Do you agree with this quote?

[NDN]

"The War on Terror" is easier to say than "The War on International Terrorist organizations and their supporters."

The IRA?

As Jake said "The War on Terror" is just the sales pitch. Arguing over the title of Bush's grand narrative of destruction\madness is just utterly meaningless and superficial. But makes you look clever, if roughly 100billion people hadn't thought of it before you did. I mean, when Dettol in it's ads claim they're for a "War on Limescale" no-one takes that literally, though they do stretch the meaning of the word "war" more than Bush does.

Exactly my point. Regardless of what we called it, it would still be handled incompetently because of who we had as President. The issue was and still is one of leadership, not semantics.

[AkSaber]

Hmm. I could see how some people would want the War on Terror to be used as blanket justification for any war they please, but I honestly believe that President Bush doesn't want it that way. I think he uses it merely as a sales title.

[opebo]

I bet the only reason you identify with the Democrats is because there isn't a major political party to the left of them.

Um, Boris, that is the reason most Democrats are Democrats!

[useful idiot]

I bet the only reason you identify with the Democrats is because there isn't a major political party to the left of them.

Um, Boris, that is the reason most Democrats are Democrats!

Umm.....no. If that was the case then the Democratic Party would be to the left of where it is now. It's impossible for a majority of a party's supporters to support that party because there isnt a major party to the left of it. It's a contradiction.

[Verily]

I bet the only reason you identify with the Democrats is because there isn't a major political party to the left of them.

Um, Boris, that is the reason most Democrats are Democrats!

Umm.....no. If that was the case then the Democratic Party would be to the left of where it is now. It's impossible for a majority of a party's supporters to support that party because there isnt a major party to the left of it. It's a contradiction.

No it isn't. The majority of Democratic politicians are more authoritarian than their supporters simply because they like to use the government's power. people vote for them anyway, and there are certainly people who vote for them who agree completely.

The political compass put John Kerry at (+1, +1) (and Bush at around (+2, +5)). Do you really think the average Democratic voter is in the above right quadrant?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I bet the only reason you identify with the Democrats is because there isn't a major political party to the left of them.

Um, Boris, that is the reason most Democrats are Democrats!

Umm.....no. If that was the case then the Democratic Party would be to the left of where it is now. It's impossible for a majority of a party's supporters to support that party because there isnt a major party to the left of it. It's a contradiction.

No it isn't. The majority of Democratic politicians are more authoritarian than their supporters simply because they like to use the government's power. people vote for them anyway, and there are certainly people who vote for them who agree completely.

The political compass put John Kerry at (+1, +1) (and Bush at around (+2, +5)). Do you really think the average Democratic voter is in the above right quadrant?

I agree with your first paragraph but not the second. That chart the PC uses, like all of their world leader charts, is just crap.

[useful idiot]

I bet the only reason you identify with the Democrats is because there isn't a major political party to the left of them.

Um, Boris, that is the reason most Democrats are Democrats!

Umm.....no. If that was the case then the Democratic Party would be to the left of where it is now. It's impossible for a majority of a party's supporters to support that party because there isnt a major party to the left of it. It's a contradiction.

No it isn't. The majority of Democratic politicians are more authoritarian than their supporters simply because they like to use the government's power. people vote for them anyway, and there are certainly people who vote for them who agree completely.

I would agree with you, but they weren't talking about Democratic politicians, they were talking about identifying with a party, which means being a supporter of that party. The party, in the sense that it's made up of those who support it, is only as left wing as those who support it. Whether or not the politicians the party elects are left wing or not is of no consequence. Ebowed could identify as a Green and still vote Democrat because there's no viable alternative, but he chooses to identify as a Democrat, despite the fact that he is to the far left of the party and doesn't represent the average Democrat voter. I don't think there's anything wrong with him voting for Democrat politicians or identifying as a Democrat, but its laughable to say that the majority of people who vote Democrat are to the left of the party or only vote Democrat because there isn't a more left wing alternative. It's just not true.

[NDN]

Disagree. Regardless of what we call it, we are fighting a war against Islamic terrorist groups and those that enable them. Sure, but that doesn't mean the whole premise is wrong.

Ugh, gross.  DLC sap peddlers should switch to the GOP.

Right, because anyone not on the hard left is automatically a Republican.

There's a difference between not being "hard left" (whatever that means) and copying GOP rhetoric to support the GOP's main policy.

You fell for Bush's joke justification hook, like, and stinker.  I bet you would have voted for the resolution authorizing force against Iraq.

Boris already skillfully demolished your ludicrous claims that I'm "copying GOP rhetoric" already, so I won't dignify that remark.

What I will say is that no, I absolutely would NOT have voted for the resolution based on the information given (which the media failed to objectively report -- hence the pre-war hyteria). Nor would I have voted for the original Patriot Act or Military Commissions Act. I'm firmly opposed to pretty much everything the President has done outside of invading Afghanistan and declaring war on those who actually attacked us. So please, spare me your pathetic "you're a DINO/DLC dupe" garbage.

I admit I once supported the Republicans, but I've learned from my mistakes.

[Ebowed]

You're to the left of 95% of elected Democratic Officials

I'd say that's a conservative estimate.

I bet the only reason you identify with the Democrats is because there isn't a major political party to the left of them.

Well, when you only have two major political parties, what the hell do you expect?

I'm a Democrat for the purpose of easier identification.  I agree with the general premise behind the Democratic platform and Democratic policy, though it would be great if the party stood up for what it believed in every once in a while, and stopped pandering to a vanishing rightwing base of voters under the guise of 'centrism.'  I'm not calling for the Democratic party to agree with everything I say... I'm calling for them to do what they promise they'll do.  They aren't elected to rubber stamp the Bush agenda or cater to the wishes of the neoconservatives, religious right, or big business.

Our NDN fellow here may agree with everything I just said, and if so, good for him.    I was making a comment that wasn't to be taken entirely seriously, obviously-- I simply wanted him to know that going on about the "Islamic terrorist groups" sounded like the sort of DLC centrism that was popular in 2003, and isn't anymore.  You used to support the Republicans, NDN?  Great, I used to be a hardcore pro-life Christian fundamentalist.  (Though, incidentally, I've always been a Democrat.)  I don't disagree with you on Iraq or the patriot act, but I think ranting about some great terrorist threat-- exclusive to Islam, somehow-- is about as constructive as extending said threat to leaders who had nothing to do with 9/11 (Saddam Hussein, anyone?)

[SPC]

I admit I once supported the Republicans, but I've learned from my mistakes.

Just because the Republicans have screwed up doesn't mean that Democrats are the answer.

[The Duke]

He's half right, and half wrong.

He is right that the name is imprecise and inaccurate.  We do have enemies who are terrorists, but we are not at war with the IRA, FARC, or the Tamil Tigers.  It is silly to name the war something it isn't.  We also fought enemeis in this war who use traditional military tactics (The Mahdi Army, the Taliban's infantry, the Republican Guard), so not only does the name of the war encompass groups were aren't fighting, it exculdes groups we have fought!  I agree, it is a ridiculous name.

I do not, however, agree that the name is a trick to justify endless war against anyone we want.  This is where Paul goes off the deep end.

And by the way, is there a better name out there?

You can't say a "War on Islamic Fundamentalism", because many of the backers of these radical groups (Syria, Libya, Iraq pre-2003) are not explicitly religious regimes yet support a broad range of terrorist groups (Mainly Hamas).  Put Islamism and Fascism togehter and you get Islamofacism, so some have called this a "War on Islamofascism".  I suspect people will object to "War on Islamofascism" as being too inflammatory.  And if you thinks that's too inflammatory, I can only imagine what you think of Newt Gingirch's idea of calling it "World War IV" (Apparently he's now calling the Cold War "World War III").

[DownWithTheLeft]

Just thought I'd post this here:

Help! My opinion of the Iraq War has changed from "strongly approve" to "approve", when that happens there might be a problem.  Also, the only reason I approve is because I like to see terrorists die

[NDN]

I admit I once supported the Republicans, but I've learned from my mistakes.

Just because the Republicans have screwed up doesn't mean that Democrats are the answer.

The Democrats have their faults, but at this point I think they're the lesser of two evils. They're obviously the more socially liberal of the two parties, and while they're to my left on a few economic issues they're still more fiscally responsible than the Republicans (who only seem to care about tax cuts lately).

[NDN]

Just thought I'd post this here:

Help! My opinion of the Iraq War has changed from "strongly approve" to "approve", when that happens there might be a problem.  Also, the only reason I approve is because I like to see terrorists die

There weren't any terrorists in Iraq (besides maybe Zarqawi) until we invaded and gave them a new recruiting center.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Zarqawi was from Jordan. He wasn't there either.

[NDN]

Zarqawi was from Jordan. He wasn't there either.

It's been alleged that he may have started operating in the country right before the invasion. I don't really believe that, but I'm just pointing it out to be fair. Anyway, the point is that until we invaded Iraq was basically a paper tiger. There weren't any WMDs (or serious programs) or ties to Al-Qaeda, and as both of us know Saddam was a secular dictator.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Just thought I'd post this here:

Help! My opinion of the Iraq War has changed from "strongly approve" to "approve", when that happens there might be a problem.  Also, the only reason I approve is because I like to see terrorists die

There weren't any terrorists in Iraq (besides maybe Zarqawi) until we invaded and gave them a new recruiting center.

We invited them there, we said "come here so we can blow your ass up without having to look all over the globe."

[NDN]

Just thought I'd post this here:

Help! My opinion of the Iraq War has changed from "strongly approve" to "approve", when that happens there might be a problem.  Also, the only reason I approve is because I like to see terrorists die

There weren't any terrorists in Iraq (besides maybe Zarqawi) until we invaded and gave them a new recruiting center.

We invited them there, we said "come here so we can blow your ass up without having to look all over the globe."

Are you for real?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Just thought I'd post this here:

Help! My opinion of the Iraq War has changed from "strongly approve" to "approve", when that happens there might be a problem.  Also, the only reason I approve is because I like to see terrorists die

There weren't any terrorists in Iraq (besides maybe Zarqawi) until we invaded and gave them a new recruiting center.

We invited them there, we said "come here so we can blow your ass up without having to look all over the globe."

Are you for real?

Must you ask?  Of course that is a gross oversimplification but in esscene we attracted them to Iraq in large masses, certainly not all of them though.

[NDN]

Just thought I'd post this here:

Help! My opinion of the Iraq War has changed from "strongly approve" to "approve", when that happens there might be a problem.  Also, the only reason I approve is because I like to see terrorists die

There weren't any terrorists in Iraq (besides maybe Zarqawi) until we invaded and gave them a new recruiting center.

We invited them there, we said "come here so we can blow your ass up without having to look all over the globe."

Are you for real?

Must you ask?  Of course that is a gross oversimplification but in esscene we attracted them to Iraq in large masses, certainly not all of them though.

Wow.

No, it attracted them in addition to creating new ones. The government even admits that the terror threat only got worse (see: National Intelligence Estimate). Not only did we lose sight of our original objectives in Afghanistan, but we created a new front in the war on terror.