The phrase "global war on terror" is finished

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by OPTIONAL777, Mar 31, 2009.

  1. THE HAGUE, Netherlands — The phrase "global war on terror" is finished, at least as far as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is concerned.

    The top U.S. diplomat told reporters Tuesday that the Obama administration has quit using that line to describe the effort to fight terrorism around the world.

    "The administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself," Clinton said.

    Clinton spoke as she headed to Europe for a week of diplomatic meetings. The phrase "war on terror" is widely disliked in Europe and elsewhere overseas, where even close U.S. allies suggested it was overly militaristic and perhaps counterproductive.

    It is also now associated with a range of Bush administration policies such as harsh interrogation practices that President Barack Obama has pledged to abandon.

    Clinton was asked about the phrase as she headed to Europe for a week of diplomatic meetings.

    Pundits have noted the absence of the "war on terror" language, but top administration figures have had little to say on the subject before now.

    "I haven't heard it used. I haven't gotten any directive about using it or not using it, it's just not being used," Clinton said.

    Then-President George W. Bush used the phrase as a rallying cry after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
     

  2. Global War on Terror is one of the phrases that insult my intelligence. The other ones are evildoers, axis of evil and homeland security (why not fatherland or motherland security?) This grand struggle against evil is a scam anyway. It should be renamed "a giant pretext to attack any nation we want but especially oil rich muslim nations with governments that are hostile to us".
     
  3. Yeah, we went into afghanistan to steal their massive oil reserves. That whole 9/11 thing must have been exagerrated too.

    Political correctness will protect us, just like it did those students at gun-free Virginia Tech.
     
  4. You have no brain whatsoever. Does it not strike you as odd that MONEY WAS BEING DIVERTED TOWARD IRAQ PREPARATIONS BEFORE IRAQ WAR BEGAN (OR WAS ON THE HORIZON) WHILE THE AFGHANISTAN WAR WAS IN FULL SWING? That is a fact.

    It was never about afghanistan, after W said he does not really care where bin laden is you know war on terror is a scam. Afghanistan was an emotional hit to start a grand war that could never end (global war on terror) the "prize" was always strategic regions (mostly petroleum related)

    Afghanistan was a cover nothing more. Between 9/11 hijackers there was no connection to iraq. However, there was connection to taliban & bin laden. So if you hit Iraq first which is the whole point you will have people saying WTF.


    It comes down to simple logic (which is not simple for a lot of you)

    US sent 140,000 troops+tanks+aircraft to topple saddam
    US sent like 12,000 (initially, more were added much later including recently) into a country where the perpetrator(s) of the worst terrorist attack on us soil resided.

    Does it not show you priorities?
     
  5. Ever heard of a game called Chess. You win chess by setting up an attack based on moves to be made 3 or 4 out.

    International politics is anything but simple logic. It is not lineal, one move then the next move.

    You clear the path 3 or 4 moves ahead of where you are.

    Iraq needed to change for a win. You clear Iraq while you have the troops there, and have a state of war in existence.
    Simple logic would have you in Afghanistan, while Iraq rebuilds. That only would make the Iraq battle that much tougher.
    And ,Yes , we would have to go into iraq at some point.