War on Terror over!!!!!!

[Stinger]

No more GWOT, House committee decrees


The Democrats have declared the war on terror over. When does the celebration begin!!!

"The “global war on terror,” a phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., should not be used, according to the memo. Also banned is the phrase the “long war,” which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years."

"A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and “avoid using colloquialisms.”"

Colloquialisms........................................

avoid them....................................

What folly.

No more GWOT, House committee decrees - Military News, news from Iraq, photos, reports from the war - Military Times

 

[WI Crippler]

So is this a violation of the First Amendment??? :lol:

Well I guess we are going to be involved in "“ongoing military operations throughout the world” for a long time, until we are finally able to defeat those kinds of people from that region.....Have fun with that graphic CNN.....

 

[MSgt]

The "War on Terror" existed before 9/11. We merely gave it a name (a bad one) and stopped ignoring them. Just because we change the name or cut funding doesn't mean our enemies will walk away. This effort will go on no matter how badly we want it to stop. Reference the regions between northern Africa all the way through to Indonesia.

No man's god is our enemy. Our enemy is the man that is convinced that his god wants blood.

 

[Stinger]

Geez I thought the leftest would be here celebrating.

 

[Mr Smith]

The so called war on terror is, at best, a rhetorical exageration. There is no war on terror. It's a hoax, a sham, a lie, a gross misrepresentation and a cynical manipulation. If we are engaged in the monumental struggle of the 21st century; leading the fight against international Islamic extremism in the great clash of civilizations and conducting a crusade to spread freedom and democracy around the globe, then why is this country not moblized for war? Why are the citizenry not being asked to make sacrifices? Why is there no draft? Why is there no serious effort to secure our borders?

 

[1069]

The so called war on terror is, at best, a rhetorical exageration. There is no war on terror. It's a hoax, a sham, a lie, a gross misrepresentation and a cynical manipulation. If we are engaged in the monumental struggle of the 21st century; leading the fight against international Islamic extremism in the great clash of civilizations and conducting a crusade to spread freedom and democracy around the globe, then why is this country not moblized for war? Why are the citizenry not being asked to make sacrifices? Why is there no draft? Why is there no serious effort to secure our borders?

That's what I think.
I think when the Bush Admin is out of the White House and the troops are called back from abroad, the consequences to the US- if any- will be negligible.
This hasn't already happened because those in power can't admit that declaring a "War on Terror" was at best a gross error of judgement and a preposterous overreaction to the so-called "terrorist threat to national security", and at worst a deliberate contrivance to increase the government's power over the American people and fatten the wallets of Bush cronies.

Might we be attacked by terrorists again at some point in the future?
Absolutely. It's likely.
Is there any possible way we can we eliminate or reduce this threat?
Not really.

It's a risk we take, living in a powerful nation that frequently acts like an a$s on a global scale and pis$es other nations off.
Some radicals might crash a plane (unlikely now, with tightened airport security measures), they might bomb a train, they might set off explosives in a restaurant.
These things could happen. Likely, something like this will happen, someday.

The possibility of "another terrorist attack" is about as frightening to me as the possibility that I might be attacked by a lunatic on a city street, and stabbed to death (also possible).
I feel no more compelled to take useless preemptive measures against the possibility of another terrorist attack than I feel compelled to take preemptive measures against getting attacked by a psycho every time I walk out my door.

The possibility of another terrorist attack is no more negated or reduced by a multi-billion dollar "war on terror" than the possibility of being assaulted on a city street by a crazy person is negated by declaring war on the mental illness, slaughtering mentally ill people by the thousands, placing them in "detainee camps" and torturing them.

So, yeah. This is a "war" of figments and phantoms.
Once Bush is out of office, it's all just going to go away, and in retrospect we're going to wonder how we could've been so stupid (those of us who aren't already wondering, that is).

 

[Stinger]

That's what I think.
I think when the Bush Admin is out of the White House and the troops are called back from abroad, the consequences to the US- if any- will be negligible.

As negligible as before?

This hasn't already happened because those in power can't admit that declaring a "War on Terror" was at best a gross error of judgement

Tell that to the terrorist they declared war on us.

and a preposterous overreaction to the so-called "terrorist threat to national security", and at worst a deliberate contrivance to increase the government's power over the American people and fatten the wallets of Bush cronies.

What nonsense, yeah Bush went to war to make some other people rich.

Might we be attacked by terrorists again at some point in the future?
Absolutely. It's likely.
Is there any possible way we can we eliminate or reduce this threat?
Not really.

Then let's just surrender and save some lives.

It's a risk we take, living in a powerful nation that frequently acts like an a$s on a global scale and pis$es other nations off.
Some radicals might crash a plane (unlikely now, with tightened airport security measures), they might bomb a train, they might set off explosives in a restaurant.
These things could happen. Likely, something like this will happen, someday.

So let's just hunker down and wait for them to come after us killing our citizens and shutting down our economy. Yeah that's a plan.

The possibility of "another terrorist attack" is about as frightening to me as the possibility that I might be attacked by a lunatic on a city street, and stabbed to death (also possible).

Then let's get rid of our police forces to since they can't stop it.

Once Bush is out of office, it's all just going to go away, and in retrospect we're going to wonder how we could've been so stupid (those of us who aren't already wondering, that is).

And the terrorist will turn into nice guys.

 

[Iriemon]

As negligible as before?

No. The Iraq war blunder will have some negative consequences. No way getting around that.

Tell that to the terrorist they declared war on us.

They weren't Iraq.

What nonsense, yeah Bush went to war to make some other people rich.

Things like the 11 billion Halliburton contract are just a mirage.

Then let's just surrender and save some lives.

No one said we should surrender.

So let's just hunker down and wait for them to come after us killing our citizens and shutting down our economy. Yeah that's a plan.

No the plan is to stop creating more terrorists by aunjustified aggressor actions.

Then let's get rid of our police forces to since they can't stop it.

We need a police force.

And the terrorist will turn into nice guys.

Many will stop being terrorists.

 

[VTA]

So, yeah. This is a "war" of figments and phantoms.
Once Bush is out of office, it's all just going to go away, and in retrospect we're going to wonder how we could've been so stupid (those of us who aren't already wondering, that is).

A figment that killed 6 and wounded 1,042 in 1993 in New YorK?
A figment that killed 19 marines in Saudi Arabia in 1996? A phantom that killed 213 people and injured 4000 in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998, due to... George Bush?

American interests were attacked at a rate of every 2-3 years, before Bush took office... Were these people so prescient that they were reacting to a predestined event that hadn't even taken place yet?

Above the quoted quote, you are sure more attacks will occur, yet you contradict yourself by saying they it all go away when Bush leaves office. Which is it?

Or do you mean that many can just simply place their heads in the sand, like the did in they 90's, thanks to American inaction in the face of war-like behaviour? Depending of course on if the next administration has or doesn't have the ability to face the reality that something is happening, and that it should be addressed...

 

[Iriemon]

A figment that killed 6 and wounded 1,042 in 1993 in New YorK?
A figment that killed 19 marines in Saudi Arabia in 1996? A phantom that killed 213 people and injured 4000 in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998, due to... George Bush?

American interests were attacked at a rate of every 2-3 years, before Bush took office... Were these people so prescient that they were reacting to a predestined event that hadn't even taken place yet?

Above the quoted quote, you are sure more attacks will occur, yet you contradict yourself by saying they it all go away when Bush leaves office. Which is it?

Or do you mean that many can just simply place their heads in the sand, like the did in they 90's, thanks to American inaction in the face of war-like behaviour? Depending of course on if the next administration has or doesn't have the ability to face the reality that something is happening, and that it should be addressed...

Maybe they should call it "the war on war-like behavior"

 

[VTA]

Maybe they should call it "the war on war-like behavior"

Americans don't need catch-phrases when dealing with life and death issues. I can see why it's derided and hope the next administration doesn't cheapen important issues by pretending it's talking to a bunch of children.

 

[RightOfCenter]

No more GWOT, House committee decrees


The Democrats have declared the war on terror over. When does the celebration begin!!!

"The “global war on terror,” a phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., should not be used, according to the memo. Also banned is the phrase the “long war,” which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years."

"A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and “avoid using colloquialisms.”"

Colloquialisms........................................

avoid them....................................

What folly.

No more GWOT, House committee decrees - Military News, news from Iraq, photos, reports from the war - Military Times

6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.

I'd suggest giving it a read.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

First of all did Bush manage to create a cleare definition of war on terror? Becuase in it can mean WW3, that terrorism can also mean state terrorism and russia have been accused of that by human right organisations.

Of course this was an extreme example but still lack of a good definition is a big problem. Like for example alot of brutale dictaturships have offered to "help" in the war against terror by labeling their own violent or non violent opposition groups as terrorists.

 

[VTA]

First of all did Bush manage to create a cleare definition of war on terror? Becuase in it can mean WW3, that terrorism can also mean state terrorism and russia have been accused of that by human right organisations.

Of course this was an extreme example but still lack of a good definition is a big problem. Like for example alot of brutale dictaturships have offered to "help" in the war against terror by labeling their own violent or non violent opposition groups as terrorists.

After quite a long time of skirting the issue, he and Blair finally started calling it for what it is about a year and half ago: Islamic Extremism. They finally addressed what it is that we're up against in a speech or two.

It works better than 'evil doers' and 'freedom haters'.

 

[Stinger]

After quite a long time of skirting the issue, he and Blair finally started calling it for what it is about a year and half ago: Islamic Extremism. They finally addressed what it is that we're up against in a speech or two.

It works better than 'evil doers' and 'freedom haters'.

From his speech to the congress right after 9/11


"Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics; a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam...................

The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans and make no distinctions among military and civilians, including women and children. This group and its leader, a person named Osama bin Laden, are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan."

 

[Captain America]

War on Terror over!!!!!!

Whoa Stinger! What are you trying to do? Give ol' Navy a heart attack? :rofl

 

[Stinger]

War on Terror over!!!!!!

Whoa Stinger! What are you trying to do? Give ol' Navy a heart attack? :rofl

Why would showing that the statement by VTA

"After quite a long time of skirting the issue, he and Blair finally started calling it for what it is about a year and half ago: Islamic Extremism."

is fallacious do that? You lost me.

 

[VTA]

Why would showing that the statement by VTA

"After quite a long time of skirting the issue, he and Blair finally started calling it for what it is about a year and half ago: Islamic Extremism."

is fallacious do that? You lost me.

Not really. He might have designated bin Laden as such, but he tried to dismiss the movement as minimal. As though bin Laden was a part of something small and not at all a widespread cultural conflict.

Bush's first claim was WMD, which of course evolved into liberating the Iraqi's. From bin Laden is important, to a 'I really don't care where he is' kind of statement from Bush. All the while avoiding the cultural clash angle and even further, trying to avoid alienting 'moderate' Islam, by not really addressing the true issue: a full blown culture clash. A clash between Islam and the West.

Only until last year, did he and Blair fully state that we are in the midst of a cultural struggle; not minimalizing the impact of Islam and it's effects on why we're fighting, but bluntly stating it.

I happen to agree that we are in fact in the middle of just such a struggle; I just never once bought into the, Iraq is a threat/liberate the Iraqi's/chase an ailing old man through the mountains, thread of reasoning. I just don't think it was at all necessary to avoid calling it what it is, from day one.

 

[Stinger]

Not really. He might have designated bin Laden as such, but he tried to dismiss the movement as minimal.

Who on earth told you that? OBL was never mininalized in any way shape or form. He certainly wasn't taken seriously enough by the previous administration, but the Bush adminsitration knew the threat he and his type of terrorism was.

As though bin Laden was a part of something small and not at all a widespread cultural conflict.

Sorry but thats as false as your assertion it was only a year and a half ago he first spoke of radical islamist.

Bush's first claim was WMD, which of course evolved into liberating the Iraqi's.

There was not "first Bush" claim, what we knew about Saddam predated Bush, every reason his administration spoke of originate before they took office not after.

The cite I gave you came from his speech not 3 weeks after 9/11.

 

[Hatuey]

Who on earth told you that? OBL was never mininalized in any way shape or form. He certainly wasn't taken seriously enough by the previous administration, but the Bush adminsitration knew the threat he and his type of terrorism was.

Really?

President Bush Holds Press Conference

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

It's funny how he's not that concerned about catching the man responsible for 3,000 dead Americans.

 

[VTA]

Who on earth told you that? OBL was never mininalized in any way shape or form. He certainly wasn't taken seriously enough by the previous administration, but the Bush adminsitration knew the threat he and his type of terrorism was.

Read what you wrote. bin Laden wasn't minimalized, the movement that he fronted was, i.e. an attempt to instill Shariah law, to regain Spain and minimalize the influence of the West.

Sorry but thats as false as your assertion it was only a year and a half ago he first spoke of radical islamist.

Not until that time did Bush admit why America was in Iraq. It went from WMD, to liberating Iraqi's. Only afterward did he mention that it was something of a cultural struggle.

There was not "first Bush" claim, what we knew about Saddam predated Bush, every reason his administration spoke of originate before they took office not after.

I don't know what you're referring to here, according to Bush, at first it was to depose Sadaam, because he was a threat. Not radical Islam.

 

[Stinger]

Really?

President Bush Holds Press Conference



It's funny how he's not that concerned about catching the man responsible for 3,000 dead Americans.

Well DUH after we defeated him in Afghanistan and sent him hiding in the mountains of Pakistan, you're going to have to be more clear about what timeframe you are talking about. I was clearly citing his speech to congress two weeks after 9/11 and your claim that neither Bush or Blair had mention the radical Isalamist. OBL's ability to attack us HAS been marginalize thanks to the actions Bush took which the previous administration would not.

 

[Hatuey]

Well DUH after we defeated him in Afghanistan and sent him hiding in the mountains of Pakistan, you're going to have to be more clear about what timeframe you are talking about. I was clearly citing his speech to congress two weeks after

We defeated him in Afghanistan? I don't know whats worse. The fact that you're ok with our fearless leader not being concerned about bringing to justice the guy who took responsibility for the murder of 3,000 people or the fact that you believe that we've actually damaged Bin Laden's organization. If anything we've given them another tool to use against us. Not once but twice. In Afghanistan and then in Iraq.

9/11 and your claim that neither Bush or Blair had mention the radical Isalamist. OBL's ability to attack us HAS been marginalize thanks to the actions Bush took which the previous administration would not.

I claimed no such thing sir.

 

[Stinger]

We defeated him in Afghanistan?

Is he operating freely in Afghanistan? Did the Taliban, the government that was supporting him, get replaced?

I don't know whats worse. The fact that you're ok with our fearless leader not being concerned about bringing to justice the guy who took responsibility for the murder of 3,000 people or the fact that you believe that we've actually damaged Bin Laden's organization.

How many major attacks has OBL'ds organization perpetrated on us since 9/11? And I disagree totally with your characterization of the administrations "concern" else why would we have over 20,000 troops going after him?

If anything we've given them another tool to use against us. Not once but twice. In Afghanistan and then in Iraq.

Actually we have taken away the tools they need, how many attacks again?

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Well DUH after we defeated him in Afghanistan and sent him hiding in the mountains of Pakistan, you're going to have to be more clear about what timeframe you are talking about. I was clearly citing his speech to congress two weeks after 9/11 and your claim that neither Bush or Blair had mention the radical Isalamist. OBL's ability to attack us HAS been marginalize thanks to the actions Bush took which the previous administration would not.

_______
We defeated Bin Laden??? News to me.
Bush: 2001> We will not stop until we get Osama no matter where he goes.
Bush: 2003> Osama is not a priority right now!
~~~
The previous administration didn't have a 911. Osama waited for a weak and not to bright Pres to hit the towers and when Bush was COURT APPOINTED Pres. Osama celebrated.