Is there a global war on terror?

[JaJae]

YouTube Video

Hillary's hand goes up first. But it begs the question here, half the Democratic presidential campaigners don't believe there is a such thing as a global war on terror. Do you think as a Democrat raising your hand to this question will help or hurt you within your caucus? Do you think it will help or hurt them if they are selected as the Democratic presidential candidate?

Personally I think this could hurt them for not raising their hands. Whether you believe there is a global war on terror or not I don't think raising your hand is going to hurt you very much, yet not raising your hand can be misconstrued as weak, especially if we get attacked again.

I think the moderate response would be to raise your hand. And I think that would help them the most in the long run.

[Donkey®]

What exactly does "global" mean? We fight terrorism here. We fight it in Iraq. Not exactly "global."

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

What exactly does "global" mean?

The phrase Global War on Terrorism (or GWOT)[13][14] is the official name used by the U.S. military for operations designated as part of the campaign. Thus, the "War on Terror" as defined by this article is largely a military effort, and has been compared in both its unspecified, continuing duration and its multiple theaters of operation, to the Cold War.[15] The war is also characterized as an ideological struggle, "involving both a battle of arms and a battle of ideas,"[16] and some have characterized it as a "clash of civilizations."[17]
War on Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This definition is as good as any. Based on this definition. I think we can all agree the definition of Global War on Terror is:

A ideological struggle, "involving both a battle of arms and a battle of ideas,"[16] and some have characterized it as a "clash of civilizations" regarding terrorism.

I think our politicians and those running for Senate would understand the mainstream definition of global war on terror and the definition that would be assumed by raising or not. I don't think the definition should be the debate, but rather whether they should have raised their hands or not.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

What exactly does "global" mean? We fight terrorism here. We fight it in Iraq. Not exactly "global."

That is a very poor evasion.

Good thing it was not said in a debate!

[RMNIXON]

Here is the question?

Why so slow a show of hands? Is it because the priority is being against operations in Iraq and not the larger picture? Who did not even acknowledge a larger picture?

This is important! How easy is it to say Iraq is a mistake? Pull out? How easy is it to be responcible for what happens next? That is what we ask of a President!

And just so I get in your face as much as I can:


When your choice is President..............



YOU WON'T HAVE BUSH TO KICK AROUND ANYMORE!

[Donkey®]

The Global War on terror is a farse and NONE of them should have rasied their hands.

[grembert]

One of the main debating points between the Democrats and Republicans in the 2008 presidential election will probably be about which party can do the most to keep us safe from terrorist's attacks.

Here is one catch: We had a war against poverty. Didn't work. We had a war against drugs. Hasn't worked very well. So the word "war" may not be the best way to describe what we need to do to keep ourselves safe.

I am not talking about being passive here. I am just talking about semantics.

RMNixon, you are living up to your namesake.

[Nonphixion]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The phrase Global War on Terrorism (or GWOT)[13][14] is the official name used by the U.S. military for operations designated as part of the campaign. Thus, the "War on Terror" as defined by this article is largely a military effort, and has been compared in both its unspecified, continuing duration and its multiple theaters of operation, to the Cold War.[15] The war is also characterized as an ideological struggle, "involving both a battle of arms and a battle of ideas,"[16] and some have characterized it as a "clash of civilizations."[17]
War on Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This definition is as good as any. Based on this definition. I think we can all agree the definition of Global War on Terror is:

A ideological struggle, "involving both a battle of arms and a battle of ideas,"[16] and some have characterized it as a "clash of civilizations" regarding terrorism.

I think our politicians and those running for Senate would understand the mainstream definition of global war on terror and the definition that would be assumed by raising or not. I don't think the definition should be the debate, but rather whether they should have raised their hands or not.

Yes. Good definition, but no it is not happening.

Some republican minds with delusions of grandeur would say that this "GWOT" is a clash of civilizations -- and we are essentially the force of "good" versus the Radical Muslim force of "evil" in the world. (Perl, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bush)

The Global War on terror is a farce, just as WMD's were, Al-Qaeda in Iraq (well Al-Qaeda is in Iraq now -- we drove them there), and it is also such a farce as Saddam being a threat for seeking out Yellow Cake Uranium in the present time.

"GWOT" is no more than an open voucher and a blank-check to "fight against an enemy tactic" rather than an enemy itself. Even more so, this farcical nonsense pushed by Neo-Con Republicans is essentially the means to accomplish an on-going war, one without an end -- one that could literally go on until the end of time. As you cannot eliminate such a basic tactic as "Terror"

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

What exactly does "global" mean? We fight terrorism here. We fight it in Iraq. Not exactly "global."

Afghanistan, Thailand, Djibouti, Kenya, Uzbekastan, etc......

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Afghanistan, Thailand, Djibouti, Kenya, Uzbekastan, etc......

So rebel factions are terrorists too?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

So rebel factions are terrorists too?

They can be. Al-qaeda and similar groups are funding those factions and they blow up civilians. That makes them terrorists.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

They can be. Al-qaeda and similar groups are funding those factions and they blow up civilians. That makes them terrorists.

And the groups we fund or have funded? They are not terrorist groups?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And the groups we fund or have funded? They are not terrorist groups?

some are, some arent. OMG


Those that attack civilians with suicide bombs, car bombs, random shootings, poisonings, etc.... are terrorists.

We have been fighting and supporting the fighting of terrorists groups all around the world since 2001. That is the "Global War on Terror."

[DosEquis]

To answer the questions first:

Raising their hand if they think there is a global war on terror - help or hurt?

I would say with democrats it is going to not really have much affect. So for the voting primaries purposes, it won't really matter.

Help or hurt in general election?

In the general election if they kept their hand down it may hurt their impact a little with the undecided voter. However, I think the terminology is not going to be that big of deal. I believe the position on the Iraq war will probably impact the most. Pundits will spin "oh they dont believe in the war on terror, we will get attacked again".

In regards to the "war on terror" I do not believe it is anything more than a phrase which enables the selling of conflicts. It brings back 9/11 memories and justifications. Terrorism is a tactic used by those who have very limited resources. Terrorism is a law enforcement/special forces problem. It requires intelligence gathering and small effective counter attacks. A full size army is not the best to combat terrorism simply because they do not fight that way. OBL said it himself. His attacks cost $50,000 and one of our attacks costs $3 million.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

The Global War on terror is a farse and NONE of them should have rasied their hands.

Who is running on that? Kucinich?