[Mangoman]

“If you are a reader of the Harry Potter books, you might describe this as the war that must not be named,” said another Republican aide. Imran?

[BloofPailafum]

Pfff.

While the "War on Drugs" exists, I fail to see the fuss over the phrase "War on Terror."

[www.forumsovetov.ru]

Originally posted by GePap
Good. That phrase is utter ****, and the sooner we stop muttering that lie, the better. actually they havent said the WOT doesnt exist, they just dont want to use it in budget documents, cause its a colloquilism. Also perhaps cause they dont want to get into questions of whether or not an expenditure on Iraq is part of the WOT or not.

The Repubs have jumped on this as denial that the WOT exists, but thats just Repub blarney.

Nobody mainstream denied the cold war existed, but nobody put it into DOD budget docs, AFAIK.

[feseEscaple]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


actually they havent said the WOT doesnt exist, they just dont want to use it in budget documents, cause its a colloquilism. Also perhaps cause they dont want to get into questions of whether or not an expenditure on Iraq is part of the WOT or not.

The Repubs have jumped on this as denial that the WOT exists, but thats just Repub blarney.

Nobody mainstream denied the cold war existed, but nobody put it into DOD budget docs, AFAIK. Then both parties are still living in a costly and moronic fantasy land. The "war on terror" is a fiction, a bad and expensive and costly one at that, and sadly for us, it is being waged by a bunch of ideological midgets whose incompetence has been gigantic.

[cigattIcTot]

They should call it "Cntl-Alt-Del" and all that implies.

[SHUSIATULSE]

It's then, not than. In your use, it's then.

[yatrahnualenu]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


If we called it the "War on al qaeeda and its violent Salafist allies, alongside a struggle against other terrorist groups that are opposed to our interestd and our allies's existence, like Hamas and Hezbollah" it would smell just as sweet. If you for one moment thought that Dem party had suddenly decided to soften its position on Hamas and Hezb, reaffirmed by Ms Pelosi in her current trip, than YOU are an idiot.

I don't even know where to start with this crap, I really don't.

To link our policy vs. global salafist groups and lump with with our policy towards Lebanon (and Hezbollah) and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (and Hamas) is part of the incompetence that is making everything worse.

To view those two groups as the same thing as AQ is part of why this phrase is so stupid and should be removed. Sadly people who think like you are the ones formulating policy. We can see how succesful they have been in Iraq. Yeah, lets spread that policy....

[abouthotels]

Originally posted by GePap




I don't even know where to start with this crap, I really don't.

To link our policy vs. global salafist groups and lump with with our policy towards Lebanon (and Hezbollah) and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (and Hamas) is part of the incompetence that is making everything worse.

To view those two groups as the same thing as AQ is part of why this phrase is so stupid and should be removed. Sadly people who think like you are the ones formulating policy. We can see how succesful they have been in Iraq. Yeah, lets spread that policy....

An Hamas is not the same as Hezb, and the taliban are not the same as AQ, and the GPSC is not the same as AQ, etc. HOwever for the US to legitimize some forms of radical Islamist terrorism while demonizing others, would lead to many contradictions in our policy. Even the Europeans have come to acknowledge this.

And again, many folks who opposed the war on Iraq support the rejection of Hamas and Hezb as long as they fail to renounce terrorism. So thats just a red herring, and a diversion from the issue at hand.

Again, what gave you the idea that the Dems had softened on Hamas?

[Wahwlsnt]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Again, what gave you the idea that the Dems had softened on Hamas? What is wrong with you? Really? Shoiuld I ask that in the other thread?

1. I am a democrat.
2. You brought up Hamas and Hizbollah, not I. I simply stated my support for dropping this moronic phrase.

An Hamas is not the same as Hezb, and the taliban are not the same as AQ, and the GPSC is not the same as AQ, etc. HOwever for the US to legitimize some forms of radical Islamist terrorism while demonizing others, would lead to many contradictions in our policy. Even the Europeans have come to acknowledge this. When dealing with different things, different policies are good. Contradictions would only exist if you are foolish enough to try to lump non-related issues together.

The fact two groups are Muslims and carry out terrorist attacks does not make them both "Islamist Terrorists." There is a fundamental difference between groups that have global idological aspirations and groups that don't. Trying to set up an Islamic state for your own people is different from trying to set up an Islamic state for everyone including non-Muslims. Treating both equally is a huge mistake. Better contradictions than hypocrasy.

Also, Europe "following the US lead" had not lead to any improvement in any policy, nor has it weakened Hezbollah or Hamas, or helped in general.

And again, many folks who opposed the war on Iraq support the rejection of Hamas and Hezb as long as they fail to renounce terrorism. So thats just a red herring, and a diversion from the issue at hand. As noted above, your attempt to link policy in Lebanon and in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the nebolous fight against AQ and it cells is part and parcel of why this phrase is moronic, and why the less we use it, the better.

Are you able to understand that?

[ErnestTU]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Focusing on the newly created idiocy, while ignoring the long lived one seems stupid. Start a thread about "the war and drugs" and I shall happily denigrate the term.

[Piediahef]

Originally posted by GePap


What is wrong with you? Really? Shoiuld I ask that in the other thread? Ask whatever you like. Be as boorish as you want. Your favorite philosopher seemed to think that a superior avenue to truth. I find its not.

[toyboy]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Ask whatever you like. Be as boorish as you want. Your favorite philosopher seemed to think that a superior avenue to truth. I find its not. Unlike you, I don't like to spam with irrelevant crap.

[abubycera]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap


The difference in goals are sufficiently great for a different policy to be called for. Just like the US had a different policy with Communist China and the Communist Soviet Union.

and in case you havent noticed, our policy towards Hamas IS different from that toward AQ. WRT to Hmas we have specific conditions for recognition, and maintain a financial and diplo boycott. WRT to AQ we have no intention of recognizing them under any conditions, and are engaged in global violent conflict with them.

However we must formulate policies to address the deeper issues that lie at the root of both phenomena. Just as during the cold war, while adopting different policies on China and the USSR, we ultimately came to realize a need to advance democracy and market development, a strategy that was not specific to the USSR alone.



hamas is still in charge of most of the Palestinian government. As for Syria, France's pro-Lebanon policy had more to do with particular French interests in Lebanon than some acceptance of US lead.

hamas is, nonetheless, weakened relative to where it was when the boycott began.

Syria is under pressure from the entire EU, and not just France. The positions of the UK and Germany have as much to do with their opposition to terrorism as to concern for Paris' position in Lebanon.

[Tribas4u]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
and in case you havent noticed, our policy towards Hamas IS different from that toward AQ. WRT to Hmas we have specific conditions for recognition, and maintain a financial and diplo boycott. WRT to AQ we have no intention of recognizing them under any conditions, and are engaged in global violent conflict with them. Fine. Thus is is idiotic to call our policy with Hamas part of some "war on terror." Therefore more reason to drop the phrase as I advocate.

However we must formulate policies to address the deeper issues that lie at the root of both phenomena. Just as during the cold war, while adopting different policies on China and the USSR, we ultimately came to realize a need to advance democracy and market development, a strategy that was not specific to the USSR alone. The phrase "war on terror" ignores the reality that one can't spread democratic ideals with military force, and that alliences with dictatorships, actively advocating abuses of human rights, and belittling diplomacy are ways to fail in trying to spread democratic ideals to deal with the underlying problems, and therefore one more reason to drop the phrase as I advocate.

hamas is, nonetheless, weakened relative to where it was when the boycott began. All Palestinian factions are weaker, including Fatah. And Hamas has not budged on its positions, and the peace process remains stalled without pressure from the outside for the parties to meet. Yeah.....

Syria is under pressure from the entire EU, and not just France. The positions of the UK and Germany have as much to do with their opposition to terrorism as to concern for Paris' position in Lebanon. Pressure towards what exactly? I have seen no change in Syrian policy since the withdrawal from Lebanon.