• 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
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...

Making sincere efforts to encourage human rights in the Middle East while strengthening their middle class will undercut the base for terrorism until it's just about gone altogether.
 
ecofarm said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you just proved my point.
 
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.
Click to expand...

All these measures increase civilian casualties and recruitment.

AlbqOwl said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, terrorists (and Serbs during 1990's wars) do such things. Further they may make us war criminals also.

AlbqOwl said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem is stated. The solution is two fold: a) Force, and b) providing alternative means to civilians to earn an income so as they would not be recruited to join these terrorist thugs.
 
DDD said:
All these measures increase civilian casualties and recruitment.



Yes, terrorists (and Serbs during 1990's wars) do such things. Further they may make us war criminals also.



The problem is stated. The solution is two fold: a) Force, and b) providing alternative means to civilians to earn an income so as they would not be recruited to join these terrorist thugs.
Click to expand...

I'm not buying it. We have been pumping billions of dollars into these nations producing terrorists with little or no positive effect whatsoever. Homegrown terrorists who are being radicalized here and in other developed countries have all the benefits of citizenship and most have had had good paying jobs and plenty of advantages and opportunity when they were recruited. Islamofacist terrorism is not a matter of economics anywhere that it is occurring. It is a matter of ideology, of evil fanaticism, and infused hatred of everything we people who value self-determination and individual liberty believe and stand for. There is no way to persuade such people with kindness, and when we try we are seen as weak and stupid.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I'm not buying it. We have been pumping billions of dollars into these nations producing terrorists with little or no positive effect whatsoever. Homegrown terrorists who are being radicalized here and in other developed countries have all the benefits of citizenship and most have had had good paying jobs and plenty of advantages and opportunity when they were recruited. Islamofacist terrorism is not a matter of economics anywhere that it is occurring. It is a matter of ideology, of evil fanaticism, and infused hatred of everything we people who value self-determination and individual liberty believe and stand for. There is no way to persuade such people with kindness, and when we try we are seen as weak and stupid.
Click to expand...

True.

But the problem is overgeneralization.

There are countries whom are shallow Muslim countries. Countries that prioritize national values over Muslim values. Further, the overgeneralization may cost punishing decent people on the individual level. My point is that when this is done it may increase terrorist recruitment.

Your position is that being cautious in dividing the wolves from the normal people may too be perceived as a weakness. That the normal people may turn wolves and use this weakness to attack and hide behind an "ordinary civilian" camo (if you will).

So to summarize, it seems the problem is between overgeneralization and identification. We do not want punishing normal people and we cannot differentiate and identify the culprit between them at the moment. Not until they perform their terrorist acts at least.

Kinda makes you wish you had a mind reading device, does it not?
 
I voted that we need to stop meddling in other nations business. I don't think that we will ever end terrorism even if we do stop now. Unfortuanately there is probably only one way to end it and it's doubtful that would end it for good. I'd like to see all the money we are sending to the area stopped. None should be going because we are funding these terrorist ourselves. Pull out all the troops and leave them alone. Let them kill each other if they want. Not really any of our business.
 
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...


None of these options will work because presently oil is so vital to our economy and the world's economy. As long as oil continues to be a high dollar value commodity, the terrorists will get high dollars to carry out terror against us and our interests. This is true whether or not we're their customers directly, we're their customers indirectly or we use only domestic oil and they get their money from China and Russia. Either way, they remain fully funded until oil is no longer the high value commodity it is now. If we choose to kill our way out of it, Al Jazeera Middle East (totally different content that what they carry in the US) will report bodies in streets and it will only motivate and serve as a recruiting aid to the next generation of terrorists. Besides, drone aircraft, F-18 sorties and tomahawk cruise missiles aren't cheap. The only permanent solution IMHO getting behind electric cars like its a national security emergency and get over half the population's disdain for the environmentalists as if global warming is the only if you believe it is the justification to get off of petroleum.
 
If you want to win a war against terrorist, you better learn how to and be willing to fight like one. In the war we're waging now, we aren't fighting to win but fighting not to lose. There is a difference.
 
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...

This is a great idea. If there is one thing we learned during the 90s, it is that ignoring these problems makes them go away.



We've been saying for some time now that this is going to be a generational struggle. Why do people honestly have difficulty internalizing that?



America in 1960: Gosh, We've been facing off against Communism for 13 years now, and more countries are Communist now than when we started! We should throw in the towel because clearly we are creating communism! :roll:




Anyone want to see what the awesome results of the isolationist foreign policy are? Take a good hard look at Syria 2009- early 2014. That's what the Middle East looks like without the US. Yeah. It's friggin great.
 
Conservative65 said:
If you want to win a war against terrorist, you better learn how to and be willing to fight like one.
Click to expand...

That is an incorrect description of proper counterinsurgency.
 
DDD said:
True.

But the problem is overgeneralization.

There are countries whom are shallow Muslim countries. Countries that prioritize national values over Muslim values. Further, the overgeneralization may cost punishing decent people on the individual level. My point is that when this is done it may increase terrorist recruitment.

Your position is that being cautious in dividing the wolves from the normal people may too be perceived as a weakness. That the normal people may turn wolves and use this weakness to attack and hide behind an "ordinary civilian" camo (if you will).

So to summarize, it seems the problem is between overgeneralization and identification. We do not want punishing normal people and we cannot differentiate and identify the culprit between them at the moment. Not until they perform their terrorist acts at least.

Kinda makes you wish you had a mind reading device, does it not?
Click to expand...

The problem is an unwillingness to all Islamofacist terrorism what it is. The problem is an unwillingness to identify it, label it, marginalize it, and attack it with ALL resources at our disposal out of some misguided, mushy-headed, knee jerk concepts of political correctness.
 
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...



Islamic terror is being home grown now over the internet in in the mosques currently spewing that line of the ideology.

We needn't travel to find it.

It has traveled to find us.
 
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...

The flaw in that argument is that the USA did not take action when Hussein was committing genocide. By the time we attacked Iraq in 2003 his bad acts were nowhere near that threshold.
 
Hard Truth said:
The flaw in that argument is that the USA did not take action when Hussein was committing genocide. By the time we attacked Iraq in 2003 his bad acts were nowhere near that threshold.
Click to expand...

On 22 May 1984, President Reagan was briefed on the project conclusions in the Oval Office by William Flynn Martin who had served as the head of the NSC staff that organized the study. The full declassified presentation can be seen here.[177] The conclusions were threefold: first oil stocks needed to be increased among members of the International Energy Agency and, if necessary, released early in the event of oil market disruption; second the United States needed to beef up the security of friendly Arab states in the region and thirdly an embargo should be placed on sales of military equipment to Iran and Iraq. The Plan was approved by the President and later affirmed by the G-7 leaders headed by Margaret Thatcher in the London Summit of 1984.
Click to expand...

Iran

US actions against Saddam began no later than 1984 and increased in response to Saddam's genocide. Preventing further genocide was the reason for the no-fly zone (which Saddam fired on). Learn some history.

Regarding Saddam's actions just before the invasion, Tony Blair claimed, in accordance with studies at the time, that Saddam intentionally starved 400k children between 2000-2003. The studies were based on proceeds from the food-for-oil program that Saddam had sold in other countries to fund his rape palaces. The number of deaths is estimated by the quantity of that food discovered elsewhere.

Additionally he continued to institutionalize rape, violate unscrs and he intentionally maintained a fake wmd program (to keep Iran ay bay, whom he feared more than the UN).



At least have some clue what you're talking about, mkay?
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Iran

US actions against Saddam began no later than 1984 and increased in response to Saddam's genocide. Preventing further genocide was the reason for the no-fly zone (which Saddam fired on). Learn some history.

Regarding Saddam's actions just before the invasion, Tony Blair claimed, in accordance with studies at the time, that Saddam intentionally starved 400k children between 2000-2003. The studies were based on proceeds from the food-for-oil program that Saddam had sold in other countries to fund his rape palaces. The number of deaths is estimated by the quantity of that food discovered elsewhere.

Additionally he continued to institutionalize rape, violate unscrs and he intentionally maintained a fake wmd program (to keep Iran ay bay, whom he feared more than the UN).



At least have some clue what you're talking about, mkay?
Click to expand...

Blair has little credibility with me, the only evidence you or others have cited are based "on proceeds from the food-for-oil program that Saddam had sold" which is not solid evidence. Saddam said he did not have WMDs and none were found, there was no violation in that area. That would have been established without a war if Bush did not remove the inspectors so he could start bombing the country. It is not a crime to give your enemy the impression that you might have weapons. And the bottom line is that the people of Iraq and the region are in a worse situation now than they were before we invaded and occupied.

The question that should be asked is not whether a violent dictator is beneficial or acceptable, it is whether we are likely to improve an unbearable situation (ie. genocide) with military action. When the military action is massive bombing, invasion and occupation, history shows that it is unlikely to improve the situation.
 
Last edited:
Hard Truth said:
Blair has little credibility with me,
Click to expand...

I didn't think he did, I'm just honest. I would certainly put him above Alex Jones, though. The position of "Saddam was not so bad" is founded in ignorance and excusing genocide. Good day.
 
ecofarm said:
I didn't think he did, I'm just honest. I would certainly put him above Alex Jones, though. The position of "Saddam was not so bad" is founded in ignorance and excusing genocide. Good day.
Click to expand...

He was bad, but he wasn't worse than many other dictators in power in 2003 and it was, and is, impractical and futile to get rid of every evil dictator.
 
Hard Truth said:
He was bad, but he wasn't worse than many other dictators in power in 2003 and it was, and is, impractical and futile to get rid of every evil dictator.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the term 'institutionalized rape'? And priorities are part of life, if you don't understand the concept it's a wonder how even basic functioning is possible.
 
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...

Destroy the islamists...war over.
 
apdst said:
Destroy the islamists...war over.
Click to expand...

Gosh; ya'know, I think that something like that was tried already.... wait - don't tell me! I, I - think there was some sort of an event that surrounded it at the time... was it, yes; I believe it was world war two... I'll have to check on that.
 
jet57 said:
Gosh; ya'know, I think that something like that was tried already.... wait - don't tell me! I, I - think there was some sort of an event that surrounded it at the time... was it, yes; I believe it was world war two... I'll have to check on that.
Click to expand...

It was? When?
 
AlbqOwl said:
The problem is an unwillingness to all Islamofacist terrorism what it is. The problem is an unwillingness to identify it, label it, marginalize it, and attack it with ALL resources at our disposal out of some misguided, mushy-headed, knee jerk concepts of political correctness.
Click to expand...

I disagree that we are unwilling to identify, label, marginalize, and attack terrorists. See what happened to ISIS for instance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom