14 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWySincerely, SVW, it is good to have you back in the forums.
[b]
American Led War On Terror Is Failing Miserably
So Esoteric,
Why all the glee about the war on terrorism going so badly? Let's hear your ideas.
Surely you are not covertly SUPPORTING the terrorists by trying to discourage us. Are you?[/b]
15 Jul 06
2 edits
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI find posts like this so discouraging.
[b]
American Led War On Terror Is Failing Miserably
So Esoteric,
Why all the glee about the war on terrorism going so badly? Let's hear your ideas.
Surely you are not covertly SUPPORTING the terrorists by trying to discourage us. Are you?[/b]
Surely one can appreciate that an effort must be made but disagree with particular policies in the management and execution of this effort? If I disagree with my own government's policies, does that make me an anarchist? For example; I agree that something drastic must be done concerning violent Salafist groups and that most countries are better without their dictators. But I disagree with the invasion of Iraq on many grounds.
Does this mean that I support the insurgents and hate the US? Of course not and to argue that is to imply that you don't actually have a credible argument at all.
Personally, I think there is far too much ideology and personal/financial agendas inherent in the "war on terror" for it to be overly successful. Although, I'm sure many will argue that it is a success no matter what, just like many argue that the Vietnam war wasn't a loss for the US.
15 Jul 06
Originally posted by EsotericNot to worry. I'm sure the U.N. will have the problem solved any day now.
The USA government really seem to be doing a terrible job of keeping the world peaceful and spreading "Democracy". The only thing they have accomplished is to make the world much more volatile and made many more enemies. But this time the "enemies" are not little minnows (mind you, Iraq has embarrassed the USA so far. Vietnam anyone?). North Korea, Iran, an ...[text shortened]... arned by now that retaliation by force is quite archaic and simply does not solve anything.
15 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by sword4damoclesFirstly, the USA proclaimed itself as the "World Peacekeeper". It is doing a very bad job.
So you admit that the 'world need to be kept peaceful', implying that it is not. Also implying that the US has stood up to the non-peacefulness of the world you mention. Further implying that unless the US manages to 'keep the world peaceful' the US is failing the world.
Just what is the rest of the world doing to keep itself peaceful? Nothing? No not nothing, they are blaming the US instead of helping out.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. 😕
Secondly, of course the world needs to be kept more peaceful. Does it seem peaceful to you right now? And why? What I am saying is that the world is far less peaceful as a direct result of the USA's War On terror. My point being, is that the USA has called it a "War On Terror" but that is as far as the truth as possible. The USA'a war on terror is the direct reason behind an increase in terror around the world.
The USA has not stood up to the non-peaceful nations. Iraq was NO THREAT when the USA invaded. If it was to stand up against non peaceful nations it would stand up against Sudan, Mugabe, North Korea, Israel etc. But no, there is no money in it. So what do we get? A very volatile world because America continues to go after it's ulterior motives under the banner "War On Terror". If you are going to proclaim to be the bastion of democracy and freedom, then you need to intervene in all the most volatile situations, not just the ones that profit you.
I want you to answer me this simple question. Since the USA has proclaimed a "War On Terror", has terrorism decreased?
15 Jul 06
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWhen will you simple minded people realise that the old 'if you don't support us then you support them" is probably the weakest argument you can bring up. Surely you are not as simple as that. I am not a sheep, I don't follow anyone blindly like yourself. I will question actions I see unjust and unfair. This does not mean I support terrorism. Because frankly, I think the USA is the biggest terrorist in the world.
So Esoteric,
Why all the glee about the war on terrorism going so badly? Let's hear your ideas.
Surely you are not covertly SUPPORTING the terrorists by trying to discourage us. Are you?
My point is, is that the USA is failing very badly because terrorism has increased. It is a very simple statement. Do you want me to draw you a nice picture?
I mean sit down and think about it. No really, sit down and think about it. By declaring a "war on terror", how the hell do you think the USA could win a war with no defined enemy.
15 Jul 06
Originally posted by EsotericMaybe they'll rename it the "war FOR terror".
Firstly, the USA proclaimed itself as the "World Peacekeeper". It is doing a very bad job.
Secondly, of course the world needs to be kept more peaceful. Does it seem peaceful to you right now? And why? What I am saying is that the world is far less peaceful as a direct result of the USA's War On terror. My point being, is that the USA has called it a "Wa ...[text shortened]... le question. Since the USA has proclaimed a "War On Terror", has terrorism decreased?
15 Jul 06
Originally posted by EsotericFrom Esoteric -- "I want you to answer me this simple question. Since the USA has proclaimed a "War On Terror", has terrorism decreased?"
Firstly, the USA proclaimed itself as the "World Peacekeeper". It is doing a very bad job.
Secondly, of course the world needs to be kept more peaceful. Does it seem peaceful to you right now? And why? What I am saying is that the world is far less peaceful as a direct result of the USA's War On terror. My point being, is that the USA has called it a "Wa ...[text shortened]... le question. Since the USA has proclaimed a "War On Terror", has terrorism decreased?
Not yet. Not until the US (and the world) can proclaim "The War on Terror is Won!" will the indended result be reached. It was already stated that this would take some time. What do you expect, instant results? If all the various terrorists groups would gather in one place and fight openly we would see a decrease.
Any reasonable person should be able to understand that terrorism in this case will grow at first in the face of such a proclamation if nothing other than to spit in the proclamation's face. Once terrorists come out and fight like standing armies do (or have in the past) instead of hiding amongst the civilian population, they can easily be defeated. But for now this will not be the case. It will take some time.
Are you glad that terrorism has not decreased? Maybe the US should simply go underground and fight terrorism with terrorism - and go by their rules (of no rules) as well. How about we simply hide within the public of nearby nations and launch missile strikes continuously and at ramdom upon the nations which support and harbor terrorists. How about we go to their places of gatherings and blow them up as terrorists do to others? What if...the US and Britain did not fight the war on terror conventionally and without any proclamation? All the world would see would be terroist attacks the world over. No more conventional armies. Any better? Strange yes, but something to think about.
15 Jul 06
Originally posted by yojohnnySo give us your word as to what we SHOULD do. Don't act like a damn UN goof ball.
I find posts like this so discouraging.
Surely one can appreciate that an effort must be made but disagree with particular policies in the management and execution of this effort? If I disagree with my own government's policies, does that make me an anarchist? For example; I agree that something drastic must be done concerning violent Salafist groups an ...[text shortened]... uccess no matter what, just like many argue that the Vietnam war wasn't a loss for the US.
So far all YOU have said is:
"Do nothing. It's all right. If we just don't think about it or do anything, it'll go away. A night-lite by the door where that big monster lurks when i gotta pee is good. Let's put a night-lite by ALL the dark places. And mommy can come sleep with me. That is good. No monster EVER comes from under the bed when mommy sleeps with me! And she sings me to sleep good. Cept I don't like that song about the baby falling on it's head from the tree. Mommy scares me with that one!"
15 Jul 06
Originally posted by EsotericGee. When it fails to be true?
When will you simple minded people realise that the old 'if you don't support us then you support them" is probably the weakest argument you can bring up. Surely you are not as simple as that. I am not a sheep, I don't follow anyone blindly like yourself. I will question actions I see unjust and unfair. This does not mean I support terrorism. Because frankl ...[text shortened]... "war on terror", how the hell do you think the USA could win a war with no defined enemy.
It ain't an argument. It's a GOD DAMNED WAR. ahem... in case you miss that tiny part of it.
What's to follow like a sheep. It's a war. I'm on the side of Israel. You are on neither side. Others are on the side of the beheaders. So?
This ain't some crappy college course with a balding commie in round glasses at the front of the room. sigh.
As to setting and thinking. Get up and walk around a bit. The question of "is this war" takes ten paces to answer "yes". The question "Do I take sides" requires four paces. The question "Whose side am I on" is the biggy. Two paces should do it.
Or set in your silly ice palace and snort rotten fish.
Who cares what you do?
15 Jul 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzNot a bad plan. If the beheaders supporters like you insist on supporting them, by all means rename it as you see fit.
Maybe they'll rename it the "war FOR terror".
I know my enemies quite well though and I am in a war against overt beheaders and covert supporters like you.
Now tell me how you don't support them. You are just against their enemy, ie, the US.
15 Jul 06
Originally posted by StarValleyWyIrrespective of what you seem to think, it is unpatriotic to support your government when your government is not acting in the best interests of your country and your people. Your country and your government are not nearly as synonymous as you seem to think.
Not a bad plan. If the beheaders supporters like you insist on supporting them, by all means rename it as you see fit.
I know my enemies quite well though and I am in a war against overt beheaders and covert supporters like you.
Now tell me how you don't support them. You are just against their enemy, ie, the US.
15 Jul 06
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzSo why do you support it then? Or are you claiming that nationalistic jingoism and isolation are good government? I know that YOUR government is a mess. Why ask me to help you understand your own refusal to think about it?
Irrespective of what you seem to think, it is unpatriotic to support your government when your government is not acting in the best interests of your country and your people. Your country and your government are not nearly as synonymous as you seem to think.
16 Jul 06
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWhat ARE you talking about?
So why do you support it then? Or are you claiming that nationalistic jingoism and isolation are good government? I know that YOUR government is a mess. Why ask me to help you understand your own refusal to think about it?
I think that international incidents should be handled peacefully as much as possible, through the proper diplomatic channels. If military action is absolutely required, it should be, again, through the proper channels, not unilaterally, and should seek to minimise civilian casualties - not like the "shock and awe" campaign.
You blindly gobble up whatever lie it is Bush and Fox "News" are feeding you, basically aborting your right to have an independant opinion. People fought and died for your right to have a say, and you throw it away, in the interests of keeping people imprisioned without charges, in the interests of your government spying on you, in the interests of big business spinning a buck at the expense of the, apparently expendable, lives of your soldiers. If you had any sense you'd be ashamed of your government.
16 Jul 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzhis support of his government's actions and your disagreement with his government's actions does not actually mean that he or is government are incorrect in their assessments or decisions.
Irrespective of what you seem to think, it is unpatriotic to support your government when your government is not acting in the best interests of your country and your people. Your country and your government are not nearly as synonymous as you seem to think.
or has anything to do with the possibility that he may or may not watch fox news, drink coors, etc., etc.
you might be the one in this instance. imagine that 🙂.