The War So Far...

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 30 2002 @ 12:08 PM
link   
How successful has the War on Terror been?

What are your opinions on it as a whole?

Its effectiveness...

Its value for money...

Will it end?

Are we going the right way about it?

Post wut ya think...




posted on Nov, 30 2002 @ 06:06 PM
link   
it will nvr end terriosts will always exist and it will end when the world ends
it will be very expenses
its end wil some how invovle a war with china and EU vs. the USA or maybe all 3 against each other



posted on Nov, 30 2002 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I think the war is going along just the way Bush said it would.Its been long and drawn out with a small victory here and there.There are still pockets of resistence,so there is still more to do.But I doubt we will ever rid the earth of terrorism completly.
As far as the money goes,if innocent lives are saved,not just American but people around the world,then it is money well spent.
For the most part I think we have gone about it the right way.It looks like we are past the major bombing stages,and it will be up to the special forces to sniff them out.Unmaned aircarft like the predators will also play a large role.



posted on Nov, 30 2002 @ 08:32 PM
link   
ya but i think more big attacks will come



posted on Nov, 30 2002 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I agree with Nyeff. Most of your questions are difficult to answer off-handedly as this is virgin territory What do have with which to compare it?

Much of the time I want to say we aren't seeing much activity, but I have to remember that, as the Shrub said, alot will be going on that we don't see and they don't report.

I do think its time to melt Syria into a puddle of liquified camel dung, or maybe Saudi (I'll be your friend while I finance terror against you) Arabia. But that's just me. I get bored and need to be amused.



posted on Nov, 30 2002 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Given the impossibility of what, if any, the criteria are whereby we might set performance indicators, these are impossible questions to answer (logically, perhaps, not strictly questions -given our ignorance).
I suppose the fact that it is almost 15 months since 9-11 and nothing comparable has happened -thank Heavens -there might be some grounds for considering the efforts successful.



posted on Nov, 30 2002 @ 09:11 PM
link   
That is quite true, but the absence of incident is not a very good indicator of how the war is going. Many of our not-so-trusting brothers and sisters here at ATS have a wary eye on this overly government and are a bit curious as to when the war will be officially declared at an end and we will go back to a peace-time atmosphere. Or what the un-read have viewed as a peacetime atmosphere.



posted on Nov, 30 2002 @ 09:24 PM
link   
I think there will be more attacks as well.Not only from middle eastern terrorist's,but domastic as well.

LOL T.C,
Don't sugar coat how you feel.I think if you look to the future,Syria would have to be on the list.



posted on Nov, 30 2002 @ 10:31 PM
link   
I agree with nyeff that the war has been going on well even thought it looks like nothing is happening. And the possibility of another atack will always be there. The security of this nation will never be tight enough to stop that from happening with out the suspending liberties of the general public.



posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by f16falcon
it will nvr end terriosts will always exist and it will end when the world ends
it will be very expenses
its end wil some how invovle a war with china and EU vs. the USA or maybe all 3 against each other


EU and China VS USA ?????? Be serious please....

It will be something like NATO ( USA + UE ), allied ( may be ) with the Russians VS the Chicoms. Or NATO VS a Russians-Chineses coalition.



posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 08:21 AM
link   
The fact that so many posters on this thread think the war on terrorism is going well.Means at least that the media war for hearts and minds is going well.

The goal if everyone can remember was to get Bin Laden and to destroy Al Queda.Neither have been achieved.The fact that everyone is satisfied with territorial gains in Afghanistan,and a couple of hundred arrests of "terrorist"(If you're interested British media outlets are suggesting up to 70% of those held in Cuba are innocent)leads me to believe that you all must have either extremely poor expectations of the worlds only superpower or have been bamboozled by official spin.



posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 09:37 AM
link   
I believe the war was stated as being a little wider than that, John, wasn't it?
How would you suppose the war be pursued where the varmints are ferreted out and killed (oh, that's right, they are supposed to be caught, cuffed and taken to the nearest anti-American lawyer for the strongest possible defense, in some people's minds).

It's been a little over a year since we finally were attacked in a manner that would not allow us to continue to ignore the truth. We have been conducting this new form of war for a few months. Many of Al Queda have been captured or killed, but there is still a long way to go. The military still has to be built back up from the Clinton days, as well as our intelligence services.

Sure, the world's only superpower could easily scorch all the countries that harbor, train and finance terrorists, killing both those who wish to do us harm along with everyone else who lives in those countries. We could level Bagdad as the RAF leveled Heilbronn and devastate Damascas as we devastated Dresden, but don't we agree that isn't the way to handle this?



posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I'm not suggesting that would be the way to handle it TC.

But you would have to be extremely optimistic to say the war on terrorism was going well.

You say the objectives were wider than I've suggested.Actually initially the objectives were as stated above.

Because the taxpaying public like their victories within regular intervals new smaller objectives have been invented.Yes,These smaller objectives have been achieved but I am talking about the original stated objectives of The War on Terrorism.

To put any lingering doubt to rest about my own beliefs.If a terrorist is found guilty he should be punished in what ever fashion the arresting administration sees fit.But I believe he should be tried in open court whatever his nationality.The American prisoner is being given this if there is evidence so should the rest.



posted on Dec, 2 2002 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I don't think that the US are fighting terrorism effectively. The best way to take out terrorist cells would be small, isolated covert assaults, without warning. They have the intelligence gathering ability to find terrorist cells, but they instead choose to launch all out assualts on "rogue states". The terrorists can simply run away



posted on Dec, 2 2002 @ 07:21 PM
link   
ultra the EU is a big part of the NWO
nazis after the fall of the 3rd reich began planning for a future this is it they are gonna take over europe by political means and they hate the USA and russai b/c the europeans were used like pawns during the cold war and china fits in cuz they hate the usa



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Why do people really think its a "war on terror". Its a war of conquest, and America is winning. And its not the same conquests we are brought up learning about in school. America is not Great Britain. America is not France. America is not Spain. America does not wish to control territory through war. America wishes to control the assets of the territory through war. Its a whole new ballgame and the rest of the world is worried, because America has gone ahead and figured it out. They've accomplished something every country since the beginning of history has tried to accomplish. America has figured out a way to control the assets of the world. This "Global Market" is only another filter. Its only another form of "imperialism".



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gmoneymaster
Why do people really think its a "war on terror". Its a war of conquest, and America is winning. And its not the same conquests we are brought up learning about in school. America is not Great Britain. America is not France. America is not Spain. America does not wish to control territory through war. America wishes to control the assets of the territory through war. Its a whole new ballgame and the rest of the world is worried, because America has gone ahead and figured it out. They've accomplished something every country since the beginning of history has tried to accomplish. America has figured out a way to control the assets of the world. This "Global Market" is only another filter. Its only another form of "imperialism".


Hi newbie, nice job replying to a post that is over 4 years old.

See ya in 2010.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   
so far i think the war on terrorism has been a complete failure, almost as bad as vietnam (soon to be worse), and a horrible waste of resources. to fight a war against terrorism is a contradiction because waging a war is to carry out terroristic acts. i dont think the people fighting against the coalition forces in iraq are terrorists and i dont think osama bin laden, a man who had more freedom than 90% of americans, blew up the towers because he was jealous of americas freedom. the money spent on the iraq war is an absolute disgusting waste of resources which could have been spent on sooooo many other things that the world needs right now. peace.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   
First off, in response to someone saying that the media was successful at brain washing some because they said the war on terror was going well, it is quite the opposite. The media reports on negatives of the war, and most of the people they interview are against the war, and most big papers are against the Bush administration (ex. New York Times). So no, the media doesn't influence people to support the Bush administration's policies and war, it is the opposite.

Second off, a person said the War on Terror would end when the EU & China fights against the US, is crazy. I don't see the UK fighting against the US anytime soon, as their interests are SO similar. And let's face it, without the UK, the EU is nothing.

Third off, I don't really know anymore what this whole War on Terror is meant to be. Maybe it is to increase American influence over the world (in which if that is the reason then it is achieving the goal), if it is to start a Cold War between countries, such as Japan and China, and India and Pakistan & China, then again it is succeding. If it is to improve American image in the world, then it is failing miserably. If it is to expand US coporate influence, then it is succeeding. There have been so many ideas as to the true nature of the war. Nobody really knows. Maybe it is a combination of all those things. Maybe the American government and intelligence forces saw Russia's and China's influence grow and their hate for America as a superpower and wanted to combat it with countries surrounding them with US provided weapons and intelligence.

All I know, is that the world is like an oil well, and it seems that if someone just lit a match it would explode. And it is scary, and unnecessary.


And I am not saying that America is the main cause, I am saying greed of power is. But isn't that ALWAYS the cause.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
First off, in response to someone saying that the media was successful at brain washing some because they said the war on terror was going well, it is quite the opposite. The media reports on negatives of the war, and most of the people they interview are against the war, and most big papers are against the Bush administration (ex. New York Times). So no, the media doesn't influence people to support the Bush administration's policies and war, it is the opposite.


Were you reading papers leading up to the Iraq invasion? There was essentially zero questioning of the motivation of the government to start the war. Only around early to mid 2004 did any dissenting opinion start to make its way into the media.

In fact the New York Times has the notoriety of being the biggest paper to start publishing reports regarding Iraq and its WMDs to create public support for the invasion. Gaining exclusive reports from the now fully known liar Ahmed Chalabi. These reports were published on the front page as well. Not stuck in the back never to be read by anybody.

www.smh.com.au...
dir.salon.com...

The media as a whole essentially helped the U.S. military achieve the wars that they wanted and only started publishing complaints long after it was too late to do anything to prevent further bloodshed.

I imagine the same thing will happen when the USA government wants to start another war. Dissenting opinions will vanish from all aspects of the media leading up to the start of the next attack.

[edit on 12-7-2006 by Frith]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join