{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Closed Account:
8/10/2013 7:09:03 AM
40
-
-
Oh, you have so much to learn.
-
Because by reacting to the terrorists like this, we are giving them what they want.
-
Like this: I do not support the War on Terror.
-
1 ReplyYou can't kill an idea.
-
2 RepliesI don't support the War for Oil.
-
1. Because they are liberal 2. Because they are hippies 3. Because they are -blam!-ing retarded and hate America. 4. Because they are a terrorist themselves 5. Or they support terrorism
-
Because wars on ideas and abstract metaphysical things are stupid.
-
3 RepliesYour oppressive governments are the real terrorists.
-
I fully support getting rid of terrorists, why do you think I'm against the United States Government?
-
6 RepliesEdited by Forge Fan92: 5/23/2013 12:17:47 AMBecause it has: Killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent people Caused countries to hate us (who wouldn't if a foreign army invaded their country?) Been there for decades Has wasted trillions of dollars Accomplished absolutely nothing Those are just a few.
-
[quote]How could one not support [u]the[/u] War on Terror?[/quote]No. [quote]How could one not support [u]a[/u] War on Terror?[/quote]Yes.
-
4 RepliesI don't support the war on terror in it's current form because it: - costs taxpayers a huge amount of money - encourages racism - results in more innocent deaths from wars in the middle east; the war on terror has killed many more civilians than "terror" itself
-
5 RepliesThe War On Terror is an excuse for the US to spread its influence and democracy in the Middle East. How is it justified to invade two countries and for over 10 years when the people that planned and executed the attacks on 9/11 were a small group that really had nothing to do with either Iraq or Afghanistan past some small aide they may have received?
-
1 ReplyEdited by Mags: 5/22/2013 10:50:04 PMI support it. Hell, I support it wholeheartedly. Posted by: Quantum: [quote]The only effective way to fight terrorism is through a strong, but reasonably limited intelligence section. [/quote]That's only part of an effective system to defeat terrorism. Yes, you need a strong intelligence community (something we have), but with nothing to act on this intelligence (the execution stage), what good does that do? This is why you have drones, special operations forces, and if need be, forces for limited engagements, i.e French forces in Mali. Speaking of the French, they're doing a good job of how we, as in the western world, should be handling situations like they're facing. Not only are they directly engaging AQIM forces, but also they're training ECOWAS forces to take over when they leave. For sake of saving money, multilateral operations need to happen in order to combat terrorism. Also, to win against terrorism on a large scale, you need a three-pronged attack. Let's use Somalia as an example (this is a direct excerpt from one of my school reports on terrorism): [quote]Somalia just recently achieved a huge milestone of electing a President; as a result, this is improving the lives of their citizens. With this huge political achievement, they are now re-establishing political ties and gaining more assistance from different countries. Then, the UN Arms Embargo on Somalia has been lifted for a year. This will allow countries, like the US, to send weapons to the Somalian military to fight back al-Shabaab, themselves. Along with the political achievement, the economy of Somalia has been improving since this new government came into place. Thanks to reconstruction in the country, markets are opening back up, natural resources in Somalia are finally being utilized, and so on and so forth. With this economic growth, hopefully the general populace can finally get better living conditions. The last prong, militarily, has already been underway since 2007. The African Union forces (along with Ethiopian forces and US assistance) have done a great job of pushing al-Shabaab out of places like Kismayo, Mogadishu and Merca. Now that the US has authorized military aid to Somalia, this trend of pushing back Islamic militants will presumably continue.[/quote] As you can see, these three prongs (military, political, economical) are a good way to combating terrorism on a large scale, like what Somalia is facing. Posted by: EmptyLearner5 [quote]They are in Syria, Yemen, Turkey, Chechnya, Egypt, Sudan and South Sudan, Somalia, Mali, Nigeria, Algeria, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Philippines, Indonesia, and in tons more. [/quote]Fun fact: In almost every single one of these countries, there are counter-terrorism operations being conducted; some better than others, but nevertheless, they're being conducted. I will say that because of poor planning and bad decision making on the Obama administration's part, has led to recent influx of violence in the Syria-Iraq region. No, I'm not claiming the Syrian Civil War in Obama's fault, but what I am saying is that because of us not keeping a residual force in Iraq, it's allowing al-Qaeda in Iraq to operate more freely in places such as al-Anbar province. Subsequently, they've organized a militant group in Syria (al-Nusra Front) which is one of, if not the, best led and most organized opposition groups inside Syria. As a result of al-Nusra's successes in Syria, AQI is now conducting more sectarian killings within Iraq. See, AQI's goal has always been to disrupt and destroy the Iraqi government by way of sectarian bombings and making the government look weak. Now, not only are they bombing more to do that, but also to establish a new safe-haven in Iraq for themselves and their fighters in Syria.
-
we're waging it the wrong way. if we want people to not screw with us we need to be crazier than the opposition. that being said, i would have nuked iraq and afghanistan immediately after 9/11.
-
As many people have said, you can't wage a war on terror. That's like waging a war on blitzkrieg, you simply cannot fight a war against an idea. Furthermore, the War on Terror was carried out very sloppily, it expanded the animosity the world feels toward the USA, and made the United States lose much of its credibility in the international spectrum. The war in Afghanistan is proving to leave the country in shambles full of corruption, heroin, and a strengthening Taliban. The actual way to fight Terrorism is to look at what the USA has done to the peoples of those regions to make them feel so much hatred for the West, and then you can act accordingly. On another note, Iraq. In 1956, the British and the French tried to sell a war based on a lie over the Suez Canal, and it turned out to be a failure only to be exposed later. In 2003, the USA and the UK tried to sell us that Saddam Hussein was making nuclear weapons (despite absolutely crippling sanctions that prevented any such production), and that he was supporting terrorism; ok, this one is ridiculous. Saddam Hussein was a secular leader who crushed many religious extremists, the very Ba'ath Party in Iraq was based on secularism so that Sunnis and Shias wouldn't clash... so the notion that he supported radical islamists is ludicrous. Everybody knows that the war in Iraq was an excuse to exploit its natural resources and bring the income into the hands of Western corporations. Don't get me mistaken, on a human rights note, Saddam Hussein was a horrible tyrant and Iraq is better off without him; the atrocities he committed were unforgiveable, but that wasn't what the US government really cared about seeing as how they supported his rise to power in the late 70s. However, the biggest victim of the War on Terror is the home front. The hysteria that followed the declaration of the War on Terror was a product of the obsession the media was making about all the supposed terrorist plots that were being foiled all across America. Even in tiny communities in remote areas of the US, there were 'foiled' terror plots. I've lived in Puerto Rico my whole life, but the media never tried to sell us that there were Al-Qaeda sponsored plots anywhere... what a coincidence, we also don't participate in federal elections! Therefore, the constant advertisement in terrorism in the US media was exaggerated and used as propaganda to support the war effort, and before you call me a conspiracy nut, I say that the plan the government executed is a completely logical plan that has been used since the dawn of government. This means that there are historical precedents for this type of propaganda such as the Red Scare and the rampant anti-Communist strides during the Cold War (no way in hell was Communism going to overtake the USA, and no way would the Communist Party muster enough support in the US, but the media still emphasized the everlasting threat of Communism), but the difference is that the technology available in the last decade allowed for an unprecedented massive propaganda campaign. Thanks to the War on Terror, civilians have lost their privacy to the security apparatus of the USA with the Patriot Act and other measures. Thanks to the War on Terror, billions of dollars were spent in aggressive campaigns that saw the prestige and credibility of the United States plummet before the international community. The threat of Islamic terrorism to the USA and the West is significant, and it is something that has to be combated because it affects the interests of our governments and the safety of our citizens. However, terrorism cannot be fought like that, it must be confronted with a serious reevaluation of foreign policy priorities and courses of action; oh, and less curtailing of personal freedoms too.
-
6 RepliesIt's much easier to destroy a person's body than to destroy their ideals.
-
3 RepliesYou're trying to fight a concept. You're never going to win. It's asinine. And in the meantime the number of civilians killed from drone strikes has exploded and our personal freedoms have been thrown under the bus for the sake of rooting out terror.
-
It's a battle you can't win. Do I support the war? Nope, not at all. Do I support our soldiers? Damn straight.
-
3 RepliesBecause the Iraq War is already a massive failure, and soon the Afghanistan War will have accomplished very little. Didn't 2 times as many Americans die in these wars (read: soldier deaths, doesn't include contractors)? The only effective way to fight terrorism is through a strong, but reasonably limited intelligence section. One that can respond to individual threats, rather than invade countries for little reason. That, and the [b]fact that the US policy since the 1980's is largely responsible for a lot of this nonsense. [/b]That, and the US's relationship with Israel, which I daresay is based on little reasoning and/or circular logic.
-
Ever hear of blow back?
-
Do I support an effort to end terrorism? Absolutely. Do I approve of the way we're going about it? Absolutely not.
-
Edited by EmptyLearner5: 5/22/2013 4:59:05 PMI hate the war on terror because it's not helping. It's making it grow. They are in Syria, Yemen, Turkey, Chechnya, Egypt, Sudan and South Sudan, Somalia, Mali, Nigeria, Algeria, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Philippines, Indonesia, and in tons more. We even found Osama in PAKISTAN, an allied country. Seriously. Basically, it's like this: You have a tire swing attached to a tree by a rope. Your child wants to play on it. You see a knife pierced in it. You think "Oh dear, I can't have a knife in it!" So you take it out, and what happens? The air comes out and your child can't even play on it anymore. The knife is Afghanistan, the Tire is the Middle East, and the child is America. The parent who took out the knife is Obama/Bush... Plus, don't forget how many innocent people have succumbed to OUR wars that WE started. Lot's more people hate America now because of this joke of a campaign.
-
Don't understand either. These terrorists need to be fought.
-
As Rich Hall said "You can't have a war on a noun"
-
By being a terrorist, OP.
