0bama abandoning War on Terror

No, he's not surrendering (yet), but 0bama seems to be looking for a replacement for the term "War on Terror," which I've always liked myself.

What's being sought is a more precise phrase that can recast the U.S. government's counterterrorism fight in ideological as well as military terms. Obama publicly signaled the new approach this week. When asked about the "war on terror" phrase by CNN's Anderson Cooper, Obama said, "Well you know, I think it is very important for us to recognize that we have a battle or a war against some terrorist organizations … Words matter in this situation because one of the ways we're going to win this struggle is through the battle of hearts and minds."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183251

If you needed an example of how 0bama comes up short as a leader compared to Bush, here you go. Bush just said, "Here's what we're calling it; the public knows what it means," then went out and did the job of keeping us safe. Do we need Don Draper or someone who knows how to lead?

Like anyone supported the "War on Terror" in the first place. Shad0ki11

No, he's not surrendering (yet), but 0bama seems to be looking for a replacement for the term "War of Terror," which I've always liked myself.

What's being sought is a more precise phrase that can recast the U.S. government's counterterrorism fight in ideological as well as military terms. Obama publicly signaled the new approach this week. When asked about the "war on terror" phrase by CNN's Anderson Cooper, Obama said, "Well you know, I think it is very important for us to recognize that we have a battle or a war against some terrorist organizations … Words matter in this situation because one of the ways we're going to win this struggle is through the battle of hearts and minds."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183251

If you needed an example of how 0bama comes up short as a leader compared to Bush, here you go. Bush just said, "Here's what we're calling it; the public knows what it means," then went out and did the job of keeping us safe. Do we need Don Draper or someone who knows how to lead?

mysterylobster

[QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]Like anyone supported the "War on Terror" in the first place. mysterylobster

WOOT! America.......move that bus!

Lol, war on an abstract noun. DJ_Novakain

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

No, he's not surrendering (yet), but 0bama seems to be looking for a replacement for the term "War of Terror," which I've always liked myself.

What's being sought is a more precise phrase that can recast the U.S. government's counterterrorism fight in ideological as well as military terms. Obama publicly signaled the new approach this week. When asked about the "war on terror" phrase by CNN's Anderson Cooper, Obama said, "Well you know, I think it is very important for us to recognize that we have a battle or a war against some terrorist organizations … Words matter in this situation because one of the ways we're going to win this struggle is through the battle of hearts and minds."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183251

If you needed an example of how 0bama comes up short as a leader compared to Bush, here you go. Bush just said, "Here's what we're calling it; the public knows what it means," then went out and did the job of keeping us safe. Do we need Don Draper or someone who knows how to lead?

darkmoney52

I dont think the phrase was supposed to sound like a war on a tactic. More like a war on whatever makes humanity feel unsafe. For instance, all the homeless charities banding together for a "war on hunger".

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

No, he's not surrendering (yet), but 0bama seems to be looking for a replacement for the term "War of Terror," which I've always liked myself.

What's being sought is a more precise phrase that can recast the U.S. government's counterterrorism fight in ideological as well as military terms. Obama publicly signaled the new approach this week. When asked about the "war on terror" phrase by CNN's Anderson Cooper, Obama said, "Well you know, I think it is very important for us to recognize that we have a battle or a war against some terrorist organizations … Words matter in this situation because one of the ways we're going to win this struggle is through the battle of hearts and minds."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183251

If you needed an example of how 0bama comes up short as a leader compared to Bush, here you go. Bush just said, "Here's what we're calling it; the public knows what it means," then went out and did the job of keeping us safe. Do we need Don Draper or someone who knows how to lead?

darkmoney52

I was thinking the same thing. Did terrorist try to attack the US after 9/11? I don't recall hearing or reading anything of an alleged terrorist attack after 9/11, so I find it stupid saying Bush protected the US.

[QUOTE="DJ_Novakain"]Lol, war on an abstract noun. mysterylobster

[QUOTE="darkmoney52"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

No, he's not surrendering (yet), but 0bama seems to be looking for a replacement for the term "War of Terror," which I've always liked myself.

What's being sought is a more precise phrase that can recast the U.S. government's counterterrorism fight in ideological as well as military terms. Obama publicly signaled the new approach this week. When asked about the "war on terror" phrase by CNN's Anderson Cooper, Obama said, "Well you know, I think it is very important for us to recognize that we have a battle or a war against some terrorist organizations … Words matter in this situation because one of the ways we're going to win this struggle is through the battle of hearts and minds."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183251

If you needed an example of how 0bama comes up short as a leader compared to Bush, here you go. Bush just said, "Here's what we're calling it; the public knows what it means," then went out and did the job of keeping us safe. Do we need Don Draper or someone who knows how to lead?

barcx17

I was thinking the same thing. Did terrorist try to attack the US after 9/11? I don't recall hearing or reading anything of an alleged terrorist attack after 9/11, so I find it stupid saying Bush protected the US.

Almost as stupid as saying Bill Clinton built a prosperous economy during the 8 years he was in office. Eh?

[QUOTE="darkmoney52"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

No, he's not surrendering (yet), but 0bama seems to be looking for a replacement for the term "War of Terror," which I've always liked myself.

What's being sought is a more precise phrase that can recast the U.S. government's counterterrorism fight in ideological as well as military terms. Obama publicly signaled the new approach this week. When asked about the "war on terror" phrase by CNN's Anderson Cooper, Obama said, "Well you know, I think it is very important for us to recognize that we have a battle or a war against some terrorist organizations … Words matter in this situation because one of the ways we're going to win this struggle is through the battle of hearts and minds."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183251

If you needed an example of how 0bama comes up short as a leader compared to Bush, here you go. Bush just said, "Here's what we're calling it; the public knows what it means," then went out and did the job of keeping us safe. Do we need Don Draper or someone who knows how to lead?

Singularity22

I dont think the phrase was supposed to sound like a war on a tactic. More like a war on whatever makes humanity feel unsafe. For instance, all the homeless charities banding together for a "war on hunger".

That's my problem with the term, it's too broad. It can be applied to too many groups and get us involved in too many conflicts. A term like that can be used for just about any war the people in the White House are interested in starting, provided they can scare the crap out of enough people to support it.

Obama's just tryin to stop all the wars and problems that the douchebag bush created..

Bush protected ya? He basically drew a bulls eye target on america..

If u think obamas pathetic.. Something must be wrong with u

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

[QUOTE="Singularity22"][QUOTE="darkmoney52"] First- The term is misleading, you cannot have a war against a tactic. Second- I really hate how people say that Bush protected us, as if terrorist attacks were a regular occurence at some point, and it was only through a mismanaged war(Which will likely lead us straight into another pointless war with Iran) that we managed to avoid another 9/11.darkmoney52

I dont think the phrase was supposed to sound like a war on a tactic. More like a war on whatever makes humanity feel unsafe. For instance, all the homeless charities banding together for a "war on hunger".

That's my problem with the term, it's too broad. It can be applied to too many groups and get us involved in too many conflicts. A term like that can be used for just about any war the people in the White House are interested in starting, provided they can scare the crap out of enough people to support it.

What about War on Terrorism. That to me would be much more direct; that is, if terrorism is defined as an action of deadly force against civilians. Ex. The Twin Towers.

No, this just proves that Obama is much smarter than Bush: you can't create a war against a concept...chessmaster1989

He's a marketing man, not a leader. He only thinks in terms of image.

Thank God, the "War on Terror" was the dumbest name ever.GabuEx

Agreed lol

[QUOTE="darkmoney52"][QUOTE="Singularity22"]

I dont think the phrase was supposed to sound like a war on a tactic. More like a war on whatever makes humanity feel unsafe. For instance, all the homeless charities banding together for a "war on hunger".

Singularity22

That's my problem with the term, it's too broad. It can be applied to too many groups and get us involved in too many conflicts. A term like that can be used for just about any war the people in the White House are interested in starting, provided they can scare the crap out of enough people to support it.

What about War on Terrorism. That to me would be much more direct; that is, if terrorism is defined as an action of deadly force against civilians. Ex. The Twin Towers.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]No, this just proves that Obama is much smarter than Bush: you can't create a war against a concept...mysterylobster

Of course, he had absolutely no policy ideas :roll:

The thing is, i ALWAYS had a problem with the wording.

Terror is something that you CANNOT defeat. What, we're fighting "terror" now? Then why has the goddamn media tried so hard to scare the **** out of me ever since 2001?

Granted, terror sells. Fear brings in money, and people have been doing that for as long as I can remember. But jesus christ. I've probably been more terrified by the war On Terror than I was terrified by actual terrorism. Not that I expect the profit-out-of-fear thing to decrease under Obama, but at least stop insulting my goddamn intelligence. How many people here have actually started to become LESS terrified once the "War On Terror" began?

You guys should call it: How to invade another country for natural resources without raising the ire of the UN

or

Revenge Step 2: Invasion

I've always prefered "War of Terror" or "Another Imperialist American War myself"

[QUOTE="darkmoney52"][QUOTE="Singularity22"]

I dont think the phrase was supposed to sound like a war on a tactic. More like a war on whatever makes humanity feel unsafe. For instance, all the homeless charities banding together for a "war on hunger".

Singularity22

That's my problem with the term, it's too broad. It can be applied to too many groups and get us involved in too many conflicts. A term like that can be used for just about any war the people in the White House are interested in starting, provided they can scare the crap out of enough people to support it.

What about War on Terrorism. That to me would be much more direct; that is, if terrorism is defined as an action of deadly force against civilians. Ex. The Twin Towers.

What about War on Terrorism. That to me would be much more direct; that is, if terrorism is defined as an action of deadly force against civilians. Ex. The Twin Towers.

Singularity22

Even then it'd only be the "War on Terrorism that We Personally Care About". :P

/cynicism

I think it's more accurate to call it a war on Islamic extremeism or Anti-westernism or something like that. fidosim

[QUOTE="Singularity22"][QUOTE="darkmoney52"]

That's my problem with the term, it's too broad. It can be applied to too many groups and get us involved in too many conflicts. A term like that can be used for just about any war the people in the White House are interested in starting, provided they can scare the crap out of enough people to support it.

gobo212

What about War on Terrorism. That to me would be much more direct; that is, if terrorism is defined as an action of deadly force against civilians. Ex. The Twin Towers.

Explain. Civilian casualties during war are just an accidental factor. We didnt blatantly go in there and destroy a civilian populace for the hell of it. Am I wrong?

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]No, this just proves that Obama is much smarter than Bush: you can't create a war against a concept...chessmaster1989

Of course, he had absolutely no policy ideas :roll:

[QUOTE="Singularity22"][QUOTE="darkmoney52"]

That's my problem with the term, it's too broad. It can be applied to too many groups and get us involved in too many conflicts. A term like that can be used for just about any war the people in the White House are interested in starting, provided they can scare the crap out of enough people to support it.

darkmoney52

What about War on Terrorism. That to me would be much more direct; that is, if terrorism is defined as an action of deadly force against civilians. Ex. The Twin Towers.

We sponsored terrorist groups in Afghanistan during the 80s to fight the Russians, and on many occasions we've sponsored groups to overthrow governments.

EDIT: I was refering to your question about the US having terrorist ties.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"] The same 0bama who used fuzzy concepts like "hope" and "change" to convince people he was ready to lead? mysterylobster

Of course, he had absolutely no policy ideas :roll:

It has real targets, but you don't wage a war on terror-you wage a war on people. Therefore, the term "War on Terror" is stupid.

Singularity:

We sponsored terrorist groups in Afghanistan during the 80s to fight the Russians, and on many occasions we've sponsored groups to overthrow governments.

EDIT: I was refering to your question about the US having terrorist ties.

darkmoney52

Ah. So in turn, it would seem that during the revolution, the american colonists were terrorists?

PS. Im not trying to be a dope, Im just going on different points of view. I dont believe attacks on military are acts of terrorism.

Ah. So in turn, it would seem that during the revolution, the american colonists were terrorists?

PS. Im not trying to be a dope, Im just going on different points of view. I dont believe attacks on military are acts of terrorism.

Singularity22

One man's terrorists are another man's freedom fighters, generally speaking.

Therefore, the term "War on Terror" is stupid.

chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="Singularity22"]

Ah. So in turn, it would seem that during the revolution, the american colonists were terrorists?

PS. Im not trying to be a dope, Im just going on different points of view. I dont believe attacks on military are acts of terrorism.

GabuEx

One man's terrorists are another man's freedom fighters, generally speaking.

But for anyone to wage war on innocent civilians is just plain wrong.

How do you have a war on terror? All wars revolve around genocide and or extortion. So it makes as much sense as naming a war "The war on... uh.. war." Why not just "operation: thin the hurd" ? Oh, it's not PC. That's what these missions are really about. The favorable objective is to eliminate the leader because that's the quickest way to destroy moral, but if that can't be achieved it doesn't matter since eliminating as much enemy personal as possible is one of the primary missions objectives.

I think the U.S should just withdrawl because the Al Qaeda got their asses handed to them. There's no reason to hang around. Maybe when they feel like popping their heads out of their rabbit holes we can go back and hand them their asses again. They'll never surender because they don't want to stop fighting. They don't care how futile their effort is nor how many of their people die. They're like roaches, they won't quit until you kill every last one. They stay alive by hiding.

No, he's not surrendering (yet), but 0bama seems to be looking for a replacement for the term "War on Terror," which I've always liked myself.

What's being sought is a more precise phrase that can recast the U.S. government's counterterrorism fight in ideological as well as military terms. Obama publicly signaled the new approach this week. When asked about the "war on terror" phrase by CNN's Anderson Cooper, Obama said, "Well you know, I think it is very important for us to recognize that we have a battle or a war against some terrorist organizations … Words matter in this situation because one of the ways we're going to win this struggle is through the battle of hearts and minds."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183251

If you needed an example of how 0bama comes up short as a leader compared to Bush, here you go. Bush just said, "Here's what we're calling it; the public knows what it means," then went out and did the job of keeping us safe. Do we need Don Draper or someone who knows how to lead?

mysterylobster

We are going to win over a people who neither care for treaties, peace accords, geneva conventions, and would most certainly use a nuke on us if they had it??????? Obama is the most ignorant person ever besides Bush. I'd love to see us win over the hearts and minds when a nuclear bomb goes off. Boy, that'll be the day.

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]Like anyone supported the "War on Terror" in the first place. Dylan_11

WOOT! America.......move that bus!

I love that show.

I hope he doesn't surrender because we were never in the position to surrender. We're not backed into a corner (hiding in a cave) so surrendering would contradict the purpose of surrender. Counter-Terrorism isn't Anti-terrorism, it's a counter-strike. It's an eye for eye. If they want to play it ruthless we will play it ruthless. The idea is they are not gonna terrorize us, we are gonna terrorize them. This is established by being more ruthless than they are. But I think overtime the fundamentals as well as the purpose of Counter-terrorism have been forsaken.

Good news. The war on terror was/is like the war on communism. The enemy is portrayed as a dangerous evil enemy, yet has fallen apart for the most part already. The war on terror was born because america needed an enemy, not because there was much of a danger.

I like the message obama is giving. Now let's hope he continues like this.

I think it's more accurate to call it a war on Islamic extremeism or Anti-westernism or something like that. fidosim

This actually proves to me that Obama is going to be a great Leader and Prez. :)

"War on Terror" is just stupid, which is fitting for GWB.

"Terror" and "Terrorism" has been around forever and will remain forever. It can never be defeated since people will always hate other people. Thus a "War on Terror" is just an excuse for the USA to have a permanent presence in the Middle East.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]Thank God, the "War on Terror" was the dumbest name ever.chessmaster1989

Agreed lol