Victory Conditions In The War On Terror?

[thatguyoverthere]

Those that think that some people out there are hindering our efforts on winning the war on terror, I have a question.

What are the victory conditions on the war on terror? What exactly has to occur in the world before the president can go on TV and announce that we have won the war on terror?

Thanks.

[Phantom]

I don't think there are explicit victory conditions. Why do you ask?

[AVengeance]

How can you have a "war" if there is no "winning" it?

The War On Terror is simply a buzzterm, just like War On Drugs (Reagan), War On Poverty (Cilnton), and now War On Terror (Bush). These War On Concept wars are nothing more than a smoke screen to hide the erosion of our liberties with the supposed gain of safety and peace (in the same way that a forest full of trees cut down is safe and peaceful). Victory comes when the One World Government lets everyone know "we've been running the show the whole time", "there's nothing you can do about it", and "get back to work you mindless slaves"!

If "hindering our efforts in the War On Terror" means fighting for freedom, liberty, and genuine security, then that must mean I'm a terr'rist.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

How can you have a "war" if there is no "winning" it?

The War On Terror is simply a buzzterm, just like War On Drugs (Reagan), War On Poverty (Cilnton), and now War On Terror (Bush). These War On Concept wars are nothing more than a smoke screen to hide the erosion of our liberties with the supposed gain of safety and peace (in the same way that a forest full of trees cut down is safe and peaceful). Victory comes when the One World Government lets everyone know "we've been running the show the whole time", "there's nothing you can do about it", and "get back to work you mindless slaves"!

If "hindering our efforts in the War On Terror" means fighting for freedom, liberty, and genuine security, then that must mean I'm a terr'rist.

I agree sort of. It is just a buzz word that the American people will eat up. But I don't think thier ultimate goal is to take all of our civil liberties away. That may be a byproduct but they are really doing what they think they need to do to stay in power.

[ballz2wallz]

This is an issue much greater than anything the US can take on alone. This is something that has been brought to the forefront of issues concerning this nation and the entire world, and the only way to defeat it is together. At the moment, the entire world isn't on board just yet, but I believe the longer it continues, the more the world will climb on board against terrorism.

To me, there are basically two sides to this war; those that are strongly against terrorism, and are making attempts to enforce putting an end to it, and those that don't care too much, allowing terrorists to reside in their country and grow. So this war on terror goes beyond just simple battles on the field between the US military and simple insurgents. We are only now opening the doors to worldwide recognition of the threat of these people, their tactics, and their motives. The more they bomb countries, innocent people on trains, buildings, and roadways, the more the world will begin to recognize the importance of taking measures to stop these people. I think THAT is the ultimate goal.

Obviously there is no way to completely stop anyone from doing things in their own home. We have problems with that here in the US. But overall I feel pretty safe, and the main reason (here in the US) is that the people, you and I, are the eyes and ears of the government. It is our job (and I think for the most part the American people do it well) to know what's going on around us, report suspeicious activity, and not let people do just anything they want to do. If someone is walking down the subway with a bag of 'something' and they leave it behind, tell someone! Once the world and its communities beging to act together and take a stance beyond the capabilities of the governments, things will change drastically. Naturally, this will take many years and many changes within the Muslim countries especially, and may not happen even within a few decades.

But that, I believe, is the ultimate goal.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

This is an issue much greater than anything the US can take on alone. This is something that has been brought to the forefront of issues concerning this nation and the entire world, and the only way to defeat it is together. At the moment, the entire world isn't on board just yet, but I believe the longer it continues, the more the world will climb on board against terrorism.

Some nations are simply incapable of preventing terrorism even if they wanted to. So they take the approach that if they stay out of the way, the won't get hurt.

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

To me, there are basically two sides to this war; those that are strongly against terrorism, and are making attempts to enforce putting an end to it, and those that don't care too much, allowing terrorists to reside in their country and grow.

Actually there is a spectrum.

Some nations tolerate terrorism that is not aimed at them, others do not.
Some nations can actually do something, and others have trouble.
Some nations opposing the terrorists would be political suicide, and in yet others those that oppose would never rise to power.

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

So this war on terror goes beyond just simple battles on the field between the US military and simple insurgents.

That isn't even a proper war, nor does it impact the terror organizations that much.

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

We are only now opening the doors to worldwide recognition of the threat of these people, their tactics, and their motives. The more they bomb countries, innocent people on trains, buildings, and roadways, the more the world will begin to recognize the importance of taking measures to stop these people. I think THAT is the ultimate goal.

Other nations have been dealing with this "threat" for far longer. Separatists, factional warlords etc.

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Obviously there is no way to completely stop anyone from doing things in their own home. We have problems with that here in the US. But overall I feel pretty safe, and the main reason (here in the US) is that the people, you and I, are the eyes and ears of the government. It is our job (and I think for the most part the American people do it well) to know what's going on around us, report suspeicious activity, and not let people do just anything they want to do. If someone is walking down the subway with a bag of 'something' and they leave it behind, tell someone! Once the world and its communities beging to act together and take a stance beyond the capabilities of the governments, things will change drastically. Naturally, this will take many years and many changes within the Muslim countries especially, and may not happen even within a few decades.

I feel safe because the chances of getting killed from terrorists are pretty low. I also do not expect people to act as one against terrorists as they cannot even agree on simple things.

The only thing that I expect will make any impact is a massive change in technology up to an including improving the ability of people to problem solve more complex issues.

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

But that, I believe, is the ultimate goal.

Fair enough goal, but taking away rights for this long will mean the power will not be scaled back

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I don't think there are explicit victory conditions. Why do you ask?

I think this has come up before. You can't get rid of terrorism as a whole. That is the nature of an evolving beast. When speaking of the war I think we mean to go after the State sponsors of terror and specific groups we can target where they operate. This can be done with military and diplomatic means. But some specific victory does not have a clear meaning. Lets say we kill or capture Osama tomorrow. Obviously it would be a victory in the war on terror, but in practical terms others rise to take his place. So you must make things as difficult for them as possible.

[theophrastusbombastus]

To call it a "War on Terror" keeps it vague and open ended. PLEASE READ 1984....it is happening. In the past as well as the presnt , those who understood the psychology of semantics were astoundingly capable of manipulating public thought to accomodate their agenda.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by theophrastusbombastus

To call it a "War on Terror" keeps it vague and open ended. PLEASE READ 1984....it is happening. In the past as well as the presnt , those who understood the psychology of semantics were astoundingly capable of manipulating public thought to accomodate their agenda.

Though Orwell wrote that in 1949.... a few years before he wrote it a the chief of the luftwaffe said this...

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Those that think that some people out there are hindering our efforts on winning the war on terror, I have a question.

What are the victory conditions on the war on terror? What exactly has to occur in the world before the president can go on TV and announce that we have won the war on terror?

Thanks.

GW says "when terror has been defeated." That means the war will never end. Someone, somewhere, will always fear the bogeyman.