What, War= force?
Authorizing use of force is not the same as a formal declaration of war. jeel stated that, “…we are at war.” We are not.
I thought we declared a “war” on terror some time ago. Doesn’t that count?
For me, GWB’s worst crime (so far) is to squander the coalition that gathered after 9/11. If there was one ray of hope that came out of that terrible day, it was the spontaneous out-pouring of support for the US that came from every corner of the civilized world. It gave me tremendous hope that the world would finally be able to cooperate in the pusuit of peace and democracy. From those shining moments of hope, I am now filled with a despair that, for the first time in over 50 years, there is a real chance of a serious rift between the US and Europe and a real chance that, for the first time ever, the arab nations will become united in their hostility towards the west.
If GWB’s legacy includes an end to cooperation between Europe and the US and a surge in Islamist terrorism, I would probably put him down as the worst ever … but for now … he does not even comes close to the likes of Harding or any of the post-civil war presidents who helped to undermine democracy in the Southern States.
To say he is the worst ever is hyperbole pure and simple… but the world definitely feels a lot less safe under his watch.
The phrase, “war on terror,” is purely rhetorical like “war on drugs,” or “war on poverty.” It has no legal significance. It’s just propaganda.
Oh, and I’m sure you would prefer some unjust propaganda, like the rest of your whining lefty crowd!
[sub]oops! Sorry. Channeling…[/sub]
Not sure if I would agree that it has no legal significance. The war on terror thing has given rise to a host of legal changes. It is not simply propaganda.
i disagree that bush is the worst president. i think he has helped us through a very hard time and has been doin a very good job
WHether we have officially declared “war” or not, has nothing to do with whether or not we are at war with Al Qaeda or not! We were attacked and we are retaliating. To me that is war. You guys still don’t get it do you?
Welcome to SDMB.
Now, tell me precisely what GWB has done to “help us through a hard time.”
It must be hard to type while you’re waving your arms around. It doesn’t matter what war is “to you.” A formal war has a specific legal definition and we are not in one. Sorry.
So you are one of those that doesn’t believe Vietnam was a war either eh?
Viet Nam at least had a clearly defined enemy and followed the legal protocols of war. The “war on terror” has no clear enemy, and the rules of engagement are being made up as we go along. If we’re going to pretend we’re at war, then let’s follow all the rules of war, including the proper treatment of pow’s-- and let’s define the stinkin’ enemy, why don’t we.
So which is it? The legal definition of war or do you have your own criteria that satisfies it as war for you? If you are allowed to make up your own rules I will too.
Ok, then, technically, no Vietnam was not a war, neither was Korea. But both of those conflicts abided by the Geneva convention and rules of engagement.
The “war on terror” bears no resemblence at all to a war. This is not an armed conflict between nations. It is one bully nation arrogantly throwing it’s weight around and threatening any country which dares oppose it. It does this on the pretense that we are in some sort of crisis. We are not. Nothing has happened since 9/11, and nothing is going to happen. Let’s quit pretending we are London under the blitzkrieg. We are not in imminent danger. We just get off on showing everybody how tough we are-- as long as we have all the technology and heavy artillery on our side. Americans want nothing to do with a fair fight. If we did, we’d be going after north korea or China instead of ineffectual little despots in the desert.
“It isn’t pollution that’s harming the environment. It’s the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.”
…George W. Bush
I agree whole heartedly.
Since you’re quite certain we’re taking the wrong approach to the post-9/11 world, what’s the correct approach? Distancing ourselves from Israel and withdrawing from Saudi Arabia? That might appease the current crop of fundamentalists. What if the next crop that hates us hates us because we put out horrible pop music?
It seems a reasonable approach at this point to prevent rogue states such as Iraq from obtaining WMD. As for why we don’t attack North Korea, you’re correct. The fact that they have nukes and can level Seoul in a heartbeat removes much of our leverage.
I think that is a terribly naive attitude.
Whether you believe that removing Saddam will lessen any “imminent danger” America faces depends on if you believe Bush. Frankly, I don’t. But to say that there is no impending threat to our national security from any terrorists is absurd.
I would agree, however, that we are technically not at war. Sadly, I’m afraid we will be rather shortly.
By the way,
what is true and what is false in this?
Henry
If there is any evidence that Saddam has ever contributed to any unprovoked aggression towards us now would be the time to bring it forward. WTF has he done to us? I want to know if I am in the dark here.