war on terror, are we winning or losing Options

[miszkristinexox]

do you think we are winning or losing the war on terror? and why do you think that?

[ryfitaDF]

we havn't started a war on terrorism. we just call it terrorism to make it sound just.

[LiLEthiopian]

we havn't started a war on terrorism. we just call it terrorism to make it sound just.

seriously.

Sadaam Hussein..(sp?)..didn't do anything to us. period. and did they find a weapon of mass destruction??..i think he's just trying to finish what his father started 15 yrs ago..>.<

and whatever happened to the search for Osama Bin Laden??<<---someone who actually DID DAMAGE...i know there are still SOME soldiers still searching...but the news is soo obsessed with the senseless war in Iraq that we have no clue whats going on in Afghanistan..its ridiculous..


VOTE KERRY

[lilazneye10]

y are we just concentrating jusst on Sadaam Hussein when we know that korea had weapong??

[ryfitaDF]

y are we just concentrating jusst on Sadaam Hussein when we know that korea had weapong??

i don't know. but, now, if we have to go to war with them we'll have no troops left cause we wasted them all on Iraq. bush EFFed up really bad.

[strice]

trying to wipe out terrorism is like trying to exterminate the flu. it's not possible.

[inlonelinessidie]

y are we just concentrating jusst on Sadaam Hussein when we know that korea had weapons??

Did we wage war on N. Korea? No. That's why we concentrate on Iraq; even though we should focus on N. Korea, Iran and Syria.

Our President messed up terribly with this war. War is a last resort and he told us that he would not lead us to war unless we had to. The American people were told that we were attacked and that's why we needed to go to war. He also said that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction and that is another reason we needed to go to war.

Yes, we were attacked but not by Iraq. He had Bin Laden cornered and instead decided to wage war with Iraq. We've killed many of innocent people with this war and have lost so many American troops. They have died for a pointless war.

If the President had been more patient and allowed the UN to continue their search we might not have been were we are right now. We would've saved so much money, and most importantly, we would've saved so many lives.

So to answer your question, no we have not won nor lost the war on terror. It's hard to judge if it has even begun.

[Spirited Away]

To say that the war was pointless is to demean the purpose of those who fought in it and those who died in it. The war may seem irrevelevant to the topic of WMD, but it is not pointless in the sense of ridding a tyrant who oppressed his people.

[inlonelinessidie]

To say that the war was pointless is to demean the purpose of those who fought in it and those who died in it. The war may seem [irrelevant] to the topic of WMD, but it is not pointless in the sense of ridding a tyrant who oppressed his people.

Might be, but that wasn't the purpose that commenced the war.

[ComradeRed]

We're winning in the sense that we are killing lots of terrorists, but at the same time the terrorists are winning in the sense that they are making us terrified.

It's a win-win situation.

Seriously though, a "war" on terrorism is really stupid. Whenever a rebel group attacks a country, the country should NEVER give legitimacy to the rebel group by declaring war on it. By declaring war, we are recognizing "terrorism" as a legitimate entity, which emboldens them because it proves that we are becoming more fearful as a society. After all, that is their goal ... hence terrorist.

[Spirited Away]

Might be, but that wasn't the purpose that commenced the war.

That may not have been the purpose, but as the battle proceed, soldiers know what they fight for.

[inlonelinessidie]

That may not have been the purpose, but as the battle proceed, soldiers know what they fight for.

The point is that our President promised us that the only reason he would send our troops to war is if it was a last resort. The cause of us getting rid of a tyrant was not a good purpose for us to go to war. WMD's and being attacked were the reason we went there, that's why we were granted permission to go fight. Well the facts are there are no WMD's and we were never attacked by Iraq. Our President realised this so he now says that Saddam was a threat to the world. When in fact, yes he was a threat, but not a HUGE threat for us to wage a bigger war on Iraq instead of on the people who attacked us in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, I support our troops 100% (anti-war, pro-troops). When I was 6 - 16, I had plans of joining the military. I lived near the Naval base and would also think of joining because I believed that our Commander -in- Chief would only send us to war if it was a MUST. After seeing what has happened I feel terrible for all the troops who thought like me, and for all the troops who I know who are fighting. I don’t hate our troops one bit, because it is not their fault they have a President who has lied to everyone and doesn’t even acknowledge it.

They might know what they are fighting for, but that doesn’t change the fact that the war is pointless.

[Spirited Away]

If ridding the world of at least one tyrant isn't a good idea, then I guess WWI and a few other wars were pretty pointless, too. I guess every one in the world should leave those dictators alone, too, they're alright so long as they only murder their own people.

All I'm saying is from what I'm hearing, you're saying that those who died, died in vain. They fought for absolutely nothing since what they fought for was pointless. That's harsh. I rather think that they fought for one thing but won something else and brought hope to a country. They didn't die for a pointless war is all I'm saying.

[PingPong]

i agree wit him ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

soldiers back then in WW1 n WW2 fought to destroy Tyrants.. like hitler... and whoever back then...

n today.. our Freedom Fighters are fighting to capture tyrants in the middle east... hint Saddam.. but we got him =D

these soldiers that are risking their lives to protect their loved ones and the next Generation should be honored for there work... not trashed n blamed n crap...

[inlonelinessidie]

If ridding the world of at least one tyrant isn't a good idea, then I guess WWI and a few other wars were pretty pointless, too. I guess every one in the world should leave those dictators alone, too, they're alright so long as they only murder their own people.

All I'm saying is from what I'm hearing, you're saying that those who died, died in vain. They fought for absolutely nothing since what they fought for was pointless. That's harsh. I rather think that they fought for one thing but won something else and brought hope to a country. They didn't die for a pointless war is all I'm saying.

Did you even read my post? I said yes he was a threat, but we should've fought one war at a time. And this war could've waited and we could've had more allies along for the ride. We had to go fight Osama, then North Korea which is a BIGGER threat, then finally Iraq.

[strice]

i hardly find the war in iraq comparable to WWI and II. if you bothered to study WWI, it was not a war against any one particular tyrant. we were asked to help turn the tide in that war, we were not out to police the world the way we feel we have to right to do now. we only became involved in WWII when we were attacked, and even then it was a global effort, not the US and a bunch of insignificant countries. it was the general consensus that hitler needed to go and the allies were the victims, but the situation has reversed. the world sees bush as the tyrant and the middle east his victim. i feel more and more that this is our vietnam.

[Spirited Away]

Did you even read my post? I said yes he was a threat, but we should've fought one war at a time. And this war could've waited and we could've had more allies along for the ride. We had to go fight Osama, then North Korea which is a BIGGER threat, then finally Iraq.

And did you bother to read mine? Yes, I do agree with you somewhat about fighting the wrong war, but I AM SAYING that the war was not pointless because it totally demeans death of our soldiers.

i hardly find the war in iraq comparable to WWI and II. if you bothered to study WWI, it was not a war against any one particular tyrant. we were asked to help turn the tide in that war, we were not out to police the world the way we feel we have to right to do now. we only became involved in WWII when we were attacked, and even then it was a global effort, not the US and a bunch of insignificant countries. it was the general consensus that hitler needed to go and the allies were the victims, but the situation has reversed. the world sees bush as the tyrant and the middle east his victim. i feel more and more that this is our vietnam.

How many history courses do you think I've taken to get me in third year of college? How many books do you think I've read even be in college and to be able to write as I do? Do you want me to outline my history credentials? I may not qualify to be a history teacher, but damn right I have more qualifications than someone in high school. Please don't bother me with such a weak insults concerning my intelligence, they barely tickle.

Anyway, now it's my turn though to question your reading skills. I shall explain myself in hopes that you will no longer think to put words into my mouth. I never compared WWs to that of the war in Iraq. I gave the example because BY CONTEXT, it fits how soldiers died then and now.

Imagine with me the mind of a soldier. Or those of you who do know soldiers over seas that have fought and lost a friend ask them how they feel about it. As I've said, they KNOW what they were fighting for, if not for possible WMDs then for the people in Iraq. There will be those who will say that the war is pointless, as you like to call it, but there will be those who do not feel that way.

I'm not talking about America policing the world, people, get that repetitive idea out of your heads. FORGET your opinions and think about the soldiers' feelings. They thought they were fighting for one thing, but then they were fighting for another and they KNOW that. To say that what they were fighting for was POINTLESS is VERY insulting.

What do you know of the feelings of those who fought in the Vietnam war? NOTHING because you're too busy focusing on how America shouldn't do this and that. Soldiers are soldiers and they follow orders. What do you know of soldiers who came home from Vietnam and received no welcoming for their hard work?

And to ALL of you: how would you feel if someone told you that what you're risking your life for is absolutely pointless?

[strice]

ugh, and i had thought you weren't as stupid as before. i never said it was you who compared the world wars to iraq, did i? perhaps i might have been responding to pingpong? perhaps you should pay attention to whats going on the board? jesus.

[gerundio]

It's kind of hard to fight a war on an idea. "Terroism" is not a person or a country.

So it's always going to be a losing situation.

[gerundio]

If ridding the world of at least one tyrant isn't a good idea, then I guess WWI and a few other wars were pretty pointless, too. I guess every one in the world should leave those dictators alone, too, they're alright so long as they only murder their own people.

All I'm saying is from what I'm hearing, you're saying that those who died, died in vain. They fought for absolutely nothing since what they fought for was pointless. That's harsh. I rather think that they fought for one thing but won something else and brought hope to a country. They didn't die for a pointless war is all I'm saying.

The soldiers did die in vain. And that's very unfortunate.

But comparing WWII to the Iraq War is very ignorant. Extremely.

[Spirited Away]

ugh, and i had thought you weren't as stupid as before. i never said it was you who compared the world wars to iraq, did i? perhaps i might have been responding to pingpong? perhaps you should pay attention to whats going on the board? jesus.

It was I who brought up the idea, though not so much for comparision as pingpong has done. I do pay attention and that's why I noticed that you called out the reference to WWs. And what did I say about insulting my intelligence? It barely tickles, love.

The soldiers did die in vain. And that's very unfortunate.

But comparing WWII to the Iraq War is very ignorant. Extremely.

I'm very sorry you feel that our soldiers died for nothing but I'm sure that you're not the only one since everyone else seems to be against my call for sympathy towards their deaths.

It's all opinions of course, but I feel that opinions should be held in check in respect for those who fought to achieve something beyond them.

[strice]

here we go again. i would think it fair if we completely ignore each others posts so we won't end up having you making stupid statements then having to hopelessly defend it while everyone watches, effectively ruining the "debate". kryo can you make her posts invisible to me and vice versa?

[Spirited Away]

My stupid statements or your unfounded ones? I'm sorry to be the only one READING correctly and word for word, but if that's what you want, be my guest.

[orionpax]

hmmm.

i think the 'war on terrorism' is too much of an umbrella term that seems to satisfy the preservation of the 'american dream'. terms like 'patriotism' and 'terrorist' are becoming tools to keep the massess all riled up and pumped. u dont really have to be an intelligent person to see that when bush talks, sometimes it really all sounds like bullshit.

i do feel sorry for the soldiers. so much faith and dedication to a cause that is hardly worth their lives. damn the man for taking the sons of his land away. damn the man for feeding them to the vultures.

[someflipguy]

Can I just say this war is.....STUPID!!