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

6SpeedTA95 · 05-23-2007, 06:47 PM

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?

Publius · 05-23-2007, 06:53 PM

"War on Terror" implies a war that can be won. If we can defeat terror, we'll win the war! If we can't, well, we're going to constantly be on a war footing because we'll have to keep fighting it forever! It's like the War on Drugs... Not a real war, but funds keep being poured into the DEA and ATF to keep up the "fight" against drugs.

A better term escapes me at the moment, but to call it a war is entirely incorrect constitutionally (when did congress declare war on the nation of "terror" ?), and opens us up to living in a constant state of "war" for the rest of our lives and beyond.

Thorgrim · 05-23-2007, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

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?

Securing our nation

Specifically Securing our nation from any outside effort, including non-terrorist (kinda) actors like Russian imperialism, Israeli lobbiyng to direct our foreign policy, Chavez becoming the leader of Latin American, most importantly using NON-WARFARE methods to stop global violence...like working towards peace in the middle east and around the world

Also making sure our ports are safe, etc

Or possibly "Movement to cripple the international anti-US NSA (nonstate actors)"

Certainly we can get to a point where groups like Al-Qaeda are crippled, and we could keep our boots on their neck...but have a war with them? that's just silly

6SpeedTA95 · 05-23-2007, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Securing our nation

Specifically Securing our nation from any outside effort, including non-terrorist (kinda) actors like Russian imperialism, Israeli lobbiyng to direct our foreign policy, Chavez becoming the leader of Latin American, most importantly using NON-WARFARE methods to stop global violence...like working towards peace in the middle east and around the world

Also making sure our ports are safe, etc

Or possibly "Movement to cripple the international anti-US NSA (nonstate actors)"

Certainly we can get to a point where groups like Al-Qaeda are crippled, and we could keep our boots on their neck...but have a war with them? that's just silly

Hmmm I do like that "securing our nation" better than war on terror for the reasons Pub mentioned.

What non warefare methods do you recommend to secure our nation?

Thorgrim · 05-23-2007, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Hmmm I do like that "securing our nation" better than war on terror for the reasons Pub mentioned.

What non warefare methods do you recommend to secure our nation?

The US, unfortunately I have to say under a new president, can play the role like Clinton did to get Palestine and Israel closer (although the situation is much better for that today), and there have been so many developments over the last 8 years, I don't know where to start, but as Baker said "Flip Syria!" I think that's a good possibility, NKorea has seemed open to working out that agreement that came out of nowhere, etc

Kytro · 05-23-2007, 08:06 PM

The idea of military combat to globally eliminate a specific tactic is stupid

Donkey® · 05-23-2007, 08:32 PM

I kind of like "The War on Having Any Friends in the World"

RMNIXON · 05-23-2007, 09:24 PM

Edward's wishes we could go back to those happy days when Terror was an occasional overseas nuisance, primarily involved our military outside the United States, and was treated more like a criminal police problem even though he obviously does not want to call it that. Very good job of a careful choice of words. He is rejecting words, not fully re-defining the problem.

I think the strategy is:

1. Mechanical security at home for every box that comes into the country and every person at an airport.

2. Tie the hands of the intelligence community of actually looking at domestic or foreign terror suspects through the broadest possible interpretations of Constitutional protections.

3. And a basic isolationist foreign policy that has a primary goal of appeasement and takes for granted the position that any outside government or even political activist terrorist organization that has a beef with us must have a legitimate complaint. Or in the very least we must act like it is legitimate even if said terrorist organization does not really represent any Nation/State or large body of people other than their followers. But let us act and react in our Foreign policy like they actually do!

And all will be so much better if we wish it.

RMNIXON · 05-23-2007, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I kind of like "The War on Having Any Friends in the World"

Actually the Constitution provides for the Defense and Foreign Relations that are in the best interests of the United States and its people. There is no stated goal of making friends or making nice with anybody if it is against that self-interest. And our elected leaders get to decide what is that best interest.

If we want to play at hand holding we can take a walk down to this building:

Roonie · 05-24-2007, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

There is no stated goal of making friends or making nice with anybody if it is against that self-interest. And our elected leaders get to decide what is that best interest.

Yes that has been painfully obvious during this administration!!

RMNIXON · 05-24-2007, 01:09 PM

John Edwards had a very different opinion back in 2001!

Pay close attention to the question as it is very broad about actions in the Middle East not just Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan!

Video Clip:

YouTube - Democrats, United on Terrorism - John Edwards

DosEquis · 05-24-2007, 01:21 PM

Does it really need a label? I find them to be meaningless really. We have a state campaign for the seat belt law and they are calling it "click it or ticket". I guess we could call it the 'war on seat belts'.

Terrorism is a law enforcement problem. These groups take refuge in countries that have weak governments with no law enforcement. Their resources are limited and they can only achieve success if we snooze on intelligence gathering and give them an opportunity. We need to secure our borders and make sure we know who is coming in to the country. Our airport security needs to be legit and our port security needs to be legit. You will never prevent every single attack. We also have domestic terrorism, whether its the OKC, unibomber, or someone blowing up an abortion clinic.

6SpeedTA95 · 05-24-2007, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

John Edwards had a very different opinion back in 2001!

Pay close attention to the question as it is very broad about actions in the Middle East not just Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan!

Video Clip:

YouTube - Democrats, United on Terrorism - John Edwards

I was just about to look for this but I see you already found it.

DosEquis · 05-24-2007, 02:14 PM

We are all very well aware of the circumstances behind that statement he made. This was long before all of this bullshit that has taken place. I would have made the same statement as Edwards back then.

Thorgrim · 05-24-2007, 02:17 PM

I can't believe you guys are seriously taking the days after 9/11, when we weren't even sure who was all responsible for 9/11, as any sort of attack on Edwards

Not to mention it was what, almost 6 years ago

These attacks are pathetic, seriously, the hair cut attacks are 1000x better

Roonie · 05-24-2007, 02:17 PM

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.

Thorgrim · 05-24-2007, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

We are all very well aware of the circumstances behind that statement he made. This was long before all of this bullshit that has taken place. I would have made the same statement as Edwards back then.

Hey, we agree, nice to meet you again

DosEquis · 05-24-2007, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Hey, we agree, nice to meet you again

RMNIXON · 05-24-2007, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

We are all very well aware of the circumstances behind that statement he made. This was long before all of this bullshit that has taken place. I would have made the same statement as Edwards back then.

But the question asks specifically about action in places like Iraq and Lybia. That this is a war on terror and can involve our action in a number of nation states. That is what Edwards says he is clearly against. This has nothing to do with nitpicking about Iraq. You can't just redefine everything because you don't like one part of the current strategy or the results of it. That is what Edwards is trying to do while running for Office.

RMNIXON · 05-24-2007, 06:30 PM

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.

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?