155

|
|
TOPIC: Pelosi demands the words Global War on Terrorism not be used in 2008 budget document
|
|
|
| Created by: debjack50 | The original post for this thread was deleted. |
|---|
| 1 to 6 of 6 |
User Details are only visible to members.
|
lawyer speak?? haha, i like that one. but again it's just a catch phrase..
like the "police action" in korea... |
||
Philadelphia PA |
Username hidden
(5330 post)
|
||
User Details are only visible to members.
|
|||
Arlington TX |
Username hidden
(2285 post)
|
||
User Details are only visible to members.
|
as far back as the 1983 attack on the us marines there have been terrorist attacks against us and maybe even farther back.
i would be interested in the actually number of global terrorist attacks on yearly or decade by decade basis to compare today's activities to the past. the point is that global terrorism has been going on for a long long time and labeling it now the "global war on terrorism" does nothing more than create a position or an anti position political purposes.. ie. "you're not for the war on terror?" "they voted AGAINST the war on terror?" those are just phrases with no real meaning imho |
||
Philadelphia PA |
Username hidden
(5330 post)
|
||
User Details are only visible to members.
|
i would be interested in sens take on this because he seems to have a ton of research at his fingertips but cant u argue that there has been a war on global terrorism for the past 40yrs starting with abu nidal but it simply never involved attacks on the us. the political catchwords are manufactured (and tested) for response. the marketization of politcs with such catch words i believe has created the "we are right, you are an idiot" on these boards and in the general community.
i believe the Global War on Terror is one of these catchwords or phrases. (continued) |
||
Philadelphia PA |
Username hidden
(5330 post)
|
||
User Details are only visible to members.
|
this is from an article in the Washington Post which CRITICIZED the democrats "narrow vision" by Fred Hiatt...
Certainly a respectable case can be made that there is no "global war" -- that the administration, whether from shock at the 2001 attacks or out of political cynicism, exaggerated the threat and distorted American priorities. There is an equally respectable argument that Bush's promise to end tyranny is dangerously romantic. You seem to use the word treason a lot, seldom correctly :-) |
||
Philadelphia PA |
Username hidden
(5330 post)
|
||
User Details are only visible to members.
|
|||
Arlington TX |
Username hidden
(2285 post)
|
||
| 1 to 6 of 6 |
TOPIC: Pelosi demands the words Global War on Terrorism not be used in 2008 budget document
|