Bush administration takes a positive step

[Triumph36]

I always thought War on Terror sounded the other way around, lehigh. It sounded like the symptoms would be fought against (namely, the terror), and the causes left unexamined, because, hey, we've got a War going on here, we don't have time for that.

Wars by definition don't attack causes, they 'treat' symptoms.

[lehighguy]

Well as I said, that's not the way I looked at the "War on Terror". I saw it as a shorthand for a much larger war on the causes of terrorism.

The feeling I've always gotten from the left is they felt we should go after Osama, but do nothing to change the economics, politics, or culture that lead to his creation or allowed him to operate.

[FishHooks]

[ QUOTE ]
Wars by definition don't attack causes, they 'treat' symptoms.

[/ QUOTE ]

What symptom did WW2 treat, I believe we were attacking the cause of a well known Nazi leader named Hitler

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Well what would you call this "war on terror then?"

[/ QUOTE ]

"War against violent extremism" (most politically correct version) or "War against violent Islamic extremism" (most accurate version).

[FishHooks]

Yea calling this a war against violent islamic extremism would really isolate the islamic community, lets try to piss of the least amount of islamics as we can.

[Cumulonimbus]

[ QUOTE ]
Well what would you call this "war on terror then?"

[/ QUOTE ]

A War on American Freedoms. Duh.

[whiskeytown]

the most positive step the Bush Administration could take right now is the first one out of the White House -

Democrats have been saying this for years...so have Military Strategists who point out that a war is unwinable without clear objectives.

rb

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]


White House drops 'war on terror' slogan

WASHINGTON, July 26 (UPI) -- The Bush administration has begun downplaying the "war on terror" in favor of "a global struggle against violent extremism," the New York Times reports.



[/ QUOTE ]

There was once a 'war on poverty’; I assume this has ceased operations. It was a domestic war.

"a global struggle against violent extremism,"

I don't think this wording is any improvement; it is in fact, a step backward. 'War on Terror' is a simple straightforward phrase that works well on many levels and in so many ways and is also easily understood by the throbbing masses. Its propaganda value is very high. The watered down version from the article is too amorphous in the wrong direction, If you understand what I mean.

"a global struggle against violent extremism,"

I assume this would include the US overthrow of the Iraq government.

So you see, this wording change is a bad idea.

-Zeno

[mackthefork]

Hopefully this will be the start of the end to using peoples fear as a political tool to win votes in all countries, somehow I doubt it though.

Mack

[Matty]

Well apparently the Administration is taking the step, but their leader refuses.

President Bush "publicly overruled some of his top advisers on Wednesday in a debate about what to call the conflict with Islamic extremists," the New York Times reports. Some top officials had started using the phrase "global struggle against violent extremism" to describe what Bush had once called the "global war on terror."

"It is not clear whether the new language embraced by other administration officials was adopted without Mr. Bush's approval or whether he reversed himself after the change was made. Either way, he planted himself on Wednesday firmly on the side of framing the conflict primarily in military terms and appeared intent on emphasizing that there had been no change in American policy."

Said the president: "Make no mistake about it, we are at war."

However, the AP notes Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld still isn't listening and refers to the conflict as a "struggle between civilization and extremists."

http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedconten...D8BNUDQG1.html