bytor2112 Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 On Tuesday, Obama ordered all Pentagon staffers and administration personnel to end use of the Bush administration’s phrase “War on Terror” and replace it with the phrase “Overseas Contingency Operation,” the Washington Post reports.I feel safer already...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleWyvern Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 I'd like to see this memo, as I'm having a hard time finding any original sources that don't cite the Washington Post. Sounds very interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skalenfehl Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 I liked Glenn Beck's ideas on renaming the war on terror. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-train Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 This is true for Obama's Administration itself. It is nothing but a new face and label on Bushism. -a-train Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kawazu Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Howdy, Is there a URL for this news story? Cheers, Kawazu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gabelpa Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 I know it's just semantics, but a "War on Terror" has no enemy, no definable goal, no end. Overseas Contingency Operation may be the same, but at least it's an operation against an unseen, nebulous enemy instead of full-on war. I think... I hate semantics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Godless Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 I agree with gabelpa. Semantically speaking, the War on Terror is a retarded concept, and it leaves too much room for shady practices overseas in the name of "homeland security" and such. I'm all for fighting terrorism, but I think the War on Terror is a slippery slope to scapegoatville. I'd prefer a name that doesn't sound like something from a warmongering rally slogan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 I feel safer already......I thought the concept of POLITICALLY CORRECTNESS was the joke of the Clinton s administration until I heard what this administration has told DOD joint chiefs what verbiage not to use. Like a little child with its hands covering it eyes, why would you close your eyes and expect it would go away. Agh...not going to happen. Ok...we never got it right in the late 90s and we are again repeating history one more time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 I know it's just semantics, but a "War on Terror" has no enemy, no definable goal, no end. Overseas Contingency Operation may be the same, but at least it's an operation against an unseen, nebulous enemy instead of full-on war. I think... I hate semantics.No offense but spend the time and read what is the goal of the AQ for western nations. It has a goal and it has a enemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Godless Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 I thought the concept of POLITICALLY CORRECTNESS was the joke of the Clinton s administration until I heard what this administration has told DOD joint chiefs what verbiage not to use. Like a little child with its hands covering it eyes, why would you close your eyes and expect it would go away. Agh...not going to happen. Ok...we never got it right in the late 90s and we are again repeating history one more time.There's a difference between political correctness and responsibility in terminology. "War on Terror" plays on peoples' emotions and borders on war propaganda. This new terminology promotes more responsible policy and puts emphasis on the fact that this is an ongoing strategic operation, not a full-blown war that can't be won. Yes, they're just words, but sometimes words can carry a great deal of significance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytor2112 Posted March 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 I agree with gabelpa. Semantically speaking, the War on Terror is a retarded concept, and it leaves too much room for shady practices overseas in the name of "homeland security" and such. I'm all for fighting terrorism, but I think the War on Terror is a slippery slope to scapegoatville. I'd prefer a name that doesn't sound like something from a warmongering rally slogan.How about "International Outreach to Reform Murderous Behavior"? That's catchy! Or maybe, "Operation make Osama love Obama"? I like that one too.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 I'd go for "The war on inappropriate expression of political and religious thought." That way both sides of the aisle will hate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Godless Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 How about "International Outreach to Reform Murderous Behavior"? That's catchy! Or maybe, "Operation make Osama love Obama"? I like that one too....An international "war on terror" is unwinnable, period. Our campaigns overseas have created more problems than they've solved. Our bombing campaigns in Afghanistan have destroyed communities and created a bitterness towards the US that to some degree overshadows the fact that we removed the Taliban from power. Removing Saddam from power in Iraq left the door wide open for radical groups to come out of the woodwork when they were previously forced into hiding under the iron fist of Saddam. Yes, he was a monster, but he kept the radicals in check. That is something that we should have taken into account before we went in there. We didn't, and look what happened.Bottom line, aggression overseas will always result in retribution. Military campaigns are poor outreach measures, and outreach is what's going to help us the most, not brute strength. Over the last couple of years we've gained a lot of support from the Iraqi people in smoking out insurgency groups simply because they're fed up with our presence there and they know that we won't leave until the violence stops. Imagine how much sooner this support would have come if we hadn't gone in with an invasion strategy that reeks of 19th Century imperialism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytor2112 Posted March 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 An international "war on terror" is unwinnable, period. Our campaigns overseas have created more problems than they've solved. Our bombing campaigns in Afghanistan have destroyed communities and created a bitterness towards the US that to some degree overshadows the fact that we removed the Taliban from power. Removing Saddam from power in Iraq left the door wide open for radical groups to come out of the woodwork when they were previously forced into hiding under the iron fist of Saddam. Yes, he was a monster, but he kept the radicals in check. That is something that we should have taken into account before we went in there. We didn't, and look what happened.Bottom line, aggression overseas will always result in retribution. Military campaigns are poor outreach measures, and outreach is what's going to help us the most, not brute strength. Over the last couple of years we've gained a lot of support from the Iraqi people in smoking out insurgency groups simply because they're fed up with our presence there and they know that we won't leave until the violence stops. Imagine how much sooner this support would have come if we hadn't gone in with an invasion strategy that reeks of 19th Century imperialism.So, your saying that you don't like my suggestions???? You should probably note that I don't disagree with much of your comments, however, leaving the bad guys with the impression that we are taking our eyes off the ball is not a great idea. They will no doubt see this as a sign of weakness and try and exploit it. As far as our over reaching policies of the last several years, I am not a fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Actually that is incorrect assumption Godless since we had removed all the top layer of AQ except the number two guy who is considered weak individual. Considering our state currently, thank goodness 'spineless' Clinton is now longer President, we fair better than the pass in the world of military might. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madriglace Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 So what ... is this supposed to promote warm pink fuzzzies all around????? Next thing you know instead of news conferences they will be sitting around a camp fire singing kumbayah! What really hacks me off is that they think the public is so dang stupid and shallow we can't see what they are up to. Who are they kidding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Is that a democratic view of the general public? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Godless Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 So, your saying that you don't like my suggestions???? You should probably note that I don't disagree with much of your comments, however, leaving the bad guys with the impression that we are taking our eyes off the ball is not a great idea. They will no doubt see this as a sign of weakness and try and exploit it. As far as our over reaching policies of the last several years, I am not a fan. Dialing back aggression doesn't imply weakness, it shows a commitment to responsible policy. If we can win allies in unstable countries, then we'll have a huge advantage when it comes time to kick in doors and break up radical groups. In these types of conflicts, cooperation from the civilian populace is essential. They have access to information that we could never obtain on our own. Win over the local population, gain their trust, and it won't be long until they're giving us information that we can use to make precise, aggressive strikes against radical groups. Aggression is still a factor in this conflict, but it needs to be implemented carefully in order to avoid alienating ourselves from the people who can help us the most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleWyvern Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 So what ... is this supposed to promote warm pink fuzzzies all around?????I don't think this renaming is to promote peace, just a refocusing. If we were trying to promote warm pink fuzzies we'd call it "Operation Make Happy the People" or something. What really hacks me off is that they think the public is so dang stupid and shallow we can't see what they are up to. Who are they kidding?What do you think they're "up to?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytor2112 Posted March 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 (edited) Dialing back aggression doesn't imply weakness, it shows a commitment to responsible policy. If we can win allies in unstable countries, then we'll have a huge advantage when it comes time to kick in doors and break up radical groups. In these types of conflicts, cooperation from the civilian populace is essential. They have access to information that we could never obtain on our own. Win over the local population, gain their trust, and it won't be long until they're giving us information that we can use to make precise, aggressive strikes against radical groups. Aggression is still a factor in this conflict, but it needs to be implemented carefully in order to avoid alienating ourselves from the people who can help us the most.....and changing from the "War on Terror" to "Overseas Contingency Operation" accomplishes this? We are going to win the "hearts and minds" of countries that are infested with radicals who seek to harm America by changing from War on Terror to Overseas Contingency Operation.......who'd of thought it could be that easy. Should of thought of that years ago. Edited March 27, 2009 by bytor2112 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madriglace Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 What do you think they're "up to?"Not what we elected them to be up that's for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 This is how the cycle goes. There's some catastrophic event like 9/11, everyone gets serious and starts acting like they're going to take care of business, then we lumplike Americans switch back to American Idol a few years later, we stop taking care of business, and then the next catastrophic event happens. This happens with our enemies, with natural disasters, with the economy. We're heading down the lazy curve on security, and heading up it on the economy. Since nobody cared about New Orleans to begin with, it never really had us do much of anything. (Anyone notice the news stories about the new levies? There aren't any.) I'm no fan of Obama, but in this case, he is an expression of American will. In other words, his actions are our fault, not his. LM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleWyvern Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Not what we elected them to be up that's for sure.I was hoping you'd be more specific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytor2112 Posted March 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 This is how the cycle goes. There's some catastrophic event like 9/11, everyone gets serious and starts acting like they're going to take care of business, then we lumplike Americans switch back to American Idol a few years later, we stop taking care of business, and then the next catastrophic event happens. This happens with our enemies, with natural disasters, with the economy.I'm no fan of Obama, but in this case, he is an expression of American will. In other words, his actions are our fault, not his.LMWell, not all Americans, LM. Nearly half of the people who cast ballots would likely disagree with him and I suspect a growing number of those who did are beginning to disagree with him as evidenced by recent polls.But for sure, Americans have short memories and attention spans......unfortunately those who would do us harm are very patient and committed. I am sure they are having a good laugh at our folly...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madriglace Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 I was hoping you'd be more specific.Well let's see....How about the sense of entitlement in DC? The country is in a mess financially and we will pay for it for years but then they give money to bail out an insurance company (banks, auto industry ... how did that get in there???) and line the pockets of the big wigs with the money we have yet to make and think it is OK. They bail out the auto industry ... which I can kind of see ... but are not required to make conditions and changes that would justify the use of our money ... I mean $75 an hour???? How about SS for illeagals who have never worked a day in the US or paid a dime in taxes. How about lost citizen jobs while non-citizens keep theirs? I could continue ...They are not taking care of business ... our business in a manner that is to the best interest of the nation ... which is just exactly what they are elected to do. It is a good ol' boys club ... let's get them before they get us mentality. These people are not stupid they are just out for themselves ... they have no sense of what Civil Servant means.Government needs to be like a bumper sticker I saw not long ago that said "Make a marriage license as hard to get as a building permit" .... make it hard to get the bail out money .... Cut spending from the top down ... cut pork ... cut government wages (our state is at 8% + unemployment and has been for some time and yet our idiot governor and her buds gave themselves a 12% raise) .... and what the heck don't they get about flat tax?Sorry ... this is a soap box for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.