The "War on Terror" is over.

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Superlative, Apr 16, 2007.

  1. Superlative
    Offline

    Superlative Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,382
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +109
    UK abandons 'war on terror' phrase

    The British government has stopped using the phrase "war on terror", a Cabinet minister announced in a speech delivered in New York.

    Hilary Benn, Britain's international development secretary, said on Monday that the expression strengthens terrorists resolve by making them feel part of a larger struggle.

    "We do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can't win by military means alone... this isn't us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives," Benn told an audience at New York University's Centre of International Co-operation.

    The phrase "war on terror" was popularised by George Bush, the US president, after the September 11 attacks.

    'Shared identity'

    Benn said a variety of disparate minority radical groups have gained exposure by sharing a "distorted view of the world" with similar organisations.

    "What these groups want is to force their individual and narrow values on others without dialogue, without debate, through violence.

    "And by letting them feel part of something bigger, we give them strength."

    An official spokesman for Tony Blair, Britain's prime minister, said he was unsure when Blair had last used the phrase.

    "We all use our own phraseology, and we talk about terrorism, we talk about the fight against terrorism, but we also talk about trying to find political solutions to political problems," he said on condition of anonymity.

    'Soft' power appeal

    Benn called on the US to use the "soft power" of values and ideas as well as the "hard power" of military strength to defeat extremist groups.

    He also highlighted Britain's support for the International Criminal Court (ICC), which the US has refused to join to protect US soldiers and officials from prosecution, and appealed for the closure of the US' Guantanamo Bay detention centre.

    Benn's speech was partly an appeal to Labour party members, who are largely opposed to the war in Iraq and Blair's close relationship with Bush.

    Benn is widely expected to become Labour's deputy leader in a party election after Blair steps down as prime minister later this year.


    http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7D73AC20-AF10-4AB1-8B30-DDC82143CC51.htm


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    PROBLEM SOLVED


    Mark my words, This is how the US will be able to pull out of Iraq.


    The War On Terror is UNWINNABLE, and the US knows it. its pretty obvious that short of killing anyone and everyone who disagrees with the US, they will never rid the planet of "TERROR"

    So what have the geniuses done?

    Eliminated the idea of losing a battle that cannot be won.

    If there is no "War on Terror" anymore than American is simply baby sitting Iraq until they get their shit together, and learn to walk, and that cant take too long, maybe sept 08? (unlike ridding the world of fear, that could take forever)

    By simply RENAMING the struggle it essentially means the beginning of the end in "The War On Terror."

    And dont you worry, its not "Cutting and Running", it's letting Iraq stand up on their own, letting them embrace their new democracy.

    Which we have already seen the first shining example of in thier 'peaceful' exercising of the 'free' and democratic right to gather in protest.

    Everyone remembers the very first "Anti America Flag Burning rally". :eusa_dance:


    It's over people, grab a cold one and relax. USA! USA! USA!
     
  2. Superlative
    Offline

    Superlative Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,382
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +109
    the US can use an old name, one thats already been tested on the gen pop:

    Operation Iraqi Freedom,

    Operation Peace in the Middle East,


    I prefer, Operation Iraqi Democracy with a Shiite Majority, who will befriend Iran (also a Shiite Majority) who will then re-arm and attack Israel.(which also happens to be the largest US military base in the region) BRB

    Basically if we do leave, we will be back.

    So we should just call it,

    Operation 'Iraqi Vacation', "A nice break from the carnage" Now with less bombs!

    'See you again when you get your feet on the ground Iraq'
    At which point we will level the entire area, no sorry, not level, if you are lucky the smoking crater that was Iraq and Iran won't be below sea level.
     
  3. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    The left does not want to offend the terrorists by calling them terrorists

    Appeasement at all costs
     
  4. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Dems here were way ahead of their fellow libs in London

    I even started a thread saying how Dems have won the war on terror

    http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=47984
     
  5. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Does it make you wonder why al Jazerra is so happy with libs running things in the US and London?

    You are doing what the terrorists want you to do
     
  6. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    The real debate on Iraq
    TODAY'S EDITORIAL
    April 18, 2007


    Every so often, we witness a debate that serves to illustrate what is at stake in the congressional debate over funding the war in Iraq. Such was the case on "Fox News Sunday," where Sen. Lindsey Graham debated the issue with Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin. The differences could hardly have been more striking.
    Mr. Graham carefully articulated the foolhardiness of framing the issue as a matter of how best to put pressure on the elected Iraqi government. Mr. Levin, by contrast, made it sound as if the primary goal of our military campaign in Iraq is to start withdrawing troops in order to force the Maliki government to meet a checklist of political demands not to defeat jihadists seeking to destabilizethe country and establish a caliphate.
    Mr. Levin said he hoped that Congress would send President Bush "a very strong bill which would say that we're going to begin to reduce troops in four months as a way of telling the Iraqi leadership that the open-ended commitment is over, not just rhetorically, but, in fact to try to force them to take responsibility for their own country."The senator questioned whether Mr. Bush was "serious" about "holding them to their political commitments,"adding that if Congress failed to override Mr. Bush's veto of legislation emerging from a House-Senate conference, he hoped to send the White Houseanotherbill that uses "benchmarks" as "the second best way of putting pressure on the president to put pressure on Iraqis."
    By contrast, Mr. Graham madea number ofimportant points that are usually lost in congressional debate on the U.S. role in Iraq: that it is a major battleground in the larger war against jihadist terror and that abandoning Iraq in response to car bombings doesn't simply send a message to the Iraqi government; it jeopardizes American interests in our larger national struggle against the Islamists.
    During his most recent trip to Iraq, Mr. Graham visited Anbar province in western Iraq, and he noted some hopeful signs. "Sixteen of 21 tribal sheiks have now joined with the coalition forces and rejected al Qaeda," he noted. "The sheiks made a call to join the police force. Seven hundred people had to be turned away" because so many people applied to join the force. Mr. Graham also noted the absurdity of the fact that a majority of the Senate, which voted 81-0 to confirm Gen. David Petraeus as commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, appears determined to undermine him bymicromanaging the war.Gen. Petraeus "had a specific game plan in mind," Mr. Graham noted.
    Mr. Graham added: "Timetables, timelinesfor withdrawing troops, benchmarks that give your enemy a road mapof how to driveus out of Iraq are bad ideas. These are congressional micromanagement of the war that will have short- and long-term political effects.The president will veto this bill. He should veto it. And I do believe that timelines and deadlines undercut Petraeus. They empower the enemy and people start making political deals... If you want us out of Iraq, just cut off funding. Don't bleed Gen. Petraeus dry and undercut him."
    This is the kind of blunt-spoken common sense that has been largely absent from the debate now taking place on Capitol Hill.

    http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070417-091721-6109r.htm
     
  7. Superlative
    Offline

    Superlative Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,382
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +109
    The US cannot leave.

    I dont agree that the US is there, or how the US got there.

    But we cannot leave.

    Not without a plan, and not without some kind of control in place, whether it be iraqi armed forces or police.

    It would appear that congress wants a dealine to force some kind of plan to be put into play, or at least an idea of a plan.

    Bush is looking like a procrastinator, saying " if we just hang in there it will fix itself"

    Congress wants to give him a deadline, but without a plan how can you establish a deadline,

    Congress feels that without a deadline how can you force a plan?
     
  8. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Why tell the enemy when we are going to leave?
     
  9. Superlative
    Offline

    Superlative Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,382
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +109
    Good Spin:clap2:

    Why do we tell them we are there to help?
     
  10. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Why do libs want to tell the enemy when they are going to pull the troops out?
     

Share This Page