Originally Posted by DanL911sc (Post 3550481)

Well, there's a little rose-tinted hindsight in your description, but its mostly correct. The reason, I believe, is that WWII was very much a recognizable war. We had just fought a similar war against largely similar enemies and come out ahead. The leaders and weapons changed, but the struggle was similar -- and not only were there clear victory conditions, but we believed we would achieve them.

This time around, none of us recognizes the fight we are in. We can get everything from: the terrorists that attacked us are all dead so there is no one to fight, to: we are at war with the entire Islamic world. The truth, as always, is somewhere in between.

One way this conflict differs sharply from WWII is that the victory conditions are as debatable as any other aspect of this conflict. How do we know we've won? Do we have to be attacked again to lose? Or does pulling out of Iraq constistute a loss? By that logic if we ever close our last base in Japan (or Germany), we've "lost" WWII!!

Its when viewing perspective like that the "War on Terror" looks far too much like the "War on Poverty" or the "War on Drugs". Victory is not practically achievable, and it seems a loss can occur if we so much as alter our tactics...

Actually, how do we win...?

Originally Posted by tabs (Post 3550933)

The "rose tinted glasses" are not mine. People from that era geniunily felt that way at the time, so it is their "rose tinted glasses." Your age is far more cynical and ascribes things to that era that never were. You dredge up drivel and try and pass it off as the truth that is just now being revealed for the first time...Jeraldo Rivera style.

Originally Posted by tabs (Post 3550933)

... So it is a great thing that you have come over to my point of view, maybe a bit late but great never the less.

Originally Posted by DanL911sc (Post 3550481)

Well, there's a little rose-tinted hindsight in your description, but its mostly correct. The reason, I believe, is that WWII was very much a recognizable war. We had just fought a similar war against largely similar enemies and come out ahead. The leaders and weapons changed, but the struggle was similar -- and not only were there clear victory conditions, but we believed we would achieve them.

This time around, none of us recognizes the fight we are in. We can get everything from: the terrorists that attacked us are all dead so there is no one to fight, to: we are at war with the entire Islamic world. The truth, as always, is somewhere in between.

One way this conflict differs sharply from WWII is that the victory conditions are as debatable as any other aspect of this conflict. How do we know we've won? Do we have to be attacked again to lose? Or does pulling out of Iraq constistute a loss? By that logic if we ever close our last base in Japan (or Germany), we've "lost" WWII!!

Its when viewing perspective like that the "War on Terror" looks far too much like the "War on Poverty" or the "War on Drugs". Victory is not practically achievable, and it seems a loss can occur if we so much as alter our tactics...

Actually, how do we win...?

Originally Posted by Superman (Post 3550322)

...Here's another way of putting it. If we did nothing, then there would occasionally be a bomb explosion somewhere. Unfortunate, but far short of a defeat. In that world, we could and would find these people and rarify the bombings. There would be nothing even thinly reflecting a terrorist victory. But if America is divided (between the funamentalists and the modernists, for example)......if government becomes invasive with wiretapping and warrantless searches and evidenceless, termless detainments and other powers, then the terrorists are manipulating us. That is their goal. The other goal, recruitment and marketing, is aided by American iron-fistedness and imperialism.....