• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

No more GWOT. Ha.

I'm glad our congressional committees are taking time to discuss such critical issues as the friggen name for our current conflict! Jesus H Christ man! Why don't we talk about something of substance!?
 
PropStop said:
I'm glad our congressional committees are taking time to discuss such critical issues as the friggen name for our current conflict! Jesus H Christ man! Why don't we talk about something of substance!?
Click to expand...

They are also spending time pandering to our enemies ...
MIDEAST_SYRIA_US.sff_ASHM101_20070404053536.jpg

Behold, the new "leadership" in town ...
nancy_pelosi.jpg
 
This is retarded. I can see the point that the Dems are trying to make, but I think it's just a waste of time and effort.
 
Dammit devil_dog that picture just made me vomit in my mouth a little bit.
 
I still have to surpress the "G" is for "Great" whenever I see it...

Of course, others have been known to phrase it as God's, the GOP's, or George's.

The Harry Potter reference was funny, and astute...
 
Thisguy said:
I liked the idea of calling the medal "Total War on Terrorism" or the TWOT.
Click to expand...

"Total War Againts Terror"

Twat just flows off the tounge better. Especially in the case of our Allies the Brits.

Also this little number "Also banned is the phrase the “long war,” which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years."

Just goes to show they are hiding their heads in the sand in regards to the responcibility of defending this country. Screw facing up to the facts of the matter at large, nahh lets just rename it so that we can ignore the fact that wars take time and sacrifice in order to win.
 
Lawman said:
"Total War Againts Terror"

Twat just flows off the tounge better. Especially in the case of our Allies the Brits.

Also this little number "Also banned is the phrase the “long war,” which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years."

Just goes to show they are hiding their heads in the sand in regards to the responcibility of defending this country. Screw facing up to the facts of the matter at large, nahh lets just rename it so that we can ignore the fact that wars take time and sacrifice in order to win.
Click to expand...

The term GWOT is bit of a misnomer though, we are not fighting all terrorism all over the world. There are plenty of terrorist groups that we are not fighting or not even assisting some of the countries that are fighting certain terrorist groups. While some countries have a lots of capability and don't need our help, like Spain fighting the ETA, there are plenty that could use our help but don't get it. A few examples that come to mind are the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) in Sri Lanka , the Maoists in India (and formerly in Nepal) and the Kurdistan Workers Party/Kongra-Gel/PKK in Turkey. All of these are extremely violent, very effective and very powerful in their countries. With only minor help to the Turks in northern Iraq (and that is a big point of contention between us and Turkey), I am not aware of any meaningful assistance that we give to any of the aforementioned countries to fight those particular groups. There are even a few terrorist groups that operate in Iran, are we helping them?

With all of that said, it is a little bit.....well, little for the Democrats in Congress to do this. But, they are the ones writing the bodget now, the Republicans did plenty of 'little' things while they were in charge of Congress, as did the Democrats before them.........what goes around comes around again and again.........:o
 
kimphil said:
Deja vu?
Click to expand...
Yes and no. During the Iran/Iraq war, we had an interest in Iraq (and Iran at other points ...) knockin them around a little bit. There was a national interest in having political relations with Saddam. What is the advantage of kissing Assad's ass while he continues to allow (maybe help? supply?) his jihad fighters to flow into Iraq to get their chance at killing an infidel?

So, deja vu in the sense of us acting way too nice to a pair of duche bags? Yes. A member of a president's cabinet smiling, shaking hands with a murderous thug on orders from a president vs. a state elected rep. speaking on behalf of our country against the wishes of a president ... not so much. It undermines our system of government. A state rep. (House speaker or not) has no business dealing with foriegn nations against the president's wishes. My $.02.
 
devil_dog said:
A state rep. (House speaker or not) has no business dealing with foriegn nations against the president's wishes. My $.02.
Click to expand...
What about the Republicans who were there in her delegation, who went "with the cooperation of the administration" and then trashed Bush's foreign policy? Is it better to go without presidential approval and then act in accordance with standing policy, or to go with approval and act against policy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top