What is the definition of war? Are we at war? What exactly is a "War on

[Poiuyt]

Terrorism?"

Yes, I know our troops are fighting, but just what is a war on terrorism? I'm probably coming off wrong on this, but it seems to me when we declare war on ANOTHER COUNTRY, we are at war. When we are trying to ferret out INDIVIDUAL terrorists, then it's police action. Not a big difference from a practical standpoint, but I know a lot of the hardliners just LOVE saying "We are at war!!" Brings them back to their image of John Wayne fighting in Iwo Jima, I guess. Imagine if someone robbed a bank and the president declared a war on bank robberies. We'd have to send our troops through all the back allies looking for guys with black masks over their eyes. But we'd be able to say, "We're at war!" and the president could get all kinds of war-time powers, and spy on Americans, and gain political capital, and all that. I think a lot of Americans just like being at war for no other reason then it makes them feel all macho.

Well, thanks for letting me rant. I just feel this War on Terrorism is a bunch of shit, and the only war we're in is the one Bush started.

[Mr.Green93]

1. There is no war on terror

The whole thing is a figment of a mad man's obsession. As soon as he is replaced by a Democratic President the "war" will be over. 9/11 should have been handled by law enforcement not the military.

[Clara T]

2. No this is not a war

It is an invasion and occupation. Or possibly call it a massacre. Or call it resource theft through violent means, but do not name it 'war'. It is important to use the right terminology.

[firefox]

3. More liike bullshit on terror

It is all about controlling dissent so that the global conquest can continue. Anyone that opposes the elite of the US dominating the world is a terrorist, when the whole time the real terrorists are the ones building the protection racket that only protects themselves and billing the taxpayers about a trillion a year, including a fair portion of the interest on the national debt.

There never has been a two-hour special on just what went wrong on 9/11 and that should tell you something, especially in regards to thoughtherding.

[troubleinwinter]

4. No such thing.

"War on Terror" is like having a "War on Fear". Terror is a tool of warfare. We might as well have a "War on Guerrilla Warfare Tactics". It makes no sense, and is meaningless. It their way to have unending, perpetual war.

[mike_c]

5. the WOT is a scam that has become a collective hallucination...

...that people are suffering and dying for. Unbelievable. It's the man behind the curtain, and it's become a national axiom. The herd instinct has lost none of its power among Americans.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Terrorism is a tactic - an idea, not a thing.

You really can't have a war on terror any more than you can have a war on flanking maneuvers. In the literal sense the war on terror is simply bullshit.

So it is marketing term. But what are they selling? We certainly are fighting somebody. For the most part the 'war on terror' has actually been the invasion and conquest of Iraq. Hmmm... so I guess that is what they are selling. They are using the fictional war on terror as cover for their dumb ass imperial ambitions. The other part of the war on terror is the passage of all sorts of extra constitutional special laws - e.g. the Patriot Act which was oddly all set to go when the twin towers fell down, and the assumption of all sorts of non-legislated special powers by the executive branch, for example they claim to have the authority to disappear people without benefit of charges or trials, to torture and kill those they have detained, and to spy on anyone and everyone as they see fit - all justified by the fictional war on terror. So they are selling us an authoritarian regime to go along with their idiotic imperial ambitions. First they scare us, then they use our fear to justify taking our rights and freedoms.

Legally we are not at war. The only way we can be legally, constitutionally, at war is for congress to pass a declaration of war. That has not happened since 1941. Meanwhile we fought the Korean War, the Vietnam War, we invaded Panama and Grenada, and we conquered Iraq, all without benefit of actually being 'at war'.

We could have declared war against al qaeda back in 2001. That would have actually made sense, and there is historical precedent for declaring war against a group rather than a nation (see the Barbary Pirates.) We chose not to do so, and in fact it seems that we have had little interest in actually destroying al qaeda. We supposedly know where their leaders are - holed up on the afghan-pakistan border, and yet we basically have done little or nothing to get them out of there. Go figure.

[Jade Fox]

7. No, we are NOT at war....

we are at Post-ill-planned-voluntary-invasion-of-a-sovereign-nation-quagmire-cleanup-and-control. Something else entirely. And the War on Terror is bogus. (Am I the only one who remembers Bush claiming last year in Presidential debates that his administration has captured or killed most of Al Queda's leaders? But we still have to quake in our boots when Bush drags out 9/11 yet again to justify his outrageous behavior?)

You are right that there is a lot of nostalgia for WWII, when we were clearly the good guys fighting definite bad guys. At least that's the way people remember it, regardless if they were actually alive at the time. As always, reality was much more complicated.

I almost posted something similar the other day, ie. the old 'we are at war' excuse is nonsense.

[AZBlue]

8. As for Iraq, we're "at invasion"

[Conservativesux]

9. We are at war with Oceania. We have always been at war with Oceania

Orwellian Newspeak.

[HR_Pufnstuf]

10. You cant win the War on Terrorism unless you...

...remove the word from the dictionary.

This happens when you declare war on a Noun.