war on terrorism

[medowbrookgoer39]

Interesting topic of discussion. I thought i'd begin it with an article about blowback.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21312504/

What are all of your thoughts on the subject?

[lordofthesquishies]

I don't even know anymore... I understand why we got in: oil, vengeance, and protection. I understand why we should get out: Problems have increased, it's costing loads of money, people are dying. I understand the argument for why we should stay: protection of ourselves and re-establishment of their government.

And to me it all looks like Vietnam: Unwinnable.

I'm confused, and I just plan on reading the text books that come out for history courses in the last year of my life. Maybe they'll finally have a clear perspective.

[Pastor Scott]

I think this is an argument of every war-time occupation. The 3rd Reich was certainly motivated by the occupation of enemy forces for a while. The difference here is that the Al Qaida are much more determined than the Nazis. Perhaps their leadership is even more commanding than Hitler or maybe it's just the fact that their cause plays on their faith as well. The other interesting thing is that their lack of organization and structure is actually a benefit in this case.

To win any war it takes equal determination from the opposing forces and it looks clear that the opposing force to Al Qaida just won't ever pull it together. The war against Al Qaida has a lot more in common with the Vietnam War than WWII, but most significantly is the date... I would assume (no "predict" that all future wars will carry themselves out similarly. When the world unifies around the same cause, watch out - we know what is coming... John makes that clear.

We live in an age when everyone finds it more important to excercise their own oppinions than to rally together for success. A time when it is cool to be different, to go against the flow, and to passionately disagree...

Opponents to the war can point to some less-than-pure motives, but those have and will always be present in such all-encompassing issues. We have to look at the whole (much larger) picture. The people of the US used to respect authority and its leadership, believing that God expects it - as the Bible proclaims. Our country is far from God now and that may never improve before the end. This does not mean that Christians should give up or get depressed... but we should at least set the example.

I don't know the answers - but this conflict in Iraq is certainly pointing out some very bad symptoms for this country. I do know one thing, I am more concerned with the state of our own country and the American people than the war...

[lordofthesquishies]

Well that I've got to second... I know I have no room to talk, but I'm disgusted with America in general... myself included. We've got it too good.

[medowbrookgoer39]

I just see it as how much of an overreaction it was to 9/11. Sure 9/11 was bad, and we don't want it to happen again, but how far are we willing to go to try and keep it from happening, when what we are doing isn't necessarily even going to help stop it? A lot of the reasons we were attacked in the first place are due to things like the overthrowing of the Shah(spelling?) in Iran in the 1950's, and foreign interventionism and occupations in the middle east all throughout the 20th century. (in other words blowback)

I'd much rather we tighten border control than take border patrol agents and send them overseas. It's seems rather illogical really. Seeing as how the hijackers pretty much all came to our country illegally, you would think improving or perfecting our immigration system would be the most preferable first step in stopping "terrorist" actions.

My biggest beef with fighting a "war on terror" is that it's so gosh darn hard to define your enemy. We say Al Qaeda is the main terrorist enemy, but now every insurgent that is fighting against us is now labeled "terrorist" as well and the fight continues. Many of those insurgents are simply Iraqis who are entirely sick and tired of foreigners occupying their country. (www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21312504/) Where can you draw the line with an undeclared war when you begin to throw the terrorist word around? The definition of terrorist is what got me here. According to Merriam-Websters dictionary, a terrorist could be anyone that inspires fear or terror especially as a means of coercion. So a "war on terrorism" is kinda freakin broad.

Sure I question the motives of the original intent specifically in Iraq by our administration and the federal government in general, but even if I didn't, this war cannot possibly be a great strategic move on our part financially or for our reputation throughout the world. Especially now that we are hearing reports that by 2009 the war could cost 1.6 trillion dollars, and we may be enacting an Iraq war tax to help fund it.

[mitch]

This topic has recently become very interesting to me because we are studying it in world geography, and i just took a huge test on it. But personally i don't even see the point of why we are in Iraq, when 10 of the terrorists were from Afganistan. Before I knew nothing about it but now i am really starting to question the motives of our country too. I understand why we can't just leave all at once, but my opinion is that we are just making things worse I mean we have no support anymore most countries in the un beleive the the liberation has turned into an occupation and i agree.
What do you all think about that?