Obama wants to close GITMO and end the "War on Terror"

[lucky4034]

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama wants to roll back some of the most controversial aspects of the U.S. "war on terror," but efforts to alter the global fight against Islamist militants will face the usual hurdle at home: staunch opposition from Republicans in Congress.

Obama wants to end 'war on terror' but Congress balks | Reuters

 

[Stickfight]

He was promising this back before his hair turned gray.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8USRg3h4AdE

 

[churchmouse]

The war on terror has not been fought properly. It will never end at this rate. They are on our soil now and it will only get ugly for us.

Barry is weak. All wind and flash. Those who would harm us know this..

 

[lucky4034]

I'd argue that the War on Terror needs to end.... And even having the President echoing that sentiment is welcoming to me. (on this particular subject anyway)

Taking the War on Terror out of it...

Does anyone think that GITMO should be closed as Obama wants?

 

[churchmouse]

Yes, it needs to end but we have to address the war as a war.

No, leave it open until it ends. After that send the violent offenders there for life sentences. Just an Idea.

 

[mayor al]

The War on Terror will NEVER end. So long as one person somewhere on Earth attempts to dominate another person using force and intimidation, it will continue. We can withdraw from participation, but that means surrendering our freedom to whomever is our current enemy. This War WILL NEVER END.

 

[Survivalcookie]

If we end the war on terror, we are giving up. We would be saying come take over America...that is exactly what Obama wants. He will follow through with the dreams of his father of turning the US into a third world country.

 

[johnny45]

der fuhrer and those of his ilk have done more to destroy the republic than any terrorist.

 

[jamil]

I'd argue that the War on Terror needs to end.... And even having the President echoing that sentiment is welcoming to me. (on this particular subject anyway)

Taking the War on Terror out of it...

Does anyone think that GITMO should be closed as Obama wants?

Has terror ended? If Obama will end the war on terrorism, will that include all the unconstitutional legislation enacted in its name? Yeah, I didn't think so.

 

[forgop]

The only way to put an end to the terror will be to turn the entire Middle East into a pile of sand. Anything less and it'll continue for centuries to come.

But while we're at it, when are we going to quit committing acts of terrorism in other countries?

 

[hornadylnl]

The only way to put an end to the terror will be to turn the entire Middle East into a pile of sand. Anything less and it'll continue for centuries to come.

But while we're at it, when are we going to quit committing acts of terrorism in other countries?

Why do you hate America?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The only way to put an end to the terror will be to turn the entire Middle East into a pile of sand. Anything less and it'll continue for centuries to come.

But while we're at it, when are we going to quit committing acts of terrorism in other countries?

To what actions are you referring when you say we're committing acts of terrorism in other countries?

 

[jamil]

To what actions are you referring when you say we're committing acts of terrorism in other countries?

I'm guessing maybe the drone strikes?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I'm guessing maybe the drone strikes?

Terrorists, in effect, deliberately target civilians in order to create a political change. The "drone assassinations" aren't much different, morally, from shelling or aerial bombing a church which is being used as a gunnery platform or an artillery spotting point. It has become a target, not because civilians are present, but because it is a legitimate target of war which enemy combatants are using in an attempt to shield themselves from return fire. The ONLY difference I see is that the intelligence used to identify potential targets is more circumstantial than direct observation of a legitimate enemy target.

 

[jamil]

Terrorists, in effect, deliberately target civilians in order to create a political change. The "drone assassinations" aren't much different, morally, from shelling or aerial bombing a church which is being used as a gunnery platform or an artillery spotting point. It has become a target, not because civilians are present, but because it is a legitimate target of war which enemy combatants are using in an attempt to shield themselves from return fire. The ONLY difference I see is that the intelligence used to identify potential targets is more circumstantial than direct observation of a legitimate enemy target.

Agreed, but this war isn't aganst nations. We pick high value targets and blow them up whether we have the nation's permission or not. While I'm glad the terrorist got dead, i don't believe we should ignore a nation's soverienty to do it.

 

[Stickfight]

Terrorists, in effect, deliberately target civilians in order to create a political change.

You are just making that up. There is no commonly agreed to definition of terrorism, but none of the widely used ones requires deliberate targeting of civilians. In fact, many of them specifically include actions taken against government assets. (because, surprise, governments wrote them)

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Agreed, but this war isn't aganst nations. We pick high value targets and blow them up whether we have the nation's permission or not. While I'm glad the terrorist got dead, i don't believe we should ignore a nation's soverienty to do it.

It's an interesting conundrum which has been paralleled a number of times since WWII; the Chinese didn't much care about Korean sovereignty when they entered the conflict - and they were politically protected when our jet fighters weren't allowed across the Yalu River. In Vietnam, it was the Cambodians and Laotians who couldn't control their own borders, allowing the Vietnamese Communists to use bases inside their borders with relative impunity against retaliation by the US Forces. The Afghans have used Pakistan with relative impunity, as did Iranian forces interfering in Iraq. The Russians finally had enough of Chechens using Georgia as bases, and invaded Georgia briefly.

With this particular ideological war being waged world-wide, I don't find it particularly perfidious that we are willing to search out terror leaders wherever they may be hiding and that we will use means which are the least hazardous to our own personnel while doing so.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

You are just making that up. There is no commonly agreed to definition of terrorism...

I agree with his definition, so i guess it is commonly agreed upon enough. Do you have an alternative definition?

 

[Stickfight]

Playing with the definition of words to suit the purpose of the day is the oldest liberalist trick in the book.

 

[forgop]

Are we actually at war with Afghanistan or simply doing to Al Qaeda what was done to US (while specifically targeting Americans in the process)?