War on Terrorism, has it been effective in five years

[Researcher87]

Well lets take a look at the War on Terrorism. There has been four conflicts that have been associated with the American War on Terrorism;

First off we will take alook at the incident that caused this war;

Sept 11; 3,000 American dead and many more wounded.

Then there is Afghanistan from Oct 2001 to Oct 2006 which is a five year war; (Decided status: Undecided) It does not look like this will be a victory for NATO or the Taliban at this point in time because they will need incidents to occur on both sides for their side 'either side' to be considered victorious. Plan and simple, if NATO and Americans commit a few crimes and kill hundreds of civilians of course they will lose and the Taliban or another force will come back into power.

The NATO's road to victory is extremely difficult on the other hand. But is attainable.

Statistics;

Afghan: 10,000 dead
Foreign (Al Qaida): 2,000-3,000
Coalition: 500 +

Possible conclusion: NATO victory. (That is my guess)

Warizstan Conflict was a conflict on the Pakistani border that dealt with Taliban and Pakistani Pashtun tribal warriors and it needed a Pakistani victory to ensure that Taliban rebels didn't cross the border. It lasted from June 2004 to June 2006, roughly around about two years of combat and it was ended with a peace agreement which was the first loss of America's War on Terror.

Statistics:

Warizstan, Al Qaida, Taliban: 3,000 +
Pakistani: 1,000- 3,000

Conclusion: Pakistani and American loss.

Iraq:

A war in Iraq that was suppose to be for WMD, then to help the ****es and Kurds against Saddam agression, then a connection with 9/11, and now a fight against Islamic fascism.

Iraqi: 100,000 - 150,000
American: 2,759
Coalition, 3,000 +

Conclusion: Result in the destruction of Iraq as a country and a second American loss in the War on Terrorism.

Israeli-Lebanon conflict:

Summer of 2006 a fight between Hezbollah and Israel. Lasted a month, because Israel wanted to first destroy Hezbollah and then destroy their arms and finally push them back 30 kilometers and did neither of the three objectives a third American, Israeli War on Terrorism loss.

Statistics:

Lebanon: 1,000+
Israel; 157
UN: 7

COnclusion: AMerican and Israeli loss.

Total: Nearly 200,000 people killed in a war on Terror. Was it necessary?

 

[gopher]

The report recently released by Johns Hopkins University puts the amount of Iraqi deaths at over 650,000. JHU is the East Coast's most CONSERVATIVE college. Therefore, no one need refer to it or to anyone who believes it as "leftist" or some other such nonsense.

And no, these deaths are not worth it.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

it's nonsense to believe you can even try to have a war on terror. Terror is unpredictable, it hides in the shadows, it never truely goes away. When I first saw GWB make the speech about a "war on terror", I thought "oh my goodness, surely one man or one country cannot be that stupid or ignorant?"..but nope, I was wrong.

Besides, a terrorist is only a point of view. In the eyes of many people, it is the US who is the terrorist (well they do have a record in state-funded terrorism), I mean, backing the Shah (that got the US a very bad name alone), Israel, and basically the US is abhorrent to many countries around the world.

They might as well be fighting shadows, because that's basically what they're doing. Afghanistan...maybe a fair point there, Iraq...no one will ever convince me that's not wither about oil or doing daddy's dirty work.

It'll never be won, surely you all know this?.

Let's do what the british commander said and get the hell out of there now.

 

[MikeyDB]

No its not.

Terrorism of the universal kind (not just the US vs THEM of the current themes of war and destruction) is readily witnessed in Canada and in the United States on a regular basis. If it's not kidnapping "potential" terrorists and sending them to Syria, its breaking down doors to confiscate computer equipment. If its not the BATF and the FBI shooting it out with a bunch of Branch Davidians its culling the herd at Ruby Ridge.

When people like Janet Reno and the hawks on Pennsylvania avenue are calling the shots, terrorism will always have a home. It wouldn't matter to anyone (one might conclude from reading the contributions here at Can Con..) that even if you caught the bad guys red handed that it would ultimately turn out to be someone anyone else but the right wingers behind the incident.

It was someone else involved in Watergate, it was someone else involved with Monka, it was someone else who manufactured the Iran Missile crisis not Ollie North and Ronny Raygun!

Someone else shot John Kennedy and there's every reasonable suspicion that Jack Ruby was actually a Moslem!

Hey ain't it great when you don't have to pay any attention to the reality that flows around you and some smart cookie like George Bush or Donald Rumsfeld fingers the bad guys?

Like in the tinfoil hat thread, anyone who imagines for a moment that there's any need to examine the reality of what these wonderful folk tell us....must be a conspiracy nut or some liberal asshead who's being paid by the Palestinians to post gobbledegook on Canadian websites...

It's all perfectly clear dontcha see.....

 

[Daz_Hockey]

No its not.

Terrorism of the universal kind (not just the US vs THEM of the current themes of war and destruction) is readily witnessed in Canada and in the United States on a regular basis. If it's not kidnapping "potential" terrorists and sending them to Syria, its breaking down doors to confiscate computer equipment. If its not the BATF and the FBI shooting it out with a bunch of Branch Davidians its culling the herd at Ruby Ridge.

When people like Janet Reno and the hawks on Pennsylvania avenue are calling the shots, terrorism will always have a home. It wouldn't matter to anyone (one might conclude from reading the contributions here at Can Con..) that even if you caught the bad guys red handed that it would ultimately turn out to be someone anyone else but the right wingers behind the incident.

It was someone else involved in Watergate, it was someone else involved with Monka, it was someone else who manufactured the Iran Missile crisis not Ollie North and Ronny Raygun!

Someone else shot John Kennedy and there's every reasonable suspicion that Jack Ruby was actually a Moslem!

Hey ain't it great when you don't have to pay any attention to the reality that flows around you and some smart cookie like George Bush or Donald Rumsfeld fingers the bad guys?

Like in the tinfoil hat thread, anyone who imagines for a moment that there's any need to examine the reality of what these wonderful folk tell us....must be a conspiracy nut or some liberal asshead who's being paid by the Palestinians to post gobbledegook on Canadian websites...

It's all perfectly clear dontcha see.....

I can honestly say, that's the first time I've ever heard them being called that!!!

 

[Hotshot]

The yankees and buskinski are the terrorists in the world. They are still running around tooting their own horns and acting like terrorists, so I would say 'No the war on terrorists has not been effective'.

 

[Hotshot]

Someone else shot John Kennedy and there's every reasonable suspicion that Jack Ruby was actually a Moslem!

I assume you are joking....

 

[earth_as_one]

Terrorism is a tactic, not something which can be fought.

Another way of looking at this is war is our form of terrorism, terrorism is their form of war.

This is really a war for control of the middle east and its resources. Eventually the people who call the middle east home will expell the foreigners. The only question is how bloody the transistion will be.

 

[Researcher87]

I agree with all the statements that have been put forward by these members.