Lizard_King wrote:

fag packet wrote:


War is the attempted conquering of a nation, a people, an area of land. The war is over when the thing no longer has power to resist. Terror is not a thing, it is a tactic. Al Quaeda might be the current MVP in the terror Little League, but any aspiring terrorist could study its tactics and emulate them. As long as the tactic is effective and possible it will be used. A war on terror is like a war on the tank rush in RA2.

To win the War on Terror would require that terror could no longer occur, either by removing the will to commit terrorism or removing the means. Saying, as Rummy did, 'after the war on terrorism is won, the will to commit acts of terror and the means of carrying them out will continue to exist', goes beyond meaningless into sko Baudrillardesque Disneyworld.

You deluded shit-spouting pederast.

fgpckt

1. There is a difference between how a government packages things as (ie War on Terror) and what they are actually intending to do with their policies (ie Kill a sufficient number of terror providers to keep the supply of anti-american attack to a low hum). Inability to distinguish the two makes you a either an opponent of said policy unable to argue his case without creating straw men or an idiot. Pick one.

Lizard_King wrote:

2. You can drown in theoretical "we will never be 100% rid of x no matter what we do" for as long as you wish. You have that luxury, as someone who is not responsible for a nation's foreign policy and thus requires results. But to pretend your rhetorical masturbation has any place in a serious analysis of decision making is absolutely ridiculous.

Have a nice day.