Bush Suggests War on Terror Cannot Be Won

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-08-30 11:45pm

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-08-30 11:48pm

Can't wait to see how they spin this.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-08-30 11:52pm

Asked "Can we win?" Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

Bush is completely right on that, realistically we are not going to wipe out terrorists world wide, but we can knock back what they can accomplish and who will support them.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-08-30 11:54pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Bush is completely right on that, realistically we are not going to wipe out terrorists world wide, but we can knock back what they can accomplish and who will support them.

Of course we can't, but it begs the question as to why the Bush administration has been promising for the last two years that they'd "win the War on Terror" if they didn't really mean it.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-08-31 12:00am

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:Bush is completely right on that, realistically we are not going to wipe out terrorists world wide, but we can knock back what they can accomplish and who will support them.
Of course we can't, but it begs the question as to why the Bush administration has been promising for the last two years that they'd "win the War on Terror" if they didn't really mean it.

Perhaps because some one clued into the fact that their little Crusade is a hopeless as the last ones? Certainly they've gotten a dose of reality; the only way we can really 'win' is to make terrorism a non-viable and un-acceptable option and thus pariahs of those that commit it.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-08-31 12:06am

On a vaguely related note, check out the yahoo forum posts regarding the article. That's stupidity for you.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-08-31 12:19am

Stormbringer wrote:Perhaps because some one clued into the fact that their little Crusade is a hopeless as the last ones? Certainly they've gotten a dose of reality; the only way we can really 'win' is to make terrorism a non-viable and un-acceptable option and thus pariahs of those that commit it.

That's impossible. Terrorism an incredibly broad term and doesn't rely on a specific tactic, nor do a specific class or group of people commit it. How do you make a concept (particularly a really broad one) non-viable? Any time you get a person insane or desparate or fanatical enough that they don't care who they kill, a terrorist is born. It has nothing to do with a certain group of people that can be eliminated, neutralized, or moderated, as long as there is unconventional warfare or really desparate people, terrorism will exist. Saying that the concept itself can be made non-viable is not connected with reality. Really, if they wanted to connect with reality, they'd promise to win the war on specific groups of individuals (win the War on al-Qaeda, for instance). That they can realistically deliver.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-31 12:20am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Asked "Can we win?" Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the ? those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."
Bush is completely right on that, realistically we are not going to wipe out terrorists world wide, but we can knock back what they can accomplish and who will support them.

Yes, the statement is correct. However, there are two problems with Bush making that statement:

1) Countless people have been saying that in public for a long time now; why did it take Bush so long to clue in?

2) His actions and attitude have made anti-Americanism more popular and acceptable around the world, not less.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-08-31 12:22am

1) Countless people have been saying that in public for a long time now; why did it take Bush so long to clue in?

You might not have noticed, but he's a little slow.

2) His actions and attitude have made anti-Americanism more popular and acceptable around the world, not less.

Yes, he's definitely fucked up.

Bugsby · Post by **Bugsby** » 2004-08-31 12:23am

The way that Bush and his buddies can "win" in this situation is to have America afraid of terrorism to such an extent that their fear makes them susceptible to all sorts of policies the administration put forward.

And they already won.

Remember when it was un-American to try and protect ANWR? Or invade Iraq? Or pass the Patriot Act? Or any other act Congress proposed? Remember when they raised the terror alert to orange right up until the day of the election? The war on terror is PR, people. Don't buy into the system.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-08-31 12:42am

That's impossible. Terrorism an incredibly broad term and doesn't rely on a specific tactic, nor do a specific class or group of people commit it. How do you make a concept (particularly a really broad one) non-viable? Any time you get a person insane or desparate or fanatical enough that they don't care who they kill, a terrorist is born. It has nothing to do with a certain group of people that can be eliminated, neutralized, or moderated, as long as there is unconventional warfare or really desparate people, terrorism will exist. Saying that the concept itself can be made non-viable is not connected with reality. Really, if they wanted to connect with reality, they'd promise to win the war on specific groups of individuals (win the War on al-Qaeda, for instance). That they can realistically deliver.

Of course it can't be entirely eliminated. But what can be eliminated is the national and quasi-national terror organization. You can't eliminate the insane or desperate but you can eliminate the support for them. And you can make it so that it's not an acceptable or even glamorous thing.

Loner · Post by **Loner** » 2004-08-31 02:07am

Stormbringer wrote:
1) Countless people have been saying that in public for a long time now; why did it take Bush so long to clue in?
You might not have noticed, but he's a little slow.

2) His actions and attitude have made anti-Americanism more popular and acceptable around the world, not less.
Yes, he's definitely fucked up.

The hell you say.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-08-31 02:12am

Loner wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
1) Countless people have been saying that in public for a long time now; why did it take Bush so long to clue in?
You might not have noticed, but he's a little slow.

2) His actions and attitude have made anti-Americanism more popular and acceptable around the world, not less.
Yes, he's definitely fucked up.
The hell you say.

Pardon?

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2004-08-31 02:16am

Gandalf wrote:
Loner wrote: The hell you say.
Pardon?

He's agreeing with Stormbringer as far as I can see. I think he means it in a 'No shit, Sherlock' kind of way.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-08-31 09:22am

Stormbringer wrote:Of course it can't be entirely eliminated. But what can be eliminated is the national and quasi-national terror organization. You can't eliminate the insane or desperate but you can eliminate the support for them. And you can make it so that it's not an acceptable or even glamorous thing.

How exactly? Terrorism isn't a specific action but a very broad one. You can eliminate specific organizations (like Hamas, for instance), but if enough people are insane/desparate/fanatical enough, they'll form new organizations to fight whatever power they can't fight conventionally and they'll be terrorists. They are human after all, and humans always form groups of like minded people if at all possible. Such, organized terrorism will always exist, so long as there are enough people who are desparate/fanatic/insane enough to get a Cause in their head that they are willing to kill for. Someone is always getting their shit ruined by someone with more power than them, someone is always going to be made poor and hopeless by someone else, and as far as I can tell, there has never once been a point in human history were the insane haven't existed and that people haven't been willing to club thy neighbor over their religious beliefs.

If you can fundamentally change humanity so that none of those conditions exist and thus terrorism is largely unthinkable on any scale, go right ahead and I'll be the first to applaud you. In the mean time, I'm going to give you odd looks because you are sounding incredibly like a fuzzy headed utopian who thinks that all the worlds problems can be solved.

Prozac the Robert · Post by **Prozac the Robert** » 2004-08-31 10:42am

Terrorism seems to be less common in places with a high standard of living. If we concentrated on turning third world hell holes into nice places to live we might actually achieve something.

Getting rid of international terrorist organisations is also rather important of course.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-08-31 12:42pm

Update

Now Bush is saying it can be won.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-08-31 01:00pm

Prozac the Robert wrote:Terrorism seems to be less common in places with a high standard of living. If we concentrated on turning third world hell holes into nice places to live we might actually achieve something.

Getting rid of international terrorist organisations is also rather important of course.

Of course, but then again becoming not third world hellholes generally means giving up the barbaric religious traditions, providing a real education to everyone, and not the least giving people power. All things the Islamic world has pretty much categorically rejected.

Murazor · Post by **Murazor** » 2004-08-31 01:27pm

Well... Nice to see that somebody gave Bush a little ration of reality.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2004-08-31 01:42pm

Murazor wrote:Well... Nice to see that somebody gave Bush a little ration of reality.

Even if it was only temporary.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-31 01:42pm

JME2 wrote:Update

Now Bush is saying it can be won.

Is that a flip-flop I hear?

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-08-31 01:50pm

Yahoo news wrote:As Bush continued a pre-convention journey through one closely contested state after another, aides scrambled to clarify the president's remark...

I like that. I don't see that the statement needed to be clarified. He said what he said. I think it's clear what he meant. He's was being a dishonest snotrag, like usual. Fuck what he meant. One valuable life lesson I learned in the Army is that it doesn't matter what the fuck you meant, what matters is what people heard.

Shrubby wrote:"In this different kind of war, we may never sit down at a peace table," Bush said. "But make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win."

Dip McKnobgobbler wrote:"Knowing what I know today I would have taken the same action," he said. "America and the world are safer with Saddam Hussein sitting in a prison cell."

Really, fool? We'd also be safer without Kim Jong Il, and any number of other dictators. Certainly we would be safer with them behind bars, right? Right? Yeah, I know, I should stop deflecting the real issue, because that's unpatriotic. Also pessimistic.

Bush's war on terror remark was the latest in a string of recent comments in which the president seemed to backpedal previous certainties

HOORAY FOR Major General W. Obvious, editor at Yahoo! News!

In a flurry of interviews timed to coincide with this week's convention, Bush acknowledged a "miscalculation" about what the United States would encounter in postwar Iraq (news - web sites) after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime and said the "catastrophic success" of a swift military victory there helped produce the still-potent insurgency.

Why you slimy little worm. 1000 american men and women dead is a bit more than a miscalculation, you retarded asswipe. I also like the term catastophic success. That gives PLENTY of wiggle room doesn't it?!

"The American people have watched the president lead the war on terror decisively for three years," Bush-Cheney spokesman Steve Schmidt said. "The people of this country know what his leadership is."

So decisively, in fact, that One man continues to elude multi-national efforts to capture or kill him! Jiminy crickets, thank you for helping me see the light! Hey, Gerogie, what about all those guys at guantanamo bay? Do they= a victory? What? What do you mean you don't know if they were terrorists?! Why else would you hold them for two years or more without the right to challenge their status or recieve legal counsel? Fuck me! There I go again being unpatriotic!

Also Tuesday, Bush said on NBC's "Today" show that he will continue pursuing diplomatic rather than military options to try to get Iran to halt its nuclear program. Earlier this month, Iran confirmed it had resumed building nuclear centrifuges, which can be used to enrich uranium to weapons grade, and declared it should have the right to advanced nuclear technology.

An overt fuck you to the UN, US, and IAEA from Iran?! NO! We should act preemptively to Prevent their pursuing the idea of thinking about the possbibility of one day forming a commitee to discuss the likelihood of considering exploring the option of developing nukyulur wepens! After all, wouldn't want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom....mushroom...errm...can't fool me again.

While he's "deeply concerned" by Iran's actions, Bush said diplomatic efforts are just beginning there and he's hopeful they will be successful

.

Because we couldn't possibly hold Iraq, keep afghanistan in check, fight Iran, and sate North Korea, while simultaneously supporting humnaitarian efforts in darfur and....what? What's that you say? There is no crisis in Darfur? why, there certainly is! But the U.S. can't concern themselves with piddly matters such as genocide anymore. It's more important to stop teh 3\/01 dictators who...oh wait...that would mean sudan is...no, I musn't...I musn't...it would be unpatriotic!

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-08-31 02:44pm

"In this different kind of war, we may never sit down at a peace table," Bush said. "But make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win."

Also Tuesday, Bush said on NBC's "Today" show that he will continue pursuing diplomatic rather than military options to try to get Iran to halt its nuclear program.

WHICH candidate is flip-flopping again?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-08-31 05:01pm

SirNitram wrote:
"In this different kind of war, we may never sit down at a peace table," Bush said. "But make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win."

Also Tuesday, Bush said on NBC's "Today" show that he will continue pursuing diplomatic rather than military options to try to get Iran to halt its nuclear program.
WHICH candidate is flip-flopping again?

What the fuck? Frankly, I don't see much correolation between saying that we're not going to be signing a treaty with Al-quada or the like and saying we will negotiate with the Irani government instead of bombing (at least as a first option). Now why you want Bush to make the connection is beyond me. But hey, what ever get's you through the night.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-08-31 05:04pm

Stormbringer wrote:What the fuck? Frankly, I don't see much correolation between saying that we're not going to be signing a treaty with Al-quada or the like and saying we will negotiate with the Irani government instead of bombing (at least as a first option). Now why you want Bush to make the connection is beyond me. But hey, what ever get's you through the night.

Pardon me. I got the wrong quote. I was going to use one from a paper regarding the negotiation with Al Sadr. Brain fart from lack of blood. Maxima Mea Culpa.