@Nonsequitorian
Good point. I suppose I have a skewed view of winning and losing.
But come to think of it... has any war ever been won by anyone?

Darkdoom, are we talking about the same war? We had no decisive victories. Sure, we won every direct confrontation- problem is there wasn't many of them. There WAS a lot of guerrilla tactics ie IEDs which killed thousands of US troops. Our involvement also stirred up a beehive which led to the death of 100,000+ civilians.

So yeah, a lot of the people we went in to 'protect' died, a buttload of our troops were killed, and the world's leading superpower failed to bring the region to stability after 10 years of involvement. How on earth does that constitute a "win"? By the way, we were retreating- we'd already pulled out a lot of soldiers and were planning to fully remove every personnel within the area.

As for Osama = Spartacus: I have to agree with you. It all depends on what side you're on. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Why is he a terrorist? Because he uses terror tactics? Tell me that Guantanamo Bay and other US prisons aren't areas of torture and terror. The US has used more than enough terror in this war. Hell, they intentionally overblew 9/11 to garner support for invading (since, y'know, we didn't have an actual reason to invade, and our invasion was condemned by the UN) He and his supporters fought for what they believed in- didn't we go in because we were supposedly supporting democracy and whatnot? Why are our beliefs "better" than his? They're not. What it comes down to is who has the bigger stick. Too many people try to categorize the participants of a war as good guys and bad guys, aggressors and victims- conflict is an inevitable consequence of the diversity within the global community. How dare you judge somebody else because they're not on your "side."

Now, I'm not saying that Al-Qaeda are a bunch of angels- 9/11, the London Bombings, and other killings of innocents are all abhorrent- but honestly, you can't claim the moral high ground at all in this situation. You're stupid if you try.

If we did not judge people by what side they were on, wars would be few and far between.
I do not think my beliefs are 'better' than anyones. But I believe that his are wrong to a certain extent.
(Personally I do NOT want to start a religious debate in here, because that never ends well)
I agree that we should not have invaded in the first place.
I do not think that pulling troops out after 10 years is not retreating, but becoming less strung out.

About Guantanamo Bay, it would have torture yes, but not terror as in acts of terrorism.
Terrorism is an act of violence that facilitates an emotional response from people to further an agenda. We used Torture, which is intentionally causing pain.

A bit of a difference but not much of one, I digress.

"There is no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies."

That's only a common definition. Terrorism, in a very vague summary, is the use of terror tactics- doing anything to incite terror with the intention of furthering a cause. We incited terror in citizens to get them to support the invasion by painting Al-Qaeda as this bogeyman type of organization- "Let us go in and kill them or they'll kill all you!" We terrorized individuals, both combatants and civilians, for the "American cause." Just because we didn't crash a plane into a building or use IEDs does not mean we are not terrorists.

I never said that geurilla warfare was terrorism.
the "Kill them before they kill you" is a worldwide propaganda tactic, it is not like we are the only ones using it.

The only good war is a war avoided, the rest are just more or less horrible.
I would celebrate something putting us closer to the end of the war, but so far I've not heard anything of the sort. They're too busy lauding the troops and the people behind killing Osama, perhaps warranted but nothing worth making mobs about.

I don't think killing Osama will help on anything.

Violence generates more violence.

Hm. How about you go argue that one with Hitler, Emperor Hirohito, and the Dodo?

Actually, nobody killed Emperor Hirohito, he surrendered contrary to what the japanese generals wanted to do.
He's hardly compareable with hitler.

True enough, but in his case my point was that the war ended suddenly and completely after two acts of violence easily described as both spectacular and horrifying. A better wording would have been "WW2 Japan".

One of my morals if an eye for an eye makes everyone blind and killing osama was for revenge also america killed the leader thats like cutting the head off the mythical multiheaded beast we have neutralized one threat but it will slowly reform either worse or equal

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind- Ghandi...
An eye for an eye makes the enemy blind- America...

Just a quick thought.

It's a lot easier to read what you write if you use punctuation. And one man's revenge is another's justice. Should we not jail murderers?

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind- Ghandi...
An eye for an eye makes the enemy blind- America...

if an eye for an eye makes everyone blind and killing osama was for revenge also america killed the leader thats like cutting the head off the mythical multiheaded beast we have neutralized one threat but it will slowly reform either worse or equal- wooden...

I lol'd very heartily.