The W
Views: 100865097
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
26.11.14 0644
The W - Current Events & Politics - Bush says we can't win War on Terror
This thread has 9 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.78
Pages: 1 2 Next
(1148 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (29 total)
King Of Crap
Goetta








Since: 17.9.03
From: Holley, New York

Since last post: 3511 days
Last activity: 3442 days
AIM:  
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.19
Bush interview with Matt Laurer

Lauer: “You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?”

President Bush: “I have never said we can win it in four years.”

Lauer: “So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?”

President Bush: “I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world –- let's put it that way. I have a two pronged strategy. On the one hand is to find them before they hurt us, and that's necessary. I’m telling you it's necessary. The country must never yield, must never show weakness [and] must continue to lead. To find al-Qaida affiliates who are hiding around the world and … harm us and bring ‘em to justice –- we're doing a good job of it. I mean we are dismantling the al-Qaidaas we knew it. The long-term strategy is to spread freedom and liberty, and that's really kind of an interesting debate. You know there's some who say well, ‘You know certain people can't self govern and accept, you know, a former democracy.’ I just strongly disagree with that. I believe that democracy can take hold in parts of the world that are now non-democratic and I think it's necessary in order to defeat the ideologies of hate. History has shown that it can work, that spreading liberty does work. After all, Japan is our close ally and my dad fought against the Japanese. Prime Minister Koizumi, is one of the closest collaborators I have in working to make the world a more peaceful place.”

Maybe George has finally realized that you can't fight a war against an idea.

His plan sounds good in theory, but will probably have undesired results.



You think WWE now is bad? Some of us had to live through 1993-1996!
Promote this thread!
SeVen ™
Kishke








Since: 11.1.02
From: Japan

Since last post: 2484 days
Last activity: 2316 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.43
The war on drugs was a totally victory...oh no it wasn't. No matter what America does there will be another enemy waiting in the fold. Things will get worse and worse each generation.




R.I.P. Paul Bearer
1991-2004
Forever cemented in wrestling history

ScreamingHeadGuy
Frankfurter








Since: 1.2.02
From: Appleton, WI

Since last post: 782 days
Last activity: 782 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.41
I'd say that he's correct; this war can never be won. Winning the war on terror would require the ultimate destruction of terrorism on Earth. Terrorism is the belief that using terror is an effective way to achieve a goal. One cannot kill a belief.

The war on terror is a war that will be waged for as long as the American people have the resolve. Battles will be fought where the winners never hold-up their victory for others to see.

Think of the Cold War. It was a conflict that lasted nearly 40 years. Moves and counter-moves were made behind the scenes, with nobody ever knowing of the "little victories" that either side achieved. Had America decided "We can't win. Let's just give up." then the world would have been overrun by communism.

If we cease our eternal vigilance on this issue, future generations can pinpoint this time when we could have taken action, but failed to because we became apathetic about it.

(I've been mulling this over all day, btw. And this is what I concluded.)



YOUR CONTINUED HERESY AGAINST THE WRESTLING GODS HAS DOOMED YOU TO SPEND
ETERNITY WATCHING A MORDECAI VS. KENZO SUZUKI IRON-MAN MATCH
(and Hiroko isn't at ringside for you to oogle).

Teppan-Yaki
Pepperoni








Since: 28.6.02

Since last post: 971 days
Last activity: 941 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.35
However, here's where W flip-flopped:

    Cited from The Daily Kos


    Today

    "Can we win?" the war on terror, Bush said, "I don't think you can win it.

    September 12, 2001:

    "This battle will take time and resolve. But make no mistake about it: we will win."

    Bush in 2002:

    "We will win, because of what we love. We will win because we're determined and strong. We will win because we're a nation which holds values dear to our heart. And we refuse to be intimidated by anybody, at any place, at any time. We will win because we want to uphold our duty and obligation to leave America intact and free, so future generations of people, Hispanic or otherwise, can realize dreams, can succeed, can realize their God-given talents. That's what this is all about."

    Bush in 2003:

    "We will prevail. We will win because our cause is just. We will win because we will stay on the offensive. And we will win because you're part of the finest military ever assembled. And we will prevail because the Iraqis want their freedom."

    Bush in April 2004:

    "We will win this test of wills, and overcome every challenge, because the cause of freedom and security is worth our struggle.
    Well then. Bush has given up. His failed presidency has given us a failed hunt for Osama Bin Laden, a failed hunt for Mullah Omar, a failed hunt, and, now, a failed war on terrorism."

    Since Bush can't finish this thing off, time to elect a president who will see us through this struggle. While we may disagree on Iraq, there is a real war against a real enemy. And while Bush may have dropped the ball on Al Qaida to wage his optional war against Saddam, Kerry won't.

    (Thanks to reader Brian.)






    (edited by Teppan-Yaki on 30.8.04 2008)

    (edited by Teppan-Yaki on 30.8.04 2010)
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 14 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.41
    Originally posted by ScreamingHeadGuy
    I'd say that he's correct; this war can never be won. Winning the war on terror would require the ultimate destruction of terrorism on Earth. Terrorism is the belief that using terror is an effective way to achieve a goal. One cannot kill a belief.

    The war on terror is a war that will be waged for as long as the American people have the resolve. Battles will be fought where the winners never hold-up their victory for others to see.

    Think of the Cold War. It was a conflict that lasted nearly 40 years. Moves and counter-moves were made behind the scenes, with nobody ever knowing of the "little victories" that either side achieved. Had America decided "We can't win. Let's just give up." then the world would have been overrun by communism.

    If we cease our eternal vigilance on this issue, future generations can pinpoint this time when we could have taken action, but failed to because we became apathetic about it.

    (I've been mulling this over all day, btw. And this is what I concluded.)


And SHG, it's that resolve that finally destroyed world communism and ended the cold war. (oh, yes, I recognise that Cuba, Vietnam, and China and North Korea are officially "communist". Vietnam is the closest, while the PRC is in name only. They're more capitalist than we are. And PRK and Cuba are just dictatorships. Cuba's will end with Castro's death.

If we had pulled out - like many wanted us to - if neccesary I could cite the votes of a certain Senator from the Northeast part of the country - then it might have hung on. But President Reagan was willing to challenge them and the end and takem them down - of course, a tree takes a while to fall, so it didn't officially break up until Bush elder was Prez.

Resolve is the key issue. Which candidate has it?

I know which one I think has it.





Now, is it ok for me yell THEATRE! in a crowded fire?
SKLOKAZOID
Bratwurst








Since: 20.3.02
From: California

Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.67
Bush is right, and I'm glad he said it. He has the right idea, but I still disagree with his methods.
Malarky
Bauerwurst








Since: 19.8.04

Since last post: 3700 days
Last activity: 3697 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
I don't see the big deal about terrorism, as if it were a disease exclusive to America and that it came into being on september 11th 2001. Terrorism has ALWAYS been around, and always WILL be around.

The WoT is a fallacy. It's basic purpose it to provide a carte blanche to wage war where/when this administration wishes, for whatever end.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2864 days
Last activity: 2706 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
    Originally posted by Teppan-Yaki
    September 12, 2001:

    "This battle will take time and resolve. But make no mistake about it: we will win."


What battle? The battle against those responsible for 9/11? Had the phrase "War on Terror" even been coined by 9/12?


    Bush in 2002:

    "We will win, because of what we love. We will win because we're determined and strong. We will win because we're a nation which holds values dear to our heart. And we refuse to be intimidated by anybody, at any place, at any time. We will win because we want to uphold our duty and obligation to leave America intact and free, so future generations of people, Hispanic or otherwise, can realize dreams, can succeed, can realize their God-given talents. That's what this is all about."



Win what? Win how? If "winning" means defeating all terrorism for all time, then, ok, we can never win. But that's not what I read from this statement. Here, I see that "winning" is "[leaving] America intact and free, so future generations of people, Hispanic or otherwise, can realize dreams, can succeed, can realize their God-given talents."


    "We will prevail. We will win because our cause is just. We will win because we will stay on the offensive. And we will win because you're part of the finest military ever assembled. And we will prevail because the Iraqis want their freedom."


He's talking about Iraq here, not the broader war on terror.


    "We will win this test of wills, and overcome every challenge, because the cause of freedom and security is worth our struggle.
    Well then. Bush has given up. His failed presidency has given us a failed hunt for Osama Bin Laden, a failed hunt for Mullah Omar, a failed hunt, and, now, a failed war on terrorism."

    Since Bush can't finish this thing off, time to elect a president who will see us through this struggle. While we may disagree on Iraq, there is a real war against a real enemy. And while Bush may have dropped the ball on Al Qaida to wage his optional war against Saddam, Kerry won't.


Those look like editorial comments, not "Bush in 2004." I'll separate them for purposes of argument.


    We will win this test of wills, and overcome every challenge, because the cause of freedom and security is worth our struggle.


How is this incompatible with saying we "can't win?" I take Bush as saying to Lauer that we can never destroy terrorism entirely, thus we cannot "win." It's a uselessly broad question with a uselessly simple answer.

Do you think that Bush is going to give up? He means we can't win, so we're going to pack it in, leave the terrorists alone?

Making judgments on policy from soundbites (especially soundbites from our ineloquent, beloved President) is generally, I think, a bad idea. If you want a real Bush flip-flop, look at his bungling of our free-spech via McCain-Feingold.



In Theo We Trust
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 232 days
Last activity: 33 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.56
    Originally posted by AWArulz
      Originally posted by ScreamingHeadGuy
      I'd say that he's correct; this war can never be won. Winning the war on terror would require the ultimate destruction of terrorism on Earth. Terrorism is the belief that using terror is an effective way to achieve a goal. One cannot kill a belief.

      The war on terror is a war that will be waged for as long as the American people have the resolve. Battles will be fought where the winners never hold-up their victory for others to see.

      Think of the Cold War. It was a conflict that lasted nearly 40 years. Moves and counter-moves were made behind the scenes, with nobody ever knowing of the "little victories" that either side achieved. Had America decided "We can't win. Let's just give up." then the world would have been overrun by communism.

      If we cease our eternal vigilance on this issue, future generations can pinpoint this time when we could have taken action, but failed to because we became apathetic about it.

      (I've been mulling this over all day, btw. And this is what I concluded.)


    And SHG, it's that resolve that finally destroyed world communism and ended the cold war. (oh, yes, I recognise that Cuba, Vietnam, and China and North Korea are officially "communist". Vietnam is the closest, while the PRC is in name only. They're more capitalist than we are. And PRK and Cuba are just dictatorships. Cuba's will end with Castro's death.

    If we had pulled out - like many wanted us to - if neccesary I could cite the votes of a certain Senator from the Northeast part of the country - then it might have hung on. But President Reagan was willing to challenge them and the end and takem them down - of course, a tree takes a while to fall, so it didn't officially break up until Bush elder was Prez.

    Resolve is the key issue. Which candidate has it?

    I know which one I think has it.




If you truly think the idea of communism has faded, or that there are no longer people in the world who believe in it, I have some great property in Brooklyn to sell you.

-Jag



The only Presidents I respect are dead ones.
Teppan-Yaki
Pepperoni








Since: 28.6.02

Since last post: 971 days
Last activity: 941 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.35
    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    He's talking about Iraq here, not the broader war on terror.


True; but this is the same administration that alleged that Iraq had ties to al Queda -- which is a terrorist organization.
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 6 hours
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44

    Think of the Cold War. It was a conflict that lasted nearly 40 years. Moves and counter-moves were made behind the scenes, with nobody ever knowing of the "little victories" that either side achieved. Had America decided "We can't win. Let's just give up." then the world would have been overrun by communism.


Speaking of waging war against an idea....

COMMUNISM (or more properly, socialism) is not evil, in and of itself. The type of socialism originally conceived by Karl Marx is, on paper, a utopian society. But then again, as Homer Simpson says, "on paper, communism works!" Socialism is unfeasible in the real world, as (IMO) Marx let his disdain for the rich overwhelm his common sense. This doesn't make Marx or his theory evil, this just makes it a bad theory.

It should also be noted that the world has yet to see a true socialist/communist society like the one that Marx proposed. The Soviet Union wasn't communist at all; Stalin preached communism, sure, because he was a psychopathic dictator who used socialism as a method of keeping his people down. The same could be said of other communist regimes around the world, as communism became a convenient way of keeping a populace in check through 'equality' while the ruling party kept firm control over the nation's wealth for their own purposes.

In short, Marxist communism isn't necessarily evil since we've never actually seen it in practice (though, frankly, I hope we don't, since it will just lead to more economic problems in whatever country is foolish enough to adopt it). Stalinist "communism," of course, is evil. Just ask my Ukrainian grandparents, who decided to the get the hell out of the USSR after World War II before they became more casualties of Stalin's latest five-year plan, which could be more accurately described as Ukraine's answer to the Holocaust.

Also, Ronald Reagan didn't "destroy" the USSR. The Soviet Union's uber-heel reputation was actually very much a case of their leaders talking a big game, since their economy was basically freefalling for most of the 20th century. If anyone 'destroyed' communism, it was probably Gorbechev, who saw that the end was near and tried to become more moderate before the whole system fell apart. Reagan and Bush just happened to be the guys who were in office when the whole house of cards started to come down.



StampedeFan23
Morcilla








Since: 12.1.02
From: BC, Canada

Since last post: 2086 days
Last activity: 1622 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.93
    Originally posted by ScreamingHeadGuy

    Think of the Cold War. It was a conflict that lasted nearly 40 years. Moves and counter-moves were made behind the scenes, with nobody ever knowing of the "little victories" that either side achieved. Had America decided "We can't win. Let's just give up." then the world would have been overrun by communism.



Overrun by communism? Do people really think that communism would have overrun the world? Wouldn't we be more afraid of capitalism overrunning the world?

I guess I just can't get into the headset that sees communism as a bad thing. We've never really had a true communist government on Earth (Cuba is the closest), so the real fear is dictatorships.

Cuba's government is wonderful and communism won't end when Castro dies. The will of the worker is a bit too strong of a meme in Cuban society. Too bad more Americans can't travel to Cuba to learn what it's really like down there.



Are you ready for Mahkan-mania to run wild all over you?

I mark for Molly Holly and Lance Storm.
Stilton
Frankfurter








Since: 7.2.04
From: Canada

Since last post: 3217 days
Last activity: 3217 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.02
    Originally posted by Teppan-Yaki
      Originally posted by PalpatineW
      He's talking about Iraq here, not the broader war on terror.


    True; but this is the same administration that alleged that Iraq had ties to al Queda -- which is a terrorist organization.


Yes, and I believe the proof of those ties were hidden with the weapons of mass destruction.



The Goal: SLACK
The Method: The Casting Our of False Prophets
The Weapon: Time Control
The Motto: "Fuck Them All of they Can't Take a Joke"
SlipperyPete
Bauerwurst








Since: 13.8.04

Since last post: 3634 days
Last activity: 3634 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by Stilton
    Yes, and I believe the proof of those ties were hidden with the weapons of mass destruction.
Well, not if you're familiar with google. FYI, the White House is saying something along the lines of Bush's comment meant we can't "win it" in the WW2 type of way, where there was a point when victory was declared and the enemy threw down their guns. Not that it's an unwinnable fight. Lucky for him he'll get a chance to clarify himself in his speech.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.07
    Originally posted by Stilton
      Originally posted by Teppan-Yaki
        Originally posted by PalpatineW
        He's talking about Iraq here, not the broader war on terror.


      True; but this is the same administration that alleged that Iraq had ties to al Queda -- which is a terrorist organization.


    Yes, and I believe the proof of those ties were hidden with the weapons of mass destruction.
Congratulations! You're now at least two (and possibly three) steps away from the topic as presented in post #1. WELL DONE



©CRZ™
It's False
Scrapple








Since: 20.6.02
From: I am the Tag Team Champions!

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 17 hours
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.82
Whether Bush has come around to the fact that we can't win against an "-ism" isn't really going to be what voters think about on election day. It's going to be the fact that this guy has taken the world to hell over the idea that terrorism CAN be beaten and now he's going back on it.

That sort of statement can cost him the election.




Kane: Come on! We've had midgets and fire and midgets and Trish as the slutty bridesmaid and midgets. What's not to like?
Lita: I guess it still beats anything on "The Bachelor"
Stilton
Frankfurter








Since: 7.2.04
From: Canada

Since last post: 3217 days
Last activity: 3217 days
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.02
    Originally posted by CRZ
    Congratulations! You're now at least two (and possibly three) steps away from the topic as presented in post #1. WELL DONE


Right you are, CRZ. Let's see if I can Kevin-Bacon this mess back into some kind of order.

Your suggestion is that the phantom WMDs once believed (by some) to be in Iraq are several steps removed (in relevance, anyway) from the actual war on terror. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). I couldn't agree more. Coallition action in Iraq has/had nothing to do with the war on terror, except in how it has detracted from the effectiveness of that war.

And, if the topic is the war on terror, and more importantly whether or not such a war can even be won, it might be necessary to take into account exactly how that war is being fought.

1) Well, by pulling troops out of Afghanistan (a piss-poor country, where the terrorists are/were hiding, for the most part) to fight in Iraq (where the terrorists weren't hiding at the time, because they really had no ties there), you are diverting valuable military resources away from the legitimate war on terror to persue other ends, in this case, a regime change in a (coincidentally) oil-rich nation.

2) 80 per cent of the hijakers involved in the 9/11 tragedies were Saudi nationals, and yet almost no action has been taken to root out the sources of anti-US terrorist activity within Saudi Arabia (coincidentally, another oil-rich nation). We must then ask the question, is the war on terror being fought in the right places at all?

Can a war on terror really be won? No. Especially if you're asking the wrong question, and the wrong question in this case is, "Can a war on terror really be won?"

The question that must be asked is, "Why is there terrorism?" And many people have been offering answers to this question lately, but the simple answer is this: Certain people feel helpless and backed into a corner, and when you combine those feelings with extreme religious fanaticism (which is relatively easy because people who feel helpless are desperate for something to believe in), you get the volatile ingredients for terrorism. There will always be ideological psychopaths (suicide bombers in Gaza, abotion clinic bombers in Maryland, or wherever, you pick), and there will always be desperate people who feel they have no other recourse. Terrorism exists because of greed and God. And until Gene Rodenberry rises from the dead to become the nerd messiah, there will always be greed and God.

Or, you could ask this question: Can you win a war again hornets by jamming your fist into their nest?

(No, that would be stupid.)

Or, you could ask this question: Can you win a war against hornets by ignoring the hornets altogether and raiding the beehive a few trees over and giving all the honey to best friend Johnny Halliburton?

(No, that would be stupid, but at least Johnny Halliburton would have all the honey. And who cares if people you don't know get stung by the hornets. You can always send a card.)

So, then, does coallition action in Iraq have anything to do with whether or not the war on terror can even be won? I think it does. For my money, it makes winning (and by winning, I mean making any headway whatsoever... since erradication of terrorism is impossible, any headway must be considered a minor victory) the war on terror even more difficult, because, so far, it has only served to piss off more terrorists (and potential terrorists). Remeber, for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. When you throw your weight around, some of that weight's coming back.



(edited by Stilton on 31.8.04 0225)

The Goal: SLACK
The Method: The Casting Out of False Prophets
The Weapon: Time Control
The Motto: "Fuck Them All of they Can't Take a Joke"
It's False
Scrapple








Since: 20.6.02
From: I am the Tag Team Champions!

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 17 hours
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.01
And now Bush says we CAN win the War on Terror!

Yahoo! News - Bush Now Saying 'We Will Win' Terror War

Undoubtedly, he's been eating at the John Kerry House of Waffles.

(edited by It's False on 31.8.04 1056)



Kane: Come on! We've had midgets and fire and midgets and Trish as the slutty bridesmaid and midgets. What's not to like?
Lita: I guess it still beats anything on "The Bachelor"
SKLOKAZOID
Bratwurst








Since: 20.3.02
From: California

Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.67
Bush isn't right, and I regret that he said it. He has the wrong idea, and I disagree with his methods.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1349 days
Last activity: 115 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.30
I think it is sad that he even has to come out and CLARIFY what he said. All he did today was come out and explain what any rational person knew he meant.

I tell you, I have to wonder if the other side of the aisle always needs things explained to them at the fourth grade reading level? And they accuse Bush of being idiotic and dense... geez...

In the very same breath that Bush said that he doesn't think IT is something we wan win he goes on to say - "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world –- let's put it that way."

Lets talk about that statement. Are you honestly telling me that you think it is possibel to stamp out terrorism completely? "Victory" in the War on Terror implies that we make it so terrorism will never happen again. Bush clearly said he doesn't think that is possible, and he is 100% correct in that statement. The whole point of this "war" is to destroy existing terror networks and make it clear that there is a price to pay for employing terrorist tactics. But anyone who ever thinks there will be a day where we can say that we "defeated" terrorism is dreaming.

Instead of paying attention to what he said, his opponents are rushing out proclaiming that Bush said that Al Quaeda is going to "beat" us in the "War on Terror." My only response to that can be to grow up and open your ears. This tactic doesn't help you win votes, it just makes you look like a moron. And a desperate one, willing to cling to anything possible that helps your cause.



Still on the Shelf.com

Updated Weekly
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 4.78
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: Anyone watch the RNC Protest march today on CSPAN?
Next thread: God bless Alan Keyes (for comedic reasons)
Previous thread: Gay Republican Group Challenges GOP with Ad
(1148 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
As someone who lives in a country with a third, fourth and even fifth party, I've never voted for any party besides the Liberals. Obviously I can't vote Bloc living in Ontario and would have no reason to....
The W - Current Events & Politics - Bush says we can't win War on TerrorRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.141 seconds.