War on Terror - Winnable?
POSTED BY: Arawaen
UPDATED: Monday, August 10, 2026 14:56
VIEWED: 8893
PAGE 2 of 8
where to start; I agree with you.
obtaining knowledge is the importan part. All i ment was i'am not much for books that tell me how i should act with my fellow beings. So my opinnon has no back up so to say. Just what i have learned by looking at what is going on around me.
Don't get me wrong books are great just not my thing. what works for you may not be what works for others.
We all have chocies to make every day, and we make the best ones possible with what we have.
Right or Wrong, hindsite is always 20/20.
knowledge is power how we use that power is the problem. Back to human nature.
nasty creatures that we are if you look for evil thats what you find.
Just don't forget that there is good to be had.
i'am not going to say don't worry be happy.
Or just sit back and do nothing it well all work out.
All evil needs to win is for good men to do nothing. Don't recall who said that right now.
The war on terror is bigger then just whats going on right now.Can it be won? For that to happen we would need world peace. That means avery person on this plant has to be willing to fight their human nature.
study the past, think on the future, live in the present.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Don't forget the KKK, white supremacists and various militia groups nor the abortion clinic bombers.
Arawaen
Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Don't want to get off topic.
But there is the hole zen thing.
Yin vs Yan
Good vs Evil
light vs dark
One can't be without the other.
There has to be balance.
Now what do we do with all the gray stuff??
just say n
the world is not black & white and the gray suff won't fill all the cracks.
does that make sents
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"You cannot win a war on terrorism... it's like having a war on jealousy."
-comedian David Cross
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This whole "war on" concept is a lie. Wars are fought against people, not ideas or commodities, but people, mostly poor people. We call wars a lot of things to avoid that fact. That way, we're not simply killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, oh no, we're having one of our "wars on."
When perpetrating a "war on" it seems to be important to remember that the ism or drug or state of being we're fighting only happens in foreign places (or the "inner city."--same thing). We don't terrorize anyone or do drugs or impoverish people.
Of course that's a load of b.s. What is the real difference between an "act of terror" and an "act of war" besides the budget?
A real war on terrorism would be directed at removing the root causes of terrorism: hatred and marginalization. Over the next 20 years the government could fund a massive cultural exchange with the Middle East. Teach Arabic and Farsee in schools. Do anything but destroy whole peoples and extort obedience out of the survivors and wonder why they don't love us.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
I have been reading Aristotle lately (Nichomachean Ethics and Politics), it seems to me the same human nature problems he talks about at 325 B.C. (approx.) are the same ones we have today. Can't say I see a lot of progress in almost 2500 years which is a little depressing.
I am starting Plutarch next, who is some 350 years later, initial observation seems to have similar problems and solutions (though I haven't looked at enough to really say).
In there day destruction was quite limited. There weaponry hadn't evolved to the point where one could easily level a town, city, state/province, etc.
But, I do think that Albert Einstein said it best:
"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has surpassed our humanity."
A war on terror can not be won solely by the sword. That'll just create a self perpetuating escalating cycle of violence.
We must stop and think about the root cause of this sort of thing and move to correct that instead of killing and killing and killing...
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bush's 'war on terror' is mostly a handy cattle-prod for the US psyche. It'll keep people focused where they're 'supposed' to be focused, and make them cooperative. And probably get Bush re-elected to boot.
The way it's being done - isolated from true global cooperation and using military means - it isn't winnable. Look at Israel. They've been trying it for how many decades? Does the Iraeli government actually think that there was just one generation of terrorists and once they kill them, it'll be over?
But even if Bush's 'war on terror' were done better, to the point where he could win, some wars you shouldn't win. Maybe there really are irrational cultures - cultures of reavers. But mostly I think there is rebellion against injustice.
BTW - about 'human nature'. It's a big topic of discussion where I work. (Odd that an assemblage of chemists, engineers and biologists should be debating this particular topic.) While I don't think it is infinitely pliable, I'm convinced that how people behave and how a society is structured is pretty much determined by the myths they believe. So just think - the US is the land of opportunity, ruthless competition, relentless grasping for ever more stuff, and the gaping maw of financial disaster always behind. I guess this IS the best of all possible worlds.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This war on terror BS is directly related to a shell game that has been used to con us into supporting their dirty little wars for many, many years. I'm talking about the notion that we aren't going to war with another nation but only with evil elements that happen to be co-located. We try to convince ourselves we aren't going to war with the people of Afghanistan but with the Taliban or al-Queda - not with the people of Iraq, but with Saddam Hussein (one man?). This sales gimmick seems to be designed to counter the inevitable peaceniks' claim that they (our enemies) are people too.... and that they are nice people who just have an evil government. It's up to us to save us from their oppressors. Whatever.
The truth behind this nonsense is that these 'evil elements', whether they be duly elected representatives of the people, tyannical despots, or loose terror rings, do not exist in a vacuum. The require a support structure of some kind. They might enjoy the enthusiastic support of the population, or just resigned cooperation, but they don't and can't maintain their operations if the people they are feeding off of refuse to suppport them.
Perhaps a more rational alternative would be to confront these nations directly. Tell them, "Listen, your [leaders, terrorists, businesses, whatever...] are doing something we find intolerable. If you don't make them quit we will have to consider you our enemies and do whatever it takes to make this stop. If we attack you, we aren't going to tip-toe about asking each and every one of you whose side you're on. We are going to destroy the infrastucture these evil elements are relying on. Yes, that means 'innocent' people will die. So get off your asses and take some responsibility for the actions of those you are supporting before this gets ugly."
Now, some of you may have noticed that this logic may also be used against us. If our military or our corporations are committing evil in our name overseas, we are culpable for our support of these actions. The people and countries that feel they are being abused will consider us their enemies - not just our government or military or our corporations, but US, the people who prop up the institutions. That's why its so dreadfully important that we reign in the rampant arrogance currently guiding our foreign policy.
I think most nations understand the self correcting nature of American democracy and will give us a lot of leeway because of it. But if we refuse to use that process to correct our mistakes, if we stay home in front of the TV drinking beer rather than moving to stop some of the crap being done in our names we will ulitimately be the ones who pay for it.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have never agreed much with western dualism.
Good and evil can be seen as opposites, but evil can also be seen as the absence of good.
Light and darkness can be seen as opposites, but darkness can also be seen as the absence of light.
The Taoist philosophy of Yin and Yang is more valid, as eastern dualism is more complicated than mere opposites, though it is often reduced to such when introduced to the west. An atom needs both it positive and negative components but they are not necessarily opposite. Society needs male and female, but they are not necessarily opposite. Two different but complimentary forces can find a balance, but opposites tend to neutralize each other.
Arawaen
Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DeckRoid, I hope you understood that I wasn't implying the war on 'x' to be not worth fighting. A valid government is obligated to work for the common good of its citizens and in the case of the terrorist attacks of late that required defensive action (the best defense sometimes being a good offense).
What I was trying to get at is not that no war is winnable (though I suppose when one figures the costs of war, nobody really wins, which is why they should never be entered into lightly) but that a war against a concept is not winnable. You cannot shoot or kill a concept, it exists in the minds of men.
That said, I was troubled at your solution:
Quote:
The new definition would be along the lines of "beating the crap out of your oppenent until he is no longer able to preform acts of terror on you or your country."
It assumes easy identification of the opponent, something I am skeptical of. It also fails to address why people engage in terrorism. I don't buy the line that the Palestinian/Israeli conflict isn't relevant to terrorists' issue with America. I surely don't buy the line that they are simply jealous of our freedom and way of life. Bin Laden could have lived like a king, with freedom and a standard of living far exceeding the majority of Americans.
America is a very powerful nation, both military and economically, easily the most powerful on the planet. She is capable of influencing other nations with these two weapons, even to the point of getting their leaders to act contrary to the will of their people. The belief that some people so marginalized and with no capacity to retaliate openly (either through force or legal means) might be driven to insane violence is branded heresy, for apparantly impotence in the face of overwhelming power must result in submission. Now it is not that I think America is wrong to press its interests, it is not, every nation has the obligation to seek the best position in the international realm, but I do think the disparity of power might be a major component in aberration that is the terrorist mindset.
I think this disparity of power also explains the desire of many nations to acquire nuclear weapons, we created them for security, they want that security too. The problem with nukes is that while they provide you with security, the more people that have them the greater chance that somebody will use them and hence security goes down.
The other problem with the disparity of power is that taking away an enemies ability to fight is not the same as defeating them. When one side doesn't have the ability to respond to a method of attack, one cannot truly saying the two sides are fighting, rather one side is simply being killed by the other. At the same time nobody would willingly send their soldiers into harms way needlessly.
I don't see any simple solutions to the problem of disparity of power. Either one side is suppose to voluntarily give up the advantage or the other is suppose to voluntarily submit. I see terrorism as a social disease that springs out of this dilemna. The use of military or economic force to stop it strikes me as having the unfortunate effect of exacerbating the problem and at the same time to choose not to respond to terrorism with either would make any government irresponsible.
I hope that I have been clear and not overly offensive. I don't want to demonize either side, but to see the issue as objectively as possible. I recognize that I am still limited by my own subjectivity (but I desire objectivity) and that some people prefer to be partisan about things (though I can't quite fathom why that is).
Arawaen
Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME