Comments on: Stop calling it “war”

By: Tom

Tom — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:45:52 +0000

Totally Agree.

(I don’t think that torture is *ever* justified though - even at war).

By: John

John — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:53:13 +0000

Wow… you are annoying. When did you decide to make up a new definition of war? And no… i’m not one of the neo-cons you are describing and I’m not happy with our little “war.” But you my friend, you are a hippie.

By: Citizen Politician

Citizen Politician — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 21:52:07 +0000

Thank you for enlightening me! I was not aware of this difference. I will be sure to share this article with others equally as concerned about the current military occupations the US is engaged in.

By: Doug

Doug — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 17:23:05 +0000

This thread certainly brings up some very good discussion points, thanks for bringing this important subject up!

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:20:35 +0000

“Trouble is it never really was a war because there was no opposing side.”

“A just solution won’t come without a cleansing and we are fortunate to have one handy. Impeachment will tell a story about how and why we started an aggression. It will contain sub-plots about indefinite detention and torture and the means of repression here at home, including the suppression of dissent.”

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/30/2850/

By: Turambar

Turambar — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 03:51:31 +0000

“War” creates images of valor and heroism.
Really? Now, I begin to understand what’s wrong with the US: you have never been occupied or had foreign forces invade your country - all Americans who have experienced war were soldiers, not helpless civilians. That’s a good thing, of course, but it may explain the otherwise incomprehensible patriotism when it comes to war. But reading articles like this gives me hope that Americans will learn the lessons without having to do so the hard way eventually.

By: grumpypilgrim

grumpypilgrim — Sat, 05 May 2007 20:05:18 +0000

Further to Edgar’s comment, I’ve noticed Republicans are also calling the Democrats’ budget for Iraq, which sets target dates for troop withdrawal, “an abandonment of our troops.” They don’t call it what it is — a rebuke of Bush’s failed policies…an expression of the American voter’s discontent…a realistic plan that is long overdue, etc. — it’s “an abandonment of our troops.”

Sadly, the reason why Republicans do this is because it works for them: their supporters fall for this nonsense.

By: Edgar Montrose

Edgar Montrose — Sat, 05 May 2007 11:44:15 +0000

It grates on my nerves every time I hear it …

The Republicans are so good at finding inflammatory words to be used as labels for things with which they disagree. Lately they have been calling the withdrawal provisions in the Iraq Funding Bill “Surrender Language”.

Inflammatory. And inaccurate.

An occupier does not “surrender” from an occupation. An occupier can “end”, “cease”, or “terminate” an occupation. An occupier can “withdraw” or “exit” from an occupation. An occupier can “leave voluntarily” or can be “expelled”. An occupier can simply become weary of an occupation and “depart”. But an occupier has, by definition, already defeated the enemy, at least locally, and cannot “surrender” from an occupation.

And it’s about time that Democrats, Independents, rational Republicans, and everyone who wants to put an end to this occupation became very clear, concise, and adamant about this distinction.

By: grumpypilgrim

grumpypilgrim — Wed, 02 May 2007 12:41:43 +0000

Dan asks: “Now, both sides are ruled by religious fundamentalists with significant factions dedicated to the idea of imminent Armageddon, and glee at the thought of their own inevitable blessed survival after the event. Where is the deterrent effect?”

I mentioned only the possibility: “…*maybe* the threat of mutually assured destruction will do for the Iraqis what it did for America and Russia during the Cold War…” (emphasis added). If the scenario Dan describes is correct — that there is glee on both sides at the thought of slaughtering each other — then is the peace process not accelerated by letting them do so? Why not pull out U.S. troops and let the crazies hack each other to bits, instead of inviting them both to hack U.S. troops to bits while waiting until they can have a better shot at each other? If they truly do want to slaugher each other, then the sooner they do so, the sooner the reconstruction can begin. The job of a U.S. soldier is to defend America, not to act as cannon fodder between two groups of religious fanatics, in a foreign country, bent on destroying each other. I might feel differently if a U.S. military presence was, in fact, preventing a genocide, but the clear evidence in this case is that it cannot.

By: Dan Klarmann

Dan Klarmann — Wed, 02 May 2007 03:41:39 +0000

Re: Grump’s Kennedy card: I don’t think there would be much of a deterrence effect from a mutually assured destruction scenario. When intellectuals were running the superpowers, this policy seems to have worked.

Now, both sides are ruled by religious fundamentalists with significant factions dedicated to the idea of imminent Armageddon, and glee at the thought of their own inevitable blessed survival after the event. Where is the deterrent effect?