narcimund 0 #1 August 31, 2004 George Bush says the War on Terror can be won. Then he says it can't. Then his spokesman argues that he misspoke. Then John Kerry confidently proclaims it can be. What are all these people talking about? I haven't yet heard what it means to win it. Until someone explains what a 'win' is, what sense is there in saying yes or no? How does one win? Does winning mean a time when the government can consistently prevent political violence against civilians? How on earth can this be achieved? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vallerina 2 #2 August 31, 2004 Just like they won the war in 1984 There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #3 August 31, 2004 Still trying to figure out how one can win a war on a concept... Catchy term, but not physically do-able I believe. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OnYourBack 0 #4 August 31, 2004 Regardless of what either side of the debate says they are going to do, I can only think of one way to stop all wars and acts of terror from happening. Human Extinction. But I'ld rather not see that happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #5 August 31, 2004 QuoteGeorge Bush says the War on Terror can be won. Then he says it can't. That's normal speech. ....what sense is there in saying yes or no? Quote That's the original flip-flop version in election times (not only in the US, BTW) How on earth can this be achieved? *** That - in fact - needs more than GWB speeches... dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 August 31, 2004 Val might have something, but I think it's a bit too nefarious. We'll see on the first Tuesday after the First Monday in November if it's a credible conspiracy theory. If GWB gets re-elected it won't mean that the war-to-re-elect strategy worked, but if Kerry wins it'll mean that it didn't. Anyway -- I just think it's like the war on; drugs poverty unemployment Makes for good copy for those that don't think about it too much.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vallerina 2 #7 August 31, 2004 QuoteVal might have something, but I think it's a bit too nefarious. Yeah, so there is an actual "enemy," and they do want to attack some of our buildings. So, it's not an exact comparison, but using the war as a means to "control" people is similar. "We're winning!" "We're losing because of these jerks! We need your support!"There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #8 August 31, 2004 Quote So, it's not an exact comparison, but using the war as a means to "control" people is similar. True, but I would say that it is more "convenient" (if that's even possible in this context) than planned. Remember back 3.5 years ago when a number of us just thought GWB was kind of, well, let's just say not the brightest, but at least fairly harmless in the "he who governs the least governs the best" sort of way. I don't believe he knew of or was even all that interested in the world terrorism situation, but when 9/11 happened, he got into it fairly quickly and I've -always- applauded his efforts in Afganistan. I -do- believe he had a vague notion of a plan to "finish" his father's work in the middle-east and 9/11 gave him the opportunity, but I won't go half as far as some people in saying it was a plan to control the population of the planet with fear. True, there's a heck of a lot of fear mongering out there (mostly from the DHS) and -some- of that is simply hype to whip up support, but support and control I see as two slightly different goals. One more subtle that the other. In the book 1984, there was nothing subtle about it. It was purely for the purposes of control.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vallerina 2 #9 August 31, 2004 I'm in complete agreement. QuoteIn the book 1984, there was nothing subtle about it. It was purely for the purposes of control. Yes, it used exaggeration many times to show certain aspects of the government. The first time I read it, I didn't really like it because I thought it was too exaggerated. But, that's getting off topic...winning the war on terror....umm....I don't know because most can agree that it's not just taking out Osama Bin Laden....There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #10 August 31, 2004 I don't believe he knew of or was even all that interested in the world terrorism situation*** As a matter of fact, he had very little idea where Kashmir was, nor did he know who the prime minister of India was. Granted, it's not like this part of the world has any terrorist activity, or that India and Pakistan have any means to be a threat to anyone... "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #11 August 31, 2004 QuoteI don't believe he knew of or was even all that interested in the world terrorism situation*** As a matter of fact, he had very little idea where Kashmir was, nor did he know who the prime minister of India was. Granted, it's not like this part of the world has any terrorist activity, or that India and Pakistan have any means to be a threat to anyone... AAhhhhhh, a mind reader.......do you know what I am thinking???...."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #12 August 31, 2004 AAhhhhhh, a mind reader.......do you know what I am thinking???.... *** I'm getting interference... Not quite clear... i see... a much more detailed reply to my post... "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peregrinerose 0 #13 August 31, 2004 The war on terror is only won when everyone else on the planet is afraid of you. Whoever is scariest is the winner. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #14 August 31, 2004 QuoteThe war on terror is only won when everyone else on the planet is afraid of you. And when you're not afraid to die? How do you win against those people? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
unformed 0 #15 August 31, 2004 It's like the War on (Some) Drugs. It's a crock of shit meant to take away our rights. Terrorism works by instilling fear. The terrorists have already won.This ad space for sale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
78RATS 0 #16 August 31, 2004 whats with the Republican harping on 911 at the convention. I don't think any party has the corner on that market. Rat for Life - Fly till I die When them stupid ass bitches ask why Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #17 August 31, 2004 Oh come on. SOMEBODY must know the partyline answer to this one. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #18 August 31, 2004 QuoteOh come on. SOMEBODY must know the partyline answer to this one. You defeat terror by spreading liberty around the world. Duh. Of course that's as quantifiable as "winning the war on terror" but if I say it fast enough and you're in a big crowd of people that support me, it'll probably make you cheer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #19 August 31, 2004 QuoteYou defeat terror by spreading liberty around the world. Duh. Of course that's as quantifiable as "winning the war on terror" but if I say it fast enough and you're in a big crowd of people that support me, it'll probably make you cheer Quantifiable? How about two less dictatorships. How about 10 million people in Afghanistan who have registered to vote? How about any citizen in Iraq being able to say anything they want about the US government, occupation forces, or any person of power in Iraq (with maybe the exception of Al Sadr, and we're working that) without serious fear of personal harm? It's better than allowing Saddam to run wild with his sons, killing and torturing at will. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #20 August 31, 2004 I thought we were talking about defeating terror. Last I checked, terrorist attacks in the places you mentioned are UP and RISING. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #21 August 31, 2004 QuoteHow about any citizen in Iraq being able to say anything they want about the US government, occupation forces, or any person of power in Iraq (with maybe the exception of Al Sadr, and we're working that) without serious fear of personal harm? Maybe it's just me, but right now I'd say the average citizen of Iraq would be justified in having serious fear of personal harm whether they say anything or not. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
littlestranger 0 #22 September 1, 2004 Quotewhats with the Republican harping on 911 at the convention. I don't think any party has the corner on that market. No, but their candidate just happened to be President at the time, had to deal with it, and displayed for all the world where his loyalties lie. Unlike a certain individual who came back from Vietnam representing Hanoi. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #23 September 1, 2004 Oh, please. I can't say that everyone that has ever or could ever hold the office of the President of the United states would do -exactly- what GWB did just after 9/11, but it would be pretty damn close no matter who it was. Clearly -any- President would have responded by sending troops to Afganistan once it was known that Osama bin Ladin was the master-mind and source of funds behind the attacks. Later events such as the war in Iraq -- well, ok, who knows about that, but my guess is that some may have ventured there while others would have been more certain before acting.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,073 #24 September 1, 2004 >Unlike a certain individual who came back from Vietnam representing Hanoi. Unfortunate that you were not around in the '60s to spit on the vets you disagreed with who came back from Vietnam. Fortunately, there are loads of wounded Iraq vets coming back who, I assume, you would consider representing Saddam Hussein, since they question our involvement in this war. You can still spit on them! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #25 September 1, 2004 Oh give it up man. Spitting on a traitor who happens to be a vet is not the same as spitting on the "everyman" veteran for serving their country when called. I don't think anyone on the boards would have spit on Kerry the day he got back from Southeast Asia. If anyone wants to spit on the SOB, it's for what he did -after- he got back. (do a little reading on what KGB defectors had to say about his little speeches and the communist agenda)witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites