It's time to end the "war on terror"

[GW in Ohio]

The following is from a Salon.com opinion piece by Gary Kamiya (http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2008/11/25/obama_war_on_terror/index.html ). It expresses my feelings about Mr. Bush's "war on terror" perfectly and I am reproducing it below. Your comments are welcome.


Barack Obama will confront a daunting list of priorities when he takes office on Jan. 20. Rescuing the nation's economy -- if there's anything left to rescue by then -- will obviously be at the top of the list. But it is just as important that Obama immediately declare an end to the "war on terror," and reverse all of the policies that have been carried out in its name.

George W. Bush's "war on terror" has been an unmitigated disaster. First, it is unwinnable. Terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic as old as humanity, and until the lion lies down with the lamb, it will continue to exist. Waging a war on terror is a category violation, like waging a war on violence. Second, it is self-defeating. By invading Iraq to preempt an alleged terrorist threat, the U.S. greatly increased that threat. And by elevating terrorist groups, which pose no existential threat to America, to the status of state actors, the Bush administration enhanced their prestige. The number of terror attacks around the world has risen greatly since Bush started his "war," and hatred of the U.S. in the Arab-Muslim world has metastasized.

In a subtler way, the "war on terror" has degraded our national psyche. It encourages the U.S. to remain in a psychological state that is simultaneously fearful and aggressive -- an infantile state, one that prevents us from thinking clearly about how to address our real foreign policy challenges. The U.S. is too powerful and self-confident to act like a three-year-old having a permanent tantrum. One successful terrorist attack, no matter how horrific, should never have led to a fundamental change in America's geopolitical strategy. A good general cannot allow his battlefield moves to be dictated by emotion, any more than a boxer can allow himself to drop his guard in a futile effort to land wild haymakers.

Of course, Obama should not abandon the fight against international terrorism, but adopt more effective tactics. He should treat al-Qaida and its ilk as criminals rather than armies. Quiet intelligence work, coordination with allies and law enforcement should be used as much as possible. There may be times when military action is needed, but it should be minimized because of its negative effects. Obama should make it a top priority to address the conditions that fuel anti-American hatred. In Afghanistan, this means rebuilding the country; in Pakistan, not propping up unpopular despots like Musharraf; in Israel and the Palestinian territories, throwing the full weight of American diplomacy behind a two-state solution. When it comes to fighting terrorism, America's most powerful weapon is not its army, it is its brain.

Fortunately, we are about to get a president who has a brain and is not afraid to use it. Obama famously said that he didn't just want to end the war in Iraq, he wanted to end "the mind-set that led to war." And the ultimate expression of that mind-set is the "war on terror."

Unfortunately, Obama has given some mixed messages about whether he is going to end the "war on terror" and the wrongheaded policies that have resulted from it. His most troubling statements concern Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden. In his debates with McCain, Obama consistently charged that the U.S. had "taken its eye off the ball" in Afghanistan and had failed to make capturing or killing bin Laden its top priority. These arguments, while not untrue, implicitly legitimize the "war on terror," and simply critique Bush for fighting it in the wrong way.

Obama's proposal to escalate the U.S. war in Afghanistan, though qualified by his greater emphasis on rebuilding the country, seems to indicate that he believes the Taliban can be defeated militarily. This is a recipe for failure: As former British Foreign Service officer Rory Stewart noted in the New York Times, the U.S. military buildup in Afghanistan has inflamed the Taliban resistance and made the situation worse. In a recent interview on "60 Minutes," Obama said he would make capturing or killing bin Laden a top priority, and he has threatened to strike terrorist targets inside Pakistan if the Pakistan government proved unwilling or unable to do so.

Killing or capturing bin Laden is obviously desirable. But achieving that goal may come at too high a price. A major U.S. military campaign in the tribal agencies on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, where bin Laden is thought to be hiding, would anger Pakistanis and weaken the Pakistan government. It's not clear this is an acceptable trade-off.

[stephanie]

BS..Clinton tried to ignore the terrorist during his administration..and it gave us 9/11..

you all can keep pretending that there aren't people out there that plain old HATE US..but I'll live in the real world...

[red states rule]

Appeasement has been tried before

http://www.iranfocus.com/uploads/img43f6f8dd27121.jpg

[darin]

I wish we were the people who decided when the war was over.

[gabosaurus]

There never has been a "war on terror." It is a figment of Bush's warped imagination. Sort of like his "surge."
The Sept. 11 attacks did not happen on Clinton's watch. Perhaps if Bush had not been so busy planning his attack on Iraq, he would not have ignored all the intelligence reports stating that an attack on the U.S. was imminent.
But no worry. We all know that Bush relished the Sept. 11 attacks. It gave him an excuse to attack Iraq and launch his "war on American personal freedom." The Sept. 11 attacks were the highlight of the Bush era. It's no wonder that Bush never went after bin Laden. He was too grateful for the PR boost.

[red states rule]

There never has been a "war on terror." It is a figment of Bush's warped imagination. Sort of like his "surge."
The Sept. 11 attacks did not happen on Clinton's watch. Perhaps if Bush had not been so busy planning his attack on Iraq, he would not have ignored all the intelligence reports stating that an attack on the U.S. was imminent.
But no worry. We all know that Bush relished the Sept. 11 attacks. It gave him an excuse to attack Iraq and launch his "war on American personal freedom." The Sept. 11 attacks were the highlight of the Bush era. It's no wonder that Bush never went after bin Laden. He was too grateful for the PR boost.

Speaking of the surge

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3170/2550373610_3f06d6e848.jpg?v=0

[gabosaurus]

Speaking of the surge


Isn't it time for you to take another break from the board? We would all benefit.

[stephanie]

There never has been a "war on terror." It is a figment of Bush's warped imagination. Sort of like his "surge."
The Sept. 11 attacks did not happen on Clinton's watch. Perhaps if Bush had not been so busy planning his attack on Iraq, he would not have ignored all the intelligence reports stating that an attack on the U.S. was imminent.
But no worry. We all know that Bush relished the Sept. 11 attacks. It gave him an excuse to attack Iraq and launch his "war on American personal freedom." The Sept. 11 attacks were the highlight of the Bush era. It's no wonder that Bush never went after bin Laden. He was too grateful for the PR boost.

and just how many terrorist attacks did happen under the Clinton Watch,..??

and how about that time Clinton bombed Iraq, what the hell was that all about..??

and how come Clinton didn't take Bin Laden when he was offed to him on a silver platter??

you liberals like to write your own history, but the truth always wins in the end..:coffee:

[red states rule]

Isn't it time for you to take another break from the board? We would all benefit.

I kjnow you hate to have facts enter into the discussion Gabby. Obama had to eat his defeatest comments he made about the surge - like most liberals did

BTW, now Obama may not close Gitmo. How wil you deal with all his flip flops on what he promised you to get your vote?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/washington/15gitmo.html

As a presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama sketched the broad outlines of a plan to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba: try detainees in American courts and reject the Bush administration’s military commission system.

Now, as Mr. Obama moves closer to assuming responsibility for Guantánamo, his pledge to close the detention center is bringing to the fore thorny questions under consideration by his advisers. They include where Guantánamo’s detainees could be held in this country, how many might be sent home and a matter that people with ties to the Obama transition team say is worrying them most: What if some detainees are acquitted or cannot be prosecuted at all?

That concern is at the center of a debate among national security, human rights and legal experts that has intensified since the election. Even some liberals are arguing that to deal realistically with terrorism, the new administration should seek Congressional authority for preventive detention of terrorism suspects deemed too dangerous to release even if they cannot be successfully prosecuted.

“You can’t be a purist and say there’s never any circumstance in which a democratic society can preventively detain someone,” said one civil liberties lawyer, David D. Cole, a Georgetown law professor who has been a critic of the Bush administration.

Although the nation has long had limited legal procedures for detaining dangerous people who have not been convicted of a crime, the issue has become particularly controversial in the context of Guantánamo, where some detainees have been held for almost seven years without being charged.

[red states rule]

and just how many terrorist attacks did happen under the Clinton Watch,..??

and how about that time Clinton bombed Iraq, what the hell was that all about..??

and how come Clinton didn't take Bin Laden when he was offed to him on a silver platter??

you liberals like to write your own history, but the truth always wins in the end..:coffee:

There were 5 attacks under the Clinton watch

Which is why we got 9-11 since Clinton and Dems treated the attacks as a crime and not an act of war

[hjmick]

...The Sept. 11 attacks did not happen on Clinton's watch.

No, they just started on his watch and he did nothing for eight years.


Perhaps if Bush had not been so busy planning his attack on Iraq, he would not have ignored all the intelligence reports stating that an attack on the U.S. was imminent.

Do you have a link indicating that he was "busy planning his attack on Iraq" or that he "ignored all the intelligence reports stating that an attack on the U.S. was imminent?" Unless there is information in the intelligence reports that indicate a day and time, there is very little that anyone can do to prevent an attack. There is a difference between ignoring the reports of an imminent attack and reading the reports and not having any actionable information.


But no worry. We all know that Bush relished the Sept. 11 attacks.

Talk about a warped imagination. That you would believe that anyone would relished the deaths of thousands of civilians at the hands of extremist animals is the very definition of warped.


It gave him an excuse to attack Iraq and launch his "war on American personal freedom."

And what personal freedoms have you lost? Seriously. Exactly what personal freedoms have been taken away from you?


The Sept. 11 attacks were the highlight of the Bush era. It's no wonder that Bush never went after bin Laden. He was too grateful for the PR boost.

This goes back to a warped imagination.

[GW in Ohio]

I wish we were the people who decided when the war was over.

We should have learned from the Russian experience in Afghanistan in the 1980s that Afghanistan is best left to its own devices. There is no "winning" there, and there's no way we are going to influence events in that crazy-ass country. Look at all the resources and effort we've expended in Afghanistan since 2001, and what has been the result?

The Taliban is just as strong, maybe stronger, than ever.

We need to come to terms with the fact that the folks in the Middle East, with the exception of Israel, are batshit crazy and should be treated like rabid dogs.

[red states rule]

We should have learned from the Russian experience in Afghanistan in the 1980s that Afghanistan is best left to its own devices. There is no "winning" there, and there's no way we are going to influence events in that crazy-ass country. Look at all the resources and effort we've expended in Afghanistan since 2001, and what has been the result?

The Taliban is just as strong, maybe stronger, than ever.

We need to come to terms with the fact that the folks in the Middle East, with the exception of Israel, are batshit crazy and should be treated like rabid dogs.

Just like liberals said there was no winning in Iraq, and the surge was a waste of lives and recources?

[stephanie]

We need to come to terms with the fact that the folks in the Middle East, with the exception of Israel, are batshit crazy and should be treated like rabid dogs.


so you just posted this crappy article from Salon because it happens to shit all over President Bush...

we haven't been attacked since 911 so I'd say his war on terror has worked..

[Little-Acorn]

There never has been a "war on terror." It is a figment of Bush's warped imagination. Sort of like his "surge."
The Sept. 11 attacks did not happen on Clinton's watch. Perhaps if Bush had not been so busy planning his attack on Iraq, he would not have ignored all the intelligence reports stating that an attack on the U.S. was imminent.
But no worry. We all know that Bush relished the Sept. 11 attacks. It gave him an excuse to attack Iraq and launch his "war on American personal freedom." The Sept. 11 attacks were the highlight of the Bush era. It's no wonder that Bush never went after bin Laden. He was too grateful for the PR boost.

How does it feel to be a walking cliche?

Gotta hand it to gabby. Whenever you need all the tired, long-debunked lies about George Bush regurgitated, she's there at a moment's notice, happy to oblige.

[stephanie]

I'm not sure Liberals can think for themselves..if they didn't spout the Dnc talking points and all the made up BS, then they wouldn't be IN the IN crowd...:coffee:

[red states rule]

I'm not sure Liberals can think for themselves..if they didn't spout the Dnc talking points and all the made up BS, then they wouldn't be IN the IN crowd...:coffee:

If they could think for themselves Steph, they would not be liberals

[stephanie]

If they could think for themselves Steph, they would not be liberals

true that..:laugh2:

[red states rule]

http://bp3.blogger.com/_RaRg5_v_Eus/RvyQmJ_tIzI/AAAAAAAAA9c/QsRhNjSlYDw/s400/AnnCoulterNewBook.jpg

[darin]

We should have learned from the Russian experience in Afghanistan in the 1980s that Afghanistan is best left to its own devices. There is no "winning" there, and there's no way we are going to influence events in that crazy-ass country. Look at all the resources and effort we've expended in Afghanistan since 2001, and what has been the result?

The Taliban is just as strong, maybe stronger, than ever.

We need to come to terms with the fact that the folks in the Middle East, with the exception of Israel, are batshit crazy and should be treated like rabid dogs.


So - what's your point? You're admitting Crazy Muslims want to kill us because they are...crazy. Should we sit and wait for their next 9-11 until we act?

[crin63]

We need to come to terms with the fact that the folks in the Middle East, with the exception of Israel, are batshit crazy and should be treated like rabid dogs.

I agree, they should be destroyed like rabid dogs. You don't normally let rabid animals run free since they are a danger to everyone they come in contact with. I'd almost rep you for that one.

[gabosaurus]

Why leave out Israel? They are also batshit crazy.
Read the books and statements made by former members of the initial Bush cabinet. In the first cabinet meeting in January, 2001, he was planning to attack Iraq. Bush ignored August memos that bin Laden was planning attacks on the U.S. Bush didn't think terrorism was a priority.
Bush was a very stupid and vindictive person. And he still is.

[red states rule]

Why leave out Israel? They are also batshit crazy.
Read the books and statements made by former members of the initial Bush cabinet. In the first cabinet meeting in January, 2001, he was planning to attack Iraq. Bush ignored August memos that bin Laden was planning attacks on the U.S. Bush didn't think terrorism was a priority.
Bush was a very stupid and vindictive person. And he still is.

Yet whenever the Bush administration puts out warnings about terrorits plats and chatter, liberals like you rant how they are trying to keep the people in a state of fear

Pres Bush has kept your ass safe Gabby - yet you continue to tell us how much you hate him. If you had your way, Saddam would still be in power, killing his people, and funding terror groups

[GW in Ohio]

This article from the British Independent about the situation in Afghanistan is alarming. Not saying it's true - Canada is in Kandahar as a part of NATO, and we haven't heard the same reports as Fisk gives here - but if there is any truth to it at all, Obama is making a mistake by increasing troop strength there, IMO.

Robert Fisk: 'Nobody supports the Taliban, but people hate the government'

As he leaves Afghanistan, our correspondent reflects on a failed state cursed by brutal fundamentalism and rampant corruption

Thursday, 27 November 2008

The collapse of Afghanistan is closer than the world believes. Kandahar is in Taliban hands – all but a square mile at the centre of the city – and the first Taliban checkpoints are scarcely 15 miles from Kabul. Hamid Karzai's deeply corrupted government is almost as powerless as the Iraqi cabinet in Baghdad's "Green Zone"; lorry drivers in the country now carry business permits issued by the Taliban which operate their own courts in remote areas of the country.

The Red Cross has already warned that humanitarian operations are being drastically curtailed in ever larger areas of Afghanistan; more than 4,000 people, at least a third of them civilians, have been killed in the past 11 months, along with scores of Nato troops and about 30 aid workers. Both the Taliban and Mr Karzai's government are executing their prisoners in ever greater numbers. The Afghan authorities hanged five men this month for murder, kidnap or rape – one prisoner, a distant relative of Mr Karzai, predictably had his sentence commuted – and more than 100 others are now on Kabul's death row.

This is not the democratic, peaceful, resurgent, "gender-sensitive" Afghanistan that the world promised to create after the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001. Outside the capital and the far north of the country, almost every woman wears the all-enshrouding burkha, while fighters are now joining the Taliban's ranks from Kashmir, Uzbekistan, Chechnya and even Turkey. More than 300 Turkish fighters are now believed to be in Afghanistan, many of them holding European passports.

More at site.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/com...nt-1036905.html

[Psychoblues]

It would be nice if some of you idiots would address the information in the OP instead of attacking the poster or any wrongly perceived idea about what you think the OP says. Just a suggestion.

Psychoblues

[5stringJeff]

And what personal freedoms have you lost? Seriously. Exactly what personal freedoms have been taken away from you?

Not to defend Gabby's indefensible post, but:

All Americans have lost the "right ... to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," through the wonders of domestic spying. We have lost the freedom to conduct a private business transaction with an airline to be transported from one place to another without a government agent searching our persons and baggage. Until the Padilla case was suddenly dismissed, American citizens charged with terrorism were being held in military prisons without a trial date, in violation of the Sixth Amendment.

That's just off the top of my head.

[red states rule]

Not to defend Gabby's indefensible post, but:

All Americans have lost the "right ... to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," through the wonders of domestic spying. We have lost the freedom to conduct a private business transaction with an airline to be transported from one place to another without a government agent searching our persons and baggage. Until the Padilla case was suddenly dismissed, American citizens charged with terrorism were being held in military prisons without a trial date, in violation of the Sixth Amendment.

That's just off the top of my head.

It is NOT domestic spying - it it terrorist spying. But by all means Jeff, lets fight a PC war and see how well we do

[5stringJeff]

It is NOT domestic spying - it it terrorist spying. But by all means Jeff, lets fight a PC war and see how well we do

Wrong. It is spying on American citizens, in America, with a "secret" search warrant.

[red states rule]

Wrong. It is spying on American citizens, in America, with a "secret" search warrant.

and the names of those Americans?

It is a nice play by the Dems and liberal media to call the terrorist spying program "domestic spying" - and you fell for it

I am sure Pres Bush listens to your phone calls everyday Jeff :laugh2:

[5stringJeff]

and the names of those Americans?

It is a nice play by the Dems and liberal media to call the terrorist spying program "domestic spying" - and you fell for it

I am sure Pres Bush listens to your phone calls everyday Jeff :laugh2:

I think somewhere I've read that 2000 warrants have been issued since 2003.

And if you're spying on American citizens who are in America, then it's domestic spying, regardless of whether you think the spyee is a terrorist or a jaywalker.

[avatar4321]

If all we had to do is declare the war on terror over, we would have done it years ago.

Im not sure if liberals understand this: These people want to wipe us off the face of the earth. You cant negotiate with them. You cant declare a ceasefire with them.

This and the journalist disappointed that the wars not magically over because Obama has been elected have just demonstrated clearly that there is a large segment of our population who has no freaking clue what we are up against and what's really at stake here.

I just hope there are enough sane people so that we survive this.

[Yurt]

Wrong. It is spying on American citizens, in America, with a "secret" search warrant.

how do you know they are all american citizens?

[red states rule]

how do you know they are all american citizens?

Maybe because Chris Matthews said so?

[namvet]

Isn't it time for you to take another break from the board? We would all benefit.

why don't you resign and leave. then the entire board can rejoice. asshat

[manu1959]

so let me see if i have this correct......bush is an idiot for going to war in the middle east to kill the "rabid dogs".......

but .... you all now advocate obama killing all the rabid dogs including israel .....

[Kathianne]

so let me see if i have this correct......bush is an idiot for going to war in the middle east to kill the "rabid dogs".......

but .... you all now advocate obama killing all the rabid dogs including israel .....

This is confusing, how?

[5stringJeff]

how do you know they are all american citizens?


Maybe because Chris Matthews said so?

Because if they weren't Americans, the Bush administration wouldn't have to goto the FISA court to get a warrant.

[red states rule]

Because if they weren't Americans, the Bush administration wouldn't have to goto the FISA court to get a warrant.

Oh really???


McConnell puts human faces to FISA debate

WASHINGTON — Privacy rules forced intelligence agencies to wait about 12 hours to tap an Iraqi phone number believed to be connected to the kidnappers of three U.S. soldiers in Iraq this spring, intelligence officials have told members of Congress.

By the time officials obtained the legal permission for the tap, it was no longer useful, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell told the House Intelligence Committee. The officials had to show that the target likely was a foreign agent and get the attorney general's approval, which is why it took so long, he said.

The kidnapping case puts human faces on the debate over the future of the foreign surveillance law, a discussion that had previously been highly technical. Some committee Democrats, however, suggested the incident had been exaggerated. They asked why agents did not proceed with a wiretap and then seek authority later, a power that has been part of the surveillance law for years.

Two of the soldiers, from the 10th Mountain Division in Fort Drum, N.Y., remain missing, according to Pentagon reports. A third was found killed in Iraq on May 23, 11 days after the men were captured in a raid south of Baghdad that the Army believes was carried out by al-Qaeda.

Since May, intelligence officials have cited the incident in classified discussions as evidence that surveillance laws that provide too much protection to foreign targets need to be changed.

During a hearing of the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday, McConnell and Kenneth Wainstein, assistant attorney general for national security, mentioned the general outline of the case to argue that a temporary law passed in August which streamlined those rules should be made permanent. Citing the sensitivity of the matter, McConnell and Wainstein did not identify the soldiers or their unit.

"It took time (to begin the tap)," McConnell said, because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) required intelligence agents to first demonstrate to the U.S. attorney general that the target was likely an agent of a foreign power.

http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Kenneth+Wainstein

[GW in Ohio]

If all we had to do is declare the war on terror over, we would have done it years ago.

Im not sure if liberals understand this: These people want to wipe us off the face of the earth. You cant negotiate with them. You cant declare a ceasefire with them.

This and the journalist disappointed that the wars not magically over because Obama has been elected have just demonstrated clearly that there is a large segment of our population who has no freaking clue what we are up against and what's really at stake here.

I just hope there are enough sane people so that we survive this.

The terrorists who perpetrated atrocities in Mumbai....the assholes who killed people in Spain, the shitheads who attacked us on 9/11...and all the other assorted assholes are only very loosely connected by their various hatreds.

They are not an army, they don't represent any country, and there really aren't that many of them.

They're criminals. They should be hunted down like dogs, and if they won't be captured, then kill 'em.

But to call this effort a "war on terror" gives these assholes status and importance they don't deserve. The Bush administration has used the pretext of war to take all sorts of liberties with our personal freedoms and our tax money. Not to mention, our foreign policy, which it has hijacked and subverted in the name of a "war on terror."

[avatar4321]

The terrorists who perpetrated atrocities in Mumbai....the assholes who killed people in Spain, the shitheads who attacked us on 9/11...and all the other assorted assholes are only very loosely connected by their various hatreds.

They are not an army, they don't represent any country, and there really aren't that many of them.

They're criminals. They should be hunted down like dogs, and if they won't be captured, then kill 'em.

But to call this effort a "war on terror" gives these assholes status and importance they don't deserve. The Bush administration has used the pretext of war to take all sorts of liberties with our personal freedoms and our tax money. Not to mention, our foreign policy, which it has hijacked and subverted in the name of a "war on terror."

Where do even begin...

1)When people want you dead just for the nation you belong to, it's a freakin war.
2)We have lost absolutely no personal freedoms.
3)The Bush administration lowered taxes on everyone. Not a single person pays more taxes because of the war on terror.
4)Tax money at the federal level is supposed to be spent on defense. Its this BS social stuff the federal government has no authority to do.

[actsnoblemartin]

Whether we change tactics, or its name.

war has been waged against the west, non muslims and muslims who are not bin ladens brand of islam since 1996, and if we dont win this war.

I as a jew, israel, will be dead, and you, the original poster will be forced to be on a prayer rug.

Which is not to say the article is wrong, we should always re-examine strategies, but we must fight a war against radical islam.

we cant dis engage, from a war that wont stop just because we do.

the u.s. sometimes acts like the wife of an abusive husband hoping if it just stops doing this, or doing this better, it wont get hit again, and like an abusive husband, bin laden wont stop till were dead


Appeasement has been tried before

http://www.iranfocus.com/uploads/img43f6f8dd27121.jpg

[actsnoblemartin]

my point is: this is a healthy debate.

is the war on terror an appropriate name?, words do have meaning. Some experts have suggested we call it the war on jihadists, some the war against radical islam, and some the war against islamo-nazism.

every tactic we use, should be examined, to see if its working.

I do fear, we will have to use tactics that wont be popular, and in some ways wont be effective, they will be neccesary.

[Psychoblues]

Perhaps we could call it a war on terrorists?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?



my point is: this is a healthy debate.

is the war on terror an appropriate name?, words do have meaning. Some experts have suggested we call it the war on jihadists, some the war against radical islam, and some the war against islamo-nazism.

every tactic we use, should be examined, to see if its working.

I do fear, we will have to use tactics that wont be popular, and in some ways wont be effective, they will be neccesary.

But, considering that our military is considered "terrorists" by many free-thinking nations and our actions tend to prove their points as being accurate to at least some degree, maybe we ought to just call it what it is and name it "War on anything we perceive as evil"?!?!?!?!??!???!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Good post, marteen, and Welcome Back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Psychoblues

[namvet]

Perhaps we could call it a war on terrorists?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?




But, considering that our military is considered "terrorists" by many free-thinking nations and our actions tend to prove their points as being accurate to at least some degree, maybe we ought to just call it what it is and name it "War on anything we perceive as evil"?!?!?!?!??!???!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Good post, marteen, and Welcome Back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Psychoblues

your a terrorist. I declared war on you. :beer::salute::laugh2::salute::beer:

[Yurt]

Perhaps we could call it a war on terrorists?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?




But, considering that our military is considered "terrorists" by many free-thinking nations and our actions tend to prove their points as being accurate to at least some degree, maybe we ought to just call it what it is and name it "War on anything we perceive as evil"?!?!?!?!??!???!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Good post, marteen, and Welcome Back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Psychoblues

great, psydeshow is calling our military terrorists

[retiredman]

and just how many terrorist attacks did happen under the Clinton Watch,..??
WTC '93, Khobar towers, African embassies, USS Cole... total casualties: 300


and how about that time Clinton bombed Iraq, what the hell was that all about..??

defensive attack that took out radar and anti-aircraft batteries threatening CAP in the no fly zones... not in he same universe as invasion, conquest, and occupatio.


and how come Clinton didn't take Bin Laden when he was offed to him on a silver platter??
we did not have anywhere near enough information tying Obama to any crimes against America or American interests in May of '95 to justify taking custody of a foreign national on foreign soil. period.


you liberals like to write your own history, but the truth always wins in the end.

like the truth of the August 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing warning of an imminent attack by AQ on US soil that Bush basically ignored and continued on with his golfing and relaxing??

[actsnoblemartin]

am i gonna find one person, willing to admit that during any presidency. You will have successes and failures, some presidencies more successes then failures, but no presidency if looked at objectively is 100% success of failure, and therefore any president deserves to judged fairly, and too many times its not.

[namvet]

am i gonna find one person, willing to admit that during any presidency. You will have successes and failures, some presidencies more successes then failures, but no presidency if looked at objectively is 100% success of failure, and therefore any president deserves to judged fairly, and too many times its not.

I agree. but with Bush haters that's as far as it goes. but I shouldn't talk. im now an Osama hater.............:dance:

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree. but with Bush haters that's as far as it goes. but I shouldn't talk. im now an Osama hater.............:dance:

:lol:

thats precious :laugh2:

[crin63]

my point is: this is a healthy debate.

is the war on terror an appropriate name?, words do have meaning. Some experts have suggested we call it the war on jihadists, some the war against radical islam, and some the war against islamo-nazism.

The terms you mentioned while they might be appropriate titles would convey that it is a religious war (even though it is) and thats not politically correct. It would also be played up by the muslim apologists as attacking all of islam.

[red states rule]

your a terrorist. I declared war on you. :beer::salute::laugh2::salute::beer:

Some here call our troops "infiedels"