When Will the War on Terror End?

[SilentScope001]

Well, here we go. Big question.

 

It's not that I am against the War on Terrorism, or that I am anti-War. I am Pro-War, and I am indeed somewhat supporting America...I do pay tax dollars after all.

 

But, well, I think I speak for a small minority of people when I say that I am very, very bored of this current "War".

 

In World War II, cities were being fought over and territories were taken over. In the Cold War, the USSR and USA were staring each other down. Those were great wars. Wars are bloody, but at least these wars were interesting to watch on television, and people actually care about them.

 

Now, on TV, all we have to watch is American troops storming caves in the middle of a desert. Arresting people in houses. A couple bombings here and there in retaliation, but that's about it.

 

I mean, come on! You are battling against a military tactic, and against a small, pathetic army of gurellias who hate you. They target economic targets, but you are more likely to be struck by lighting than you are hit by a terror attack. Arrests, storming of caves, and lots of phamplet droppings...they are, essentially, uninteresting...and tedious.

 

I don't want to be seen as quite cold, but I rather that America's great military might not be wasted on this "war". Russia and China are growing powers, they could wage a war against us, if we accidently provoke them. Iran might become a regional power and gain much influence. EU might become strong and united. India is becoming pretty mighty. It is all these nations that have the potential to be superpowers, to be mighty and grand...just like America. It is these nations that we should fear, and we should care about. A war against them would be quite interesting to watch, and it would be a great match. Whomever would win that war would inherit the whole world...

 

Instead, America is stuck battling a bunch of insurgents in the middle of nowhere, in an endless war with no end, and no begining. We can't win, in fact, we can't lose either. We're just staying there, battling the modern equviliant of barbarians. Is this how America is going to die, to be fighting this annoying little "War on Terror", to be forced to watch headlines that "America killed terrorist leader", "America shut down Terror Cell", "America decreases terrorist attacks by 5%"...instead of battling those who are just as powerful as we are and engage in an actual contest?

 

Hopefully, the War on Terror will last 50 years before America unilaterally declares victory and engage in what I see as far more interesting conflicts...but what do you think? How long will this war last? Should it end?

[mur'phon]

Since there is little chance that terrorism is just going to stop, the war is likely going to last until the u.s decides that it isn't worth fighting anymore. If that's in 2, 10 50 100 or a thousand years, I don't know, but hopefully it won't be too long.

[stoffe]

Those were great wars. Wars are bloody, but at least these wars were interesting to watch on television, and people actually care about them.

(snip)

...they are, essentially, uninteresting...and tedious.

 

I think you've been watching too many movies or played too many games. Wars are not meant as entertainment. Wars are not fought for fun. War is a way to settle differences when all other options have been exhausted, which inevitably will bring great cost and suffering to all parties involved in it.

[ET Warrior]

Those were great wars. [...] these wars were interesting to watch on television,[...]A war against them would be quite interesting to watch, and it would be a great match.

Is this some kind of sick joke that I just don't understand? Do you seriously want America to engage in wars simply to entertain you?

 

I also want the so-called "war on terror" to end, but I want it to end because I think war is disgusting, and admittedly I find that I am also repulsed by the idea of war as some manner of entertainment.

 

edit - Additionally, I find that the very concept of a "war on terror" is as winnable as a "war on drugs". In fact, a war against drugs is easier to win because drugs are an actual physical entity. Terror is a concept, and there are no actual methods for waging war against an ideal.

[SilentScope001]

Is this some kind of sick joke that I just don't understand? Do you seriously want America to engage in wars simply to entertain you?

 

Er.

 

Wars are going to happen anyway, to be quite fair. I believe that, and I understand that lots of things happen in war. Truth be told, I don't want to be in the crossfires of a war. I am not heartless, I know the consquences of war.

 

But, well, this quote "Peace is boring. War makes good history" explains what I mean. The war we have is just about as boring as the Roman "peace". And if we are going to have to deal with wars, at the very least have the wars be about something much more important than...well, this.

 

And if we are going to be stuck in a war, at least have it be a consolation prize that the conflicts look to be very, very important to the future of humanity. We don't even have that in this current conflict, hence me a bit disappointed.

 

I don't want America to engage in war purely for my own entertainment. These nations could, in fact, pose a threat to America's interests. America should be worried of them, not, well, of an abstract construct that America will always score victories against...but never truly defeat. If you want to wage a war, fine, but wage a war against enemies your own size, where you have a chance of losing, not against weak enemies.

[mimartin]

Wars are not meant as entertainment. Wars are not fought for fun. War is a way to settle differences when all other options have been exhausted, which inevitably will bring great cost and suffering to all parties involved in it.

 

This is a very good way to define when war should be fought. However, most jump the gun and declare war before exhausting all the other options.

 

The war on terror is not likely to end anytime soon. Especially with the great job America is doing recruiting new terrorist. There is no easy answer on how to end this never ending cycle. If you hunt down and capture or kill the terrorist, then another will see you as the oppressor and join the ranks of the terrorist. If you do nothing they see you as a coward and continue their campaign to destroy western society. If you give into their will then you are condemning yourself to a never ending list of demands. Someone infinitely smarting then me will be needed to solve this riddle. Trying to win their heart and minds is the only solution I can see, but that is much easier said than done.

 

The only way this war will ever end is when we all see the futility of killing another human being for political or religious reasons. A lesson man has refused to learn thus far in our brief history on this planet.

 

Additionally, I find that the very concept of a "war on terror" is as winnable as a "war on drugs". In fact, a war against drugs is easier to win because drugs are an actual physical entity. Terror is a concept, and there are no actual methods for waging war against an ideal.

 

OFE

[SilentScope001]

There is no easy answer on how to end this never ending cycle.

 

Sure there is. Surrender. No American will ever consider that though.

[Totenkopf]

Actually, just as drugs are a physical entity, so are the purveyors of terror. The problem becomes does the side doing the fighting (be it the DEA, police, military, etc..) have the permission to take off the gloves and do whatever is necessary to defeat the enemy. It appears not. Whether it's because the people who start these "wars" actually wish them to continue into perpetuity (or till all the $$ runs out) or merely don't have the ability to bring them to a successful conclusion is anyone's guess.

 

I would say, SS, that one of the frustrating aspects of the way this war is being conducted is that it's being done in half-measures. This alone will force the war to be drawn out and may even result in more deaths than had a more direct and arguably heavy hand been taken. It will also assure that the current crowd in US politics will continue to push for a w/drawl and further enhance the view that America is a paper tiger with no willpower. The idea that the post WW2 era has been "peaceful" is a self-delusional conceit. The last 60+ years has been full of proxy and small scale wars which have entangled the major powers to one degree or another. I do find it interesting that the people who want the US to pull out of a "civil war" in Iraq are many of the same ones who want to bog us down in another "civil war" in Darfur (or really anywhere else that we have no strategic interests).

[JediMaster12]

The concept of the War on Terrorism is a broad category. It is not even, in the literal sense of the word, against a single person or persons. It's not even against a nation. Before Sept. 11 we have had incidents of terrorism and yet why is it now that we decide to act? Anyone remember Munich and other events like that like the hostage situation at our embassy in Tehran? All I'm saying is that the war on Terrorism itself is against a nonenitity.

 

As far as the war ending anytime soon, since it is a broad category, it's like what someone else mentioned, until we decide it isn't worth the trouble anymore. Terrorism isn't going to go away anytime soon. It has been going on long before Sept. 11 and will continue to do so because the radicals believe that they are on a mission to rid the earth of all things that are considered the devil's own invention and that includes democracy.

[SilentScope001]

I would say, SS, that one of the frustrating aspects of the way this war is being conducted is that it's being done in half-measures.

 

Maybe, but I think that if it was done in full-measure, I would still be upset, if only due to the fact that 1) terrorists will get even more angry, and 2) we're still fighting against Terror, an abstract construct. But anything to end the war so that we can move onto something else is a good thing.

[mimartin]

Sure there is. Surrender. No American will ever consider that though.

 

I’ve already looked at the option of surrender.

If you do nothing they see you as a coward and continue their campaign to destroy western society.

Personally doing nothing or giving in to their demands is the least attractive options I can see.

 

I’m not saying that we shouldn't listen to their demands and correct anything we are doing that is truly oppressing or unfair. Not because of their use of terror, but because it is the right thing to do.

[SilentScope001]

Personally doing nothing or giving in to their demands is the least attractive options I can see.

 

I know that, which is why Americans will not consider it. But a bit of a surrender would end the war, especially if you decide to surrender totally, you know. How can terrorists destroy Western Civilization if the Americans surrender and destroy Western Civilization themselves?

 

(EDIT: there was a typo)

[Totenkopf]

Perhaps the "terrorists" should throw in the towel, concede defeat and then sit back as the West stumbles over itself to rebuild them ala a modern Marshall Plan.

[ET Warrior]

Actually, just as drugs are a physical entity, so are the purveyors of terror.

It is not called the "War against Terrorists" or the "War against bad guys". While we may be attempting to succeed in a war against terror by attacking the purveyors, it still does nothing to stop terrorism itself, because terrorism is still not a physical entity that can be attacked, rather it is a method of offense against an enemy. Would it be logical to try and wage a war on carpet bombing?

[Totenkopf]

Neither is the war on drugs called the war on dealers or kingpins. The war on poverty is also a concept, like that on terror. The "war" itself is being waged not against some airy ideal but in the real world against concrete things like people and money trails and weapons. The war on drugs is not merely a war to interdict drugs coming into the country but also to change behaviors by using what some would argue are draconian methods (stiff prison sentences, property seizures..). Or perhaps the war on racism via hate-crime legislation, EEOC set asides, PC thinking, etc.. This is also a war fought against racists, not merely racism. Ideas are like genies in a bottle. Once out, they are awfully hard (if at all possible) to place back under lock and key. "War on Terror" is just a label to describe something.

 

Besides, if the war on drugs was really only against drugs......it would have been won long ago b/c drugs are an inanimate object that can't fight back.

[SilentScope001]

Thing is, as long as people say:

 

"Hey, you know, if we cause terror, we'll get our goals..."

 

"Really? Cool! Let's do it!"

 

Terrorism will still continues.

 

...And while drugs are easily destroyable, as long as people say:

 

"Hey, drugs are cool! Let make more of them!"

 

There may be too many drugs in the world for the US Army to destroy.

 

EDIT:

Would it be logical to try and wage a war on carpet bombing?

 

Well, the war on Landmines is going pretty well.

[Emperor Devon]

If you want to wage a war, fine, but wage a war against enemies your own size, where you have a chance of losing, not against weak enemies.

 

Wars are not fought on the grounds of giving the parties involved a fair fight. If anything, making it an uneven fight is the ideal.

 

How you can find wars a form of entertainment I have no idea. Put yourself the shoes in the people who've lost their loved ones to it - I'm sure it would seem far less entertaining to you then. Honestly, I'm not even sure if you're being serious about this. I would hope you aren't.

 

How can terrorists destroy Western Civilization if the Americans surrender and destroy Western Civilization themselves?

 

The war on terror isn't a war that can be described with terms like 'surrender' or even 'war', (contrary to how Bush seems to make it out) but one of ideals. It's more of a constant state of skirmishes than something involving massive fronts and armies, and will only be 'won' when the people involved change those ideals. Words like 'surrender' distort what it really is IMO.

[Jae Onasi]

OK, when you have taken care of veterans whose minds are shot because of all the horrors they've seen, whose vision is gone because of being in the wrong place at the wrong time in a war, or whose arms and legs are gone from stepping on an IED, when you've visited the grave of a family member lost in a war, and when you've sat and prayed that the explosions in Baghdad you're seeing on Fox and CNN don't involve your friends or family members who are there right that moment, then you come back and share how 'entertaining' you think war really is.

 

The only thing I want it to be at this point is 'over'.

[JediMaster12]

How you can find wars a form of entertainment I have no idea. Put yourself the shoes in the people who've lost their loved ones to it - I'm sure it would seem far less entertaining to you then.

I study battles. I studied the Battle of the Somme and I have seen the pictures of the trenches. I don't see it as entertainment. War is something that I wish we didn't have but we do.

My cousin served in Iraq and thank the gods that he came home safe. I am happy that I am able to see him again.

 

The only thing I want it to be at this point is 'over'.

I'm with you on that one.

[True_Avery]

You cannot declare war on a noun. It is as simple as that my friends.

 

And I fully and completely agree with you Jae.

[SilentScope001]

Erm...maybe it wasn't such a good idea to phrase it that way I have.

 

Death and misery is terrible, but it is a part of this Earth, and we're going to have to deal with it anyway. It doesn't matter if you get killed in Iraq or you die of a terminal illness in a retirement home...you're still dead, and that's tragic. I dislike death...alright? I know the pain and feeling of loss.

 

But, well, we're stuck with it. We're stuck with wars, and we're stuck with tragic events. We're always stuck with them, and we're forced to watch them over and over again, unless we wish to ignore them. I would rather want a boring but fun life, but I will never have it, and we are doomed to live in "interesting times". Except, well, we are denied even that here...

 

And, somehow, this "war", whatever it is, whatever it is waged against, is too terrible to watch, too tragic...because it seems unfitting to America. An interesting war is a terrible war, yes, but it would be better than basically battling in the middle of nowhere, throwing money and lives, for nothing, not even battling other nations, those who actually pose a threat to America.

 

The war on terror isn't a war that can be described with terms like 'surrender' or even 'war', (contrary to how Bush seems to make it out) but one of ideals. It's more of a constant state of skirmishes than something involving massive fronts and armies, and will only be 'won' when the people involved change those ideals. Words like 'surrender' distort what it really is IMO.

 

I know that. The term "surrender" would be referring to the Americans changings their ideals.

===

Maybe it might be better not to speak anything else on the matter...because I guess I was a bit disappointed on what happened here, and how we are stuck fighting something for 50 years because of a concept I personally disagree with and seeing as a bit demeaning. I do not wish to be seen as a cold person, I just feel that this War is paid so much attention that it makes me upset and bitter about it.

 

I guess I did went a bit too far here, and my reasoning may not been a bit too harsh...Er, I do apologize for my views, and wish there was a better way of expressing them.

[True_Avery]

I think I understand what you mean.

 

You meant to phrase it as "This war is paid so much attention to that it seems like it has come as some form of entertainment to the American People," instead of the aparent "War is a form of entertainment, even though it is terrible in all ways."

 

If you mean it like that I would agree with you. I know plenty of people who see this war as "entertaining" in their own way. It is sad, but true.

 

I hope that clears it up so people don't come to hate you for this.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

You cannot declare war on a noun.

'Iraq' is a noun.

 

>_>

[True_Avery]

'Iraq' is a noun.

 

>_>

 

Alrightly.

 

You cannot declare war on a word.

 

Terror is a word. A noun. A Person, Place, or Thing that symbolizes a feeling of anxiety, fear, and sometimes pain. Usually associated with death and violence.

 

It is so vague to say this is a war on "Terror" or "Terrorism". Terrorism is so widespread and so relative that the people we claim to be protecting can see us as Terrorists to their lives and well-being. Claiming someone is a Terrorist is a point of veiw, as one persons Terrorist is another persons Freedom Fighter. I am at least glad that some News stations will call this the "War on Iraq" or at least the "War on the Middle East" even though none of this is at all classified as a war. Bush calls it a war, the Congress calls it a Police Action.

 

But thats really all I got to say. Over the years I have learned my lessons on staying away from "Friendly discussion on serious topics" Forums. I respect everybody's opinion and I find little comes out of these topics but fighting. I don't really know why I am posting in this thread right now >.>;;

[ET Warrior]

You cannot declare war on a noun.

Errr...what do you declare war on then? Verbs? Dangling participles?