Why a "war on terror"?? It's a bad idea

[proudpegger]

"War on Terror": good decision?

What was Bush thinking when he decided to declare a “war on terror”? Was it like the loony left tells us…he wanted perpetual war so he can control the masses through fear and patriotism? Or is it like he says…something self-apparent which has been thrust on him and all freedom-loving people?

Read rest here: http://allpoliticsnow.com/content/view/20/1/

Excellent points IMO. It was not only uneccessary to declare a "war on terror", but might actually have made things worse as the article points out.
I hope our leadership stops using the phrase. Someone with a little courage should actually denounce it as unhelpful.

 

[Toro]

I agree.

And let's never use the phrase "war on poverty" either.

Why would we want to declare war on poor people after all? :? :?

 

[Jersay]

I agree as well. Because this isn't really a war on terror. Just a war on Islamic terrorism when there are hundreds to thousands of other terrorist groups that are not under America's interest.

 

[Jay]

I wonder why that is....

 

[Jersay]

Because the other's aren't in any concern for American interests where resources or friendly governments are needed for things like oil or to combat other unfriendly nations, lets say China and Russia and possibly Iran and others.

 

[Finder]

Loonie left or not, they were right in what they had said orginally. Bush declared a perpetual war which there is no forseeable end. Hell when you even consider The Islamic Republic and Iraq and see that both of these conflics aren't slowing down now, it's hard to see them winning the whole battle against terrorist orginizations around the world. Considering the USA declared that the insurgency was in it's death throws almost two years ago, and by the looks of things they are not to this day.

 

[dekhqonbacha]

"war on terror" will end once Bush's presidency ends.

 

[dekhqonbacha]

or it will continue?

By definition, a war on a tactic can never end.

 

[Jersay]

Well can someone answer my question. There are tens of thousands of terrorist groups in the world from all walks of life, religious, political, environmental, seperatist and others, why isn't America targeting all forms of terror and all these groups and only targetting Muslims and the Middle East??

 

[Jay]

Because Jersay, it is their prerogative to protect their interests and pick and choose who represents what threats to what.


And how do you know who they are watching and who they are not. Are you privy to something the rest of us aren't?

 

[DurkaDurka]

RE: Why a "war on terror"

Do you think it's practical to go after every Terrorist organization?

You answered your own question earlier. They are targeting countries/groups that affect their "interests". Like it or not, it's quite simple.

 

[fuflans]

Because it was allegedly Muslims from the Middle East who attacked the US on 9/11 and not every terrorist group in the world threatens the US or its interests?

I understand what you are saying and agree that it's a silly name.

Edit: Err, what they said

 

[Jersay]

Well, I do check regularly on a Republican sponsored Terrorist (Organization) System every once and a while stating about terrorism and terrorist organizations that go back to I believe the 1960s, and there are tens of thousands of names. And maybe 1/8 is inactive, so not a terrorist group for some unknown reason, but if you check you can look to see which ones the U.S, England and Canada are watching and most if not all are Muslim in origin.

The place is called MIPT.

 

[Jersay]

Then it shouldn't be called War on Terror because it is deceiving. It should be called a War on Muslim Extremism, or a War on People who Attack our assests.

Well I guess these names in the Media wouldn't be so cool sounding and get as much attention.

 

[elevennevele]

Then it shouldn't be called War on Terror because it is deceiving. It should be called a War on Muslim Extremism, or a War on People who Attack our assests.

Well I guess these names in the Media wouldn't be so cool sounding and get as much attention.

It's called the dumbing down of the public by the politicians, some of whom, by their own contribution to all this bloodshed, have become extremists themselves.

 

[aeon]

I agree.

And let's never use the phrase "war on poverty" either.

Why would we want to declare war on poor people after all? :? :?

How do you call the war in iraq?

Iraqies are and were poor, mainly because of United Sanction and wars imposed by great nations like, uk and usa, now iraqies are still poor, and now us and Uk coorporation are making great profit on oil in iraq, when thousand of poor peoples are dying, fucking great isnt?

 

[Karlin]

It should be called a War on People who Attack our assests.

Or how about "A war on People who Attack our assets ON THEIR SOILS after we forced our way in to build them, often using treacherous tactics like installing Saddam first to get our foot in the door, and to get someone in power who will do our bidding but is horribly terribly brutal to his own people"

Ya, like that?

 

[Jay]

I agree.

And let's never use the phrase "war on poverty" either.

Why would we want to declare war on poor people after all? :? :?

How do you call the war in iraq?

Iraqies are and were poor, mainly because of United Sanction and wars imposed by great nations like, uk and usa, now iraqies are still poor, and now us and Uk coorporation are making great profit on oil in iraq, when thousand of poor peoples are dying, *censored* great isnt?

Why did those sanctions get imposed by the UN?

 

[Jersay]

To ensure Saddam didn't get weapons of mass destruction, however there was debate about the civilian aspect where some members thought it went to far, and it would have killed even more people if the Oil for Food hadn't occured. I believe about 100,000 to 500,000 because of the sanctions.

 

[Jay]

So people should place the blame where it is due...on Saddam.