On War on Terror
These last six–closer to five–years America has been under the great illusion of the war against terrorism. However, America is fighting this word in the wrong area. It can’t constrained within its own country. It tries to persuade the rest of the world, by force. Thus creating a terrible problem. Could this be the beginning of our semitic Armageddon? Perhaps that should become another topic. Upon looking at the semantics of the declaration, you can see that they used the word “terror.” Terror is defined as: “panic: an overwhelming feeling of fear and anxiety.” America has declared a never-ending war upon a intangible object. Never-ending, because as long as America exists, someone will hate it and attempt to destroy it. The government should have rather stayed out of international affairs–after all, we know whose fault that is… That which includes training those people that helped them in the Cold War (and lead to their current situation). America should have stuck to dealing with problems that seemed to be of a higher importance. That is, the ones that lied inside their country. Sectionalism over nationalism. This will keep their country much happier. Everybody loves a happy country.
9 Responses
justxlikexrust
Jan. 11/2007/5:23:14 pm
thats so true :)
completley intelligent
Lamp
Jan. 11/2007/5:28:30 pm
Haha we should elect you as Hegemon…
Locke
Jan. 11/2007/5:32:12 pm
Oh how I wish that was a reality.
miztrmason
Jan. 11/2007/5:47:35 pm
Even if we did “eliminate” terror, we’d be in a worse position. We’d become lazier and lazier as years go on, all the while remnants of the terrorists would band together in the shadows and crush everything that our young men and women fought so hard for. We can’t let that happen.
Locke
Jan. 11/2007/5:56:34 pm
My point wasn’t that terror can’t be eliminated. My point was that america shouldn’t have declared war on it. However that doesn’t mean anyone shouldn’t try. If America really wants to become a world police, they should just go all the way and do it. Establish a world order. Don’t sit back and say that you could do it, put it to action.
miztrmason
Jan. 12/2007/8:34:57 pm
Yes, I’m agreeing with you, saying that it was a bad idea to declare war on terror, because even if we did “succeed” we’d be in a worse situation. If it’s not possible (like you said), I don’t see a point in trying, except for megalomaniacal issues…
Locke
Jan. 12/2007/8:58:03 pm
Oh. I’m sorry.
Lamp
Jan. 12/2007/8:58:44 pm
You gotta try and say that in your comment, or else people won’t get that you are agreeing…
miztrmason
Jan. 13/2007/10:43:16 am
Well excuse me for anticipating people to recognize their own opinion.
It’s actually a very significant form of debate too. You get big points on a debate team if you restate another person’s argument, so that they think that you are actually arguing with them, when in essence you’re a agreeing with them. Then they begin to argue with themselves. It’s pretty funny.