While this is a stupid argument, you must understand that strong rhetoric is an excellent substitute for 60,000 US troops in your backyard.

Shock the Monkey on August 6, 2009 at 11:23 PM
I dont understand that point at all. I live in the US. Are you saying that because Obama is choosing more precise language to define our opponent in this war, that means he’s going to send troops onto US soil (which is illegal, of course)? Please explain.

orange on August 7, 2009 at 11:24 AM

What I mean by “this is a stupid argument, is exactly that…this is a stupid argument. I don’t understand what you meant by invading U.S. soil (let alone how you came to that conclusion). I just meant that using rhetoric to our enemies is a superior alternative than actually sending troops. I do not know how you took what I said out of context and derived some insane meaning not once but twice. I’m not going to argue the finer points because you simply don’t understand. The fact of the matter is this Orange: changing the war on terror to the war on al-qaeda is nothing but a stupid rhetorical device. It does not mean that we are actually focusing more or less energy on al-qaeda than before. Like I said, it was a stupid political calculation. We are still going to be aiding our allies (covertly and overtly) in Israel and Lebanon who are dealing with Hezbollah and Hamas. The only difference is because of the name switch, it appears to have been done more as a sign of weakness than “refocus.” While we are still fighting all of the terrorists, “refocusing” the name provides hardly any, although some comfort to our enemies who can now believe they are not in our sights.

The end.

When does one ratchet down the rhetoric? When one has accomplished its main objective. For instance, as Hezbollah will likely lose political power in Lebanon in the upcoming years, the volume and tone of the rhetoric coming from our politicians can quiet down. With a marginalized enemy in Lebanon, there is no need for harsh rhetoric. Nowhere did I say that the war of words needs to be ongoing, and it certainly doesn’t have to be ongoing.

So we win a war as soon as people in Lebanon choose – independently of our actions – to support other leaders? That seems like an odd formulation for a war. Why does a political struggle that ends in a change of power in a foreign nation have to be framed as a “war” that we’re in?

I merely said that Obama (stupidly) calculatingly changed the title as a means to distance himself from the Bush Administration’s War on Terror in not so many words. This silly change only gives the impression that we are in weakened state since we are “ratcheting down the rhetoric.”

Actually, we’re ratcheting up the rhetoric against Al Qaeda by specifically naming our target. Why are you against that?

While this is a stupid argument, you must understand that strong rhetoric is an excellent substitute for 60,000 US troops in your backyard.

Shock the Monkey on August 6, 2009 at 11:23 PM

I dont understand that point at all. I live in the US. Are you saying that because Obama is choosing more precise language to define our opponent in this war, that means he’s going to send troops onto US soil (which is illegal, of course)? Please explain.

Update: Whether Mehsud is dead or not, the fact that he’s under such intense fire these days shows how much power Pakistani intelligence has over jihadist kingpins. This filthbag ran around unmolested for years; then, suddenly, after threatening Islamabad this year, his whereabouts became sufficiently well known that he ended up dodging missiles every other week and might finally be dead less than two months after Pakistan went after him in earnest.

Damn you Obama! Why must you weaken our efforts in the war against Al Qaeda!

Oh wait…

Adios, a-hole. Good shooting, boys. And from CONUS, no less.

Well, by that logic, when would we ratchet down the rhetoric? When do we want to provide comfort to enemies?

And if we dont ratchet down the rhetoric, then we necessarily put ourselves in a war we cannot win. That doesnt seem wise.

I am not sure how you came to some of these conclusions, but let me attempt to clarify a few things. When does one ratchet down the rhetoric? When one has accomplished its main objective. For instance, as Hezbollah will likely lose political power in Lebanon in the upcoming years, the volume and tone of the rhetoric coming from our politicians can quiet down. With a marginalized enemy in Lebanon, there is no need for harsh rhetoric. Nowhere did I say that the war of words needs to be ongoing, and it certainly doesn’t have to be ongoing.

So you prefer being in a never-ending war that, by definition, we can never win?

Once again I’m not sure how you came to this deduction. I merely said that Obama (stupidly) calculatingly changed the title as a means to distance himself from the Bush Administration’s War on Terror in not so many words. This silly change only gives the impression that we are in weakened state since we are “ratcheting down the rhetoric.” People in a state of extreme strength or weakness do such a thing, and we certainly not in a position of strength in Afghanistan.

While this is a stupid argument, you must understand that strong rhetoric is an excellent substitute for 60,000 US troops in your backyard.

what do you mean by war on seniors? Medicare is a government program I’m still trying to figure out why conservatives want to protect it

liberal343 on August 6, 2009 at 5:51 PM

Ed and Allah, could we please have a more intelligent class of troll? This kind of crap has got to be embarrassing to the lefties. The wide-eyed, dumb-ass, “well why are the Republicans …” kind of stupid questioning is just too openly transparent and not worth messing with.

disa on August 6, 2009 at 9:01 PM

My boys are ready for the call

Obama is weak on terror

Update: Mehsud’s alive, says U.S. intel official

While we wait for more news, here’s Obama counterterror czar John Brennan declaring the global war on terror over and the “war on Al Qaeda” officially begun.

Hussein and his administration are Clowns!

I’m 47 years old and I’d enlist tomorrow if I was gaurenteed a position as a drone pilot, that’s how enthusiatic I am at their prowess in the destruction of terrorist cowards. Right now that sounds like one of the best jobs there is in the Air Force.

OxyCon on August 6, 2009 at 8:59 PM

We need to harness our immense horde of gamers, and hook them up. Doritos and Mountain Dew.

I think the disagreement lies in that Obama has chosen to ratchet down the rhetoric at a time when we should not be providing any kind of comfort to our enemies.

Well, by that logic, when would we ratchet down the rhetoric? When do we want to provide comfort to enemies?

And if we dont ratchet down the rhetoric, then we necessarily put ourselves in a war we cannot win. That doesnt seem wise.

Also war does not always have to be a “kinetic” conflict to be considered a war. Look at the Cold War for instance.

Well, but that’s why that one was called the Cold War.

In the end this “War on Al-Qaeda” b.s. is a stupid political calculation that will not advance our interests any further than before.

Shock the Monkey on August 6, 2009 at 8:18 PM

So you prefer being in a never-ending war that, by definition, we can never win?

BTW, thank you for the thoughtful response.

Except I was saying “Why does every disagreement have to be ‘WAR’? Why cant we say, ‘yes, we have conflicting interests with Iran’? Why do we have to assume that we’re either close allies with another group or we’re at WAR? Are there no other options?”

I don’t think anyone is actually advocating sending US forces into Lebanon and Gaza to fight and kill Hezbollah and Hamas. I think the disagreement lies in that Obama has chosen to ratchet down the rhetoric at a time when we should not be providing any kind of comfort to our enemies. Also war does not always have to be a “kinetic” conflict to be considered a war. Look at the Cold War for instance. The US and the Soviet Union were definitely in a conflict, however our forces were not fighting in the Fulda Gap. The US should be lending aid as a means to carry on the war against Islamic extremist organizations. We should not be loosening our rhetoric or support to regimes fighting radical Islam.

In the end this “War on Al-Qaeda” b.s. is a stupid political calculation that will not advance our interests any further than before.

We are engaged in a struggle with all Islamic terror groups.

True. We’re also engaged in a struggle with North Korea. But we’re not at war with them.

I don’t know why people insist on looking at things in a black and white way (AQ/non AQ).

In another forum, I earlier said just the same thing!

Except I was saying “Why does every disagreement have to be ‘WAR’? Why cant we say, ‘yes, we have conflicting interests with Iran’? Why do we have to assume that we’re either close allies with another group or we’re at WAR? Are there no other options?”

We’re bound to a mistake if we pursue this “AQ only” approach.

No one is saying that we shouldnt protect ourselves against anybody who doesnt call themselves Al Qaeda. Just that it makes sense to limit “war” to the guys who attacked us.

Another advantage to limiting the war to Al Qaeda: Al Qaeda can be defeated. “Terror” cannot. Doesnt it make some strategic sense to only declare war when it’s at least possible to win?

All other Islamist groups should be forewarned. And they should be considered enemies the minute they engage an American ally, interest, or affiliate themselves with AQ in any way.

(This comment does not include Iran)

blatantblue on August 6, 2009 at 6:41 PM

Why does the comment not include Iran?

Let me clue you in: We’re not at war with them.

Al Qaeda attacked us and killed thousands of Americans on US soil (and off).
orange on August 6, 2009 at 6:33 PM

Have you stopped celebrating yet?