OpieCunningham

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.

Superbelt

"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?

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....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

onetime2

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.

smooth

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

rainheart

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.

powerclown

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.

Mephisto2

I always seem to start firestorms in the Politics boards. :-)

Here's more fuel for the fire...

Mr Mephisto

Pacifier

Looks like he made up his mind, suddently we still can win the war...

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

Mojo_PeiPei

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.

Pacifier

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

Mephisto2

hahaha...

**RATTLE**RATTLE**RATTLE

Anyone still in there?!


Mr Mephisto

mrbuck12000

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

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!!!"

braindamage351

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?

tecoyah

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

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.

phyzix525

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

smooth

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

matthew330

is someone finally asking Kerry what the hell he's talking about?

smooth

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

Rdr4evr

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.

Superbelt

That is so unfortunate that we have a sitting president that would actually be a guest on the Rush Limbaugh show.

tecoyah

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

roachboy

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

Mephisto2

How delightfully ironic.

:-)


Mr Mephisto

OpieCunningham

How ironically out of context.



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.

Mephisto2

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

OpieCunningham

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.

Mephisto2

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

Hanxter

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

jcookc6

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.

SinisterMotives

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?

Ratzil

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."