Wikepa, the online encyclopedia, gives a definition about
Asymmetric Warfare,
which I should have read before responding to this question :wink:
Asymmetrical warfare (the term) goes back at least to Bush1, probably much further. I suspect that Wolfowitz-Perle et al. may have helped "popularize" the term. We understand what it means (well, I'll speak for myself and surmise about others!). I just think it's like putting a Bugs Bunny outfit on a murderer -- it's both jokeworthy and dreadful, yet another attempt to create a rationale for an irrational action. It is spelled correctly with one "s" and two "m's". Some of us like the two esses because they bring out the asininity in asymmetrical!
It's quite interesting to read the foreign reactions about the Bush speech.
And it's even more intersting, to compare the reports about it in different countries.
A German magazine (online version) "Der Spiegel" and the online version of an American daily, USToday, were using nearly the same headlines, but with a different emphasis:
USToday:
At home and abroad, cautious support for Bush
Der Spiegel:
Bush demands help and meets only hesitation ("Bush fordert Hilfe und erntet Zögern")
Both papers are using the same sources, but Der Spiegel isn't reducing them to one sentence answers - thus, comes to slightly different results.
Tartarin wrote: It is spelled correctly with one "s" and two "m's". Some of us like the two esses because they bring out the asininity in asymmetrical!
A - symmetric, I think, everyone knows this, but it just 'stimulates' typos :wink:
Call me a relentless cynic, Ms. Mazari, but I think destabilization was not simply an outcome, but the purpose of the Bush administration. Why, there's nothing like believing you can destabilize an entire planet and then remake it to your own liking. So-o-o-o exciting; so-o-o-o good for the ego...
It's not popular enough to be in Britanicca, Columbia or any major encyclopedia. You can find anything online including terminologies used as rhetoric for political mumbo jumbo. I'm sure it's been perpetrated before -- the war in Iraq was hardly symmetrical or assymetrical. If you're going to use a term, it's opposite has to apply. It does not apply. It's another example of the twisted symantics of modern jargon.
Try this link for "symmetric warfare:"
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?search=Symmetric+warfare&go=Go
It's political origins are obvious: they avoid saying "guerilla warfare,"
"terrorism" et al and the catch-all jargon gets them off the hook.
Not.
Again, Mamajuana shows, what to me is a distorted sense of provenance, by quoting the often discredited Zogby Poll(What is Zogby's ethnicity?).
She ignores the August 25-26 Gallup Poll ( which all agree is the primary polling source) which says:
George W. Bush's Job Approval Rating stands at
59% and his approval for handling of Terrorism stands at 66%.
Furthermore, in a contest between Bush and a generic Democratic opponent, Bush gets 51%; the Generic Democrat- 39%; Other( Nader?) 4% and No Opinion(6%)
Operative words being "to me".
So one doesn't get confused with the smoke and mirrors tactic of using "preventative war, "pre-emptive war" et al and "asymmetrical war, here's Mike Novak in the National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak021003.asp
We're in a guerilla warfare situation in Iraq -- sound familiar? The adminstration wants to make in as complicated as possible -- otherwise the common voter might start understanding.
Polls bob up and down weekly -- it's the long standing reading of polls that actually means anything. If one doesn't believe Bush and his handlers aren't concerned with this slide, think again.
Quote:(What is Zogby's ethnicity?).
What are you yammering about?
After reading the warnings posted by Hobitbob, the pith Prussianisms of Walther Hinteler; the tart tartness of Tartarin and the illumination given by light wizard concerning the Bush speech as fiasco, I turned, with extreme trepidation to the results of today's Dow Jones.
Certainly, the Dow Jones, ever sensitive to disasterous pronouncements given by any President, would react by plummeting downwards.
Surprise!!
The Dow Jones is up by 85 points!
Perhaps, the forcasters of the future do not have the insight provided by such worthies as hobitbob, Mumajuana, Tartarin, and Light Wizard.
For the good of the country and to insulate orphans, widows and other unfortunates from what is certain to be a disasterous decline in the Markets, these pundits are strongly urged to communicate with the NYSE to give warnings.
Italgato
Actually, I don't like namecalling very much, but it happens.
I really dislike, however, to be called a militaristic conservative!
Walter Hinteler wrote:Italgato
Actually, I don't like namecalling very much, but it happens.
I really dislike, however, to be called a militaristic conservative!
And in a steel hat with a spike on it, no less!
Walter Hinteler wrote:I really dislike, however, to be called a militaristic conservative!
Walter, you should also object to being accused of speaking in "Prussianisms." Certainly, you should only be fluent in "Westphalianisms."
At least he didn't say you were Bayerische!
hobitbob wrote:At least he didn't say you were Bayerische!
Well, that's really very nice of him!
My take on the speech, Bush says - "I screwed up, this is a disaster - but all you Ameican citizens must pay - big time. And I'm not even sorry, I'm omnipotent - I gotta kiss all the mother's"
No matter what happens, Bush and Co. profit from their corporate connections. If Bush is defeated in 2004, how much you wanna bet Daddy Bush buys the 2008 election for Jeb?
