I stand by War On Terrorism and Love United States

Is this 'War On Terror' worth the innocent lives?

No this War or any war is not worth the innocent lives but at the same time if a war diverts a bigger threat to mankind(WMDs etc) then it becomes inevitable for the long term well being.

Yes WMDs are the biggest threat to human life, and the vast majority of the WMDs in existence are held by the countries waging wars right now.

I just hope they dont plan on bombing Iranian nuclear sites, cuz that would be it.

So Aryan when is the US going to give up its WMD's if your so concerned about them or are we talking double standards here do as I say not as I do. The great American bully can have these weapons but others connot how arrogant especially when its is the US who has used WMD's and is the country that has been prosecuting wars since ww2.

The US/Israel are a threat to world peace not Iran, Iraq, Syria, Korea, Sommalia, Afganistan, or anyone else.

What a proud American you must be, proud that your country has been responsible for the deaths of millions and continues to kill and murder for proffit and greed.

Has that made you richer, safer no I dont think so.

The US/Israel are a threat to world peace not Iran, Iraq, Syria, Korea, Sommalia, Afganistan, or anyone else.

No I don't think so.power if in control is always good. The countries that you have mentioned should come out and prove to the whole world that the capabilities that they are building will never be used against mankind.

Thats exactly the double standard I refer to, its ok for the US to have and USE them but everyone else has to come clean, why, the big bully has all the weapons it needs to kill all life of this planet so why are they concerned about piss poor countries having them. I see you raise no objection to Israel having hundreds of nukes supplied by the US.

No its big bully tactics but sooner or later the bully gets what he deserves.

Sorry for posting the below again,but I haven't got a response from anyone of you on this.

Even if Bush is doing what he is doing currently - is sanctioned by the parliament which all of us have voted to power. Isn't it? Now if all that all of keep saying about the policies gone wrong - what are the options? What do we do to actually tell our democratically elected body in it's face that we have had enough? Why don't we use that option. And if we are not using that option then I think we are no better than millions of other anti-America sentimentalists whose sole objective is to cast a slur on our great nation.

My point is simply this - If majority of Americans 'really' feel so strongly about the War on Terrorism why did we want the perpetrators blood post 9/11. Whay was there such an uproar? Why didn't people say that we are wrong when Bush made a public announcement about the launch of War on Terrorism? Is it because at that time most of us were sitting in front of our television clapping on the'brave decision'?

Or was it that we are so innoccent as to think that the War on terrorism would be a 'bloodless revolution'? Funny isn't it? Or was it that we were ignorant to the horrors of war? Guys,wake up...we are into it big time. We and our forces have embarked on a mission which cannot end till it has actually ended. We ' dissatisfieds' sitting in front of our systems jabbing at the keys are the least or negative contributors in the tough times our country is facing.

neformore - Any response?

Originally posted by AryanWatch
Even if Bush is doing what he is doing currently - is sanctioned by the parliament which all of us have voted to power. Isn't it?

That doesnt mean they represent your interests.

Now if all that all of keep saying about the policies gone wrong

I dont say the policy has gone wrong, in my opinion, its doing exactly what it was penned to do. Crush any opposing government or economical platform to increase US imperialistic domination.

- what are the options? What do we do to actually tell our democratically elected body in it's face that we have had enough?

grass roots politics are the only options, write to congress, write to your representatives at the local level, write to the senate. Protest, sit in, get your voice heard and dont take no for an answer.

Why don't we use that option.

I think you can answer that question. After all, why are you typing on this forum instead of doing something?

And if we are not using that option then I think we are no better than millions of other anti-America sentimentalists whose sole objective is to cast a slur on our great nation.

Your 50% right, some anti-US sentiment is ment to simple muddy the name of the US, but the other 50%, the 50% thats founded in historical fact, is ment to show the American public just what is going on outside of the US, because of US leaders and policy makers. Its not anti-American to question the policies of your government, or even to scorn them, its your birthright as an American, and as a citizen of this planet.

My point is simply this - If majority of Americans 'really' feel so strongly about the War on Terrorism why did we want the perpetrators blood post 9/11.

Its not wrong for US citizens to want the perpetrators brought to justice, but what justice is served by bombing and invading two already battered and weak countries? What measure of justice comes from allowing warlord to take over afganistan again?

Whay was there such an uproar? Why didn't people say that we are wrong when Bush made a public announcement about the launch of War on Terrorism?

Many did, but few listened, especially when most Americans were glued infront of the TV set watching mainstream media mouthpieces.
Is it because at that time most of us were sitting in front of our television clapping on the'brave decision'?

We and our forces have embarked on a mission which cannot end till it has actually ended.

Terrorism is a concept, not an army, not a person. How can you expect a war against a concept to end? You cant, it will continue ad nauseum, every civilian bombed or killed by US forces (direct or surrogate) creates another terrorist.

That doesnt mean they represent your interests.

IspiteOf - They need not. Democracy is all about compromises. The government of any country cannot please all it's citizens. Fact is, the government is by the majority and any law is approved by the parliament,which implies that the representatives of majority of people of this country have approved of it. Now,you don't expect our people sitting in the parliament making decisions on their whims and fancies. I have faith in the system and I earnestly believe that their is a huge beaureacratic machinery which does a detailed ground work before even presenting a bill on the floor of the house. All I'am saying is that we as people have a duty to question our law makers with a clear understanding of the facts and not in the form of mud slinging in public forums.

I have an objection to your point about my not doing anything other then writing here. How do you know,I'am not doing anything?

Originally posted by AryanWatch

IspiteOf - They need not. Democracy is all about compromises.

Agreed, but who has to suffer from such compromises and who gains from them? Im willing to bet the citizenry suffers much more than lobbyists and interest groups, multinationals and military contractors, etc etc.

The government of any country cannot please all it's citizens.

No, but it would be nice if they acted on behalf of citizens not in the top percentage of income and wealth.

I have faith in the system and I earnestly believe that their is a huge beaureacratic machinery which does a detailed ground work before even presenting a bill on the floor of the house.

Faith is a scary thing when talking about politics. You should never have faith in the political system or a political leader. You can expect them to act according to the laws and regulations of a country, but to have such an unwavering belief that they will do so unchecked is a mistake IMO.

All I'am saying is that we as people have a duty to question our law makers with a clear understanding of the facts and not in the form of mud slinging in public forums.

Your absolutly right about that (the bolded part.) But where do you you draw the line between mud slinging and fact? What if fact sounds like mud slinging? What happens when you question policies that are destructive and counter to the spin and propaganda the state spews? Are you then slinging mud, or voicing grevences with the system?

I have an objection to your point about my not doing anything other then writing here. How do you know,I'am not doing anything?

I dont, and your right. Sorry for my assumption. The fact that you question what others say is some indication that you are politically active. I personally have noticed a large formation of armchair protesters in the West, gripping about problems and doing nothing to solve them. Again sorry for my assumption.

A side question: Was the first sentence of my previous post, the only part you have issues with?

Terrorism is a concept, not an army, not a person. How can you expect a war against a concept to end?

InspiteOf - You will get the answer to this if you look at the punchline of ATS. You can ask the same question here - 'Ignorance' is a concept,not an army,not a person.Then how come all of us have come together to 'Deny Ignorance'. I don't know wheather you agree but I think the same logic can be applied to defining - War on/against Terrorism. And let's not forget - It's not the phrase we should be concerned about.You and me and all others know for a fact what it's all about. War on Terrorism is not a shadow fight and we are not in the battlefields to fight 'Terrorism' as a concept. We have identified exact enemies and we are out to annihiliate them. This war will never end. It will only change locations. I think it's too late to retract. We are into it and we have antagonised the entire Islamic Civilization and can do little to undo. You are correct when you say we are producing more and more terrorists.Is there a data from any research which does headcounting and says this? Please don't assume this question as sarcasm - I'am really interested to know. My argument is - We are not 'producing more terrorists.We are acting as 'catalysts' for the already seething Muslim youth to resort to arms. In my opinion,these are two seperate things.For me,a terrorist is a person who is a part of any Organization and gets inspiration and support from it. But they are just a part of the problem. The more people we antagonize the more will be the attacks outside the battlefield. Now,to be very candid wwith you,I don't see a solution to that. Do you?

Originally posted by AryanWatch

InspiteOf - You will get the answer to this if you look at the punchline of ATS. You can ask the same question here - 'Ignorance' is a concept,not an army,not a person.Then how come all of us have come together to 'Deny Ignorance'.

That may be, but we as a collective or "army" are not fighting to deny ignorance with bullets and bombs. The old saying "you cant fight idea's with bullets" applies to both terrorism and ignorance. Besides, im pretty sure most of us understand that to "deny ignorance" isnt to take arms up against the ignorant, but rather try to educate them with fact.

I don't know wheather you agree but I think the same logic can be applied to defining - War on/against Terrorism. And let's not forget - It's not the phrase we should be concerned about.

boldind mine, and your right. The concept isnt attacking, terrorists are attacking in the name of the concept.
However, its not simply the terrorists we should be worried about, its the conditions that create them that are the bigger problem. Many terrorists are following by example. When a countries leaders like the US use terror assassinations and death squads in scores of countries around the world, is it really a wonder that people feel so desperate as to take the lives of others?

We have identified exact enemies and we are out to annihiliate them.

Im not so sure "we" haveidentified exact enemies. "We've" identified a series of groups "we" believe to be terrorists (and with groups like Al Quaida (no idea how to spell) i think "we" are correct.) My point is, with terrorism being a broad and subjective concept, anyone really, can be labelled one.

This war will never end. It will only change locations. I think it's too late to retract.

I agree with the bolded part. But the last part im not so sure of. I think if we change the conditions creating terrorists (IE Global hegemony, imperialistic practises, World Bank and IMF penetration, etc) we would see a sharp decline in terrorist actions. To be sure, you can never please everyone, but if you change global conditions to better suite the population of the planet, rather than suite the top percentage of land an wealth holders, what exactly could terrorists rebel against?

Is there a data from any research which does headcounting and says this? Please don't assume this question as sarcasm - I'am really interested to know.

There may be, but i am unaware of any statistical data, tahts not to say it doesnt exist. I just think its kind of hard to go out and poll people who are victims of imperial atrocities and see who's going to become a terrorist.

My argument is - We are not 'producing more terrorists.We are acting as 'catalysts' for the already seething Muslim youth to resort to arms.

I can certainly understand your point of view, and im sure there are elements of your argument in play in reality. However, why are the muslim youth seething? What original event(s) caused such discord?

The more people we antagonize the more will be the attacks outside the battlefield. Now,to be very candid wwith you,I don't see a solution to that. Do you?

The only solution ive thought up so far, i posted above in this post. (stop the creation process)

When a countries leaders like the US use terror assassinations and death squads in scores of countries around the world, is it really a wonder that people feel so desperate as to take the lives of others?

I don't agree with this part. The reasons why the Muslim youth of today is 'seething with rage' might not be known even to them. I'am talking about a feeling which might be very similar to the Mob Mentality. For ex. you are a Muslim youth in a town which has a very limited or no access to the outside world. Now,you are not in a position to evaluate the large volumes of information that might be falling into your ears. Instead,you have people who do that for you. So what do you do? You take the easy route and be happy with the 'readymade' analysis of the 'policies','hostilities',current events etc going on in the world around you. This,I think,is a very dangerous situation as this makes one open to manipulations. The case in example - Kashmir in India. Most of the terrorists are uneducated youth from far flung mountainous regions. Another example can be Bosnia.

What I mean to say is - There is definately a large population of Muslims who are exploiting even a larger majority in this way for their own benefit.

what exactly could terrorists rebel against?

I see a problem here - Most of the terrorists definately don't believe that they are fighting against the imperial policies,hegemony etc. As I see it, majority of them are up in arms mostly due to a perceived feeling of threat to their religion. I don't say that making policies that suit the vast majority won't have an impact on the overall population,but my guess is, it would be very insignificant.

(stop the creation process)

Sorry,missed your point completely here.

AryanWatch

[edit on 6-7-2007 by AryanWatch]

Originally posted by AryanWatch
I don't agree with this part. The reasons why the Muslim youth of today is 'seething with rage' might not be known even to them. I'am talking about a feeling which might be very similar to the Mob Mentality.

Yes but there has to be some reason that those manipulative people start this cycle, and the same can be said for the manipulator of the new manipulator. To be sure, there will always be people that will try to gain power threw any means, and the threat of the destruction of their religion would be a powerful motivator. But to ignore the socio-economic aspects of their lives, to say those play no part in creating the monsters they become, IMO, is a mistake.

What I mean to say is - There is definately a large population of Muslims who are exploiting even a larger majority in this way for their own benefit.

Agreed, but what are the reasons for such exploitation? I think those reasons are worth exploring.

what exactly could terrorists rebel against?

I see a problem here - Most of the terrorists definately don't believe that they are fighting against the imperial policies,hegemony etc.

Again, i think its a mistake to analyze something and write off the economic and social aspects of their lives as motivating factors.

I don't say that making policies that suit the vast majority won't have an impact on the overall population,but my guess is, it would be very insignificant.

Well, why do you think that? I dont mean to sound so antagonistic, i just dont know how else to word it.

(stop the creation process)

Sorry,missed your point completely here.

This line was ment as a redirect to this:

I think if we change the conditions creating terrorists (IE Global hegemony, imperialistic practises, World Bank and IMF penetration, etc) we would see a sharp decline in terrorist actions. To be sure, you can never please everyone, but if you change global conditions to better suite the population of the planet, rather than suite the top percentage of land an wealth holders, what exactly could terrorists rebel against?

sorry for the mix up.

Obama's inaugural speech has a clear message directed towards the people who are at the receiving end of our War on Terror.To some,it has come as a release as this administration will ensure that the war on terror continues even if the tactics change.

This forum is for those who stand by their great nation and who dare to sound 'uncool' amongst their friends by being supporters to the War on Terrorism.

This forum is also for people who wish to prove us a war hungry country.

Hoping to sound way uncool here - i'd support a war on terrorism if we were infact fighting a war on terrorism.....rather, it sure as hell looks as if we have been fighting a civil upraising due to our - yes our - failure to stay the course and rid the world of terror versus ridding the world of a dictator......how can anyone argue that what is, and has been, happening in Iraq is largely due to the ineptness of a world leader to do what he said he would - "Take the fight to those who knocked down these buildings".....

I do believe if America wanted to win a war on terror that we surely have the capability to do so.......just like when we stopped WWII - brute force with a reminder to the world - Don't # With America - but......America has chosen to not remind the world of this and instead has lost a great deal of credibility messing around somewhere it does not belong while the terrorists continue on their merry way......