war on terror-can the us win?

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: eigen
Winning is not a problem , doing so in a way that does not appear to be genocidal poses certain problems.Oh, and we did not lose Vietnam.

We did not lose, correct. Nor did we win. I am not an expert or anything, but it seems to me that we had no stradegy. Or one so strict that we could not get objective accomplished expeditiously. And our Governments limits on what our troops could and could not do cost thousands of lives.

tomwolfman: "is it time for us ,the perceived enemy of these fanatics to try and sort out our differences with the arab world."

We don't have a problem with the Arab world. Seems that the only difference we have with the fanactical terriosts, is that they hate us and want us dead.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: Encryptic
Yeah, the US will win the war on terror, just like they're going to win the war on drugs.

oh yeah, you're right, that's the same thing since we invade drug producing countries and place them under military rule.

Which ones? (unless sarcasm was intended)

 

[JoeKing]

What sucks is the term "Terror" is so broad the administration can choose change their definition of the word at any time. Claiming victory whenever they want, or when the people are tired of the "war".

 

[TranSoft]

It's a lost...
you come in to a country w/ troops and come back losing hundreds and thousands of them... and what good came out of it???
it's a lost!

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: eigen
Winning is not a problem , doing so in a way that does not appear to be genocidal poses certain problems.Oh, and we did not lose Vietnam.

We did not lose, correct. Nor did we win. I am not an expert or anything, but it seems to me that we had no stradegy. Or one so strict that we could not get objective accomplished expeditiously. And our Governments limits on what our troops could and could not do cost thousands of lives.

tomwolfman: "is it time for us ,the perceived enemy of these fanatics to try and sort out our differences with the arab world."

We don't have a problem with the Arab world. Seems that the only difference we have with the fanactical terriosts, is that they hate us and want us dead.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: KthxBye

Originally posted by: eigen
Oh, and we did not lose Vietnam.

...How do you figure? The goal of the vietnam conflict was to maintain the independence of South Vietnam and last I saw it isn't on the maps anymore.

Oh and no we can't win the war on terror, its a fundemental human emotion.

The original intent was to stop the spread of communism. There we failed. ??? However, at the time, this was equated to the USSR & China.
The line was drawn at Korea and still stands. The USSR no longer exists in the original Stalin style form.

S Vietnam does not exist, however, Vietnam & Cambodia are no longer acting like/are Soviet puppets.

Maybe because there is no Soviet Union anymore!

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: Encryptic
Yeah, the US will win the war on terror, just like they're going to win the war on drugs.

oh yeah, you're right, that's the same thing since we invade drug producing countries and place them under military rule.

You miss the point. The similarity is that you cannot win a war against an enigma that has no borders, no leader, has been around as long as mankind itself. There will always be drugs. There will always be terrorists. You can declare war on them all you want. You might even cut them down in size, but you will never win outright in the conventional sense of the word.

 

[Siddhartha]

If you mean win as the Allies won in Europe and in Japan, no.

 

Read the book "Catch 22".

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: TommyVercetti
We got rid of the terrorists in Afghanistan, and now we got rid of them in Iraq. We are winning, and already have.

You are ill informed.

 

[jurzdevil]

US war on T = maybe
ATOT war on ATPN = this thread is a loss

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: tomwolfman
is it time for us ,the perceived enemy of these fanatics to try and sort out our differences with the arab world.

Unless you think everyone in the world is going to convert to fundamental Islam, there is no "sorting out our differences" with people like Bin Laden.
It is very true that U.S. policy, both past and present, is one of the reasons foreign governments and leaders have helped support terrorists.
So changing our policy and negotiating with some Arab countries could certainly weaken the support of these terrorist groups.
But at it's heart, the goal of Islamic Jihad is to kill or convert every non-muslim on the planet.
No matter what our international politics are like, this goal will not change.
We may be able to reduce the level of support for terrorist groups, but the only way to really eliminate them completely is to capture or kill every last member.

And by the way, WTF is up with all the politics threads showing up in OT lately.
I start one thread about my triple-boot OS system and it's immediately moved to the OS area, where of course it takes days to get a response.
But here we have all kinds of politics and news posts in the wrong forum and the mods don't seem to care.

 

[stormbv]

Good always conquers Evil.

 

[johnjosh]

i predict we will get hit on us soil by terrorist in the next 2 years and maybe even much sooner then that. No we will never win as u can't stop the people that are not afraid to die. The best thing that we can do is minimize the damage that is done to us.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Staley8
I think we need an organization similar to the movie Swordfish. I want a black ops organization that will attack anyone who has done harm or has been perceived as doing harm on the US. They should attack swiftly and with such fury that nobody would dare attack the US or it's citizens for fear of what will happen to them and their organization. And of course the US would have no knowledge of this group nor would the US fund it....on the books anyway.

That strategy relies on making the enemy too scared of you to risk retribution for an attack.
But when you think dying for your cause will get you eternal life in paradise with 72 virgins, there's not much to lose and not much deterrent value there.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Shanti

But when you think dying for your cause will get you eternal life in paradise with 72 virgins, there's not much to lose and not much deterrent value there.

But sooner or later they will run out of virgins. Then what will their incentive be.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: KthxBye

Originally posted by: eigen Oh, and we did not lose Vietnam.

...How do you figure? The goal of the vietnam conflict was to maintain the independence of South Vietnam and last I saw it isn't on the maps anymore. Oh and no we can't win the war on terror, its a fundemental human emotion.

But we can minimize the occurrence of said emotion. Think of it like the war of drugs

It's funny you should say that, with the invasion of Afghanastan opium production has skyrocketed. It used to be that opium was impossible to find, now it's just really hard to find it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: KthxBye

Originally posted by: eigen Oh, and we did not lose Vietnam.

...How do you figure? The goal of the vietnam conflict was to maintain the independence of South Vietnam and last I saw it isn't on the maps anymore. Oh and no we can't win the war on terror, its a fundemental human emotion.

But we can minimize the occurrence of said emotion. Think of it like the war of drugs

It's funny you should say that, with the invasion of Afghanastan opium production has skyrocketed. It used to be that opium was impossible to find, now it's just really hard to find it.

The Taliban condemmed drug usage. Now that threat is gone, the farmers can start generating their cash crop again.

 

[StageLeft]

It's like a war against violence. You can never win or lose. There will always be violence. There will always be/always has been terrorism.

Here in Ireland the british lost the war on terror and evetually had to negotiate a settlement with the ira.how long can america hold out against determined terrorists and if god forbid there is another atrocity of some sort what direction will the war on terror take thereafter.

First of all, Britain has been the target of homeland terrorism before most Americans could even spell the word. The IRA have been launching attacks for decades. Terrorism to most Americans is a new word. Also, though the scale is much smaller than 9/11, Britain has been continually getting hit. The US, on the other hand, hasn't had anything done on the mainland in over two years.

and maybe there are secret negotiations going on with al qaeda to see what the hell they want

For America to die? It's rather hard for America to willingly agree to that. I should actually rescind my statement on winning/losing. If the US as a whole fell apart and became something else as a result of terrorism, then it will have lost. It still can't "win" in that terrorism is gone for good.

 

[tomwolfman]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's like a war against violence. You can never win or lose. There will always be violence. There will always be/always has been terrorism.

Here in Ireland the british lost the war on terror and evetually had to negotiate a settlement with the ira.how long can america hold out against determined terrorists and if god forbid there is another atrocity of some sort what direction will the war on terror take thereafter.

First of all, Britain has been the target of homeland terrorism before most Americans could even spell the word. The IRA have been launching attacks for decades. Terrorism to most Americans is a new word. Also, though the scale is much smaller than 9/11, Britain has been continually getting hit. The US, on the other hand, hasn't had anything done on the mainland in over two years.

and maybe there are secret negotiations going on with al qaeda to see what the hell they want

For America to die? It's rather hard for America to willingly agree to that. I should actually rescind my statement on winning/losing. If the US as a whole fell apart and became something else as a result of terrorism, then it will have lost. It still can't "win" in that terrorism is gone for good.

i can't figure out what you're saying but the 'war' here in ireland has ended ,what are the US going to do when or if they find sealing up borders doesn't work,al qaeda are big hitters compared to the IRA and god forbid another 9/11 which is their aim will neccessitate different tactics imo