2007-10-28 08:29:37 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Conrange: So you admit defeat? I thought you were made of sterner stuff.
2007-10-28 08:46:58 · update #1
The point of the war on terror is that it is a war against a concept. It will never end. The concept will get re-defined over time (such as, when bin-Laden is found dead of whatever) but a war against a concept cannot end unless we just stop fighting.
Because the military-industrial complex has progressed to the point where a real (total) war cannot be fought, and cannot be won, then how does money continue to be spent in ever increasing amounts on the military? Answer: by fighting wars against concepts. No identifiable enemy, no battle lines, no way to tell if its over. No end. Just endless pouring of money into the war machine (owned by the most wealthy) instead of into infrastructure, or health care, or education, or social security, or other things that make the lives of the less-wealthy better.
War against a concept is simple redistribution of wealth: Tax everyone (the wealthy taxed a proportionately smaller percentage of their disposable income) and then spend a bunch of it by paying Boeing, Ratheon, etc. etc. for war stuff. The profits of those companies going to: The wealthy. Wars against concepts are a way to trick the population into redistributing enormous wealth from the working people to the non-working wealthy.
What a Great Country!
2007-10-28 08:54:30 · answer #1 · answered by coyotlboy 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you mean the war in Iraq: no, terror will still exist in some part of the world.
Terror is only a concept, a thought, an idea or method for coercing change. It is not a tangible thing.
The war on terror is supposed to make the thought of attacking us or any of our allies undesirable due to the extreme cost in materiel and human life.
2007-10-28 09:22:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Terror will always be around as long as their are human beings on this earth....
2007-10-28 09:10:25 · answer #3 · answered by JustChillin 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
you may't, a minimum of no longer by ability of militarily ought to on my own. i'm no longer a pacifist, yet you may't win a conflict on what somebody comes to a decision to do at any any given 2nd in time. The term "conflict on Terror" is in basic terms basic stupid. i understand elementary strategies to have a conflict on a rustic, yet how are you able to've a conflict on an action? The "conflict on drugs" is yet another stupid term. The "conflict on XYZ" is in basic terms a slogan you're able to sell to simpletons who have not any severe questioning skills. it quite is in basic terms an excuse for GW to get the enormous funds $ he needs to maintain our defense force and private contractors over there. by ability of ways, I artwork with a woman who has a son there as a contractor that works alongside the warriors networking desktops. She mentioned he makes over 150K for doing the precise same difficulty simply by fact the warriors who make approximately 25K. lots for that LIE that particular human beings make on the subject of the interior maximum sector consistently being lots extra efficient and fee-powerful than the government. yet, I digress. yet, there is the thank you to get the top hand in this. yet, it is not politically maximum appropriate. and that's by ability of infiltarating the mosques with spies and insect the crap out of each of the places the place the inciters deliver jointly. discover out who they are and then 86 'em. additionally, make it so the kinfolk of the guy who blew themselves up has to reimburse the victims. And in the event that they are able to't, they unfastened each little thing. Their residing house, automobiles, $, their babies are taken away to be "re-knowledgeable". additionally, they could desire to take the maintains to be of the bomber or terrorist and place them interior the sewer gadget, so as that they are able to no longer get a "perfect" burial. ultimately, they could desire to make it a loss of life sentance crime to sell or glorify the terrorists interior the country of Iraq. do no longer you in basic terms love the crap that GW positioned us in. What a moron. I particular wish the Republican social gathering delivers us a extra proper candidate next time. I bear in ideas Hanity asserting how undesirable it may be to get Kerry. properly, i do no longer see how he could have completed any worse. Infact, I possibly could vote for him if I knew what I do now. All that $ spent could have bailed out social secure practices possibly many circumstances over.
2016-10-02 23:11:32 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is as about as much chance of ever eradicating terror as there is stopping dumb questions being posted on Y/A!!
2007-10-28 08:41:50 · answer #5 · answered by conranger1 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Not while my wife is still around.
2007-10-28 08:36:16 · answer #6 · answered by Spade, Sam Spade 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋
no!!!!!!!!!1
2007-10-28 10:57:42 · answer #7 · answered by geen 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wishful thinking...but, wouldn't it be nice..
2007-10-28 10:52:24 · answer #8 · answered by Boopsie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not as long as democrats are still around.
2007-10-28 08:39:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋