saddam to various terrorist organizations, including al qaeda.

Originally posted by docb77

More than 500 canisters of mustard and sarin gas have been found since 2003. All the lefts talking points are being proven wrong.

Can you supply a link for this also? I have heard nothing about this at all here in Europe. "The lefts"? Why are you bringing absolutes into this debate?

Originally posted by NuclearWinter
I would be more worried about what the "Controllers" are going to allow Iran to get away with.

Omega please don't get my message mixed up.

What I call the "Controllers" are not the same as the United States to me. They are far above any one nation.

So your arguement about how I live in a country that has Nuclear weapons is void in that sense.

You are correct on how the Controllers have allowed for the United States to run free with their Nuclear Ambitions as well.

But in speaking in terms of these people who pull the strings, you can't look at them in terms of any SINGLE country. They let Nations run wild everywhere. And then they take advantage of the reactions to what they do.

So for them it's basicly "Letting the neighbors dog loose", and when he causes trouble, take both sides of the issue and see how you can benefit from it the most.

Originally posted by The Omega
1. Curious. Would me hypothetically being anti-USA automatically make me arguments any less valid?? 2. And initially the comment of China was exactly what made you decide I was somehow anti-USA.

1. IMO, yes. In the absence of any unambiguous/unequivocal reasons for seeing the USA as the root cause of "Islamofacism," it would mean an emotional--ie, prejudicial--element to your POV.
2. Your sentence is unclear to me, but I guess you're asking again for the exact moment I decided you were antiAmerica based solely on your comments about China. There was no exact sentence pertaining to China, per se. Again, had we been discussing China as a developing economic power--and nothing else--I doubt I would've inferred any anti-USA sentiment. In fact, I even somewhat agreed with you ("...off on tangents, and an assumption about China, which, at best, would be true economically."😉

I'm curious. Why is this China Factor important to you?

Originally posted by Mindship
1. IMO, yes. In the absence of any unambiguous/unequivocal reasons for seeing the USA as the root cause of "Islamofacism," it would mean an emotional--ie, prejudicial--element to your POV.
2. Your sentence is unclear to me, but I guess you're asking again for the exact moment I decided you were antiAmerica based solely on your comments about China. There was no exact sentence pertaining to China, per se. Again, had we been discussing China as a developing economic power--and nothing else--I doubt I would've inferred any anti-USA sentiment. In fact, I even somewhat agreed with you ("...off on tangents, and an assumption about China, which, at best, would be true economically."😉

I'm curious. Why is this China Factor important to you?

Because, what she is saying, is true. In the years to come, China will challenge the US. But bringing this point up in her argument showed a desire for someone to challenge the US.

That was my impression.

Originally posted by NuclearWinter
Omega please don't get my message mixed up.

What I call the "Controllers" are not the same as the United States to me. They are far above any one nation.

So your arguement about how I live in a country that has Nuclear weapons is void in that sense.

You are correct on how the Controllers have allowed for the United States to run free with their Nuclear Ambitions as well.

But in speaking in terms of these people who pull the strings, you can't look at them in terms of any SINGLE country. They let Nations run wild everywhere. And then they take advantage of the reactions to what they do.

So for them it's basicly "Letting the neighbors dog loose", and when he causes trouble, take both sides of the issue and see how you can benefit from it the most.

My comment was directed at "someone" living in a country whose government controls nuclear weapons voicing his concern that ANOTHER country would acquire the same WMD...
Would Iranian nuclear weapons worry you?

Originally posted by Mindship
1. IMO, yes. In the absence of any unambiguous/unequivocal reasons for seeing the USA as the root cause of "Islamofacism," it would mean an emotional--ie, prejudicial--element to your POV.

Curious. You do not see your own very PRO-USA stance as a problem in the creation of arguments. Your stance is deduced from the fact that you proclaimed me anti-USA based on NO attack what so ever on the country, merely concerns about the abilities and actions of its current leadership.

Originally posted by Mindship

2. Your sentence is unclear to me, but I guess you're asking again for the exact moment I decided you were antiAmerica based solely on your comments about China. There was no exact sentence pertaining to China, per se. Again, had we been discussing China as a developing economic power--and nothing else--I doubt I would've inferred any anti-USA sentiment. In fact, I even somewhat agreed with you ("...off on tangents, and an assumption about China, which, at best, would be true economically."😉

I'm curious. Why is this China Factor important to you?

Your initial argument was that "we" will win because "we" have to, and will because the USA is the only superpower. Since this conflict will be a drawn-out affair the latter argument is a claim, and not even an argument, and is challenged by the mere fact that another superpower will arise within the next few decades - that is - before this conflict most likely will have any kind of solution.

Originally posted by forumcrew
you cant answer the question because it simply isnt a viable question. Terrorism is an idea and you cant fight an idea. Now if you wanna bring in specific groups/countries and what not then that can be discussed.

the "wars" on ideals like terrorism and drugs were lost before they started also, unless we turn into some weird sci-fi movie world where no one can think its a losing battle. Its more about controlling the bleeding than it is curing the wound.

Terrorism has a broad definition. When you say that "wars" on ideals like terrorism and drugs were lost does that mean we throw our hands up and say "what's the point?" I don't think that's the right approach.

The police continues to fight crime...and crime has been with us ever since the begining. So is it a good idea for the police to get disband and let criminals just get away with it? There are other methods for fighting. One way is to prevent them by means of education. The idea here is to show these terrorist that we're not the "infidels" they proclaim. We're just as humans as they are. Here the fight changes from physical to educational.

Originally posted by The Omega
Curious. You do not see your own very PRO-USA stance as a problem in the creation of arguments. Your stance is deduced from the fact that you proclaimed me anti-USA based on NO attack what so ever on the country, merely concerns about the abilities and actions of its current leadership.

This factor is just important because it seems to me, that my argument that another superpower is on the rise made you decide I was somehow anti-USA, which therefore led you to leave the discussion, when there was no inherent anti-USA arguments made on my behalf.

Your initial argument was that "we" will win because "we" have to, and will because the USA is the only superpower. Since this conflict will be a drawn-out affair the latter argument is a claim, and not even an argument, and is challenged by the mere fact that another superpower will arise within the next few decades - that is - before this conflict most likely will have any kind of solution.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Terrorism has a broad definition. When you say that "wars" on ideals like terrorism and drugs were lost does that mean we throw our hands up and say "what's the point?" I don't think that's the right approach.

The police continues to fight crime...and crime has been with us ever since the begining. So is it a good idea for the police to get disband and let criminals just get away with it? There are other methods for fighting. One way is to prevent them by means of education. The idea here is to show these terrorist that we're not the "infidels" they proclaim. We're just as humans as they are. Here the fight changes from physical to educational.

We have specific laws that very clearly specifies WHAT constitutes a crime.
Define "terrorist". Some say freedom-fighters, other say terrorists. The family members of the Iraqis that were gunned down by marines would probably call those marines terrorists.
Is the drug-problem better today in the states after the long "war"?
I believe it's VERY important to have clear definitions - otherwise we will run the risk that anyone who does not behave according to our governments will be classified "terrorists". Or even people in our own countries who choose to support freedom-fighters will be accused of supporting terrorists.

Originally posted by The Omega
We have specific laws that very clearly specifies WHAT constitutes a crime.
Define "terrorist". Some say freedom-fighters, other say terrorists. The family members of the Iraqis that were gunned down by marines would probably call those marines terrorists.
Is the drug-problem better today in the states after the long "war"?
I believe it's VERY important to have clear definitions - otherwise we will run the risk that anyone who does not behave according to our governments will be classified "terrorists". Or even people in our own countries who choose to support freedom-fighters will be accused of supporting terrorists.

As I said The definition of a terrorist is very broad. However, trying to strech it to "freedom-fighters" is absolutely flawed.

Terrorist target civilians and military compounds. They would also kill their own people intentionally to attain their means.

Freedom Fighters are individuals who are in rebellion against an oppressive and illegitimate government. However they don't target civilians they target the ruling military.

When a terrorist straps a bomb to himself/herself and walks towards a public place an blows up killing by standers....what freedom is he/she fighting for? Explain that one to me. What is the message they're sending?

A freedom fighter has a specific target. The military...nothing more.

The family of those Iraqi victims are most likely to label the Marines as murderers rather than terrorist. And they need to be put on trial to show this people that actions such as those won't be tolerated.

Is the drug-problem better today in the states after the long "war"?

Educating people on the dangers of certains drugs is very helpful. At the moment I think is still undecided on whether it's winning or losing. But as stated earlier you do not just throw your hands up and give up. You educate...that's the key.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Terrorist target civilians and military compounds.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Freedom Fighters are individuals who are in rebellion against an oppressive and illegitimate government. However they don't target civilians they target the ruling military.

Since some individuals, apparently, do not see a significant difference between, say, how the American leadership conducts its affairs (which is certainly far from perfect), and how the pre-war Iraqi leadership had conducted its affairs, my guess is, if one were to ask any of these individuals, "Which country would you choose to live in?" they would just as soon choose (pre-war) Iraq, Iran or Syria as they would America, England or Israel.

Three cheers for absolute relativism!