Turn on thread page Beta

How will 'the war on terror' be won? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Ideas please.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    it won't
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    by the terrorists realising that they should stop doing what they're doing because it is morally wrong and evil.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It won't- how can it? Governments can't stop thoughts and feelings that people have. There has always been terrorists and there probably always will be. I know terrorists are terrorists, and i don't agree with their beliefs otherwise i would be in with them, but whatever happened to the basic human rights- freedom of speech, of the press etc. It's ok to be in a democracy, but if the government stamps on some groups but leaves others, then you have the foundations of a dictatorship. In democracy, terrorism is possible, in a dictatorship, terrorism can be stopped by counter-terrorism. Look at Hitler, he controlled most people but couldn't control some kids (Eidelweiss pirates) so he strung them up! Terrorism is morally wrong, but it isn't to the terrorists who believe in what they're doing. Everyone has different views, beliefs, thoughts, feelings etc. they can never be stopped.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Nuclear bombs will finally persuade the terrorists that it is a good time to stop.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sherunsaway)
    Nuclear bombs will finally persuade the terrorists that it is a good time to stop.
    Erm, how will that work? :confused:

    Terrorists don't all live together in one country..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I dunno, but next we're having a war against Light Cavalry.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Notice how I used the plural "bombs". That means more than one, and therefore multiple countries could be simultaneously be blown up by bush, or blair, or putin, or chiraq, or howard.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    When the human race is destroyed

    *the voice of optimism in this ever pessimistic world*
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The War on Terror has to be won. This is our generation's war and we don't want it to be our childrens' as well. It will be won

    a) By inreasing homeland security. We have a greater danger here in Britain, having an unwritten constitution, for the government to encroach on our rights. or that reason a balance should be struck, but it should alsways fall to offer maximum civil liberties. The point of the war on terror is to export freedom- how can we export freedom when we don't have it at home. Money needs to be spent and lots of it.

    b) Support dissent. Like Reagan did in the Soviet Union we need to support the opressed people of fear societies but also encourage and back up with necessary muscle the kind of dissent which will destabilise regimes which abuse human rights and spread anti-democratic, anti-Western and Anti-American propaganda.

    c) Go on the offensive against the worst offenders as a priority. Iraq should provide our oil supply whilst we go after what should be our next target, which should be Saudi Arabia. The House of Saud is unstable. A few hostile noises from Washington will cause the kinds of uprisings necessary to start a revolution. We must then put sufficient force in the area to ensure a democratic constituion and to counter any insurgency. If we win Saudi Arabia the rest of the middle east will be forced to reform.

    d) Solve the Palestine problem. We should give Israel the necessary recources to counter terrorism in the first place and not give one concession until the PLO unless they democratize their society . We should work for a two state solution but only when move towards this in proportion to the freedom the govenment affords its citizens. The only Palestinian state which should exist is a democratic one which will not threaten us or our allies.
    Offline

    18
    The war on terror can never be won, because the people whpo prclaimed it are so blind and ignorant they fail to realise that 'terror' of one form or another has been going on for centuries, neigh millenia.
    The terror attacks in Iraq, even 9/11 are not THAT different from the barbarian attacks on the Roman fringes of old, or the pict invasions etc.
    Death and destruction in an attempt to make some sort of point.

    The war on terror can only be won by complete cracking down on subversive behavious - something that will need a big brother esque monitoring of the whole population.

    I would advise people to watch 'Equilibrium'... (if only cos its an awesome film)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We have a greater danger here in Britain, having an unwritten constitution,
    We dont need one due to our democratic culture. Bits of paper dont make a difference as they are always open to great interpretation. We have managed to have a stable, effective and freedom loving state for centuries unlike those with constitutions, just look at Weimer Germany. Also we have a partially written constitution its just not codified.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    To address this, in my opinion, you need to look at the language being used.

    First of all it was: the war against terrorism. Now it's the war on terror.
    Both of these are very different ways of saying what the issue it, yet most people would assume they mean the same thing.

    I know I'm going to probably bore you all to death with this, but I personally find it very interesting and in line with my own views, it's the Linguist George Lakoff's ideas on the war on terror:

    'A "war president" has extraordinary powers. And the "war on terror," of course, never ends. There's no peace treaty with terror. It's a prescription for keeping conservatives in power indefinitely.'

    On the phrase war on terror:

    There are two reasons for that. Let's start with "terror." Terror is a general state, and it's internal to a person. Terror is not the person we're fighting, the "terrorist." The word terror activates your fear, and fear activates the strict father model, which is what conservatives want. The "war on terror" is not about stopping you from being afraid, it's about making you afraid.

    Next, "war." How many terrorists are there — hundreds? Sure. Thousands? Maybe. Tens of thousands? Probably not. The point is, terrorists are actual people, and relatively small numbers of individuals, considering the size of our country and other countries. It's not a nation-state problem. War is a nation-state problem.


    The war on terror in relation to Iraq:

    How do you frame this issue of Iraq? You say, "We go to war when we have to, when it's really necessary, when we're being attacked. We don't go to war as an instrument of economic policy. We don't go to war as an instrument of geopolitical positioning. We go to war when we have no other choice. We go with a plan for winning the peace, and we go with enough troops to be effective. Those are the minimal conditions." In short, you don't have to go on the defensive at all.

    I know this is a copy and paste job, but he says it better than I ever could.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    increase spendings on secret servicesm, tougher immigration control, prevent illegal passport sales(dunno how), make USA to give Russia money for putting more protection for their nuclear bombs, so that terrorists wont be able to steal them.
    Or in fact USA once again can stupidly invade Iran or Saudi Arabia, making some meaningless excuses, like they ve done with Iraq.

    however i dont think there is such danger from terrorists at the moment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IZZY!)
    increase spendings on secret servicesm, tougher immigration control, prevent illegal passport sales(dunno how), make USA to give Russia money for putting more protection for their nuclear bombs, so that terrorists wont be able to steal them.
    Or in fact USA once again can stupidly invade Iran or Saudi Arabia, making some meaningless excuses, like they ve done with Iraq.

    however i dont think there is such danger from terrorists at the moment.
    you only take into account the defensive side of this war. i agree homeland security should be tightened and intelligence made as reliable as possible.

    you seem to think we should implement fortress Britain and America, protected by the Atalantic and the channel and with so much security internally, no terrorists could possibly operate. You don't see the wider picture, that it is our values that must be exported to actually eliminate the threat completely. by ensuring democracy is spread worldwide and tyranny is made extinct we will create a situation in which we no longer have to lok aver our backs, live in fear and invest huge sums in homeland security which otherwise could be spent on more constructive projects. If we go on the hunt for mosters abroad then we do not have to fight them on our streets.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowkin)
    'A "war president" has extraordinary powers. And the "war on terror," of course, never ends. There's no peace treaty with terror. It's a prescription for keeping conservatives in power indefinitely.'
    So if the Republicans lose the next election, does this mean George Lakoff is a discredited conspiracy theorist cretin?

    I think from a marketing perspective, "War on Terror" was chosen because it sounds better than "War against various middle-eastern political ideologies and the tyrannical leaders who implement them".
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonD)
    So if the Republicans lose the next election, does this mean George Lakoff is a discredited conspiracy theorist cretin?

    I think from a marketing perspective, "War on Terror" was chosen because it sounds better than "War against various middle-eastern political ideologies and the tyrannical leaders who implement them".
    Wasn't one of the main criticisms of Kerry that he couldn't lead America in a 'war on terror'?

    Ok now you're just satirising it.
    A war on terror isn't a suitable phrase. It creates the idea of a perpetuating cycle of terror.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ask the journalist from Mars
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The war on terror will last until either Americans lose the extreme patriotism in the name of "God" which has led to hatred and intolerance spreading around the world, or until the society we live becomes so oppressed with governments using terror to take away all of our civil liberties until no-one can be non-comformist.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sherunsaway)
    The war on terror will last until either Americans lose the extreme patriotism in the name of "God" which has led to hatred and intolerance spreading around the world, or until the society we live becomes so oppressed with governments using terror to take away all of our civil liberties until no-one can be non-comformist.
    What exactly are you basing this one? It doesn't take a theist to realize that international terrorism is a threat against the well-being of the world.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,852

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.