Do Liberals Believe There's A Global War On Terror ?

Question

Now before you answer, there is something you should know .
On March 27th, a member of the Democratically Controlled Armed Services Committee, drafted a resolution for its members to acknowledge and sign . That resolution asked and then went on to tell members not to use or refer to the no longer acceptable " Global War on Terror " .

So are we to expect that the 'major changes' that Nancy and the boys promised, were to include doing away with the Global War on Terror ? GWOT
What do you make of this ?
And has your news source reported this to you ?

Answer 1

I DID see this!

I listen to talk radio (big surprise, I know). So I heard it.

I think one thing we can ALL agree on is that there is a large portion of the American public that does not see terrorism as a major threat, and did not see Iraq as a major threat. I'm not saying they are right or wrong - that's an opinion - but I believe the observation about people's beliefs is accurate.

I do think many on the left and others do believe the terrorist threat is not major, or is exaggerated, or we are otherwise not at war - at least not as the Bush administration has stated.

They believe that Bush has done the wrong things in response - some even believe he created the crisis! - and that if the Democrats come back the world will revert to the 1990s, when people were blissfully ignorant of the threat.

ALL the actions of the the war opponents flow from this belief.

Remember Pelosi saying that Iraq was not a war to be won, but a problem to be managed?

And witness the enthusiasm with which her trip to Syria is greeted by some on this board. (Was Pelosi a "useful idiot" of Assad? Or were the two both using each other to poke Bush in the eye? Yes, they both have an interest in doing so.) I'd prefer to think people were happy to see her "sup with the Devil" because they genuinely don't believe he's a threat, not because they hate Bush more than they love America.

I disagree with the war opponents. Strongly.

Answer 2

You've got to stand up for what you believe. The rest of the world doesn't have the stomach to actually fight a war on terror. They would rather appease them and talk incessantly about it. They have a fit over us actually taking the fight to the enemy because they fear reprisals in their own countries. They also fear an American empire. Not an empire of actual real estate, but an empire of influence. Right now, nobody in the world is capable of operating on a global scale, except us. Ostracizing our allies is a mistake. I think we should patronize them instead. Except for Britain, they have been as useful as a screen door on a submarine in the war on terror. These islamist have stated their desire to destroy the "western" way of life. That's not just America. Europe is nearly as free and "decadent" in their lifestyle as we are. They are more liberated in some areas (ie. nudity). That alone is abhorrent to an islamic fundamentalist. If the islamist can succeed in destroying the American way of life, Europe is next. They don't see it as their problem yet. If a dirty bomb (radiological) goes off in Paris, you'll see the French get on board with the war on terror. Going it alone does put us at a disadvantage, but I'd rather go forward at a disadvantage than sit by and do nothing like our so-called allies seem to content to do.

Answer 3

I think GWOT, is just a name for something very generic.... its like a marketing moniker, it doesn't really mean anything specific.

Do I think we are in a "war" on terror? No. I know that a lot of politicians have told me this but they have told me a lot of things that were not true. Wars are made by nations, not crime syndicates. The problem with watering down the word "war" is that the victory or the end of it can never be defined. Citizens will have to have faith with our leaders when they tell us it is over... this could go on for years defining our policies and how we utilize the budget. The other thing to consider is that TERRORISM IS OLDER THAN AMERICA... it will always be in the world as long as there is a civilization.

I'm all for the disuse of the term. Its a stupid non-specific term that doesn't mean anything. We have a conflict with Al-Quaeda... leave it at that. Now, we have a occupation conflict with the Iraqi insurgency, but that is not terrorism and we should not be lumping insurgencies into terrorism.

Answer 4

Most liberals seem to think Iraq is not a war against terror but then do they think terrorists are only in Afghanistan or maybe some other country. Reports on the media, in both parties and across the world for years before the Iraqi war started showed Saddam supporting terrorists in the Middle East, he paid suicide bomber families for their successful missions, he used WMD on his own people and Iran, he plotted to kill George H W Bush, he constantly had or planes shot at while they patrolled the no fly zone set in place at the end of the Gulf War and he violated countless UN resolutions but some now would rather see him still in power than for us to have gone in. But that's it for years some libs saw no problems with what the Soviets were not only doing to their own people but the people of Eastern Europe besides arming Cuba, countries in Africa and Asia against us. They saw no use to confront the Russians just to let them expand their realm of influence only when the West stood up to the Soviets and threatened to spend them into oblivion did the Soviet machine collapse. We can't spend terrorists under since they run no country economically just through their terror cells thus we need to confront throughout the globe to defeat and kill them so they never again launch attacks within our borders.

Answer 5

Liberals believe in it more than Bush does. What Cons don't realize is that the "War" also has to include intelligence gathering, diplomacy (since we aren't going to put troops on the ground to find terror cells in Sweden), much much better border security (we could've spent some of the spectacular wastage in Iraq), international police work. What is our utter dunce of a President doing to secure weapons grade fissionable materials from former USSR?

Bush benightedly clings to the illusion that all of the terrorists dutifully reported to Iraq when the war began. He constantly repeats banalities like "were fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here".

What an absurd dope. As if there aren't likely sleeper cells in western europe and the U.S. As if a jihadist couldn't leave Iraq today and find his way here via Mexico next week.

Congratulations, Cons, for electing the stupidest president in the history of the United States.

Answer 6

There is not global war on terror because not every country has terrorists or has had terrorist threats towards them. The only countries that seem to be obsessed with terrorism is the united states and their allies. Do you think that people in Finland are scared of terrorists? Gwot is a propogandistic term created to protect political agendas. Anyone against Gw's goals is considered a terrorist so the term terrorist is a tactic to instill fear.

Answer 7

"Global War On Terror" is an excuse to attack whomever we declare as terrorists. A little specificity will be nice for a change. Maybe some criteria, so that terrorists are not just whomever we decide to say they are this month.

Answer 8

Why do you and most other conservatives make such a big fuss over semantics. Of course liberals believe we are fighting terrorist around the world. Who cares what it's called? If conservatives think it's so important to call it a Global War on Terror and if you don't you don't support the US, i can see why the war is going so bad and our commader-in-chief and his followers are so inept as to get many more military personal killed and wounded unnecessarily. Put you eyes on the target conservatives. The enemy is not the liberal faction in America. If you put such enthusiasium towards going after the terrorist as you put into going after the progressive liberals the war would have been over already.

Answer 9

Any rational person realizes that fighting a "global war on terror" is about as meaningless as fighting a "global war on drugs".

It is simply a never ending task that we are obviously going to have to deal with for the rest of time. Calling it a "war" is absurd. How exactly do you fight a war against a tactic? That's all terrorism is - it is a tactic used by violent and desperate people. It is 100% impossible to end all global terrorism.

The term "war" is used to drum up support for questionable tactics used in this "war" ("Warrantless wiretaps anyone? No? How about allowing the government to pour over communications, financial, and travel records with little to no oversight? NO AGAIN?! What are you, crazy? Don't you know we're fighting a war here!!??")...

There is no more a "war on global terror" than there is a "war on poverty", a "war on drugs", a "war on HIV", or a "war on hunger".... It's all propaganda and you've obviously fallen for it.

Answer 10

What global war on terror? What war on terror? It's a slogan, it's not real. Any idiot who believes ALL the terrorists in the world are in Iraq needs a lobotomy.