Do you think the war on terrorism will ever end?

[Sniper_Zegai]

Thats for sure, there have been literally hundred of attacks on several countries throughout the world. Terrorist attacks were small and never had many casualties. 9/11 being the most severe brought immedaite attention to terrorism. And people began to realise that no country was safe from terrorism.

It still does'nt change the fact that terrorism will never be eridicated.
_________________

[Tullaryx]

Which would put a damper on talk that one of the causes for terrorism around the world is what the U.S. has done in past decades. I would hazard a guess and say that what the colonists did leading up to the Battle of Lexington in 1775 would be considered as terrorist acts by the British government and population around that time. As long as there's people willing to die and kill for a particular extremist idealogy there will always be groups labeled as terrorists and acts called terrorism.

9/11 was less a wake-up call for the world and more a wake-up call for American citizens. Mass murder has always been the norm for terrorist groups when kidnapping and hostage taking wre not used. Pan Am Flight 103 which exploded over Lockerbie Scotland had a high body count. The same for the U.S. Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut. But what these high-bodycount terrorist acts had in common was they were outside the US mainland.

So, I disagree that the world was in need of waking up to the threat of terrorism before 9/11. Israel, Colombia, and dozens of other nations were already quite knowledgable of the threat.
_________________

[Admiral Ackbar]

One other problem is defining terrorism exactly. Not all groups are considered terrorists to everyone; it can depend on your POV and which nation you belong to. Remember that in some nations/regions, groups that use terrorist tactics are considered freedom fighters by the locals.

Declaring a War on Terror is stupid to a high degree (even dumber than the War on Drugs). It would have been better to declare a War on Al Qaeda or War on Osama bin Laden. Possibly even Terrorism...but on Terror? The Bush Administration loves playing with words. This is maybe the greatest example.

Has the War on Terror been successful? Define success in this case.
_________________

[Phamex]

I personally think the phrase "War on Terror" has nothing to do with the Middle East. It's a term they came up with to make the American people feel better. It has a broad scope that allows them to constantly redefine what they are and aren't allowed to do, but the real purpose of it, what it's really saying is, "Don't be afraid America. We're gonna go catch the bad guys" It's nothing more than a comfort phrase. It's pointless and insulting, and like Scott said, you might as well declare war on walking because there's always something to be afraid of.

Like most people I'm hoping the military campaign will end with new administration.
_________________

[Sparhawk]

If you truly wonder about how long it will take for the "War on Terror" to end, just take a look at the "War on Drugs." Yeap, that will be ovr anytime now.... :roll:
_________________

[Masaya]

I like what Vextor said, in it ending when Bush leaves office. But I just hope the next president doesn't become one of those. "Well, we want to get out, but we don't know how". And expands it.

They could just begin "Iraqnization", and slowly pull out troops, giving the current power support (weapons, money whatever) until were completely out of there.
_________________

[Ninjar]

It is the same as the War on Drugs. There isn't anyway you can win the War on Terrorism. The fact that Bush said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," is quite possibly the most ignorant thing you can hear someone with the kind of power he possesses say.

There are a near infinite solutions to every problem. To claim that we had the only answer was baffling. I'm sure that the waning support for the war will lead the candidates of both parties to begin naysaying it further as the presidential primaries draw closer. We'll be on our way out before 2010.

[SwissStopwatch]

Yeah, pretty much most of us are of the opinion that we aren't going to be able to win a war against an abstract concept. So we're mostly in agreement that no such war can be won. I could declare a war against turquoise, but I don't think that even the might of all the sovereign nations put together would be able to eradicate that, either.

On the more specific subject of the Bush Administration war on terror(ism), we probably fall into mostly the same positions on that, or at least can be easily grouped/herded into more or less the same way. We think a lot of the things Bush says and does are pretty much ignorant and stupid, and the same for most of the people he has working for him on this matter. There does not seem to be a whole lot of logic in this whole exercise, occupation, whatever you'd like to call it.

When you look at some of the things he said about just now deciding to intervene in Darfur using sanctions, this whole thing becomes even more silly, with extra extra hypocrisy.

[Omerta]

The war on terrorism will never be over. Terrorism is not a enemy that can be defeated on a battlefield. Terrorism is a tatic that is used in that battlefield to beset fear and anquish to the opposing force. By using terror to impede or delay that is what it is used for. Terrorism has been a weapon in the arsenal of war when war first began. This battle tatic is not a new one. For everyone to cry about it now, I think is is pretty much remedial. Those are my thoughts.
_________________
"Either war is obsolete or men are." - R. Buckminster Fuller

[Futch]

I interpret Rune hunter's question as one regarding the end of the war president Bush is currently waging.

And I indeed think it will end with the next president (as long as the populace of the U.S wishes so, of course) the next president that comes up wouldn't last a day if he neglected the people's thoughts regarding the war.

I think the north american society has a different view towards the conflict as of today, but I could be delusional. I mean, all my experience regarding the conflict comes from the news in general and the internet.

I do remember reading something among the lines of "the troops being called back in 2008" but I can't quite recall how it went exactly.
_________________
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

[Calvin]

Even if a democrat succeeds Bush as president, the United States will still continue to wage a "war on terrorism." The only difference will be a shift in focus and a decrease in the amount of troops. The issue isn't so much as whether or not we'll pull out--we won't. We'll still have troops in Iraq, and they'll be there for a long time. There just won't be as many of them.

That said, there will always exist people who feel so offended that they decide to resort to terrorism, and there will always be groups who will fight them.
_________________

I changed the number on my phone so you can't call me up at home, and you can't say those
things to me, that make me fall down on my knees.

[Rune hunter]

[Futch]

[Yvl]

I didn't read this whole thread, for the record.

I recall there being a similar war about half a century ago on communism. There'll always be something for us to fight over.
_________________

[Sniper_Zegai]

I was always confused about the Cold War and the Arms Race. Did Russia actually threaten war or did they just become a communist country and America said "we cant have that" I know incredibly little about the whole period.
_________________