So, when and how does the War on Terror end?

[katsumoto03]

It lasts until there are no more "brown people" on this earth.

 

[Nudu]

When a new enemy pops up, I suppose. Try finding a period in human history where a civilization did not require some sort of external enemy.

 

[Zaik]

There's still no end in sight to the war on drugs, how can you even imagine an end to the war on terror?

These ideological "wars" we get into have intentionally vague, impossible goals, so that they can be carried on indefinitely.

 

[Jegsimmons]

When we get leadership that leads us out of it. Its a fight we should not have started, a fight that should have been over ages ago, and a fight that continued will destroy us from within or without. The sooner we abandon fighting it overseas and just protect ourselves at home it will be better. I don't mean remove liberties and rights i mean go on business as usual and allow the CIA to track them down.

We have the tools to do it proper so lets not use a sledge hammer when we have the key.

when all them mother fucking terrorist die or surrender...and i mean al-queda and who ever openly attacks us.

You do realize that USA is doing more damage to the countries in the middle east than they ever did to USA? It's not the terrorists that's the bad boy here, it's uncle Sam.

so...giving two countries the rights to vote (and democracy overall), the building of orphanages and schools and infrastructure is destroying?
i'm not saying war isnt destructive but dont think we do only harm without compensation. think about the amount of aid (both government AND Charity) is given to Afghanistan and Iraq.

yeah, with all due respect, i'm calling bullshit.

1. We went in under false pretenses we had NO plan of giving them democracy without gaining in return.(guess what they sit on)
2. For all the infrastructure we do there do you know what it looks like? I would imagine the same as it did but a few more bombed out buildings as well as armed soldiers walking around.
3. So we shouldn't be there but its alright because we are paying them for our troops to go die in an illegal war?
4. The war on terror is NOT by any stretch of the imagination a humanitarian effort. Do not fool yourself into thinking that our troops being over there is helping any thing other than a burning hatred for the USA.

Bottom line we shouldn't have gone over there and if the USA is going to fix infrastructure it should look at its own first.

really? the war for oil argument that still makes little to no sense?
fuck it that doesn't even deserve a counter argument, it's that stupid.

Explain how it makes no sense? Wars have been fought since humanity first picked up a club against something other than a meal. This is no different. They have oil, we want the oil, we think up convoluted reason to get around the system so we can wage war for the oil.

no, we went to Iraq because of the numerous treaty violations Saddam made. we sent him an ultimatum, he refused. also, did we get ANY oil from them? not really. we get most of our oil from Saudi Arabia, the amount of oil we get from Iraq wouldn't be enough just to cover the cost of the build up to station them in Kuwait.
So the fact that it was a UN operation and Saddam violated the treaty not only makes the invasion legal, but justified. I'm not saying war is a good thing, honestly i don't want to be in Iraq that much either, but since we are their, lets rebuild and make some good out of it, and we have accomplished that to a fair degree.
Also if we wanted oil so bad, maby we should have just drilled here since our oil reserve would put Arabia to shame since the vast majority is untapped. Drilling here would not only be cheaper but have greater benefits and profit.
If you actually look up some documents and essay pages with a simple google search (hell even a Yahoo answer can point you in the direction of a few) you might actually learn something instead of blindly following a new york time editorial.
Also the war was approved by congress making it legal not only internationally, but locally too.

What treaty? Google is not giving me jack but a couple of sites that say the treaty bit, the WMD bit, the alqueda connections, the string pulling on 9/11 is all false BS made up to garner support for the war. Yes it was a UN operation but it was not our business to be the largest force there, or to even get involved.
Don't read the new york times, watch FOX, or deal with any main stream media for news. Its a good way to get lied to. Dosen't matter if congress approved it we shouldn't have done it. Believe it or don't Congress is not an infallible setup wholly against corruption & sway from reason.

So stop justifying the cluster fucks the government gets us into, stop slinging mud at any opposing view(the new york times bit about in ill informed reader), and go read up on what the USA has done since the end of WWII.

If we want to act high and mighty above fascists we had better be high above them.

you didnt put alot of effort into research did you?

OK, from the top
The treaty, After the Gulf War of 1991 Saddam signed a treaty. He broke that treaty at least 18 times. the treaty was the 1991 Cease fire agreement, meaning the 1990/1991 war was restarted: technically the Iraq war lasted from 1990 until 200-and now.

Saddam did actually support terrorist activities by paying the families of suicide bomber 5000$ (some estimates vary) in US cash for attacking the US, Israel, and any country that support the two.
(one source):
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml

The US military can also be engaged for long durations without a formal declaration of war due to the War Powers Act, IF congressional approval is gained. Most important is Section 5. part b "...has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces..."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp

(This ironically make the actions in Libya illegal in a sense. though i know a guy in Libya so i'm torn on that discussion, but i digress.)

The UN resolutions (#1454 I believe, though if anyone actually knows the correct one please inform me) against Iraq/Saddam actually stated that any member of the UN security council could remove Saddam from power if he did not comply with the UN resolutions, which he did not for over 10 years. Saddam refused to provide the necessary documents and was even given time to step down from power, which he also did not, before the US/UK lead force went and removed him.

We were not impatient, we complied with the UN resolutions and the US congress approved going into Iraq which makes it perfectly legal.

Also in july of 2008 we found approximately 550 tons of "yellow cake" in Iraq
and since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 minutions which contained degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dni/dni_ltr_wmd_21jun06.pdf

Also, protip for easy research, look up what you wish to find in either a yahoo answer thread or on wikipedia and check the sources on whether its valid or not then do another google search of what you found to see if you have found similar results which would give the original find credibility. and this is for anybody who cares, i'm not trying to lecture you or anything.

 

[DarkRyter]

Then the War on The Chinese/North Korea/Robots begin.

Always some conflict somewhere in the world.

 

[Popido]

Isnt that kinda the whole point, that it never ends. Using such a vague term as your archnemesis.

Btw, Im still waiting for you to pull thru that revolution. Dont keep disappointing me americanos.

 

[maturin]

GWOT already ended. The White House stopped using the term. Since it was only ever a poorly-conceived slogan that dignified out enemies with the title of warriors, it is now gone.

 

[RJ Dalton]

This statement betrays that you little to nothing about the military/industrial complex and the nature of terrorism.

 

[Beesejar]

It will never end different groups will always find reasons to go and kill themselves because
"War, war never changes"

 

[Beesejar]

It will never end different groups will always find reasons to go and kill themselves because
"War, war never changes"

 

[FalloutJack]

The war on terror is, at best, a load of shit based on the misnomer that you can kill an idea (namely the idea of terrorism). And at its worst? A blank check to do immoral things all in the name of a very flimsy excuse.

Will things not change if more and more people understand this? Will they not come to understand...as time drags on?

Well, there is a danger, you see. Have you seen in Ghost in the Shell how America is referred to as an empire? Consider this... People stop believing the lie (whichever lie it is, per se) and don't buy into the political jargon. Government officials have a slip in the morality core and the next thing you know, they do things openly and without needing to justify themselves anymore. The danger with all of this is that they use the smokescreen in order to imply the gossamer-thin reassurance that Democracy is working. And really, it still functions, but the nation has...ALOT of power and influence, doesn't it? It pokes its head into affairs worldwide under the pretense of being the good guys. What happens when they stop pretending?

WWIII for total domination/ control?

Does this mean that the whole pretending has an ameliorating affect? Something bad...preventing something far worse?

I'm not badmouthing the U.S. or anything. I'm merely stating what I think about the whole 'terror' thing as a concept and theorizing what happens when we abandon pretense. It might never happen, but you have to admit...of all the countries in the world, the U.S. could do it. Dominate? Could be...

Cant dominate while having the 10% debt to china. Deny the debt to China. War with China. Use nukes? Loose all allies. China and the West gone? US Economy crashes. US Superpower has fallen.

Too one-sided an argument, I'm afraid. Still hinging too much on the play of using a real moral fiber.

 

[uzo]

War .....

.... War never changes.

EDIT: lol damn i was beaten by other Ron Pearlman fans! (>.<)

But srsly folks, like a lot have said - this particular flavour of conflict will not end until deicide or genocide. Preferably the former.

Who knows? Maybe the Emperor of Humanity will reveal himself and lead us on a glorious Great Crusade!! For the Emperor! (but still .. instead of killing each other, we'd simply start killing some xenos)

 

[infohippie]

It'll never end. Governments world-wide find it far too useful as an excuse to be able to implement all kinds of restrictions they would otherwise never be able to get approved. They'll never give it up voluntarily.

 

[Suicida1 Midget]

It was and is now an escuse to be in the middle east in a resource grab for the gov.. For us(i mean the USA as a whole) its a misson that passed the finish line. But the very guys who run it want more money out of it so they dont have to use what they have to pay our debts. Unfortunatly they want that money 2. I would be shocked if we still had a true ally.

 

[Manji187]

This statement betrays that you little to nothing about the military/industrial complex and the nature of terrorism.

Then enlighten me.

 

[Kahunaburger]

When terrorism signs a treaty of unconditional surrender, obvi. Wait... abstract concepts can't sign treaties? Shit.