America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

For once we agree. I think a lot of politicians are afraid to say what it really is for fear of stepping on anyones toes.

You are right but in a PC world we can't declaire war on any racial or religious group. The way to win this war is two fold. #1 Improve the lives of the majority of the people in the areas in question. This eliminates support for the enemy. This is done through a good PsyOp program. #2 Identify and distroy the enemy and their support where ever possible. The SF was doing this very successfully in the Highlands of Viet Nam in the early to mid 60's. We'd have won Viet Nam if that strategy would have continued but MACV wanted to fight WW2 all over again.

dbguru,

dbguru,

Are we fighting a war against (pick one)
a) Imperialism
b) Extreme nationalism
c) Invasion
d) The Emperor

This might have been asked about Japan in the '40s. It took years of fighting. We had to nuke two cities before they surrendered. How many more lives would have been taken all across Asia if we would've remained isolationist.

I have never advocated isolationalism.
If that's your point... it's off topic

I'm really trying to stimulate a discussion about the lack of honesty in the language used to describe things these days. Some think this is about PC, others thing language is manipulated to deflect focus on the circumstance, others think whatever...

War on terrorism is an example. I was hoping to get some thoughts on this label and then consider other innacurate labels used in our day to day news..

Actually, I believe that we should fight all forms of religious fundamentalism. Be it Christian, Islamic or whatever. I always thought that a religion is destine to implode if not allowed to change (e.g. think the Vatican councils with the Catholics - my religion - obviously, core values aren't changeable ;-}

Hockey... Your assertion about honesty in politics Have you honestly resigned yourself to assuming goverment is going to be dishonest with you as a citizen and that's the way it is? Pretty darn cynical if you ask me. Not a preference for most of us I'm sure.

I think people in general want honesty from their leaders no matter what the circumstances are. Do you think it is natural to follow a dishonest leader? (I'm really not referencing Bush here. That would be politicizing this discussion which I'm trying to avoid. I really am thinking of a general situation where perhaps the leader is your boss, your minister, your policeman, et al.)

I would like to believe that our politicians are honest with us, but the majority are not, some just out and out lie whilst others manipulate words and phrases in order to con us (or other countries) into buying into what they are saying.
That being said, I think that it will take more than Bush or Kerry can muster to win this war. Why??? because we are too human. The people we are fighting are subhuman and will use any method imaginable to win. We are not them. We cannot use such tactics and we are fighting this war based on the premise that our goodwill and the ideology we espouse will stem their hatred of us. Its a catch-22 really. We either have to bomb the living daylights out of them and risk armegeddon, or try a slow cold waresque approach in which we pump them full of American culture. The latter will take a long time and I'm not sure that we have the will as a country to do it. I for one am willing to do it if it means a safer world for my children, but I am not fighting and I am not putting my neck on the line for this cause, so I can't make those sorts of decisions. Time will tell.

DBguru,

I think everyone wants and expects honesty from their politicians. That is why the last few years of the Clinton administration were so difficult for many. The president got caught lying under oath, got impeached, and got disbarred as a lawyer. Many saw this as a non-issue while others thought this was the worst thing to ever happen in US politics.

At some point in their political careers, all politicians are honest and have the best of intentions. Somewhere along the way of playing the political game, ethics committee regulations, campaign finance laws, and financial disclosure forms, the lines get very blurry between right and wrong and I'm not even talking about crossing the line of breaking the law. Many things can be perfectly legal yet dishonest and wrong.

Take for example, the quite popular topic on this board regarding John Forbes Kerry and SUVs. Depending on who the target audience of the speech is, sometimes he owns a fleet of SUVs, sometimes he owns no SUVs, and sometimes his family owns them. Without checking vehicle registration data, you can't necessarily say that he lied. Quite clearly what he says is dishonest. If Kerry gets both the environmentalist vote and the autoworker union vote, this moment of dishonesty was a tremendously successful political move.....but still dishonest. Even thought he was caught at it, it still won't matter so perhaps the voting population does come to expect this sort of behavior. This level of dishonesty is rampant in politics.

Here is another example. Your elected official goes to Washington and brings home $20 million for a solar energy research facility right in your district. That sound great....alternative energy, new jobs, what's not to like? What if the $20 million in funding came from cancelling the Head Start school program in West Virginia and your elected official helped to kill it? This type of thing goes on every day in politics and the lines between right and wrong are very blurry. To be successful, politicians are required to be desensitized.

...and that's just politicians in the US...

By the way, if the war of terror really is a war on Islamic fundamentalism as you say, are you in favor of it?

If you look at it from my skewed perspective...

We are fighting a war on terrorism. Our enemies are terrorists. It just so happens that all the stupid terrorists are islamic fundamentalists, or extremists, if you will.

So, call it an apple, an orange or a banana. It's still a fruit.

Ok, here's my thoughts and observations. First, we are at war with the Muslim extremists who have already declared war on us. Second, we are at war with those who support them. Third, I saw video of Palestinians dancing in the streets over 9/11, and have heard that the only reason we didn't see similar footage from Riyadh is because the Saudi censors confiscated it before it could be transmitted back to the States. Fourth, the Saudis who are our 'friends' have held telethons to raise money to support the families of suicide bombers (see points two and three). Fifth, in spite of the 'mainstream' Islamic culture decrying the use of terrorism, they can't seem to police their own ranks to root out those responsible. It seems to me that the mainstream Islamic culture is talking out of both sides of their collective faces. What if we gave them a dose of the MAD policy that kept the US and the USSR at peace (although uneasy at times) for fifty years? If we are attacked ONE MORE TIME, you will be praying to a radioactive, glass-lined hole in the ground, and if you make the pilgrimage to said hole in the ground for the next hundred and fifty years, your hair will fall out. If we are attacked a SECOND time, your capital cities will join your holy shrine. And see if they are stupid enough to cross the line.