~US War on Terror: Fighting An Invisible Enemy~

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- ~US War on Terror: Fighting An Invisible Enemy~

Posted by PeacefulWarrior on Sep-09-2003 00:02:

~US War on Terror: Fighting An Invisible Enemy~

Is "The War on Terrorism" winnable?

Does the US need "the unwinnable war" more than it needs to win it?

Posted by MrSquirrel on Sep-09-2003 03:26:

In my opinion the term "War on Terrorism" is really a misnomer. Just as "War on Drugs", "War on Poverty", etc. are not actual wars. The powers that be like to use the word "war" to show the seriousness, in their opinion, of the campaign they are waging.

As for it being "winnable" I don't believe that terrorism can EVER be totally eradicated as long as there are people who have a desire to fight for a cause, however illogical or "unjustified", and have the means and the desire to execute attacks on others. One must always remember that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. The Boston Tea Party could have been very easily deemed to be terrorism in it's day. So no, I don't think the "War on Terrorism" can be won. We can get to a point where the threat of another major attack from the same type of group is infinitely less likely, but we will never totally remove the threat. Pandora's Box hath been opened.

I personally feel that the current administration "needs" the "we're at war" climate so they can ignore their critics or call them "unpatriotic" for disagreeing with them. I find this to be the more distressing threat to the "American Way" of life than any threat posed by islamic extremists. But of course that is my opinion.

I do think a lot these days about Orwell and the three pillars of "The Party" in 1984:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

MrS

Posted by tathi on Sep-09-2003 04:37:

Humanity is not an egalitarian race, perceived Social Darwinism and hegemonic ethnocentrism will ensure that this "war" will never be won. Western double standards entice oppressed races to liberate themselves through violent means. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, awarded the nobel peace prize, and he is not the only terrorist bestowed an award upon.

The best defense against all terrorism would be the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. The problem is, it needs the backing of all countries.

I wonder why certain countries are afraid to back the International War Crimes Tribunal?

Lets hope in retrospect our ancestors can determine who the real terrorists are.

Posted by occrider on Sep-09-2003 04:42:

quote:
Originally posted by tathi
Humanity is not an egalitarian race, perceived Social Darwinism and hegemonic ethnocentrism will ensure that this "war" will never be won. Western double standards entice oppressed races to liberate themselves through violent means. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, awarded the nobel peace prize, and he is not the only terrorist bestowed an award upon.

The best defense against all terrorism would be the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. The problem is, it needs the backing of all countries.

I wonder why certain countries are afraid to back the International War Crimes Tribunal?

Lets hope in retrospect our ancestors can determine who the real terrorists are.

I've been a long opponent of the institution of the ICC. I hope you are speaking of that instead of the International War Crimes Tribunal (which is a joke). At any rate, if you would like my point of view simply do a search. I've discussed that issue VERY thoroughly, but I always welcome additional debate

Posted by caddyshack on Sep-09-2003 04:53:

wow, alot of hate for the war. i can understad though, and as much as i wish war could go away i still think war was a good choice. There are alot of lawless countries which breed drugs and terrorists.

People slam bush for the war and the econ. But in a best case scenario what did bush gain from going to war? Not much i think. In fact, i bet alot of people would still resent him even if iraq became a perfect democracy and leaded the world in terrorist arrests. I just think it is entirely possible that he is doing what he thinks is best for his people no matter what some people think.

Posted by occrider on Sep-09-2003 04:55:

I'm a nice guy ... search done for you!

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...15&pagenumber=1

Posted by tathi on Sep-09-2003 05:05:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider International War Crimes Tribunal (which is a joke).

I agree with you, at the moment it is a joke. I'm more idealistic about its future, can you imagine its theoretical potential if all races / countries realise they are not above the law?

Posted by occrider on Sep-09-2003 05:13:

Hehe well I was speaking quite literally. The international war crimes tribunal is a third party organization, not affiliated with the UN in any way whatsover, and tries to convince people it has some legal legitmacy based upon its name.

http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm

Notice the site has no UN affiliation, is headed by Ramsey Clark, and teh bios of its signatories.

The International Criminal Court on the other hand is the institution set up by the UN to process war crimes. And like I stated before, I agree with its theoretical potential 100%. I don't think the US should be above anything over any other country. I simply disagree with the manner in which it is set up in the present.

Posted by tathi on Sep-09-2003 05:24:

the sole reason i chose to mention the IWCT over the ICC was because:

quote:
Is "The War on Terrorism" winnable?

I was more interested in putting forward my opinion on the sociocultural psychology of perceived ethnocentrism

Posted by MrSquirrel on Sep-09-2003 06:01:

quote:
Originally posted by tathi

I was more interested in putting forward my opinion on the sociocultural psychology of perceived ethnocentrism

4 big words out of 5...it hurts the eyeballs just trying to read that

Crazy Australian

MrS

Posted by tathi on Sep-09-2003 06:07:

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquirrel
4 big words out of 5...it hurts the eyeballs just trying to read that

Crazy Australian

MrS

Haha, i failed year 12 standard english

Posted by Izzy on Sep-09-2003 17:37:

quote:
Originally posted by caddyshack
But in a best case scenario what did bush gain from going to war? Not much i think.

doing what's right shouldnt be based on what you have to gain from it. Opinions such as these lead outsiders to think americans are shelfish. i am glad america is willing to take on challenges of bringing better lives to those in somalia, liberia and even iraq when there is little to gain and much to lose. It is because of situations like these that i belive america has little potential to become the shameless colonial super-power bent on world dominiation and self benifets.

Vesa, thanks for the article, i'm definitely going to read it soon. I'm still reading some from the Neo-Cons thread you opened. they're great, i print them up and read them in class. they're much more fascinating then my profs.