The War on Terror: Why bother? -

[renomakicwc]

You know, I think it goes without saying that, these days, it's quite clear that the War on Terror is doomed to fail.

After all, after so many years of fighting, all we got out of it was.. Well, I don't really think we got anything out of it. Remember Bin Laden, the so-called enemy #1 of the War on Terror? Remember when he supposedly died? Remember what happened after his death?

Yeah, I bet you do know. If not, then what happened is.. Nothing. We got nothing. The war on Terror is pointless, because all this endless fighting does is cause more death and decay, as well as cost the US, and any who waste their time on it, countless billions of dollars that could be put to better use than making bullets to kill a never ending force of blind ignorance and hatred (and maybe a few people who seem like ignorant Islamic extremist, but in truth are fighting for a different cause).

I once played a little flash game a long time ago about the war on terror, when you played the role of missile command, whose job was to blow up any terrorist you saw. However, when you did do that, you'd also end up killing bystanders and blowing up people's homes, causing those who lived to see their loved ones killed to rise up in arms and become terrorist themselves. The longer you played, the more pointless it was because no matter how hard you tried, it was doomed to never end. In fact, in some cases, you might even have spawned more threats than you started with.

Do you think that the world would be better off giving up the war on Terror. If not, why?

 

[The Hunter]

These wars on ideas such as drugs, terror, etc., are usually bullshit made to cover up or move away from more important issues going on in the nation. IMO, the war on terror isn't a war for oil, it's a war against oil. See, there's two roads you can take with oil. You can destroy a nation and take all their oil for yourself, or you can piss these people off until they cut you off, and gas prices spike as a result. If we claimed all that oil for ourselves, gas would be dirt cheap, and the oil companies wouldn't like that at all. There is no terrorist threat to America in the middle east that isn't a direct result from our own actions. The real threat that everyone's ignoring (and honestly, it's a pretty empty threat), is the threats from North Korea who want to test their nuclear arms on our country. If we were to back out of Afghanistan and Iraq and Pakistan and Israel and Iran, there would be no hostile actions against America. Life would continue, but now other nations would have their own issues to deal with. There is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much money going into military spending, and none of it is needed. All that money could be going to research projects or, and here's the kicker, paying back the massive debt that America has accumulated. Even by shaving off a measly 25%, there's so much you can do with that money. And even then, we need to be working on our homeland defense if we're really that concerned about terrorists attacking, not sending men and women to these countries and provoking them even more. No matter what angle you look at it from, Democratic or Republican, the obvious answer is that the war needs to end because it isn't even a war that either side can win. It's just mindless fighting.

 

[Null]

Watch this movie, it's pretty good albeit a bit slanted. Take what they say with a grain of salt but don't let your position barricade you from what they're trying to say. It's available on Netflix.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the-world-without-us/

I brought up my dislike for the military with a very conservative, southern-based friend of mine and she took offense to it, pleading with me to watch that documentary.

If you think on it long enough and observe the impact of American's infiltration in foreign countries, you do kinda get the feeling that America has done more good than harm. The borders of the world's countries would be radically modified if the US hasn't been around keeping dictators in check. It pains me to say it because I don't like war any more than any other bleeding heart liberal, but I think it's important that we do not allow radicals to dictate over innocents and shape the world.

The war that the documentary mostly goes over is an eastern European civil war that America intervened in after 2 years of practicing isolationism. The conflict ended in less than 3 months after US troops arrived. European forces sent aid to their neighbors, but the peacekeepers were not allowed to kill anyone - even to save a civilian's life. The world at large has demonstrated grandiose incompetence in protecting themselves. There exists no single military union or superpower outside of the US willing or capable of defending the interests of human rights. Even we abstain from things like the genocide in Darfur.

After the first world war, we forced Germany to sign the Treaty of Versailles. This castrated Germany and disallowed them from having a military. Out of anger and a disenfranchised sense of country, Hitler was allowed to rise to power. After the second world war, America rebuilt Europe and founded the United Nations. This grounded its position as the world police. We did not enter either world war until after America had found itself under threat, we held the belief that "It's not America so we don't care." American Isolationism ended after WW2. President Roosevelt established this, arguing: "Some, indeed, still hold to the now somewhat obvious delusion that we … can safely permit the United States to become a lone island … in a world dominated by the philosophy of force."

That's not to say I like it. My friend firmly believes that this white knight Christian nation of ours is entirely entitled to do what it does and that our ways cannot ever be skewed. I don't think our government will eternally remain neutral, and it's possible that our $850,000,000,000 military budget will be used for a less pure cause. It's inevitable that one day we'll become a planet with a globalized central government, and I really hope that the transition is smooth, but right now one country holds all the cards and commands over the others. That scares me.

 

[Oglooger]

I think america should retire their entire troops, and make the U.S. a non-interventionist country again.
we are supposed to be America, not the world police.
United Nations, go to Sweden or something.

 

[Caddchef]

I think america should retire their entire troops, and make the U.S. a non-interventionist country again.
we are supposed to be America, not the world police.
United Nations, go to Sweden or something.

Frankly the international jihadist movement the US is fighting right now was once it's ally against the Soviet Union, the administration in the eighties made an epic blunder by financing and arming a group who were ideologically incompatible with the values of America and the western world at large, but it wasn't the first time this had happened and i suspect it won't be the last.

I don't want to do a Captain hindsight but the enemy of your enemy isn't necessarily your friend.

Honestly the campaign in Afghanistan has caused me to worry greatly about the capacity of modern armies to fight wars, the conflict in Afghanistan has cost roughly three thousand three hundred allied lives over eleven years and the public are ready for the politicians to withdraw and waste that sacrifice by allowing the country to spiral into chaos yet again, during the Battle of the Somme on the 1st of July 1916 the British army lost 19,240 soldiers and fought for another two years until victory.

I'm not saying the war in Afghanistan and to a greater extent Iraq was a just cause or that it has been handled properly, what i am saying is that we have a duty of care to the people we have liberated until they can stand on their own two feet and form a stable government.

 

[Hasharin]

The entire point of the United Nations and America's role as the "world police" is to ensure that nothing like that ever happens again. Either you're completely ignorant to the plight of the countries that need a United States' military presence to fend of sheer genocide, or you'd rather allow the world to collapse around our ears again; which would inevitably ruin the country anyways.

You seem to have highly idealistic view about politics. During Cold War, when United States wanted to be seen as white knights fighting for democracy and saving the world from evil Soviet Union, same did the Soviets. Nazis were more honest, but they still liked to justify their actions by saying that they will at least restore some order and lesser races will eventually profit from the guidance of Aryans.

 

[Null]

The immediate logical fallacy that arises from that metaphor is that the Jews were being falsely accused of internally sabotaging the German economy to form a scapegoat catalyst Hitler used to rise to power, whereas Dictators (such as Hitler) actually kill millions of their own people and terrorists actually terrorize others. The "evil' Soviet Union had something called the KGB which was a bucket of fun and laughs, as I'm sure you know.

 

[Hasharin]

whereas Dictators (such as Hitler) actually kill millions of their own people and terrorists actually terrorize others

United States never gone as far, but they had their favored dictators with whom they had no problem.

 

[Null]

United States never gone as far, but they had their favored dictators with whom they had no problem.

That's not really the point. OP has posited the question, "Why bother with the War on Terror?" The answer is that its the most humanitarian thing to do. It doesn't matter what other countries are doing or what's right in the eyes of a dictator, when thousands of people are succumbing to some really inhumane injustice, something needs to stop it. Society cannot progress if we don't eliminate genocide and no other country is willing and/or capable of doing what the US does.

In fact, what you've just said contradicts what you said earlier.

United States wanted to be seen as white knights fighting for democracy and saving the world from evil Soviet Union

The United States believes that Democracy is the only true form of government because it empowers the people over the leaders. It promotes Democracy whenever possible. However, in a conflict zone where we have two dictatorships fighting it out and it warrants intervention, the US sided with the peaceful dictatorship that wasn't completely batshit. The end result bit us, in that the Iraqis used our own tanks against us, so the lesson was learned that we can only support a democracy, hence the efforts to re-establish Afghanistan and Iraq as a democracy.

 

[Hasharin]

The answer is that its the most humanitarian thing to do. It doesn't matter what other countries are doing or what's right in the eyes of a dictator, when thousands of people are succumbing to some really inhumane injustice, something needs to stop it. Society cannot progress if we don't eliminate genocide and no other country is willing and/or capable of doing what the US does.

And I say that no statesman really cares about humanitarianism and social progress. It's not that Her Majesty just cared about safety and comfort of British subjects travelling to China when she demanded Hong Kong after the First Opium War, and so on.

Of course, some good (in italics, because it's still very, very far from what I personally desire) may accidentally come from actions of state which exploits the trust of others to just achieve its pragmatic goals.

The United States believes that Democracy is the only true form of government because it empowers the people over the leaders. It promotes Democracy whenever possible. However, in a conflict zone where we have two dictatorships fighting it out and it warrants intervention, the US sided with the peaceful dictatorship that wasn't completely batshit. The end result bit us, in that the Iraqis used our own tanks against us, so the lesson was learned that we can only support a democracy, hence the efforts to re-establish Afghanistan and Iraq as a democracy.

The thing is, my idea of democracy is different from the one promoted by U.S. troops. Unrealistic as it may seem, I think if the Iraqi and others really want freedom, they should take matters into their own hands and while they would need help, the last kind of help they should desire is direct involvement of foreign troops. If you are liberated by others, you may not be a slave, but you still drag a piece of chain with yourself and liberators will kindly remind that you should be grateful. It sounds cruel, but if they want to live under military dictatorship or Islamic theocracies, it's their bussiness- because, as my beloved Stirner put it: Freedom is no fairy gift to fall into a man's lap. It is only the oppressed's fault that their oppressors are still alive. I wish them all the best, that's why I want foreign powers to fuck off.

Also, I don't see any contradiction in what I'm saying. It's just rather contradiction between actions and declarations of United States. They wanted to appear as last bastion of democracy, but they had problem with democratically elected Chilean president Allende, even if they weren't involved in Pinochet's coup. And Allende wasn't insane Bolshevik murderer, he was a democratic socialist and Soviets were actually disappointed that he didn't want to deal with opposition by force.

 

[Caddchef]

I can't help but feel that we are getting away from the subject at hand, while it is true that the united states over the past 30 years has simultaniously hamfistedly promoted democracy in countries that are ill prepared for it and promoted dictators and terrorists against regimes with which they are not ideologically compatible, this thread is specifically about the war on terror.

 

[Hasharin]

Well, it's all the international politics of US, so still kinda related.

 

[Judge Holden]

To be honest, the US is simply playing the role that Britain once played, i.e. a relativly democratic, liberal and "nice" (again relative to other countries in the world at the time) superpower with the power and influence to nip regional disputes both inside and outside it's empire in the bud militarily, economically, or diplomatically, or at least contain them before they become global issues. Eventually it may indeed need to pass the torch to the next "nice" superpower, but right now that seems unlikely to happen for a long time

As far as Im concerned, the War on Terror is just an extended episode of tying up loose ends from the Cold War, and unless the US grows the balls to actually deal with the the biggest financiers/backers of terrorists (i.e. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) its just gonna drag on in small scale warfare/drone strikes for another decade or two

 

[Yinci]

To me it seems like a excuse for imperialism and also Russia and China's invovlment in the Terroist groups isn't really talked about. The War on terror is proganda to us and the middle east is a assortment of factions. The War in Afganistan was American intervention between two major groups in Afghanistan being the Taliban and the "freedom something". Technically the war in the middle east is Jews, The Sunni Church and Americans vs Russians, Communist and the Shia Church. Resource's and territory are sought after by the super powers constantly.

 

[turdburger]

Democratic first world countries are inundated with immigrants from shitty countries because of human rights atrocities and poverty and fascism/communism/cartels/extreme religions. The choice for the governments of first world countries is a) to throw money into trying to educate and deal with the immigrants and get them to integrate properly while ignoring the source of them and hoping the governments there don't develop nukes or b) try to do something to stop the human rights atrocities and sort out the governance of these countries so they're not as shitty and native people might stay there and improve them. Although a) seems easier and less offensive, b) is probably better in the long run for everyone.

 

[Godbert Manderville]

One day, soon, there will be drones the size of a fly. They will number in the hundreds of millions. They will be able to enter virtually any building and deploy a microscopic amount of toxin into the desired target. It will be the end of everyone and everything.

 

[Serbian Peacekeepers]

One day, soon, there will be drones the size of a fly. They will number in the hundreds of millions. They will be able to enter virtually any building and deploy a microscopic amount of toxin into the desired target. It will be the end of everyone and everything.

Those drones will cost 1 million a pop despite costing less than 2k to make and will be easily defeated by some 8 year old with a 70 year old RPG.

 

[Lemmingwise]

The United States believes that Democracy is the only true form of government because it empowers the people over the leaders. It promotes Democracy whenever possible

It empowers the media (the US) over its leaders. It's hard to see the US as agents of free democracy after the US supported fascist coup in Ukraine, or their creation and arming of ISIS, or the color revolutions across north africa and the middle east.

After the last two US elections it becomes hard to believe the US supports democracy even within their own borders.

This is further supported by the creation of mt Weather. Officially just a bunker, in reality a full fledged underground city. It was created (ostensibly) to have a continuity of government in the case of cataclysmic war event, right after 9/11.

Officially congress has to vote on its continuance every 6 months, a fact which only happened once since its creation in 2001.

So who controls what goes on there if it isn't congress? You basicly have an official shadow government. You call this democracy?


That is if we go by recent history. If we go back a little further we have operation gladio; the creation of numerous weapon caches and arming of fascists in Europe to wage a shadow war in case Europe falls to communism; weapon caches that went off the radar.

Or we can look at the arming of contras in central america and in Iran, groups that themselves (much like isis) are the terror themselves, targeting doctors for assassination, murdering innocents, raping women etc.

Reagan called the contras "of a moral quality equal to our founding fathers". This is the trick american population falls to.

I am in no great haste to substitute American dominance with Chinese dominance (or Russian if they were a threat). And I think that is the essence of your own position. However, I think we're fooling ourselves when saying it is for democracy or anti-tyrrany.

 

[Null]

You are responding to a post from 2013.

 

[Dyn]

You are responding to a post from 2013.

It's funny to see what a bootlicking statist you used to be before you became an America-hating internet terrorist.