Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Where Is Your 'war On Terror' Now President Bush?
162 Answers
After this country slavishly followed the war-monger Bush in his laughably termed 'war on terror' (How can you fight a war against a concept?) and after all the loss of lives as soldiers 'protect' us - it has come to this.
It's as easy as two maniacs with weapons to kill people on British streets.
All that military power, time, money, casualties and deaths on both sides to 'protect' us, and how protected are we really?
Surely the time has come to accept that we can never 'win' this war, but we must try and find a solution to the hatred that drives Moslem extremists to hate the West so much.
If the numpties in the EDL start their 'revenge', then let's not imagine that Afghanistan will start happening right here, right now.
Enough is enough - time to try and sort this out with dialogue, because guns and bombs are not working for anyone.
It's as easy as two maniacs with weapons to kill people on British streets.
All that military power, time, money, casualties and deaths on both sides to 'protect' us, and how protected are we really?
Surely the time has come to accept that we can never 'win' this war, but we must try and find a solution to the hatred that drives Moslem extremists to hate the West so much.
If the numpties in the EDL start their 'revenge', then let's not imagine that Afghanistan will start happening right here, right now.
Enough is enough - time to try and sort this out with dialogue, because guns and bombs are not working for anyone.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"If Russia with its army and financecs cannot subdue Afghanistan, what chance do we have? "
Well, I think the objective is that the Afghan government be able to pick up the struggle itself, and maintain itself - like the government of Iraq has been able to. I have no idea if that strategy is going to work. And I'm not sure that you do either.
"it is easy to dismiss the notion of dialogue as naiive, "
I'm not sure I'd call it naive, I just question the idea that negotiating or compromising always works or is always the best solution. Sometimes it isn't - sometimes you can't. There isn't one approach that will work in every circumstance, and unfortunately that applies to diplomacy as much as anything else.
Well, I think the objective is that the Afghan government be able to pick up the struggle itself, and maintain itself - like the government of Iraq has been able to. I have no idea if that strategy is going to work. And I'm not sure that you do either.
"it is easy to dismiss the notion of dialogue as naiive, "
I'm not sure I'd call it naive, I just question the idea that negotiating or compromising always works or is always the best solution. Sometimes it isn't - sometimes you can't. There isn't one approach that will work in every circumstance, and unfortunately that applies to diplomacy as much as anything else.
vulcan42 - "we seem to caught in the absurd situation where if we continue to fight we cannot win but if we stop fighting we have lost."
Twas ever thus. If Bush anbd Blair had been a little less keen to go to war, andf thought a little more about the aftermath, things may have been different.
Starting a war is dead simple - finishing it is rather more problematic, as we have found to our cost.
Afghanistan is this generation's Viet Nam - and America learned nothing from that conflict either.
Military firepower and a blinding sense of self-rightiousness and the need to enforce a system of government on people who don'twant it is never going to win over a people who want nothing more than the right to their political independence, and a willinginess to die for it.
We will leave Afghanistan, the Taliban will restore order to the people there, regardless of our opinions about it, and life will move on.
The leaders will walk away with their pensions and their memoirs, the dead will decay, the living will weep, and nothing will have really changed.
How tragic is that?
Twas ever thus. If Bush anbd Blair had been a little less keen to go to war, andf thought a little more about the aftermath, things may have been different.
Starting a war is dead simple - finishing it is rather more problematic, as we have found to our cost.
Afghanistan is this generation's Viet Nam - and America learned nothing from that conflict either.
Military firepower and a blinding sense of self-rightiousness and the need to enforce a system of government on people who don'twant it is never going to win over a people who want nothing more than the right to their political independence, and a willinginess to die for it.
We will leave Afghanistan, the Taliban will restore order to the people there, regardless of our opinions about it, and life will move on.
The leaders will walk away with their pensions and their memoirs, the dead will decay, the living will weep, and nothing will have really changed.
How tragic is that?
The West supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. The west armed and supported Afghani terrorists (aka freedom fighters) in their struggle against Russian occupation. In my book the West meddles in other countries wars and we never come out of it smelling of roses. We should disengage from all foreign adventures and concentrate our efforts on winning the hearts and minds of the non-radicalised Muslims in UK and encourage them to sort out their youngsters.
gromit // Not that we should believe what a murder claims as his motive, but this one specifically mentioned Iraq and Afghanistan. Our invasions of those lands have made us more suceptible to terrorist attack, not less. //
As I said to andy-h, 9/11 was before those wars, and precipitated them. You can't blame them for making the world a dangerous place. It was pretty dangerous already.
As to whether the world is MORE dangerous as a result, impossible to say. personally I doubt it.
As I said to andy-h, 9/11 was before those wars, and precipitated them. You can't blame them for making the world a dangerous place. It was pretty dangerous already.
As to whether the world is MORE dangerous as a result, impossible to say. personally I doubt it.
I agree with Ludwig. This particular maniac mentions Iraq and Afghanistan, true, but fundamentalist Islam declared war on the West long before that. I'm really not convinced we'd be any safer if the war on terror hadn't happened.
For the record, I'm also uncertain as to whether the "War on Terror" has made us safer. It's certainly made airline-related disasters on the scale of 9/11 extremely difficult, but that's a pretty limited success.
For the record, I'm also uncertain as to whether the "War on Terror" has made us safer. It's certainly made airline-related disasters on the scale of 9/11 extremely difficult, but that's a pretty limited success.
andy-hughes
Andy do you believe that even if we did 'Talk' with the Taliban and came out from those meetings with our arms round each other, that, that would rid our country of mentally disarranged fanatical savages such as the two we have seen behead 'to all intents and purposes' a civilian wearing a T/shirt that they took a disliking to?
No if only things like you suggest were that easy, but they are not and never will be, these fanatics will not be satisfied until we are all singing from the same 'Islamic' song book.
Andy do you believe that even if we did 'Talk' with the Taliban and came out from those meetings with our arms round each other, that, that would rid our country of mentally disarranged fanatical savages such as the two we have seen behead 'to all intents and purposes' a civilian wearing a T/shirt that they took a disliking to?
No if only things like you suggest were that easy, but they are not and never will be, these fanatics will not be satisfied until we are all singing from the same 'Islamic' song book.
// You can't blame them for making the world a dangerous place. It was pretty dangerous already. //
The world was a dangerous place, but the UK wasn't (well not to Islamic Terrorism anyway). We could quite easily have passed on the Iraq invite, we were there for political reasons rather than a military one.
It is only since we invaded those countries that the various plots to murder us were formulated.
The world was a dangerous place, but the UK wasn't (well not to Islamic Terrorism anyway). We could quite easily have passed on the Iraq invite, we were there for political reasons rather than a military one.
It is only since we invaded those countries that the various plots to murder us were formulated.
"It is only since we invaded those countries that the various plots to murder us were formulated."
Except, that other countries who weren't involved in Iraq were also targeted - e.g. Spain 2004, or the Al-Qaeda plot discovered against various European countries (including France and Germany) in 2010.
Except, that other countries who weren't involved in Iraq were also targeted - e.g. Spain 2004, or the Al-Qaeda plot discovered against various European countries (including France and Germany) in 2010.
AOG - "Andy do you believe that even if we did 'Talk' with the Taliban and came out from those meetings with our arms round each other, that, that would rid our country of mentally disarranged fanatical savages such as the two we have seen behead 'to all intents and purposes' a civilian wearing a T/shirt that they took a disliking to?"
No I do not believe that for one moment.
We live in an historical and supported democracy, but we stil have knuckle-draggers from the EDL yawping about 'defending our country' - idiots will always exist in any culture.
But the broader fact is - if we are able to avoid trying to force democracy on a feudal country, we may avoid the residual backlash such as that which happened yesterday.
I know that getting any sort of meaningful dialogue will be incredibly difficut, but having tried the alternative - the 'war on terror' which has manifestly failed by any measureable observation - we have to try.
No I do not believe that for one moment.
We live in an historical and supported democracy, but we stil have knuckle-draggers from the EDL yawping about 'defending our country' - idiots will always exist in any culture.
But the broader fact is - if we are able to avoid trying to force democracy on a feudal country, we may avoid the residual backlash such as that which happened yesterday.
I know that getting any sort of meaningful dialogue will be incredibly difficut, but having tried the alternative - the 'war on terror' which has manifestly failed by any measureable observation - we have to try.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.