Why is America at war if it can never be won or even finished?

[StageLeft]

Most wars have a clear victory point. One side loses territory or army or gives up or whatever. But in this case this "war" is totally unwinnable because not all the terorrists can be stopped. So is it a war against al queda - something that can be destroyed - or against terrorism?

If there is not another attack for a year will it still be at war? What about 5 years? I assume there must be a time limit to the war if nothing else happens attack wise...?

 

[pyonir]

because it looks cool.

 

[vi edit]

I personally have never considered it a "war". Same as the "war" on drugs. I personally think the word "war" is used to rally support and emotion.

The "Wars" on drugs and terrorism are nothing more than policing done on a national/global level.

 

[wfbberzerker]

because we're just that good.

 

[smp]

Because the war on communism is over and won.

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

War is peace.

 

[Cattlegod]

why do police fight crime if it will never end and will not ever stop or be won?

the same reason we are going after terrorism, it reduces the chances of things happening.

who knows, if we didn't do what we have done, maybe there would be the sears tower in flames right now along with disney world.

 

[smp]

War on communism
War on Drugs
War on Terrorism
.....

we need a
War on War

 

[smp]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
why do police fight crime if it will never end and will not ever stop or be won? the same reason we are going after terrorism, it reduces the chances of things happening. who knows, if we didn't do what we have done, maybe there would be the sears tower in flames right now along with disney world.

I guess you never bothered to ask yourself why bad things happen in the first place? I guess you're satisfied with the "they're jealous of America's freedom" answer?

I'm sorry .. I don't want to start flames, I'de rather discuss .. I just can't stay out of thread like this.

 

[Michael1897]

blowing up stuff and fireballs are cool

 

[Hammer]

cause I said so.

 

[J3anyus]

Go back to bed America, your government is in control.

 

[erikiksaz]

$?

 

[Angrymarshmello]

We might as well bend over if we don't go to war. It's better to get rid of what Al Queda there is left than to let them live and have them blow up more of the US, don't you think?

 

[SpongeBob]

Because wars boost approval ratings of elected officials. Especially when we are "winning".

 

[BigJohnKC]

to keep gasoline prices stable
because anyone named Bush who is president has a bone for killing brown people

but most of all...
...because we had to do something, right? Otherwise Bush might lose the next election...again.

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: BigJohnKC
to keep gasoline prices stable
because anyone named Bush who is president has a bone for killing brown people

but most of all...
...because we had to do something, right? Otherwise Bush might lose the next election...again.

Interesting especially considering Gore & Clinton as well as most democrats and republicans all agreed they would have taken the same steps and responded the same way................. As for your first comment..................I guess Clinton had a "thing" for Bosnia....................Kennedy and several others for Vietnamnese....................FDR for Germans and Japanese..................Truman for Japanese and Koreans???????????????? LOL!

 

[azazyel]

When we declare "war" I believe that we are able to do things that we are usually not able to.

 

[StageLeft]

Most of you are not getting my point: When bush says "we're at war". what does he mean? He doesn't mean it in the same sense that the US is at war with drugs. If he says "we're at war" now, what exactly is the condition for the US to not be at war?

 

[dawks]

Perhaps the goal is to wipe out as much of Al Queda they can? Or to capture Osama? Or to put a stable and reasonable government in charge of Afganistan?

 

[azazyel]

some stuff

other stuff

 

[BigJohnKC]

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: BigJohnKC
to keep gasoline prices stable
because anyone named Bush who is president has a bone for killing brown people

but most of all...
...because we had to do something, right? Otherwise Bush might lose the next election...again.

Interesting especially considering Gore & Clinton as well as most democrats and republicans all agreed they would have taken the same steps and responded the same way................. As for your first comment..................I guess Clinton had a "thing" for Bosnia....................Kennedy and several others for Vietnamnese....................FDR for Germans and Japanese..................Truman for Japanese and Koreans???????????????? LOL!

Damn straight... (Maybe I should have put a at the end of that post to show I was not really serious...)
Of course Gore and Clinton would have done the same thing...no one would have voted for them either in the next election if they just let America take it up the bunghole. Politics and public opinion ruled the actions of numerous former presidents.

But back to Skoorb's comments....I'm not sure what Bush means, but IIRC it's the first time an American President has said we're at "war" since WWII (maybe Korea?? don't know my cultural history well enough) - Vietnam was a "police action", Desert Storm was an "operation". Bush is using strong language, calling it a war. What are we really doing? We're extending our powerful hand into another country to take out a corrupt government that housed an international terrorist claiming responsibility for killing a whole lot of Americans in a terrorist attack. That's our war. But others may define it differently.

 

[Michael1897]

he wants to kill as much as possible and hopefully be able to get his oil company in iraq