"War on terror" no more.
-
It's now a "global struggle against extremism."[^] The way I see it, they're redefining the term in order to minimize people's expectations for results (which have been few and far between) - wars end, struggles go ON... and ON... and ON. For my entertainment, I will now await the inevitable spin from the diehard Republicans who will continue to support this ridiculous administration out of fear of the other side of the coin - Hillary in 2008, which should rightly frighten everybody. - F
Fisticuffs wrote: It's now a "global struggle against extremism." Go further down this road, and you end up "talking about different ways to express ones opinion"
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
aber.. "Wie gesagt, der Scheiss is' Therapie"
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen -
Doug Goulden wrote: Weren't you one of the people who complained about the term "War on Terror", not sure if i ever complained or not. but i do think it's a silly term. the new one is better. Doug Goulden wrote: for that matter how do you feel about the term of "War on Drugs" it's silly, too. such use dilutes the word "war", IMO. Doug Goulden wrote: I would have sworn that the US sent military units to try to help after the tsunami.... and what about that whole Bosnia\Serbian thing I seem to recall we were trying to stop the murder of Muslims there, and there isn't even any oil under those folks of course. but now it sounds like it's official policy to link those kinds of things with the rest of tWoT. to me, that's a much better solution to the problem; it's not a strictly military problem, and it's not a strictly diplomatic one either - there are a lot of different things we need to do, and this wraps them all up under the same banner. so, i reluctantly tip my hat to BushCo for finally getting around to a more mature and reasoned approach. wish it didn't take them four years. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote: but now it sounds like it's official policy to link those kinds of things with the rest of tWoT. to me, that's a much better solution to the problem I think its pretty damn sad we have to point out to members of the Muslim community that we have taken their side on more than 1 occasion. Have we been 100% correct of course not, but in general we aren't the evil SOB's we are being called. Chris Losinger wrote: wish it didn't take them four years. I think under the circumstances (especially regarding Afghanistan) calling it a "War on Terror" wasn't necessarily a bad thing, but again its sad that now we probably have to hire some Madison Avenue weenie to tell the world what nice people we are.:rolleyes: But I do agree with your point overall, this is much more than a military action. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
now, because it's not simply a "war" they can feel justified in doing all those police, grassroots hearts-and-minds and other things that they've mocked everyone else for suggesting for the past four years...
The new strategy, for the first time, formally directs military commanders to go after a list of eight pressure points at which terrorist groups could be vulnerable: ideological support, weapons, funds, communications and movement, safe havens, foot soldiers, access to targets, and leadership. Each U.S. geographic command is to follow a systematic approach, first collecting intelligence on any of the two dozen target groups that are operating in its area of responsibility and then developing a plan to attack all eight nodes for each of those groups. Going after high-value targets like Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab Zarqawi, his emir in Iraq, is still a big part of the strategy but only a part. Three less direct approaches will now receive much greater emphasis: helping partner nations confront terrorism, going after supporters of terrorist organizations, and helping the State Department-led campaign to reduce the ideological appeal of terrorism. The latter category includes such things as military-provided humanitarian aid. U.S. aid to tsunami victims, for example, dramatically swung Asian public opinion from a negative to a positive view of America. Despite fears that the U.S. military is waging a duplicitous propaganda war, many military officials say that "information operations" are an inevitable dimension of warfare and must play a role, along with the State Department's public-diplomacy efforts. One particular area of emphasis: educating soldiers in religious and cultural sensitivities. Caslen showed a reporter two photographs as examples of what not to do--one of marines bivouacked inside Fallujah's Khulafah Rashid mosque after driving out insurgents, another of a soldier's rosary dangling from a tank barrel.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050801/1terror.htm[^] start your stopwatches. see how long it takes for the IT'S A WAR, WAR, WAR!! types to fully embrace what they've been deriding all along. Cleek | Image Toolkits |
Chris Losinger wrote: start your stopwatches. see how long it takes for the IT'S A WAR, WAR, WAR!! types to fully embrace what they've been deriding all along. I hope yours is powered by the energizer bunny, this pisses me off as much as the lack of border protection. and on another subject, while I firmly believe it is idiocy to not prosecute this as a war, the war on drugs was ill concieved as was: prohibition, making / keeping prostituition illegal, anti-gamblling laws. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me
-
It's now a "global struggle against extremism."[^] The way I see it, they're redefining the term in order to minimize people's expectations for results (which have been few and far between) - wars end, struggles go ON... and ON... and ON. For my entertainment, I will now await the inevitable spin from the diehard Republicans who will continue to support this ridiculous administration out of fear of the other side of the coin - Hillary in 2008, which should rightly frighten everybody. - F
Didn't you know we've always been at war with Europa Eurasia pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "So keep that smile on your face. Have a drink to help you sleep at night. They got what they desired. We're passive in their brave new world." New Model Army
-
i wonder, did you actually take the time to go back and read what i've written on this over the past four years, or are you just shooting your mouth off under the cloak of anonymity ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Opps, sorry, I posted from the liberry. Chris Losinger wrote: i wonder, did you actually take the time to go back and read what i've written on this over the past four years Nah, just thought I would state the obvious... "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
I didn't believe in "war against terror" when it was a plain excuse for imperialism. Why should I believe in "global struggle against extremism" now? The extremism will loose just because it is plainly stupid and it's proposals are lunatic, not because this American government is smart or even not extremist; they are stupid and radical, too. Also, the war against extremism is very different from country to country. The muslins in Chechnia are not in the same political context as the muslins in India. You simply can't fight the two extremists the same way. In Russia there will be brutal repression and totalitarism which will not end the terrorism and extremism. In India it is possible to have a democratic dialog which may ease the tensions, like what happened with the sikh terrrorism in the 80's and 90's and ended with a sikh prime-minister now.
Diego Moita wrote: Also, the war against extremism is very different from country to country. The muslins in Chechnia are not in the same political context as the muslins in India. No, they are still 'useful' http://www.exile.ru/2002-October-31/feature_story.html[^]
-
It's now a "global struggle against extremism."[^] The way I see it, they're redefining the term in order to minimize people's expectations for results (which have been few and far between) - wars end, struggles go ON... and ON... and ON. For my entertainment, I will now await the inevitable spin from the diehard Republicans who will continue to support this ridiculous administration out of fear of the other side of the coin - Hillary in 2008, which should rightly frighten everybody. - F
Fisticuffs wrote: (which have been few and far between) I totally disagree with that. Since 9/11 how many attacks have we had on our soil? John
-
Fisticuffs wrote: (which have been few and far between) I totally disagree with that. Since 9/11 how many attacks have we had on our soil? John
-
John M. Drescher wrote: Since 9/11 how many attacks have we had on our soil? Why hasn't OBL been captured? - F
We have not taken military action in Pakistan (yet). John
-
Fisticuffs wrote: (which have been few and far between) I totally disagree with that. Since 9/11 how many attacks have we had on our soil? John
John M. Drescher wrote: Since 9/11 how many attacks have we had on our soil? When I used to listen to the talk radio I hear this alot. I got so tired of it. People should remember that it took the terrorists 8 years (Feb. 1993 to Sept. 2001) between the WTC bombing. And during that time, we didn't even hunt down the terrorists as hard as we are doing it now. So, the next major attack will probably have a longer time span after 2001. Personally, I think it is not a matter of IF, but WHEN they will attack again. And, are we REALLY prepare for it?
-
John M. Drescher wrote: Since 9/11 how many attacks have we had on our soil? When I used to listen to the talk radio I hear this alot. I got so tired of it. People should remember that it took the terrorists 8 years (Feb. 1993 to Sept. 2001) between the WTC bombing. And during that time, we didn't even hunt down the terrorists as hard as we are doing it now. So, the next major attack will probably have a longer time span after 2001. Personally, I think it is not a matter of IF, but WHEN they will attack again. And, are we REALLY prepare for it?
ingc wrote: And during that time, we didn't even hunt down the terrorists as hard as we are doing it now. We did not hunt them down at all. That is one problem with having a Left Wing President. John
-
ingc wrote: And during that time, we didn't even hunt down the terrorists as hard as we are doing it now. We did not hunt them down at all. That is one problem with having a Left Wing President. John
John M. Drescher wrote: We did not hunt them down at all. That is one problem with having a Left Wing President. As I've already stated, the current administration doesn't seem to be improving on this much, and it's a much more reliable standard of progress - if the people who want to kill you are all locked up or disorganized, you're going to have less terrorism. I think you missed his point (and mine). The point is that using an arbitrary measure of "victories" like "number of attacks that haven't happened" is completely frigging useless because what you're measuring it against is a speculative value of "attacks that might have happened" which you're effectively making up out of thin air! How many attacks might have happened without intervention after 9/11? Fifty? A hundred? Zero, as ingc suggests? It's a ridiculous thing to say, not in the least because you're now picking and choosing what attacks matter: do the British and Spanish attacks not signify on your arbitrary scale because they weren't American victims? To suggest that because "nobody American has died" that the global war on terror is succeeding on those merits is a slap in the face to your British and Spanish allies who are paying with their own lives. - F
-
John M. Drescher wrote: We did not hunt them down at all. That is one problem with having a Left Wing President. As I've already stated, the current administration doesn't seem to be improving on this much, and it's a much more reliable standard of progress - if the people who want to kill you are all locked up or disorganized, you're going to have less terrorism. I think you missed his point (and mine). The point is that using an arbitrary measure of "victories" like "number of attacks that haven't happened" is completely frigging useless because what you're measuring it against is a speculative value of "attacks that might have happened" which you're effectively making up out of thin air! How many attacks might have happened without intervention after 9/11? Fifty? A hundred? Zero, as ingc suggests? It's a ridiculous thing to say, not in the least because you're now picking and choosing what attacks matter: do the British and Spanish attacks not signify on your arbitrary scale because they weren't American victims? To suggest that because "nobody American has died" that the global war on terror is succeeding on those merits is a slap in the face to your British and Spanish allies who are paying with their own lives. - F
Fisticuffs wrote: As I've already stated, the current administration doesn't seem to be improving on this much They do not have to do a lot of work to hunt the terrorists down as in Iraq the terrorists come to us. How many terrorists have been killed or captured in Iraq and Afghanistan by US forces? I'd bet more than the total killed or captured in all administrations before the current one. So this is not an improvement? John
-
Fisticuffs wrote: As I've already stated, the current administration doesn't seem to be improving on this much They do not have to do a lot of work to hunt the terrorists down as in Iraq the terrorists come to us. How many terrorists have been killed or captured in Iraq and Afghanistan by US forces? I'd bet more than the total killed or captured in all administrations before the current one. So this is not an improvement? John
John M. Drescher wrote: They do not have to do a lot of work to hunt the terrorists down as in Iraq the terrorists come to us. Yeah, that seemed to work out REALLY fucking well for Britian and Spain, as I pointed out earlier (and you conveniently ignored). John M. Drescher wrote: I'd bet more than the total killed or captured in all administrations before the current one So you don't know? You are, in essence, pulling facts and figures out of your ass? Thanks for playing: you lose forever. - F
-
We have not taken military action in Pakistan (yet). John
-
Doug Goulden wrote: Weren't you one of the people who complained about the term "War on Terror", not sure if i ever complained or not. but i do think it's a silly term. the new one is better. Doug Goulden wrote: for that matter how do you feel about the term of "War on Drugs" it's silly, too. such use dilutes the word "war", IMO. Doug Goulden wrote: I would have sworn that the US sent military units to try to help after the tsunami.... and what about that whole Bosnia\Serbian thing I seem to recall we were trying to stop the murder of Muslims there, and there isn't even any oil under those folks of course. but now it sounds like it's official policy to link those kinds of things with the rest of tWoT. to me, that's a much better solution to the problem; it's not a strictly military problem, and it's not a strictly diplomatic one either - there are a lot of different things we need to do, and this wraps them all up under the same banner. so, i reluctantly tip my hat to BushCo for finally getting around to a more mature and reasoned approach. wish it didn't take them four years. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote: so, i reluctantly tip my hat to BushCo for finally getting around to a more mature and reasoned approach Don't be reluctant Chris, just be thankful that he was able to recognize a better way. That has been your complaint all along. By saying you are reluctant, I get the impression that you think Bush is incapable of do anything right, even if he does everything the way you would do it. Don't be so partisan.
-
I don't think this was an option because we don't have that good of a relationship with pakastan and to turn them against us would not help at all... John
-
John M. Drescher wrote: They do not have to do a lot of work to hunt the terrorists down as in Iraq the terrorists come to us. Yeah, that seemed to work out REALLY fucking well for Britian and Spain, as I pointed out earlier (and you conveniently ignored). John M. Drescher wrote: I'd bet more than the total killed or captured in all administrations before the current one So you don't know? You are, in essence, pulling facts and figures out of your ass? Thanks for playing: you lose forever. - F
Fisticuffs wrote: as I pointed out earlier (and you conveniently ignored). What about the terror attacks in Russia and other countries that are in no way involved in Iraq? You conveninetly ignored that. Fisticuffs wrote: So you don't know? You are, in essence, pulling facts and figures out of your ass? Show me any fact that does not support this. John
-
Fisticuffs wrote: as I pointed out earlier (and you conveniently ignored). What about the terror attacks in Russia and other countries that are in no way involved in Iraq? You conveninetly ignored that. Fisticuffs wrote: So you don't know? You are, in essence, pulling facts and figures out of your ass? Show me any fact that does not support this. John
John M. Drescher wrote: conveninetly ignored that. How could I ignore what you didn't bring up? Are you stoned or something? :omg::omg: John M. Drescher wrote: Show me any fact that does not support this. You make the claim, you do the legwork to prove it, sunny jim. [EDIT]Bah, you know what? Screw this. You're not interested in any sort of discussion, you're interested in protecting your ideology and having the last word.[/EDIT] - F
-
Chris Losinger wrote: so, i reluctantly tip my hat to BushCo for finally getting around to a more mature and reasoned approach Don't be reluctant Chris, just be thankful that he was able to recognize a better way. That has been your complaint all along. By saying you are reluctant, I get the impression that you think Bush is incapable of do anything right, even if he does everything the way you would do it. Don't be so partisan.
Bob Flynn wrote: I get the impression that you think Bush is incapable of do anything right your impression is correct. probably 95% of everything i've seen Bush do has been wrong (as i see it). and not just stupidly wrong, but actively wrong - i've come to expect that, given a situation, he'll choose the worst possible way to handle it, often choosing the path at least partially because it will annoy his political enemies (talk about partisan... ahem) - and then his supporters will find a way to love the decision. it's as if he and his supporters exist in another world[^] entirely:
It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.
but really, Bush has done a mere handful of things that i agree with, over the past five years. at this point, i can attribute those things to a simple 'broken clock' analogy. there's a reason his approval rating is in the very very low 40's right now - and it isn't because people don't appreciate his genius. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker