The effectiveness of a "War" on terror

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Erin Go Braugh

So, with more being killed in Iraq than ever before, the Arab world up in arms about American involvement in the conflict, with world and national (American) opinion being massively against the direction and planning of the "war", what is to happen next?

Can the Americans invade anyone who has mere sympathy towards the terrorist aims and not the terrorists themselves (note that they are actually different things)?

Can a "war" on terror even be fought, let alone won?

I heard a quote recently from a British academic: "a war on terror is like a war on toasters." It suggests that you cannot "declare war" on something incorporeal, like terror. War was not declared on the Holocaust, it was declared on the Germans. Shouldn't we go after Phillips for its rampant toaster manufacture?

Shall we?

Fenir/Finn

P.S.

God it's good to be back

[The Gaffer]

Hey Fenir, how ya diddlin?

Toasters, unlike terror, are actual things. It would be possible to win a war on toasters, particularly mine, which is rubbish.

It's more like a "War on Mild Irritation"

Anyone who has read 1984 know what the "War on Terror" is really about...

[brownjenkins]

Goldstein!

[hectorberlioz]

Thats why "establishing democracy" in Iraq is such a vital part of winning this war: because we ALREADY KNEW THAT [what Fenir said]. You guys are actually behind.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

... It would be possible to win a war on toasters, particularly mine, which is rubbish...

I got one of them "4-slicers"!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

I heard a quote recently from a British academic: "a war on terror is like a war on toasters." It suggests that you cannot "declare war" on something incorporeal, like terror.

I could point out that toasters are, in fact, corporeal, but since I'm on British Academic's side in this issue, I'll refrain.

Thats why "establishing democracy" in Iraq is such a vital part of winning this war: because we ALREADY KNEW THAT [what Fenir said].

*general booing and hissing ensues*

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Valandil

I got one of them "4-slicers"!

Actually, mine is OK, now we've ditched our crappy British made one in favour of an Italian model.

She sticks the bread under the grill.

* boom boom *

No but the real tragedy is that declaring "war" on terrorists is exactly what they want. For years and years the IRA (Irish Republican Army, or terrorist organisation which, amongst other things, blew up the Conservative Party conference and came within a whisker of assassinating the British PM and half the cabinet) claimed that they were fighting a war, which the British refused to acknowledge.

Reason being that applying the term "war" instantly legitimises your opponent.

Terrorists should be treated like criminals of the worst kind.

[Valandil]

Well... meanwhile, we Americans have had wars on crime, wars on drugs, etc.

I just hope your Entmoot staff is successful in waging its "War on Spam"!

[The Gaffer]

Yes, what is it with all these unwinnable wars? Enough already

My theory is the internet will become virtually unusable in two years due to the vast amount of rubbish.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

No but the real tragedy is that declaring "war" on terrorists is exactly what they want. For years and years the IRA (Irish Republican Army, or terrorist organisation which, amongst other things, blew up the Conservative Party conference and came within a whisker of assassinating the British PM and half the cabinet) claimed that they were fighting a war, which the British refused to acknowledge.

Reason being that applying the term "war" instantly legitimises your opponent.

Terrorists should be treated like criminals of the worst kind.

Hey Gaff, how the hell are ya! Watching the cricket I hope? Poms not looking to flash right now...

Anyway:
I couldn't agree more.

The provos (the Provincial Irish Republican Army; or the ones who are blowing up Belfast pubs and killing innocent people) want nothing more than to have war declared on them. As you say, it legitimises your cause before your people.

One of the best things the Brits ever did in their dealings with the provos was to arrest them and charge them as criminals, not as soldiers.

I can't think of a better way for Arab or muslim terrorists to gain better support than to be seen by their own people as fighting the "good fight" against the “evil American aggressor” as they have done.

It looks good to have the US president saying "we declare war on terror", particularly to his electorate. He has to be seen to be doing something, and thats fine, but a lot of Iowa farmboys are being killed in Bagdhad, and it really doesn't seem to be working.

[The Gaffer]

Cricket not looking too clever. England made the usual mistake of making their best player captain, meaning that his game suffers. Harmison needs a rocket up his arse. Could be the best bowler in the world but just can't get his head right. Compare with McGrath, who at the same age was a pretty average bowler, but turned himself into one of the best with application and hard graft.

Shame though. I hope they manage to make a fight of the series at least.

Of course, the Irish situation had many important differences. The IRA, for all their murderousness, retained a concept of "legitimate targets" (i.e. police and Army), and often gave a warning of impending explosions to give time to evacuate innocent civilians.

But terrorism needs grievance like a flame needs oxygen. The fact remains that terrorism was halted by power sharing. By addressing the legitimate grievances of Irish catholics, and involving Sinn Fein in government, the IRA ran out of steam.

There is also a problem with the "Terrorism" bit as well as the "War" bit. It is not clear if we are at war with all terrorism or with a particular kind. If the former, well, it's a tactic that is always going to be used by a group that has no other way of fighting.

[Master'sBaneSwiftSnowmane]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

the US president saying "we declare war on terror"

Or, as he would really say it, "We daclere war on tirror." Oh dear, that seems to be just another pronunciation error to add to his score.

I honestly can't respect him as a president or anything for that matter. I don't believe that this is a 'War on Terror' I think it's a 'War on a different point of view'. Sure, I was just as pissed as anyone else when the really noticiable cause in this deathly chain of events occured, but I disagree with almost everything that man has done and cannot wait to see him out of office. (Wrong thread for that I suppose). Then again, atleast he did something...I do have to give him kudos for that.

If this was a 'War Against Terrorism' we would have troops in every country fighting all sorts of organizations. This 'War' is very...picky? Erm...it's only fighting that terrorism that certain gonvernment officials choose for it.

Also, I can't see a permament removal of all troops in the Middle East ever becoming possible. I stress ever. That alone makes the war worthless.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Master'sBaneSwiftSnowmane

Or, as he would really say it, "We daclere war on tirror." Oh dear, that seems to be just another pronunciation error to add to his score.

Which is just the worst thing about Bush, right?

[Master'sBaneSwiftSnowmane]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Which is just the worst thing about Bush, right?

Not the worst, just annoying that the person representing the nation I currently reside in sounds so uneducated.
Also, please be nice. I didn't attack you with my post.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Master'sBaneSwiftSnowmane

Also, please be nice. I didn't attack you with my post.

Hector's gotten cheeky over the years, but he's generally a good guy.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Master'sBaneSwiftSnowmane

If this was a 'War Against Terrorism' we would have troops in every country fighting all sorts of organizations. This 'War' is very...picky? Erm...it's only fighting that terrorism that certain gonvernment officials choose for it.

Opposed to the war though I am, I have to say that doesn't hold up. No country could possibly fight all terrorists at once.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Opposed to the war though I am, I have to say that doesn't hold up. No country could possibly fight all terrorists at once.

That’s not really the point my lad.

It's not about one country fighting "all terrorists at once". For one, America has the military and industrial potential to conquer the world should they choose to, but they do not. They choose to have a "war on terror". The question is this:

Given America's unquestioned military and material might, and given September 11 and its resolve solidifying aspect, AND given that the war isn't being won: therefore (if you're still with me) can a war on terror be won, given that the most powerful fighting force ever on God's earth can't do the job?

Finn

ps: if you have any problem with any of my reasoning, tell us! I want a debate!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I don't think so. But my response wasn't to you, but to Snowmane's statement that if America were really fighting a war on terror, we would be fighting all terrorists everywhere at the same time. Perhaps a bit off-topic, but no discussion is ever completely on the rails, my friend.

I'm not quite cynical to think this is all just a big oil scam; my view is that Bush is simply misguided and naively optimistic.

[Master'sBaneSwiftSnowmane]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Opposed to the war though I am, I have to say that doesn't hold up. No country could possibly fight all terrorists at once.

My point exactly.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

But you complained that:

This 'War' is very...picky? Erm...it's only fighting that terrorism that certain gonvernment officials choose for it.

The implication being that it should not only be fighting that terrorism that certain government officials choose for it, from which it is a likely assumption that it should be fighting all terrorism, which is, as we have agreed, impossible.