• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Scraps 'Global War on Terror' for 'Overseas Contingency Operation'

I have always hated that question.

I am more offended by Will's inference than I am of my question.


While I support the troops, I cannot help but to feel that there are murderers and down-right absolute evil people in the U.S. Armed forces.




I treat the armed forces as if it were the American people... are Americans murderers? Well, no, but there are some who all.


There is a huge consideration you are missing. people are screened before going into the .mil, they are not to be "Americans".... And this is not the point of wills comments. I am simply addressing them


Are there "murderers" in the Armed forces? I am sure there may be a small few. However, posting propaganda videos and claiming we are purposefully and wantonly killing civillians is a most abhorrent anti-troop bs statment to make. And one I only find uttered behind the anonymity of the internets.


I also find a slight bit of frustration towards those who can kill on command. I have a gung-ho buddy, who was all about killing hadjis and arabs and terrorists, and whatever else he could find to call them. After a few days of playing in the sand, he is not so sure...

I think war is more unimaginable than I can conceive


It is.
 
Basic English:
If you could care less, that means you care at least a little, as the amount that you care can decrease.
If you could NOT care less, then the amount you care is at its minimum.
You obviously did not read the article, hardly surprising. If you want to comprehend what was written, educate yourself.

However much the truth may hurt, you should admit, to yourself at least, that it is the truth. Yours is a non-sequitur as there is no necessary relationship between the two tenets you presented.
Your assuming that my opinion is based only on what you have deemed a non sequitur.


Yes. And I have explained how -my- opinion of your opinion isnt the issue.
...instead choosing to whine about non-sequiturs. You choose terrible debates to start. :2wave:
 
I just want to check before we continue.
Those who have extinguished a life are killers. I cannot even fathom the amount of stress killing another human being puts on the human psyche. Murderers implies that they have broken some law to kill a person.
 
Those who have extinguished a life are killers. I cannot even fathom the amount of stress killing another human being puts on the human psyche. Murderers implies that they have broken some law to kill a person.




Which is why I wanted to ask before I continued with him. He clearly thinks troops are murderers.
 
Which is why I wanted to ask before I continued with him. He clearly thinks troops are murderers.

If anyone does not believe in a trooper killing but pays taxes is a hypocritical enabler anyways. I bet he pays tax. But Rev. what is your honest opinion of the video besides labeling it as propaganda? Did it appear a little bit like a group of soldiers shooting at civilians that where just driving by? That's what it looked like to me.

Let me guess "You can't judge enough by the video. Who knows the whole story? Maybe the guy driving down the road was lobbing mortars off camera at the soldiers as he drove to his destination."

When I think most people would watch that one video and see it for what it is. A group of young guys blasting a random car as it drives through a residential area. The people running out of their cars for their life don't even have weapons they are fleeing with. If they where combatants they would have weapons.
 
If anyone does not believe in a trooper killing but pays taxes is a hypocritical enabler anyways. I bet he pays tax. But Rev. what is your honest opinion of the video besides labeling it as propaganda? Did it appear a little bit like a group of soldiers shooting at civilians that where just driving by? That's what it looked like to me.

Let me guess "You can't judge enough by the video. Who knows the whole story? Maybe the guy driving down the road was lobbing mortars off camera at the soldiers as he drove to his destination."

When I think most people would watch that one video and see it for what it is. A group of young guys blasting a random car as it drives through a residential area. The people running out of their cars for their life don't even have weapons they are fleeing with. If they where combatants they would have weapons.



So you assume guilt based on a short video clip? Have you ever been in combat?
 
When I think most people would watch that one video and see it for what it is. A group of young guys blasting a random car as it drives through a residential area. The people running out of their cars for their life don't even have weapons they are fleeing with. If they where combatants they would have weapons.

I haven't watched the video. But assuming your are 100% correct in your analysis of it, so what?

In another thread we've seen a video of an Oakland BART police officer shooting a suspect in the back for no apparent rhyme or reason. What are we to make of that? That law enforcement is inherently unethical and immoral? That policemen as a group are brutes? That use of deadly force is never justified because on occasion those entrusted with that power abuse it? That Oakland is a city of thugs?

Perhaps the best explanation is the most obvious... the world is not a perfect place. And in the digital age, we now have an opportunity to witness that imperfection up close and personal on our PCs and mobile devices in a way that no civilization in history ever has.
 
So you assume guilt based on a short video clip? Have you ever been in combat?

Been shot at but not in combat scenario like you are looking for. Crazy sniper guy with a lil' rifle on a big hill when I was a lil' one in boy scouts.
 
The "War on Terror" was an idiotic name from the very beginning. The name was used as a further play on post-9/11 nationalism to ensure that funding for the military operations against terror groups would continue...which I have no problem with. But the name is ridiculous because it denotes a war against an intangible enemy. You can't "kill" terrorism, you can shoot it, you can't bomb it. But...who is going to argue to cut funding against something as ominous as a "war on terror?" As has already been pointed out, it's as stupid as "the war on drugs." Intellectually it's a dishonest marketing ploy. There is plenty of merit in combating terrorist groups, you don't need a philosophically inaccurate title to describe it. There have been numerous discussions on calling our operations a "war on terror."

This is just an attempt to discredit Obama as weak or pandering to the liberals because nobody in this thread has articulated any level of change in operational capability or scope. The difference here is recognizes how moronic the term was and he's changing it.

The day he actually actually suspends our operations against our enemies in a way that jeopardizes this nations security I'll take some of your opinions on this topic seriously. Until then, I'll continue looking at the fact that he's enhancing our combat capabilities in Afghanistan, actively trying to work with Pakistan to combat Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and increasing security at our southern border.
 
Last edited:
The "War on Terror" was an idiotic name from the very beginning. The name was used as a further play on post-9/11 nationalism to ensure that funding for the military operations against terror groups would continue...which I have no problem with. But the name is ridiculous because it denotes a war against an intangible enemy. You can't "kill" terrorism, you can shoot it, you can't bomb it.
I think its pretty clear that the WoT is an effort against terrorism and a fight against terrorists. No one is really confused by the title.

This is just an attempt to discredit Obama as weak or pandering to the liberals because nobody in this thread has articulated any level of change in operational capability or scope. The difference here is recognizes how moronic the term was and he's changing it.
He SHOULD have just adjusted it a little, calling it the "war against terrorism".
 
The "War on Terror" was an idiotic name from the very beginning. The name was used as a further play on post-9/11 nationalism to ensure that funding for the military operations against terror groups would continue...which I have no problem with. But the name is ridiculous because it denotes a war against an intangible enemy. You can't "kill" terrorism, you can shoot it, you can't bomb it. But...who is going to argue to cut funding against something as ominous as a "war on terror?" As has already been pointed out, it's as stupid as "the war on drugs." Intellectually it's a dishonest marketing ploy. There is plenty of merit in combating terrorist groups, you don't need a philosophically inaccurate title to describe it. There have been numerous discussions on calling our operations a "war on terror."

This is just an attempt to discredit Obama as weak or pandering to the liberals because nobody in this thread has articulated any level of change in operational capability or scope. The difference here is recognizes how moronic the term was and he's changing it.

The day he actually actually suspends our operations against our enemies in a way that jeopardizes this nations security I'll take some of your opinions on this topic seriously. Until then, I'll continue looking at the fact that he's enhancing our combat capabilities in Afghanistan, actively trying to with Pakistan to combat Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and increasing security at our southern border.

Don't forget the War on Poverty. That one is dumb too.
 
I think its pretty clear that the WoT is an effort against terrorism and a fight against terrorists. No one is really confused by the title.


He SHOULD have just adjusted it a little, calling it the "war against terrorism".

It's a ridiculous title that was thrown down right after 9/11 in order to galvanize popular support for our operations against various terror organizations. But it's intellectually misleading because you can't actually wage a war against a religious or political strategy or idealism.

I'm glad he's scrapping it because it was a stupid title. Like I said, you come back when you can articulate how he's actually putting our national security at risk.
 
It's a ridiculous title that was thrown down right after 9/11 in order to galvanize popular support for our operations against various terror organizations. But it's intellectually misleading because you can't actually wage a war against a religious or political strategy or idealism.
Like I said:
I think its pretty clear that the WoT is an effort against terrorism and a fight against terrorists. No one is really confused by the title.
 
Like I said:
I think its pretty clear that the WoT is an effort against terrorism and a fight against terrorists. No one is really confused by the title.
It is called a "War on Terror". You can never win a war on terror until all terror is eliminated in the world. All of it. That is why it is not only confusing, but laughable.
 
It is called a "War on Terror". You can never win a war on terror until all terror is eliminated in the world. All of it. That is why it is not only confusing, but laughable.
OK, again:
I think its pretty clear that the WoT is an effort against terrorism and a fight against terrorists. No one is really confused by the title.

I'm really not sure why there is so much difficulty understanding this.
 
OK, again:
I think its pretty clear that the WoT is an effort against terrorism and a fight against terrorists. No one is really confused by the title.

I'm really not sure why there is so much difficulty understanding this.
Is it called the "War on Terrorism and Terrorists"? Even so, it's a highly unattainable goal. There will always be terrorists performing acts of terrorism.
 
The point I am making is that the "War on Terror" is a terrible name. It sounds endless and futile.
Clearly, the name of the effort is the most important component of same.
:roll:
 
I do not recall making that claim. Try again.
It seems your focus here is on the retardedness of the name.

We all understand what it means. Focusing on the retardedness of the name is, well, retarded.
 
It seems your focus here is on the retardedness of the name.

We all understand what it means. Focusing on the retardedness of the name is, well, retarded.
So calling out stupidity when I see it is stupid? Flawless logic. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom