Rob The Good wrote: Che Guevara was a murderer. That's the end of that!

so was george washington, and a lot of other heroes for that matter.

so was george washington, and a lot of other heroes for that matter.

George Washington was a soldier from a regular army fighting against a regular army for the independence of his country.

Che Guevara was a terrorist fighting to expand communism in countries that didn't wanted communism to be the political system.

George Washington's soldiers fought body to body against a superior army.

Che Guevara attacked by treason using guerrilla and terrorist methods.

Che Guevara had no bussiness in Cuba or Bolivia.

Iván

Terrorism is a ridiculous argument for war. You can not defeat terrorism by waging war on populatuions of people who are nothing to do with it. That action promotes terror and expands the problem. You would only, therefore, seek to wage a 'war on terror' if the expansion - or the percieved expansion - of the problem, was to your benefit somehow.

IMO..

War is one of man's few inventions that gets more barbaric as it improves.

The American revolution was won in no small part because the adoption of guerilla tactics stymied the regimental British army, who tended to refer to the practice as rather beneath a civilized man of battle...now every army in the world incorporates those tactics because they're so damn effective.

Terrorism is the extreme refinement of the guerilla idea: take the battle not to the superior forces (which would be foolish), but to their weakest point- the civilian populace. By introducing the randomness of attacks by an invisible enemy, the goal is to spread 'terror' and eventually defeat through intimidation and demoralization. Again, it works so well that no military in the world can claim not to utilize it, though for the cleanest possible image the practices are often kept from its citizens.

We're not at war with terrorism, really- if we wanted to stop terrorism completely, that would include putting many of our own people out of business. But it's a simple explanation, which is usually the best, and it's enough for many people.

What we're at war with is a fairly complex matter- maybe too complex for many of the folks who just want to be involved with a good war movie, with clearly defined good and bad sides. Simple greed and squabbling over resources probably accounts for a good portion of it, but religious and cultural differences are always good for motivating people, too. Plus, sometimes when you get hurt you just want to give some pain in return, and whether it's justified or even the correct target is occasionally immaterial. Call it national rage transferrence.

I think the score is now heavily in our favor, as the Iraqi civilian death toll is conservatively estimated at at least three times the 9/11 body count. So an eye for an eye- plus we'll take some of your neighbors' eyes as well, so the folks at home won't think we're going soft on the terrorists.

And just to make things noble again, we'll set up a democracy- which everyone knows is the only way to go. It's certainly made us a moral and reasonable people. And once the Iraqis discover the joys of Super Sizing, SUVs and Reality Television, they'll realize that terrorism as a military tool pales in comparison to Weapons of Cultural Devastation.

And yes, I will have fries with that.

Good post James.

Warfare has changed. There has always been propoganda, and 'the official line' on all sides in any conflict, but the global conflict at play around us now is like no other.

If we look at Iraq in isolation of the 'war on terror' there are anomilies. At the beginning of the Iraq war, US marines were questioned about what made them proud to be going to Iraq to fight. Many cited 9/11 as the justification for the war, and the need for regime change. In reality, and as even the 9/11 commission concluded there was no Iraqi complicity in the attacks. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were sworn ideological enemies at that point. The 9/11 hi-jackers themeslves ironically came from Saudi Arabia, a supposed economic ally of the US. The US was not likely to wage war on Saudi, but needed an excuse to overthrow the regime in Iraq, which had been on the cards since Bush snr left office. The Bush administration played on the Islamaphobia that was sweeping the Western world, knowing that many of its own citizens were not going to distinguish between one load of Arabs and another. The timing was perfect. In fact it could not have been more perfect if everything from 9/11 onward had been orchestrated and conducted with precision from within.

Since 9/11, Madrid, Bali, and the war in Iraq/Afghanistan the world has changed, and not many people seem to realise the extent of that change IMO, or more importantly, the true nature of that change. We are led to believe that we are great danger, when infact the opposite is true IMO. The danger comes not from terrorism, but environmental disaster; depletion of our natural resources and the resutling 'scuffle' that will ensue between the US, Europe, Russia and China to pin down their share of those resources. Washington has been warned by the scientific community that they are fighting the wrong war. They should be pursuing, in earnest, investment and research into alternative sources of energy. The EU, Russia and China should also be key collaborators and players in this. Instead our leaders scare us with stories of angry Muslims blowing up our cities with nukes acquired from the former Soviet Union.

However, despite George W Bushs apparent lack of intelligence, Washington will be steps ahead of the scientific community and the rest of us. They know the score, and their actions at present are a stepping stone to securing the resources of the ME by establishing, country by country a network of pro US governments throughout the Arab world.

Warfare, in our times is, more than ever a game of perceptions, illusions and sliding panels. Our leaders are actors, spinning and decieving their way to hollow victories. The electorate becomes ever more complacent and apathetic. For our leaders and those that pull their strings, political conditions have never been better.

The dumbest argument ever would be religion... holy wars...... thats partially what made me an atheist...

tuxon wrote: The most stupid argument to begin a war, would be to bring peace

Unfortunately George W. Bush believes in "Si vis pacem, para bellum".

tuxon wrote: The most stupid argument to begin a war, would be to bring peace

Wilson and WWI??....