... "global struggle against violent extremism."
LINKQuote:
Donald Rumsfeld's spokesman, Lawrence DiRita, said that the change in language was "not a shift in thinking,"
This is a much more accurate term.
Printable View
... "global struggle against violent extremism."
LINKQuote:
Donald Rumsfeld's spokesman, Lawrence DiRita, said that the change in language was "not a shift in thinking,"
This is a much more accurate term.
OMG. I guess it was inevitable.
https://jimcee.homestead.com/files/extreme_sports_b.jpg
No more extreme-ism. Put away your boards, chutes, sails, etc.
The problem with 'War on Terror' as a catchphrase, of course, is that if it is a war, the US could well be considered to be loosing. Terrorist attacks, ensuing casualties and fear are up dramatically worldwide since the war began. Most Americans now think the war in Iraq has made their country less safe. Instead of changing policy, the Bush administration has decided to opt for the bandaid solution: change the name to make it appear that their approach is working. Personally, I'm waiting for the next change in the name, probably to something like, 'the eternal struggle between Good and Evil'. How could anyone oppose that?
Donald Rumsfeld's spokesman, Lawrence DiRita, said that the change in language was "not a shift in thinking,"
Donald Rumsfeld......thinking....?
Now you know they are only having a laugh . ~;)
And the US in no longer called the United States of America, but the People's Federal Democratic Republic of the New World (plc).
I thought it was [EDIT].
Well, I was trying to make a reference to Karl Rove's nickname (those of you who know it can probably guess what I was suggesting), but I have been informed that this might be considered derogatory. My apologies.
It is a problem when you attribute your view and the views of those whom you surround yourself with to everyone else. Humans also have a propensity to read, listen to, and absorb information that supports our own view. I am guilty of this too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
I am not so arrogant as to think that I know what "most americans" think.
How about this:
Most Americans voted for George W. Bush. (Maybe not the first time, myself included)
Actually no, I was being quite specific. The polls are all here, for your perusal:
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
When asked whether they thought the war in Iraq had made their country more or less safe, 54% of Americans said less safe, compared to only 40% who said more.
I don't make claims like that unless I can back them up.
:bow: ~D :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
According to CNN anyhow... If you'd ask Pew research they'd say a majority of Americans think it has made no difference or made American more safe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
Here are the stats:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
"Do you think the war in Iraq has helped the war on terrorism, or has it hurt the war on terrorism?" Form 1 (N=751, MoE ± 4)
Helped Hurt No Effect Unsure
39 47 7 7
"In the long run, do you think the war in Iraq has increased the chances of terrorist attacks in the U.S., lessened the chances, or has it made no difference?" Form 2 (N=751, MoE ± 4)
.
Increased Lessened No Difference Unsure
45 22 30 3
As you can see, more Americans think the war in Iraq has hurt the war on terrorism than have helped it. More Americans think the war in Iraq has increased the chances of terrorist attacks than decreased it. More Americans also think the war in Iraq has increased the chances of terrorits attacks than made no difference.
The CNN polls showed John Kerry winning the election as well. ~D
People put so much creedence in polls, yet they only ask a couple thousand people..
More than one poll shows that people, even in the US, have seen the irrationality behind attacking Iraq. I think that even the conservatives can see that and they could see it all along ( who really believed Iraq had WMD'S ? ), but they wanted to watch a war on TV and now it all went wrong.
If the illegal occupation of Iraq helped someone then that someone is Al Qaeda since they gained millions of sympathisers, another safe-heaven and a good field to train and develop guerrila techniques.
Considering the 'war on terror'. Its a bit dificult to maintain this term since in most countries its laughable. The US, and particularly the current administration, is consistently and repeatedly terrorising nations into submission and without remorse and, because of its own actions, is seen as the main global terrorist by billions of people. Good job guys...
Even the current rushed attempt of nations like Iran and Korea to develop nuclears is the outcome of such a stupid approach. If the US really feared that nukes would be stolen and used for terrorism purposes then Pakistan would be thr major target since Al Qaeda is very strong there, there have been Pakistani suicide bombers and the government is ran by a military dictator. The problem with such nations developing nukes is not that they might attack the US ( suicidical ), it that the US cannot attack them. A short range nuke barrage can take out a carrier or two with its assorted escort ships knocking a few teeth out of the US war machine...
Hmm - I remember seeing live chemical rounds sitting on the Iraqi gunlines that we overran during Desert Storm. I remember reading the Duefer report that states clearly that Saddam's regime did everything in their power to make it look like they maintained some capablity to produce and use certain WMD's. I remember seeing newscasts on the missles that violated the cease-fire agreed range limitations. Then there is th ineffective sarin gas IED that have either been used or found. Then there is the precruser that has been found.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
Its not an illegal occupation no matter how many times it is claimed. The United States Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq. The Hague Convention of 1907 clearly spells out what the warring party must do when it destroys the politicial infrastructure of another nation.Quote:
If the illegal occupation of Iraq helped someone then that someone is Al Qaeda since they gained millions of sympathisers, another safe-heaven and a good field to train and develop guerrila techniques.
Now failed policy is a legimate criticism.Quote:
Considering the 'war on terror'. Its a bit dificult to maintain this term since in most countries its laughable. The US, and particularly the current administration, is consistently and repeatedly terrorising nations into submission and without remorse and, because of its own actions, is seen as the main global terrorist by billions of people. Good job guys...
Quote:
Even the current rushed attempt of nations like Iran and Korea to develop nuclears is the outcome of such a stupid approach. If the US really feared that nukes would be stolen and used for terrorism purposes then Pakistan would be thr major target since Al Qaeda is very strong there, there have been Pakistani suicide bombers and the government is ran by a military dictator. The problem with such nations developing nukes is not that they might attack the US ( suicidical ), it that the US cannot attack them. A short range nuke barrage can take out a carrier or two with its assorted escort ships knocking a few teeth out of the US war machine...
North Korea has been pursueing nuclear weapons long before President Bush even thought about running for office. Same with Iran. These attempts are not rushed like you are attempting to allude to here. North Korea and Iran started their attempts to develop nuclear weapons before the ink was even dry on the treaties they signed to get nuclear technology to develop nuclear power plants.
I could tell you a few things about the nuclear program in North Korea that would scare you - but if you want to blame Bush for their "current rushed attempt" then its not worth the effort. But I suggest you try a google search of - North Korea Nuclear weapons.
Just the first listed hit on the subject - shows data about North Korea's nuclear ambitions date back to the 1980's.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB87/#docs