What does winning the war on terrorism look like?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Jun 28, 2006.

Is there such a thing as winning the war on terrorism?

  1. Yes

    5 vote(s)
  2. No

    11 vote(s)
  1. Come on neocons, come on chickenhawks, come on right wingers.

    Describe exactly what constitutes a victory in the war on terror.

    Tell us how this is not a never ending situation.

    Tell us how the US could actually lose to the terrorists, i.e. what constitutes the terrorists winning the war?

    What would have to happen to say:

    They won the war. Would the US have to surrender?

    If the US wins the war, do all terrorists have to surrender?

    If there is a terrorist event anywhere in the world, does that mean the war is not over?

    No, this is not a war unless victory can be obtained.

    So, what does victory look like?

    Describe it.
  2. Well, I'm not exactly sure I fall into any of the descriptions you mentioned in your top line but seeings this is a public message board, and I'm one of the more intelligent members here, I'll give my opinion (for the many millions of fans out there who may be waiting for it):

    USA wins scenario: Terrorism ends.

    USA still fighting war scenario: Ongoing terrorism.

    Terrorists win scenario: Terrorists gain some ultimate stronghold against the USA and the world - "If you don't do this, we'll do this..." type situation - that would be so potentially devastating, the world and the USA would say, "Yes, Sirs, the will of Allah be done. How would you like your Big Mac, today? You can have it your way."

  3. Better yet...simply describe what victory in Iraq looks like.

    I've been asking this question since October of 2002. I still haven't heard a congent answer.

  4. Exactly.

    We can't even define what victory in Iraq is, but we can win the war on terrorism?

    When I listen to right wing talk radio, and read right wing columns, it is the never ending cry of "we are at war, we are at war."

    Who seriously thinks we are going to lose this war, and surrender to some band of terrorists?

  5. Pabst


    Victory in Iraq would be the U.S. placement of a hardass despot who runs a secular democracy, has the balls to fight Iran and KILLS every prick Islamo fascist who emerges. Oops, Iraq had that kind of leader......
  6. Pabst


    The entire world is or should be at war with fundamentalist Islam. Unfortunately Saddam was a great ally in that battle.

    Terror is a BS euphemism. Why do politicians lack the balls to just say Islam and call a spade a spade? Someday with the U.N.'s tacit approval, all of Africa and Asia will be under Islamic dictatorship. One of two things will then occur. Either the "people" will fall prey to Western consumerism/values and reject the ruling Mullah's or the noose around Australia, Western Europe and the America's will draw tighter.
  7. Hilarious...but you're exactly right.

    And since we can never have that...can the kook jobs who backed this piece of shit finally admit that we can never have the type of "victory" that Americans have been sold on?

    The "war" was and always has been a farce. Now that we've pissed $320 billion and 2500+ American lives down a shit hole...whadda we get? Not a gotdamn thing.

    And for this we'll get absolutely fucking Z-E-R-O in return in the form of goodwill from the newly minted Shi'a royalty.

    Very fucking impressive.

  8. Crusades, been there, done that, it failed....

  9. As a liberal moonbat pacifist peacenik, allow me to say that you can never win against terrorism. It's like the fight against evil, it's never ending. Not that us liberal moonbat pacifist peaceniks would ever admit to the concept of evil, I'm just saying....

    I've never been "sold" the idea that the US would "win" the fight against terrorism. I have seen it pitched that we would eventually defeat Al Qaeda, but never that we could eliminate terrorism. If Bush has tried to sell that we can totally eliminate terrorism, he's wrong.

    Victory for the terrorists would be us pulling out prior to the fledgeling Iraqi gov being able to provide security, causing the country to slide into anarchy (I know, I know, many of my liberal moonbat pacifist peacenik brethren think we're already at that point), or reinstalling Saddam (as many of my liberal moonbat pacifist peacenik buddies have suggested).
  10. Pow wittle fwedging Iraq government...

    Dey is a wittle baby against dem big bad insurgents...err, terrorists.

    We is da mommy breast feeding dem pow wittle Iraqi babies...who don't care enough about their own country to take care of it.

    Over three years later, and the country can't even begin to defend itself.

    Laughable, pathetic...

    #10     Jun 28, 2006