GWOT finally gone


As a mother, I am telling you
Valued Senior Member
The Democrat leadership finally bans the term:"global war on terror"

Good riddance!!!

"The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.

This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee’s Democratic leadership doesn’t like the phrase.

A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and “avoid using colloquialisms.”"
Oh, well, it was already posted.

I think it actually belongs to Linguistics, and the correct phrase for "war on terror" is "fight for empire".

So let's keep this discussion on semantics and meanings, instead of politics.
I think it should be called the Worldwide Hunt Against Criminal Kingpins, or WHACK for short. As in, Somebody killing your citizens? Lets WHACK 'em.
Op-ed pieces in the Washington Post--ironically, the company town paper--have long pointed out the linguistic issue with the phrase "war on terror." A war must have an enemy whom one can attack.

The War on Poverty, declared by President Johnson, was bad enough, but at least its apologists could and did stick their noses in the air and claim metaphorical status, in that long-lost era when intellectualism was popular and respected in America. The engines of "war" were seeking out and attacking the causes of poverty, including lack of education.

Even the War on Drugs, which I suppose to my embarrassment was launched by my fellow Californian President Reagan, has some claim to the name. Federal agents are arresting people who provide drugs and physically destroying the drugs themselves. Unfortunately the wisdom to understand the futility of outlawing a popular product, as well as the education in the economic principles that invariably generate a black market, are beyond them. But the worst we can call them is stupid rather than the ultimate insult on this forum: misusers of the language.

But there is no forgiving the linguistic sins of The Warriors on Terror. They have studiously avoided identifying its causes, much less attacking them. The Central Asia Institute in Bozeman, Montana, with its pathetic seven-figure budget, has done a better job of it. (Shameless plug: our entire charity budget goes to Greg Mortenson's organization. They argue that one of the primary reasons the terrorist mentality goes unchecked in any region is the inferior status of its women, traditionally a force for the advancement rather than destruction of civilization. And they are attacking that by building schools throughout the Middle East that come with only one condition: They must be all-girl or coeducational.
All in Fraggle's examples Fight can be used instead of War. It makes sense figthing against poverty or drugs or terrorism (not terror),but one can not declare war on them.

Fight means a struggle, a violent opposition. Perfectly fine to use it...
But when a government wages war, it becomes acceptable to curtail its subjects' freedom, raise taxes beyond the normal confiscatory level, and in general use the Constitution for toilet paper. That's why they prefer to use hyperbolic terminology.