Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-31-2004, 12:34 AM   #41 (permalink)
Loser
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
but do you really think that is true? do you not think that the US could have saved a few more of its soldiers by having a more liberal definition of what are valid military targets?
I'm simply stating a fact.

A hostage killed by a terrorist is considered collateral damage. If they believed they could effectively win the war without killing any civilians, they would. But they are not in a position to fight this war by solely targeting the military and/or gov't intallations.

The U.S. believes that civilians that are near a school which contains munitions are collateral damage because the U.S. does not believe it can effectively win (or fight, as the case may be) this war without killing civilians that are near the enemy. If they believed they could effectively win/fight the war without killing any civilians, they would. But they are not in a position to fight this war by solely targetting military assets far from civilians.

I, personally, do not even remotely agree with the tactics of either side. But both sides are equally logical as long as you do not consider the root causes of the conflict. And only one side, the U.S., has the option of addressing the root causes of the conflict.

Last edited by OpieCunningham; 08-31-2004 at 12:37 AM..
OpieCunningham is offline  
Old 08-31-2004, 09:56 AM   #42 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
"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 '03

"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 '02

"We will win this test of wills, and overcome every challenge, because the cause of freedom and security is worth our struggle." -Bush in '04
He has made similar statements since 9/11. What event has made him change his mind recently?
Or... Was he lying when he said we were assured a victory over terror, or lying to us now?
Superbelt is offline  
Old 08-31-2004, 10:06 AM   #43 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
1.
bush's comments on his "war on terror"--whatever that means--seem a rare slip from script that opened onto a space of near honesty....of course this is not a "war" in any conventional sense..."winning" seems just a word that functions to give an illusion of direction to an otherwise absurd undertaking---the notion of "terror" is so problematic as to mean almost nothing--it designates the enemy of the day---the term has been discussed extensively elsewhere and so there is no point in repeating...

it is not surprising to read on the front page of todays ny times attempts to retract and/or spin away bush's remarks. "we cannot win in the sense of being able to win and well what matters is that we are resolute no matter how absurd the situation--what really matters is being resolute, not wavering..." fine tactic to deal with absurdity.

fact is that this administration loves the "war on terror"--it needs the "war on terror". its ideological precursors are obvious: many in the past century relied on permanent quasi military mobilization--this enabled a "unification" of the "Nation" around a Leader who resolutely faces a phantom but ubiquitous enemy. this war on an enemy that is everywhere and nowhere gave the Nation a Mission, a Historical Purpose-- this is the lingua franca of bush and other very military radical nationalist Leader--this administration has relied on this "war" to legitimate itself---all the better for it and for those who support it that the war be eternal, winning be a constant illusion but never a possibility, that the enemy be undefinable so it can be constantly redefined.

what matters is that the "war on terror" has its flip in a constant flirtation with a state of emergenecy. radical nationalists love that. whether they admit it or not in the public sphere, when in power, the state of emergency is a double of a discovery of a "national essence"--always military, always narrow-minded, always murderous.

2.

the war in iraq has no connection to any "war on terror"---none---the only surprise this thread held for me was to find this association continuing to function at any level, for anyone.


actually, there was another surprise--that this false, ridiculous linkage would operate in some cases above to support barbaric calls for increased civilian casualties in iraq, together with a pseudo-justification for them.
if you look at this set of arguments from a viewpoint not convinced in any way by the various associations that support them, what you see is a kind of bizarre bloodlust being articulated by what i take to be far-right johnwaynes more than happy to fantasize about the deaths of any number of civilians, so long as (in this case) they are brown people who are far away. i do not see any distinction between these positions and those of the groups who take an execute hostages, except that the americans who make them try to wrap themselves in the flag and fret about "our troops" to justify them.

it is pretty repellent stuff.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 08-31-2004, 10:07 AM   #44 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbelt
He has made similar statements since 9/11. What event has made him change his mind recently?
Or... Was he lying when he said we were assured a victory over terror, or lying to us now?
I think his statement that "we can't win" is in a sense true but certainly badly timed. It gives the perception of "flip flopping" which is hurtful to any Presidential candidate.

I do not believe it's the case that he's lying by making statements that appear opposed to each other since there are many levels of "winning". For instance, I could certainly agree that we will never wipe out terrorism so the statement that "we can't win" is true.

But, at the same time, we can destroy much of the terrorists' ability to raise funds and attack us on a major scale. In the sense that we can limit their effectiveness far better than we've done over the last 30 years I absolutely agree that we can "win".

IMO, the two are not mutually exclusive unless you narrowly define each of them in your own mind.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 08-31-2004, 11:18 AM   #45 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
1.
bush's comments on his "war on terror"--whatever that means--seem a rare slip from script that opened onto a space of near honesty....

what matters is that the "war on terror" has its flip in a constant flirtation with a state of emergenecy. radical nationalists love that. whether they admit it or not in the public sphere, when in power, the state of emergency is a double of a discovery of a "national essence"--always military, always narrow-minded, always murderous.

it is pretty repellent stuff.
roachboy,

do you suspect that such 'slips' are tactical?

your point regarding the use of this as a national essence seems to be well-supported in light of all the speakers I watched all night on C-SPAN. As often as they could, seemingly endlessly, they dropped discursive landmines. The most frequent, in my opinion, was this 'war on terror.' They made it quite clear that this was the single issue framing the election.

I think that's bizarre in light of the response to the question my wife asked this morning: what happens if Kerry is elected in regards to Iraq? Absolutely nothing, in terms of the troops remaining or whether we would suddenly become uninvolved, was my answer and belief. This issue as a single election issue has been manufactured and our state of emergency has been reified to the point of drowning out all points of interest. Our political landscape is paralyzed due to this topic, and our public discourse is suffering as a consequence of the inability of any of our prospective leaders to transcend it. The power to capitivate hundreds of thousands of people on a riveting issue, whether it obliterates other chances of resolving important issues, seems too intoxicating for any candidate to back off and call a time out. The public is so galvanized that I don't even know if one could back off if one wanted to.

When I listened to callers and even candidates from the republican party repeat disinformation that had long ago been discredited, I couldn't help but feel a slight bit of anger at C-SPAN. Many people thank them for their service, and I usually agree with that, but I have no idea why a factual recount or at least a pointer to a clearinghouse of information is not even attempted. I don't know what binds their hands, but this notion of a free press has radically failed this nation in the current political climate.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 08-31-2004, 11:38 AM   #46 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Of course the pro-Bush people or neocons, or whatever they group themselves as, will say that yeah, what he said is just acknowledging that we can't win completely but we can be more secure and reduce the threats.

But then none of you guys ever take the time to look a little deeper and realize that right now your country's system is only attacking the effect of the problem.

The cause of the problem is of course, bad policy making and manipulation which damages, undermines, and supresses the middle east and it's peoples.

You can try to suppress the symptoms and effects of the problem but you will never fix the cause and therefore always have this as a problem.

If you wage war on the cause however, the bad policies, the ignorance, the arms manufacturing giants who are making a shiny penny and steadily perpetuating more problems, you'll get a more effective remedy to the entire problem.
rainheart is offline  
Old 08-31-2004, 12:33 PM   #47 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
The intentional "slip" of this remark by Bush is an interesting theory. The guy IS so much on message all the time, you have to wonder what the hell such a flagrantly controversial and careless statement such as "This war is unwinnable" is supposed to mean at the start of the RNC, and just a few months from the election.

I've decided to experiment with this election, answer some questions I have regarding the supposed weakness of democrats on foreign policy/national defense, etc...because the only thing I like about Bush is his tough stance on terrorism.
powerclown is offline  
Old 08-31-2004, 01:26 PM   #48 (permalink)
Junkie
 
I always seem to start firestorms in the Politics boards. :-)

Here's more fuel for the fire...

Quote:
Bush attacked for admitting war on terror cannot be won
Conor O'Clery in New York

President Bush, who last week admitted to miscalculations over Iraq and blamed the post-war chaos on a "catastrophic success", yesterday admitted that "I don't think you can win" the war on terror, writes Conor O'Clery in New York.

As the Republican National Convention got under way in New York, Mr Bush sought to portray himself as a strong leader.

However, when asked "Can we win?" the war on terror, Mr Bush conceded to NBC News, "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."

The President's comment gave an opening for vice-presidential candidate Mr John Edwards to denounce the Bush administration's foreign policy, accusing the president of "declaring defeat" and a "failure of leadership".

Bush aides conceded that Mr Bush used a poor choice of words about the war on terror and said that what he meant was that al-Qaeda would never surrender.

"He was talking about winning it in the conventional sense," said White House spokesman Mr Scott McClellan.

"We face an unconventional enemy. I don't think you can expect that there will ever be a formal surrender or a treaty signed, like we have in wars past."

The controversy came as Republican speakers at the four-day convention in Madison Square Garden set out to redefine Mr Bush as the popular leader who rallied the US in the days after September 11th.

In an address to the 5,000 delegates, former New York mayor Mr Rudy Giuliani last night compared Mr Bush to Winston Churchill, saying he was a proven leader unafraid of unpopularity in times of danger.

"Winston Churchill saw the dangers of Hitler when his opponents and much of the press characterised him as a war-mongering gadfly," he said, according to advance excerpts from speech.

"Ronald Reagan saw and described the Soviet Union as 'the evil empire' when world opinion accepted it as inevitable and belittled Ronald Reagan's intelligence. George W. Bush sees world terrorism for the evil that it is and he will remain consistent to the purpose of defeating it while working to make us ever safer at home."

Senator John McCain told delegates that Mr Bush "has been tested and has risen to the most important challenge of our time, and I salute him . . . He has not flinched from the hard choices. He will not yield. And neither will we."

However, in an interview with CNN, Mr McCain said that if re-elected Mr Bush should make national unity his number one priority as he had never seen a "worse, more partisan environment".

He said the Swift Boat advertisements attacking John Kerry's Vietnam combat record, which Mr Bush has refused to specifically condemn, were "so angering to me . . . What are we doing now ripping open those wounds again for a political purpose?"

Democrats seized on Mr Bush's apparent misstep yesterday to take the offensive. Democratic Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, in New York to respond to attacks on the Democratic candidate, told reporters, "This is a president who doesn't believe we can win the war on terror."

Speaking in Wilmington, North Carolina, Senator Edwards criticised Mr Bush's foreign policy, seizing on Mr Bush's comment last week that he made a "miscalculation of what the conditions would be" after US troops went to Iraq.

"The president called it a miscalculation, you can call it anything you want, but the truth is it was a failure of leadership," Mr Edwards said, accusing the administration of creating the conditions for Abu Ghraib, going to war without strong allies, waiting too long to reform intelligence, turning its back on Afghanistan, and standing by while North Korea and Iran advanced their nuclear weapons programs.

Thousands of police imposed tight security on the convention, which Republican National Committee chairman Mr Ed Gillespie opened to a roar of approval by saying: "We will leave here with momentum that will carry us to victory in November."

Former New York mayor Mr Ed Koch, a Democrat, delighted delegates by telling the opening session, "This year, I'm voting for the re-election of President George W. Bush."

© The Irish Times
Mr Mephisto

Last edited by Mephisto2; 08-31-2004 at 01:32 PM..
Mephisto2 is offline  
Old 08-31-2004, 02:22 PM   #49 (permalink)
undead
 
Pacifier's Avatar
 
Location: Duisburg, Germany
Looks like he made up his mind, suddently we still can win the war...

Quote:
Bush says U.S. will win terror war

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 Posted: 3:21 PM EDT (1921 GMT)

President Bush addresses members of the American Legion Tuesday at their national convention.

(CNN) -- President Bush told veterans during a campaign stump speech Tuesday that the United States will win the war against terror, in contrast to a statement he made a day earlier .

"We meet today at a time of war for our country. A war we did not start, yet one that we will win," the president told members of the American Legion at their annual convention.

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

"We will win by staying on the offensive. We will win by spreading liberty," Bush said.

Monday, Bush said it may not be possible to win the war on terrorism. That comment strayed from previous remarks by the president in which he has said the United States will win the war on terror. (Bush talks potential of terror war)

Asked whether the United States can win the war, Bush told NBC's "Today" show, "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."

Soon afterward, White House spokesman Scott McClellan and other top officials sought to clarify the president's remarks, saying he meant an all-out victory against terrorists may not be possible in the "conventional sense."

"I don't think you can expect that there will ever be a formal surrender or a treaty signed, like we have in wars past. That's what he was talking about," McClellan said.

But Democrats pounced on Bush's comments.

Bush's rival Sen. John Kerry, during a break from wind surfing off the Nantucket coast, was asked by reporters if the war on terror could be won.

"Absolutely," he responded.

The Massachusetts senator is scheduled to address the American Legion on Wednesday.

And Sen. John Edwards, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, said in a written statement, "After months of listening to the Republicans base their campaign on their singular ability to win the war on terror, the president now says we can't win the war on terrorism.

"This is no time to declare defeat. It won't be easy and it won't be quick, but we have a comprehensive long-term plan to make America safer. And that's a difference."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ror/index.html
__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein
Pacifier is offline  
Old 08-31-2004, 02:50 PM   #50 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
Ah well if Kerry is allowed to flop on every issue under the sun, I'm sure we can let Shrub slide on this one.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 08-31-2004, 03:14 PM   #51 (permalink)
undead
 
Pacifier's Avatar
 
Location: Duisburg, Germany
Of course, why critizise bush?
flip flopping over such an unimportand issue within a couple of days surely isn't really a big deal.
It is just another example of what is called "consistent leadership", i guess.
__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein
Pacifier is offline  
Old 08-31-2004, 03:33 PM   #52 (permalink)
Junkie
 
hahaha...

**RATTLE**RATTLE**RATTLE

Anyone still in there?!


Mr Mephisto
Mephisto2 is offline  
Old 08-31-2004, 03:55 PM   #53 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: wisCONsin
Would you like pancakes for Breakfast Mr president or do you like waffles....waffles...waffles....waffles????

"when NBC aired an interview in which he was asked if the United States could win the war on terror and he answered, "I don't think you can win it."


He added, in the interview, "I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

Bush himself said in a radio interview with talk show host Rush Limbaugh, "I probably needed to be more articulate." "
__________________
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee --that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... You can't get fooled again." - G.W. Bush quoted by the Baltimore Sun - Oct 6, 2002
mrbuck12000 is offline  
Old 08-31-2004, 07:24 PM   #54 (permalink)
Banned
 
BUsh explained what he meant, it's not a typical war - there will be no peace treaty, it won't be won in the traditional sense. If you're hell bent on insisting he meant what you want him too, well there's not much more to say except:

to the first 10 or so posts having felt relief that Bush finally came to the realization that this war cannot be won...what do you say to Kerry/Edwards saying emphatically "THIS WAR CAN BE WON!!!"
matthew330 is offline  
Old 08-31-2004, 07:29 PM   #55 (permalink)
Insane
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Have you learned nothing from the last four years?

1) Geographically, what the fuck does that have to do with anything. The fact that there is a massive influx of Arab/Muslims in the United States and even more so in Europe makes your comment obsolete(sp), they are already here (not saying all Arab/Muslims/whatevers are bad, just that the 9/11 terrorists were sleepers). It doesn't matter that we aren't in the Middle East and smack dab in the middle of a snake pit if the those fuckers are already here.

2. Yes, Ideally a foreign policy that wouldn't foster or give rise to bad guys would nice, but that doesn't mean that we should appease the terrorists now. It's not as simple as stopping aid to Israel or removing troops from Saudi Arabia.

3. Kill them with kindness? Man o man you can't be serious. Besides the fact that this current jihad is being perpetuated by the Islamic wealthy and elite, those who control power, how do you purpose to show them the alternative? Besides the fact that most Arab/Muslims live under abhorrent corrupt regimes which control every aspect of life for the lower people, it can't be done.

It's pretty tough to kill someone with kindness when they would murder you just on the basis that you are a) American b) Muslim c) the white devil , I don't like your prospects of that.

You are dealing with a group of people who don't have the same reasonable mindset as you, or even as reasonable as someone like myself. Just look at the differents in cultures, look at the difference in philosophies. No respect for the individual, it's all about Allah, women are second class citizens, kill or be killed. All these clowns understand, all that will stop them is two in the chest and one in the head. They can't be bargained with because guess what, this war isn't about concessions to them, it's about our destruction, and it's really fucking tough to bargain or try and be even slightly reasonable with people who carry that mindset.

Ghandi was all about peace and non-violence, but even he realized it's not universally applicable. Some times you have to grow a sack and kick some ass.
Uh, no. Believe it or not, only Shiite fundamentalists are the problem. The rest of Iraq just wants us to leave. Of course, "fundamentalist" is just another word for pawns of a power-hungry asshole. The best solution would be for the US to leave Iraq, and when they try to overthrow the government, the rest of the country will probably turn on them. If they don't, it'll be anarchy. Violence CAN NOT solve this problem. Everyone knows it's impossible. Remember how well Vietnam's "kill them to save them" policy worked?
braindamage351 is offline  
Old 08-31-2004, 07:52 PM   #56 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew330

to the first 10 or so posts having felt relief that Bush finally came to the realization that this war cannot be won...what do you say to Kerry/Edwards saying emphatically "THIS WAR CAN BE WON!!!"
I would say "they are likely to eat those words", but what has that to do with Bush. I haven't heard that from Kerry , but it would not suprise me. When he comes out and flips his opinion (as he likely will) we can gripe about him then.
How about.....focusing the attention on the topic, you know....the president, instead of dragging Kerry into it simply to draw the attention away from your guy.

Perhaps this war CAN be won, using tactics that differ from destruction of resources and lack of respect. I don't know, but I do feel we have thus far been less than effective.
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
tecoyah is offline  
Old 08-31-2004, 08:24 PM   #57 (permalink)
Banned
 
the topic was the quote, Bush explained the quote, I only brought Kerry into the equation for reasons you obvously get, being that this is the first time you've responded since the "first ten or so posts". I was responding directly to one of your posts.

The first paragraph i wrote focused directly on the president - in fact quoted him, addressing what the topic is all about. My second paragraph was...holy shit - i'm a genious...for those that would completely ignore the first one. Foreshadowing at its finest.
matthew330 is offline  
Old 08-31-2004, 08:26 PM   #58 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
I have not really read any of the posts, but I did just read this. Pres. Bush called into Limbaugh and clarified what he was trying to comvey.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...iew.guest.html



RUSH: Let's talk about the American Legion convention. I watched your speech there this morning, and the Democrats are harping on something you said yesterday, or that was aired yesterday on the Today Show with Matt Lauer about your comment about we can't win it, meaning the war on terror. I think I know what you meant but John Edwards is out there saying (paraphrased), "A-ha! Bush is now flip-flopping, and we, John Kerry and I, we can win this, and Bush is..." What did you mean by this?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate you bringing that up. Listen, I should have made my point more clear about what I meant. What I meant was that this is not a conventional war. It is a different kind of war. We're fighting people who have got a dark ideology who use terrorists, terrorism, as a tool. They're trying to shake our conscience. They're trying to shake our will, and so in the short run the strategy has got to be to find them where they lurk. I tell people all the time, "We will stay on the on the offense. We will bring them to justice in foreign lands so we don't have to face them here at home," and that's because you cannot negotiate with these people. And in a conventional war there would be a peace treaty or there would be a moment where somebody would sit on the side and say we quit. That's not the kind of war we're in, and that's what I was saying. The kind of war we're in requires, you know, steadfast resolve, and I will continue to be resolved to bring them to justice, but as well as to spread liberty. And this is one of the interesting points of the debate, Rush, is that, you know, I believe societies can be transformed because of liberty, and I believe that Iraq and Afghanistan will be free nations, and I believe that those free nations right there in the heart of the Middle East will begin to transform that region into a more hopeful place, which in itself will be a detriment to the ability to these terrorists to recruit -- and that's what I was saying. I probably needed to be a little more articulate.


RUSH: Well, it's like saying that they're all over the world. You're not fighting a country here, a series of countries. You're fighting a movement that will hide out anywhere it can, and you're always going to have a renegade terrorist. Even if, let's say, we wipe out Al-Qaeda. There's some other group or individual that may spring up and blow up a bomb somewhere. That's always going to happen because it always has.

THE PRESIDENT: Right. Really what I was saying to Lauer was, is that this is not the kind of war where you sit down and sign a peace treaty. It's a totally different kind of war. But we will win it. Your listeners have got to know that I know we'll win it, but we're going to have to be resolved and firm, and we can't doubt what we stand for, and the long-term solution is to spread freedom. I love to tell the story, Rush, about a meeting with Prime Minister Koizumi. He's my friend. He's the prime minister of Japan. It wasn't all that long ago that my dad, your dad, and others dads were fighting against the Japanese, but because after World War II we believed that Japan could self-govern and could be democratic in its own fashion, Japan is no longer an enemy; it's a friend, and so I sit down with him to help resolve issues like the North Korean peninsula. In other words, we're working together to keep the peace. The same thing is going to happen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that's when I say the transformational power of liberty. That's what I'm talking about.

RUSH: Well, I remember you also said in one of your first speeches after the 9/11 attacks that this is going to go maybe beyond one or even two terms that you might serve.

THE PRESIDENT: I think so. On the other hand, we're making great progress. Today at the Legion I said, "We're winning the war on terror, and we will win the war on terror." There's no doubt in my mind, so long as this country stays resolved and strong and determined, and by winning, I just would remind your listeners that Pakistan is now an ally in the war on terror. Saudi now takes Al-Qaeda seriously, and they're after the leadership. Libya is no longer got weapons of mass destruction. Afghanistan, I don't know if you've discussed this on your program, but there are over ten million people who have registered to vote in Afghanistan, which is a phenomenal statistic when you think about it. And then of course Iraq is now heading toward elections as well, and we're making progress.
__________________
It's hard to remember we're alive for the first time
It's hard to remember we're alive for the last time
It's hard to remember to live before you die
It's hard to remember that our lives are such a short time
It's hard to remember when it takes such a long time

phyzix525 is offline  
Old 08-31-2004, 09:58 PM   #59 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew330
BUsh explained what he meant, it's not a typical war - there will be no peace treaty, it won't be won in the traditional sense. If you're hell bent on insisting he meant what you want him too, well there's not much more to say except:

to the first 10 or so posts having felt relief that Bush finally came to the realization that this war cannot be won...what do you say to Kerry/Edwards saying emphatically "THIS WAR CAN BE WON!!!"
I say, "what war?"

We have always been at peace with the Middle East.

We have always been at war with Old Europe.

War is Peace.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 08-31-2004, 10:02 PM   #60 (permalink)
Banned
 
is someone finally asking Kerry what the hell he's talking about?
matthew330 is offline  
Old 08-31-2004, 10:37 PM   #61 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew330
is someone finally asking Kerry what the hell he's talking about?
I was going to post some sections from his speech that seemed relevant, but after I read it (I didn't hear it) I thought it was actually well-done. So I decided to post a link to it:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/s...2004_0729.html
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 09-01-2004, 01:06 AM   #62 (permalink)
Banned
 
Rdr4evr's Avatar
 
This man sounds more like a fool everyday. He seems to contradict himself on a constant basis. What else can really be said about it? He is an incompetent fool.
Rdr4evr is offline  
Old 09-01-2004, 03:16 AM   #63 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
That is so unfortunate that we have a sitting president that would actually be a guest on the Rush Limbaugh show.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 09-01-2004, 04:44 AM   #64 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew330
the topic was the quote, Bush explained the quote, I only brought Kerry into the equation for reasons you obvously get, being that this is the first time you've responded since the "first ten or so posts". I was responding directly to one of your posts.

The first paragraph i wrote focused directly on the president - in fact quoted him, addressing what the topic is all about. My second paragraph was...holy shit - i'm a genious...for those that would completely ignore the first one. Foreshadowing at its finest.
I believe I answered your question in my reply......and was simply attempting to keep this thread from changing focus from Bush to Kerry, Alas I have failed....I will leave you to your Genious
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
tecoyah is offline  
Old 09-01-2004, 06:05 AM   #65 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
It's not a matter of whether the war is not real, or if it is, Victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia but to keep the very structure of society intact.

George Orwell, 1984
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 04:37 PM   #66 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
.... and treat terrorists as criminals by using intelligence, diplomatic relations and precision extractions.
How delightfully ironic.

:-)


Mr Mephisto
Mephisto2 is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 04:38 PM   #67 (permalink)
Loser
 
How ironically out of context.



Quote:
Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
I, personally, do not even remotely agree with the tactics of either side. But both sides are equally logical as long as you do not consider the root causes of the conflict. And only one side, the U.S., has the option of addressing the root causes of the conflict.
And the answer to your ignore question is that setting a user to ignore will then not show you the contents of that users posts.

Last edited by OpieCunningham; 09-02-2004 at 04:42 PM..
OpieCunningham is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 03:43 AM   #68 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Well thank you. Now who is out of context? I posted a query on the Support Board and you seem to be trawling the board for my name, then come back here and post an answer.

The query wasn't related to you, but if you continue with your personal attacks (despite my attempting to engage in normal relevant discussion with you in other threads) I will most certainly add you to my ignore list.

Get a life.

Mr Mephisto

Last edited by Mephisto2; 09-03-2004 at 03:46 AM..
Mephisto2 is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 04:02 AM   #69 (permalink)
Loser
 
I'm trawling? Me?

You bump this thread, which hadn't been posted to in over a day, by quoting me out of context in regards to a disagreement we had in another thread alltogether ... and I'm trawling?

I'm gonna disagree with your viewpoint there and leave it at that.
OpieCunningham is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 04:08 AM   #70 (permalink)
Junkie
 
I started the thread you silly person. Don't you think I would actually check it out?

Sheesh...

I'm sick of you now. As I said earlier, I tried to engage in civil discussion in some of your other threads, but you seem to have some bee in your bonnet about me since you hijacked the "What would America do" thread.

I repeat. Get a life. I'll ask for this (the second thread of mine you have devalued) to be closed, as I did the last.


Mr Mephisto
Mephisto2 is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 04:11 AM   #71 (permalink)
The Griffin
 
Hanxter's Avatar
 
if you don't knock it off i'm breaking out the gag balls!!!

then again maybe i'll lock the whole forum and not just the thread
Hanxter is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 01:58 PM   #72 (permalink)
Psycho
 
jcookc6's Avatar
 
Location: Venice, Florida
I think what the president meant, was that there is not going to be any peace treaty or cease fire signed on a battle ship or railroad car.

As far at the threat to shut down the forum by the moderator, remember this is a political forum and people feel strongly one way or the other on the issues, and sometime we tend to stray from the original theme of the post.
jcookc6 is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 02:18 PM   #73 (permalink)
Junkie
 
I'm guessing everyone here missed the interview on Michael Savage's show the next day where Bush clarified what he meant when he said the war on terrorism was unwinnable. That's why this thread has dragged on for four pages, right?
SinisterMotives is offline  
Old 09-06-2004, 08:10 AM   #74 (permalink)
Upright
 
I think the topic of this thread is not so much the war on iraq but rather the one on terror. Of course both are somewhat related but the objective was not to deal a deadly blow to the terrorists of the world but to remove an "unjust" regime and search and destroy a stockpile of yet to be found WMD. Saddam was also never characterized as a terrorist leader but as a unjust dictator of a sovereign country that might have had links to prominent figures among terrorsts.

The topic of this thread isnt GWB either imho. Hes just the messenger that brings no news but states the obvious so the ordinary Joe can slowly come to terms with the fact that this war ( the one on terror, remember?) will go on for longer than he lives. So the ordinary Joe can slowly come to terms with the fact that the restrictions of his freedom brought to him by the patriot act are not a temporary matter that will be reverted after a successful war. They are there for good now protecting the precious homeland.

What i find much more interesting that some goverments seem to have a fondness to start Wars that are unwinnable by default. Remember the War on Drugs? Any idiot could have told you before that those Wars are never winnable. Also they have the audacity to call this shemes War making it much more imposing. Losing a War is much worse than losing a fight. If you lose a War you lose everything, so losing is no alternative, you have to win. Fighting a battle you are not alowed to lose but cannot win, thats crazy. I would wagger it makes one crazy too.

The question remains why declare to start such a doomed enterprise in the first place. Actions speak louder than words some say, so why not act in a way that fewer people hate you so much that they dont care if they die as long as they kill you in the process. I know this point is moot and what done is done but i firmly believe that this is the heart of the problem. Terrorists dont wake up one sunny morning and say : " By Jolly what a fine day i think ill strap on the old C4 here and go for a walk in the mall and see what happens."
Ratzil is offline  
 

Tags
agrees, bush, terror, unwinnable, war, wtf


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:06 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360