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

Started by PVS15 pages
Originally posted by The Omega
It's a stupid question to be frank.
You can't wage a war on a CONCEPT fer petes sake. So you have to be more concrete in what it is you're asking.

thank you omega.

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

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then look at it theoretically. I just don't want PVS turning this thread into a Bush bashing thread.

If you believe that nothing would happen, then state that.

...and shakey, my post was on topic, and i never mentioned bush, did i?
so **** off, k?

Hmm, I think no one ever reads my posts....weird.

Originally posted by PVS
thank you omega.

and shakey, my post was on topic, and i never mentioned bush, did i?
so **** off, k?

I expected you to actually mention "GO DUBYA".

Originally posted by The Omega
What do you MEAN by ”loosing the war on terror?” What does that mean to you? What would it take for YOU to say "ok terror won" or "the war on terror is lost", or...

Why does that matter to you?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why does that matter to you?

Just as much as your question to us matters to you, why don't you jsut answer? That would push this thread quite a bit forward.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Just as much as your question to us matters to you, why don't you jsut answer? That would push this thread quite a bit forward.

You define it, if you like. I don't think it can be defined

And PVS, I love you too.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You define it, if you like. I don't think it can be defined

And PVS, I love you too.

So you asked a question you can not answer, while using a term you can not define...so basically this thread is pointless since it is undefined?

Actually, I have to disagree with most of the sentiments posted.

I think we Are in a war, a war unlike any other that's been fought, at least in modern times. And it's gonna take a very, very, very long time (20-50 years, I would guess) to get through it. We will win, eventually, but I fear at great cost.

If we lose--just for arguments sake--then the world will likely reflect, more and more, the mindset of the victors. That happens anyway, right?

Is Bush doing the right thing in how he's handling it? Sure does Not seem that way. Is he exploiting the conflict for capitalist gain? Very likely. Regardless, I do believe this: whatever you wanna call it, the fact is, there are people out there--medieval, barbaric, obsolete in mindset--who are plotting--as we speak, er, type--how next to do us harm.

And make no mistake: those who say a WMD being used in a city is Not a matter of If but When--they're right.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why does that matter to you?

Because I don't understand what you mean by LOOSING THE WAR ON TERROR.
When would you say you could claim this war was LOST? What events should take place?

There's been a high-scale "war on terror" since 2001, and the number of terrorists attacks has risen.

You can really, really not have a War on a concept...that's not how the definition of war works....

Exactly! It's the same with that old "War on drugs"...

Can't ahve a war on some substance either. It's rhetorics... What is MEANT by "war on terror"?

Originally posted by Mindship
Actually, I have to disagree with most of the sentiments posted.

I think we Are in a war, a war unlike any other that's been fought, at least in modern times. And it's gonna take a very, very, very long time (20-50 years, I would guess) to get through it. We will win, eventually, but I fear at great cost.

If we lose--just for arguments sake--then the world will likely reflect, more and more, the mindset of the victors. That happens anyway, right?

Is Bush doing the right thing in how he's handling it? Sure does Not seem that way. Is he exploiting the conflict for capitalist gain? Very likely. Regardless, I do believe this: whatever you wanna call it, the fact is, there are people out there--medieval, barbaric, obsolete in mindset--who are plotting--as we speak, er, type--how next to do us harm.

And make no mistake: those who say a WMD being used in a city is Not a matter of If but When--they're right.

What war? Who started it and when? What makes you so certain "we" will win? What will it take to win a war on a concept?

Originally posted by The Omega
Exactly! It's the same with that old "War on drugs"...

Can't ahve a war on some substance either. It's rhetorics... What is MEANT by "war on terror"?

Was it that Stephen Colbert that PVS fancies so much, that declared the War on Wars? Since, the US seems to need a war to function.

Coooool! Yes, let's declare war on wars... CAn we declare war on idiocy as well?? What about War on Poverty??

Originally posted by The Omega
Coooool! Yes, let's declare war on wars... CAn we declare war on idiocy as well?? What about War on Poverty??

I'm too capitalist, have your war on poverty for yourself.

Yeah... you're right. If poverty won the war... No, I mean... if poverty was destroyed... who'd make our cheap goods...?

Originally posted by The Omega
Yeah... you're right. If poverty won the war... No, I mean... if poverty was destroyed... who'd make our cheap goods...?

Exactly, now you think like us capitalists.

So, you people don't think there is a war. You have rationalized it until you can’t see it, or you don’t care.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you people don't think there is a war. You have rationalized it until you can’t see it, or you don’t care.

Or it just doesn't exist.

Let me put it Bill Hciks for you: "A war is...when two armies are fighting"

Originally posted by The Omega
1. What war?
2. Who started it and when?
3. What makes you so certain "we" will win?
4. What will it take to win a war on a concept?

1. Maybe we disagree on the definition of "war."
Up until now, "wars" have been fought by, what: opposing armies/navies/whatever on a battlefield often removed from civilian populations? The largest of these traditional wars was WWII, pretty much spanning the globe, or likely would have, if the Axis powers started to win. Then came nuclear weapons and the realization that the world was no longer big enough to wage a traditional war, certainly nothing bigger/more explosive than WWII. WWIII--a nuclear conflict--would've been deadly beyond comprehension.
So we entered a new phase: the Cold War, a war of nerves, which we won and became the sole superpower. In the traditional sense, no one could challenge us.
Well, since no one could grow big enough to fight us, the enemy rebounded, so to speak: they got smaller and sneakier, evolving into a form our traditonal way of fighting couldn't well deal with. But the objective is the same: whether it's Nazi armies marching across the land, or a handful of terrorists seeking to plant WMDs, "They" want to force their way of life on "Us," by force if necessary. Not once, not twice, but as often as they can until they reach their objective. They will kill and destroy as much as possible to meet their objective. It is not a limited exchange...this is war.
Also for the first time in history, thanks to WMDs, a single individual has the power to destroy a city. Both persistence over time, and potential scale for destruction, make this a war.

2. Don't know; don't know. Someone once said that on 9/11, 3 things began: the 21st century, Bush's presidency and WWIII.
From what I understand, the impetus for Arab/Islamic discontent supposedly goes back centuries. A historian could answer this better than I. In any event, this is not a traditional war; it does not require a formal declaration. That's how civilized people fight wars. Islamic fascists are not civilized.

3. Because we are bigger, richer and stronger, plus we have to win. Would you wanna live under their rules? Do you consider their way of life a step forward? It's like the rabbit being chased by the fox: the fox runs for a meal; the rabbit runs for its life.

4. It's not a concept. Concepts don't fly planes into buildings and they don't plan to gas subways. And sooner or later, a "concept" is gonna make a mushroom cloud rise over someone's city. Even if there is a 0.1% chance of that happening, it's a 0.1% chance we can't afford. Do you want it happening in your city?

Please understand: I do Not consider the US of A and its leadership angels. The First World is hardly perfect. But a democracy is still the best game in town.