# Are we winning the war on terror?



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Are we winning the war on terror so far? How do we know when we've achieved victory in the war on terror?


----------



## chang (Feb 16, 2006)

No idea, but I was told last year that the new term we're supposed to use is the "global struggle against violent extremism." Don't think anybody actually uses it though.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

One man's opinion


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

A few years into Iraq a Los Angeles student became a very vocal anti war activist on his college campus. When ELF destroyed some SUVs the F.B. I. arrested him with a great deal of publicity under the terorism act, which included riders lumping ecotage in with Bin laden. There was utterly no evidence or connection, he had an airtight alibi as to his whereabouts. After several days of hassle, legal fees and court he was released, more determined than ever to protest the war, gaining publicity off campus he never dreamed of. Meanwhile Afghanistan is harvesting a record poppie crop, air travel has been reduced to a nightmare of security siezing nail clippers, breast milk and 2" toy Garands from G.I. Joe dolls and we can't even supply blankets to all the wounded in our VA hospitals. Every few weeks we read of a few insurgents or some name being killed like a few cockroaches in a slum @ how many millions per body? Bin Laden is successfully hiding out in 'bandit country' just like his 19th century predessesor in Northern India from the british. And our oligarchy two party system is systematically rolling out a catwalk of bobble headed beauty queens talking about abortion, same sex marriage and universal health care. In the last recorded words of Colonel, Brevet Major General Custer before splitting his command, " At em boys we have them surrounded!"


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

chang said:


> No idea, but I was told last year that the new term we're supposed to use is the "global struggle against violent extremism." Don't think anybody actually uses it though.


Told by whom? And who's "we"?

The invasion of a country who never asked for the favor, and an occupation which has lasted longer than all of World War II of a country who never wanted us there in the first place doesn't qualify as "winning the war". The slaughter of 60,000+ Iraqi civilians by our military, while Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri et al continue to operate freely in Pakistan and Afghanistan doesn't qualify as "winning" anything. Although it has succeeded in raking in hundreds of billions of dollars for Halliburton and Dick Cheney's other corporate buddies, and establishing bilateral support for a vast bureaucracy of government teetsuckers who claim that forcing 85 year-old women to remove their shoes in airports contributes something to our national security.

Historians are going to look back on this era in amazed wonder.

But now that the Sunnis have withdrawn officially from Iraq's government the U.S. has set up the exact same circumstance for mass genocide that we "accomplished" in Korea, Vietnam and other places around the world where we stuck our unwanted noses and became embroiled in the civil quagmires of other countries.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Told by whom? And who's "we"?
> 
> The invasion of a country who never asked for the favor, and an occupation which has lasted longer than all of World War II of a country who never wanted us there in the first place doesn't qualify as "winning the war". The slaughter of 60,000+ Iraqi civilians by our military, while Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri et al continue to operate freely in Pakistan and Afghanistan doesn't qualify as "winning" anything. Although it has succeeded in raking in hundreds of billions of dollars for Halliburton and Dick Cheney's other corporate buddies, and establishing bilateral support for a vast bureaucracy of government teetsuckers who claim that forcing 85 year-old women to remove their shoes in airports contributes something to our national security.
> 
> ...


"DOH!"

chang 
Starting Member 
Join Date: February 16th, 2006
*Location: Iraq*


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

omairp said:


> Are we winning the war on terror so far? How do we know when we've achieved victory in the war on terror?


"We"? Is Canada fighting one? I read the G&M online and do not remember Harper mentioning a "war on terror". Much talk of that new nation though in Quebec. How's all that going?

I smell a troll.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> "We"? Is Canada fighting one? I read the G&M online and do not remember Harper mentioning a "war on terror". Much talk of that new nation though in Quebec. How's all that going?
> 
> I smell a troll.


Is Canada still in Afghanistan?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Is Canada still in Afghanistan?


Yup, and doing a damn good job apparently. Of course, the Canadian left (read strong socialists) will argue that. However, pretty sure Harper has not declared a global war on terror for Canada.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Yup, and doing a damn good job apparently. Of course, the Canadian left (read strong socialists) will argue that. However, pretty sure Harper has not declared a global war on terror for Canada.


Harper? Who is that? I thought the guy running things up there was named Wilkins.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> "We"? Is Canada fighting one? I read the G&M online and do not remember Harper mentioning a "war on terror". Much talk of that new nation though in Quebec. How's all that going?
> 
> I smell a troll.


Canada has troops in Afghanistan as part of it's NATO commitment. Harper doesn't use the buzz-phrase "war on terror" that much, but there is a fair deal of talk about the Afghanistan mission.

You must be reading a very old globe and mail, I haven't heard any serious talk about Quebec seperation since it was quashed in a referendum in the 1995.

Amongst other citizenships, I'm also a UK citizen, and we have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> the Canadian left (read strong socialists) will argue that.


I don't think there is such thing as a strong socialist here in Canada, I can't remember the last time the NDP (socialist party) ran the country, and it's doubtful they will have a crack at it anytime soon which is good news for everyone.

Besides, socialist are arguing the mission is going badly and it's time to bring the troops home.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Harper? Who is that? I thought the guy running things up there was named Wilkins.


Stephen Harper is the Canadian prime minister, a conservative who ousted the previous Liberal Prime Minister in an early election last year after a scandal over mis-appropriated ad dollars. Not sure who Wilkins is.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

omairp said:


> Canada has troops in Afghanistan as part of it's NATO commitment. Harper doesn't use the buzz-phrase "war on terror" that much, but there is a fair deal of talk about the Afghanistan mission.


And this amounts to the Canadian leadership declaring a global WoT how? You can see the difference?



omairp said:


> You must be reading a very old globe and mail, I haven't heard any serious talk about Quebec seperation since it was quashed in a referendum in the 1995.


Seriously, how uninformed are you? Did you miss the whole "nation within a nation"?



omairp said:


> Amongst other citizenships, I'm also a UK citizen, and we have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.


And we were all supposed to know this new claim how? That is one of the best _ad hoc_ rescue attempts I have seen in quite some time.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

omairp said:


> Stephen Harper is the Canadian prime minister, a conservative who ousted the previous Liberal Prime Minister in an early election last year after a scandal over mis-appropriated ad dollars. Not sure who Wilkins is.


https://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/49026.htm


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> And this amounts to the Canadian leadership declaring a global WoT how? You can see the difference?


So how would you define what Canada's doing in Afghanistan if it has nothing to do with the war on terror?



Wayfarer said:


> Seriously, how uninformed are you? Did you miss the whole "nation within a nation"?


Old news, very old. Maybe reporters are still writing about it, but back then it was a headline, now it's a footnote.



Wayfarer said:


> And we were all supposed to know this new claim how? That is one of the best _ad hoc_ rescue attempts I have seen in quite some time.


I didn't expect anyone to know, you asked me and I responded.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

omairp said:


> So how would you define what Canada's doing in Afghanistan if it has nothing to do with the war on terror?


You have yet to demonstrate that a limited engagement = Canada has declared a "war on terror". Your OP was an obvious open ended troll concerning Dubya's WoT.



omairp said:


> Old news, very old. Maybe reporters are still writing about it, but back then it was a headline, now it's a footnote.


If you think this is "old news" you really have no idea to what I am referring, do you? We are talking 2006 here.

Edit:


> The House of Commons has overwhelmingly passed a motion recognizing Québécois as a nation within Canada.


 at: Yes, 1995 indeed.



omairp said:


> I didn't expect anyone to know, you asked me and I responded.


What did I ask you? I asked "We" in reference to your Canadian location. I never asked you if you had hidden citizenships. I have ever only known one other poster to claim both Canadian and UK citizen, and that fellow is no longer with us. Perhaps you know him?


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

If it makes this thread less sticky in wording let's try this:

Is America winning the war on terror? How will America know exactly at what point it has won the war on terror?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Our culture is in love with the term "the war on.....". We tried this in the 60's with the war on poverty and there are still poor people, the war on drugs and there are still drugs. 

I agree with the war on islamic radicalism but its a mouthful and a wet dream for most libs who want to consider everyone's point of view because "its the right thing to do". Who cares what we call it. We need to kill islamic terrorists. We need to crush countries that willingly and knowingly aid islamic terrorists. You can call it the electric kool-aid acid test for all I care. 

As to whether we are winning; yes I think so. With the exception of 3/11 in Madrid, since 9/11 we have yet to see any large scale sophisticated terrorist attacks. None of our embassies, ships or foreign barracks have been hit. We have not had an attack on home soil. Of course, all that is not to say that we should not remain vigilant. Terrorism to some degree will always be around. We just have to make sure that they never again possess the means to carry out attacks on a scale as evidenced in the 90's and 9/11. We never wiped out the Mafia either but we're not seeing gunfights in our city streets and I don't have to look over my shoulder if a waiter tells me "try the veal, its the best in town".


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

omairp said:


> If it makes this thread less sticky in wording let's try this:
> 
> Is America winning the war on terror? How will America know exactly at what point it has won the war on terror?


To ask those questions implies a belief that answers are possible. They're not. They never have been. This "war" was designed from the start to be undefinable, unwinnable, and above all else, unaccountable. It's an open-ended commitment to keep Pentagon budgets at wartime levels. Forever.

Not only is it a dream come true for our military-industrial shadow government, it's a perpetual excuse for Executive Branch power grabbing and abuse of office.

This has been the modus operandi of the Republican Party since Reagan, and the era of the "war on drugs", "war on crime" and other fake "wars".


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> With the exception of 3/11 in Madrid, since 9/11 we have yet to see any large scale sophisticated terrorist attacks.


I'm a bit confused as to how you define large scale sophisticated terrorist attacks. Do the bombings in London and Bali not meet the definition of large scale sophisticated terrorist attacks?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> This has been the modus operandi of the Republican Party since Reagan, and the era of the "war on drugs", "war on crime" and other fake "wars".


Unlike, of course, LBJ's "war on poverty"?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

omairp said:


> I'm a bit confused as to how you define large scale sophisticated terrorist attacks. Do the bombings in London and Bali not meet the definition of large scale sophisticated terrorist attacks?


Bali was a soft target and not very sophisticated. Also it took place in a relatively backward country without sophisticated counter intelligence like in the west.

As for London, if you are referring to 7/2005 that was shocking but it was not as sophisticated nor was it large scale. I'm not trying to diminish the shock value or the tragedy, I'm simply trying to put it in a strategic context. London 7/2005 was on par with other acts of homegrown European terrorism ala IRA.

I've said this before, Between WTC I and 9/11 AQ was averaging one large and very sophisticated attack against the west every two years. WTC I, Khobar, the African Embassies, USS Cole and finally 9/11. Since then they have failed to do so. Blowing up buses and trains does not require the sophistication and intelligence network as say trying to get explosives into an American embassy.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> To ask those questions implies a belief that answers are possible. They're not. They never have been. This "war" was designed from the start to be undefinable, unwinnable, and above all else, unaccountable. It's an open-ended commitment to keep Pentagon budgets at wartime levels. Forever.
> 
> Not only is it a dream come true for our military-industrial shadow government, it's a perpetual excuse for Executive Branch power grabbing and abuse of office.
> 
> This has been the modus operandi of the Republican Party since Reagan, and the era of the "war on drugs", "war on crime" and other fake "wars".


*FrankDC* you are so lucky not to be living under the* Martinis at 8* dictatorship. By now you would have been tried and imprisoned for sedition. However, we would have let the prison population know that you were being incarcerated for pedophilia. Uh,..., you know what happens to those guys in prison, right? 

So, no, I don't defend your right to free speech. In your case I would take it away.

Cheers,

M8


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Unfortunately, there is no way to judge "winning." Japan surprised us and caught us with our pants down, we retaliated and she went back to sleep. Al Queda attacked and we retaliated, but who knows if they'll ever go back to sleep. They are not the fighting force of one country or one government. How do you negotiate with someone who has nothing to negotiate with and or more importantly nothing to lose? We've gone in to try and slay a multi-headed dragon and there is no way of knowing for sure if we can kill it. We could send it back to its lair and we might gain a false sense of security. 

Are enemy today will not stand up to us face to face, they'll attack from behind and run. We must never think we've won and thus let our guard down.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Martinis at 8 said:


> *FrankDC* you are so lucky not to be living under the* Martinis at 8* dictatorship. By now you would have been tried and imprisoned for sedition. However, we would have let the prison population know that you were being incarcerated for pedophilia. Uh,..., you know what happens to those guys in prison, right?
> 
> So, no, I don't defend your right to free speech. In your case I would take it away.
> 
> ...


M8, if you don't mind I'm going to piggy back your comments.

Frank, please thank the next G.I. you come in contact with for giving you the freedom to express your opinion. The reason why we don't have more 9/11s is because when necessary the U.S. has put her nose in the face of those governments, dictators and enemies wishing to do us harm. You might perceive our involvement and presence as unnecessary. I say that to maintain control you have to exert control. If some government wants to aid a terrorist like Bin Laden, then they must accept the consequences.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Trenditional said:


> If some government wants to aid a terrorist like Bin Laden, then they must accept the consequences.


What about the Reagan administration and the Iran-Contra affair? Iran is considered to be a terrorist state by the US.

Both the Reagan and Carter administration funneled money to Afghan mujahideen in the '80's. Those mujahideen included Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. It's no secret that Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, and America all helped to bankroll and train them in their fight against the Soviet Union.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

omairp said:


> What about the Reagan administration and the Iran-Contra affair? Iran is considered to be a terrorist state by the US.
> 
> Both the Reagan and Carter administration funneled money to Afghan mujahideen in the '80's. Those mujahideen included Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. It's no secret that Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, and America all helped to bankroll and train them in their fight against the Soviet Union.


True statements and yes in hindsight, maybe the U.S. funded the wrong side. We picked one of the sides to back and thus aided them with weapons and money to fight this war. If we had dealt with Russia after allying with them to deal with Hitler, maybe we wouldn't have had to send aid to the Afghani's when they went up against Russia. The benefit of looking back on history is that we can factor in all of the associated outcomes, whereas decisions at a given time are made without the benefit of seeing the future. How many times have you backed a "friend" in a fight only to be "un-friendly" in the future?


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Trenditional said:


> True statements and yes in hindsight, maybe the U.S. funded the wrong side. We picked one of the sides to back and thus aided them with weapons and money to fight this war. If we had dealt with Russia after allying with them to deal with Hitler, maybe we wouldn't have had to send aid to the Afghani's when they went up against Russia. The benefit of looking back on history is that we can factor in all of the associated outcomes, whereas decisions at a given time are made without the benefit of seeing the future. How many times have you backed a "friend" in a fight only to be "un-friendly" in the future?


OK. Fair enough, in the case of Afghanistan, hindsight is 20/20, and it can be argued that the outcome could not have been predicted. But in light of these repeated lessons, what do you think of the recent announcement of the the US government to supply around $85 billion in weapons to Egypt, Israel, Saudia Arabia, and other middle east countries to counter the threat of Iran?

In the case of Iran though, the Reagan administration knew from the hostage crisis a few years earlier that the Iranian government was hostile to America, and still decided to arm them.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Trenditional said:


> M8, if you don't mind I'm going to piggy back your comments.
> 
> Frank, please thank the next G.I. you come in contact with for giving you the freedom to express your opinion.


Not even close. Freedom of political expression is guaranteed by our Constitution, not "given" by our armed services. And to counter your next response, they haven't had anything to do with defending it since the end of World War II.



Trenditional said:


> The reason why we don't have more 9/11s is because when necessary the U.S. has put her nose in the face of those governments, dictators and enemies wishing to do us harm. You might perceive our involvement and presence as unnecessary. I say that to maintain control you have to exert control. If some government wants to aid a terrorist like Bin Laden, then they must accept the consequences.


Excuse me? Fifteen of the nineteen 911 perpetrators were Saudi Arabian, while Osama, Ayman et al are still operating freely in Pakistan nearly SIX YEARS after 911. Yet what "consequences" have we seen? Here's your answer:


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Not even close. Freedom of political expression is guaranteed by our Constitution...


This is true, but in your case I would like to take that right away. But only for you Frankie baby


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Those of us who performed military service will recall our oath to 'protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.' I'm sure Frank can explain the checks and balances of power of President, Congress and Supreme Court. I am also quite sure Frank is utterly ignorant of the unstated power check of the U.S. Military . How many times in our history has a military Junta overthrown a elected president? How many times has a popular General been removed from command by a simple order? Does Mac Arthur and Truman mean anything? What did a President do regarding a state national guard during integration in the 60s? What the Franks will never understand is we have a military with a sense of place in our society, sometimes nearly broken in operational readiness, seeing periods of unpopularity or adulation, but knowing it's place in this nation's affairs. We 'Happy Few' actualy number in the millions- a fortunate balance against the Franks.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> Those of us who performed military service will recall our oath to 'protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.' I'm sure Frank can explain the checks and balances of power of President, Congress and Supreme Court. I am also quite sure Frank is utterly ignorant of the unstated power check of the U.S. Military . How many times in our history has a military Junta overthrown a elected president? How many times has a popular General been removed from command by a simple order? Does Mac Arthur and Truman mean anything? What did a President do regarding a state national guard during integration in the 60s? What the Franks will never understand is we have a military with a sense of place in our society, sometimes nearly broken in operational readiness, seeing periods of unpopularity or adulation, but knowing it's place in this nation's affairs. We 'Happy Few' actualy number in the millions- a fortunate balance against the Franks.


We've been through this discussion elsewhere in this forum. It's beyond me how anyone who takes an objective view of U.S. defense spending and foreign policy since WWII can reach any other conclusion: the Pentagon not only does not have a proper "sense of place in our society", it has become a permanent, unaccountable shadow government who operates and makes decisions completely independently of the will of the American people, and whose primary duty, like all other government bureaucracies, is not to perform their intended function but simply to keep themselves in business and growing. And to accomplish this goal they manufacture one fabricated boogeyman after another, and relentlessly brainwash every set of elected officials into believing imminent threats to our national security lurk under every rock.

This scam works year after year, generation after generation, because so many Americans are guilty about their wealth and have absolutely no problem believing someone/something is always out there ready to take it from them. "They hate our freedoms" and other such nonsense. We just eat it up and can't get enough.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> Those of us who performed military service will recall our oath to 'protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.' I'm sure Frank can explain the checks and balances of power of President, Congress and Supreme Court. I am also quite sure Frank is utterly ignorant of the unstated power check of the U.S. Military .* How many times in our history has a military Junta overthrown a elected president? *How many times has a popular General been removed from command by a simple order? Does Mac Arthur and Truman mean anything? What did a President do regarding a state national guard during integration in the 60s? What the Franks will never understand is we have a military with a sense of place in our society, sometimes nearly broken in operational readiness, seeing periods of unpopularity or adulation, but knowing it's place in this nation's affairs. We 'Happy Few' actualy number in the millions- a fortunate balance against the Franks.


Uhm ... Davis, Kennedy ... just off the top of my head.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Not even close. *Freedom of political expression is guaranteed by our Constitution, not "given" by our armed services.* And to counter your next response, they haven't had anything to do with defending it since the end of World War II.


Frank, 
I'll agree the Constitution is a powerful piece of paper. On the other hand without a strong military, that piece of paper is just a piece of paper. You can be certain that if a foreign enemy invaded this country, the rights outlined on that piece of paper would be out the window (followed close behind by that piece of paper). Every time a soldier steps on foreign soil at the direction of the current leadership they are defending that piece of paper and everything we are afforded by that piece of paper. So don't think we'd have half of what we have today had previous presidents not sent soldiers into wars, battles, conflicts, or police actions to ensure the freedoms of each of us.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*So I read the Gingrich article*

I don't know too much about him, but his ideas about a national energy strategy is something with which I could agree. What a wonderful world it would be if that black stuff that makes the Middle East relevant were to suddenly become worthless. The rest of humanity could just seal up the borders between Black Sea, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Arabian Sea and say 70 degrees longitude East.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Trenditional said:


> Frank,
> I'll agree the Constitution is a powerful piece of paper. On the other hand without a strong military, that piece of paper is just a piece of paper. You can be certain that if a foreign enemy invaded this country, the rights outlined on that piece of paper would be out the window (followed close behind by that piece of paper). Every time a soldier steps on foreign soil at the direction of the current leadership they are defending that piece of paper and everything we are afforded by that piece of paper. So don't think we'd have half of what we have today had previous presidents not sent soldiers into wars, battles, conflicts, or police actions to ensure the freedoms of each of us.


Those claims are disproven by simple reality, e.g. we flushed the lives of 58,000+ of our troops down the toilet in Vietnam. We lost that "war", and the country has been Communist ever since. How has that affected our rights and liberties? Same is true for Korea, Nicaragua and everywhere else we've sent our armed services since WWII: none of those actions had anything to do with defending our Constitution and everything to do with military adventurism; giving an obscenely bloated Pentagon something to do, and giving them pathetic excuses to maintain wartime budgets perpetually during peacetime.


----------

