Will the War on Terror be Americas new Vietnam?

Many Americans hate to discuss the Vietnam War and it's aftermath in U.S politics. The same with the War on Terror. Of course we're still in Afghanistan and Iraq. But for how long? Since President Obama has taken office the protest for the war to end has cooled for a while. Since the firing of Gen. Stanley McChrystal has brought the War in the media again. TPTB know their going to be looked the same way as George Bush administration. Personally I already believe the War on Terror to be a lost cause. These countries have already made them self clear they don't want us around. So what's worth going in there and trying to take charge of everything? America is going to made to look like a weak nation again after a major defeat. What are your thoughts of the War on Terror possibly becoming Americas new Vietnam War?

I think its already become the new vietnam, when you think of the years we've been over there you have to think, are we really making progress?.

I'd prefer to say it's more like another War on Drugs, only worse and easier to justify fiddling with the world rather than just Latin and South America.

Vietnam was not perpetual like the War on Drugs or Terror are.

America really shouldn't complain about National Sovereignty considering our disregard of the sovereignty of many many nations.

It's a bad situation that I think has a very good chance of getting much worse, both for us and those at the other end of our guns.

reply to post by Catch_a_Fire


That's very agreeable. Look how many of our soldiers and people from their countries have died since 2001. I believe America is in the same handicap position in Vietnam. Poor leadership from both parties in Washington and the heads of the military.

Yes, if you mean endless conflict without effective resolution. The War on Terror has a clear similarity to the Vietnam War:

What would it take for you to really feel that the War on Terror had been won?

We could consider the war one if a majority of the population agreed upon a winning condition and that condition was met. Let us first see if we can first agree on that condition.

Shane


[edit on 26-6-2010 by randolrs1]

Originally posted by randolrs1


What would it take for you to really feel that the War on Terror had been won?

Shane

Thats a very good question, what exactly would it take?. The capturing of OBL?, the complete disbandment of the Taliban?, world domination?.
I really dont know, do TPTB know?.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


Of course it will, you cannot win a “war on terrorism” because “terrorism” is a tactic not a enemy, how can you win a war ageist a enemy that does not exist. If it was a “War on Al’Qaeda” or a “War on the Taliban” then yes that could be won not a war on terrorism.

The war on “terrorism” is a joke; it’s no more than a umbrella term to describe a series of domestic and international covert and overt operations to combat the tactic of terrorism. It is not a real war, to treat it as such is a sure way to lose the “war”. It is no more than a nice sound bite for politicians to through about to win a few votes. I would argue that America lost the “war” as soon as it was announced.

I also happen to think that the sacking of McChrystal was a really big mistake.

reply to post by kevinunknown


I like how you think. The true enemy isn't in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, or anywhere else; our fellow man never is.

The basic problem is the insanity in the human mind that causes a member of our species to turn against its own kind.

Shane

[edit on 26-6-2010 by randolrs1]

reply to post by kevinunknown


This was never a war on terrorism, it was America's war on terror. A war that would stop America's 'terror' after 9/11. If it was a war on terrorism they would have to go after every known terrorist cell and we're not. The focus is on the Taliban and Al Quaeda and whatever 'spin off' groups are formed from them.

I think you're right. The ivory tower trolls wanted something fake but tangible to wage their wars without borders. Their 'War on Terrorism' is the ultimate sustainable war that triggers smaller wars and conflicts in its wake. The war is also unwinnable since there is no predetermined destination and no single standing army to encounter. It appears as though their WoT is simply a global campaign of insurrection, genocide, and sustaining the nightmare envisioned my the Global Industrial Complex. They can no better pinpoint their overall objective of unbridled agression, just like the futility of the War on Drugs (Afghanistan has run longer than Vietnam, yet the world opium supply comes from there). The sad part is, we, the 'unprotected populace' have/had accepted and allowed it. 9/11 was a pivotal point in our overall societal instability. We suggested that those 'terrorists' be removed from the planet at any cost, so long as our 'freedoms were maintained'. And this is where it got us..

reply to post by Catch_a_Fire


No its not, the “war on terrorism” has often be referred to as the “Global War on Terror”. Thus arguably makes it WWIII rather than a war on terrorism. It implies that it’s more than just Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. By calling it a global war on terrorism then it includes all terrorism the world over. I have wrote a blog about this on another site, about how it should never have been called a War on Terror, I’ll post it up on ATS soon but i really can’t be bothered going into my arguments here just now its much better done as another post.

If it was “Americas War on Terror” they why would nearly every state on earth be involved in some way, even the Russians and Chinese are involved in the “war on terrorism”. So no its not “Americas war on Terror” its is the “Global war on Terror”. However even that is a total joke for the same reasons i have outlined above.

reply to post by kevinunknown


It originally started out as America's war on terror then other nations stepped up to the plate, either because they were America's allies or that they were directly involved through having similar atacks themselves (UK subway attacks and Spain's madrid bombings come first to mind).
Russia and China have been long known to have terrorist problems, so why shouldnt they take the same steps as USA,UK and any other country involved over there. Both Russia and China were slammed in the past because of the way they handled terrorist situations, but since 9/11 its like a certain understanding has been achieved and now any country can do what they want regarding terrorists.

Vietnam was the last real war in the global Cold War, in that context; Vietnam was a large scale battle in the bigger Cold War. America won the Cold War, however it’s my personal belief the Soviets would have failed with global communistic domination regardless. But the strategy of containment of Communism with wars in Korea, Vietnam, Cuban Missile Crisis, and drawing the line in Europe with the aid of millions of West Berliners eventually wore the Soviet Union down. In those conflicts we fought an actual governing nation. In the War of Terror we are engaged in a conflict of social, cultural, and religious philosophies which I think was never intended to be won in the sense of completing a direct objective. The real question should be how the War on Terror has affected the world? I would argue in ways we are giving justifications to other nation states to declare their own Wars on Terror. For example the Russian Federation’s belief they can go around and spank any of their ex-Soviet allies anytime they disagree with any of their policies, Turkey’s war against the Kurds in eastern Turkey and Northern Iraq would be another example, and even how the Israelis justify their treatment of the Palestinians could all be linked to results from the War on Terror. I think all these aforementioned wars are all a result of the over budgeting of American’s military industrial complex.
Here is a clip of President Eisenhower warning of these exact things happening if American’s kept allowing the growth of a giant military industrial complex:

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Catch_a_Fire


The UK and Spain were both involved in the fight against terrorism before the 7/7 and Madrid bombings. Ironically as a result of the Madrid bombings Spain pulled out of the war in Iraq. It is repeatedly referred to as a Global war on terrorism. In any case that does not matter, the point here is that the war cannot be won. I think we both fundamentally agree this “war” cannot be won.

reply to post by kevinunknown


Kudos Kevin. One of the few that actually appear to 'Get It ' .

reply to post by kevinunknown


Agreed it can't be won, especially since the fundemental goals to 'winning' have not been established.

911blogger.com...
contains links to the NSA's admission the gulf of Tonkin incident
never happened
what was vietnam about?
well it advanced the police state in America and got the country hooked on cheap opium.

the global war on terror is just a dirt cheap way to CREATE an excuse that enough sheeple will buy so that they can get away with regional rape
without opposition gaining enough mass to interfere with their plans

do you know how much lithium they have assessed in Afghanistan-
all most as much Lithium as there is opium

the fact that the National Security Agency could officially come out with an admission like this while while people still manage to delude themselves
that the "war on Terror" is morally supportable without taking responsibility for their attitude is proof what I am saying is true
not to mention ALL the other PROVEN LIES

The patriot act defines terrorist as:
Veterans, gun owners, people who have copies of the constitution, home schoolers, patriots, oath keepers, bloggers, talk radio hosts, alternative news sources, whistleblowers, witnesses to 911...etc

well it was all well and good to inflict the terror of the war on terror on everone else
hey now
the chickens are coming home to roost

reply to post by dazbog


Why thank you, nice to be appreciated. I might go and find that blog i was talking about and stick it up hear later to night.

reply to post by Danbones[/url]

Originally posted by Danbones

patriot act defines terrorist as:
Veterans, gun owners, people who have copies of the constitution, home schoolers, patriots, oath keepers, bloggers, talk radio hosts, alternative news sources, whistleblowers, witnesses to 911.

Oh my God, I'm a veteran, I own well lets just say more than five weapons, I not only have copies of the constitution, but I have an orginal John Binn's copy of the Declaration of Independence my grandfather gave me hanging on the wall, I carry a copy of Lincoln's Gettyburg address in my wallet, right by the DOI I have a replica of the orginal Bill of Rights, oh and I blog....Does that mean I'm a terroist? Oh and btw everything was made of hemp in 1863

[edit on 26-6-2010 by AmosGraber]

He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War

Wars of "attrition" are doomed from the beginning and are more than likely traps in which the invading force has been lured by enemies who are apparently more intelligent than the fools who fall for such obvious schemes.