If the Democrats win, will the "war on terror" continue?

[kentuck]

And if they are in power for 8 years, will it continue for the entire eight years? If we withdraw our troops from Iraq, where is the war?? There is so little action in Afghanistan, it strains credibility to call it a "war".

However, Democrats in Congress have bought into the Bush idea of a generational war. We will have war for the rest of our lives. There is no other solution. Forget about making people's lives better in that part of the world. Forget about looking for common ground. Forget about peace. We need to continue killing - just like George W Bush planned it.

I want to see a different strategy from my Party. I don't accept "war" for the rest of our lives. I am not naive. I know that we have enemies and will continue to have enemies. But, right now, our number one enemy is George W Bush and the Republican Party. They are more of a threat than all the terrorists in the world. Seriously.

[wtmusic]

1. The WOT is a myth

and will continue to live in Republican fantasies just like the Tooth Fairy.

[pinkpops]

4. yep - by calling it a war they can claim we are at war so

they can get away with stuff you can supposedly do when you are at war. And. sadly, Dems reinforce their ruse by using the term and the "nation at war" crap.

[Cosmocat]

17. It will end THE day ...

A democrat takes office ... Had Kerry "won" in 2004, it would already be over ...

At least as far as republicans and the MSM are concerned ... Until such time as a D is takes the white house, the WOT will be the end all, use all to justify ever crazed ideological action by this president and the R party ... These scum sucking vermin will continue to hide behind the WOT, just as they hide behind our troops, our first responders ... Until they are used up ...

[robbedvoter]

2. Albright: "You can't wage war on a feeling"

I know Clark thought we need international police action to catch the guilty rather than war. Gore went on record that if he were in the senate he would have voted against IWR.
So, I'd think at least some of the candidates see the war as nothing to do with war on terra. Not sure about Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Daschle etc

[The2ndWheel]

5. Van Houten: "Can I borrow a feeling?" nt

[mtnsnake]

3. Democrats will do whatever it takes, but hopefully they won't forget about

diplomacy. What a novel concept that would be to talk to people all across the earth to discuss ways of patching up our differences.

[FrenchieCat]

24. I await that day.... n/t

[savemefromdumbya]

6. Dems will still be fighting the terrorists within the gates

Unless you've got a very strong weed killer the GOP terrorists and their friends worldwide will still be there but out of power.

[bowens43]

7. A better question is

will the war against our liberty continue?

[Dhalgren]

8. Yes. n/t

[The2ndWheel]

9. Absolutely

Until we're no longer the superpower, we will continue to project outward militarily.

Plus, the WTO, World Bank, etc, aren't going away if/when the Democrats win. They just put a nice, smooth talking face on globalization.

Our biggest military base to date is in the region of the world where Clinton sent planes to bomb.

Obviously we'll have war for the rest of our lives. There isn't a decade where we haven't had a war, covertly or shocked and awed, somewhere.

[liberalpress]

10. The War on Terror will continue.

I would hope we would wage it against actual terroists (anybody remember Osama bin Laden?)

But the war on terror is not a war that can be won, or even fought with guns and bombs. The most damage done by terroists is their ability to make us feel afraid. True leadership explains to us that it is unhealthy and not in our best interest to live our lives in constant fear... and then goes about making it possible and desireable to live our lives without fear.

[zbdent]

11. Constitution will be suspended 11/8/2006

and the new members of Congress will not be able to take the oath of office 1/3/2007 . . . the nation will be in lockdown due to "terrorist threats" on DC.

If not an attack on the elected Dems taking the House and Senate . . .

[theboss]

12. Not as it is classified under this administration

But yes. Clinton fought "terrorists" as we traditionally define them. So will the next Democratic administration.

It won't be a catch-all excuse for anything the White House wants to do though.

[mrgorth]

14. Agree with this post.

[leesa]

13. Yes. Our entire economy is based on waging endless war.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. The War on Terror as Moby Dick

I don't know if it was deliberately designed as an endless war, but it very well could have been. Instead of seeking specific terrorists who sought to do us harm, Bush set out to destroy all evil. That was a bit overambitious, too say the least.

We have been for five and a half years on a voyage aboard the Pequod following Captain Ahab chasing the White Whale. Putatively, the voyage was about whale hunting, but it somehow turned into a mission against one whale in particular, one who represented to a mad leader all that was sinister in the cosmos.

In the course of events on the Pequod, Mr. Starbuck, the first mate, contemplated relieving Captain Ahab of his command. He knew that what was needed to hunt whales, not destroy all evil in the form of a single whale. Starbuck knew it was madness for Ahab to seek one whale who once took off his leg ("a dumb brute who smote thee out of the blindest instinct"). But, like the Democratic leadership in our real-life drama, he was too timid and too awed by Ahab's power. In the end, Captain Ahab and his crew, save one, Ishmael, left to tell the story, drowned when the White Whale rammed the ship.

Bush's endless war on terror needs to be replaced with a "war" on specific terrorists and specific states that support them. It should be a project with measurable goals by which success or failure can be determined by any one. It must be done now. We can no longer wait for Mr. Starbuck to find his courage.

[kentuck]

16. Great analogy Jack Rabbit.

But I hope the Democrats do not adopt the Republican obsession with fear.

[Nimrod2005]

21. Nice story, why was Ahab called Ahab in the movie?

Was he an Arab? What year was captain Ahab made? Older movie, right?

[Jack Rabbit]

22. No, that is what Melville named his character

After the Bibilical King Ahab, an idolator.

[ShortnFiery]

18. Hell NO! I'm tired of this B.S. of "perpetual war" = It's BUNK! eom

[treestar]

19. War as a metaphor is fine, it is that the RW tries to use the metaphor

to make it literal.

[subterranean]

20. The fight against terrorism will continue

but not the "War on Terror." I believe that as long as Bush and the Republicans are in power, they intend to keep us involved in a conventional war, in Iraq or somewhere else, as a concrete manifestation of the War on Terror. They need a REAL war to keep the fear of terrorism going, and to justify all their illegal actions. I would expect the Democrats to fight terrorism more efficiently and effectively. The question is, which Democrats have the vision and leadership to change course from the one set by the PNAC?

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. Zbigniew Brzezinski calls War on Terror a narrow and extremist vision

The ultimate cold warrior himself, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security Advisor under President Carter takes a contrary view regarding the war on terror and has no truck with those calling for a new war against Islamism.

link:

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/brzezinski-z-10-31.html

snip: "War on terrorism defines the central preoccupation of the United States in the world today, and it does reflect in my view a rather narrow and extremist vision of foreign policy of the world's first superpower, of a great democracy, with genuinely idealistic traditions."

snip:" what is the definition of success? More killing, more repression, more effective counter-insurgency, the introduction of newer devices of technological type to crush the resistance or whatever one wishes to call it -- the terrorism?"

snip:"And if we take preemptory action we will reinforce the worst tendencies in the theocratic fundamentalist regime, not to speak about the widening of the zone of conflict in the Middle East."

snip:" Palestinian terrorism has to be rejected and condemned, yes. But it should not be translated defacto into a policy of support for a really increasingly brutal repression, colonial settlements and a new wall. Soon the reality of the settlements which are colonial fortifications on the hill with swimming pools next to favelas below where there's no drinking water and where the population is 50% unemployed, there will be no opportunity for a two-state solution with a wall that cuts up the West Bank even more and creates more human suffering. "
_______________

and while on the subject of Mr. Brzezinski here are his thoughts regarding Iran:

link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

snip:"likely Iranian reactions would significantly compound ongoing U.S. difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps precipitate new violence by Hezbollah in Lebanon and possibly elsewhere, and in all probability bog down the United States in regional violence for a decade or more. Iran is a country of about 70 million people, and a conflict with it would make the misadventure in Iraq look trivial.

Finally, the United States, in the wake of the attack, would become an even more likely target of terrorism while reinforcing global suspicions that U.S. support for Israel is in itself a major cause of the rise of Islamic terrorism. The United States would become more isolated and thus more vulnerable while prospects for an eventual regional accommodation between Israel and its neighbors would be ever more remote."

read full article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions



http://www.dontattackiran.org

[LittleClarkie]

25. No, the war on the Democrats war on terror will start

Like it did under Clinton "Wag the dog! Wag the dog!" "Where's the exit strategy?"

[laugle]

26. What war on terror!!! The war in Iraq is about, oil and domination!

Homeland security is a joke, we are not more secure.

Look at the mess on the borders and only 5% of containers in our ports are checked; airport security is a joke. There is no money going to states for security.

At this time, the best we can hope for is to throw these criminal bums out and end this stupid farce of a war in Iraq.

Then we can get down to the real business of fighting terrorists if the whole fricking country isn't bankrupt!

Fighting terrorism must be a global effort, this cannot happen with this administration. He has the hatred of the whole world at this time, we are now so alienated from the world that WE are seen as the biggest terrorist.

AND DAMN IT.....lets stop calling it a "WAR ON TERROR" it is a "WAR ON TERRORISM".......

Only that BIRDBRAIN BUSH could come up with something that stupid!!