War on Terror - Reversal of positions...

[dd74]

On Monday, NBC aired an interview with President Bush where he states the war on terror cannot be won. Here's a link:

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040831/NEWS/408310370/1039

Borrowing a line from John Kerry, Repubs called Bush's remark a "nuanced statement," while John Edwards stated on ABC's "Nightline" that Bush has lost the resolve a president needs.

In my opinion, Bush has come around, though too late, to realize that it is a war that can't be won - on the ideological front. But now Edwards is saying of course it could be won with more ground intelligence, etc. Am I imagining things, or has both parties somewhat exchanged beliefs over Iraq?

Or are both men merely demonstrating the convenience of extrapolating one person's statement to fit the agenda of the other?

[island911]

Yep, there is that element of equiocating on "win, winning. .." for political mucking.

The thing is, terrorism is much like piracy of the past.(Barbery and Muslim pirates from the coast of North Africa.)
Sure it still exists today, but to a very minimal degree. The reason that it minimally exists today came from a very hard stance against, and tough fight against it.

So, is that a "win" ?

[lendaddy]

I am in awe that people are reading this much into it. It is a simple common sense answer which everyone knew from the start. Do you not "wage war" on crime simply because you know it will never be totally eradicated? Well then, why would we not wage war on terrorism given the same scenerio? Is this really news? Did anyone really think Bush (or anyone else) thought we could rid the world of every last nutjob? Come on.

[widebody911]

The semantics problem began with the 'war on ____' concept.

Remember the "War on Drugs?"

Yeah, that went well.

"War on ..." is simply a euphemism meaning 'spend a lot of money, kill some people, erode some rights'

[lendaddy]

So, much like your (apparent) view on drugs, should we just be ambivalent about terrorism? Or do you think maybe, just maybe, this is not a "victimless crime" we can just let be?

[island911]

Thom, you do make a good point. ("war on drugs )

Though you do need to recognize that when a specific group of people exist for the expressed purpose of killing us. . .and have been responsible for the most deadly strike on US soil. . .that perhaps the word "war" is not overstating our situation.

Terorrists are NOT inanimate objects, as drugs are. . .or as crime is.

[yetidave]

As much as I hate Bush, I cant see what Democrats are all up in arms about. I heard it once and knew exactly what he meant. If you look hard enough at any statement you will eventually find something to complain about, but it wont make you look like anything but a crybaby.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by island911
Though you do need to recognize that when a specific group of people exist for the expressed purpose of killing us.

But there's always been groups out to kill us, it's just some have been better at it than others. One could opine that the "war on terror" dates back to colonial-era Indian attacks.

Now, as then, we need to take a good hard look at why they want to kill us so bad. They (insert terrorist group du jour here) didn't just wake up one morning and say "gee, I feel like killing someone, who will it be? I know, how about the Americans! They've got that gosh darn freedom and all..."

Subjugating the Indians was easy; some fire water and smallpox blankets, badda boom. Subjugating the jihadists won't be as easy; there's more of them, they're not as primitive, and gosh darn, genocide isn't as easy as it used to be, ever since that Hitler guy screwed things up.

[lendaddy]

So are you saying our "WoT" is genocide? We'll just have to agee to disagree there. Hey we'll always have Vanagons

[JavaBrewer]

Originally posted by widebody911
Now, as then, we need to take a good hard look at why they want to kill us so bad. They (insert terrorist group du jour here) didn't just wake up one morning and say "gee, I feel like killing someone, who will it be? I know, how about the Americans! They've got that gosh darn freedom and all..."

Support of Israel, puppet governments/dictators sympathetic to U.S. wants/needs (control of oil), etc... Nothing new there Thom. What changes do you envision that simultaneously does not harm the U.S. and still create a ME full of friends?

[island911]

yeah, Lendaddy, Vanagons are entirely too modern, for a guy like Thom.

Originally posted by widebody911
. . .
Now, as then, we need to take a good hard look at why they want to kill us so bad. They (insert terrorist group du jour here) didn't just wake up one morning and say "gee, I feel like killing someone, who will it be? I know, how about the Americans! They've got that gosh darn freedom and all..."

. . .

Have you taken a good hard look at why they want to kill us? Are we just not accommodating enough, to there demands?

. . .or is it just that they live in a freaking desert, nothing to do . . .where only the weathy can afford wives and create families. . .so the boys buy in to the idea that if they go blow-themselves-up that they will get "x# virgins in the afterlife" and Saddam(insert terrorist funding dictator du jour here) will give their dad more money to buy more wives. . .which will produce more boys and girls, for more "suicide-bombers" and more wives for the few holding the money. . .which will produce more girls and boys, for more "suicide-bombers" and more wives for the few men holding the money . ..etc. . etc . .etc

[widebody911]

Originally posted by island911
. . .or is it just that they live in a freaking desert, nothing to do . . .where only the weathy can afford wives and create families. . .

So, I take it you've never been to Utah...

[island911]

. .so is it nice there?

Anyway, I think you have to see that when you have a whole bunch of guys, with no hope, that they will find something to fight about.

China is looking really scary, just for that reason. (they've been into female infanticide for quite some time now. --stupid stupid stupid.)

[dd74]

I think what one has to be careful of here are the blanket assessments that all fundamentalists are inherent enemies to the west. That can't be true, because if it were, Bush probably would regard the legacy of genocide Hitler left with little concern: I wouldn't put nuking the Middle East out of the question for him.

[lendaddy]

I was reading the other day that global arms sales were down dramatically since 2000 for the first time in decades. This is good news guys! There was one problem (which Island touched on) and that is that china has overtaken the entire middle east as the largest purchaser

[Superman]

Right, Island. And as long as Life in the Desert stays the same, we'll have desperate people.

Frankly, I think I know what Bush meant, and I agree with it. And if the Dems are characterizing this as Bush backsliding, then they needn't go to the trouble. I think it's interesting that Kerry is being characterized as a flipflopper, when I'm not sure I recall a single campaign promise made by Bush that has been kept. He's going to protect our environment, for example. I guess he's given that assignment to Exxon and Phillips.

[lendaddy]

Sup,

The matter of flip flops is much more obvious than you make it sound. Kerry changes his views to fit his audience in a matter of days, I.E. the barrier wall in Israel. You don't just change your view in a couple days.

Your opinion that he is not protecting the environment is just that, your opinion, not a flip flop. I am comfortable with Bush's environmental policy and I am sure he is as well.

[928ram]

I saw the replay of the interview this afternoon, pretty clear what he was saying.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by lendaddy
The matter of flip flops is much more obvious than you make it sound.

I will tell Kerry to stop if you tell Bush to stop, deal?

[on-ramp]

Here's more flip flopping. i dont think W has taken his medication in the past couple days.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040831%2F1349303940.htm&sc=1131&floc=NW_1-T