what i mean is isn't the idea a paradox unto itself

Ah, yes, good point on the paradox note.

The reason I said no is because I also believe it's impossible to have a (effective) war on drugs as well.

Terror is a global phenomenon, not region specific to the Middle East. Similarly, not all of our drugs come from South and Central America. If we were to fight a real war on terror, our troops would be stretched way too thin to be effective.

The War in Iraq is not a real War on Terror. If it was, it would extend far beyond Iraq, into Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Gaza and the disputed territories, Israel, Iran, Kuwait, UAE, Egypt... The point is, there are far more terrorist cells since this war started than there were before it started and they have spread to more countries.

As far as the paradox goes, we will need to tackle this in a logical way.

First of all: Define our terms. SOURCE: Oxford English Dictionary

War: (noun) Hostile contention by means of armed forces, carried on between nations, states, or rulers, or between parties in the same nation or state; the employment of armed forces against a foreign power, or against an opposing party in the state.

Terrorism: 1) Government by intimidation as directed and carried out by the party in power in France during the Revolution of 1789-94; the system of the ‘Terror’.
2) A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized.

By this definition, the government of Saddam Hussein can fall under that umbrella of the first definition.

HOWEVER, let's use the second definition and set up a logic argument.

A) War is the hostile contention by means of armed forces.
B) Terrorism is a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted
C) The US has adopted a policy of hostile contention by means of armed forces against an opposing foreign party.
D) The opposing foreign party in question are terrorists.
THEREFOR: The US has adopted a policy of hostile contention by means of armed forces in order to intimidate and stop terrorists.

Ipso facto, the US is using terrorism to fight terrorism.

Recently, the United States has been viewed as a "bully" concerning the War on Terror. I think the most diplomatic way of putting their actions is that they are fighting fire with fire, so to speak, or terrorism with their own sanctified breed of terrorism.

So while I wouldn't say it's crazy, I would say that it is a logical fallacy to create a "War on Terror"

its not that its crazy it just wouldnt make sense O_o on terror? as in terrified people dont do much when they are terrified

it's even a contradiction in terms

"Terrorism" is a military tactic that is best utilized by a smaller, weaker, and decentralized group against a larger, more powerful enemy. The war in Iraq is an example good example of what happens when a larger force uses conventional warfare against an unconventional enemy.

fighting terror is like making something idiot-proof, make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot, plus war is terror, kinda making more of it if you war with it

yes, ppl tend 2 kill or hurt things that scare them

It doesn't make sense at all.

"they" always find a reason for war! But I believe next wars (hoping we won't have) will be through nuclear or internet.

Well, it's bad phrasing. It's not so much a war on 'terror' as it is a war on terroists.

War is terrorism in it's own rite. The question could be is it possible to have Terrorism on terror and get anything besides terror

War doesn't technically mean guns and violence. It's fighting, but there are a lot of ways to fight. Words, for one. Or a political war. So you could have a war on terror, it is possible, but you won't win. There's terror in nature, terror in a human's world. Unless you could control everyone's mind to be peaceful, but one could call the iron control terror.