Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Big_Bird]

Anyone else sick to death of hearing the jingoistic term "war on terror"...? I actually laughed when I first heard it - it sounded as stupid as the "war on drugs"... Now I'm heartily sick of it. You can't win a 'war' on terror. The horrific crime of 911 should have been treated as such. The people perpetrating it were sick criminals, and those who aided and abetted them should have been hunted down as criminals. Instead we used their crime as a convenient pretext and went to war and slaughtered thousands of innocents, and created much anger against the West, not only in the Arab world. Now we face a much greater terrorist threat than before. The UK and US governments have also used it as a great excuse to whittle away some of our rights and freedoms. I think this is matter of great concern.

There Is No 'War on Terror'

[tiger fancini]

The whole idea of a "global war on terror" is a bit of a joke IMO. However, without it, we wouldn't be treated to the fantastic commercials on AFN advising soldiers and civilians on how not to become a target for terrorists. Amongst other things, they gravely suggest that we "keep a low profile in public" and "only take taxis that are officially licensed."
The war is all but won if the freedom-lovers heed these guidelines!

[ddeubel]

I think it also very "hopeful" that many congressmen are advocating a new vote on "the war on terror" , saying in effect that the war is over and any new "war" needs approval of congress. Now many are taking to calling it, "the looooong war". Seems rather convenient, like calling life, a "constant struggle against death". So where then is the living part???

I think it is all semantics but if it gets people talking about what the hell is this war??? I'm all for it.

DD

[ddeubel]

And Bush says he "didn't want war" yet all the evidence points otherwise.

A good doc / short on this at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLtYE19-ZQw&eurl=

Highlights how Bush used the 9/11 to install U.S. military into the middle east to protect oil interests and increase military spending / focus and the following trail of money into bank accounts.

It points out that "there is no war" but the war created, painted, willed and continued by the U.S.

DD

[cbclark4]

"War on Terror" predates 9/11.

The War was declared by Bin Laden long ago.

From Wiki

In 1998, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, (a leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad), co-signed a fatwa (religious edict) in the name of the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, declaring:

�[t]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,' and 'fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah'.[48][49]


cbc

[thepeel]

There is a war in Iraq, and another in Afghanistan. The two aren't really related, other than both are endless and Bush's fault.

There is a real "war" of sorts, or at least a massive intelligence operation, to prevent mulims from blowing people up indiscriminately on the streets of Western nations. This is (or should be) an operation that is fought with police work and sensible immigration/border controls and not Marines (though both are effectively prevented from being useful due to the cult of victimhood the muslims have been able to create in the UK). This operation is against islam, or 'radical islam' (though, i would assert that bin laden is a muslim more true to the koran than most) but to say the operation or 'war' is against muslims isn't PC.

So, because Afghanistan and Iraq need to be sold to a jittery public, and the conflict that really is simmering is too "intolerant" of the "new Canadians/Americans/British" who have made our cities "vibrant" we get the "War on Terrorism".

Americans and their war lingo. War on drugs, war on terrorism, war on poverty.

[Nowhere Man]

And we didn't declare war on Iraq or Afghanistan.

Why don't we declare wars?

[cbclark4]

There are several arguments concerning war powers.

There is the Hamiltonian view that war power is intrinsic in the development of the nation, the nation brought about by war or revolution having engaged in war may by it's very necessity engage war power when ever necessary so to speak.

Jefferson and Tripoli, allowed for defense of vessels at sea when Tripoli declared war on the US, later Congress allowed for the Marines to disarm the port of Triploli through Legislation.

Lincoln engaged an a war power the embargo of the southern ports, and then petitioned Congress for a declaration, the SJC declaring it proper as a state of war existed prior to the declaration.

The war action and the war declaration appear to be two different things, congress is allowed to legislate war power without declaration. The president I think is then subject to the Legislation, when war is declared war spending may then proceed without legislation.

The war declaration would in effect take powers away from congress.

That is my take on it anyway. I may be generalizing a bit.

cbc

[Big_Bird]

A rather interesting look at the 'War on Terror'

America's "Global War on Terrorism"

[caniff]

[contrarian]

It's time to stop the war on terror and start the crusade.

[seoul_nhl]

GET IRAN! KA BOOM!

[Sincinnatislink]

Bush didn't start the "War on Terror." It was arguably begun by either Carter or Reagan.
The choice between the two is a matter of details.

[caniff]

[Sincinnatislink]

Nope.
I believe it was first used in the early eighties when we were dealing with Iranian hostages, Sandanistas and the like.