QueenAdrock
04-05-2007, 08:43 AM
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2007/04/military_gwot_democrats_070403w/
Gotta say, I agree. It's crap that they use the term "Global War on Terror" for the war in Iraq, since in the beginning of the war there was no terrorism there. They just like to say "Terror" so people think it's a worthwhile cause, going after and catching the people who caused 9/11 and those who could strike again. That was never the point of Iraq. But due to their clever semantics, they could say "Hey, global war on terror! Sure, we could try for Bin Laden, but we can also go after Hussein! Saddam terrorized his people, so therefore technically he's a "terrorist" and a threat to the US! Let's invade!"
(n)
Gotta say, I agree. It's crap that they use the term "Global War on Terror" for the war in Iraq, since in the beginning of the war there was no terrorism there. They just like to say "Terror" so people think it's a worthwhile cause, going after and catching the people who caused 9/11 and those who could strike again. That was never the point of Iraq. But due to their clever semantics, they could say "Hey, global war on terror! Sure, we could try for Bin Laden, but we can also go after Hussein! Saddam terrorized his people, so therefore technically he's a "terrorist" and a threat to the US! Let's invade!"
(n)