Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (167897)	8/1/2005 1:12:38 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

We're not "at War" anymore DUHlallen. Haven't you gotten the word? We're in the "struggle against violent extremists" now. War is so, you know, associated with the chimp's failures in Iraq... U.S. Officials Retool Slogan for Terror War By ERIC SCHMITT and THOM SHANKER WASHINGTON, July 25 - The Bush administration is retooling its slogan for the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, pushing the idea that the long-term struggle is as much an ideological battle as a military mission, senior administration and military officials said Monday. In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the nation's senior military officer have spoken of "a global struggle against violent extremism" rather than "the global war on terror," which had been the catchphrase of choice. Administration officials say that phrase may have outlived its usefulness, because it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign. Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use." Although the military is heavily engaged in the mission now, he said, future efforts require "all instruments of our national power, all instruments of the international communities' national power." The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded. Administration and Pentagon officials say the revamped campaign has grown out of meetings of President Bush's senior national security advisers that began in January, and it reflects the evolution in Mr. Bush's own thinking nearly four years after the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Rumsfeld spoke in the new terms on Friday when he addressed an audience in Annapolis, Md., for the retirement ceremony of Adm. Vern Clark as chief of naval operations. Mr. Rumsfeld described America's efforts as it "wages the global struggle against the enemies of freedom, the enemies of civilization." The shifting language is one of the most public changes in the administration's strategy to battle Al Qaeda and its affiliates, and it tracks closely with Mr. Bush's recent speeches emphasizing freedom, democracy and the worldwide clash of ideas. "It is more than just a military war on terror," Steven J. Hadley, the national security adviser, said in a telephone interview. "It's broader than that. It's a global struggle against extremism. We need to dispute both the gloomy vision and offer a positive alternative." The language shifts also come at a time when Mr. Bush, with a new appointment for one of his most trusted aides, Karen Hughes, is trying to bolster the State Department's efforts at public diplomacy. Lawrence Di Rita, Mr. Rumsfeld's spokesman, said the shift in language "is not a shift in thinking, but a continuation of the immediate post-9/11 approach." "The president then said we were going to use all the means of national power and influence to defeat this enemy," Mr. Di Rita said. "We must continue to be more expansive than what the public is understandably focused on now: the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq." By emphasizing to the public that the effort is not only military, the administration may also be trying to reassure those in uniform who have begun complaining that only members of the armed forces are being asked to sacrifice for the effort. New opinion polls show that the American public is increasingly pessimistic about the mission in Iraq, with many doubting its link to the counterterrorism mission. So, a new emphasis on reminding the public of the broader, long-term threat to the United States may allow the administration to put into broader perspective the daily mayhem in Iraq and the American casualties. Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, said in an interview that if the nation's efforts were limited to "protecting the homeland and attacking and disrupting terrorist networks, you're on a treadmill that is likely to get faster and faster with time." The key to "ultimately winning the war," he said, "is addressing the ideological part of the war that deals with how the terrorists recruit and indoctrinate new terrorists." * Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

To: jlallen who wrote (167897)	8/1/2005 1:43:54 PM
From: Keith Feral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I hope we always have a strong discourse in this country. Think about the lack of civil liberties in the ME. There is no freedom of speech. Women that participate in protest reforms in Egypt are literally raped. You would think the liberals would have to say something about ME repression. No, they just love to kick back and swear at the Bushies. I haven't heard one liberal condemn the terrorists for their ideology of hate. They are just beginning to rise about their Bush bashing to see the ugly truth behind Islamic culture. The enforcement of religion by political leaders is a convenient way to preach fundamentalism and intolerance. Muslim leaders call for action against Jews in Israel. What will everyone say when Gaza and West bank are turned over to the Palestinians? To this day, no one is really catching on the the Shiite balance of power that is spreading over the ME. Shiite fundamentalists control Hamas and Hezbolloh. They are on the verge of regaining occupied territory in Israel. The Shiites in Lebanon finally ended the occupation of Syrian Baathists. The coalition removed the Batthists from power in Iraq. Iran and Iraq are moving to build one of the largest Shiite power bases in the history of the ME. Elections in Iran have put fundamentalists into office. The momentum is definitely with the Shiite fundamentalists that have been oppressed by their Sunni brothers which treat them like second class citizens. Everyone gets treated like dirt since Muslims have no civil rights to protect them from the self righteous leaders. Hamas and Hezbolloh are different from Sunni terrorists that kill Shiite Muslims, Jews, Christians, and everyone that doesn not conform to Salafi protocols. What is going to be the next response from the Shiites in Palestine when they finally get the occuppied territories back from Israel? Will Al Qaradawi put an end to his labelling of all Israeli Jews as soldiers that can be killed? This last piece of the Shiite puzzle is going to be the most important. Unless the Israeli government can convert this opportunity to peace, then the Shiite Muslims will continue to justify jihad against the occupation. This gives the Sunni Muslims the right to jihad against the US because we support Israel's right to exist. Ironic that the Salafis use the Jewish occupation of Palestine as a reason to kill Westerners when they believe the Shiites are apostates.