No, I didn’t read the thread, at the time I posted I wasn’t even sure if I had read that on the boards but I just remembered seeing that one line and it stuck with me. But that’s beside the point. Why did you come back here to point out one irrelevant point at which I was “wrong”? Care to address the other points in my response? I’m not being a smart ass either, I’m dead serious. If you have a way out of this situation that does not involve going to war I would really like to hear it. If not, howzaboot showing a little support for your country and the decisions of it’s leaders?
I’m sorry. That is assuming you are American. But even if you aren’t, point given.
The “end of the world as we know it” war.
It even comes with a ready made song… i really wish that nuclear weapons/biological weapons weren’t going to be used.
I’m not saying that we should go back to the trenches, but weapons of MASS destruction are owned by both sides.
[hijack] Anyone else think of Wag The Dog, the movie, at the begining of all this? [/hijack]
Someone mentioned GW’s use of the term “Crusades” on TV earlier today - seems that since a lot of Muslims were killed by Christians during the Crusades, it’s probably not a word we want to use if we want the non-terrorist-harboring Muslim nations on our side…
Yes, I am an American. But at the same time, I realize this isn’t a conventional war. All the regular rules are out the window. We’re facing something similar to 1914.
If you’re suggesting that the terrorists hold weapons of mass destruction, I have to disagree.
Fedex Antiterrorism War, featuring:
the Verizon Cruise Missile Bombardment,
Taco Bell precision bombing runs,
and Budwieser vertical envelopment.
The Short War
S. Norman
You hawks just don’t get it. There is NO war. There is only a single target, bin Laden. If this is a war, it’s going to be the lowest body count ever: one.
If there is a full-scale military effort, this is going to be the biggest loser for the US we’ve ever seen. An Afgan resident recently said there is nothing to be achieved in “bombing Afganistan back to the stone age” because he says they’re already IN the stone age. Any military action is just going to make the US even more of a paraiah. If you think the casualties in the WTC center were bad, just wait until we get in a land war in a country surrounded by enemies of the US. And there’s no coalition this time, the Saudis, the Germans, India and Pakistan are not playing along with Bush Jr. All I see is a lot of penis-waving by El Presidente Jorge Bush, nobody wants to play this game.
In closing, I’ll offer a couple names for this bogus “war.”
The “Don’t Mess With Texas” War
World War Twee
oooookay…
Explain, please.
who said that we were going to use nuclear/biological weapons?
Ummm… If Osama is in Iraq right now (which he might be). And if he has ties to the same group that did the last bombing of the WTC (which he did). And if Iraq is continuing to decieve the UNSCOM (which they are). Then there is no reason to assume that he doesn’t have access to WMD. Even if he hasn’t bought some on the open market.
Cameron
I’m hoping it’ll be something like the Seven Days War, at worst…
If the “two initial operation name” is correct, what then? Operation No Escape?
“Operation Infinite Justice”
The War That Never Ended.
I’m not being unduly alarmist or pessimistic; it’s just the nature of this particular conflict. With a shadowy opposing “army” that isn’t in any particular place, and doesn’t follow the rules of war (such as they are), you can never say that you have won.
You can only know that for the time being at least, you have lost or you haven’t yet won. You will know that you have lost, not yet won, the next time a plane gets hijacked, a high school is carbombed, the Golden Gate bridge is sabotaged.
I doubt that we’ll ever again see hijacking and kamikaze attacks on the scale of September 11th. (At least not in the US; other countries with enemies foreign or domestic might not be so lucky now that the September 11th gang has inspired those enemies.) However, there are an almost infinite number of ways of terrorizing a population, and almost anything can be used as a weapon.
Even if the US airlines clean up their unforgiveable sloppy security act (I am still stunned about this “four-inch knife” business, and the lack of checks on electronics between Lockerbie 1988 and New York 2001), there are numerous ways in which terrorists can still wreak havoc with conventional tools like explosive and incendiary devices. That is without even considering the biological, chemical, radioactivity, or backpack nuclear threats, however close or remote they might be.
The really worrying thing for me, and the thing that makes me really fear the War That Never Ended, is that conventional warfare responses to terrorism in “haven” countries will only generate the thousands and millions of refugees from whom the bin Ladens of the world can cherry-pick the best, brightest, lucidest, and most burningly indignant. What we in the west call “refugee camps”, terrorist organizations call “recruiting fairs”.
Sorry, that’s the alternate name for the “war on drugs”. 
Well, since September 2001, we’ve invaded Afghanistan, removed the Taliban from power, and somewhat disrupted Al Qaeda. I still can’t think of a non-military-operation name for this conflict.
Also, we’ve had the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Of course, that wasn’t contemplated nearly two years ago. Still, it’s purportedly part of the war against terrorism. Possible names I’ve heard include Gulf War II and The Iraq War.
How about just <b>The Middle East War</b>.
Kinda vague but it works, and it covers the entire area(Including Afganistan, which is close enough).
I doubt that it will remain a “war” any more than other dipersed actions. The only one of those that got a name was the Cold War. When the history books are written, all others usually just disappear between accounts of the hot wars
how about the ‘Anti-extremist wars’