So if Democrats are going to make "war on terror" politically incorrect then...

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Where am I knocking Edwards for being critical of Iraq? That is not even the subject of the thread. Edwards claims there is no such war. That is a Bush administration manipulation of words. So how can we all be united behind it?

Very first post reads this.....

So if Democrats are going to make "war on terror" politically incorrect then...

What do we term the current war on terror including and excluding Iraq?

Edwards is out there saying that there is no global war on terror and that he does not like the term "terror war". There have been others say similar things in recent months, so the question is what do we call this conflict? How do we handle it?

so yes Iraq is included in this thread?? I am pretty sure Edwards is talking about Bush's manipulation of words saying the Iraq war is "the War on Terror". He is saying it whould not be called the war on terror because that means there is no ending to our occupation of Iraq? At least this is where I am arguing from.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

What do we term the current war on terror including and excluding Iraq?

I don't understand why you see this as a problem. You don't need a broad, all-encompassing title. You describe each situation as it comes: Iraq is called the Iraq War. If you are trying to kill Osama Bin Laden, you call it the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. If you're talking about generally trying to stop terrorists, you call it the fight to stop terrorists.

Why do you need a universal, bumper sticker slogan?

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I don't understand why you see this as a problem. You don't need a broad, all-encompassing title. You describe each situation as it comes: Iraq is called the Iraq War. If you are trying to kill Osama Bin Laden, you call it the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. If you're talking about generally trying to stop terrorists, you call it the fight to stop terrorists.

Why do you need a universal, bumper sticker slogan?

I do not see it as a problem. I have a problem with Edwards statements in their entirety but I do not have a problem with getting rid of the "war on terror" my question as I stated in the first post is if we're not going to call it that or it's going to be deemed politically incorrect what do we call it? Because I honestly dont know. War on terror sounds good as you already said from a bumper sticker stand point but so does the war on drugs which is a complete and utter waste of tax payer money.

The "war on terror" is not a waste of money but it does imply something that will never end and to that point I think thorgrim was onto something with "securing our nation" or "securing our borders" or something along those lines.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

as I stated in the first post is if we're not going to call it that or it's going to be deemed politically incorrect what do we call it?

And my question to you is why do we have to call "it" anything?

Your question is as odd to me as my asking you, "What do we call the effort to stop boring meetings, uncomfortable desk chairs and mean bosses?" I suppose we could call it "the war on work," but really, why do we need to awkwardly group things into a slogan catch-all? Why can't we just talk about each individual thing as it comes up? Why are we at a loss for not having a slogan?

Sure, you can find common denominators, but I don't think all things loosely grouped under "terror" are so similar as to necessitate a common title. The common title serves more the interests of people who want to make things appear linked than to describe things which actually are linked.

And by the way, the President's use of the "war on terror" isn't just a rhetorical tool. He uses it to invoke specific national security powers of the executive, and now "terrorism," although not defined, appears in legislation like the Patriot Act to affect rights and liberties.

So this argument isn't just about semantics and misnomers. "The war on terror," besides being an annoying meme, has taken on a real legal and political significance as well.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Roonie

I still think we are untied on war against terrorists; not for occupying a country in a civil war and losing many soldiers lives and throwing billions of dollars at it hoping for victory knowing there may never be one. There is a Huge difference!

Pathetic you are attacking someone based on a 2001 statement.

You made personal comments directed at me! If you want to get in my face make it relevant to something I post!

My issue is with what Edwards said. Not with what you are "pretty sure he is talking about."

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I don't understand why you see this as a problem. You don't need a broad, all-encompassing title. You describe each situation as it comes: Iraq is called the Iraq War. If you are trying to kill Osama Bin Laden, you call it the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. If you're talking about generally trying to stop terrorists, you call it the fight to stop terrorists.

Why do you need a universal, bumper sticker slogan?

If you want to argue that the invasion of Iraq was not part of a legitimate war on terror I can accept that argument. You can always say authority will ignor specifics with a blanket excuses. But that does not devalue the simple notion that terrorism is not a political tool that any people should tolerate. It should be defeated by all people! You agree with that or you don't. In that sense I have no problem with the words "war on terror." I don't mean it to justify all actions under that banner.

[6SpeedTA95]

Spicy what do you propose we do? The same lax behavior that led to 9/11? I know that is not what you're getting at but it almost seems that way from you post.

Build up a good defense? Keep the CIA and FBI funded to proper levels and leave it at that? I'd be ok with that but the problem is that wont last long.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

If you want to argue that the invasion of Iraq was not part of a legitimate war on terror I can accept that argument. You can always say authority will ignor specifics with a blanket excuses. But that does not devalue the simple notion that terrorism is not a political tool that any people should tolerate. It should be defeated by all people! You agree with that or you don't. In that sense I have no problem with the words "war on terror." I don't mean it to justify all actions under that banner.

Well you might not but politicians and/or political parties will use that as justification for just about anything. I think we can all agree on that.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Spicy what do you propose we do? The same lax behavior that led to 9/11? I know that is not what you're getting at but it almost seems that way from you post.

Build up a good defense? Keep the CIA and FBI funded to proper levels and leave it at that? I'd be ok with that but the problem is that wont last long.

I think our efforts should almost exclusively be concentrated on defense (including intelligence) and deterrence (by having a big stick, so to speak). I don't think that you can pro actively go out and kill terrorists without it being counterproductive and/or futile.

I mean, sure, if you learn Osama Bin Laden is hiding in a building somewhere, then offensively go send a missile up his ass, but aside from stuff like that, I don't think you can send armies into large areas to generally "fight terrorists." I think it should be primarily a law enforcement/security/intelligence effort, and if you use the military, it should only be if the shit has really hit the fan and then it should be no holds barred.

Imagine if all the resources being spent in Iraq were being used to secure the American mainland against attack. This includes explosives detectors at every airport, outfitting planes with anti-missile technology, buying the technology and man power to effectively screen shipping containers, etc.

And then imagine how much better our world image would be without all of our aggressive posturing, and imagine how much easier that would make it to gain foreign "assets" to help us...because that's really how you fight terror-- through intelligence-- not from killing every possible terrorist preemptively, which is impossible.

And finally imagine that we're not being whooped like the Soviets in the Afghan War or the US in Vietnam...countries like Iran would be a lot more scared of us, as opposed to now where we look weak.

The end result is that America would be safer for having adopted a primarily defensive posture. Now what would you call that? Making the homeland air-tight and having a bad-ass military that's held back on a chain? Doesn't sound as catchy as the war on terror, but it's what I'd prefer.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I think our efforts should almost exclusively be concentrated on defense (including intelligence) and deterrence (by having a big stick, so to speak). I don't think that you can pro actively go out and kill terrorists without it being counterproductive and/or futile.

I mean, sure, if you learn Osama Bin Laden is hiding in a building somewhere, then offensively go send a missile up his ass, but aside from stuff like that, I don't think you can send armies into large areas to generally "fight terrorists." I think it should be primarily a law enforcement/security/intelligence effort, and if you use the military, it should only be if the shit has really hit the fan and then it should be no holds barred.

Imagine if all the resources being spent in Iraq were being used to secure the American mainland against attack. This includes explosives detectors at every airport, outfitting planes with anti-missile technology, buying the technology and man power to effectively screen shipping containers, etc.

And then imagine how much better our world image would be without all of our aggressive posturing, and imagine how much easier that would make it to gain foreign "assets" to help us...because that's really how you fight terror-- through intelligence-- not from killing every possible terrorist preemptively, which is impossible.

And finally imagine that we're not being whooped like the Soviets in the Afghan War or the US in Vietnam...countries like Iran would be a lot more scared of us, as opposed to now where we look weak.

The end result is that America would be safer for having adopted a primarily defensive posture. Now what would you call that? Making the homeland air-tight and having a bad-ass military that's held back on a chain? Doesn't sound as catchy as the war on terror, but it's what I'd prefer.

I think that's a good point but do we need some sort of "catch phrase" to keep it at the forefront of american's minds? The 1990s had some of the most significant military and intelligence budget cuts in the country's history. When Clinton left office military spending had dropped from 6.4% GDP to 2.6 to 2.8% GDP.

CIA and FBI budgets were more than cut in half in inflation adjusted dollars over the same time period. So I guess the question is what do we do to make sure that defense and intelligence are kept strong? Because if we got another 10 years without an attack republicans and democrats will both start taking money away from the budgets of the CIA/FBI/NSA/Military.

[Thorgrim]

Just incase you're implying something, I'll stop it before anyone takes the hint:

The military cuts had largely to do with a force prepared to take on a massive Soviet assault, there is no such threat, even today Russian technology is stagnant and most of their former military has become unusable or outdated

The CIA/FBI cuts were, again, largely due to both agencies focusing vast resources on cold war domestic and foreign intelligence and operations

I for one, am glad we aren't wasting money preparing for a vast tank war over central europe that will never happen

I am also glad the CIA is no longer funding spies and their complex operations in East Germany, considering the country doesn't even exist anymore

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Just incase you're implying something, I'll stop it before anyone takes the hint:

The military cuts had largely to do with a force prepared to take on a massive Soviet assault, there is no such threat, even today Russian technology is stagnant and most of their former military has become unusable or outdated

The CIA/FBI cuts were, again, largely due to both agencies focusing vast resources on cold war domestic and foreign intelligence and operations

I for one, am glad we aren't wasting money preparing for a vast tank war over central europe that will never happen

I am also glad the CIA is no longer funding spies and their complex operations in East Germany, considering the country doesn't even exist anymore

Well thats a fair point, i do not want to get into the why's or why nots of Bush 41 and Clinton's cuts. My point is the budgets were cut and looking back its easy to see they were cut too deeply. Which means do we need something to keep the nation focused? Your original thought of something along the lines of securing the nation seems good but we've had national security and military expenditures for an entire century and at times we get too relaxed. Maybe it's a viscious cycle we can't do anything about? Maybe we can by keeping the nations focus?

[Thorgrim]

Why were they cut too deeply?

Look at how well we handled Afghanistan in 2001-2002? That was Clinton's military

We only need a bigger army if we want to be more imperialist, something the founding fathers never wanted

Out of all the shocks and disappointments the founding fathers would feel, I firmly believe the Iraqi Occupation would revolt most of them to the deepest levels

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Why were they cut too deeply?

Look at how well we handled Afghanistan in 2001-2002? That was Clinton's military

We only need a bigger army if we want to be more imperialist, something the founding fathers never wanted

Out of all the shocks and disappointments the founding fathers would feel, I firmly believe the Iraqi Occupation would revolt most of them to the deepest levels

I agree afghan was clinton's military.

But back to my point, how do we keep the nation focused on national security? Or is it a cycle due to human nature and complacency?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I agree afghan was clinton's military.

But back to my point, how do we keep the nation focused on national security? Or is it a cycle due to human nature and complacency?

Considering the feelings of 1954 on anti-communist were so strong, and in 1964 those feelings were just as strong, I don't think anything except, ironically, something like a Vietnam/Iraq could make us go back into the cycle of complacency

However, Reagan's "evil empire" made it appear as though those deep feelings lasted several generations, and let us not forget the communist scares before world war 2

I don't think Americans, for the next 100 years, will look at terrorists the way we did in 2000...however, I do believe we will not have the high rhetoric (that lasted from the early 50s-late 60s towards communism) in a long sustained drive

I think Bush will be the cowboy diplomacy, the next president, regardless, will be the transitional diplomacy, then the president after that will see our attitudes change as we see things at least a little more like Ron Paul rightists and Cindy Sheehan leftists (she left the Democratic Party if you're interested)

but possibly, we could see things A LOT differently