# Attn MSM: A GI killed in Iraq is not "killed in the War on Terror" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 1, 2007, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248 "2007-05-01T02:16:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/41 "2007-05-01T16:48:47Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > You just made an entire post towards me without a single insult. That’s a first. I don’t **think** this remark applies to me or was directed toward me; but in case it was, I apologize for the oversight and for failing to observe the appropriate conventions of the Pit. I will attempt to remedy the error in future postings, you fuckwit. 😉 > [@Debaser](#): > > It’s telling that I need to use an absurd scenario to give an example of a war that would be outside the scope of the war on terror. That’s just because the war on terror is the war that’s going on right now. But then “war on terror” doesn’t really mean anything specific beyond “wars going on right now”. I think that **BrainGlutton** ’s complaint in the OP comes from the position that “war on terror” **ought** to be used to mean something more specific: namely, military conflicts that are directly and overwhelmingly focused on reducing terrorist attacks and eliminating terrorist organizations. As **John Mace** pointed out, the Iraq war definitely ain’t that. Rather, it’s primarily about attempting to control sectarian/regional conflict in what is largely a failed state. And as I noted in post #3, a growing majority of the American public apparently agrees with **BrainGlutton** ’s definition of “war on terror” rather than yours. Your extremely broad definition of “war on terror” as covering essentially all realistic scenarios of contemporary military conflict, including the war in Iraq, does not match up with what most Americans think the term “war on terror” means. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/42 "2007-05-01T16:49:11Z")
[QUOTE=tdn] Hmmm. What’s your position on the issue of same-sex bowling? [/QUOTE] I claim monopoly on the video distribution rights. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/43 "2007-05-01T16:50:28Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Supreme God Emperor and Sacred King, Divine Maximum Overlord and Absolute Universal Master. (But I’m only planning on one term, because I intend to fully exercise the _droit du seigneur_ and I’m not as young as I once was.) [/QUOTE] If I support you, can I be your Vice-Emperor and Chief Underlord, with first dibs on the Droit du Seigneur after you end your term, or die of exhaustion? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/44 "2007-05-01T16:51:21Z")
Youi do, **BG** , and not getting younger won’t be the problem, the problem will be in getting _older_. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/45 "2007-05-01T16:54:18Z")
[QUOTE=tdn] Sure, but the only reason they are “part of” the war is because we dragged them into it. Terrorism wasn’t our reason, it was our excuse. [/quote] I disagree with this. However, even if I concede this to be true just for the sake of argument, it doesn’t change the fact that Iraq _is_ part of the war on terror. That you don’t like it doesn’t make it not so. > [@](#): > > Had 9/11 not happened, we’d be fighting Iraq in the War on Saddam. Had Sweden bombed us with tiny meatballs, we’d now be fighting Iraq in the War on Meatballs. You really think that Bush would have been able to get the support to invade Iraq had 9/11 not happened? You’re entitled to your opinion and of course there is no way to prove this without the technology from Star Trek. But, I think it’s obvious that without the attacks on 9/11 we wouldn’t have invaded Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/46 "2007-05-01T16:59:03Z")
[QUOTE=tdn] Sure, but the only reason they are “part of” the war is because we dragged them into it. Terrorism wasn’t our reason, it was our excuse. Had 9/11 not happened, we’d be fighting Iraq in the War on Saddam. Had Sweden bombed us with tiny meatballs, we’d now be fighting Iraq in the War on Meatballs. [/QUOTE] \*\*Debaser \*\*has already conceded that point, so it sounds like you are now agreeing with him… What difference does it make how it got that way if it is, in fact, that way now? The question we should be asking ourselves is does it edify or obscure things if we call the war in Iraq part of the War on Terror? I think it obscures things. Sure, there is lots of “terror” going on in Iraq, but it isn’t folks plotting to use terror on the US “homeland” (to use a term I hate). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/47 "2007-05-01T17:03:28Z")
**Debaser** : Why not? Went to war with Spain simply to steal their stuff. Went to war with Grenada for no reason whatsoever (By the by, how is that Grenadan War Memorial coming along?..) What makes you think they couldn’t have cooked up a war with Iraq? Saddam was our collective villain, a designated devil to embody the wickedness of those who oppose peace and freedom (us). For a while it was Qadaffy Duck, then it was the Ayatollah Khomeini. For a couple days it was Manuel (“Craterface”) Noriega, then back to the Ayatollah. Then Saddam. “Late last night, Iraqi torpedo boats attacked an American destroyer in the Persian Gulf, in the Al Tonqueen Bay…” ---
**Author:** ![stolichnaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bcef8e/32.png) [@stolichnaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stolichnaya)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/48 "2007-05-01T17:06:01Z")
I think to a certain extent it is true that Iraq is part of the War on Terror because we have made it so. But I am reluctant to concede the rhetorical point because it adds post-facto legitimacy to the action which I feel it does not deserve. Most people using the War on Terror to describe our actions in Iraq are doing so not to be descriptive or accessible but to engage in revisionism for political gain. So I am temporarily breaking with my typical pro-simplicity stance. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/49 "2007-05-01T17:15:40Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] The question we should be asking ourselves is does it edify or obscure things if we call the war in Iraq part of the War on Terror? I think it obscures things. Sure, there is lots of “terror” going on in Iraq, but it isn’t folks plotting to use terror on the US “homeland” (to use a term I hate). [/QUOTE] It’s called “framing the debate,” John, same as the infamous WMDs argument. You accept either one and you’re playing right into their hands. Fuck them. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/50 "2007-05-01T17:18:10Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] The question we should be asking ourselves is does it edify or obscure things if we call the war in Iraq part of the War on Terror? I think it obscures things. Sure, there is lots of “terror” going on in Iraq, but it isn’t folks plotting to use terror on the US “homeland” (to use a term I hate). [/QUOTE] I agree. And such obfuscation is harmful to having a meaningful debate on our nation’s policy, because it frames the argument at the outset with the assumption that war in Iraq will reduce terrorist attacks on the U.S., which may not in fact be the case. To me, it’s equivalent to framing discussions of civil liberties and the limits of police power in terms of a War on Crime. Questioning whether officers should have broken into someone’s home with shaky evidence, or been allowed to search all the witnesses to a robbery, or run over jay-walking pedestrians would be hampered by the pointless debate over whether or not crime is in fact bad and why would you question police when they’re just trying to fight crime and why do you like crime so much anyway? ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/51 "2007-05-01T17:51:34Z")
[QUOTE=Debaser] I disagree with this. However, even if I concede this to be true just for the sake of argument, it doesn’t change the fact that Iraq _is_ part of the war on terror. [/QUOTE] What you call fact is what we’re debating here. We’ve hardly established it as fact. How is our presence in Iraq stopping terrorists from planning an attack? Bush His Own Divine Self has claimed that the WOT cannot be fought by conventional means. He has claimed that terrorists do not use conventional weapons, nor are they necessarily contained by international borders. But we’re over there fighting a conventional war with conventional weapons, in a country with borders. By Bush’s own definition, the Iraq war is not a war on terror. And of course, it was not designed to stop terrorism, it was designed to take out a government. > [@](#): > > You really think that Bush would have been able to get the support to invade Iraq had 9/11 not happened? Maybe, maybe not. But the planning was there. The desire was there. All that was needed was an excuse. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/52 "2007-05-01T17:56:18Z")
[QUOTE=stolichnaya] I think to a certain extent it is true that Iraq is part of the War on Terror because we have made it so. [/QUOTE] That’s how it was sold to us. I can sell you a can of stink-pretty that I guarantee will make you attractive to supermodels. That doesn’t make it anything more than a can of Raid. ---
**Author:** ![stolichnaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bcef8e/32.png) [@stolichnaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stolichnaya)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/53 "2007-05-01T18:00:21Z")
Did you read the rest of my post? The reason that some shit sticks is that you can sell it to the people who typically buy fertilizer. Recognizing that it could be seen as a compelling argument does not amount to conceding the point. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/54 "2007-05-01T18:15:17Z")
[QUOTE=stolichnaya] Did you read the rest of my post? [/QUOTE] Sorry, while I was responding to your post, I was directing that at **Debaser**. Confusion ensues. ---
**Author:** ![stolichnaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bcef8e/32.png) [@stolichnaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stolichnaya)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/55 "2007-05-01T18:18:04Z")
Well, now Debaser is officially part of the War on Stoli. Sorry- no takebacks! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/56 "2007-05-01T18:49:48Z")
[QUOTE=RedFury] It’s called "framing the debate… [/QUOTE] Yes, I know that. It’s probably a big factor in why Bush was able to win in '04-- framing the Iraq war as being part of the “War on Terror”. Few and fewer people are buying the bill of goods these days. Of course the context of this thread is whether the MSM should use that term wrt the Iraq situation. No, I don’t think they should-- for the reasons given. Of course, isn’t even Bush now using some new term to “frame the debate” in a different way? Isn’t it supposed to be the “Long War” or the “War against Islamic Fascism” or some other meaningless slogan? ---
**Author:** ![stolichnaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bcef8e/32.png) [@stolichnaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stolichnaya)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/57 "2007-05-01T18:51:42Z")
I beieve it’s now known as the War against the War against the War. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/58 "2007-05-01T22:35:25Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Yes, I know that. It’s probably a big factor in why Bush was able to win in '04-- framing the Iraq war as being part of the “War on Terror”. Few and fewer people are buying the bill of goods these days. Of course the context of this thread is whether the MSM should use that term wrt the Iraq situation. No, I don’t think they should-- for the reasons given. Of course, isn’t even Bush now using some new term to “frame the debate” in a different way? Isn’t it supposed to be the “Long War” or the “War against Islamic Fascism” or some other meaningless slogan? [/QUOTE] I’m sure you knew as much…I’m well aware you’re not exactly a trained chimp, **John** – unlike others, but that’s neither here nor there. I just brought it up, partly for the same reasons you gave, I happen to be sick and tired of the endless (and meaningless) sloganeering that’s supposed to have some intrinsic value that will open our eyes to The Big Picture – yet again another worthless piece of rhetoric. Should the MSM use the term? Well, being the Liberal Scum that we all know they are, surely you realize their job is to kowtow to every presidential decree. IOW, hell no! But it is what it is: if it sells, they’ll go with it. After all, let’s not forget that beyond all the horrors and needless deaths this invasion has caused, there are a number of fat cats that have gotten mighty fatter. And that, my friend, I believe is the bottom line. Doesn’t matter how disgusting you or I might find that to be. Eisenhower nailed it in his farewell speech, didn’t he? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/59 "2007-05-01T22:45:57Z")
[Name That ‘War’](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117747115263781593.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) > [@](#): > > Admiral William Fallon has just made his first major move as Central Command chief. He’s begun his tenure by ostentatiously **banning the term “Long War”** that was coined by his predecessor, Gen. John Abizaid. Yet, so far at least, he has not offered up any superior alternative to describe the “whatchamacallit” that we’re in the middle of. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/60 "2007-05-01T22:51:58Z")
I guess Joe Haldeman has the rights to _The Forever War_… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248.md?page=4)