“Global War On Terror” Over
How does one end the “Global War on Terror”, you might ask? Well, all you have to do is call it something else – like, I don’t know – the “Overseas Contingency Plan” maybe.
The Obama administration appears to be backing away from the phrase “global war on terror,” a signature rhetorical legacy of its predecessor.
In a memo e-mailed this week to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department’s office of security review noted that “this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ [GWOT.] Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’ “
The memo said the direction came from the Office of Management and Budget, the executive-branch agency that reviews the public testimony of administration officials before it is delivered.
I was thinking QWIT might be a more appropriate acronym – Quit the War on International Terrorism. But, hey, that’s just me.
Of course, this comes on the heels of the administration ending the use of the phrase “enemy combatants” to describe those otherwise nice people who just want to blow us all up and end America.
You see, if we just use these terms and inject a little political correctness, then everything will be just fine. No more worries. 9/11 never happened. Just carry on. Nothing to see here.
meanwhile the other half of us detest him for continuing the charade and simply changing the name.. guess he can’t please anyone..
March 25th, 2009 at 11:37 amI hope Zbigniew Mazurak is reading this so he can comment. This topic is prefect for his insightful analysis.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:48 amI agree Di Marco. I hope Zbigniew ends his silence soon.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:54 amYou guys are some serious pussies.
March 25th, 2009 at 12:11 pmOh yes, we all can’t wait until Zbiggy starts throwing around those treasonous traitor comments again.
March 25th, 2009 at 12:13 pmWay to upift the discussion Fielding.
March 25th, 2009 at 12:15 pmMazlish, I would bet that Zbiggy is holed up in a bunker somewhere just waiting for WWIII to start, which is why you haven’t heard from him. Either that, or someone finally came and took him in for observation.
March 25th, 2009 at 12:26 pmYour glee in having chased Zbigniew away is disgusting.
It does corroborate everything that I have said about you guys though: you are only interested in destroying those who are potent. You have no interest in truly helping those in need, and only use that morality to disarm your opponents so that you can run roughshod over them. If you truly believed the nonesense you spew about “need,” you would view Zbignew as in deserpate need of your guidance and you would show sympathy and compassion for him. Instead, you relish in having destroyed his contributions to CWA.
Absolutely disgusting.
March 25th, 2009 at 12:38 pmNo room in this world for thin skinned conservatives, good riddance to bad rubbish.
March 25th, 2009 at 12:42 pmI love how people who comment anonymously cast judgment on the thin skin of others. If you are so tough, come forward and let everyone know who you are.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:13 pmZbig sucks
March 25th, 2009 at 1:13 pmWell, Mazlish, you’re uninformed again…I didn’t even know Zbiggy had been chased away…and trust me, I’m the last person that would want anyone to stop posting….I have too much fun with you guys.
And Mike, I wholehearedly agree with you, and I have stated those sentiments many, many times. If you can’t own up to who you are, and back up what you’re saying with your own name, then I feel that you are just a coward.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:20 pmI disagree that Zbigniew had thin skin – but that is beside the point.
If he truly did have thin skin, then it was precisely his inability to take criticism, and his need for compassion, that should have been the passkey to those values from the so-called champions of need.
Of course, those so-called champions of need show that they really do not give a damn about need: they only use need as a rationalization to destroy the strong (i.e., those who do not need). These compassionate humanitarians use morality and philosophy to break strong people like Zbigniew mentally and spiritually, and if they are unable to break him that way, they stand ready with hand on holster to use other measures when necessary.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:22 pmMr. Ambrosia:
I have previously applauded your stand against anonymous postings, and I applaud it again.
But if need is the criteria by which you grant things to people, why is Zbigniew’s need of compassion insufficient to warrant a spirited defense of him by you right now?
Where were you when his religious views were savagely attacked, and he complained publicly about the humilation? Why do you remain silent?
March 25th, 2009 at 1:24 pmEd, look at it this way – if ZM is gone, it would no longer make sense to nominate him as your Secretary of Defense – which will save you a lot of trouble, because I doubt the Mazlish Administration would have gotten off to much of a start if you tried to get the Senate to confirm a non-citizen as DefSec!
March 25th, 2009 at 1:27 pm“…view Zbignew as in deserpate need of your guidance and you would show sympathy and compassion for him…”
I disagree. One man’s need is not a claim on others.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:44 pmIda’s decree: Glutin knead is not to clam anothers.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:48 pmGeorge:
In light of the difficulty I have in mustering support among Conservatives just on this website, I think you are very safe from having to worry about a Mazlish Administration.
Nico:
Correct. Of course, your inability to retain the context of what I said betrays your childishness.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:37 pmHis views on religion contained denigration of other’s beliefs. Read it over again Eddie Guns.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:49 pmMr. Ambrosia:
What difference does that make? If he needs compassion, isn’t that enough?
Or are you for means testing all welfare payments?
March 25th, 2009 at 2:52 pmEd:
You are not a conservative, no wonder you can’t muster support. You are a libertarian, there is a huge difference.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:04 pmBe glad your nose is on your face,
not pasted on some other place,
for if it were where it is not,
you might dislike your nose a lot.
Imagine if your precious nose
were sandwiched in between your toes,
that clearly would not be a treat,
for you’d be forced to smell your feet.
Your nose would be a source of dread
were it attached atop your head,
it soon would drive you to despair,
forever tickled by your hair.
Within your ear, your nose would be
an absolute catastrophe,
for when you were obliged to sneeze,
your brain would rattle from the breeze.
Your nose, instead, through thick and thin,
March 25th, 2009 at 3:05 pmremains between your eyes and chin,
not pasted on some other place–
be glad your nose is on your face!
Anonymous:
I am not a libertarian. I believe in a strong national defense that protects American borders. Libertarians do not believe in national defense.
I also believe in a strong court system. I do not believe in private courts or any of the anarchy libertarians espouse.
I do consistently believe in free markets though. It sounds like you don’t because you cannot get off the “need is king” bandwagon.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:10 pm“Libertarians do not believe in national defense.”
That is bull. They are against an Imperial Military to police the world.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:18 pmI think you’re confusing Zbiggy with someone who needs…it seemed like he could certainly take care of himself. If Zbiggy did need help though, thsn I would be more than willing to point him in that direction, but he certainly doesn’t need help with defending himself on this blog…at least, I wouldn’t think so since he’s so adamant about how much better he is than anyone in our government….or anyone that posts here.
Unless, of course, that you are really Zbiggy and you post as both Mazlish and Zbiggy…come to think of it, you both have an obsession with weapons…hey, I think I’m on to something!
March 25th, 2009 at 3:19 pm“Compassion is the basis of morality.”
-Arthur Schopenhauer
“Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little.”
-Buddha
“If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.”
-Ayn Rand
“I believe that things are black and white.”
March 25th, 2009 at 3:19 pm-Ed Mazlish
“I would let someone die than let society help them.”
March 25th, 2009 at 3:21 pm-Mr. Ed
“I see India as the best potential US ally for the coming showdown in Asia.”
March 25th, 2009 at 3:30 pm-Ed Mazlish
Anonymous:
You are as brain dead as Avi for repeating the same tired quote that I responded to yesterday.
I said that I was opposed to FORCING “society” to help other people. Society, in case the fog is too thick to penetrate your skull, is people other than yourself. I am not opposed to you helping anyone you choose to help. I am opposed to you picking up a gun and pointing it at me if I dare to disagree about the worthiness of your recipients (or hiring your hitmen in Congress to point the gun at me on your behalf).
My actions in defending Zbigniew prove that I am willing to help someone, as long as I believe the person is personally worth helping. Why is it less humane that I want to help people that matter to me and share my values, be they family, friends or loved ones? Exactly what taints that action in your eyes? The self-interested nature of it.
The point is, who gets to decide who I help with my time and my money – me or some bureaucrat (or you)?
I say that I get to decide. You and the rest of the socialist drones say that you and your self-appointed bureacrats should decide. And while I point no gun at you demanding that you support the Ayn Rand Institute or any other charitable organization I support, you and the rest of your socialist comrades point guns at me to force me to support ACORN and whatever other bottom of the barrel rabble rousers can show how pathetic and needy they are. And then you holster your gun long enough to pat each other on the back and congradulate each other at what great big humanitarians you are – with other people’s money and lives.
You would rather kill me with the burden of supporting all of the needy lowlifes around world rather than let me live in my own corner of the world free from interference. Don’t tell me about killing people – you and the rest of the socialists out there are killers on an epic scale. The capitalist system that I advocate has lifted millions and millions of people out of poverty and allowed them to live, when before capitalism existed they died of infant mortality and/or starvation. You and the socialists kill anyone in your path – you kill them spiritually first, and if that does not do the trick, you kill them physically.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:37 pm“But [liberals] keep leaving a pile of corpses and destroyed lives in their path…”
March 25th, 2009 at 3:49 pm-Ed Mazlish
Mr. Ambrosia:
I am talking about the accusations that Zbigniew is allegedly thin skinned. My point is that if they are true, then he needs your compassion and empathy. Yet you and the idolators of need refuse to give it to him. If you beleive need entitles you to things, why isn’t Zbigniew entitled to your compassion? Is there something beyond need that qualifies/disqualifies someone to benefits in your utopia?
Are you advocatng that we need to check and see if every welfare recipient has really tried to pick himself up by his bootstraps before we help him?
March 25th, 2009 at 3:50 pmDon’t bust a nut, Ed!
March 25th, 2009 at 3:52 pmCorrect Bartlett. Piles and piles of corpses. From Cuba to Russia to China…to the throttled lives of those who have lived under socialized medicine (both doctors and patients). Death abounds.
But heaven forbid I say that you must either work to support yourself, or else rely on the VOLUNTARY charity of others, and you all howl that I am a monster.
I may be a selfish monster (in your words), but you socialists are murderers on a global scale.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:53 pmEd, you’re free to move to any corner of the world you choose…if you live here in the US, you will gave to deal with the government at hand…if you move to a tropical island, that you purchased with your hard earned stipend, then God bless you and good luck to you. It could be the United State of Mazlish and you can institute whatever government you choose. But, since you insist on living here, you need to learn to cope.
And enough already with the death and guns and killing and what not…its old and tired now. Its not even that funny any more. Give it a rest since I really don’t understand who you are trying to impress with your flowery and over the top rhetoric…certainly, not anyone here, since even some strong conservative supporters on this site are seeing your posts as the meaningless drivel that they are.
Maybe you can try and have a rational conversation once in a while Ed…without the bullshit hyperbole…it would be a welcome change.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:54 pmMr. Ambrosia:
I am having an intelligent conversation, if you could only keep up with it.
I will stop talking about guns when you renounce your use of them. Why do you find it impossible to say that you will accomplish your goals through the voluntary participation of everyone? What is it about forcing people who disagree with you that you just cannot live without? If your goals are so rational and so right and so good, why do they rely on government force for their implementation?
When you introspect the answer to those questions, we will be able to have an intelligent conversation that goes both ways instead of just one way.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:58 pmMr. Ed sounds like a crooked lawyer, maybe even an ambulance chaser.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:05 pmGive it up, Mazlish! Please go on with you intelligent conversation, just keep it to yourself, the rest of us are tired of hearing you!
Don’t you realize how ridiculous you sound? Don’t you realize how easy it is to wind you up like a play toy! “Yak yak yak, I’m Ed Mazlish and I’m more conservative than you… blah blah blah…” Who cares? You’re just another pecker trying to establish your position in the pecking order hall of fame.
You’re an embarrassment to conservatives everywhere, you with your teenage infatuation for a science fiction novel about an imaginary society ruled by railroad tycoons. Grow the fuck up, dim-wit! This is the real world where real people work hard to help each other. The rest of you can go join the Ayn Rand Institute with David Koresh and the other loonies. Don’t pretend to speak for the rest of us you sick bastard.
That’s enough for now. If you were half a man you wouldn’t bother to respond but I know you will! You’re so predictable!
March 25th, 2009 at 4:11 pmThank you for those kind words Anonymous. Your compassion and warmth are truly breathtaking. I bet you are a really special person.
By the way…better a famous horse than a nameless, faceless jackass.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:14 pmLooks like a hit the nail on the head. Crooked lawyer, I knew it!
March 25th, 2009 at 4:17 pmCdesim:
Don’t lump me with David Koresh.
I have never pretended to speak for you or anyone else. I have merely made arguments. You and your ilk have yet to respond substantively to any argument I have made. If you can show me my error, I will gladly stand corrected. Until then…you are the one who has thrown in with David Koresh and the other murderers around the world.
That could be your new mantra…murderers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but the capitalists who feed you and keep you alive!
March 25th, 2009 at 4:18 pmAnonymous:
You do not *know* anything. To know something requires a brain – which you obviously do not have.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:19 pmTruth is hurting, isn’t it Mr. Ed?
March 25th, 2009 at 4:24 pm“This is the real world where real people work hard to help each other.”
March 25th, 2009 at 4:25 pm-cdesim
Mazlish…is this you?
American Charities for Reasonable Fundraising Regulation, Inc. v. Pinellas County
March 25th, 2009 at 4:32 pmAre you surprised Ed Mazlish is a tax evader? Would it startle you to learn that Liberace was gay?
March 25th, 2009 at 4:41 pmYes Mr. Ambrosia, that is me. One of my small contributions to the cause of liberty, I was one of the attorneys who brought a successful constitutional challenge to a Pinellas County, Florida ordinance that regulated charities and their agents.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:43 pmNicely done Mazlish…I applaud you for your work. And this helped all non-profits, across the board, to escape excessive interference from local municipalities, yes?
March 25th, 2009 at 4:48 pmHow much did you charge them for your “altruism”?
March 25th, 2009 at 4:49 pmWell…the challenged ordinance was only in effect in Pinellas County, Florida. But the practical effect of the District Court’s ruling after the Eleventh Circuit’s remand was to chill a sliver of enforcement activity by local governments that did not want to face a similar lawsuit.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:53 pmYesterday, Mr. Mellish asked:
“How much did you charge them for your ‘altruism?’”
This question reveals the ugly truth about the nature of the morality of altruism and self-sacrifice, and should be contrasted with capitalism’s morality of self-interested (“selfish”) behavior.
Undaunted by the fact that I assisted charitable orgainzations – whose mission is to help the poor and needy that Mr. Mellish pretends to champion – he semlls the rat of self-interest. It is not enough for Mr. Mellish that I helped remove an unconstitutional barrier to these organizations’ ability to function: he withholds moral approval until he hears that in doing so, I injured myself by taking a loss or otherwise not profiting from the endeavor.
This is why the practioners of altruism and socialism are unmoved by the fact that their policies have not helped the people in the slums. Mr. Mellish has unwittingly (and no doubt unintentionally) given you the reason why: the goal of those policies is not to assist the poor and weak, but to hamstring the rich and the strong.
The only person who truly works for a selfless purpose without the possibility of profit is a physical slave. But even the physical slave has one vestige of honor remaining to him: the ability to say that his condition is wrong and has been forced upon him at the point of a gun. What Mr. Mellish and the proponents of altruism seek is much more insidious: they seek servility of the spirit, the voluntary enslavement of men to the submission of serving the needs of others without the gun needing to be pointed at them.
Of course, the alturist-socialist types never put down their guns because they may become necessary in the event some selfish individual does not voluntarily make the choice that the altruist-socialist wants.
March 26th, 2009 at 10:03 amIn the previous post, I forgot to mention the contrast with capitalism’s self-interested (“selfish”) behavior to alktruism’s demand for self-sacrifice.
Under capitalism, individuals engage in free trade to mutual benefit. No person is injured in any freely entered trade.
When Mr. Mellish goes to the lunch counter and trades his money for a sandwich, he is better off because he prefers the sandwich to the money, and the proprietor is better off because he prefers the money to the sandwich ingredients. Both parties have benefitted and nobody has sacrificed anything.
The principle of free trade to mutual benefit is even understandable to young children. Two young children who have been bored with their toys trade them with each other, and both run in a different direction and have fun.
But to an altruist-socialist, free trade to mutual benefit is somehow inconceivable, even though 5 year olds can understand it. Rather, they demand that profit be stripped out of every transaction – so that the transactions are at best akin to an exchange of unwanted Christmas presents, and at worst a world system composed of nothing but slaves seeking absolutely no profit or self-interest of their own.
And the altruist-socialists call that world system a society of brotherhood and compassion.
March 26th, 2009 at 10:52 amAh c’mon Mazlish! You know very well these “charitable organizations” that you assisted are the very same organizations that call us at dinner time pretending to raise funds for the widows and orphans of police officers and firemen, or to fight the war on drugs, of whatever the popular concern of the day happens to be.
They are owned and operated by unimaginative entrepreneurs and very little of the money they collect actually goes towards a charitable cause. Most if it goes into salaries, office furniture, and under-the-table transactions. I’d be surprised if as much of two cents of a dollar reached the “intended” recipients.
But this is the enterprise that you advocate again and again. Screw ‘em if they can’t take a joke, right? Isn’t that what it’s all about?
You should have just let it be at post 49, but as usual you can’t control yourself! You’re like one of those balsa airplanes; just wind up the rubber band, let it go and watch it crash. Very amusing!
March 26th, 2009 at 12:15 pmMellish:
I understand that your evasions make you beyond hearing anything I have to say. However, I write not for you but for the successful and generous people on this list who are too innocent to understand the true nature of the evil of socialism. They understand that socialism does not work, but they do not understand that the reason it does not work is because it is immoral.
When they understand it and stop trying to find compromises with you, your game will be up.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:31 pmGood luck with that, Mazlish, really. Let me help you:
Good people reading this post hear this! The reason Socialism fails again and again is because its practitioners mistakenly believe that there is a higher cause beyond their own self interest. The perpetration of this myth undermines society resulting in inadequate policies and a weak infrastructure burdened by a lazy populace looking for hand-outs.
Selfishness, on the other hand, promotes ever higher achievements in an atmosphere of friendly cooperative competition. Everybody wins!
Socialism is death; Selfishness is the only morality.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:47 pmMellish:
If you would have added that Socialism is the government religion, and that the person who coined the term “altruism,” Auguste Comte, was explicitly motivated by a desire to substitute “society” for the role that “God” had previously played i n morality, I would have stood up and cheered your endorsement.
Nonetheless, well said. Thank you for being altruistic enough to help – although the twinge of sarcasm that came across does sound suspiciously like self-interest, in the sense that you do not really believe what you are writing and are trying to make sure that you communicate that fact. If you were really being altruistic and self-sacrificing, you would have enthusiastically supported your enemies without reservation.
You don’t want to be accused of selfishly promoting what you believe (even if just surreptiously), do you?
March 26th, 2009 at 2:10 pmMy intention, Mazlish, was to inform you that I have indeed been listening to you. I did not mean to be sarcastic but at the risk of sounding so allow me to add that it isn’t particularly difficult to follow your argument. After all, as has been pointed out before, it is a position that is usually associated with teenagers and college students; most of whom eventually grow out of it.
Again, I wanted you to know that I have indeed been listening to you. And while I admire the logic in your presentation I respectfully choose not to understand it (in the true sense of the word: to stand under; support).
You may want to tone down the extremity in your treatise. Pure Capitalism will never exist. You once said that before there is gray there must be black and white. I would counter that the grey came first. An introductory study of optics or understanding of musical harmony would support my statement. Remember the Yin-Yang, each side has a little of the other. Just yesterday the relevance of the Post Office was a brought up on this board. That is an excellent topic and I’m sure you could make many valuable contributions there. Try not to call your opposition savage murderers if that’s possible.
March 26th, 2009 at 3:18 pmCorrection Mr. Mellish: pure capitalism HAS NEVER YET EXISTED. And it will never exist until people understand (as you put it) the morality of self-interested, selfish behavior.
As for extremity: extremism is a useless smear. It only means “consistency.” The problem with most “extremists” is the content of their ideas, not the consistency with which they hold them.
In that sense, I am somewhat thankful that Mr. Obama is as extreme as he is. He is clarifying issues in a way that no politician has clarified them in a very long time. I just hope that he does not do so much damage before the situation can be corrected that the clarification goes for naught.
March 26th, 2009 at 3:44 pmWow, it appears that not even my departure from CWA has stopped the series of lies about me. In that case, I shall correct the record:
I do tolerate criticism, and welcome its constructive genre. But I do not tolerate nor accept lying about myself, my religious life, my private life and my opinions. I hate lying. It’s something I can’t stand. Lies, fraudulent character assasinations, and the unmoderated environment in which they appeared (which is rare), are the reasons why I left CWA.
I am not seeking anyone’s pity nor compassion, merely respect for my privacy and truth-telling.
I am not “obsessed with weapons”, and I am not Ed Mazlish.
As for the article itself: the fact that the new US government has decided to forbid its employees from using the term “GWOT” is yet another symptom of the liberal malaise that plagues Washington DC. Just like their weak responses to Russian and Chinese aggressions, to North Korean and Iranian threats, and to other challenges, it’s yet another symptom of appeasement and incompetence on the part of the federal establishment. It’s no accident.
It also reveals the belief of the Fed Government that terrorism is a crime to be dealt with solely by the judiciary and the police. The Clinton Administration professed the same belief, and that led to 9/11/2001. But terrorism is not a crime. It’s an act of war (and OBL declared war on America in 1996). Terrorism is an issue that only in a few cases should be dealt with by law enforcement agencies. Most of the time, it’s an affair to be dealt with by the US military and US intel agencies (together, not separately).
There is a new Cold War with the communist giants, whether one wants it or not. There is also a Global War on Terrorism, whether one wants it or not. Denying irrefutable facts will not solve any problems – it’s a recipe for failure.
Denying that Nazi Germany was a huge threat did not work. Denying that the SU was a huge danger did not work. Denying that Ayatollah Khomeini was dangerous did not work. Debying that Russia poses a Cold-War-style threat to America does not work. Denying that China is an increasingly belligerent rival does not work. Denying that terrorism is an act of war does not work.
The US government should face the world as it is, not as the federal establishment wants it to be.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:09 amZ,
I, for one, am glad to see you posting again.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:44 pmThanks!
You may have noticed that during the 2008 DN Convention, the Democrats were in a state of denial and were later rebuked by Rudy Giuliani for that. It is unacceptable that 52% of the American electorate ignored RG’s remarks. Now, the US federal government – dominated by Democrats – is in a state of denial.
If Robert Gates thinks that there is no GWOT, he does not qualify for the job of the US SECDEF.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:15 pmUnfortunately, I doubt anything short of another significant attack will change their minds. Even then, they will say it was due to Bush not being nice enough to the terrorists.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:04 pmWelcome back Zbigniew! It’s great to see you posting again. I hope it is not a temporary decision – but even if it is, I will enjoy the treat!
Hope all is well in your corner of the world!
As for your substantive comments – the Left’s entire agenda is predicated on a gigantic wish that they can have their cake after eating it. Specifically, they believe they can canibalize the best our society has to offer, and then have the benefits of what all those good people provide in a condition of freedom. This is true whether one is dealing with socialized medicine, capitalism generally, or the defense of America.
So this is all just par for the course for them.
March 29th, 2009 at 4:25 pmgood site, good work, thanks!!!
September 14th, 2009 at 8:03 am