• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Do We End The War on Terror?

What Should We Do To End The Terror War?

  • The West is doing the right thing.

    Votes: 4 7.5%

  • We need more WAAAUGH! We need to bomb more! Boots on the ground!

    Votes: 6 11.3%

  • The West needs to change their foreign policy. Stop meddling in other countries.

    Votes: 30 56.6%

  • Other

    Votes: 13 24.5%
  • Total voters
    53
grip said:
Bush is the one that said, 'we're addicted to oil', remember?

US policy was about creating more capitalist countries, in the name of democracy, that would purchase more retail materialism. That's always been their intention, that as long as they could get a bunch of religious fanatics addicted to the comfort of easy living, they would have more control over them. They simply underestimated how much these countries didn't want to accept their puppet regimes and indirect control over them.

I don't believe there's anything inherently wrong with our lifestyle in the Western world, it works for me. But we can't just force it on everyone else because our politicians say so, and their wealthy elite supporters want it.
Click to expand...

If the war was really about oil, then how about you explain why most of the oil that Iraq exports never goes anywhere near the US? Or keep digging that hole, it's up to you.

As far as your line about "creating more capitalist countries" and "purchasing more materialism", you sir couldn't be more further from the truth. And from said line, I can also assume that you are below the age 30, and have lived in a Western Country your whole life. The reason I can say this is because if either were not true, you would know that this isn't the first time the US and the West has been the champions of freedom. In fact, the fatal flaw of western foreign policy, is that when we see Arabs on TV, we see in them the same people that marched in the Velvet Revolution that toppled the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, or the East Berliners that along with their West Berliner counterparts, torn down a wall that was erected to keep it's residents away from a better life. Their fight for freedom had nothing to do with materialism, but with the desire to have a voice in their own government, and to get out of the yoke of Soviet Tyranny. The problem is that Arabs are not like Europeans, in that they haven't done what is necessary for a democracy to work .. and that is Secularize their lifestyle. Europe did it 500 years ago, and is many of the new governments that popped up after the fall of the Soviet Union were successful. They didn't care if you were Protestant or Catholic, only what you could contribute.

Nelson Mandela said it best: Money won't create success, the freedom to make it will.
 
Jango said:
Yes, that is what I said. I said that because it is true. Look at what President Bush was saying at the time. His foreign policy choices were guided by religion, like his infamous conversation with the French President or 'God told me to invade Iraq' rationale for War. He made it a crusade, which is what Israel had been wanting for a long time because they were sick and ****ing tired of militant Islam.
Click to expand...

If that was the case, how come we let an Islamist sectarian government come to power? Kind of blows your argument right up doesn't it. It's not like in the original crusades, we'd take over lands just to install Muslim leaders not did we?
 
Hamster Buddha said:
If the war was really about oil, then how about you explain why most of the oil that Iraq exports never goes anywhere near the US? Or keep digging that hole, it's up to you.

As far as your line about "creating more capitalist countries" and "purchasing more materialism", you sir couldn't be more further from the truth. And from said line, I can also assume that you are below the age 30, and have lived in a Western Country your whole life. The reason I can say this is because if either were not true, you would know that this isn't the first time the US and the West has been the champions of freedom. In fact, the fatal flaw of western foreign policy, is that when we see Arabs on TV, we see in them the same people that marched in the Velvet Revolution that toppled the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, or the East Berliners that along with their West Berliner counterparts, torn down a wall that was erected to keep it's residents away from a better life. Their fight for freedom had nothing to do with materialism, but with the desire to have a voice in their own government, and to get out of the yoke of Soviet Tyranny. The problem is that Arabs are not like Europeans, in that they haven't done what is necessary for a democracy to work .. and that is Secularize their lifestyle. Europe did it 500 years ago, and is many of the new governments that popped up after the fall of the Soviet Union were successful. They didn't care if you were Protestant or Catholic, only what you could contribute.

Nelson Mandela said it best: Money won't create success, the freedom to make it will.
Click to expand...

If you think the world operates on idealism and not money, then you're not paying attention to the truth. Idealism is merely a means to an end. My age and residence are not relevant to the discussion. But freedom as you call it, is another illusion that is really the basic needs of life being supplied by an economic civilization. You need a job to pay for your food, water, home, gas, medicine, electricity etc. and they're all provided by the same corporate structures that influence politics and governments.
 
PoS said:
Its been 13 years since 9/11 and yet it seems there are now more terrorists than ever before. Can this war be won? What are your thoughts on this? Are the governments of the West doing the right things or are they making the situation worse?

As for me, I dont want to see another American solider or civilian killed in a pointless war with no end. The West needs to stop minding the business of other countries. No more overseas military bases or occupation- if these Islamists want to live according to their religion then I say let them do it. These very governments like Saudi Arabia, who we are fighting with to maintain their status quo over there are the very people who bankroll these terrorists. The US has got the largest shale oil deposits in the world- more than the entire middle east combined, why not spend billions in developing these fields and get oil form then instead of letting the Arabs do it and paying them for it?
Click to expand...

The US has about 40 billion barrels of oil in the ground, and we consume about 6 billion per year. To say that we can ever be independent from foreign oil is a fantasy, sorry to report.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I think my philosophy re how to deal with terrorism would eventually discourage and discredit the terrorists to the point that they could not so easily recruit new terrorists. Render the evil impotent to work their evil--take away their success--and most rational people will choose some other line of work. So the civilian population would be less likely to become enemy combatents. I cannot morally embrace a concept that suggests we kill people because they MIGHT choose to do evil at some later time. I have no problem with killing those who do evil and intend to do more.

But I did take note of Eric Holder's pronouncement that religious profiling would not be tolerated in our defense against terrorism.

When Nidal Hasan, who had been taking Islamic training from Anwar al-Awlaki, picked up a handgun and murdered 12 soldiers (one pregnant) and injured 29 others, the Obama administration labeled the incident 'workplace violence.' When Alton Nolan attacked and beheaded a woman and was in the process of killing another--the incident closely following the gruesome ISIS beheadings in the international news--and it was revealed that he had recently converted to Islam, the Obama Administration is labeling the incident as 'workplace violence.' Give me a break. Given that 90 percent or better of terrorist activity around the world is being committed by Islamic extremists or opportunists, to not consider that in the equation is just dumb.

Until we can set aside the politically correct garbage that has made us into a society of timid sheeple and start calling the evil for what it is, we have little or no chance to effectively deal with the problem. There is certainly no reluctance to call Christian activism for what it is, and to graphically point out a Christian's faith when he or she commits a crime. And when that is done there is no concern whatsoever about offending peaceful Christians. Why are we so timid and afraid that we might offend a peaceful Muslim? If it is somehow dangerous to offend a peaceful Muslim while it is not dangerous to offend a peaceful Christian, shouldn't Islam be considered more dangerous than Christianity?

And if the consequences of offending are not greater in the Islamic world, then why should Islam get greater deference and protection than Christianity.

And I say this having Muslim friends, neighbors, and colleagues who I feel absolutely no threat from, who are delightful people, and I love them dearly. So I am NOT saying that all Muslims are evil or dangerous or anything like that. But the fact is that it is Islam involved in most terrorism these days and it is just dumb not to recognize that and factor it into our efforts to stop terrorism.
Click to expand...

Nicely said.

Well, as you may know I am not religious. To me religion is rogue politics that has bused its power and recruited people as soldiers more than in one occasion.

My point is that if one relies only in force then there may be greater casualties which in turn may increase recruitment. Instead dealing with terror only with force tackling the problem by providing education and jobs seems to be an equally important anti-terror influence.

At least the killed terrorist by force would then be involved in such activity not due to desperation and financial challenges. The links posted in post 2 work towards those goals I think.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
That first link is a joke, who exactly is zero hedge? And are you really going to side with what may be a bunch of college guys in a dorm smoking or snorting it up while they're writing these articles?



Can't you find any legit news articles to back you up? Despite this, I don't disagree we were looking someone who would follow our demands, it all depends on what the demands are. As you should know, our whole objective in Iraq was to get a stable government that represented everyone. But you're right, unlike some countries I could mention, we get sort of uncomfortable when backing up ruthless tyrants... hey isn't Russia backing Assad? Again, a puppet government isn't one that isn't merely someone who is supported/backed by another country, but one who acts in the best interest in not their own government, but of their puppeteers. See the Warsaw Pact countries, specifically I'd recommend you starting with Ukraine during the Soviet Union.



Oh goodie, another Anti-US website. At least this one has the credibility of being a think tank. Let me offer a little advice when you are sourcing things; look for outlets and organizations that either have opposing viewpoints to the one you have one and ones the other side might normally agree with (Jon Stewart when he went after Sibelius). Or if that fails, at least reference a news source with a some international recognition. Not these trailer trash websites you offered.

By the way, you know what really started this whole "propping up of leaders" in the Middle East. Could it be the Soviet Union had a hand in some of those governments back in the day? Oh how quickly we brush the cold war under the rug when it muddies our arguments...

I'll put it to you another way... would you call the old West Germany a puppet state? Of course not, they were a free and independent country. They are no more the puppet than Merkel and Germany's current government is. The only reason the US had ties with it is because the same couldn't be said of East Germany. That my friend, is what a puppet looks like.
Click to expand...

Oh ok, so if it's critical of the US, it's anti-American. Label it such and your done.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
If the war was really about oil, then how about you explain why most of the oil that Iraq exports never goes anywhere near the US? Or keep digging that hole, it's up to you.

As far as your line about "creating more capitalist countries" and "purchasing more materialism", you sir couldn't be more further from the truth. And from said line, I can also assume that you are below the age 30, and have lived in a Western Country your whole life. The reason I can say this is because if either were not true, you would know that this isn't the first time the US and the West has been the champions of freedom. In fact, the fatal flaw of western foreign policy, is that when we see Arabs on TV, we see in them the same people that marched in the Velvet Revolution that toppled the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, or the East Berliners that along with their West Berliner counterparts, torn down a wall that was erected to keep it's residents away from a better life. Their fight for freedom had nothing to do with materialism, but with the desire to have a voice in their own government, and to get out of the yoke of Soviet Tyranny. The problem is that Arabs are not like Europeans, in that they haven't done what is necessary for a democracy to work .. and that is Secularize their lifestyle. Europe did it 500 years ago, and is many of the new governments that popped up after the fall of the Soviet Union were successful. They didn't care if you were Protestant or Catholic, only what you could contribute.

Nelson Mandela said it best: Money won't create success, the freedom to make it will.
Click to expand...

Yes, all our involvement in the ME revolves around securing the free flow of oil, whatever it's destination. Something like 35% of all oil flows through the SOH, and we have plenty of bases to protect that straight, and keep Iran (or anyone else for that matter) from blocking it. And that oil that flows out of there is destined for ports around the world! US officials have been candid about the reason were fighting in the ME.In fact, Chuck Hagel was a tad condescending toward people who have yet to figure that out.

People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs.

Chuck Hagel

Six Years Ago, Chuck Hagel Told the Truth About Iraq*|*Michael Moore

Allen Greenspan, pointed out the obvious as well, acknowledging that everybody already knows that we are in the ME for oil.


In his long-awaited memoir - out tomorrow in the US - Greenspan, 81, who served as chairman of the US Federal Reserve for almost two decades, writes: 'I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.'

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimeline


(CNN) -- Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
Oh ok, so if it's critical of the US, it's anti-American. Label it such and your done.
Click to expand...

Be honest with me Monte, you think if I did a poll on this website of either of the Zero Hedge website or what wsw one, people would know what it is?
 
Montecresto said:
Yes, all our involvement in the ME revolves around securing the free flow of oil, whatever it's destination. Something like 35% of all oil flows through the SOH, and we have plenty of bases to protect that straight, and keep Iran (or anyone else for that matter) from blocking it. And that oil that flows out of there is destined for ports around the world! US officials have been candid about the reason were fighting in the ME.In fact, Chuck Hagel was a tad condescending toward people who have yet to figure that out.

People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between securing our current partners in the ME, like Saudi Arabia, and going to war to acquire more oil. It's true that in the first Gulf War, we were very much worried about the possibility of Hussein in charge of the majority of the world's oil reserves. However, if the only reason we went into Iraq was to acquire more oil, we'd be pulling more than 10 or 11%, especially if it's true that their just a lackey for the the US.... which again their not. At the moment though, our current interest in the ME has more to do with the fact that their are a bunch of lunatics running around that given the chance would chop our heads off. That is what Syria is about.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
There's a difference between securing our current partners in the ME, like Saudi Arabia, and going to war to acquire more oil. It's true that in the first Gulf War, we were very much worried about the possibility of Hussein in charge of the majority of the world's oil reserves. However, if the only reason we went into Iraq was to acquire more oil, we'd be pulling more than 10 or 11%, especially if it's true that their just a lackey for the the US.... which again their not. At the moment though, our current interest in the ME has more to do with the fact that their are a bunch of lunatics running around that given the chance would chop our heads off. That is what Syria is about.
Click to expand...

Sure, back peddle that one back to the barn door. We are in the ME because there's OIL in the ME. And, the perpetual war we're fighting has lucrative side benefits for big business and all those defense contractors.

Here, try arguing with the Cato Institute,

Background: Oil

If the chief natural resource of the Middle East were bananas, the region would not have attracted the attention of U.S. policymakers as it has for decades. Americans became interested in the oil riches of the region in the 1920s, and two U.S. companies, Standard Oil of California and Texaco, won the first concession to explore for oil in Saudi Arabia in the 1930s. They discovered oil there in 1938, just after Standard Oil of California found it in Bahrain. The same year Gulf Oil (along with its British partner Anglo-Persian Oil) found oil in Kuwait. During and after World War II, the region became a primary object of U.S. foreign policy. It was then that policymakers realized that the Middle East was "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history."(4)

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html


SO, HAGEL SAYS WE'RE NOT THERE FOR FIGS, CATO POINTS OUT WE'RE NOT THERE FOR BANANAS, AND EVERYONE KNOWS THAT OUR ME FOREIGN POLICY SETTLES AROUND OIL, WELL, EVERYONE EXCEPT FOR HB.
 
Last edited:
PoS said:
Its been 13 years since 9/11 and yet it seems there are now more terrorists than ever before. Can this war be won? What are your thoughts on this? Are the governments of the West doing the right things or are they making the situation worse?

As for me, I dont want to see another American solider or civilian killed in a pointless war with no end. The West needs to stop minding the business of other countries. No more overseas military bases or occupation- if these Islamists want to live according to their religion then I say let them do it. These very governments like Saudi Arabia, who we are fighting with to maintain their status quo over there are the very people who bankroll these terrorists. The US has got the largest shale oil deposits in the world- more than the entire middle east combined, why not spend billions in developing these fields and get oil form then instead of letting the Arabs do it and paying them for it?
Click to expand...

It can be won if the U.S. is willing to fight it in a manner that needs to be done. The problem is too many would cringe at the thought of fighting fire with fire. I work in the fire service. We fight wildland fires on occassion where I live. Part of doing that is to set backfires in order to fight against the one we are trying to put out. We have to be more aggressive than the original fire itself. If we aren't, we'll lose. Same applies to the war on terror. If we continue to coddle those that would do away with us if they got the chance, we'll lose then wonder what happened, or at least some of those not willing to do whatever it takes to win would wonder.
 
Other - have the POTUS simply declare victory, withdraw our forces and it is over. ;)
 
Peter Grimm said:
We have 40 billion barrels of reserves, that includes the shale oils. Off the top if my head, Saudi Arabia has something like 300 billion.
Click to expand...

According to IER the US has approximately 2.6 trillion barrels of recoverable oil shale resources.

Oil Shale - IER

46n8q17.png
 
DDD said:
Nicely said.

Well, as you may know I am not religious. To me religion is rogue politics that has bused its power and recruited people as soldiers more than in one occasion.

My point is that if one relies only in force then there may be greater casualties which in turn may increase recruitment. Instead dealing with terror only with force tackling the problem by providing education and jobs seems to be an equally important anti-terror influence.

At least the killed terrorist by force would then be involved in such activity not due to desperation and financial challenges. The links posted in post 2 work towards those goals I think.
Click to expand...

I don't think the casualties affect recruitment because the Islamic terrorist cares nothing at all about and puts no value whatsoever on human life. Look at their tactics--Hamas, Hezbollah, and all the others deliberately and with forethought place their weaponry in the midst of residential neighborhoods where return fire will be highly likely to inflict civilian casualties--especially women and kids and old people that will tug at the heartstrings of the weak and stupid people of the west who will then turn on their own to stop firing at the terrorists. They force women and children to come into close proximity of their missile launchers and often prevent them from leaving the area. To die for the glory of Allah is a wonderful thing and something all good Muslims should be willing to do. Further they launch their rockets into residential neighborhoods hoping to injure, maim, or kill women, children, old people--anybody. They send their suicide bombers onto crowded busses or markets or other venues where they can hope to kill and maim many. They do not differentiate between civilian and military.

We err terribly when we think the terrorists feel the same as we do. When we think that they think as we do. When we trust them to have reasonable goals as we do. Religious fanaticism is a terrible thing, and Islam is rampant with it despite the millions of truly nice, pleasant, lovable people who also embrace it. But the faith itself prevents those nice, pleasant, lovable people from going against their Imans/leaders or to publically protest their activities. To underestimate our enemy or to sugar coat him out of some warped sense of political correctness is to give him license, encouragement, and ability to wreck much more havoc upon us. They are not impressed with our education and they laugh at us when we are gullible enough to give them food, supplies, money and ability to acquire more weapons to use against us.
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
I don't think the casualties affect recruitment because the Islamic terrorist cares nothing at all about and puts no value whatsoever on human life. Look at their tactics--Hamas, Hezbollah, and all the others deliberately and with forethought place their weaponry in the midst of residential neighborhoods where return fire will be highly likely to inflict civilian casualties--especially women and kids and old people that will tug at the heartstrings of the weak and stupid people of the west who will then turn on their own to stop firing at the terrorists. They force women and children to come into close proximity of their missile launchers and often prevent them from leaving the area. To die for the glory of Allah is a wonderful thing and something all good Muslims should be willing to do. Further they launch their rockets into residential neighborhoods hoping to injure, maim, or kill women, children, old people--anybody. They send their suicide bombers onto crowded busses or markets or other venues where they can hope to kill and maim many. They do not differentiate between civilian and military.

We err terribly when we think the terrorists feel the same as we do. When we think that they think as we do. When we trust them to have reasonable goals as we do. Religious fanaticism is a terrible thing, and Islam is rampant with it despite the millions of truly nice, pleasant people who embrace it. To underestimate our enemy or to sugar coat him out of some warped sense of political correctness is to give him license, encouragement, and ability to wreck much more havoc upon us.
Click to expand...

Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

Excellent post! :thumbs:
 
iacardsfan said:
While I must admit there were atrocious human rights violations by the Hussein regime, that doe not change the fact that Hussein was able to stifle terrorism almost fully in the area.
Click to expand...

You don't think one has to do with the other?

Are you advocating genocide, institutionalized rape and mass intentional starvation as an effective form of government?
 
DA60 said:
Leave other countries alone.

Stop supporting corrupt governments.
Click to expand...

That sounds good, but it's hardly a realistic strategy. We involve ourselves in the affairs of others because we are immensely interconnected and because of ethical or moral callings. EIther camp people belong in, the live and let live crowd are a tiny minority. In terms of stop supporting corrupt governments, that is largely unworkable. To further themselves, each State makes dealings with those they aren't particularly fond of, but nevertheless gain from. That's just foreign affairs.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
You don't think one has to do with the other?

Are you advocating genocide, institutionalized rape and mass intentional starvation as an effective form of government?
Click to expand...

I am not, but there are international organizations that are in charge of that, not the United States. And I am certain that the only link between the two is that the United States inserted itself into the middle of it.
 
iacardsfan said:
I am not, but there are international organizations that are in charge of that, not the United States. And I am certain that the only link between the two is that the United States inserted itself into the middle of it.
Click to expand...

Point being, Saddam's genocide, invasions, institutionalized rape and intentional starvation were not any else's fault and those horrible things are -in fact- the major driver in the struggles of Iraq today.

Your whole "blame the US" narrative is a load of crap and it excuses genocide; it's disgusting and pathetic not just because it represents anti-country propaganda but because it pretends some of the most horrible atrocities known to mankind are justifiable, even effective, and not significantly harmful to a nation.

At the heart of "Saddam was not so bad" is "genocide is sometimes okay".
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Point being, Saddam's genocide, invasions, institutionalized rape and intentional starvation were not any else's fault and those horrible things are -in fact- the major driver in the struggles of Iraq today.

Your whole "blame the US" narrative is a load of crap and it excuses genocide; it's disgusting and pathetic not just because it represents anti-country propaganda but because it pretends some of the most horrible atrocities known to mankind are justifiable, even effective, and not significantly harmful to a nation.

At the heart of "Saddam was not so bad" is "genocide is sometimes okay".
Click to expand...

What is the point of international governing bodies to protect human rights if the US bypasses them? Also, why are you not supporting the people of Algeria, Brazil, Burundi, Colombia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Liberia, Nigeria, Congo, Russia, Uganda and China. There are all examples of human rights violations there. If the US hopped in everywhere that there is a wrong we will find ourselves in a state of perpetual war.
 
iacardsfan said:
What is the point of international governing bodies to protect human rights if the US bypasses them? Also, why are you not supporting the people of Algeria, Brazil, Burundi, Colombia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Liberia, Nigeria, Congo, Russia, Uganda and China. There are all examples of human rights violations there. If the US hopped in everywhere that there is a wrong we will find ourselves in a state of perpetual war.
Click to expand...

When you're ready to consider context and priorities, perhaps you'll understand why the world is not perfect (and the US) and the US cannot do everything at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom