LittleWyvern Posted March 27, 2009 Report Posted March 27, 2009 So how do you think all of that is related to the renaming of the war on terror? I realize how many people here think about Obama's plans, I'm just confused how this renaming is somehow related to the financial situation. Quote
Dravin Posted March 27, 2009 Report Posted March 27, 2009 Obviously 'The War on Terror' was trademarked by the US Government, by eliminating the phrase imagine all the licensing fees being given up, considering the state of the economy and the national debt it is fiscally irresponsible to recklessly throw away a source of revenue in favor of political correctness. Quote
Guest Godless Posted March 27, 2009 Report Posted March 27, 2009 ....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.As I said previously, the change is just semantical at this point. That alone isn't going to change much, though it could change the way our actions are perceived over there. The best course of action to take right now would be to implement policy that works towards the goals that I mentioned. As of right now, I'm not aware of any plans to implement such policies, but I suppose the dialing back of aggressive verbage is a decent place to start. Quote
Madriglace Posted March 27, 2009 Report Posted March 27, 2009 So how do you think all of that is related to the renaming of the war on terror? I realize how many people here think about Obama's plans, I'm just confused how this renaming is somehow related to the financial situation.Just another distraction for the people ... basically if it walks like a duck ..... it is terror and we are in a battle for our freedom .... JMHO Quote
Elphaba Posted March 29, 2009 Report Posted March 29, 2009 Just another distraction for the people ... basically if it walks like a duck ..... it is terror and we are in a battle for our freedom .... JMHOWhat battle? Where is it located? Who are the combatants? What weapons do we need to fight them? How do you know when you've won this particular battle?Elphaba Quote
gabelpa Posted March 29, 2009 Report Posted March 29, 2009 How do you know when you've won this particular battle?ElphabaWhen no one lives in fear of another.. which means we'll need to eliminate drugs, pimping, and gangs. We'll need to put an end to abuse of all kinds, extremism of all kinds.. umm,what else is there.. oh yes the Government's secret mind-reading satellites because they cause terror amongst a certain part of the populace, even if they don't exist. Quote
WANDERER Posted March 29, 2009 Report Posted March 29, 2009 War on terror....the war on our own terror of course. Overseas contigency operation...that would be what to do about the China computer spy network getting into stuff... Quote
Guest Godless Posted March 29, 2009 Report Posted March 29, 2009 When no one lives in fear of another.. which means we'll need to eliminate drugs, pimping, and gangs. We'll need to put an end to abuse of all kinds, extremism of all kinds.. umm,what else is there.. oh yes the Government's secret mind-reading satellites because they cause terror amongst a certain part of the populace, even if they don't exist.Good luck with that. :) Quote
a-train Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 (edited) When no one lives in fear of another.. which means we'll need to eliminate drugs, pimping, and gangs. We'll need to put an end to abuse of all kinds, extremism of all kinds.. umm,what else is there.. oh yes the Government's secret mind-reading satellites because they cause terror amongst a certain part of the populace, even if they don't exist.And there you go. The 'war on terror' is nothing but the war on liberty. Grown men and women have a natural right to consume what they want so long as they inflict no damage on others. They have the same right with respect to mutually agreeable sexual activity. Our neglect to honor these rights leads to the usurpation of power and the loss of liberty. Such losses may at first seem to be for the public good, but always end in tragedy.-a-train Edited March 30, 2009 by a-train Quote
blusun7 Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 i wonder if they will rename the patriot act. maybe to suspect act. Quote
Elgama Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 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.but you can only be terrorised if you let someone do it - choice to be constantly terrified is just that.Plus speaking as a Brit the War on Terror did not tackle the people in the US that had funded terrorism in my country.... at least this way its not pretending to tackle terrorists or bankers of terorrists in the US-Charley Quote
bytor2112 Posted March 30, 2009 Author Report Posted March 30, 2009 but you can only be terrorised if you let someone do it - choice to be constantly terrified is just that.Plus speaking as a Brit the War on Terror did not tackle the people in the US that had funded terrorism in my country.... at least this way its not pretending to tackle terrorists or bankers of terorrists in the US-Charley???????:huh: Quote
Elphaba Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 (edited) 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.Where have you been the last eight years? How do you casually amuse yourself by Clinton bashing, yet ignore the fact that our other president did every single thing you sneer at Clinton for, but went even further and threw in a few atrocities in for good measure.His name is George Bush. Do you remember him? Or did you, like a little child, use your hands to cover your eyes for eight years? Here's a despicable, but politically correct term for you: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. It means torture, and it didn't come from Clinton. Are you going to laugh at that too?Elphaba Edited March 30, 2009 by Elphaba Quote
bytor2112 Posted March 30, 2009 Author Report Posted March 30, 2009 Where have you been the last eight years? How do you casually amuse yourself by Clinton bashing, yet ignore the fact that our other president did every single thing you sneer at Clinton for, but went even further and threw in a few atrocities in for good measure.His name is George Bush. Do you remember him? Or did you, like a little child, use your hands to cover your eyes for eight years? Here's a despicable, but politically correct term for you: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. It means torture, and it didn't come from Clinton. Are you going to laugh at that too?ElphabaI will laugh at it......torture the snot out of them and then line them up in front of a bunch of Marines with M-16's and send them to join the rest of there murderous brothers! Quote
captmoroniRM Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands. -- Douglass Adams Quote
Elgama Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 ???????:huh:which bit lol? the IRA was bankrolled heavily from the US which over the years resulted in similar numbers of deaths to that of 9/11, no action has ever been taken to stop this, or the fact to live a life in fear is a choice:) Quote
Just_A_Guy Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 Elgama: But . . . but . . . we never dreamed that money would be used for sinister purposes! Kind of like the money my American government is now sending to Hamas.Elphaba: My understanding (subject to your corrections, of course!) is that (at least aside from waterboarding) we've used "enhanced interrogation techniques" for a long time, through administrations controlled by both political parties.What the Bush investigation apparently greenlit, from what I can gather, was using multiple techniques at the same time or in close succession. Quote
OtterPop Posted March 31, 2009 Report Posted March 31, 2009 I will laugh at it......torture the snot out of them and then line them up in front of a bunch of Marines with M-16's and send them to join the rest of there murderous brothers!Does your scenario include a trial in there anywhere?Or do you just know 'em when you see 'em? Quote
bytor2112 Posted March 31, 2009 Author Report Posted March 31, 2009 Does your scenario include a trial in there anywhere?Or do you just know 'em when you see 'em?If by a trial, you mean habeus corpus......NO. No access to U.S. courts. Military tribunal, ok and then on to the M-16's. Quote
OtterPop Posted March 31, 2009 Report Posted March 31, 2009 Like I said, apparently you know 'em when you see 'em -- since you've concluded the M-16s are appropriate regardless of the outcome of the military tribunal. I truly don't mean this as tongue in cheek: Do you really think this is what Jesus would want us to do? Quote
bytor2112 Posted April 1, 2009 Author Report Posted April 1, 2009 Like I said, apparently you know 'em when you see 'em -- since you've concluded the M-16s are appropriate regardless of the outcome of the military tribunal. I truly don't mean this as tongue in cheek: Do you really think this is what Jesus would want us to do?Truthfully, I am being sarcastic. I am for extreme interrogation techniques and for execution if the crimes warrant such a punishment after a fair military tribunal has determined it. Quote
beefche Posted April 1, 2009 Report Posted April 1, 2009 I read this today and was happy to see that we haven't offended any terrorists with our wording. (/sarcasm)Taliban say U.S. reconciliation offer "lunatic" Quote
OtterPop Posted April 1, 2009 Report Posted April 1, 2009 Truthfully, I am being sarcastic. I am for extreme interrogation techniques and for execution if the crimes warrant such a punishment after a fair military tribunal has determined it. I'm glad you clarified. I honestly wasn't sure.As far as "extreme interrogation techniques," is there any evidence that they actually work to elicit useful information? John McCain said torture doesn't work. Quote
bytor2112 Posted April 1, 2009 Author Report Posted April 1, 2009 I'm glad you clarified. I honestly wasn't sure.As far as "extreme interrogation techniques," is there any evidence that they actually work to elicit useful information? John McCain said torture doesn't work.George Tennet said it did......a panel convened by Bush said it didn't......but I think in extreme circumstances, I am all for it....send in Jack Bower:D Quote
Elphaba Posted April 7, 2009 Report Posted April 7, 2009 My understanding (subject to your corrections, of course!) is that (at least aside from waterboarding) we've used "enhanced interrogation techniques" for a long time, through administrations controlled by both political parties.That is not my point.Hemi was bashing Clinton because of his creative way of re-naming controversial actions to be politically correct.Yet Hemi ignores Bush has done the same, many times, including creating the dismissive title "enhanced interrogation techniques" for what is obviously torture.Elphaba Quote
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.