With us or against us? Either way you die.

The War On Terror requires more than clichés and bombs. In fact, it's not really a "war" at all, but a law enforcement scenario.

Is this why our allies are deserting us? We have a buffoon for a leader who goes out of his way to divide the world into "with us" and "against us" camps, and he offers nothing but perpetual war to both sides. The nations of the world must either die fighting our wars or become the targets of our wars, and we are busily searching out new wars. Snarling Republicans demand obedience and submission from friend and foe alike; no carrots and only sticks.

Norm Coleman wrings his hands and hopes that Bush knows what he is doing, while nodding eagerly at each new war proposed. Even though Bush's policies boil down to "let's cross our fingers and hope that a miracle happens so that we don't look as incompetent as we really are", Coleman continues to back him. Yes, it's so sad that we have to bankrupt our country and destroy our military in endless war, but if we don't then we will be weak and our enemies will prevail, says Coleman. Having fewer allies and creating new enemies on a daily basis somehow makes us safer and stronger, and killing people makes them see how wonderful we are. If only we can kill enough people, the world will see that we are really looking out for their best interests. The nations of the world will thank us for bombing and occupying them, because they will get brand new puppet governments that will imprison them and torture their citizens if they don't thank us enough for "saving" them from governments that imprison and torture them.

Yes, Norm, if only the world would simply bend over and drop its pants, then we wouldn't need all of this distasteful war, would we?

War on terror seen fuelling al Qaeda

By Kate Kelland

LONDON (Reuters) - Six years after the September 11 attacks in the United States, the "war on terror" is failing and instead fuelling an increase in support for extremist Islamist movements, a British think-tank said on Monday.

A report by the Oxford Research Group (ORG) said a "fundamental re-think is required" if the global terrorist network is to be rendered ineffective.

"If the al Qaeda movement is to be countered, then the roots of its support must be understood and systematically undercut," said Paul Rogers, the report's author and professor of global peace studies at Bradford University in northern England.

"Combined with conventional policing and security measures, al Qaeda can be contained and minimised but this will require a change in policy at every level."

He described the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq as a "disastrous mistake" which had helped establish a "most valued jihadist combat training zone" for al Qaeda supporters.

The report -- Alternatives to the War on Terror -- recommended the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq coupled with intensive diplomatic engagement in the region, including with Iran and Syria.

In Afghanistan, Rogers also called for an immediate scaling down of military activities, an injection of more civil aid and negotiations with militia groups aimed at bringing them into the political process.

If such measures were adopted it would still take "at least 10 years to make up for the mistakes made since 9/11."

"Failure to make the necessary changes could result in the war on terror lasting decades," the report added.

Rogers also warned of a drift toward conflict with Iran.

"Going to war with Iran", he said, "will make matters far worse, playing directly into the hands of extreme elements and adding greatly to the violence across the region. Whatever the problems with Iran, war should be avoided at all costs."