that is the quintessential question.
2007-11-21 06:33:11 · 24 answers · asked by Moore55 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Is this like the War on Drugs, or the War on illiteracy, or any other of a number of mindless, pointless, rhetorical crusades our government has launched before?
Terror is a state of fear, an overwhelming sense of imminent danger. So we're going to wage a war to eliminate ALL fear and ALL imminent dangers? See how pointless and ridiculous such a phrase is?
What this government has been doing is using that term "War on Terror" as a fear inducing panic button for the purpose of reigning control (both mentally and physically) over it's rivals. If it's a War on Suicide Bombers you want then state it as such, or a War on Muslim Extremists then state it as such. Enough of this meaningless drivel about a War on Terror.
2007-11-21 06:59:48 · answer #1 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
War on a concept, an idea, a method? Terror is a verb not a noun. We can war on nouns but not on verbs. Therefore, since it is not possible to have a war on terror this is not a quintessential question but a moot question.
2007-11-21 14:53:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, but this is not a yes or no question.
To answer yes or no, one has to accept the premise that a nation can go to war against a tactic. I do not accept that premise. There is no conceivable end to the war on terror, as long as certain combinations of elements react explosively to electricity (as long as bombs can be made).
So far, the number of terrorists in Iraq has increased exponentially as a result of our occupation. Is that "winning?"
2007-11-21 14:38:51 · answer #3 · answered by Schmorgen 6 · 8⤊ 1⤋
Why is this the alternative? There is no reason why WTC had to lead to this outcome. We could have come to the realization that we are a great nation, and that we can work together to protect ourselves and to heal our relations with other countries.
Now that more Americans have died in Iraq than the number of human beings who perished on 9/11, isn't it time to call it a draw?
This says nothing of the estimated one million human beings who have died in Iraq.
Oh, I forgot. They're not human.
And keep those obscene and threatening emails coming, guys. I'm sending them on to Yahoo.
2007-11-21 14:46:47 · answer #4 · answered by Silver 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
When we start fighting it, I will be want to win it. Until Bush starts worrying bin Laden, we are not doing a blasted thing to fight the war on terror (whatever that is).
2007-11-21 14:39:46 · answer #5 · answered by beren 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Define what the war on terror is and what winning is...without those, I cannot give an honest answer
2007-11-21 14:38:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it would be nice.
Impossible, but nice.
Terror has been used very effectively as a tactic and tool by men throughout history. This fact is assurance that it will continue to be used.
2007-11-21 14:42:37 · answer #7 · answered by Think 1st 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That's a stupid question.
Of course everyone wants to eliminate the threat of terrorism. Where the disagreement is, is on HOW exactly is the best way to accomplish that.
This notion of 'My way is the ONLY way' , or 'If you're not with us, you're against us!' is one of the primary proofs of a failed argument.
2007-11-21 14:40:33 · answer #8 · answered by lmn78744 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Yes yes yes yes yes!
My brother-in-law will be going back to Iraq soon. Please keep all of our service men and women in your prayers, they do us a great service.
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13
2007-11-21 14:40:13 · answer #9 · answered by J.J. 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
War on terror? First you have to identify the goal. How do you quantify 'winning' on an ideology?
2007-11-21 14:37:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋