This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rangeley (talk | contribs) at 19:46, 18 June 2006 (→Question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:46, 18 June 2006 by Rangeley (talk | contribs) (→Question)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Question
I think it is obvious that the US government sees (or at least saw/presented) the invasion of Iraq and the continuing presence there as part of its War on Terror. However, in my opnion, the term "War on Terror" is just a tag applied to various wars, which might be fought for very different reasons and with different means, very much like the "global stuggle against communism" of R. Reagan.. So I would propose including a text along the lines of "the US government sees the invasion of Iraq as part of its global "War on Terrorism".KarlXII 19:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Why not just, "US/United States War on Terror?" Haizum 19:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind US War on Terrorism, but you run into two problems, there are other nations that use the term, there are other nations also participating in the content that will be included in the article. I considered US led, but that would be false as many of the operations attributed have little to no US presence, like Operation Active Endeavor and Operation APOLLO. --zero faults 19:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Understood. Thanks. Haizum 19:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just for kicks, maybe US (some word that would symbolize they started it) War on Terrorism. That is if people want to highlight how it began with the US, I just feel limiting the name to making it seem like its only the US participating would be wrong. I also want to note NATO says Active Endeavor is part of war on terror, so its not just the US using the term. --zero faults 19:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting. Would it be possible to attach different prefixes to the overall War on Terror? For instance, the US and the UK are both fighting the WOT, but clearly they have different goals and policies. So, would it be possible to have US War on Terror / UK War on Terror / XYZ War on Terror with the assumption that their independent efforts are all part of a greater WOT? I'm just brainstorming here. Haizum 19:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think this might be advantageous because even a small country that can only support the WOT vocally can still be recognized as a participant if they wish. Likewise, they wouldn't have to be directly attached to military actions that they may not agree with. Haizum 19:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting. Would it be possible to attach different prefixes to the overall War on Terror? For instance, the US and the UK are both fighting the WOT, but clearly they have different goals and policies. So, would it be possible to have US War on Terror / UK War on Terror / XYZ War on Terror with the assumption that their independent efforts are all part of a greater WOT? I'm just brainstorming here. Haizum 19:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just for kicks, maybe US (some word that would symbolize they started it) War on Terrorism. That is if people want to highlight how it began with the US, I just feel limiting the name to making it seem like its only the US participating would be wrong. I also want to note NATO says Active Endeavor is part of war on terror, so its not just the US using the term. --zero faults 19:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Understood. Thanks. Haizum 19:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind US War on Terrorism, but you run into two problems, there are other nations that use the term, there are other nations also participating in the content that will be included in the article. I considered US led, but that would be false as many of the operations attributed have little to no US presence, like Operation Active Endeavor and Operation APOLLO. --zero faults 19:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
There may be different tactical goals, but all share the same strategic goal. For instance, the US operations against Japan are not the US World War Two, even though they have different goals then the British advances into France. To show which countries fought in which operations or battles, you place the parties involved in the "combattants" section. Rangeley 19:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)