http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4719169.stm

 

They seem to want to emphasize that it's as much an ideological fight as a military fight.

 

My thoughts:

 

1. I want to give them some credit for at least acknowledging that guns and airstrikes won't win this "war" by themselves, but for Christ's sake, wasn't that obvious to pretty much EVERYBODY about four years ago?

2. Even though I'm spending time talking about it, I'm not entirely convinced that issues of terminology are really that important, and I think this whole issue might be sort of a red herring.

 

What do you think?

i think bush looks as stupid as always in that picture :P

Bush should have been impeached years ago. Nothing this administration does will ever make me feel at peace.

what a feckin' idiot!! God, he makes me angry!!! :rolleyes:

I think he thinks he´s his father.

no---he is a puppet of his father and mr. dick cheney :P

I think he thinks he´s his father.

 

at least his father had the sense to not take over Iraq and invade.

d

 

I think he thinks he´s his father.

 

at least his father had the sense to not take over Iraq and invade.

 

no camille--his father was taken out of power so didnt have the chance to but now with bushy jr here--he did-----the daddy is the one who started this whole thing

My couple of cents:

1) The new terminology used makes the War on Terror and the reasons for it vaguer than ever... How convenient :rolleyes:

 

2) They've finally recognised the "evolving nature" of the struggle and the need to win hearts and minds as well. D'oh! But I guess some progress is better than none (again :rolleyes:)

 

3) Wading even deeper into the ideological war will make it more difficult for you guys to extract yourselves from the Iraq war. Now he can't remove troops until the war is done. I do sympathise with your soldiers and their friends & families.

 

Well apart from that, what else about Bush is new :dozey:

Bush should have been impeached years ago. Nothing this administration does will ever make me feel at peace.

 

he would have had to do something wrong to be impeached first.

he has done many things wrong

as has every human. nothing that deserves a impeachment. nothing even close.

d

 

Bush should have been impeached years ago. Nothing this administration does will ever make me feel at peace.

 

he would have had to do something wrong to be impeached first.

 

i guess its the first time we both agree on something--lol :P

the bush administration has known how to do their dirty tricks with the concent of the american people and without breaking the rules

 

the change of the war's name is one of the brilliant ways of getting people on their side----but at the same time---shows how fake it is

nothing fake about it.

My couple of cents:

1) The new terminology used makes the War on Terror and the reasons for it vaguer than ever... How convenient :rolleyes:

 

2) They've finally recognised the "evolving nature" of the struggle and the need to win hearts and minds as well. D'oh! But I guess some progress is better than none (again :rolleyes:)

 

3) Wading even deeper into the ideological war will make it more difficult for you guys to extract yourselves from the Iraq war. Now he can't remove troops until the war is done. I do sympathise with your soldiers and their friends & families.

 

Well apart from that, what else about Bush is new :dozey:

 

Finally! Somebody actually wrote something ON TOPIC! Thank you! :lol:

Re: d

 

 

i guess its the first time we both agree on something--lol :P

the bush administration has known how to do their dirty tricks with the concent of the american people and without breaking the rules

 

the change of the war's name is one of the brilliant ways of getting people on their side----but at the same time---shows how fake it is

 

if this isnt talking about the topic--then i guess i misunderstood what the thread is about :P

My couple of cents:

1) The new terminology used makes the War on Terror and the reasons for it vaguer than ever... How convenient :rolleyes:

 

2) They've finally recognised the "evolving nature" of the struggle and the need to win hearts and minds as well. D'oh! But I guess some progress is better than none (again :rolleyes:)

 

3) Wading even deeper into the ideological war will make it more difficult for you guys to extract yourselves from the Iraq war. Now he can't remove troops until the war is done. I do sympathise with your soldiers and their friends & families.

 

Well apart from that, what else about Bush is new :dozey:

 

Finally! Somebody actually wrote something ON TOPIC! Thank you! :lol:

 

Welcome... Now where were we? :lol:

My couple of cents:

1) The new terminology used makes the War on Terror and the reasons for it vaguer than ever... How convenient :rolleyes:

 

2) They've finally recognised the "evolving nature" of the struggle and the need to win hearts and minds as well. D'oh! But I guess some progress is better than none (again :rolleyes:)

 

3) Wading even deeper into the ideological war will make it more difficult for you guys to extract yourselves from the Iraq war. Now he can't remove troops until the war is done. I do sympathise with your soldiers and their friends & families.

 

Well apart from that, what else about Bush is new :dozey:

 

exactly....

You have no idea how is to live in country where the president is totally irresponsible and doesn´t even care about safeness. :worried:

i heard the war on terror is renaming bush

i heard the war on terror is renaming bush

 

Meaning? :huh: :confused:

it has no meaning. :angry:

Alright... I thought maybe it had ;)

 

Why so angry? I wasn't trying to be sarcastic... I really thought there was something you were trying to say which I didn't get. Sorry

lol i wasnt angry! i was being silly. sorry to have made you think i was.

i was wondering about the meaning behind it too :P