Just saw this usage employed on the local 10:00 news. One local guy killed in Afghanistan, one in Iraq, and the reporter described both as soldiers “killed in the War on Terror.” WRT Afghanistan you could make a case for that if you stretch it, but Iraq?!!! All honor to our country’s fallen, but that’s no excuse for mischaracterizing their mission.
How often is this usage used without comment or examination?
(It was a Fox channel, BTW, but not Fox News. I would’ve expected that to make a difference.)
Logic is for arguments. I did not think “Iraq War != War on Terror” was even a matter open for debate on this board at this point. You don’t seriously believe the one has anything to do with the other, do you?
I will always picture the war in Iraq as the square peg that was rammed into the round hole of the war on terror “toy” set, sure Bush managed to make it fit, but sadly many in America are still in denial that Bush broke the “toy” in the process.
“one war at a time, gentlemen”
Lincoln (to his cabinet, that wanted to go to war with England for an incident that occurred while the US Civil War was going on.)
It didn’t. It does now. And not in the way the current Admin would like to believe. Iraq is helping to breed terrorists and terrorists sentiment at a frightening rate.
Indeed. Maybe we should call our Iraq adventure the “war for terror,” to remind us all of the own-goal quality it’s had from the beginning in that respect.
The fighting in Iraq absolutely is part of the larger war on terror. It’s simply astounding that you guys still can’t grasp this. You really seem to believe that unless Saddam personally had something to do with 9/11 Iraq can’t be a part of the war on terrorism.
It’s been explained many times on the boards. It’s so obvious that it’s just common sense. Yet you guys just can’t wrap your minds around it. It’s fascinating.
There are two separate ideas:
You don’t think Iraq should be a part of the war on terror.
You don’t think Iraq is a part of the war on terror.
Somehow the hatred for all things Bush has fused these concepts and you can’t grasp that they are different.
So, why Iraq in particular? What sort of a threat was it to the US, more than, e.g., Syria? How was it hosting more terrorists than, e.g., Pakistan?
And for bonus points, from which country did the majority of the 9-11 terrorists come from? And from which country did they get most of their funding? (Hint: Its name does not start with the letter “I”).
I understand that Iraq has been said to be part of the war on terror. That I completely understand. I understand that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq. I get that too.
I’ll bet you anything that we could upset any government in the middle east and deploy an occupying force (or in Africa, or even South/Central America, or Europe, or Canada, or Ancient Greece, or Fraggle Rock) and you will see responses that you could legitimately characterize as “terrorism”.
Does this mean that the war on Fraggle Rock is part of the War on Terror?
See, those are all reasons why you think Iraq shouldn’t have been made a part of the war on terror.
You’ve got a valid point that some other countries also supported and sponsored terrorists just as Saddam’s Iraq did. Although, I think it’s silly to simply consider the 9/11 terrorists came from as a basis for how we should treat Saudi Arabia. Cho was South Korean, but we’re not talking about invading or punishing South Korea because of his rampage.
Look, if you want to argue that Iraq should not have been made a part of the war on terrorism than go ahead. There’s some valid arguments to be made there. Certainly many of the reasons given to invade were false.
Where you lose me is arguing that it’s not a part of the larger war on terror. Clearly it is. 9/11 caused the US to begin a large scale war against terror of which Iraq is now a central part. Arguing otherwise is just denying reality.
Not sure I follow the reasoning here. “OK, Iraq wasn’t part of the War on Terra before the Iraq invasion, but it is now”. Was there a specific moment when this occured? Was it when AlQ foreign fighters came flooding in? Can anyone prove that any such thing actually happened, or are we forced to rely on the unimpeachable (snicker) candor of The Leader?
Can you actually prove any of this, or have you simply swallowed another spoonful of yummy brown goodness?