What is Digg?176 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -18/+104>I can almost see the newspeak
Actually a "war on terror" IS the newspeak.
The very phrase makes zero sense. - nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -24/+101I agree with the democratic leadership, we need to end the use of catchy, non-specific, biased, emotionally-charged phrases . . . they're just another part of the "Culture of Corruption."
- sonaro, on 10/12/2007, -16/+72nixonrichard is right. You guys are either missing the point here or you are part of the problem. They are not doing away with the phrase because they think terrorism will go away, nor are they doing it to trick anyone. They are simply saying that you can't classify every military action as a part of the war on terror since not every battle is terrorism related. Bush himself said that weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq, therefore it is not Ok to continue to say the Iraq war is part of the "global war on terror."
They are trying to clear the republican smokescreen.
"Committee staff members are told in the memo to use specific references to specific operations instead of the Bush administration’s catch phrases. The memo, written by Staff Director Erin Conaton, provides examples of acceptable phrases, such as “the war in Iraq,” the “war in Afghanistan, “operations in the Horn of Africa” or “ongoing military operations throughout the world.” - randf, on 10/12/2007, -32/+74Classic solution from Washington. Can't solve the problem? We'll just change the wording...problem solved! We Win!!!
- geoboy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+47You can't win a war on terror, because the war would be neverending. Just like the war on drugs. How and when do you declare victory? When every last "terrorist" is dead or captured? Or do you measure the time since the last terrorist attack? Oh, right. Timetables embolden the enemy. If we declare victory 10 years after the last terrorist attack, it will only make them want to attack us the next day.
- MarkCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -9/+46Well seeing as you can't have a war on a tactic I'd be all for a change in name...
- trillions, on 10/12/2007, -6/+38Global = World
War = War
On = Against
Terror = Undefined Enemy in an Unidentified Location with an Unknown Number of Members
WWAUEULUNM. - Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -6/+36Can we kill the "War on Drugs' phrase now too?
It's obvious it's also not winnable. Some people have a drug problem, let's attack that issue since we can actually be effective there. We've already proven prohibition didn't work once, why are we doing it again.
The same analogy will eventually apply to terrorism once we get our leaders heads out of their rears. We need to treat the issues, not wage war. It's gotten us nowhere and only deeper in debt and hated even more. We need to be better people overall. We should address their issues, understand them, and stay the hell out of their business. In turn they may do the same. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+41Yes, everything was going so well until the Democrats showed up.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -9/+29The global war on terror wasn't lost, won, or even called off - it never existed.
It was just a soundbite, void of meaning.
You can not wage war on subjective and abstract concepts, not in any meaningful sense; posterity will view the war on terror much like it views the mad Roman emperor Caligulas war with the sea, where he had his soldiers wade out into the water and strike with their swords. - loudribs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21I liked it best when it was The War Against Terror (*****)
- keyboardduder, on 10/12/2007, -15/+34More like the end of "The global war on America's economic surplus" and the war on honesty. I hope Bush and his cabinet live forever, watching what they did to this country.
- loudribs, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23I wonder if they'll downgrade their expectations and rename it 'The War Against Mild Anxiety' or 'The War Against Tolerable Fear'....damn, I'm fed up with us fighting emotional responses.
- pixelbender, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18I am a republican, but so ashamed as an American and a decent human being to see what this administration has done with our country, absolutely pathetic. Frankly, it is BOTH sides and all politicians that act like a bunch of FIVE YEAR OLDS! WTF? What happened to this country that "serving" in politics meant "TOTALLY F*CK those who voted for us, lets do whatever we want?"
Is is wrong to say we should pull out of Iraq? If we do so, we've done so much harm to so many people who most likely will not be better off than they were before. But personally I fear the more resources we waste there the more at-risk our country will be from other avenues. I feel greedy that I want our country to do what will protect us, but it is unfortunate that because of our actions doing what we need to do now (for our own good) will harm so many others. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+28
RedHerring:
>Not even close there NANCY. About the same percentage voted for the democrats as those that are deemed below average intelligence. I am not claiming causality, just pointing out a fact. The way it worked out, if every sub-moron voted democrat, the same outcome would have occurred. Thats funny.
Interesting then that the lowest IQ states, with the lowest SAT scores (the south), with the lowest educations and the lowest annual incomes, the lowest number of dentists per capita (yup!), consistently vote for Republicans.
Perhaps there is a pattern there. - mattyparanoid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12@sooperdooper
I have received both the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary and Global War on Terrorism Service Medals. No Oak Leaf Clusters yet, but that will probably change with my next rotation...
They stopped giving the AF Good Conduct Medal and I still wear that one. I believe that they just stop giving them out if they make a medal obsolete.
Soon to be retired Air Force Guy... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+21Good. This a phrase is being used world-wide to justify un-related actions and political agendas. Now let us know why you really want to implement *insert latest assault on civil liberties*.
- sponeil, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Everyone bashing the Democrats for this one, including the submitter, is a dumbass. I'm not saying the Democrats don't do stupid things, but this isn't one of them.
The "war on terror" was a play on words to give Bush permanent war-time powers (keep in mind it started before the Iraq war). Presidents get special powers during war-time, but only if there is an official declaration of war. The concept of the "war on terror" was a power play, and it should've been killed before it officially began. The war on terror is like the war on drugs. It will never really be over, and it can't be won by soldiers in battle. - tommyhanks, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16@schratboy
That is one hell of a jump isn't it? Today we change how we refer to military actions around the world. Tomorrow we ban Christianity?
If you ever wondered where people get the idea that people with right-wing political views are "bat ***** ***** loco" look no further than your comments. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10There's an Italian restaurant near me in Winter Springs, Florida that still has Freedom Fries on the menu. I was talking with the owner over lunch one day and asked him why he never took "Freedom Fries" off the menu. Did he keep it as a joke?
He started going on about how the Republicans are the only group (anywhere in the world) that have ever stood up to Muslim extremists and their supporters. I mentioned that the French aren't necessarily supporters of terrorism, and the "Freedom Fries" thing in Congress came about because France didn't support the war in Iraq (rightly so). In his Brooklyn accent, he called me a "***** French loving liberal", then told me to leave and never come back to his restaurant.
Too bad. His Chicken Parmesan was delicious. - redmonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Ok, it should be changed from "War on terror" to "War with islamic terrorists". More clear.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12@pixelbender
I am also a Republican. I am also ashamed for what this administration has done to the party.
Keep in mind that these are not Republicans in office. They are all part of PNAC.
The current administration are just as extremist as the terrorists they are supposedly hunting down.
With that said, wait 4 year and you'll see just as many complaints about the new Democrats and how they have destroyed the country. It happens to every party. They end up being blamed for whatever is happening now when, in reality, most of the bills were passed years before under a different administration.
But hey, it's always easier to blame the current administration, no matter what party they are. - sooperdooper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@ Yez70
"Can we kill the "War on Drugs' phrase now too?"
Yes. To paraphrase:
"The memo provides examples of acceptable phrases, such as 'the war in Los Angeles,' 'the war in Miami,' 'operations in the Southern Border,' or 'ongoing police and paramilitary operations throughout the world.'"
To contribute, does anyone know anybody who's received one of the two different Global War on Terror medals? They were established in '03; if they were renamed they'd probably be the shortest-lived medals in U.S. history. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The doctor on tv with the gammy leg and mid-atlantic accent...?
- DavidGX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I now propose a "War on Wars" !
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Is this kind of like how New York symbolically banned the N-word?
Freedom of speech anyone? - BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -16/+21"this would position them to engage the Iranians and giving them all our nuclear weapons."
you mean like how the republicans gave Iraq WMD's and set up Saddam & the Muhajadeen (Al Q'aida ) to fight the Soviets back in the 80's? - loudribs, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10I guess the closet comparison to any really phenomena would be 'War Against Those Of A Swarthy Complexion, Access to Oil Wealth and Elaborate Headgear'
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Dude,
where do you get the collapsed economy from?
You are definiltely living somewhere other than this world. If your body is actually in the US, please move it somewhere else. We have more than enough sickos to deal with around here... - randf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7reminds me of monthy python...we are no longer the knights who say "Ni"....
does that mean i'll have to turn in my Global War on Terror Medals now that the democrats don't like the phrase. can they give me back the last 6 years of my life i spent supporting "that which can not be said" now?
changing the name solves everything! great concept! - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"Bush declaring a 'War on Terror' is like FDR declaring a 'War on Bombs' in the wake of Pearl Harbor "
Are you really that stupid. After Pearl Harbor, Congress (not FDR) declared war on Japan, who perpetrated the attack. The war on terror is against al qaeda, who perpetrated the attack on 9/11. Just because you disagree with Bush's execution of the war doesn't mean the war isn't happening. Even if the US doesn't fight it, Al Qaeda will continue fighting the war. - feckineejit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9How about 'NEVER ENDING IDEOLOGICAL WAR'
- ChileanGoD, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Just call it Imperialism. Plain and simple.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@mattyparanoid
Thank you for your service !!
I hope you enjoy retirement because you have earned it !!
Good Luck - littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@nixonrichard
“…they're just another part of the ‘Culture of Corruption.’”
Not according to the “Culture Warrior!”
http://www.billoreilly.com/culturewarrior - noamsml, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12"About the same percentage voted for the democrats as those that are deemed below average intelligence. I am not claiming causality, just pointing out a fact."
Actually, you are covertly implying causality, otherwise you would not have mentioned this completely irrelevant fact. Of course, you failed to mention that the percentage of people deemed below average intelligence is the same as that of people deemed above it: 50% by the very definition of average intelligence (average intelligence is actually median intelligence, aka 100 IQ).
In conclusion, that's one of the dumbest sentences I've read this week, an I read a lot of dumb things. - floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5mass slaughter people left and right with no regard for civilians...
That's just wrong.... trust me, I have seen was a group of B-52's dropping "dumb" bombs can do. If we had no regard for civilians we could have "Fixed" Iraq without a single foot on the ground.
I mean really what would Iraq look like today after 4 years of UNRESTRICTED bombing?
When our guys are shot at by snipers we send people in to find them. we could just as easy blow the block away and not risk any one. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"In conclusion, that's one of the dumbest sentences I've read this week, an I read a lot of dumb things."
You get on Digg everyday too?! - RoflcopterFUEL, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14I support your War of Terror.
- TherealObadiah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Democrats are the most foolish, ignorant people on earth. Maybe Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will command everyone, including the terrorists, to group hug! Man, are these people really this stupid, or are they just still smoking crack?
- Desslok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Changing the name is a great idea. Of course, that depends on what your definition of "is" is.
Maybe they really want to change it because it is offensive to terrorists. Suppose it gets changed to the "War on the Convential War Challenged," is that OK? - caution, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The change was a good way to make specific operational and aide funding rather than dumping cash into "GWOT."
I agree that you can not declare war on a tactic. Terrorism is a tactic.
"War on ________" has been over used and is now meaningless anyway.
Same with so many other things -- like "_______ 's Bill of Rights" -- so demeaning to the language.
I believe Western countries lack the willpower to wage all out war anyway, WWII proved real war is the most horrible human experience.
Ann Coulter, as much as most of you guys hate her, makes a few good points in her column today. Now I don't agree with her style, but today she's making sense:
"If you want a shorter rebuilding process, then we're going to have to wage less humane wars. The enemy -- as well as innocent civilians -- must be bombed into quivering terror. Otherwise, we displace aggression but don't destroy it."
Sad but true. (Of course, most people can't read Coulter without getting a little sick.) - Pseudorious, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@bigdavediode
1984 provided the Newspeak phrase, "War = Peace."
The phrase "Global War on Terror" is too literal, though "Terror" should be "Islamic Terrorists" to be absolutely accurate. I think the reference to Islam was removed to reduce recruitment on the other side, and America only declares war on a people in extreme conflicts, otherwise it fights concepts and geographic locations.
Compared to "Operation Desert Storm," and other notables, it may be as far from Newspeak as seen in many years. - Pseudorious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Of the slew of ignorant comments, this is the most ill-informed. Israel has not needed US protection from Iraq since the First Gulf War. The long-range capabilities of Iraq were destroyed in that conflict, both in missile and aircraft form. Iraq's only remaining link was through funding for the families of suicide bombers, and it's not as though that form of terror has diminished as a result of the invasion.
I would argue that since 1981, Iraq has lived in greater fear of Israel than the other way around, save during the Scud attacks.
For your edification: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm - canderson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Maybe I am just naive, but it seems to me our Congress sits around driving fancy cars, eating and drinking the finer delicacies, living in mansions, and then has the nerve to show up to work to argue about how things should or should not be worded. In the mean time, you have a 20-something year old guy, with a wife and kids back home, who is strapped down with 100 pounds of gear, getting shot at to defend their right to do that? This is not about whether or not we should be in Iraq or not. The point is we are there, so why don't we as a nation step up to the plate and get the job done. Stop spending all of our time bitching about it, and get these stupid politicians (on both sides of the aisle) out of office, and demand that the people WHO SERVE US, finally do just that. I would bet money that most Americans, and most of the soldiers who died on the front lines, wouldn't give one damn what wording was used.
Congress, just give the military to do their job as long as it takes. You don't like Bush? Fine, impeach him. But don't use the men dying in Iraq as a political game to get revenge. If you hate Bush as much as you claim, then is he really worth saying "Screw you troops, because you're boss is a jerk, we aren't going to support you."
This country has turned into a weak, name calling, bunch of hypocrites. It's a shame. We need to stop tying the hands of our boys, and let them get this job done. They will come home, but lets not leave this unfinished, or its going to bite us again. - janne1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9I'm very surprised about this. As everyone knows, the administration has been milking this so-called war on a terrorist organisation that doesn't exist at all; I'm sure everyone here knows about how the name Al Qaeda was invented in America in order to prosecute Osama bin Laden. There is no organised terror network, the neoconservatives have been lying for 30 years and still people take them seriously. It boggles the mind.
- roosterjm2k2, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12The thing is, calling it Nat'l Defense hurts too. National Defense isnt enough to do what needs to be done. Terrorism isnt something a reactionary defense can handle. Its not like a traditional attack, where it starts, damages get done, our forces arrive, and we drive them off. Its ... quiet .. quiet .... quiet ... BOOM ... done. Its one of those situations were without a strong offense, you lose. Im not saying I like the situation now...we're wasting too much money and effort in Iraq, and can't focus on the real problems. Not to mention our reputation as a country has been ***** over, so if we ever have a real need to attack anyone, we will be doubted and questioned.
Im scared though, of the democrats too. I'm scared that now that are going to put world politics in front of defense. Clinton tried to get Bin Laden, but the one time that he had to greatest chance to kill him, he didn't, because he was more worried about the global image of America at that point. Im not one of these "Clinton ***** up, he could have stopped it and just didnt" people. He had his reasoning, and hindsight is 20/20. But it does show that sometimes, you have to be the bad guy for the good of your own people. And a president should never rule based on the opinion of the world of his country. Its like any other social setting, the strong individuals do their own thing, and the weaker ones look for approval from everyone around them...
Im just saying, make sure that your not just caught up in the ever popular blind hate/skeptisism of bush before you throw all your support at everything that NOT bush. He ***** up Iraq, in a big way...and his stubborness is keeping us there ... but dont be so quick to throw all of your support the other way on every issue either, the democrats know that right now people are looking for a change, and its a good way for them to find themselves in a great deal of power and influence really quickly. To put it in perspective... clinton ***** up a little with the whole perjury thing ... not near as major as iraq...and the next election put a republican at the head of all 3 branches of gov't. Thats not a good thing. Any party with control of all 3 branches is bad thing, it removes the checks and balances of our system, and gives a lucky few a great deal of power. just be careful, and thoughtful. - dime, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12"The democrats BARELY won a majority. Hardly a mandate at all. I think it's funny that they are running around thinking that the 2006 elections are payback++ for the Republican MANDATE that happened in the 80s/90s."
Kind of like when George won in 2004 with 51% and declared it was a mandate and that he had tons of political capital to now spend?
Yeah, I can see your point. -
Show 51 - 100 of 174 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is