digg

Classic solution from Washington. Can't solve the problem? We'll just change the wording...problem solved! We Win!!!

Good. 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*.

The 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.

Wait a minute... didn't we already rename it the "Global Conflict Against Religious Extremism?" Does anybody else remember that? Maybe it got thrown down the memory hole. Hey, who's that guy with the moustache on my telescreen?

I 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.

What House is it?

Haha, the voting patterns are funny.

pro-democrat/anti-republican = digg
pro-republican/anti-democrat = bury

Other text need not apply.

I dugg this, but I'm not a Democrat...

But neither am I a idiot

I'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.

like David Cross said: the war on terrorism is like a war on jealousy.

I now propose a "War on Wars" !

Just call it Imperialism. Plain and simple.

Apparently you can't delete a double post. Oh well.

Everyone 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.

If we hadn't changed the word "Freedom Fries" back to "French Fries" all would have been ok...

The 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.)

The 'war on terror' is nothing more than a group of words that Bush is using to alleviate any necessity to go to congress when he wants to use the military. Screw that! Do away with the term and make all presidents give concrete descriptions and reasons for putting our men and women into harms way. I hate democrats (and republicans), but Pelosi going to Syria to talk and now this...I love her for it. Someone has to talk to these people; it's called diplomacy and believe it or not, it DOES work sometimes. You have to give it a shot. The Bush admin refusing to talk to certain governments is childish at best!

Sonaro said it best right here

"They are trying to clear the republican smokescreen."

IT'S ABOUT FREAKING TIME! For those who obviously don't know, "War on Terror" is the political spin used by Bush to justify expanding his own power since "we are at war". Well the fact is that there is no such thing as a War on Terror because that would never end (hence, he would never have to give up "wartime powers"). It was a dirty policitcal play that no one should have bought into in the first place.

How about 'NEVER ENDING IDEOLOGICAL WAR'

Maybe 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.

originally posted by schratboy
Hell, the democrats have already declared Iraq to be a defeat (Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Henry Waxman, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry) so this is definitely in-line with their efforts. I wonder what's next? Banning Christianity? As they seem to be appeasing the Islamofascists at every turn this would position them to engage the Iranians and giving them all our nuclear weapons. Surrendering is winning in these people's minds.


Damn...you Libs sure hate the truth!

How about the War of Error[s]? Or we could pursue a new war: http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/04/04/we-must-win-the-war-on-fire/ (The war on FIRE).

*Yawn*...so by the end of this article it amounts to absolutely nothing. So they're rethinking what they call the war on terror in the budget, whoopie. You can call a cupcake an apple for all I care, it's still a cupcake.

Isnt having a "War on terror" like having a "War on murder" ?

Buried as inaccurate.

Ok, it should be changed from "War on terror" to "War with islamic terrorists". More clear.

I like it, "Global war on Terror" is way too vague...

War on Terror is double plus ungood. The United States have never been at war with Terrorists.

"war on terror" should be changed to "war defending the interests of Israel".

No. Why?

Hey they should change welfare to "get off your lazy ass, quit spawning children, and go to work."

I propose "Jihad on Terror"

Maybe if we don't say the words the problem doesn't really exist. Good going.

You all can argue this or that, but millions upon millions of dollars was wasted yearly on people who refuse to work because they can sit on their ass, and or lay on their back and sex a couple little babies so they get that nice check in the mail for each head in the family. Yes welfare does help some people, i know a woman who is a mother of 3 and works 3 jobs so she doesn't take from the government. You people argue of money being wasted over seas fighting a war. Maybe, but that's your opinion, Look inside your own borders to see how much money is being ***** down the drain. I don't give a damn what the war is about, our people are over there fighting, and you should be standing behind them regardless. America has lost its sense of patriotism, you all gulp down the negative ***** the media focuses on. Since Vietnam America has never been able to fight to win a war, the politicians and the bleeding heart liberals have to complain about this or that. Well you know what? The troops didn't lose Vietnam the politicians did. Unless you are in the military, you people don't have a damn single right to say anything you want to, You haven't given up a damn thing. So when your having a hard time and your out of money. Think twice about that person in front of you with a cart of groceries who just hands over their little red white and blue card.

I remember visiting a war memorial place where the Vietnam war was mentioned as the 'Vietnam conflict'. Let's stop this political correctness nonsense. A hint: If your name for a conflict is the same as the one your opponent uses, it's probably an objective name.

Therefore we should use 'War in Iraq' and 'War in Afghanistan' and not propaganda names like Bushes 'Global war on Terrorism' or Al Quada's "Global war on Imperialism".

Since 2002 Donald Rumsfeld, Bush's Secretary of Defense until a few months ago, and others within the Bush Administration have said that calling the policy the "war on terror" was a terrible name and that a more sensible name for the policy should be used instead. Though I don't agree with a lot that Rumsfeld has to say, he does have a point. Terror is a technique not a country or a group. So you can never "defeat" terror since at any time in the future someone could engage in terror. It makes as much sense as a war on murder or a war on rape or a war on theft. You can reduce the incidences of something occurring, but if it is a practice that anyone could engage in you can't "defeat" it. So you will always lose a war on something that someone can do. You can defeat a nation led by a leader, but you can't defeat behavior no matter how disgusting or repulsive that behavior is.

Don’t get me wrong, we need to oppose people who engage in terror and fight them with all the might and smarts we have to keep them from terrorizing us or others. Our police work to keep thieves, murderers and rapists off the street. But we don’t call it a war on murder, rape and theft. That would be silly since we could never declare victory over murder, rape and theft. In the same way we can never declare victory over terror. It’s a never ending war and wars all wars have to end some time. If the opponent, “terror”, isn’t eliminated from the earth, then we lost. So it’s a poor metaphor.

How about just 'No More War' or is that taking it too far? The Democratic Leaders s are a bunch of hypocrites whose agenda right now is to continue the war while appeasing the anti-War crowd with such meaningless edicts (see http://www.counterpunch.org/*****.html )

Democrats 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?

Changing 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?

"As they seem to be appeasing the Islamofascists at every turn"
Actually before the US invasion Iraq was one of the more secular middle east states. The US even praised Saddam for this along with his education programs when he first took power. Of course that was before it turned out that he was a tyrannical dictator. But Iraq wasn't like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. Saddam didn't care that much about religion (after all he was rather fond of wine which I believe would be off limits to any strict Muslim) Iraq even has a sizable Christian populaiton (4% I think) at least compared to other Islamic countries.

why dont you call it what it really is..."The Build up to Armegeddon". All of you babbling about defending democracy, and bringing peace throughout the world are FULL of shyt. You sit around and brainwash yourselves with Carl Rove's catch phrases, then justify MURDERING hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and those Americans who cant stand up for themselves because UCMJ forbids it, unless you want to take a chance at courtmartial. Its funny how the people who are suppose to be in the party of morals, and "God" talk more about murdering people and killing your own countrymen as much as suicide bombers put on vest and kill innocents. Looks to me as if EVERY avid Bush supporter has played right into the terrorists hands, of course that was the POINT of what you wanted all along hmmmm?

I was in the Army, and if I had the choice between letting an innocent Iraqi family die, and a family of people who brainwashed their children to WORSHIP lies just because the guy telling em has an (R) next to his name....hmmm, what to choose, what to choose. I dont see what the Bushies dont get...if everything that came out of their mouths wasnt a lie, and if they didnt turn into psycopathic murderers themselves...maybe, just maybe...they wouldnt have had to defend themselves with more lies to cover the ones theyve already commited.

Just more proof of how pathetic the left has become in this country, siding with terrorists, aiding the enemy, and undermining the President in the middle of a ***** war. Despicable, shameful, and (IMHO) treasonous.