Semantics

[Archaea]

Why the media insists on calling the current occupation of Iraq a war I don't know. Perhaps it's easier to print War versus Occupation or Nation Building.

We won the war but are not patient, not wise enough and perhaps not brutal enough to control the occupation.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Why the media insists on calling the current occupation of Iraq a war I don't know. Perhaps it's easier to print War versus Occupation or Nation Building.

We won the war but are not patient, not wise enough and perhaps not brutal enough to control the occupation.

Because war sounds worse than occupation.

[non sequitur]

How many people have to die per day before you're willing to admit it's a war?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

How many people have to die per day before you're willing to admit it's a war?

it's not a war because in war the goal is to defeat the enemy. Rather, our goal is to build a nation.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

it's not a war because in war the goal is to defeat the enemy. Rather, our goal is to build a nation.

It's comforting to know that the people killing our troops are not our enemies and that we're not trying to defeat them. I guess.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

It's comforting to know that the people killing our troops are not our enemies and that we're not trying to defeat them. I guess.

I don't think we even now make pretense that we will defeat this insurgency.

We claim to hope that the Iraqis will defeat them at some later point.

And I think we have probably given up on that as well.

If this were a war we would be fighting instead of building stuff. And there would be planes, bombs, and tanks.

Our soldiers die as part of the price of dreaming that by hanging around, a liberal democracy will spring forth.

No, it's not a war. It's simply a fool's errand that is costing the lives of American GI's.

[Archaea]

People die in circumstances other than war.

Traditional war involves two or more armies launching ordnances in order to capture cities and infrastructure.

We won that part.

Thereafter, we thought we could build a federated republic in a country which understands neither republican nor democratic principles. We also involved ourselves in sectarian conflicts.

Now, insurgents are using guerilla warfare techniques, but there is NOT a war. Perhaps the semantical distinction is irrelevant to people, but then again most people don't analyze circumstances in any manner but superficially.

We have an occupation with no exit strategy, nor governing principles.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Archaea

People die in circumstances other than war.

Traditional war involves two or more armies launching ordnances in order to capture cities and infrastructure.

So when GWB talks about the "War on Terrah", he's just full of crap?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

So when GWB talks about the "War on Terrah", he's just full of crap?

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

So when GWB talks about the "War on Terrah", he's just full of crap?

How does one make war on a tactic?

Or is he making war on a religious fanatical group, but doesn't wish to identify it as such?

War on Terror has no analytical meaning. It is pure soundbite.

Does it mean we will more vigilantly look for signs of radicals attempting to terrorize our cities? That we will declare war and seek armed conflict on all nations supporting these persons?

It's so vague, it's meaningless. He lost me on that one.