May we replace 'War on terror' with 'Action against terrorism'?"?
2007-04-17T09:39:11Z
The question has been e-mailed to President Bush and an answer is in the pipeline!
2007-04-17T09:40:46Z
The viewpoint of Fair & Bal is appreciated but it seems the catch phrase is provocative!
2007-04-17T09:45:55Z
'Screamin' - May I say we shouldn't be selfish to protect only our own rights when human rights everywhere are being violated!
2007-04-17T21:12:51Z
Some of the answerers need to realise that there has been a feeling among European allies that the catch phrase'War on Terror' has been somewhat 'PROVOCATIVE' contributing to a mushrooming of terrorism all over the world and hence there is a need for rephrasing the term! In any case, the war is definitely a NO-WIN war with the attitude of the present Washington administration! It only causes more disasters, deaths and destruction!!!
Coasty2007-04-17T09:39:27Z
Favorite Answer
Sure you can call it any thing you want as long as you do what is necessary to make it go away for good. Do it with out giving up my rights. Response to the violation of others rights. That is not legally the concern of the USA. The Constitution is about the US government and the rights of US citizens. right wrong of indifferent. Those are the rules and that is what you and I and the government has to play by.
That is exactly what this worldwide campaign should be called! And everybody knows it, except for the Bush administration. War is not the answer to terrorism...there are alternatives. War only encourages terrorism, because it says to the terrorists that we are willing to stoop to their level. Innocent people always die in war, and Bush is just willing to accept that for a war he cannot win. Being at war with Iraq is certainly not the answer to the country's problems.
The problem is that we commit terrorism too, as do our allies. It is all relative. The "war on terror" is really the "war against people who do things we don't like and therefore choose to call terror so that we can get people to support us". But when the US, Israel, and many other countries engage in exactly the same kind of actions (kidnappings, torture, overthrowing governments, and so on), then we call that "spreading democracy" So it is easy to understand why those that we refer to as "terrorists" call themselves "freedom fighters". We do exactly the same thing. It is all the mentality of "we are right and anyone who disagrees with us is wrong and should be killed" instead of the better alternative of trying to understand and make peace with one another.
I would say no. This administration, and most politicians in the 20th and 21st centuries are catch-all politicians. They use words and construct catch-phrases to appeal to the public and sell whatever it is they're selling. They chose "War on Terror," "Axis of Evil" and "Defeat-o-Crats" among many other talking points to beat the average person with no political efficacy into submission. War on Terror sounds stern and aggressive and also doesn't allow for any wiggle room. It sounds pertinent and like a critical cause. Also, it's called the "War" on terror in order to make people look away from any Socioeconomical or Political solutions to terrorism, of which there are many, in order to continue corrupt nepotism and the military industrial complex that Haliburton and Hummer alike cling to like polar bears to floating ice bergs.
Right on! Seeing that the 'War on Terror' is producing more 'terrorists', let's have some 'action'. And this 'action' should include 'negotiation' when and if needed.