War on Terror is Unwinnable

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

A_Wanderer

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
12,518
Location
The Wild West
On the WoT Bush Says
I don't think you can win it,'
But I think you can create conditions so that the - those who use terror as a tool - are less acceptable in parts of the world

Now I was wondering what people think about the context of this quote and if it is true.

I would argue that a literal war on terrorism isn't winnable, you can never defeat terrorism outright. It is a means of operation, people can always use violence against civilians for political ends. This is not defeatist by any means, terrorism cannot be ended through millitary action alone but it can be reduced if countires stay ever vigilant and keep fighting it. We cannot let our guard down, they (and I mean Islamofascists, even if the term is unpallatable to you I make no apologies, I find political Islam a despotic system that robs individuality and has no place in a peacefull world - human rights must triumph over opressive superstition and power structures) will not stop coming until their system reigns supreme or all of humanity can enjoy the peace of the grave.

A war on political Islam however would be winnable, it is not fought with armies but with intelligence, ideas and economics. By all means exert strong power in suitiable situations to catalyze the change you desire but any millitary action must be there to furthur the broader aims. Think of the Marshall plan and then modify it to transform the Arab world (which to be fair is the major center for Islamist terrorism, in regards to funding and ideology, remove that continuous flow then sattelite groups in SE Asia may find a significantly diminished operational capacity) from centers of violence and instability to pluralist liberal democracies. Such a thing is achievable, it will take decades of structured policy and action but it can be done. Everybody in the world must have the right to live freely, until that is acheived the potential for massive annihilation is a threat, albeit not the most reciognized one.

Peace is guaranteed through liberty, when the world is free all of humanity can move forward together and united.
 
I've said this before, but I'll say it again, you'd have to have a major shift in the Arabic mindset before they would ever become secular states. In my mind, the fixed nature of their social and economic system, and how it's tied up with Islam and Sharia (Islamic law), are going to prevent "liberal democracies" from coming into being. I don't know, maybe a coup would do the trick, but I wonder if a secular government would really have the support of people accustomed to Sharia. There were all sorts of plots against Ataturk back in the '20's when he secularized Turkey. And the Turks are not Arabs; they're the kind of Muslims who knew damn well the Sultans were getting drunk in the palace in Istanbul, but the worst thing they did was gossip. They even called one of their Sultans "Selim the Drunk". They're not very strict Muslims. This would be very risky stuff. The Arabic countries, like Jordan, Syria, and the people in the West Bank of Israel already have educational systems, so I don't know how that would be changed. Many of them have textbooks and such financed by wealthy Saudis, who of course promote Wahhabist ideas. These ideas are not approved of by the governments outside of Saudi Arabia but they're pretty helpless to stop this.
 
Last edited:
there will be no peace treaty in this war... there will be no surrender... even after al qaeda is gone, hamas is gone, you can never stop one man from packing himself full of explosives and getting on a bus, like what happened this morning in israel. this is a war that may never be fully over, but damn it it's a war we have to fight.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Peace is guaranteed through liberty, when the world is free all of humanity can move forward together and united.
many people have nothing to gain by being free

if you're free and shit poor then you're still shit poor

some people will embrace their freedom and take being poor for granted
others won't


we have many steps to go to achieve unity among human kind
we're divided in so many ways that it is an illusion to believe that we will achieve much if anything by focussing on one aspect
 
Hey RockNRawlDoggie,

You say that since the war on terror is not completely winnable therefore the troops should come home now.
Would you also advocate stopping AIDS relief to Africa since the war on AIDS is not completely winnable? Would you advocate ceasing drug prevention programs since the war on illegal drugs is not completely winnable? Would you advocate closing down homeless shelters since the war on poverty is not completely winnable?
 
I completely agree with you Salome...

On another note;


Humans are selfish, scared, emotionally driven, reactionary animals.

The vast majority of human beings are uneducated.

The 'western' views and way of life are in the minority.

Humans are far from civilized.

Technology has only made violence and destruction easier.

Terrorism has many shapes, and has been used by our own 'western' governments.

Nuclear war will be started by a non-state.

The cock roaches will still be here after we're gone.



Unless you can find a way to convince all 6 billion of us to think, feel, and respect life the same way.... I hardly doubt any of this will ever change.

I'm not trying to be negative... just realistic.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
even after al qaeda is gone, hamas is gone, you can never stop one man from packing himself full of explosives and getting on a bus, like what happened this morning in israel.

dont forget about oklahoma...
 
Humans are often selfless, brave, spiritually driven, highly evolved animals.

The number of humans currently educated in the world is the highest it has ever been in history. If the pace of the 20th century is continued, virtually no one will be uneducated a couple of centuries from now.

The Western views and way of life is in the plurality and will be the majority by the end of this century at the current rate of globalism. Not even a place like Cambodia is isolated from this as my sister who just returned from there can confirm.

Humans are the most civilized known life form in the Universe.

Technology has vastly increased the means by which citizens and countries can prevent or stop violence and destruction.

Terrorism is not a term that can be used to describe any political action or action that involves violence. No other group of countries has done more to prevent and stop terrorism worldwide than "western" countries.

Nuclear War requires two states, a nuclear attack does not necessarily require a state.

Humans have something that other animals including T-Rex and the family never had, the ability to see the possibilities of the future and the power to shape the future.

The Vast majority of human beings are more alike than anyone thinks. What divides us are the systems, governments and cultures that often hold people back and prevent them from realizing their full potential and freedom.

Globalism is rapidly picking away at these problems and the opportunity for the average individual on the planet to realize his potential and dreams has never been this good although it is far from perfect. The world has become far more interdependent and closer over the past century. Dozens of new countries have come into existence and there are far more things that unite us than divide us compared to a 100 years ago.

If you told someone in famine racked 1840s Ireland that one day and Irish Musical band would be some of the richest people in the world and would tour places as far away as Australia, South Africa and South America, they would probably think you were the devil. Ireland today is the 3rd richest country in the world based on per capita GDP. In the late 1840s, it was the equilivant of Ethiopia in the 1980s. Unbelievable progress is possible and will happen. Realistically, that is what history shows.

Here's to the future!

:up:
 
It's nice you can be optimistic, Sting. But some societies in this world are very conservative and closed, and have drastically different ways of looking at the world that probably aren't going to be influenced by the West anytime soon. These influences come in by way of the media, for the most part. They have no concept of "progress"; that's a concept that started during the Renaissance in Europe, and the only Muslim country that it's influenced is Turkey, and that was because of one man, Ataturk. Places like Syria and Iraq will be tougher nuts to crack because there's no one like that in those countries. I mean, hell, Sistani is more powerful in Iraq than Allawi is. That's not a good sign. Sistani is a product of the Shi'ite power system, what passes for social authority in that culture, as a Grand Ayatollah. When Allawi told al-Sadr to put his guns down he did not and got away with it, then Sistani told him to do it and now al-Sadr is planning a political career. I'm always thinking of complications in the development of a political situation and see various serious impediments that will be very difficult to overcome. It's the historian in me. I know, we drive everyone crazy. :wink:
 
Bush has gone from "mission accomplished" to "mission miscalculated" to "mission impossible" and now to (this is from BUSH'S OWN MOUTH in an interview with Rush Limbaugh): "I probablyneeded to be more articulate."
 
verte76 said:
It's nice you can be optimistic, Sting. But some societies in this world are very conservative and closed, and have drastically different ways of looking at the world that probably aren't going to be influenced by the West anytime soon. These influences come in by way of the media, for the most part. They have no concept of "progress"; that's a concept that started during the Renaissance in Europe, and the only Muslim country that it's influenced is Turkey, and that was because of one man, Ataturk. Places like Syria and Iraq will be tougher nuts to crack because there's no one like that in those countries. I mean, hell, Sistani is more powerful in Iraq than Allawi is. That's not a good sign. Sistani is a product of the Shi'ite power system, what passes for social authority in that culture, as a Grand Ayatollah. When Allawi told al-Sadr to put his guns down he did not and got away with it, then Sistani told him to do it and now al-Sadr is planning a political career. I'm always thinking of complications in the development of a political situation and see various serious impediments that will be very difficult to overcome. It's the historian in me. I know, we drive everyone crazy. :wink:

I'm speaking in terms of trends and time periods from several decades to centurys. Iraq has never been the bastion of conservative Islamic thought. Its not about to start to be either. Many people there may share religion with Iranians, but their history and the society they have grown up in has often been very different in several ways. Iraq overall has argueably been the most secular country in the Arab world.

Just look at how much Europe changed from 1900 to 2000. People said it was impossible to fix the problems in Bosnia and Kosovo and look at it now. Who would have thought in 1992 that U2 would be playing in Bosnia in 1997, just like they would play anywhere else in the world.

People in the middle east, Africa and Asia are not immune to the changes that occured in Europe in the 20th century. There are so many examples that have shown this. The World is changing and will continue to change. Capitalism and Democracy work. History is filled with societies that indeed resisted change for a very long time. But sooner or later, people adopt what works best and what gives them the best opportunity in life. Its a slow process and there are often steps backwards, but the world as a whole is moving in the right direction.
 
STING2 said:


I'm speaking in terms of trends and time periods from several decades to centurys. Iraq has never been the bastion of conservative Islamic thought. Its not about to start to be either. Many people there may share religion with Iranians, but their history and the society they have grown up in has often been very different in several ways. Iraq overall has argueably been the most secular country in the Arab world.

Just look at how much Europe changed from 1900 to 2000. People said it was impossible to fix the problems in Bosnia and Kosovo and look at it now. Who would have thought in 1992 that U2 would be playing in Bosnia in 1997, just like they would play anywhere else in the world.

People in the middle east, Africa and Asia are not immune to the changes that occured in Europe in the 20th century. There are so many examples that have shown this. The World is changing and will continue to change. Capitalism and Democracy work. History is filled with societies that indeed resisted change for a very long time. But sooner or later, people adopt what works best and what gives them the best opportunity in life. Its a slow process and there are often steps backwards, but the world as a whole is moving in the right direction.


That's an incredibly ethnocentric view.
 
MaxFisher said:
Hey RockNRawlDoggie,

You say that since the war on terror is not completely winnable therefore the troops should come home now.
Would you also advocate stopping AIDS relief to Africa since the war on AIDS is not completely winnable? Would you advocate ceasing drug prevention programs since the war on illegal drugs is not completely winnable? Would you advocate closing down homeless shelters since the war on poverty is not completely winnable?


Bush's misguided war based on lies and faulty intelligence, unfortunately cannot
be stopped. Thanks to Bush, he's opened up a Pandora's Box. There'll
be troops in Iraq for decades probably.
You are quite correct. We can't abandon Iraq now.
If it is a "war on terror," then
why has our wonderful president stopped even mentioning the name of Bin Laden? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but Bin Laden did.
Unless Bush has already captured
Bin Laden, and decides to show him off
on eve of election.
Bush's insane war in Iraq. based on lies, shouldn't have been strarted in the
first place. He should've stuck with finding Bin Laden. He's really hard to spot though. He's.only close 6 feet 7 inches with a kidney machine.
 
This war is not going to be won as long as there are people unwilling to accept that some people don't want to change, will not change, and won't be compelled to change simply because one leader is removed. What has been said already is quite true, regime change means nothing if you're still starving.

I think the war would be more succesful in its attempts and goals if 'the West' were to accept that not everyone wants democracy, and that not everyone is ready for it.

Ant.
 
So because the elites of these countries fear democracy and liberty we should not interfere? We should take the words of those cultural studies "acedemics" and say that Islam is incompatible with any freedom - because by saying that people should suffer because they aren't ready to be free is genuinely disturbing to me, the stakes in this conflict are very high and I guarantee you that retreating from the fight and backing away from the threat would see the end of Western Civilization if not the world, ever wonder what a dozen well placed nuclear weapons could do to the global economy?

Then the argument that people are not ready for democracy, I suppose that that should excuse us from helping other people because hey - they dont deserve it, they are too brown to understand or accept such a crazy system as freedom. In fact

I think that that that type of attitude is racist and dangerous. I have no doubt that you feel that it is better to sit back and not interfere because interference causes damage but you ignore the fact that sitting back and leaving people to be fucked over by others has lead to a lot of resentment. Where do you draw the line, was it allright to liberate Europeans from Nazi occupation but it is wrong to liberate Arabs from systems of equal despotism?

Just because a woman had the misfortune to be born into a country like Saudi Arabia does that mean she shouldn't be entitled to the same fundamental human rights as one born in Western Europe?

Should we just stand by and let injustice continue because we dont wish to interfere in the cultural customs of others even if said customs are barbaric and wrong - by any humanitarian position?

Don't forget that just 60 years ago millions of lives were spent to save the world from fascist opression and protect freedom, then through another 50 years of conflict the freedom of millions more was won. The job isn't done yet, I repeat massive economic and social package to reshape the Arab world. Today we must guarantee freedom for all or there will be peace for none.

Fuck the Status Quo, Fuck Isolationism and Fucking Give Me a Free World!

We are all human beings and we all deserve fundamental human rights, these are guaranteed through liberty - end the racist double standard and accept it.

Note: I used to be a liberal - I didn't change but somehow I am became a neocon.
 
Last edited:
Curiously, I heard on the radio today that Bush has changed his mind and decided that we'll win this "war". I need to find it written somewhere so I can read the exact wording.
 
What some people don't understand that the War on Terror isn't a war which will be won by military but a war which is based on good work of intelligence agencies. intelligence agencies are the ones who can prevent a 2nd 9/11 .
Military actions at the wrong time or at the wrong place just support terrorism

A_Wanderer
You can't force a country to democracy. The democracy movement has to start in that country.
 
Last edited:
Democracy, almost by definition, is something that people do by choice, not by coersion. They have to want to vote for Party X or Candidate X. There are many highly educated people in the Arabic world who simply don't think democracy would work in their culture. It's not just Islam. It's their culture, their social structure, and their whole mindset. This has nothing to do with race, heredity or ethnicity. The Islamic religion, interestingly enough, *is* egalitarian. They all believe that they are all equal in the eyes of Allah. Sultana, the main character in Jean Sasson's "Princess Trilogy" doesn't think democracy would work in the Arabic world. She is from Saudi Arabia. She thinks, to quote the book, that "there would be a war every minute". She's a pretty well educated person; she holds a masters' degree in philosophy. Yes, it is possible for those women to get educated, although it certainly isn't easy. I think she understands her culture better than I do. I was a history major and philosophy minor in school. This is all about understanding different cultures. It's egotistical, not to mention naive, to expect the rest of the world to be like us.
 
Last edited:
cydewaze said:
Curiously, I heard on the radio today that Bush has changed his mind and decided that we'll win this "war". I need to find it written somewhere so I can read the exact wording.


who's the flip-flopper now!?!?!? :wink: :wink: :wink:
 
Klaus said:
What some people don't understand that the War on Terror isn't a war which will be won by military but a war which is based on good work of intelligence agencies. intelligence agencies are the ones who can prevent a 2nd 9/11 .
Military actions at the wrong time or at the wrong place just support terrorism

A_Wanderer
You can't force a country to democracy. The democracy movement has to start in that country.

Thats simply false. The Military has and will continue to play an enormous role in the war on terror. The majority of the terrorist that have been caught have actually been caught by military personal. Afghanistan would still be ruled by the Taliban and Al Quada would have its large training base if it was not for the US military. The fact is, there are to many things intelligence agencies are incapable of doing to only rely on them for the war on terror. As of right now there are nearly 30,000 coalition troops in Afghanistan. Afghanistan continued development and security will be dependent on coalition military forces and a growing Afghan military. Intelligence agencies, have their role to play, but one cannot engage on in the war on terror without the military.

A country can be brought into democracy. Just look at Japan, South Korea and many other countries where this has happened.
 
Anthony said:
This war is not going to be won as long as there are people unwilling to accept that some people don't want to change, will not change, and won't be compelled to change simply because one leader is removed. What has been said already is quite true, regime change means nothing if you're still starving.

I think the war would be more succesful in its attempts and goals if 'the West' were to accept that not everyone wants democracy, and that not everyone is ready for it.

Ant.

Most people who are starving would defintely be willing to try something that gives them more control over their lives and better chance at prosperity. In every war there have been people in certain countries that did not want to change, but that did not prevent change from eventually taking place. Saddam was not just one leader, but a massive regime that held all of Iraq under its control in a way as brutal as the worst regimes in history.

Without regime change in Iraq, any form of change would be impossible.
 
verte76 said:
Democracy, almost by definition, is something that people do by choice, not by coersion. They have to want to vote for Party X or Candidate X. There are many highly educated people in the Arabic world who simply don't think democracy would work in their culture. It's not just Islam. It's their culture, their social structure, and their whole mindset. This has nothing to do with race, heredity or ethnicity. The Islamic religion, interestingly enough, *is* egalitarian. They all believe that they are all equal in the eyes of Allah. Sultana, the main character in Jean Sasson's "Princess Trilogy" doesn't think democracy would work in the Arabic world. She is from Saudi Arabia. She thinks, to quote the book, that "there would be a war every minute". She's a pretty well educated person; she holds a masters' degree in philosophy. Yes, it is possible for those women to get educated, although it certainly isn't easy. I think she understands her culture better than I do. I was a history major and philosophy minor in school. This is all about understanding different cultures. It's egotistical, not to mention naive, to expect the rest of the world to be like us.

The world is evolving and changing and no part of the globe is immune to that fact. Many parts of the Arab world are already changing. This is part of the reason that many terrorist are engaged in their evil acts. They mistakenly believe that western culture is a threat to their perverted idea of Islam. The 7 million Muslims living in the United States would heavily disagree.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Globalism, Capitalism and Democracy, this is where the world is headed. That is simply the trend over the past century.

The United States shows that one can have their religion and culture, but still be apart of a different culture with a democratic system of government and a free market economy.
 
Sure, they're changing, but not necessarily in the direction of democracy. One really ironic thing about Saddam was that ruled an officially secular state, but then the guy had himself duped that he was another Ataturk. Ataturk secularized Turkey back in the '20's. Iraq seems to me to be headed towards becoming a Shi'ite state. Look at the power a guy like Sistani, a Grand Ayatollah, has. The secular head of state, Allawi, doesn't have half his power. It's no secret that al-Sadr and others want a Shi'ite state. This is going to create real tensions with the Sunnis, especially the Wahhabists, who consider the Shi'ites infidels. This has the making of a collossal mess. I don't think we're ever going to agree on this stuff, Sting. As we say in these parts, I'm as stubborn as a mule. :wink:
 
verte76 said:
Sure, they're changing, but not necessarily in the direction of democracy. One really ironic thing about Saddam was that ruled an officially secular state, but then the guy had himself duped that he was another Ataturk. Ataturk secularized Turkey back in the '20's. Iraq seems to me to be headed towards becoming a Shi'ite state. Look at the power a guy like Sistani, a Grand Ayatollah, has. The secular head of state, Allawi, doesn't have half his power. It's no secret that al-Sadr and others want a Shi'ite state. This is going to create real tensions with the Sunnis, especially the Wahhabists, who consider the Shi'ites infidels. This has the making of a collossal mess. I don't think we're ever going to agree on this stuff, Sting. As we say in these parts, I'm as stubborn as a mule. :wink:

I actually find it surprising how much Sistani and the Coalition have agreed on. The number of people who desire a pure Shiate State or Sunni State is small. Although tribal culture still effects much of Iraq, Iraqi's are much more united in ways that most people forget. The fact is, the Shia fought hard and actually formed the majority of the military in the war against Shia Iran. They speak a different language than Iranians do and have had a different history and culture from Iranians despite having the same religion.

Al Sadr is an idiot and represents a tiny angry group of individuals. The majority of Shia's have been very kind and supportive of the coalition. With the exception of Al Sadr thugs, there have virtually been no attacks on coalition forces in the Shia south.

The real problem in Iraq continues to be the Sunni Triangle where the vast majority of attacks and losses have been occuring for over a year now. Members of Saddam's special Republican Guard and foreign terrorist in this area, form the bulk of the insurgency movement in Iraq.
 
Back
Top Bottom