First off, I apologize for the delay. I was sharpening my sticks for this debate. Now to my prelude, my audience. Please, take a seat, bring a loved
one, and see the way:
You can still see it. Through the smoky haze. You can still smell it. The blood and asbestos. Born of September 11th, painfully forged in the
cataclysmic union of the Twin Towers and Terrorism, a multi-dimensional war was born. This war, like the presence of its late father, is awesome in
scope and might.
This war is not a simple thing. It exists along various spectrums, ones of military, ones of the political, ones of propaganda. And for the US, the
chief way to observe this war is within the box of US media portrayal, called TV. From the perspective of television, within the United States, for
Americans, there can be no doubt that the US is winning the war on terror.
But if we step outside of our little pond, does the answer remain the same? I will passionately argue for the resounding YES. I point to the recent UN
unanimous acceptance. I will point out that no terrorist attack has occurred against US soil. When you look at the facts and weigh them against
international criticism, it is obvious that the world is falling into line. In military success, in the world endorsing the war on terror, the US is
winning the war on terror. God Bless and good night.
Round 1. ktprktpr V BlackJackal: War on Terror, page
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
reply posted on 14-6-2004 @ 02:56 AM by ktprktpr
At no point have I even implied that that the war on terror can not be won. My analogy involving mortality, cucumbers and old age applies to humans,
not international social phenomena.
It is also crucial to separate temporality, specifically, the future, from the notion of winning. If the U.S. is winning a boxing match, the future doesn't qualify anything because, simply stated, the U.S. is already winning.
People often use the negative to dis-qualify the U.S war on terror. We've spent billions and still haven't caught Osama. On average, two soldiers die in Iraq each day. Our actions are polarizing the world. Detractors point out what the U.S. hasn't done. But they also fail to point out what hasn't happened. The lack of terrorist violence within America. Take a moment and reflect just how important that is. You get to keep your job and provide for your family because the War on Terror is defending American transportations channels. Excellent defense is a primary component of winning.
This war on terror is a bigger than al Qaeda. It's not a serial thing, but a parallel process, where much happens at once, in part or whole. Consider that international terrorism largely has roots in the middle east. U.S. foreign policy has consistently compromised and reformed anti-American middle eastern elements. Case in point, during 1983, Iraq was a U.S. sponsored buffer against Iran's Islamic extremism. In 2002 we took out Iraq and Afghanistan.
Damascus (capital of Syria) has lost much income, estimated to be $50,000,000 per month (1), normally acquired from arms and oil smuggling to and from Iraq. The Syrian Accountability Act, passed in 2003, mimics the sword that once hung over Damascus. Since March 2004, pressure has been applied to de-nationalize the Syrian economy, which would pave the way for American capitalistic penetration. The ruling Ba'ath part in Syria is currently being restructured and is aligning with American interests.(2)
Richard Perle, a PNAC devotee, who has much credit with the current administration, has said, "I'm rather optimistic that we will see regime change in Iran without any use of military power by the United States." Today the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) begins a review of Iran's nuclear program. The U.S. is very effective at reforming countries that do not fall in line.
Now the question is, at what cost? We are hardening and polarizing anti-U.S. sentiment. But, at the same time the U.S. is aggressively severing ties between terrorists and their material supporters. To carry out more attacks in an environment of reducing support (in material) is to suffocate slowly. The War does not only smash, it strangles as well.
The U.S. could destroy the world in time for supper. It does not need the military assistance from Spain, Poland or Thailand. It needs political support. The recent UN resolution is a propaganda coup. As with men appraising women, it's the outside that counts first. The internal details matter little. The United Nations has endorsed pre-emptive U.S. foreign policy and sanctioned the way the U.S. went about it. Far from the U.S. being humiliated, in fact, I dare say, the U.S. has made the World eat # and like it (15 out of 15 countries agree). I call that winning. The details of Resolution 1546 matter little because we all know how selective the U.S. can be in following international regulation. The Iraqi war is a prime example.
I'm going to say it straight. You can't give me hard facts that terrorist factions are growing in size. That information is classified. So we can only go with what we see. Do daily attacks elsewhere constitute failure for the War on Terror? The daily attacks have to be put in perspective: From starvation, more people die in a single day, than from terrorist attacks in a single year. Yes. Each day 40,000 people starve to death.(3) If the recent bloodbath at Kabul, where 80 insurgents were killed, occurred everyday, only 29,200 would die yearly. Daily attacks on troops may be politically and emotionally "uncomfortable," but objectively, two or three daily attacks do not undermine U.S. military efficiency.
The UN has endorsed U.S. foreign policy and treatment of "rouge nations." Terrorists kill less people in a year than those dying of starvation in one day. Syria is in the process of being politically restructured and economically reformed. Iran has been diplomatically attacked on several fronts, the IAEA review being the latest wound. The writing is on the wall, largely in Iraqi blood. Overall, the U.S. has effectively instituted regime change, both in the West, through the UN and in the Middle East, with Iraq, Iran, Syria and Afghanistan being the latest victims.
And these are the reasons the U.S. is winning the War on Terror.
(1) www.talonnews.com...
(2) weekly.ahram.org.eg...
(3) www.animalsvoice.com...
It is also crucial to separate temporality, specifically, the future, from the notion of winning. If the U.S. is winning a boxing match, the future doesn't qualify anything because, simply stated, the U.S. is already winning.
People often use the negative to dis-qualify the U.S war on terror. We've spent billions and still haven't caught Osama. On average, two soldiers die in Iraq each day. Our actions are polarizing the world. Detractors point out what the U.S. hasn't done. But they also fail to point out what hasn't happened. The lack of terrorist violence within America. Take a moment and reflect just how important that is. You get to keep your job and provide for your family because the War on Terror is defending American transportations channels. Excellent defense is a primary component of winning.
This war on terror is a bigger than al Qaeda. It's not a serial thing, but a parallel process, where much happens at once, in part or whole. Consider that international terrorism largely has roots in the middle east. U.S. foreign policy has consistently compromised and reformed anti-American middle eastern elements. Case in point, during 1983, Iraq was a U.S. sponsored buffer against Iran's Islamic extremism. In 2002 we took out Iraq and Afghanistan.
Damascus (capital of Syria) has lost much income, estimated to be $50,000,000 per month (1), normally acquired from arms and oil smuggling to and from Iraq. The Syrian Accountability Act, passed in 2003, mimics the sword that once hung over Damascus. Since March 2004, pressure has been applied to de-nationalize the Syrian economy, which would pave the way for American capitalistic penetration. The ruling Ba'ath part in Syria is currently being restructured and is aligning with American interests.(2)
Richard Perle, a PNAC devotee, who has much credit with the current administration, has said, "I'm rather optimistic that we will see regime change in Iran without any use of military power by the United States." Today the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) begins a review of Iran's nuclear program. The U.S. is very effective at reforming countries that do not fall in line.
Now the question is, at what cost? We are hardening and polarizing anti-U.S. sentiment. But, at the same time the U.S. is aggressively severing ties between terrorists and their material supporters. To carry out more attacks in an environment of reducing support (in material) is to suffocate slowly. The War does not only smash, it strangles as well.
The U.S. could destroy the world in time for supper. It does not need the military assistance from Spain, Poland or Thailand. It needs political support. The recent UN resolution is a propaganda coup. As with men appraising women, it's the outside that counts first. The internal details matter little. The United Nations has endorsed pre-emptive U.S. foreign policy and sanctioned the way the U.S. went about it. Far from the U.S. being humiliated, in fact, I dare say, the U.S. has made the World eat # and like it (15 out of 15 countries agree). I call that winning. The details of Resolution 1546 matter little because we all know how selective the U.S. can be in following international regulation. The Iraqi war is a prime example.
I'm going to say it straight. You can't give me hard facts that terrorist factions are growing in size. That information is classified. So we can only go with what we see. Do daily attacks elsewhere constitute failure for the War on Terror? The daily attacks have to be put in perspective: From starvation, more people die in a single day, than from terrorist attacks in a single year. Yes. Each day 40,000 people starve to death.(3) If the recent bloodbath at Kabul, where 80 insurgents were killed, occurred everyday, only 29,200 would die yearly. Daily attacks on troops may be politically and emotionally "uncomfortable," but objectively, two or three daily attacks do not undermine U.S. military efficiency.
The UN has endorsed U.S. foreign policy and treatment of "rouge nations." Terrorists kill less people in a year than those dying of starvation in one day. Syria is in the process of being politically restructured and economically reformed. Iran has been diplomatically attacked on several fronts, the IAEA review being the latest wound. The writing is on the wall, largely in Iraqi blood. Overall, the U.S. has effectively instituted regime change, both in the West, through the UN and in the Middle East, with Iraq, Iran, Syria and Afghanistan being the latest victims.
And these are the reasons the U.S. is winning the War on Terror.
(1) www.talonnews.com...
(2) weekly.ahram.org.eg...
(3) www.animalsvoice.com...
reply posted on 15-6-2004 @ 01:45 AM by BlackJackal
The international social phenomena, known as the war on terror, is every bit as fruitless as anti-aging creams in its current state, it just covers up
the symptoms. The US thinks invading countries will disrupt terrorist supply lines and in effect destroy terrorism. Sadly this is the wrong strategy
and has cost the US much ground in the war on terror. Terrorism is not Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, North Korea, or Palestine; Terrorism is an
ideology the US failed to understand before declaring war upon it. To overcome terrorism the US must change a mindset in the eastern world; in this
the US has succeeded however in the wrong direction. The arrogance of the United States has driven more and more of the Islamic world to hate the
west while garnering the respect of the terrorist movement. The US’s own actions are undermining the war on terror, not so much terrorists
themselves.
There has not been one significant attack in the US since 9/11, for that I am thankful. However, even though there has not been an attack on US soil does not mean Americans have not died at the hands of terror. Scores of Americans have been murdered by terrorists since 9/11. The goal of this war is for every free citizen to be free from terror, not Americans exclusively. If we measure this war’s success in the fact an attack has not occurred on US soil we are deceived since terror is more alive throughout the globe today than before 9/11(terrorist attacks have increased 36% since 2001, the most in 20 years).[1]
Terrorism is not measured in attacks alone; it is the perceived threat as well. Since the inception of the Homeland Security Advisory System was initiated in March 2002 the threat level never dipped below “yellow”. In effect since March 2002 the US has believed there is significant risk of terrorist attacks and in several instances the warning has been escalated to “orange” indicating a high risk of terrorist attacks. American people are reminded everyday of the significant risk of a terrorist attack within its borders. This risk has instilled fear into many allowing terrorism to succeed without even lifting a finger within the homeland. If the US was winning the threat level would be “blue” or “green” not teetering on the border of “yellow” and “orange”.
Indeed, this war is bigger than Al Qaeda and this is very troubling since Al Qaeda is growing rather than shrinking. There is no way to know for sure how many terrorists this world holds however most estimates indicate the numbers are growing.[2] The International Institute of Strategic Studies in London, a supporter of the war in Iraq, has recently concluded the war on terror has provided results just the opposite of those desired. Rather than alienating Islamic extremists the war has only moved hatred of the US into the mainstream.[3] This paradigm shift of thinking is what the US intended to use to squash terrorism however, the shift is into the wrong direction.
It is wonderful Syria, Iran, and other countries alike are being pressured to reform but, this does nothing to solve the problem of terrorism. Worldwide terrorism has evolved to survive. [4] After the fall of Afghanistan the terrorists realized they could no longer depend on governments for support so they decentralized leadership and built an effective underground network. Many times cells in Iraq have no clue what cells in Iran are doing but they all have a common ultimate goal and are seemingly accomplishing it.
The US needs more than just political support at this point in time it needs financial and military support. Bush is asking any country that will listen for either monetary or military assistance in the war. Bush asked the G8 summit members for assistance, [5] and also in Resolution 1546 but received none. [6] Also Donald Rumsfeld quoted as saying "Despite considerable progress, the reality is that today we remain closer to the beginning of this struggle than to its end” is also on the road asking for help in Asia. [7] Simply put these are not the actions of a country that is winning anything.
At the end of the day it doesn’t matter how many people terrorism kills the shadow it creates effects millions more. A 15-0 UN resolution means nothing to a terrorist and little more to the US when it offers no assistance. The US will not be on the winning side of this war until anti-U.S. sentiments in the Arab world on which terrorism feeds have been addressed, no amount of bombs, resolutions, or humanitarian aid will change that.
[1] www.startribune.com...
[2] www.cnn.com...
[3] www.time.com...
[4] straitstimes.asia1.com.sg...
[5] www.dfw.com...
[6] www.reuters.co.uk...
[7] www.cnn.com...
There has not been one significant attack in the US since 9/11, for that I am thankful. However, even though there has not been an attack on US soil does not mean Americans have not died at the hands of terror. Scores of Americans have been murdered by terrorists since 9/11. The goal of this war is for every free citizen to be free from terror, not Americans exclusively. If we measure this war’s success in the fact an attack has not occurred on US soil we are deceived since terror is more alive throughout the globe today than before 9/11(terrorist attacks have increased 36% since 2001, the most in 20 years).[1]
Terrorism is not measured in attacks alone; it is the perceived threat as well. Since the inception of the Homeland Security Advisory System was initiated in March 2002 the threat level never dipped below “yellow”. In effect since March 2002 the US has believed there is significant risk of terrorist attacks and in several instances the warning has been escalated to “orange” indicating a high risk of terrorist attacks. American people are reminded everyday of the significant risk of a terrorist attack within its borders. This risk has instilled fear into many allowing terrorism to succeed without even lifting a finger within the homeland. If the US was winning the threat level would be “blue” or “green” not teetering on the border of “yellow” and “orange”.
Indeed, this war is bigger than Al Qaeda and this is very troubling since Al Qaeda is growing rather than shrinking. There is no way to know for sure how many terrorists this world holds however most estimates indicate the numbers are growing.[2] The International Institute of Strategic Studies in London, a supporter of the war in Iraq, has recently concluded the war on terror has provided results just the opposite of those desired. Rather than alienating Islamic extremists the war has only moved hatred of the US into the mainstream.[3] This paradigm shift of thinking is what the US intended to use to squash terrorism however, the shift is into the wrong direction.
It is wonderful Syria, Iran, and other countries alike are being pressured to reform but, this does nothing to solve the problem of terrorism. Worldwide terrorism has evolved to survive. [4] After the fall of Afghanistan the terrorists realized they could no longer depend on governments for support so they decentralized leadership and built an effective underground network. Many times cells in Iraq have no clue what cells in Iran are doing but they all have a common ultimate goal and are seemingly accomplishing it.
The US needs more than just political support at this point in time it needs financial and military support. Bush is asking any country that will listen for either monetary or military assistance in the war. Bush asked the G8 summit members for assistance, [5] and also in Resolution 1546 but received none. [6] Also Donald Rumsfeld quoted as saying "Despite considerable progress, the reality is that today we remain closer to the beginning of this struggle than to its end” is also on the road asking for help in Asia. [7] Simply put these are not the actions of a country that is winning anything.
At the end of the day it doesn’t matter how many people terrorism kills the shadow it creates effects millions more. A 15-0 UN resolution means nothing to a terrorist and little more to the US when it offers no assistance. The US will not be on the winning side of this war until anti-U.S. sentiments in the Arab world on which terrorism feeds have been addressed, no amount of bombs, resolutions, or humanitarian aid will change that.
[1] www.startribune.com...
[2] www.cnn.com...
[3] www.time.com...
[4] straitstimes.asia1.com.sg...
[5] www.dfw.com...
[6] www.reuters.co.uk...
[7] www.cnn.com...
reply posted on 16-6-2004 @ 04:45 AM by ktprktpr
Terrorism is a noun, but not a place. You will not find "Terr-Asia" on any map. An ideology is rooted among people, who may in turn commit terrorist
acts.
All organizations, of at least international scope, are driven by some form of hierarchal control. Hierarchal control can be distributed in many dimensions: Leadership, material, money, etc. Note that systems of non-hierarchal control, such as Communism, have all failed. International terrorist organizations exhibit hierarchy, often in convoluted systems of funding and dispersal of logistics.
Because international terrorists, very much like you and I, need money for activities, there is a reliance on sponsorship. Naturally, the operational scope of a terrorist organization matches the operational complexity that supports it. Simply stated, you can't run al-Qaeda off of a couple of McDonald criminal store fronts. You need a sugar daddy. Thus, hierarchal control will always be present. Even if leadership is decentralized, at least, cash and centralized logistics (note 9/11's synchronization) must be dispersed.
Many CIA and PNAC documents assert that Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia sponsor a majority of middle eastern terrorism. Terr-Asia may not be a nation, but she is born of them. Terrorism is state supported. If you smash the state, you force terrorist organizations seek new nourishment. Rinse and repeat, as the U.S. is doing, and terrorists are hard pressed to sustain themselves.
The U.S. attacks on a cultural level, as well. Calling on middle eastern governments to submit to Western style reforms disenfranchises the regional culture and opens the gates to (capitalistic) exploitation. Diplomacy and bloodshed are the quickest ways of forcing Westernization. Look at how quickly, and well, India, Venezuela or Japan were reformed.
The War on Terror is measured, in part, by lack of attack within America. Considering that terrorist attacks may have increased 36%, this War's offensive is more impressive and winning.
The Homeland Security Advisory System measures probabilities, not actualities. Winning is resolved by what actually happens. Since none of these probabilities play out, however high or uniquely colored, as admitted by BlackJackal, American is winning on the homeland front.
It is interesting that the 36% figure is superseded by 20 years in the past. Viewed in historical American context, the War on Terror is cyclical. Twenty years ago the world was an international nightmare; Russia invaded Afghanistan and military conflict broke out between Iran and Iraq. What caused the stretch of relative peace between then and now? Regan, God Bless his soul, having been re-elected, "happened". Like Bush, Regan beefed up military spending and policed the world.
In any head-on conflict an increase in terrorism is expected. Despite public outcry, the War has not stopped. So it can be said, at least, America must be winning enough to go on. Cast in political terms, both Bush and Kerry support this War. Would fore-runner John Kerry chance his political career that much?
According to the Star Tribune, the 36% terrorist increase occurred during the last 55 days in 2003. I don't know what happened, but it is significant that if a Nov. 11, 2003 cut-off date is used, "terrorist incidents in 2003 declined 45 percent since 2001, to the lowest level recorded in 30 years."(1)
The complexity of this War has to be reiterated. Despite BlackJackal's interpretation, this War is not one dimensional. A growing open hatred, among middle eastern civilians, plays into U.S. hands. Clearly from regime changes in Venezuela and Honduras, the U.S. is expert in compromising countries. The U.S. is attacking on multiple fronts (i.e., Syria), pressuring for governmental reform. As governments are found to satisfy U.S. demands (by whatever proxy, the U.N., barrel of a gun, etc.) civilian anger and exertion turns from the U.S. to their native government. This has occurred in Afghanistan, with increased local attacks (and no more 9/11s) and in Iraq, where unrest is focused on occupied territories. The U.S. understands the Machiavellian tactic of divide and conquer quite well. In these terms, the U.S. is well poised to strike Middle Eastern culture.
A 15-0 U.N. resolution means nothing to some. But it means much within the global sphere that international terrorists operate in. The Western world that decried Bush's cowboy ways has now accepted both him and the damn horse he rode in on (Pre-Emptive Attack). The U.N., by instilling legitimacy in Post-June 30th Iraq, has cast the U.S. as leader, whose example they now agree with.
The War is about protecting the world from terrorism. In a sense, it is about world peace. To have world peace, you must have world cooperation. But this level of cooperation requires a global authority, a New World Order. As the U.S. transfers its' responsibilities to the world stage, as a leader by example, defender of global white Western hegemony, it becomes a viable winner to lead the New World Order.
(1) www.startribune.com...
All organizations, of at least international scope, are driven by some form of hierarchal control. Hierarchal control can be distributed in many dimensions: Leadership, material, money, etc. Note that systems of non-hierarchal control, such as Communism, have all failed. International terrorist organizations exhibit hierarchy, often in convoluted systems of funding and dispersal of logistics.
Because international terrorists, very much like you and I, need money for activities, there is a reliance on sponsorship. Naturally, the operational scope of a terrorist organization matches the operational complexity that supports it. Simply stated, you can't run al-Qaeda off of a couple of McDonald criminal store fronts. You need a sugar daddy. Thus, hierarchal control will always be present. Even if leadership is decentralized, at least, cash and centralized logistics (note 9/11's synchronization) must be dispersed.
Many CIA and PNAC documents assert that Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia sponsor a majority of middle eastern terrorism. Terr-Asia may not be a nation, but she is born of them. Terrorism is state supported. If you smash the state, you force terrorist organizations seek new nourishment. Rinse and repeat, as the U.S. is doing, and terrorists are hard pressed to sustain themselves.
The U.S. attacks on a cultural level, as well. Calling on middle eastern governments to submit to Western style reforms disenfranchises the regional culture and opens the gates to (capitalistic) exploitation. Diplomacy and bloodshed are the quickest ways of forcing Westernization. Look at how quickly, and well, India, Venezuela or Japan were reformed.
The War on Terror is measured, in part, by lack of attack within America. Considering that terrorist attacks may have increased 36%, this War's offensive is more impressive and winning.
The Homeland Security Advisory System measures probabilities, not actualities. Winning is resolved by what actually happens. Since none of these probabilities play out, however high or uniquely colored, as admitted by BlackJackal, American is winning on the homeland front.
It is interesting that the 36% figure is superseded by 20 years in the past. Viewed in historical American context, the War on Terror is cyclical. Twenty years ago the world was an international nightmare; Russia invaded Afghanistan and military conflict broke out between Iran and Iraq. What caused the stretch of relative peace between then and now? Regan, God Bless his soul, having been re-elected, "happened". Like Bush, Regan beefed up military spending and policed the world.
In any head-on conflict an increase in terrorism is expected. Despite public outcry, the War has not stopped. So it can be said, at least, America must be winning enough to go on. Cast in political terms, both Bush and Kerry support this War. Would fore-runner John Kerry chance his political career that much?
According to the Star Tribune, the 36% terrorist increase occurred during the last 55 days in 2003. I don't know what happened, but it is significant that if a Nov. 11, 2003 cut-off date is used, "terrorist incidents in 2003 declined 45 percent since 2001, to the lowest level recorded in 30 years."(1)
The complexity of this War has to be reiterated. Despite BlackJackal's interpretation, this War is not one dimensional. A growing open hatred, among middle eastern civilians, plays into U.S. hands. Clearly from regime changes in Venezuela and Honduras, the U.S. is expert in compromising countries. The U.S. is attacking on multiple fronts (i.e., Syria), pressuring for governmental reform. As governments are found to satisfy U.S. demands (by whatever proxy, the U.N., barrel of a gun, etc.) civilian anger and exertion turns from the U.S. to their native government. This has occurred in Afghanistan, with increased local attacks (and no more 9/11s) and in Iraq, where unrest is focused on occupied territories. The U.S. understands the Machiavellian tactic of divide and conquer quite well. In these terms, the U.S. is well poised to strike Middle Eastern culture.
A 15-0 U.N. resolution means nothing to some. But it means much within the global sphere that international terrorists operate in. The Western world that decried Bush's cowboy ways has now accepted both him and the damn horse he rode in on (Pre-Emptive Attack). The U.N., by instilling legitimacy in Post-June 30th Iraq, has cast the U.S. as leader, whose example they now agree with.
The War is about protecting the world from terrorism. In a sense, it is about world peace. To have world peace, you must have world cooperation. But this level of cooperation requires a global authority, a New World Order. As the U.S. transfers its' responsibilities to the world stage, as a leader by example, defender of global white Western hegemony, it becomes a viable winner to lead the New World Order.
(1) www.startribune.com...
reply posted on 16-6-2004 @ 10:04 PM by BlackJackal
In the past terrorism enjoyed state sponsorship but since 9/11 most have realized those days were over. Organized terrorism has evolved to cope with
the change and has shown it still has the power to attack.
The simple truth is big money is not needed to support the growth of terrorism. All terrorism needs to grow is people to buy into an ideology. Anti-American sentiment is growing in the Islamic world burying its seed deep into a new generation of terrorists with eyes trained on the US.
To examine the cost of terrorism consider one bullet from one gun can strike fear into millions if the person on the other end is in the public eye. Major Terrorist attacks aren’t very expensive either. Consider the Oklahoma City Bomb that killed 168 people, the total cost of the bomb was only $3500 give or take a few hundred.[1-4] Terrorists cover this nominal cost through varied ways including, theft, credit fraud, bank fraud, and legitimate businesses among others.[5] Thus state sponsorship is not a prerequisite for terrorism.
The terrorism numbers have increased since 2001 and more than likely more than just 36%. In previous years terrorist incidents were tracked to the end of the calendar year and all terrorist incidents were counted not exclusively ones resulting in deaths.[6] The true numbers are sure to come out in the next few weeks and surely the release will do nothing to support winning the war on terror.
Despite my opponents interpretation of America “winning enough to go on” the fact is America has to push forward now winning or losing. The United States has made its bed and now has to lay in it. Afghanistan and Iraq have to be rebuilt prior to any new military endeavors or war restructuring. The US and the rest of the world (as shown in Resolution 1546) realize failure would be devastating on more levels than just terrorism.
I agree with my opponent the complexity of this war is far from many peoples grasp including US leaders. The US invaded two countries to crush terrorism at its base but the desired effect was not gained. The outcome thus far has been to bind the hands of the US military while Terrorism increased strength unabated in Africa.[7] The extremist Islamic ideology is moving closer and closer to mainstream without an answer from the US. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are gaining numbers without slowing due mostly to the US lead war on terror.[8] Terrorist attacks continue daily across the globe and mostly under the nose of an occupying American military force. If terrorism cannot be stopped in an occupied country where can it be stopped?
The US is losing because it has not even begun to deal with the indoctrination children in Arab schools with hate. Children are taught at a very young age to hate in many parts of the Islamic world and the effect is an assembly line of angry young terrorists.
The world is currently polarized along the lines of Al Qaeda’s choosing with the western world viewpoint becoming less and less desirable. American mismanagement, operational savagery, and questionable interrogation techniques have converted large portions of the Islamic world, previously pro-western, into anti-american and thus pro terrorism
The US is currently pursuing a self-defeating strategy of country invasion. Also this policy is stretching American resources to their limits leading Bush to beg for assistance from NATO, The G-8 Summit, the UN, and Donald Rumsfeld to look for it in Asia. Facts of the matter, the US cannot be winning it choose the wrong direction out of the gate and now has to backtrack in order to find the right course.
Another stumbling block for the US is the Israeli- Palenstinian conflict. Most terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, use the conflict as a rallying call. All the while the US refuses to put the appropriate pressure on the Israeli government to form a Palestinian state. The formation of such a state would resolve terrorism in the second largest hotbed outside of Baghdad. A US backed Palestinian state would also take the wind out of many terrorist claims but as of yet the US is unwilling to take that step.
In the end the United states has made great military progress but it has proven ineffective in defeating terrorism. The hasty decision to use all out military force has proven to be costly, handcuffing American resources while allowing terrorism to grow due to American actions. Terrorism now has a large head start and has become more sophisticated since 9/11.[9] The knee-jerk reactions of the US government has put the US on the losing side of a war for the first time since the beginning of WWII.
[1] en.wikipedia.org...
[2] www.progress.org...
[3] www.worldnetdaily.com...
[4] www.dragracingonline.com...
[5] www.latimes.com...
[6] www.alertnet.org...
[7] www.defenselink.mil...
[8] www.borrull.org...
[9] www.commondreams.org...
The simple truth is big money is not needed to support the growth of terrorism. All terrorism needs to grow is people to buy into an ideology. Anti-American sentiment is growing in the Islamic world burying its seed deep into a new generation of terrorists with eyes trained on the US.
To examine the cost of terrorism consider one bullet from one gun can strike fear into millions if the person on the other end is in the public eye. Major Terrorist attacks aren’t very expensive either. Consider the Oklahoma City Bomb that killed 168 people, the total cost of the bomb was only $3500 give or take a few hundred.[1-4] Terrorists cover this nominal cost through varied ways including, theft, credit fraud, bank fraud, and legitimate businesses among others.[5] Thus state sponsorship is not a prerequisite for terrorism.
The terrorism numbers have increased since 2001 and more than likely more than just 36%. In previous years terrorist incidents were tracked to the end of the calendar year and all terrorist incidents were counted not exclusively ones resulting in deaths.[6] The true numbers are sure to come out in the next few weeks and surely the release will do nothing to support winning the war on terror.
Despite my opponents interpretation of America “winning enough to go on” the fact is America has to push forward now winning or losing. The United States has made its bed and now has to lay in it. Afghanistan and Iraq have to be rebuilt prior to any new military endeavors or war restructuring. The US and the rest of the world (as shown in Resolution 1546) realize failure would be devastating on more levels than just terrorism.
I agree with my opponent the complexity of this war is far from many peoples grasp including US leaders. The US invaded two countries to crush terrorism at its base but the desired effect was not gained. The outcome thus far has been to bind the hands of the US military while Terrorism increased strength unabated in Africa.[7] The extremist Islamic ideology is moving closer and closer to mainstream without an answer from the US. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are gaining numbers without slowing due mostly to the US lead war on terror.[8] Terrorist attacks continue daily across the globe and mostly under the nose of an occupying American military force. If terrorism cannot be stopped in an occupied country where can it be stopped?
The US is losing because it has not even begun to deal with the indoctrination children in Arab schools with hate. Children are taught at a very young age to hate in many parts of the Islamic world and the effect is an assembly line of angry young terrorists.
The world is currently polarized along the lines of Al Qaeda’s choosing with the western world viewpoint becoming less and less desirable. American mismanagement, operational savagery, and questionable interrogation techniques have converted large portions of the Islamic world, previously pro-western, into anti-american and thus pro terrorism
The US is currently pursuing a self-defeating strategy of country invasion. Also this policy is stretching American resources to their limits leading Bush to beg for assistance from NATO, The G-8 Summit, the UN, and Donald Rumsfeld to look for it in Asia. Facts of the matter, the US cannot be winning it choose the wrong direction out of the gate and now has to backtrack in order to find the right course.
Another stumbling block for the US is the Israeli- Palenstinian conflict. Most terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, use the conflict as a rallying call. All the while the US refuses to put the appropriate pressure on the Israeli government to form a Palestinian state. The formation of such a state would resolve terrorism in the second largest hotbed outside of Baghdad. A US backed Palestinian state would also take the wind out of many terrorist claims but as of yet the US is unwilling to take that step.
In the end the United states has made great military progress but it has proven ineffective in defeating terrorism. The hasty decision to use all out military force has proven to be costly, handcuffing American resources while allowing terrorism to grow due to American actions. Terrorism now has a large head start and has become more sophisticated since 9/11.[9] The knee-jerk reactions of the US government has put the US on the losing side of a war for the first time since the beginning of WWII.
[1] en.wikipedia.org...
[2] www.progress.org...
[3] www.worldnetdaily.com...
[4] www.dragracingonline.com...
[5] www.latimes.com...
[6] www.alertnet.org...
[7] www.defenselink.mil...
[8] www.borrull.org...
[9] www.commondreams.org...
reply posted on 17-6-2004 @ 08:56 PM by ktprktpr
Before I begin, I want to thank BlackJackal for a mentally expanding debate. It takes two to tango and despite whoever wins, the dance was
beautiful.
Remember, the War is bigger than al-Qaeda.
There is growing international support. The UN resolution. The recent pledge from Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), composed of 57 Islamic nations, to 'actively assist' the Iraqi interim government.(1) Overall, the U.S. is effectively instituting regime change, in the West via the U.N. and in the middle east by Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. Blackjackal himself says the key is to change the middle eastern mindset. The OIC pledge is a nice example of that.
The U.S. attacks culturally as well by forcing countries to satisfy its demands. Capitalistic penetration is but one way of "infiltration" and compromising middle eastern countries. Syria is reforming along these lines.(2)
There has been no successful attack within the U.S. since 9/11. The level of daily attacks and local terrorism incidents do not objectively undermine the U.S. militarily. Kerry and Bush are well aware of reports of terrorists expansion and Iraqi attacks, yet they both continue to support the War. Astonishingly, using a Nov. 11th 2003 cut-off date, "terrorist incidents in 2003 declined 45 percent since 2001, to the lowest level recorded in 30 years."(3)
Funding terrorist cells may be cheap, but funding international terrorist organizations is not. The War has started with them. Captured al-Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a product of terrorist hierarchy, told interrogators of the Ohio mall bombing plot. (4) Because these organizations, in several forms, work top-down, reforming middle eastern countries is a crucial component to battling terrorist organizations. As we see from (1), this is being done.
In the name of World Peace, this War reduces to increasing global cooperation. On this scale, effective surveillance and defense requires homogenous international law and absolute discourse. The War also requires contemporary experience in reforming nations via international law, diplomacy, bloodshed and economics. Ask yourself, what nation is best at nation subversion and homogenizing international law? As the U.S. transfers its' responsibilities to the world stage, as a leader by example, defender of Western hegemony, it becomes the only viable winner to lead the New World Order.
The debate topic is whether the U.S. is winning the War on Terror. Winning is a current state of success. The future and probabilities do not matter (see my "failing success" oddity). Success is defined in part as physical safety in the homeland, growing global support, commitment and getting the bad guy. The U.S. has done all these things. Excellent defense, too, is a primary component of winning.
This War exists along several dimensions, as previously covered. In each dimension, the U.S. has penetrated deeply and is causing and forcing U.S. positive change. The U.S. satisfies the definition of success given above. This, combined with the multitude of other factors I've covered, yield a winning U.S. war on terror.
(1) straitstimes.asia1.com.sg...
(2) weekly.ahram.org.eg...
(3) www.startribune.com...
(4) www.cnn.com...
Remember, the War is bigger than al-Qaeda.
There is growing international support. The UN resolution. The recent pledge from Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), composed of 57 Islamic nations, to 'actively assist' the Iraqi interim government.(1) Overall, the U.S. is effectively instituting regime change, in the West via the U.N. and in the middle east by Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. Blackjackal himself says the key is to change the middle eastern mindset. The OIC pledge is a nice example of that.
The U.S. attacks culturally as well by forcing countries to satisfy its demands. Capitalistic penetration is but one way of "infiltration" and compromising middle eastern countries. Syria is reforming along these lines.(2)
There has been no successful attack within the U.S. since 9/11. The level of daily attacks and local terrorism incidents do not objectively undermine the U.S. militarily. Kerry and Bush are well aware of reports of terrorists expansion and Iraqi attacks, yet they both continue to support the War. Astonishingly, using a Nov. 11th 2003 cut-off date, "terrorist incidents in 2003 declined 45 percent since 2001, to the lowest level recorded in 30 years."(3)
Funding terrorist cells may be cheap, but funding international terrorist organizations is not. The War has started with them. Captured al-Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a product of terrorist hierarchy, told interrogators of the Ohio mall bombing plot. (4) Because these organizations, in several forms, work top-down, reforming middle eastern countries is a crucial component to battling terrorist organizations. As we see from (1), this is being done.
In the name of World Peace, this War reduces to increasing global cooperation. On this scale, effective surveillance and defense requires homogenous international law and absolute discourse. The War also requires contemporary experience in reforming nations via international law, diplomacy, bloodshed and economics. Ask yourself, what nation is best at nation subversion and homogenizing international law? As the U.S. transfers its' responsibilities to the world stage, as a leader by example, defender of Western hegemony, it becomes the only viable winner to lead the New World Order.
The debate topic is whether the U.S. is winning the War on Terror. Winning is a current state of success. The future and probabilities do not matter (see my "failing success" oddity). Success is defined in part as physical safety in the homeland, growing global support, commitment and getting the bad guy. The U.S. has done all these things. Excellent defense, too, is a primary component of winning.
This War exists along several dimensions, as previously covered. In each dimension, the U.S. has penetrated deeply and is causing and forcing U.S. positive change. The U.S. satisfies the definition of success given above. This, combined with the multitude of other factors I've covered, yield a winning U.S. war on terror.
(1) straitstimes.asia1.com.sg...
(2) weekly.ahram.org.eg...
(3) www.startribune.com...
(4) www.cnn.com...
reply posted on 18-6-2004 @ 08:45 PM by BlackJackal
The end has finally arrived yet I find myself wishing to continue for a worthier opponent I have never before enjoyed. Win or lose I still feel I
have gained.
Judging the war on terror is a difficult task due to the lack of hard evidence, leaving us with mostly analysis and outlooks. However, there are more facts showing the US losing this war rather than winning.
American is engaged in a war it cannot win, Terrorism will never be completely stamped out no matter how hard the US presses militarily, politically, or economically. The course America choose for this war has proved ineffective leading many former supporters to question the effectiveness.[11] While no one can definitely calculate the terrorist strength most analyst believe their numbers are growing.[11-13]
Terrorists have evolved faster than the US has been able to come up with answers. Terrorist attacks have become more sophisticated and more widespread since 9/11. My opponent trumps an attack has not occurred on American soil yet the rest of the world still suffers with this disease. This war is not exclusively for Americans the purpose was to free everyone from terrorism and that goal is far from achieved.
The ideology of terrorism is fueled by every bomb dropped and bullet fired by the US. New terrorists join the fight everyday while American resources continue to dwindle and international aid is harder to obtain. The mindset that fuels terrorism is more and more the norm while western ideals are dying. Children are still brainwashed with propaganda and the world is still polarized along the lines drawn by Al Qaeda. The failed understanding of this ideology has proven to be the most disastrous for the US.
Currently the US finds itself in poor standing with the rest of the world and for what? The US is no closer today to defeating terrorism than it was on 9/10/01 and I dare say farther away. The world finds itself in a strange and confusing time. A time in which the lone superpower is powerless to defeat a band of vigilantes and finds its actions to defeat them backfiring. The US may one day win this war but not until it understands what it is fighting
These are the reasons the US is losing the war on terrorism.
[1] www.janes.com...
[2] www.abc.net.au...
[3] www.cnn.com...
[4] english.pravda.ru...
[5] www.ireland.com...
[6] www.bangladeshobserveronline.com...
[7] www.dfw.com...
[8] www.reuters.co.uk...§ion=news
[9] www.cnn.com...
[10] www.alertnet.org...
[11] www.time.com...
[12] www.borrull.org...
[13] www.cnn.com...
Judging the war on terror is a difficult task due to the lack of hard evidence, leaving us with mostly analysis and outlooks. However, there are more facts showing the US losing this war rather than winning.
- Spain, Poland, Honduras, and The Dominican Republic have withdrawn from the Coalition of the Willing with Thailand and the Ukraine close
behind.[1-5]
- The US bowed down to every demand of the French and Germans to obtain Resolution 1546.[6]
- US has sought for international aid for the war at the G-8 Summit, in Resolution 1546, and within Asia, yet received none.[7-9]
- Terrorist attacks increased since 9/11 by at least 36% since in previous years attacks not resulting in death have been counted and
all attacks were counted to the end of the year.[10]
- The Threat level has not dropped below elevated once yet has been bumped up several times.
American is engaged in a war it cannot win, Terrorism will never be completely stamped out no matter how hard the US presses militarily, politically, or economically. The course America choose for this war has proved ineffective leading many former supporters to question the effectiveness.[11] While no one can definitely calculate the terrorist strength most analyst believe their numbers are growing.[11-13]
Terrorists have evolved faster than the US has been able to come up with answers. Terrorist attacks have become more sophisticated and more widespread since 9/11. My opponent trumps an attack has not occurred on American soil yet the rest of the world still suffers with this disease. This war is not exclusively for Americans the purpose was to free everyone from terrorism and that goal is far from achieved.
The ideology of terrorism is fueled by every bomb dropped and bullet fired by the US. New terrorists join the fight everyday while American resources continue to dwindle and international aid is harder to obtain. The mindset that fuels terrorism is more and more the norm while western ideals are dying. Children are still brainwashed with propaganda and the world is still polarized along the lines drawn by Al Qaeda. The failed understanding of this ideology has proven to be the most disastrous for the US.
Currently the US finds itself in poor standing with the rest of the world and for what? The US is no closer today to defeating terrorism than it was on 9/10/01 and I dare say farther away. The world finds itself in a strange and confusing time. A time in which the lone superpower is powerless to defeat a band of vigilantes and finds its actions to defeat them backfiring. The US may one day win this war but not until it understands what it is fighting
These are the reasons the US is losing the war on terrorism.
[1] www.janes.com...
[2] www.abc.net.au...
[3] www.cnn.com...
[4] english.pravda.ru...
[5] www.ireland.com...
[6] www.bangladeshobserveronline.com...
[7] www.dfw.com...
[8] www.reuters.co.uk...§ion=news
[9] www.cnn.com...
[10] www.alertnet.org...
[11] www.time.com...
[12] www.borrull.org...
[13] www.cnn.com...
Pages: ^^TOP^^
