Britain Drops 'War on Terror' Label - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-01-2008, 06:50 PM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:18 PM
What a hoot.
It's January 1st, not April 1st.

But hey, who am I to laugh at Area 51, fake moon landings, grassy knolls, black helicopters, 9/11 truthers, Diebold, and REX84?
For I'm a global warming denier.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-01-2008, 06:51 PM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


D) None of the above.

Now, what does this have to do with what we are talking about?
How would you define it?
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-01-2008, 06:59 PM   #48
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,649
Local Time: 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


How would you define it?
It was an attack by a group. Not a country, not a religion, nor an ideaology.

But once again, what does this have to do with picking up people off the street, labeling them a terrorists and then being able to hold them indefinately?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-01-2008, 07:01 PM   #49
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


You aren't going to answer the question are you?

Was the act of crashing hijacked commercial airliners into America's financial district and the Pentagon;

A) A domestic military strike
or
B) A civil crime
or maybe you need
C) an inside job

Answer the question or meet my "friends."
While I agree with BVS's answer, each of the above interpretations is more reasonable than the one held by some neo-conservatives.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 01-01-2008, 07:03 PM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 04:18 PM
Wars are fought against nations, not against ideologies.

If you don't have a specific nation that you are at war with, then you don't have a war, in my opinion.

At the very least the U.S. should have declared war on Al Qaeda--if that's possible--rather than this nonsensical broad sweeping "war on terror." The so-called war isn't broad enough any way. There's been no move to check out American citizens (Timothy McVeigh types for example) that might be involved in terrorist activities. And I'm not arguing that there should be. . .just saying that the term "War on Terror" isn't even honest.

And why is that no one ever talks about the Oklahoma City bombing any more? Why didn't we declare a "war on terror" after that? And remember the Unabomber? Wasn't he a terrorist also? Or do you have to be Muslim?
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 01-01-2008, 07:30 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


What isn't a slippery slope?

After we entered WWII and defeated the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese Imperial army in the Pacific...what was to stop our "war machine" from continuing on? Really...why aren't we living in the United States of Earth.
Who could have stopped us? Our allies in Europe were decimated, Russia was broke and had lost 10 million soldiers, Canada was, well, Canada.

We had "the bomb" and no one else did!! The world was our slippery slope. But we sent the soldiers home and went about rebuilding war torn Europe and Japan.

Maybe, just maybe, good can defeat evil without becoming evil itself. Maybe a country can protect it's citizens and respect their rights at the same time.
To get back to that, there were several good reasons not to try to force a USE with the "war machine":
- Economically, it wasn't favorable to go to war with any other nation. There was not much to gain, but everything to lose, and the US citizens would have seen a sharp decline in standard of living very soon. It just wouldn't have make sense to battle every country on earth, and in the long-run not even possible.
Russia may have suffered a lot during WWII, but it wasn't lying on the ground waiting for the last hit by any means.
It was in no interest for the US to go on fighting anyone.
- You should remember that the Marshallplan and all the support Germany received wasn't just a good deed by the Americans, but clearly aimed at building a shield against the Soviets and their territory, the later Warsaw Pact countries. That was one of the main priorities and main reasons why we received all that money and support.
- The US government and military was smart enough to know that you couldn't use "the bomb" exhaustively because there would be nothing to be gained, but a whole world destroyed. And the wars in Korea or Vietnam wouldn't have looked that much different then as they did five respectively twenty years later. You would have had the human resources for such an undertaking. Your military isn't invincible, and wasn't back then. Pyrrhus should tell you something here.
- The US had more important things to care about as being the next one to try, and fail, to be the imperial power of the earth.
And eventually they got close to being something similar for quite some time.
And, yes, good prevailed here and Truman sent the troops home.

But this should remain the key sentence:
Maybe a country can protect it's citizens and respect their rights at the same time.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 01-01-2008, 07:31 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


It was an attack by a group. Not a country, not a religion, nor an ideaology.

9/11-- just a random attack by a group, totally unrelated to previous or subsequent attacks and with no underlying ideology. Well, if you believe that you should pooh-pooh the War on Terror I guess.

Quote:
But once again, what does this have to do with picking up people off the street, labeling them a terrorists and then being able to hold them indefinately?
The street is their battlefield. Civilian clothes their uniform.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-01-2008, 07:34 PM   #53
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
9/11-- just a random attack by a group, totally unrelated to previous or subsequent attacks and with no underlying ideology. Well, if you believe that you should pooh-pooh the War on Terror I guess.
He never said it was random.

The point he's making is that it wasn't an attack by the Muslim faith. It wasn't an attack by the country of Afghanistan, or of Iran, or of Iraq, etc. These were not soldiers. These people were just in a group.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 01-01-2008, 07:38 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

9/11-- just a random attack by a group, totally unrelated to previous or subsequent attacks and with no underlying ideology. Well, if you believe that you should pooh-pooh the War on Terror I guess.



The street is their battlefield. Civilian clothes their uniform.
It wasn't random or unrelated to previous attacks nor was it without underlying ideology.

So declare war on the group then! That would make sense!

The War on Terror is like declaring War on Fear (wait. . .isn't that essentially the same thing?) or War on Hate or yes, a War on Poverty or a War on Drugs. . .all nonsense.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 01-01-2008, 08:34 PM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
Wars are fought against nations, not against ideologies.

If you don't have a specific nation that you are at war with, then you don't have a war, in my opinion.

At the very least the U.S. should have declared war on Al Qaeda--if that's possible--rather than this nonsensical broad sweeping "war on terror." The so-called war isn't broad enough any way. There's been no move to check out American citizens (Timothy McVeigh types for example) that might be involved in terrorist activities. And I'm not arguing that there should be. . .just saying that the term "War on Terror" isn't even honest.

And why is that no one ever talks about the Oklahoma City bombing any more? Why didn't we declare a "war on terror" after that? And remember the Unabomber? Wasn't he a terrorist also? Or do you have to be Muslim?
Wasn't Nazism an ideology that used the resources of Germany to spread. One needn't be German to have been a Nazi after all. The 30 Years War was about ideology wasn't it. What of civil wars?

I understand your point and you are correct, radical Islam can't be bombed, isolated, embargoed or entered into treaty with. It is, to be sure, a new type of War -- but a war nevertheless. And we are still in the process of discovering the most effective ways to win it. There are many ways to win a war of ideology.

Do you have to be Muslim? As tragic as OKC was, when terrorists start shouting "McVeigh" as they martyr themselves in place of "Allah" then we can include it in the 21st Century War on Terror, otherwise it truly is an individual act of domestic violence, like Columbine, Virginia Tech and past presidential assassinations have been.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-01-2008, 08:48 PM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 10:18 PM
Fascism was in power in Italy, Spain and Portugal as well, and was quickly introduced by the Vichy government in France either.
The Allies didn't fight Fascism, but the Great-German, Italian and Japanese armies. (ETA: Well, they fought against fascism, but the opponents were defined more clearly.)
These have been wars against specific nations. A war against the Fascist ideology what have meant that they went after those who held Fascist views.
And I don't think that's comparable to the situation the US is currently in, where you don't have a clearly defined enemy.
The Thirty Years War was a war between the religions, but also about gaining resources, and a war of the monarchical powers in Europe, but again, there have been two clearly defined enemies, and it's still been a war fought out by the militaries of the nations involved.
That's both much easier to fight than a "war on terror", where you have so many factions and so many enemies you are in fact fighting a hydra.

And torturing and detaining inhumanely and stooping to the level of your enemy is only recruiting more and more enemies to fight.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 01-01-2008, 08:48 PM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


He never said it was random.

The point he's making is that it wasn't an attack by the Muslim faith. It wasn't an attack by the country of Afghanistan, or of Iran, or of Iraq, etc. These were not soldiers. These people were just in a group.
Doesn't make the people they murder any less dead.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-01-2008, 08:51 PM   #58
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
Doesn't make the people they murder any less dead.
And my statement never said nor implied that.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 01-01-2008, 09:18 PM   #59
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
That's both much easier to fight than a "war on terror", where you have so many factions and so many enemies you are in fact fighting a hydra.


Very true, nobody (including GWB) said it would be easy or quick. It may take generations.
Quote:
And torturing and detaining inhumanely and stooping to the level of your enemy is only recruiting more and more enemies to fight.
Well Vincent, when we "torture" it is to gain intelligence to protect lives -- not to coerce a phoney conversion or a denouncing of former beliefs -- and if we have videotape we destroy those tapes. Our enemy posts their "torture" videos on the internet. We aren't stooping to their level.

But let's say for a moment that Guantanamo Bay is doing more harm than good and must go. So we close it and give all current detainees a plane ticket to Berlin and 50,000 Euros.

You cool with that?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-01-2008, 09:29 PM   #60
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


And my statement never said nor implied that.
Then in the spirit of the new year I'll retract it.

Happy New Years.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com