Do You Support the War on Terrorism?

[Guaranteed]

FOR THE RECORD: We are NOT counting the Iraq War as part of the so-called "War on Terrorism." We ALL KNOW it's a farce, and has nothing to do with our national security.

[JailBush]

1. Define "the."

I have no problem with fighting terrorism, but Bush's war against terrorism - THE war against terrorism - is an obvious farce.

No, I don't support it.

[Guaranteed]

2. Alright,

that's a fair answer.

[sujan]

3. yes

[neuvocat]

4. I thought it was the war on strip bars.

[AntiCoup2K4]

5. The best way to fight terrorism

...is to throw those fucking bastards who created it out of Washington DC next November :grr:

[Walt Starr]

6. I voted no

The ambiguous "war on terrorism" will be every bit as successful as the "war on drugs".

It's rhetorical crap intended to justify any abuse of the system or violation of the law the power elites choose to commit. Of course I don't support it

[Guaranteed]

8. Well what should we do

about Al Qaeda?

[Sliverofhope]

10. I think a lot of the idea

about the war on terrorism comes from the idea that 9-11 incidents cannot be prevented, unless terrorists are dead. Everyone should know by now that Bush blew 9-11. Terrorist attacks should try to be prevented, #1. #2, cutting off financial resources and ending the cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, would do more.

How this is to be done is to be debated, but can we really intend to overthrow every government and replace it from the top town? This is a half-baked plan.

[Walt Starr]

11. We should have done as the committee on terrorism suggested

instead of giving them a pass for three fourths of 2001.

[Wwagsthedog]

17. Does anyone here remember La Cosa Nostra ....

.... and the war on organized crime? Al Qaeda is just another name to inspire the same type of fear that Commies were supposed to represent. No, I'm not denying that Al Qaeda/terrorism exists, it's just that it should be regarded with some skepticism like right wing nut cases or anyone else who trys to chip away at our rights as citizens.

.... end of rant

[Sliverofhope]

7. War on terrorism is a sham

I like Brzezinski's comparison with a war on blitzkrieg. The term should die with Bush's presidency. I think every sane person thinks that preventing terrorist attacks is a worthy goal, but the neocon plan for world domination is a farce.

[Guaranteed]

9. How do we distinguish between national defense and the Bush

administration's corruption?

Don't we need to defend ourselves against the real terrorists? They are out there. Of course, this administration has done this country a huge disservice entangling a real national security threat with their world-domination ambitions. But, we can't throw out the entire notion of defending ourselves because of the administration's corruption.

[JailBush]

12. it's SIMPLE...

Simply replace THE war on terrorism with a REAL war against terrorism - one that doesn't serve to enrich corporations at the expense of the basic building blocks of democracy - private citizens.

Taking it one step further, we need to define terrorists. Any time the federal government wants to include George W. Bush and Bill Gates in that category, I'll consider re-enlisting.

[Sliverofhope]

15. Everyone agrees with the idea of self-defense

But the concept of a "war on terrorism" is just stupid. And while we're at it, to hell with "homeland security" as well. Let's stop terrorism and increase civil defense. There's no reason to be fascist about it.

Being sure to insure national defense is the true goal is difficult.

[Mattforclark]

36. War on Blitzkrieg

An excellent comparison that illustrates perfectly the linguistic problem.

[LearnedHand]

13. No, because it's totally stupid...

...to think we can wage war on a CONCEPT!

(What's next? War on racism? War on vandalism? War on cronyism?) :::totally_disgusted:::

[el_gato]

14. it's a scam

bad foreign policy is the root cause of terrorism

[Hogarth]

16. I agree with Walt.

With apologies to Woody Allen for stealing a line of his and bastardizing it, making war against an abstract noun like "terrorism" is is a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.

[adriennel]

18. no

we cannot win a "war against terrorism", meaning that according to Bush's plan we will end terrorist attacks forever. This is impossible unless every country on earth suddenly becomes a marvelous utopia, and that's not going to happen.

plus, Bush's war on terrorism is ridiculously selective. What about terrorist attacks perpetrated by Americans on Americans? it seems as if we have plenty of internal terrorist threats (McVeigh, anthrax, etc.) and I'm concerned we're not paying enough attention to domestic terrorism.

we can reduce our risk of terrorist attacks, but in my opinion, Bush's plan of action (agression and intimidation) actually increases our risk of terrorist attacks.

[Guaranteed]

20. Do you think Bush was doing well in addressing terrorism

before the Iraq debacle?

[rooboy]

24. When you consider that the Bush administration allowed 9/11 to happen...

and they didn't even fire the head of the air force, I would have no hesitation in saying no, Bush was not doing well in addressing terrorism before the Iraq debacle.

[Hogarth]

25. I agree.

For every father or mother our troops kill overseas, the next generation of terrorists grows exponetially in proportion to the number of children affected by their parents' deaths. I can't imagine the scenario working in a different, positive direction.

[BonjourUSA]

19. Who can be against ?

But Bush uses and misuses this sentence for justifying his domestic and foreign policy.

Your question should be :"Do you support the Bush's concept (or means, or policy) of the war on terrosrism ?"

[Guaranteed]

21. Well, I actually meant the opposite

I meant "Should we defend ourselves against terrorists?"

On edit: And I meant it that way because there are some people on this board who are trying to say that we shouldn't defend ourselves.

[BonjourUSA]

33. All the western nations are already engaged in this war for a long time.

And every of them knows that no military solution exists. Only a long and hard work of intelligence and a struggle against the whitening money networks are efficient.

The collaboration between the secret services are better, with yours included. 9/11 has been a good lesson.

[KG]

22. an empty slogan from an empty man.

:puke:

[Pastiche423]

23. The war on terrorism replaced

the war on communists.

It is simply our newest, bestest boogeyman. How else can TPTB continue reaping mega bucks from selling weapons, population control by killing thousands of innocents, keep control of all nations' natural resources and keep the minions in fear?

TPTB created terrorists for their own purposes.

[KG]

26. it also allows to TPTB to use 'secrecy' in the name of nat. security

to cover their asses for domestic spying and other illegal BS.

:hi: smooches! :*

[Pastiche423]

31. True

"National Security" (god, I hate that term now) is a perfect veil of secrecy, in which TPTB can do anything they want, using their mendacious excuse.



P.S. I posted my 5000th post to you. ;-)

[KG]

38. i am honored and flattered, girlfriend!

:)

[maddezmom]

27. other

We should be more focused on our airports, seaports, food and water supply, power plants(all types), etc.

[leesa]

28. Foolish, idiotic concept. Truly borne of simpleton thought

Bombing and murdering to stop terrorism...how stupid! It is exactly how terrorism is fostered.

[realFedUp]

29. It's as ridiculous as a war against rats.

Sometimes you just figure out how to keep them
at bay and cut down on their food sources, but
they aren't going to be eliminated, whatever money
spent.

[Terwilliger]

30. only insofar as it must be fought now

We created the situation and we have to work toward a solution.

[wabeewoman]

32. nope....

In my lifetime: War on communism, war on drugs, war on crime...Empty slogans to occupy the sheeple while the real issues are swept under the rug and the people in power get richer and more powerful. I support the stopping of terrorist acts and prevention of future terrorist by getting to the root cause. Also my freedom fighter may be your terrorist-was George Washington a terrorist??

[kiahzero]

34. Other: I support eliminating terrorism, but I don't like wars on nouns

Perhaps we should focus on fixing our foreign policy so we don't radicalize the Middle East. Perhaps we should have a DoHD that doesn't have it's head fully up it's ass in terms of actually keeping us safe.

My father was in the Pentagon when the planes hit (he was on the other side of the building, thank the Lord and Lady), so I definitely feel personally about this issue. It also makes it harder for me to understand why conservatives got so unhinged.

[Mattforclark]

37. Oh my

I am glad your father was OK.

[Mattforclark]

35. War of the Words

What is meant by 'war on terrorism?'

You can go to war against people or groups of people.

Terrorism is not a person, or a grouping of people. It is an abstract noun, or a concept.

I do not have opinions about phrases or strings of words that do not make sense like 'war on terrorism' or 'eating colors.'

If the person who I was talking to refused to say what they meant by 'war on terrorism' I would say that I do not support it because I can't possibly support things that I don't understand. (Though I wouldn't be against it either, I would just have no idea what they were talking about).

If the person who I was talking to said it was a war against Al Qaeda then I would support it.

[Bombtrack]

39. 19 percent yes is pretty sad, it makes me and others not want to post here

There is something wrong with Americans who don't want to eliminate the Islamofascism that is driving Islam. That did, until all you tin-foilers can prove Lihop or whatever, kill 3000 Americans.

It's insanity.

[BonjourUSA]

40. It seems you didn't read all the posts above