Do you approve or criticize America's War on Terror ?

Seems from 2001 to present America is highly involved in War on Terror along with United Kingdom and other NATO/NON NATO countries.

Seems there is lots of criticsm against america's War on Terror as The notion of a "war" against "terrorism" has proven highly contentious, with critics charging that it has been exploited by participating governments to pursue long-standing policy / military objectives,reduce civil liberties,and infringe upon human rights.

There is also perceived U.S. hypocrisy,media induced hysteria,and that differences in foreign and security policy have reduced America's image in most of the world.

OT?

Do you approve America's War on Terror or criticize it ?

It's about as effective as the war on drugs.JML897

It's about as effective as the war on drugs.JML897

Considering tens of thousands of militants are dead, with what remain in hiding, as well as most of al-Qaeda's leadership dead or in custody, not really.

On topic, I approve of it, though maybe not in as large a response that has been dealt... I feel a response was needed to 9/11, as no response would embolden/encourage more attacks without fear of reprisal. I don't feel over 130,000 NATO troops stationed full time for over a decade were needed, and that continuous special forces deployment/stationing would have been better, thought Afghanistan would be extremely not well off right now if that were the case (not that they are doing amazing today or anything)... Without the NATO troops, and US/EU money, the Afghan government of today wouldn't exist, neither would their army (which at this point is several hundred thousand) which will take over dealing with militants (hopefully) when NATO pulls out.

The "War on Terror" is a huge scam to continue the war machine and keep the profits rolling for Lockheed Martin and to secure oil interests overseas.

It's a joke, it's a big giant scam on the American people, and blind pansy democrat and republican Americans everywhere are eating it up. Seriously, it's not a party issue, even though some democrats want you to think the wars are the republican's thing. What happened to all of the war protestors once Obama was elected? What happened to Obama's promise to bring the troops home as his FIRST ACT IN OFFICE? YouTube videos prove he made this vow to the people.

Bush may have started the war, Obama continued it just as much as if Bush were still in office.

Wake up America! Wake up and realize that no matter whether it's Bush or Obama, republican or democrat in office, our foreign policies never change from one administration to the next.

Go to YouTube and search for: imagine ron paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuKBDHWDgBo

Let's stop acting like ignorant lemmings and sheep and stand up to the federal govt, that increasingly acts in opposition to the desires of the people. What happened to the rule by the people? We are the govt, right? Well now it seems "we the people" are in constant dispute with "them the govt." Just like the TSA's harassment of law-abiding Americans who just want to board a plane. All of this is disguised as necessary to "defend us from the terror threat." No, it's never been necessary.

If you think we need to sacrifice our rights and freedoms for security, you are ignorant and a fool, and you deserve neither freedom nor security.

Critical of it in many areas.. Especially the fact that the West has yet to admit that much of the animosity towards them is well founded thanks to a history of nearly a 100 years of imperialism.. This by no means condones or justifies the violent actions by said terrorist groups, but to completely ignore the reasons behind the hatred is flat out ignorance and does not solve the problem.. sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Critical of it in many areas.. Especially the fact that the West has yet to admit that much of the animosity towards them is well founded thanks to a history of nearly a 100 years of imperialism.. This by no means condones or justifies the violent actions by said terrorist groups, but to completely ignore the reasons behind the hatred is flat out ignorance and does not solve the problem.. kraychik

He is absolutely right -- we stir up the hornet's nest, and then we pretend that we were innocently attacked.

DO NOT BE MISTAKEN -- no one is saying anyone deserved what happened to them on 9/11, or that our soldiers deserve any punishment. DO NOT make that mistake of claiming that, because if you do, I won't reply.

However, what we do instigates these actions against us.

You cannot imagine how much nerve we have to go over there, set up bases, march our troops in, and then b*tch about how we get attacked? You need to watch the Imagine video that has a portion of a speech by Ron Paul.

Seriously, go to YouTube and type: imagine ron paul

You will begin to understand what we are doing to them, and why they fight. Because if they were doing the same thing to us, we would be "insurgents" fighting them, and they would call us "terrorists" for fighting back against an opppressive, more powerful force that abuses its power over us.

Critical of it in many areas.. Especially the fact that the West has yet to admit that much of the animosity towards them is well founded thanks to a history of nearly a 100 years of imperialism.. This by no means condones or justifies the violent actions by said terrorist groups, but to completely ignore the reasons behind the hatred is flat out ignorance and does not solve the problem.. sSubZerOo

US imperialism has nothing to do with the ideology of al-Qaeda, they are militant Islamists who wish to restore the Caliphate that fell with the Ottoman Empire after WW1... The only reason the US is a target is because of our influence and money in the region which is highly influential in governments of the region. No government of the Middle East, especially the government of Saudi Arabia which houses Mecca and Medina would ever allow such a thing to occur. Their stated "mission" if you could call it that is for a restoration of the Caliphate and rule of a Caliph over all Muslims... The US is only involved because their plan in 2001 was to draw the US into a war that would last decades and cause financial collapse of the US and thus a financial collapse of the US backed Middle Eastern governments and allow for that to happen.

As far as the question posed in the original post, I oppose the concept of a war on an abstract idea (or tactic) like terrorism. I fully support reigning destruction on our enemies, but unforunately America and the broader West lack the political will (due to the mass murderer and terrorist-loving internal left-wing) to actually bring the war aggresively enough to the enemy. In other words, we're prosecuting these wars with absurd rules of engagement which essentially handcuff our men while giving our enemies advantages. The result? More and more American, Canadian, British and other Western soldiers coming come horribly injured or in a flag-draped coffin. Again, why is this happening? Because our political establishment acquiesces to the left and chooses to prosecute these wars "humanely" out of a misplaced fear of harming so-called "innocent civilians" (in other words, the enemy). Afghanistan and Iraq could've been destroyed in hours, yet the premiere military machines of this world, let by the USA, are entrenched in war with such a third-world country for eleven years. How can that be explained? Because the manner in which the wars are prosecuted has been poisoned by leftist-ideology and political pressure ("Oh no! Don't domb all those innocent women and children!").

So, bottom line - I support bringing the fight the enemy, although I reject the language. Most importantly, I reject the weak manner in which our political and military leaders have chosen to prosecute these wars. Destroy the enemy and leave, stop the house-to-house searches with hand-to-hand combat, and stop this absurd concept of "nation-building".

[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Critical of it in many areas.. Especially the fact that the West has yet to admit that much of the animosity towards them is well founded thanks to a history of nearly a 100 years of imperialism.. This by no means condones or justifies the violent actions by said terrorist groups, but to completely ignore the reasons behind the hatred is flat out ignorance and does not solve the problem.. FoxeoGames

He is absolutely right -- we stir up the hornet's nest, and then we pretend that we were innocently attacked.

DO NOT BE MISTAKEN -- no one is saying anyone deserved what happened to them on 9/11, or that our soldiers deserve any punishment. DO NOT make that mistake of claiming that, because if you do, I won't reply.

However, what we do instigates these actions against us.

You cannot imagine how much nerve we have to go over there, set up bases, march our troops in, and then b*tch about how we get attacked? You need to watch the Imagine video that has a portion of a speech by Ron Paul.

Seriously, go to YouTube and type: imagine ron paul

You will begin to understand what we are doing to them, and why they fight. Because if they were doing the same thing to us, we would be "insurgents" fighting them, and they would call us "terrorists" for fighting back against an opppressive, more powerful force that abuses its power over us.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Critical of it in many areas.. Especially the fact that the West has yet to admit that much of the animosity towards them is well founded thanks to a history of nearly a 100 years of imperialism.. This by no means condones or justifies the violent actions by said terrorist groups, but to completely ignore the reasons behind the hatred is flat out ignorance and does not solve the problem.. C2N2

US imperialism has nothing to do with the ideology of al-Qaeda, they are militant Islamists who wish to restore the Caliphate that fell with the Ottoman Empire after WW1... The only reason the US is a target is because of our influence and money in the region which is highly influential in governments of the region. No government of the Middle East, especially the government of Saudi Arabia which houses Mecca and Medina would ever allow such a thing to occur. Their stated "mission" if you could call it that is for a restoration of the Caliphate and rule of a Caliph over all Muslims... The US is only involved because their plan in 2001 was to draw the US into a war that would last decades and cause financial collapse of the US and thus a financial collapse of the US backed Middle Eastern governments and allow for that to happen.

but unforunately America and the broader West lack the political will (due to the mass murderer and terrorist-loving internal left-wing)kraychik

Whatever makes you sleep at night.

[QUOTE="JML897"]It's about as effective as the war on drugs.C2N2

Considering tens of thousands of militants are dead, with what remain in hiding, as well as most of al-Qaeda's leadership dead or in custody, not really.

On topic, I approve of it, though maybe not in as large a response that has been dealt... I feel a response was needed to 9/11, as no response would embolden/encourage more attacks without fear of reprisal. I don't feel over 130,000 NATO troops stationed full time for over a decade were needed, and that continuous special forces deployment/stationing would have been better, thought Afghanistan would be extremely not well off right now if that were the case (not that they are doing amazing today or anything)... Without the NATO troops, and US/EU money, the Afghan government of today wouldn't exist, neither would their army (which at this point is several hundred thousand) which will take over dealing with militants (hopefully) when NATO pulls out.

[QUOTE="kraychik"]but unforunately America and the broader West lack the political will (due to the mass murderer and terrorist-loving internal left-wing)DraugenCP

Whatever makes you sleep at night.

[QUOTE="JML897"]It's about as effective as the war on drugs.C2N2

Considering tens of thousands of militants are dead, with what remain in hiding, as well as most of al-Qaeda's leadership dead or in custody, not really.

On topic, I approve of it, though maybe not in as large a response that has been dealt... I feel a response was needed to 9/11, as no response would embolden/encourage more attacks without fear of reprisal. I don't feel over 130,000 NATO troops stationed full time for over a decade were needed, and that continuous special forces deployment/stationing would have been better, thought Afghanistan would be extremely not well off right now if that were the case (not that they are doing amazing today or anything)... Without the NATO troops, and US/EU money, the Afghan government of today wouldn't exist, neither would their army (which at this point is several hundred thousand) which will take over dealing with militants (hopefully) when NATO pulls out.

[QUOTE="C2N2"]

[QUOTE="JML897"]It's about as effective as the war on drugs.kraychik

Considering tens of thousands of militants are dead, with what remain in hiding, as well as most of al-Qaeda's leadership dead or in custody, not really.

On topic, I approve of it, though maybe not in as large a response that has been dealt... I feel a response was needed to 9/11, as no response would embolden/encourage more attacks without fear of reprisal. I don't feel over 130,000 NATO troops stationed full time for over a decade were needed, and that continuous special forces deployment/stationing would have been better, thought Afghanistan would be extremely not well off right now if that were the case (not that they are doing amazing today or anything)... Without the NATO troops, and US/EU money, the Afghan government of today wouldn't exist, neither would their army (which at this point is several hundred thousand) which will take over dealing with militants (hopefully) when NATO pulls out.

The alternatives to what you are criticizing are war crimes. You go on and on criticizing the left as "protecting mass murderers" and then advocate lax rules of engagement that allow soldiers to fire on civilians... So you want to do away with your so called "protecting of mass murderers" by becoming mass murderers ourselves?

It's about as effective as the war on drugs.JML897

As far as the question posed in the original post, I oppose the concept of a war on an abstract idea (or tactic) like terrorism. I fully support reigning destruction on our enemies, but unforunately America and the broader West lack the political will (due to the mass murderer and terrorist-loving internal left-wing) to actually bring the war aggresively enough to the enemy. In other words, we're prosecuting these wars with absurd rules of engagement which essentially handcuff our men while giving our enemies advantages. The result? More and more American, Canadian, British and other Western soldiers coming come horribly injured or in a flag-draped coffin. Again, why is this happening? Because our political establishment acquiesces to the left and chooses to prosecute these wars "humanely" out of a misplaced fear of harming so-called "innocent civilians" (in other words, the enemy). Afghanistan and Iraq could've been destroyed in hours, yet the premiere military machines of this world, let by the USA, are entrenched in war with such a third-world country for eleven years. How can that be explained? Because the manner in which the wars are prosecuted has been poisoned by leftist-ideology and political pressure ("Oh no! Don't domb all those innocent women and children!").

So, bottom line - I support bringing the fight the enemy, although I reject the language. Most importantly, I reject the weak manner in which our political and military leaders have chosen to prosecute these wars. Destroy the enemy and leave, stop the house-to-house searches with hand-to-hand combat, and stop this absurd concept of "nation-building".

kraychik

As soon as the U.S. begins willingly mass-bombing innocent civilians we will be no better than a terrorist group.

[QUOTE="C2N2"]

[QUOTE="JML897"]It's about as effective as the war on drugs.BuryMe

Considering tens of thousands of militants are dead, with what remain in hiding, as well as most of al-Qaeda's leadership dead or in custody, not really.

On topic, I approve of it, though maybe not in as large a response that has been dealt... I feel a response was needed to 9/11, as no response would embolden/encourage more attacks without fear of reprisal. I don't feel over 130,000 NATO troops stationed full time for over a decade were needed, and that continuous special forces deployment/stationing would have been better, thought Afghanistan would be extremely not well off right now if that were the case (not that they are doing amazing today or anything)... Without the NATO troops, and US/EU money, the Afghan government of today wouldn't exist, neither would their army (which at this point is several hundred thousand) which will take over dealing with militants (hopefully) when NATO pulls out.

Well in all honesty I don't support "this" kind of war as it can't be won... When fighting extremists with deep seated ideologies a war can't stop that and only emboldens it/breeds future participants... The only way to change what is thought and learned is to change the environment... If a kid grows up among people with militant ideals, he will have militant ideals... If he grows up in a community with hatred/animosity towards the US, he will have hatred and animosity towards the US. Killing militants today does nothing against terrorism a decade or two decades or three decades from now apart from ushering in that future animosity where all people ten years from now have to look back on their involvement with the US is a dead family member or friend from accidents caused by the NATO intervention.

[QUOTE="kraychik"]

As far as the question posed in the original post, I oppose the concept of a war on an abstract idea (or tactic) like terrorism. I fully support reigning destruction on our enemies, but unforunately America and the broader West lack the political will (due to the mass murderer and terrorist-loving internal left-wing) to actually bring the war aggresively enough to the enemy. In other words, we're prosecuting these wars with absurd rules of engagement which essentially handcuff our men while giving our enemies advantages. The result? More and more American, Canadian, British and other Western soldiers coming come horribly injured or in a flag-draped coffin. Again, why is this happening? Because our political establishment acquiesces to the left and chooses to prosecute these wars "humanely" out of a misplaced fear of harming so-called "innocent civilians" (in other words, the enemy). Afghanistan and Iraq could've been destroyed in hours, yet the premiere military machines of this world, let by the USA, are entrenched in war with such a third-world country for eleven years. How can that be explained? Because the manner in which the wars are prosecuted has been poisoned by leftist-ideology and political pressure ("Oh no! Don't domb all those innocent women and children!").

So, bottom line - I support bringing the fight the enemy, although I reject the language. Most importantly, I reject the weak manner in which our political and military leaders have chosen to prosecute these wars. Destroy the enemy and leave, stop the house-to-house searches with hand-to-hand combat, and stop this absurd concept of "nation-building".

TacticalDesire

As soon as the U.S. begins willingly mass-bombing innocent civilians we will be no better than a terrorist group.

[QUOTE="TacticalDesire"]

[QUOTE="kraychik"]

As far as the question posed in the original post, I oppose the concept of a war on an abstract idea (or tactic) like terrorism. I fully support reigning destruction on our enemies, but unforunately America and the broader West lack the political will (due to the mass murderer and terrorist-loving internal left-wing) to actually bring the war aggresively enough to the enemy. In other words, we're prosecuting these wars with absurd rules of engagement which essentially handcuff our men while giving our enemies advantages. The result? More and more American, Canadian, British and other Western soldiers coming come horribly injured or in a flag-draped coffin. Again, why is this happening? Because our political establishment acquiesces to the left and chooses to prosecute these wars "humanely" out of a misplaced fear of harming so-called "innocent civilians" (in other words, the enemy). Afghanistan and Iraq could've been destroyed in hours, yet the premiere military machines of this world, let by the USA, are entrenched in war with such a third-world country for eleven years. How can that be explained? Because the manner in which the wars are prosecuted has been poisoned by leftist-ideology and political pressure ("Oh no! Don't domb all those innocent women and children!").

So, bottom line - I support bringing the fight the enemy, although I reject the language. Most importantly, I reject the weak manner in which our political and military leaders have chosen to prosecute these wars. Destroy the enemy and leave, stop the house-to-house searches with hand-to-hand combat, and stop this absurd concept of "nation-building".

kraychik

As soon as the U.S. begins willingly mass-bombing innocent civilians we will be no better than a terrorist group.

So you agree then that they're indeed a large number of truly innocent civilians over in the middle east in zones of war.

[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="TacticalDesire"]

As soon as the U.S. begins willingly mass-bombing innocent civilians we will be no better than a terrorist group.

TacticalDesire

So you agree then that they're indeed a large number of truly innocent civilians over in the middle east in zones of war.

Why the Muslim world doesn't like the West. Read and signed by Paul Wolfowitz.

Yeah, it's all about left and right.

It's about as effective as the war on drugs.JML897

[QUOTE="TacticalDesire"]

[QUOTE="kraychik"] I never advocated (reckless) mass-bombing of (so-called) "innocent civilians". I don't want to see people die just to satisfy some demented blood-lust. What I do want to see, however, is a military unrestrained by misplaced concern for (so-called) "innocent civilians" while compromising its ability to secure its military objectives. And that's exactly what's happened, thanks to the left. kraychik

So you agree then that they're indeed a large number of truly innocent civilians over in the middle east in zones of war.

So you just lack compassion.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Critical of it in many areas.. Especially the fact that the West has yet to admit that much of the animosity towards them is well founded thanks to a history of nearly a 100 years of imperialism.. This by no means condones or justifies the violent actions by said terrorist groups, but to completely ignore the reasons behind the hatred is flat out ignorance and does not solve the problem.. kraychik

I'd honestly like to see how batshlt insane you are in real life. You're rhetoric would make Ann Coulter blush.

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

[QUOTE="kraychik"]but unforunately America and the broader West lack the political will (due to the mass murderer and terrorist-loving internal left-wing)kraychik

Whatever makes you sleep at night.

I think the only person upset here is you. Your deluded attempts to classify each opponent of contemporary American foreign policy in the categories of extreme islamism and leftism certainly points in that direction. Stop seeing the world so black and white.

I think we should have focused on our priorities such as rebuilding Afghanistan and capture/kill Osama Bin Laden during the Bush Administration rather than have a full-blown war on terror, invade Iraq, and etc.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Critical of it in many areas.. Especially the fact that the West has yet to admit that much of the animosity towards them is well founded thanks to a history of nearly a 100 years of imperialism.. This by no means condones or justifies the violent actions by said terrorist groups, but to completely ignore the reasons behind the hatred is flat out ignorance and does not solve the problem.. C2N2

US imperialism has nothing to do with the ideology of al-Qaeda, they are militant Islamists who wish to restore the Caliphate that fell with the Ottoman Empire after WW1... The only reason the US is a target is because of our influence and money in the region which is highly influential in governments of the region. No government of the Middle East, especially the government of Saudi Arabia which houses Mecca and Medina would ever allow such a thing to occur. Their stated "mission" if you could call it that is for a restoration of the Caliphate and rule of a Caliph over all Muslims... The US is only involved because their plan in 2001 was to draw the US into a war that would last decades and cause financial collapse of the US and thus a financial collapse of the US backed Middle Eastern governments and allow for that to happen.

No where am I defending the terrorists.. They are scum.. But at the same time we can not deny the serious implications the West has had on the Middle East for the past 100 years.. Look no further than Iran a posterchild to modern day Imperialism which has actually led to the extreme religious monarchy it is today.. Until people can finally accept this fact we can than looking at a solution to the problem which no tonly includes stopping these extremist regimes.. But to accept and change the policies the US and overall West has done for decades withint he region..

Going to war to prevent war and American deaths... Inspirational move, it's really worked aswel. Oh wait no.

Critical of it in many areas.. Especially the fact that the West has yet to admit that much of the animosity towards them is well founded thanks to a history of nearly a 100 years of imperialism.. This by no means condones or justifies the violent actions by said terrorist groups, but to completely ignore the reasons behind the hatred is flat out ignorance and does not solve the problem.. sSubZerOo

I'm not very fond of it, it has made the muslims look like victims instead of the perperators they really are.jointed

[QUOTE="JML897"]It's about as effective as the war on drugs.C2N2

Considering tens of thousands of militants are dead, with what remain in hiding, as well as most of al-Qaeda's leadership dead or in custody, not really.

And lots of drug dealers are in prison. It doesn't stop drugs from being distributed. Same deal. Capturing or killing Al-Qaeda leaders doesn't stop terrorism.

[QUOTE="jointed"]I'm not very fond of it, it has made the muslims look like victims instead of the perperators they really are.sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="jointed"]I'm not very fond of it, it has made the muslims look like victims instead of the perperators they really are.jointed

Approve.

Approve.

kingkong0124

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"]

Approve.

BossPerson

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"]

Approve.

BossPerson