Bush: Kerry Unable to Win War on Terror

Post by **weemadando** » 2004-10-21 09:40pm

MKSheppard wrote:
weemadando wrote:I think that we can all safely agree that NO ONE is capable of winning the War on Terror. The best you can hope for is to maintain the status quo. Because if you keep pushing it, both sides are going lose. And lose big time.
NUKEY NUKEY NUKEY :twisted:

I think, Shep, that option may well fall into the "both sides losing" part of it.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-21 09:46pm

weemadando wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:
weemadando wrote:I think that we can all safely agree that NO ONE is capable of winning the War on Terror. The best you can hope for is to maintain the status quo. Because if you keep pushing it, both sides are going lose. And lose big time.
NUKEY NUKEY NUKEY
I think, Shep, that option may well fall into the "both sides losing" part of it.

Depends on who has WMDs.

Terminator · Post by **Terminator** » 2004-10-21 09:57pm

Stormbringer wrote:
weemadando wrote:
MKSheppard wrote: NUKEY NUKEY NUKEY
I think, Shep, that option may well fall into the "both sides losing" part of it.
Depends on who has WMDs.

bah oncce one birds in the air they're all takin off, but even presuming good old MAD doesn't happen somehow massive nucleur detruction in one part of the planet with have global repercusions, as much as drastic climate change or even the far simpler economic impact

Post by **Edi** » 2004-10-22 03:12am

Like I've said before, fighting terrorism is like fighting mosquitoes. Doesn't mean fuck-all how many of them you spray poison (military action) unless you also drain the swamp that spawns them, and I've not seen Bush even trying to do any of the latter. With Iraq, he actually created a NEW swamp for the mosquitoes to spawn in, and the old ones are still there.

Edi

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2004-10-22 03:51am

The Dark wrote:Bah. John Stewart's Bush vs Bush showed Dubya to be a flip-flopper by showing parts of his speeches from his 2000 campaign and his 2002 (IIRC) speeches to the nation. Even if Kerry changed his positions over 12 years, Bush did it over 2. Who's the flip-flopper now?

I'm gussing that Bush and co. said something about 9/11 and "how it changed everybody" in reply to that.

Dargos · Post by **Dargos** » 2004-10-22 05:34am

Did not Shrubby himself state that he did no think the "War on Terrorism" COULD be won at all?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-22 12:40pm

Dargos wrote:Did not Shrubby himself state that he did no think the "War on Terrorism" COULD be won at all?

Wow, way to miss a point already mentioned. He didn't say that he didn't think it couldn't be won, just that there might not be that one moment we can say "we won" like there was for WW2 or the Cold War.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-22 12:42pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Dargos wrote:Did not Shrubby himself state that he did no think the "War on Terrorism" COULD be won at all?
Wow, way to miss a point already mentioned. He didn't say that he didn't think it couldn't be won, just that there might not be that one moment we can say "we won" like there was for WW2 or the Cold War.

I thought you said that his quote was that there is no defining benchmark? Which is it, Storm? What's the actual quote?

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-10-22 12:45pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Dargos wrote:Did not Shrubby himself state that he did no think the "War on Terrorism" COULD be won at all?
Wow, way to miss a point already mentioned. He didn't say that he didn't think it couldn't be won, just that there might not be that one moment we can say "we won" like there was for WW2 or the Cold War.

Winning is binary; you either win or you don't. Bush doesn't have the power to redefine English. "Contain terrorism" works but.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-22 12:49pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
Dargos wrote:Did not Shrubby himself state that he did no think the "War on Terrorism" COULD be won at all?
Wow, way to miss a point already mentioned. He didn't say that he didn't think it couldn't be won, just that there might not be that one moment we can say "we won" like there was for WW2 or the Cold War.
Winning is binary; you either win or you don't. Bush doesn't have the power to redefine English. "Contain terrorism" works but.

Hey, BoredStupid, can you try to read what's been said next time. Of course winning is binary. What Bush said was that with the objectives and solutions rather vague, as opposed to historical conflicts, that victory might not be determined by some singular event but rather by a series of smaller goals.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-10-22 12:52pm

Stormbringer wrote:What Bush said was that with the objectives and solutions rather vague,

Vague? Is that what he's saying now?

Do you have a source?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-22 01:14pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:What Bush said was that with the objectives and solutions rather vague,
Vague? Is that what he's saying now? Do you have a source?

Not a word for word quote; just trying to convey the general sense of what he was saying. For once he was being realistic and talking about the War on Terror being a potentially decades long affair and with objectives that could change with events.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-22 01:18pm

Stormbringer wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:What Bush said was that with the objectives and solutions rather vague,
Vague? Is that what he's saying now? Do you have a source?
Not a word for word quote; just trying to convey the general sense of what he was saying. For once he was being realistic and talking about the War on Terror being a potentially decades long affair and with objectives that could change with events.

The actual quote, please, Stormbringer.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-22 02:23pm

Stormbringer wrote:Hey, BoredStupid, can you try to read what's been said next time. Of course winning is binary. What Bush said was that with the objectives and solutions rather vague, as opposed to historical conflicts, that victory might not be determined by some singular event but rather by a series of smaller goals.

Actually, the last in a series of small events would still be a discrete event, and would also qualify as a measurable criterion. What he's doing is defining the War on Terror in such a manner that it is impossible for anyone to say whether they are winning or losing. Very convenient for him, because by most reasonable measures, he's losing.

Terrorism directed against America is a direct product of hatred against America. As much as Bush and his Lemming Horde would like to pretend that it's all about funding (and turning a blind eye to funding from Saudi Arabia), terrorism simply doesn't cost that much to fund, and it's just not possible to dry up all the funding sources so utterly and completely that even the small amounts necessary would disappear. That leaves us with the other half of the equation, which is the hatred that incites terrorism. And Bush has been doing his level best to crank that to the max.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-22 02:30pm

Since I got sick of waiting, ten seconds of Googling gave me this:

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."

I don't see any of Stormbringer's versions there.