home of clan [tv]
You are not logged in.
Good, bad, or undecided?
IMO, I think the more we knock off these terrorists leaders, the harder and longer they're going to fight. If our president (a more popular one for those of you who dislike Bush) were to be assasinated by so called infidels, would you take up arms and fight? Would you want to protect your country too? I know I would.
This war on terror is never going to end. And by taking out their leaders, we are doing nothing more than prolonging it. I'm not against this war on terror. The more names of our dying soldiers that I see in the paper is not making me change my mind either. It's sad to see our boys coming home in a box, but this is war people. Innoccent men die during war. It's a sad thing to see, but this is the real world. The real world cannot survive without war.
I would like some feedback on this. I know we all have different, yet strong opinions about this, so let's get some posts going here.
personally, I don't think his death will have an substantive impact in things at all. He wasn't an operational leader, his role is non essential. The American government wants us to equate his role to that of a general, a president or a high commander of some sort. But that's absolutely not the role that he played in this conflict and that's not how these militants are organized. Al Qeada isn't a State, and it's not a State's army. The situation you compare this to (assassination of our president) has no real correlation.
However to say that taking out their leadership is only going to prolong the conflict doesn't seem correct to me either. Simply consider the alternative to that, which would be not to target their leadership. If you don't go after their leadership, how will that expedite an end to the conflict? It doesn't. Either action you take and the conflict will continue. This isn't WW2 where you take out Hitler and the whole thing is over. Individual leader personalities are less crucial to the actual operations, but ironically, you still have to strike at them. This is just one example of why this war can't be understood from the view point of past State on State conflicts. It's a whole new type of war.
And BTW, I disagree with your other two points as well. The world can get along just fine without war... and, declaring a "war" doesn't justify killing.
War is an essential part of history. We wouldn't be a nation if we didn't fight to gain our freedom. We wouldn't be a free country if it wasn't for war. A many different nations would say the same thing. At one point in time, every nation fought for it's independence. I really think that this world cannot live without war. I really want to see peace. I do. I do not like one man killing another in the name of war. But I do not think that we will ever live without war. As long as there are people doing wrong, some other people will try to stop them. It all depends on the what the people involved think is wrong or right.
I have friends and a family member that have died in this war. I am not angry, and I am not blaming Bush for their deaths. I am proud, knowing that they enlisted on their own will to try and do what they think was the right thing to do. Nobody forced them to join the Army. And that shows me that they accepted whatever responsibility they thought they needed to show.