In 2001, Flight Simulator became a reality; two aëroplanes just flew into the Manhatten WTC, people died, our WTC in South Amsterdam is still standing, but then again, that’s built more horizontally than vertically given our lousy soil. But that doesn’t change that people died there, but aëroplanes are still the safest way to kill it seems as it’s about 1/10th of yearly US motor vihicle deaths. [source, source] So George II of America wouldn’t just let his honour be disputed, the global war on terror had begun. And if you’re not with them, then you’re against them, you know it.1
As far as wars go, it has been going on for quite some time. But then again, many would argue it to be a cold war, after all, the US and all those with them haven’t really yet formally declared war upon this ‘terror’. Kind of explains why both parties don’t really uphold any international conventions regarding captured soldiers if there’s no formal wartime going on? What the hell are those with them fighting any way?
That’s more or less the point? Has any one ever asked the self in that administration under what conditions this ‘war’ is actually won? You’re not fighting a sovereign entity that can just surrender itself at some point and say ‘Okay, we stop fighting’. You’re fighting an ideology, there’s no centralized leadership that has the ability to command the rest to stop fighting and sign some treaty. If you crush one organisation the rest is still going strong, if you crush them all, new ones will be put into place. They’re not defending a land which at some point becomes a lost cause to defend, you’re not invading to gain access to resources (no really) that you at one point have secured. They’re just flying planes into your towers because they don’t like you, and they aren’t affiliated with any government you can just go and kick butts of to get them to stop. And to begin with it’s not a war, skirmishes at best, which entity have you declared war upon any way?
And then there’s the added complication that you live in the world and not some idealized piece of fiction your mind makes up where every thing is nice and simple. The truth of the matter is that—indeed—violence is not always the answer and some things actually do grow stronger if you hit them. One kill a ‘terrorist’, one create him a martyr; then another will join his cause. They aren’t in it because they get paid for it, or to defend some land for their children, they’re simply in it because they hate you and want to bug you. And they’re doing a fine job there, don’t they?
Reverse is also quite true, you’re bugging each other like a bit of immature children. I still can’t really get my head to just how that invasion of Iraq passed through, he allowed weapon’s inspection, he complied with all demands, they still invaded half way during the inspection. And nothing was found of any substantiality later on, without sanctioning of the United Nations.
And even though officially the invasion of Iraq and martial time are over. There have been more deaths after the war to now than in the war, [source, source] pretty much showing why you can’t beat an ideology. They just don’t like you and are going to attack you, not because they’re paid, not because some one orders them, not to protect some land for their children. But simply because they don’t like you. Also, Iraq hasn’t really become that much of a safer place, people die sooner there now then before the war. [source]
I fail to see how this man got a second term, of course, a lot of people would say that he never won the first term, so more how he got elected after a coup d’état. The rest of the world probably isn’t any better, they just don’t have the army to back them up.
1: I can’t fathom how any serious politician could say this with pride. It so echoes Darth Vader in Revenge of the Sith, or rather the reverse perhaps…