Sunday, April 11, 2010

War on Terror

Due to my complete lack of interest and knowledge in the field of corrupt politics, I was unfortunately forced to research this week’s topic War on Terror. Somewhat unsurprisingly, I found many uptight critics condemning the American government for demanding for a War on Terror; these critics would argue that the word terror is ambiguous and irremovable thus a War on Terror is never ending and useless. I would not have brought this up if it were not for the fact that nearly every opinion editorial article I read did not bring up this so called inconsistency and misleading title. The fact of the matter is that the title is irrelevant and advocating for a more precise and clear title, like the War on Islam Terrorists and Militants, would only discourage people from supporting the war, because the War on Terror sounds so much more awesome than the War on Islam Terrorists and Militants. Could it possibly true that propaganda exists in our own government? Next thing you know companies will begin to utilize propaganda to trick us into buying their products, but that’s just crazy talk. Point is that arguing over minutia like the title of a war or the definition of terrorism is not going to get anyone anywhere nor will it prove whether or not the War on Terror is a just war.
The biggest problem that I personally have with the War on Terror is the fact that the Bush Administration did not just use propaganda to extend the War on Terror into Iraq, but the Administration straight up lied about the fact that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction. In fact, in a speech Bush gave in September of 2003 he stated “We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th” and “There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties”. In addition to the fact that these two statements are contradictory, to date, no weapons of mass destruction have been discovered nor have Hussein been connected to Al Qaeda. Not to say that Saddam Hussein was not an evil and terrible dictator, but the fact remains that the US had no business extended their military into Iraq. I believe that the Bush Administration exploited 9/11 as a reason to invade Iraq for whatever corrupted and convoluted motive.
The second part of the War on Terror, the War in Afghanistan, seems largely more justifiable than the war in Iraq. Despite the fact that terrorism is extremely loosely defined, at least the enemy, Al Qaeda, has been proven to have committed terrorist acts. Unless someone comes up with a better solution to fighting crazed extremist bent on killing as many Americans as possible, then the War on Terror, at least in Afghanistan, seems to pretty much be the only viable option.
The funniest part is that people are actually pissed, because some people, I’ll call them the blind herd of sheep, believe that the US government should pull out of a war that these blind herd of sheep hardly know anything about the events preceding the declaration of the war let alone the actual events that have occurred throughout the war nor have many of these people even given any thought to the consequences of what would happen if we end the war, but you can’t really expect much out of a blind sheep.


  1. I had trouble with this topic also. I do not enjoy listening to stories about the politics..
    I agree that the title of this war, War on Terror, seems to be a plan to make the war sound more just and worthy. But the actual reason we started the war is not clear. They say it is to stop the national terrorist acts, but how can having a war in Iraq stop the terrorism? It sounds like a big cover up for a different intention that is not being shown. The government does seem like they are tricking the people by making the war seem like a very necessary war, but I think it is time to now work on ways to stop the war without any consequences.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. I really enjoyed the way you started your journal: I have no interest or knowledge in "corrupt politics". More to the point, i pretty much agree with everything you said especially since you pretty much argued the exact same points i did. The bottom line is Bush is an idiot for invading Iraq. There is nothing to say Saddam Hussein had any ties to Al Qaeda anyway and after 9/11, we were supposed to be looking for terrorists in Afghanistan. Plus he pretty much lied about there being weapons of mass destruction as a ploy to rob Iraq of its oil. From there, we just got sucked into a massive war and since then, thousands of soldiers have died and billions of dollars have been spent on this pointless war. When we leave...eventually Iraq will just turn into an anarchy. In addition we never even killed any terrorists so the danger of another terrorist plot against the U.S. still exists