• 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'

First 100 days sets the agenda. We are approaching that. How much longer do you need?

I've never been a follower of the "100 day" rule for any President. That's just media hype to offer a critique of how things are going. I think especially in the realm of foreign policy that first "100 days" is pretty irrelevant. Think about it...if we were to have judged GWB on this first 100 days...his foreign policy would have looked quite good instead of the mess it became.
 
Yes... because we'd hate to further provoke the people that already hate us enough that they are willing to blow themslevses up in an effort to kill as many of us as they can.
I would. Why provoke unnecessarily? What will that accomplish?
 
I've never been a follower of the "100 day" rule for any President. That's just media hype to offer a critique of how things are going. I think especially in the realm of foreign policy that first "100 days" is pretty irrelevant. Think about it...if we were to have judged GWB on this first 100 days...his foreign policy would have looked quite good instead of the mess it became.

GWB's first 100 days were quite sound. His foreign policy was nothing more than the continuance of the previous Presidents; Hawkish and Brutal.

American foreign policy, not Bush's mind you, come crashing down on September 11th. We are putting too many eggs in the basket labeled "this President is a trillion times different than the one before"
 
How does that in any way affect anything I said?
You're already having trouble with this? You said they cannot be provoked further. I was implying that they could be provoked further, since we have not been attacked in 8 years. If we provoke enough, they respond.
 
You're already having trouble with this? You said they cannot be provoked further. I was implying that they could be provoked further, since we have not been attacked in 8 years. If we provoke enough, they respond.

The reason we havent been attacked in 8 years is because every attack attempted has been thwarted.
 
You're already having trouble with this? You said they cannot be provoked further. I was implying that they could be provoked further, since we have not been attacked in 8 years.
Yes. And this is a non-sequitur.
So...?
 
So you have your opinion and I have mine. What are you failing to grasp?
How your non-sequitur facilitates a sound opinion.
 
So in Obama's brave new world, there are no terrorist attacks but "man-caused disasters" and now the GWoT is now called 'Overseas Contingency Operation'. What purpose does this silly newspeak do? Is this to placate the enemy? To soften our stance of defense of our people. What is the point?

The "Global War on Terror" has always been a misnomer. There have been far more innocent civilians killed than terrorists.
 
I could care less if you think my opinion is sound.
First, its 'couldn't care less'.

Second, its not a matter of me thinking its sound or not -- you have based your opinion on a logical fallacy. That, not my thoughts, makes it unsound.

Third, your statement that you do not care if your opinion is sound or not is telling.
 
First, its 'couldn't care less'.
World Wide Words: I could care less

In these cases people have tried to apply logic, and it has failed them. Attempts to be logical about I could care less also fail. Taken literally, if one could care less, then one must care at least a little, which is obviously the opposite of what is meant. It is so clearly logical nonsense that to condemn it for being so (as some commentators have done) misses the point. The intent is obviously sarcastic — the speaker is really saying, “As if there was something in the world that I care less about”.

Second, its not a matter of me thinking its sound or not -- you have based your opinion on a logical fallacy. That, not my thoughts, makes it unsound.
Okay, chief

Third, your statement that you do not care if your opinion is sound or not is telling.
I said that I did not care what you thought of my opinion. I do not cater to the hyper partisan, so it's completely expected that you would disagree.
 
Last edited:
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.

Okay, chief
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.

I said that I did not care what you thought of my opinion
Yes. And I have explained how -my- opinion of your opinion isnt the issue.
 
Well at least the War on Terror is over. :2razz:

Does this change the name of my GWOT Expeditionary Medal?
 
What we're seeing is a slick attempt by Obama to start writing his legacy before he's even started... much like he wrote his memoir before he'd done anything of note.

Obama speaks of the need for 'transparency' in Washington. And at least in this case he's delivered. This is a transparent gimmick to appease his supporters who opposed military action... while he continues to pursue the Bush administration's military path in the middle east. A military path which in Iraq, at least, has been looking quite positive for the past two years or so.

But with a simple change of terminology, the Bush haters will be able to continue in their ridicule of the former president, while praising the 'bold new strategy' of the current president. And in the end, Obama will claim to have 'cleaned up' Bush's mess.

;)
 
So in Obama's brave new world, there are no terrorist attacks but "man-caused disasters" and now the GWoT is now called 'Overseas Contingency Operation'. What purpose does this silly newspeak do? Is this to placate the enemy? To soften our stance of defense of our people. What is the point?

I've advocated the abandonment of the GWoT for quite some time...since it started actually. As it is merely government propaganda to justify further increases in size and scope of power and nothing else. of course, I didn't want it replaced with more government propaganda meant to justify the increase in size and scope of government power. It's not like this is much different, it's just a new name and same ol' treason.
 
Iraqi.....innocent civilians.....killed by.....American troops and private contractors.
You hadn't heard?
rl]


Most of the civillian deaths are iraqi on Iraqi. You FAIL as usual.

So are you calling us Troops Murderers?


I just want to check before we continue.
 
ABB - Anything But Bush.

That's why we're hearing the terms like man-caused disasters and overseas contingency operations.

It's to seperate the Obama administration from the Bush administration.

The good news is, Obama has finally lived up to one of his campaign promises, this is the "Change" he talked about.
 
So are you calling us Troops Murderers?

I have always hated that 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.

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
 
Back
Top Bottom