The Bush administration's change of slogan for the war in iraq, what do you think?

Question

The bush administration changed its slogan for the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups from "the war on terror" to "a global struggle against violent extremism".

which do you think conveys a better message of the war? I want to know your opinion.

:)

Answer 1

The Bush administration has totally lost its credibility, and they have changed their slogans, their justifications and their rhetoric so many times that it doesn't matter what they say any more. NO ONE BELIEVES THEM!
Who cares about a better message? Why not care about getting our soldiers out of Iraq instead!

Here is a valid analogy for you: Let's suppose patient is dying due to neglect or to the mistake made by a doctor. Is it important to get "a better message" across, or should all efforts be made to find a cure ASAP?

Addition: Thank you Psychic Cat. Exactly right!

Answer 2

Manipulation goes an awful long way in the doublespeak of those who trade in ill-defined fears. The men and women of our military are doing an impossible job in an impossible situation being glossed over by an administration which does anything but support them with anything but slogans. The only thing which conveys a better message of the war is a royal F#@k-UP by Bush and his Arab Oil interests which he talks about fighting against while pocketing the bucks made on the backs of those who honestly serve this country.

We definitely need a cure, and it is best to begin with the radical surgery called impeachment.

I agree with the previous two answers above.

Answer 3

The second slogan hints that other countries of the globe are involved on our side; that it may involve using means other than the military (such as law enforcement and spy agencies); that it's against violent actions; and that it's against extremism specifically, rather than an entire religion or race.

Which conveys a better message? It depends on Bush's objectives, and we don't really know what those are or if he has any.

Answer 4

I think they have far better ways to spend their time than sitting around with their thumbs in their ears, thinking of slogans, (I'm quite sure there's some twisted political, psychological, reason for this silliness). Do you see a hopeful "implication" in the new "slogan?" I do.
We've got the message, loud & clear. They can give it a different name for every day of the wekk & it really won't change anything. I'm about 100% positive that I perceive a manipulation in those words. Think about it.

Answer 5

How about "the war to end all wars" - no, that's been done already. President Woodrow Wilson came up with that one, after he won re-election on the slogan, "He kept us out of war." It's funny that World War I didn't seem to have ended all wars - in fact, it introduced a century of almost nonstop war. Maybe war isn't the right way to solve problems. Maybe peace is "a better message."

Answer 6

May I echo Richard C!
The war is NOT fought on slogans!
Our heroic men and women need all of the support and equipment that we can provide! Slogans be da**ed! The slogans are not going to keep our military safe!
Come on Americans....Get Mad! But let us fight for those who are fighting for our country and giving their lives!

Answer 7

Nope! i believe that he's changing surprisingly plenty each thing. Is it for the extra advantageous? Time will tell yet i don't think of that we choose for extra government. we could desire to probably use approximately ninety% much less.

Answer 8

The spin doctors at the White House work late to come up with less objectionable slogans to keep trying to sell this war of aggression against Iraq that the cowboy started. Most of the American people are too smart to fall for this...with the exception of the Bushies who feel King George walks on water.

Answer 9

War is not fought on a bumper sticker. The heroic men and women of the military need proper equipment, not a media campaign.

Answer 10

I think it should be the war against terrorists.