The US should abandon the war on terror.

With the exception of Iraq I was all for it in the beginning. I grew up in the 70s and 80s. I have been witness to terrorism from the Middle East my entire life. I have watched through the years as the violence spread against Western targets.

When the war on terror started my first thought was it's about effing time!! I will admit, I was behind the Iraqi invasion originally, you folks have change my mind on that. But at this point in time all that I've seen the war on terror accomplish is a further spread of radical terrorism and alienation of the U.S by many parts of the world.

The endless resources we have put in to the war on terror and our attempts to police the world with no fruitful gain. Has at last convinced me that we are slamming our heads against the wall. The money could be better used at home, the U.S should no longer foot the bill. In either the war on terrorism or our self-fulfilling role as the world police.

Our concern about the Middle East baffles me now. We only receive about 20% of our oil from those nations.

US oil imports

Yet as of 2011 we exported 12% of our oil production and that has risen since 2011.


US oil exports


Let me make this last message clear. I still see the rise and extreme violence of radical Islam as a threat to world peace. The people who are threatened by this are all religions including Islam. But I have come to acknowledge the fact that most of the world does not see this yet. They see the attempt by the United States as a move for global domination.



So at this point the best way to spend US tax dollars is at home in defense of our country and economy. The U.S should sit this out watch after our own interest only. If in several years the situation become's so unattainable for the rest of the world we should wait for a clear cut request for help from the countries of the world.

When that invitation happens it would be up to the US to make it's mind up, and I pray we refuse that invitation.

a reply to: Greathouse

War is profitable it seems . War on crime and crime goes up ,and they build more prisons . War on drugs and drugs abuse increases .War on poverty and the gap between the rich and the poor increase to a point where the middle class will soon be considered poor . We should like to think that new laws actually benefit society but all it does is create new lawyers and ways to prosecute people .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I've heard that before but to me it makes no sense. If war is so profitable why is the US going broke? (enter some quote about the military industrial complex)

And I will say if the military industrial complex is making so much money based on the US dollar why would they want the US broke and the dollar worthless?

How can it be abandoned?

Its not a real war, its like the war against communism or against drugs, crime, poverty, huger and so on, its not a real war just a buzz word.

Actually to be more specific it is a Bush era buzz world, the Obama administration dropped it because of the number of problems that went along with the connotations of calling it a war.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Are you suggesting we should not quit? Or are you just looking for an argument?

I can assume by your response that you disagree with my statement and we should continue this?

Or your response is kind of silly and aggressive by disagreeing with the OP in order to insert your own buzzwords and canned statements.

a reply to: Greathouse

Not looking for a argument,

Just pointing out that you cannot abolish it because the "war on terror" was never a true war like "the first Gulf War" it was just a buzz ward.

It was always just a Bush era buzz word

That has now been dropped by the Obama administration, they usually use terms like "operations to combat terrorism".

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

With that comment you hit the nail on the head about understanding that term. The reason being is that most people tend to highlight their arguments with the word Bush. Terrorism has been actively attacking the west since the 1970s. What would you call armed aggression against Western nations in the 30 years prior to 911 ? Would that fall under the term of a simple misunderstanding?

a reply to: Greathouse

What would you call armed aggression against Western nations in the 30 years prior to 911 ? Would that fall under the term of a simple misunderstanding?

That totally depends on what specific armed aggression you are talking about and also how you define terrorism.

I don't know how we are going to just stop fighting the war on terror. It will keep coming at us.

If you know about a sensible way of doing it I am all ears. The ones waging this war are not reasonable people, they like riling things up and killing others.

a reply to: Greathouse

Sometimes the people on these boards never cease to amaze me. I have been a firm supporter of the war on terror since its inception and even before then.

I have argued, tried to point out the reasons and fully supported the war. Finally after much debate with folks like the people on this board. I have finally changed my stance in favor of the opinion presented here.

Still all I see are canned lines and buzz words against a change in my opinion. It only shows that many people don't really care about their stance all they're doing is looking for an argument.

a reply to: Greathouse

I would like nothing better than to see this war on terrorism and all the fear mongering go away. But the thing is, the ones in charge won't pay attention to us and refrain from trying to control the world. So since we have no choice, I would rather have things in place to protect our citizens. We would have to get rid of all the people who profit from war if we wanted to get out of this mess. That will never happen.

We got what we got, and it is not a good situation.

a reply to: rickymouse



Nope no easy solution, but there is no sense in alienating the rest of the world. As I stated in the OP, take a eighth of the money were spending ( probably) and concentrate on defense at home.

a reply to: rickymouse

I beg to differ there is things we can do to convince the government. Have you ever heard of the antiwar movement in the 60s and 70s that worked.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: the2ofusr1

I've heard that before but to me it makes no sense. If war is so profitable why is the US going broke? (enter some quote about the military industrial complex)

And I will say if the military industrial complex is making so much money based on the US dollar why would they want the US broke and the dollar worthless?

Private business gets rich not the Government. War can break a nation because it borrows money from banks and spends it on war. Tax payers are now on the hook for the borrowed money which is how the Gov. pays for stuff. Private Business get's the money. They also have ways of getting out of paying taxes. When they say war makes a profit they don't mean for everyone. It's a profit for those invested in war and get the contracts to wage it. Private businesses are not loyal to any nation either. They can just as easily move to another when is needed. Or just be based out of some tax haven and be global.

a reply to: Greathouse

All of the government's wars against concepts (terrorism, drugs, poverty, etc) should be abandoned. They are all huge wastes of money and create more problems than solve.

a reply to: mOjOm

Another great canned argument you're sure to get plenty of stars for that statement that is repeated over and over

Now let me ask you this? What happens to the private corporations that made all that money when US collapses in debt and they lose most of it?


Your argument sounds like a textbook lesson in the law of diminishing returns.

Go ahead and quote Eisenhower about " beware of the military industrial complex" but I would like to point out we weren't $19 trillion in debt When he made that statement.

a reply to: Greathouse

It's a very large game based on the US currency .They do create it out of nothing and be assured it will end up being worth nothing in the end .How long they can keep the game going is hard to tell but it has it's end for sure .

War on terrorism?

One simply can not kill an ideology.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: rickymouse

I beg to differ there is things we can do to convince the government. Have you ever heard of the antiwar movement in the 60s and 70s that worked.

That antiwar movement didn't work that well. I remember that movement. I had to listen to all the bitching about deserters or draft dodgers. I listened to the people cutting down vietnam vets saying they were a bunch of druggies. Half of it was all made up.

I agree though, we should not let power hungry people make us fight for things that we should not be doing. I've been trying to find out why we got our noses in the middle east and all I can find is that some people want to profit from these people. You are not allowed to collect interest on money lent in some of these countries, so we have people up high who do not like this. We want their resources and at a low cost, that way the middle man can make more money. You have to add up a lot of different greeds to find the answer as to why we are riling things up.

Meanwhile, I do not agree with the terrorists tactics of killing innocent people. I want nothing to do with these radical groups, I agree they must be destroyed for the good of all mankind. If they get in power, they will enslave their own people.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree all wars should be abandoned. The only problem with that statement is human nature and the fact that humans have been at war with each other since the first caveman picked up a stick and hit the other one.