The "war on terror" is the corporate, ultra-conservative and ultra-right religious cabal's conception fabricated to keep
-
gjtoner — 15 years ago(April 21, 2010 03:24 PM)
I've yet to watch the movie in which these post's are linked, I thought I'd have a quick read to see what people thought of it.
Anyway I got sidetracked by this post and without wanting to insult anyone I think I should tell a little story.
It's been reported that Iraqi and Afghan people have had to move to Britain, the States etc to get away from the horrors of war that exist in their homeland. Some are doctors, teachers, amongst other professional people who now work for mediocre wages in the likes of Dunkin Donuts which means they have no choice but move into neighbourhoods that are full of 'ignorant white trash' who believe there is a 'War On Terror'.
Discounting US Civil War years (1861-1865?), since 1798 till the current moment in time I think there has been only one year when the USA has not invaded a foreign country. That was 1892.
I believe the rules of basketball were devised in 1892 perhaps everyone was busy playing?
So do I believe that the USA can win the war on terror? I believe it doesn't really matter as your 'Peace Loving Nation' will sure as hell find some other reason to be at war with someone. -
fox911 — 15 years ago(June 23, 2010 03:05 PM)
"do you want to win the war on terror?"
No. Never!
in an ideal world , there would be no terrorist. So what makes a terrorist? well i believe they are made when you murder another country's people and families. So what is the US troops doing over there? murdering people in another country. Therefore, i believe the more you fight them, the more terrorists will be born unless you kill everyone in the entire country. -
TongueFu — 15 years ago(February 14, 2011 03:14 AM)
You can't win a war on terror any more than you can win a war on murder or rape. Terror is a technique, a modus operandi, as old as murder, rape, and other such heinous endeavors in the history of human existence, utilized by those who don't have access to military might. With good intel and enough firepower, you can eliminate the terrorists one-by-one until you've annihilated most, or all, of them. But, no matter how many 'insurgents' you kill, someone else will always come along to pick up the mantle. This country hasn't even been able to win a regionalized war on drugs after decades and decades of throwing massive resources into the effort. How the hell are we ever going to win a worldwide war on something even more destructive and harder to contain?
-
sadsayeed — 14 years ago(April 27, 2011 11:25 AM)
what is a war on terror anyway.!?!
same history is repeating again and again, may be in different forms, but cyclical. pharaohs, greeks, persians, romans, british, and so on.all reciprocal just in turns of timeline. i wish there were no wars at all. the kings of all sides remain hale and hearty till their era ends, all those die are mere pawns to the kings. if there were any war to exist, only the kings ought to fight each other themselves, without any agency relationship. we humans are the worst enemy of ourselves; some of us understand it, some of us don't, and most of us don't want to..this tragic cyclical history will never stop by our actions, until it ends by some miracles i guess -
maximumcool — 14 years ago(June 05, 2011 01:38 PM)
I'd rather be winning the war on drugs or child abuse or any number of other issues that affect millions of Americans on a daily basis. Let's face it, terrorism sucks and it would be great to stamp it out, but it's not really a severe problem for Americans in comparison to others. For that matter I don't think it's really a big problem for very many nations altho it affects a lot of them. Sure it affects a place like Afghanistan or Libya but those countries have problems that really evolve from issues decades long.
So, yes, I'd like to win the war on terror but I'd much rather use those resources on other issues I find more pertinent and to have a much stronger negative impact on my life and the lives of others.
"Go away or I'll call the brute squad!" -
mark-1589 — 13 years ago(February 23, 2013 03:31 PM)
No, placing that question to Streep and demanding a yes or no response with no hesitation was incredibly manipulative. The "War on Terror" itself is an utterly vague concept. War has a defined opponent and defined aims. The War on Terror makes no sense as it is against a strategy, not a defined enemy, and either there is no aim or the aim is absurdly inattainable.
Do you want to win the war on terror is like saying "When did you stop beating your wife." Any sane person would question the validity of such a question, then the questioner will do the "Uh-huh!" look as if you've made an admission. If by winning the war on terror that means I would like terror to cease all over the world forever and ever, great, I would say yes, as would everyone else. And to grasp the significance of that, watch "Miss Congeniality" and see all the contestants bleating that they want "World Peace". When has there ever been world peace? And who can honestly say it would be possible to eradicate terror.
The real aim of the Senator's manipulative question is to get the questioned person to blurt out, yes, of course, then to have the Senator add the next manipulative, illogical link in the chain: "If you want to win the war on terror, then support my plan and help me sell it. Otherwise, you don't want to win the war on terror." -
quick-carl — 13 years ago(February 26, 2013 06:15 PM)
An even better question would be do the higher ups that claim to want to win the war on terror really want to win it. They already know that they have to sell this vague notion to the ignorant masses for it to continue on and on year after year with no real conclusion. Of course they realize that for every "terrorist" that they kill they have created ten more. More money for the terror-industrial complex all the way to a cozy retirement. Trust me whatever contempt they have for the terrorist they have even less respect for the assembled sheep that do their bidding. Let us hope that in our lifetime we actually see some sort of conclusion in Afghanistan but don't bet on it.
And a thanks to everyone that watched this small thought provoking movie no matter what side of the political aisle you stand on. At least you didn't spend the ninety minutes mindlessly staring at Access Hollywood programming like the fellow fraternity members in the movie. -
razajac — 11 years ago(August 10, 2014 07:52 AM)
It's actually a brilliant encapsulation of an even starker version of "setting the boundaries of debate". What's interesting is the idea that, while few of us have an hour to spend with a Senator, we all have the ability to turn on the TV. So it's interesting to see the Senator coming down on the Journalist: I set the boundaries of debate, and your job is to turn around and set those boundaries for the people who tune in to your media product. End of discussion.
The only remonstrance is that some people are going to say that the Senator is right; and those are probably the same people who found the Journalist's voice so annoying. Oddly, I'm flashing back on Philemena; the scene in the waiting room at the convent where the soothing faux-empathic voice of the nun is interrupted by the plaintive inquiries of the Journalist. The nun also seemed to be irritated, in (I think) much the same way and for roughly the same reasons.
The Senator could easily have been just as irritated, but he also loves the fight.