WAR on terror where should it go now

page 1 of 1 12 total items

beethoven

beethoven

darkness

Cancel

Ok everyone probly knows about the "war on terror" the US declared on iran well what alot of people don't reilize is that even with all the stuff sadam was doing bad he was surpressing the suwni u c the suwni and the sheite are two of the more common and more vilante muslum groups and now wiht sadam and the sheite rejeme the suwni will group togerther with the iraq suwni and will probly reform persia wich if you check up on your history the persian armys desolated manycuntrys untill they were destroyed so do you think we should killthem all now or wait till they become more powerful?

(((alot is misspelled i didn't exacly become an english mager so i can't speel very well)))

Only in the dark of your soul can you reveal the light of your heart" Stephen Penton
Signature
	Image

BorisGrishenko

BorisGrishenko

send spike

Cancel

Here is the properly spelled version, with slightly improved grammar.

Quote by beethovenOK, everyone probably knows about the "war on terror" the US declared on Iran. Well, what a lot of people don't realize is that even with all the stuff Saddam was doing bad he was suppressing the Sunni. You see, the Sunni and the Shiite are two of the more common and more violent Muslim groups, and now with Saddam and the Shiite regime, the Sunni will group together with the Iraq Sunni and will probably reform Persia, which if you check up on your history, the Persian armies devastated many countries until they were destroyed. So do you think we should kill them all now or wait till they become more powerful?

(((alto is misspelled i didn't exactly become an English major so i can't spell very well)))

All? Probably not. Should we nuke the Iranian capitol? Probably.

I am invincible!

  • Feb 15, 2006

shoujoboy

shoujoboy

Launching shoujoboy 2.0

Cancel

It's a fine line you have to walk when talking about war or bombs. Some people make out like it's as easy as saying "do it" and pushing a button. The war on terrorism is a tough one to work with because for the first time we don't have a specific enemy, the enemy is an idea or practice. In previous wars we knew who we were after, here we know what type of people we are after but have to search them out as opposed to just carpet bombing a country and calling it a day.

Also what must be considered is the politcs of war. If this country were run by a king then just telling the nation "we are going to bomb that" wouldn't be an issue. But the officials that run this country are voted in by the people in the best interest of the people. Many are already opposed to the Iraq war. Remember that we went in there with "slam dunk evidence" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Imagine if we went into Iran on the notion of something they may or may not have or may or may not be working on.

Keep in mind as well that we in the armed forces are stretched rather thin right now. It's an issue at this point of what we can finish first so that resources can be devoted elsewhere. If we were to expand the GWOT outside the current confines, we would be at even more of a disadvantage. I think the higher-ups know this and are having to play the game much more carefully at this point.

So in response to where it should go now... nowhere. It should tie up the loose ends that we have right now and then we can move on if the need arises. I personally believe that Iran will be easier to deal with diplomatically than was Iraq but maybe thats wishful thinking.

Under construction. Who doesn't like plain text anyway?

  • Feb 17, 2006
Cancel

It's a sad reflection on Western society that people are happy to discuss bombing other countries from behind their computer screens with little regard for the value of human life. The world is a depressing place.

  • Feb 17, 2006
Cancel

The War on Terror is not gonna be going anywhere. Even just the concept of a war on terrorism is off. Lets break it down here. Terrorists are people who hate our country and want to destroy it through any means possible. If we go out and kill these people (the war) that will give make them hate us even more and even more terorist are born. That being said, EVERYONE in the world, including americans have the potiential to be a terorist. Terrorists are not islolated in one area. Terrorism cannot be stopped with force. The only way to stop terrorism is to make everyone love your country, which from what I've seen, is impossible. The 'War on Terrorism' is ridculous, and honestly cannot see anything gained from this flawed concept. Also, who do you think are the terrorists from Iraq's point to view?

  • Feb 17, 2006

julian1

julian1

Pursuer Of Darkness

Cancel

you see, iran actually met up with the prime minister of malaysia to discuss its nuclear plan. they only need it for electricity, not weapons. if iran is really invaded, it would be just another case like iraq: no weapons of mass destruction are found.

Signature
	Image

  • Feb 17, 2006
Cancel

Quote by malicesoulThe War on Terror is not gonna be going anywhere. Even just the concept of a war on terrorism is off. Lets break it down here. Terrorists are people who hate our country and want to destroy it through any means possible. If we go out and kill these people (the war) that will give make them hate us even more and even more terorist are born. That being said, EVERYONE in the world, including americans have the potiential to be a terorist. Terrorists are not islolated in one area. Terrorism cannot be stopped with force. The only way to stop terrorism is to make everyone love your country, which from what I've seen, is impossible. The 'War on Terrorism' is ridculous, and honestly cannot see anything gained from this flawed concept. Also, who do you think are the terrorists from Iraq's point to view?

Exactly, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. The terrorism situation in Northern Ireland and Britain was not solved by any act of war. The only thing a war does is create MORE recruits for terrorist organisations.

  • Feb 17, 2006
Cancel

The net effect of the so-called "war on terror" is actually to make terrorism far more likely by creating many more greivances.

beethoven

beethoven

darkness

Cancel

if you get serious for a moment it's not a war on terrism it's a war on anti-american unttary planitary controle

were trying to take over the world we just need to knock down a few dominoes on the way

Only in the dark of your soul can you reveal the light of your heart" Stephen Penton
Signature
	Image

Elfy

Elfy

Ever alone..

Cancel

well to them the americans invaded for no reason. Really I think it should have been left to the Iraqi to depose him. It means more if there a coup de etat.
But then again I'm an aussie so I don't always see things the way you guys do. As for the war being over...that's crap and everyone knows it...its just a metter of time till another attack happens

With a hand that trmbles with loneliness,
it would be better to kill my own heart instead.
If nothing at all can be done,
then I wont regret a single thing.
Signature Image

  • Feb 23, 2006

Kadath

Kadath

Logorroico e Gonorroico

Cancel

It should go to the 1st terrorist nation of course. The one which has nuclear bombs. The one which has chemical weapons and every kind of weapons of mass destruction. And it is well known for having used them many times on innocent civilians. A nation that has almost always been in war in the last 60 years, both directly and by sponsorizing foreign terrorists such as Bin Laden. A Nation that invades and kills in the name of his God, using its poor people, conditioned and brought to the edge of fanatism, as cannon fodder...

"Hey Dick, are you talkin' about... us?"
"Uh? Sorry George, its just a... uhmm... coincidence..."

Anna tyenna Sina coilenya A tel`laar ya feithayamin.
Anna tyenna Tel`Lù a Oialë O er Siin.
Ya`vithel il`er hannen Onamin ere` nîr a hiraeth Tenna sina garbuia ten`alaslyë Calë a Eina

Cancel

Quote by shoujoboy
The war on terrorism is a tough one to work with because for the first time we don't have a specific enemy, the enemy is an idea or practice.

Shoujoboy is right on the money here. War on Terroism is like the War on Drugs, it will NEVER END. Pres. Bush has expanded his "War" powers this way, and for an indefinite time! The War on Terroism can only be effective if it's use in every situation. America ignores the genocide in Sudan, rape camps in Bosnia, and freedom of press in China, shouldn't they be more consistent?

Quote by Kadath
It should go to the 1st terrorist nation of course. The one which has nuclear bombs. The one which has chemical weapons and every kind of weapons of mass destruction. And it is well known for having used them many times on innocent civilians. A nation that has almost always been in war in the last 60 years, both directly and by sponsorizing foreign terrorists such as Bin Laden.

1st terrosim nation was Afghanistan. The one with nukes is Iran. Chemical weapons=Iran, Russia, Ukraine, India, Pakistan, Japan, U.S., .... Government use force on civilians everywhere, what's so especial about Iraq? "Support" Terroists? Remeber, Europe and US fostered these Terroists, does that count as support? Most nations in the Middle East have them, by choice or not, does that count as support?

I would like to see a more stable Middle East. However, it doesn't seem like that can be accomplished withou 1 religion masscareing the rest. U.S. as well as the world in on thin ice with all the trouble it causes us. It's just too much difference between them and us. Something/Someone needs to close the gap.

  • Feb 24, 2006

page 1 of 1 12 total items

Back to General Discussions | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.