And thank you! Why is it that people forget this most important factor when waging this argument?

Everyone realizes that this thread could have come to a complete stop with dub2w's statement, right?

It guarantees good shot placement when shooting at infidels wearing body armor... or so I’ve heard.

 

Since our war isn't against any particular country, there is no single munitions factory or lynch pin to cripple their ability to fight. And don't even question their will- They have been brainwashed to the point where they will detonate themselves kamikaze-style, disregarding who they take with them. So, as long as we have the ability and will, so will they. I hate to say it, but this vaguely defined 'war on terror' seems to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to 'win.' Hence our lack of progress over there.

 

Darwinisim at its finest. How would you coin the term since it's so vague? And what do you do since the war is "unwinable", submit? Solutions would be nice, and you wouldn't be criticized if you actually posted some. That is why your boy Kerry lost, he didn't have a plan, he only criticized and never really offered anything. It's alot easier to talk smack then it is to solve a problem, wich has become the neo-lib staple.

 

I guess they would if the religeon advocated blowing up and sawing heads off of innocent people(christians, jews and MUSLIMS). But I thought the point of this thread is that most don't?

 

I dont understand...

Are you alluding to darwin because of the suicide bomber reference? That would be okay if they only killed themselves, and not 10-20 schoolchildren in addition.

I can coin the term 'vague war' if I want. What does the specificity of a term have to do with the ability to plaster it everywhere and fill your speeches with it?

And about the 'unwinable' war - Do you think it can be 'won' outright? If not, should we continue with full force, dumping resources into a quagmire? Or should we scale back, reconsider our methods, and possibly try something different.

I'm not smart enough to come up with a better plan, but any invalid could see that the current one isn't really working. Have we gained ground in the two years of this campaign against terror? That's a tough question - even tougher if the answer is no, considering all of the lives, effort, and resources we have put forth.


So, to summarize, I'm not talking smack - we're all part of the same country and have very similar ideals. So, you seem to agree that the current plan isn't working as well as it was planned to. Should we continue losing lives and resources at this rate while gaining no ground against terror until a new plan is proposed by some clear-thinking moderate? Wait, perhaps the WH should concede that this isn't working and come up with a better plan on their own.

 

Wow, we agree
Wha I asked was how would you describe it? War on Islam.

You're answering a question with a question, What would you do differently?

See, you don't know, that's the problem. You can criticize all day long, but when someone asks you for a solution, or what you would do differently you can't offer one.