king george thought the founding fathers were the terrorists of their day. terror is a subjective pov that essentially means that force is being used in a way that does not prescribe to pre-arranged conventions and rules. i specifically shun specifics when it is a strategic blunder that is the real issue at hand here. we can go he said-she said all day. eod terror is subjective and has been happening since the dawn of the written word and will continue to happen forever and such. you cannot and should not end all terror.

if you just applied some economic analysis and looked at the most [pareto] optimal solution to fighting this, you do not rank all terror groups under one ranking and decide to fight 'em all. that is ludicrous and bears no strategy whatsoever. you stack rank your enemies that are deemed to do you the most harm and attack those groups first and foremost.

you cite iraq and bundle it together with afghanistan. stop it. they have entirely different cause and effects. al qaeda was not there when we invaded, it made a pitstop afterwards, the iraqis said fuck off, and now they are a minority threat that mean nothing. instead, we just have a plain civil war. now the iraqis as a soveriegn nation we've propped tell us to fuck off after 2013 because they know it's now their business. we brought terror there, they kicked it out, and now want to resolve their family business by themselves, no incompotent outsiders please. smart people. in other words, in iraq's case we have to own up to them because we broke the china in the shop and have to pay for it. now we should leave because the shop owner said so.

afghanistan and pakistan is the actual home to the terrorists that did something. what right do you have to say that it's been worth spending 800 billion in iraq to clean up the next big terror problem you have a hunch on but were wrong but spend just 200 and change unable to wipe out the folks that actually terrorized? impractical and dogmatic. wipe out all terror. or wipe out the terrorists that did something. that is a principled strategic question that doesn't require slicing and dicing specific artificial propositions, theories, and loopholes full of minutia logic which in the end don't amount to jack.

we were plenty secure for 20 years with sadaam in power. you keep citing an escalation of words on the nutjob's part brewed in with a disproportionate 1% hint of evidence that he may have attacked the u.s. if we did nothing. in other words, by acting on the preemptive style gwot, we go about eliminating all probabibilities of terror, while in reality wholesale neglecting the actual and much bigger and real terror problems (e.g. they've actually done something that impact us) like al qaeda and hamas. all unaddressed in the 5 years hence. why should any sane person support prosecuting a global war on terror when w can't even handle the 2 most important ones, one of which he promised to be had dead or alive. w has spent a total of 3 weeks in the mid-east and outsources al qaeda to 3rd world pakistan.dead or alive to outsourced. from what we've done and the no-results to show for it, gwot is actually just slogan-ware.

eod when one says global, that means everything. when one applies resources to everything, nothing gets done; less is more. gwot has been 5 years of nothing except fear baiting and more fear. there is nothing measurable that can begin to pay back the 4,000 soldiers dead, almost 2 million iraqis dead, and $1 trillion that we borrowed to finance this war (while republicans keep cutting taxes as we owe more interest-laden debt to china). stop talking big and only being able to cite marginal no-result improvements security. the taliban are regaining strength, iraq is getting better after we stabbed ourselves to death militarily (how many active brigades are available to fight a 3rd war?) and financially (who's going to pay off the $4 trillion of interest-loaded debt in 10 years?). and you call gwot something new, as if it was any real measurable progress.

it's a pathetic and personal insult.