Bush agrees the "War on Terror" is unwinnable... WTF?!!
 

Now, this is something anyone of intelligence knows, so I guess one of his advisors must have let him know. But I'm still surprised he's gone on record admiting this so close to an election.

Original story: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/bre.../breaking2.htm


Of course, based upon my sort of tongue-in-cheek comments above, you can tell I'm not a fan of Bush, but I'm honestly curious as to what others think of this story?


Mr Mephisto

All I can say right now is, "what the hell?"

Well, I don't like Bush, but I agree that this is Bush finally being realistic about the concept of a "War on Terror." A war on anything other than a country will never result in victory; witness the war on drugs, poverty, etc.

Whether or not it is winnable is of no consequence. I would rather be fighting Islamofacists on the streets of Baghdad or (insert country here), then living in a place where my reality is similar to that of Israel.

My guess is he's not being more realistic. Note my comments in another thread about cognative dissonance and worldviews as paradigms.

Bush is forced to 'admit' the war is unwinnable in order to allow people who share views with Mojo that it doesn't really matter, as long as we'er doing something, it must be better than nothing. We could be doing something else, possibly, that is more effective. But this admission allows us to bend our paradigm without causing it too much disruption.

Given that analysis, tt's really not all that problematic for him to admit it. Because everyone already thinks that it wasn't winnable in any sense of the word that we are used to in conventional warfare. But all different notions of winnable are floating around in popular discourse, so the two main sides that we call liberal and conservative can't meet in the middle to discuss what our goals are or ought to be in any common frame.

So one side can now say, what a dumbass, of course it isn't winnable. and the others can say look at those dumbasses who thought we thought it was winnable--of course we knew it wasn't, but we're trying to do something here, but they're too dense to see it.

Actually, we could be discussing what that alternate vision is, and rationally discuss which of the two main visions would be best for our long-term interests, but we're too caught up in this kind of public nonsense that Bush is all too complacent in engendering. That's one of his major flaws as a leader (although it's very effective at extracting support, it's more suited for an oligarchy than a democracy, in my opinion).

I wonder if he sees the disaster for our children inherent in running record deficits whilst cutting taxes?

Stop being so goddamned reasonable! You take all the fun out of my Politics board cage rattling...

:-/


Mr Mephisto

Ahh.... the old "Make up an insulting sobriquet" game, eh?

Why not MusloNazis?

But seriously... you say you'd prefer to be fighting <enemies> on the streets of Baghdad or (apparently) any other country in the world, rather than living in a situation such as Israel. Hmm... Where do I start?

1) Geographically, that will never happen
2) Would you not prefer to simply adopt a more balanced foreign policy that prevented so many fundamentalist and terrorist backlashes against the US?
3) Have you not learned ANY lessons from the Cold War; which is one war the US won? Kill them with kindness. Show your "enemies" that the Western, capitalist, democratic system has something to OFFER them that is better than they currently have. Simply dropping bombs on them won't help.


Mr Mephisto

I'm sure the people of baghdad appreciate you letting them have the american citizen's share of urban warfare. Call it one of america's many gifts to the middle east. Don't you mean you'd rather somebody else fight the islamofascists in the streets of baghdad? Besides, it is only a matter of time before there is another terrorist attack on american soil. When that happens, we may still be fighting terrorists on the streets of baghdad. One thing is for certain, though, your reality will be that much closer to the reality of life in israel, or any number of other places in this wonderful world of ours. Maybe then you'll start to wonder if this war on terrorism has been at all effective.

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.

It is about time he admitted this. At least this gives some level of faith back to those of us who seriously thought he was completely out of touch with reality. I hope this is the first of many revelations to come from this administration.

It might help if we stopped giving money to the abhorrent corrupt regimes. It's all well and good to complain about those regimes - but in doing so, you really need to understand that WE create them. This is the root of the anti-Americanism in the Middle East - not the "white devil" issue that you seem the believe. It is beneficial to the abhorrent corrupt regimes to maintain control of the people in the Middle East through dictatorships. These dictatorships are financed by Western capitalism. Off-shoots of those dictatorships use a redefined version of Islam to appeal to the oppressed people - resulting in terrorism primarily directed towards Western capitalism. Remove the funding for the dictatorships and the real connection of Western capitalism to the suffering of the oppressed people will start to dissolve.

Or just blow 'em all up and not "win" anything anyway.

I think that he is still out of touch with reality and I dont think this administrations IQ will ever go above 10.

The trouble with this "War on Terror" is the deffinition of terror. For example, Lets say it was the end of WW2, Russia launches Sputnik, ok now everyone is terrorfied, are Russians terrorists now? The war on Terror will never end because of the ever changing deffinition of terrorist.

Actually terrorism and the war of it thereof has a pretty straight forward and accepted definition. You have people, non-military, who try and push their agenda by murdering civilians thus instilling a general fear and creating a lack of civil stability.

like the air we breathe... terrorism will be with us forever. It's always been with us and will be in the future. It's just a matter of it subsiding for a bit, and then returning when conditions make it necessary.

Terrorism assuredly does not have a straight forward definition.

Freedom fighters are not a state sponsored military.

The U.S. gov't has murdered more civilians in Iraq than all the Wahhabist terrorists. Intention is the only other difference - though assuredly as any military strategist might argue, whether the U.S. intended to kill civilians is irrelevant to whether they benefit by means of instilling terror in the remaining civilians.

Additionally, when one group of fighters have limited resources and capabilities at striking their far stronger opponent, they are left with two options: 1- Lose or 2- Attempt to dissuade the populace that stands behind their enemy from supporting their enemy. This can either be done by turning the other cheek (which will result in losing) or attacking said populace.

It is war. This is logic. Logic is not humane.

First of all, there's no need to descend into profanities and start cursing. Any chance of a reasonable discussion is reduced by this.

Secondly, geography has EVERYTHING to do with possibilities of the "reality [being] similar to that of Israel" (direct quote). Israel is physically surrounded by old and current enemies. Its terroritory has been invaded several times (and it has invaded its neighbours also). The United States will never be in a situation anywhere close to that of Israel.

Massive influx? What on Earth do you mean? Do you want closed borders? Do you want to intern all "enemy nationals" like what the US did to Japanese in WWII? What's your point? Your kind of knee-jerk reaction is playing into the hands of the terrorists in the first place. They will never have any chance of defeating the US militarily, so they must negatively impact/damage/destroy your way of life... by creating "terror"..

"Those fuckers"? That's verging on racism, so I'm not even going to go there...

Appeasing terrorists? What on Earth are you talking about? Certainly persue and prosecute appropriate actions against terrorists. When did I say otherwise?

That's not what I said or meant, so you're off base to begin with.

So you believe this "jihad" (as you inaccurately call it) is perpetuated by the elite and not fundamentalist reactionaries? Well then, if that's the case, why don't you call for all out war against all "islamofascist" countries? Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, UAE, Indonesia etc etc?

Get real.

More racism. I personally know several "white American" muslims, but that's another matter entirely.

I think you're descending to the same level of "unreasonableness" we both agree the fundamentalists display.

Reference?

And look where it's got you.

It's got nothing to do with killing people with kindness. It's got to do with a friendly (as oppose to provocative) foreign policy, abandoning unilateralism, fostering democracy and trade, respect for other cultures and the long term view. THAT'S what won the Cold War. Or do you think Reagan (the Poster Child of the Republican Right) killed the Soviets with kindness?

Sheesh...



Mr Mephisto

I genuinely want to extend my thanks to you for opening up my eyes to that.

why is this news?

did anyone really ever think that the President thought the war was winnable in the sense that there will someday not be terrorists? surely not. even if your political biases delude you into thinking that the President is actually a dimwit (which is a default label given by some people when someone has deep convictions that counter their own), did you really think the President believed in such a victory?

mr mephisto - you've got to be joking. kill them with kindness? reagan's policies brought about the soviet union's collapse by competitive aggressiveness. do you remember anything about the political climate of the time? liberals were worried sick that the arms race that took place would provoke the soviets into nuclear war. trust me, there was no kindness involved... just a squelching,intimidating and clutching competition that broke the soviet's back when they tried to match us. they were open to western forms of reform only after those ideals had soundly beaten them.

i think that many people think of islamic terrorists as people who just need a hug and a bit of understanding. just because you think you're more enlightened than your flag waiving brethren, just because you "feel for" the plight of the palestinian people, just because your a pacifist doesn't mean that those terrorists wouldn't slit your throat with the zeal that they chopped of daniel pearl's head.

these terrorists won't give you a pass if you're a Bush-hater or a demonstration marcher. they hate you because you are an infidel, because you allow your women to have equal standing, because you aren't living under a islamic theocracy, because your government won't allow them to drive the jews into the sea.

you can't rationalize a solution w/someone who believes they are committing violence on God's behalf. you can only fight back with tenacity, consistency. conviction and machievellian ruthlessness. power of the majority rules their societies, intimidation suppreses freedom... force is what they recognize. we must resist them accordingly.

I would like to point out that Mephisto has stated and restated that he never advocated killing anyone with kindness. You're arguing at a shadow.

Also, you are flat out wrong in regards to how the terrorists will deal with various people and their beliefs--implying that they are irrational killers.

Their actions with regard to various hostages demonstrated quit amply that they were willing to negotiate in a fair manner. When nations said they would withdraw support, they released them. The hostages of nations who were not in Iraq for military purposes were released ASAP, without harm.

i responded to his original "killing with kindness" comment in its original context. you may not agree with my response, but it certainly fits the intent of his original post.

if you consider capturing innocent people as a legitimate tactic, that taking a civilian by force and demanding that someone do your bidding or you will slaughter them in cold blood is fair... then the divide between us must close much further before we can discuss something as relatively trivial as politics.

Legitimate tactic? Fair?

What's fair?

Let's assume there are 20,000 terrorists. With primarily small-arms weaponry. Fair would be not using planes, bombs and 100k troops - right? One on one, that's "fair".

Which is why fairness has nothing to do with this war.

fairness isn't a part of war.... neato! agreed.

taking civilians and threatening to hack their heads off for political ransom isn't warfare.

OK, first of all, I'm not going to discuss with you if you put words in my mouth and then nitpick them apart.

Mr. Mephisto stated that his comment was taken incorrectly. If you want to keep arguing against it, you are wasting your time--my agreement or disagreement with you nothwithstanding.

I never said hostage taking was a legitimate tactic. What I was disputing was the notion that terrorists indiscriminantly kill people without any rationale. You can discuss whether you disagree with their logic, but it is counter-productive and displays ignorance to portray them as irrational killers. They have reasons, and they kill people for those reasons. As soon as you get off your pedastal and understand those reasons, you might be able to address them.

I used the examples of the hostages they chose to release as evidence of my interpretation. I never said that they were entitled or appropriate when they took hostages, but they didn't kill people simply because of whatever reasons you or Mojo seem to have concocted to support the caricture you have of them. When nations agreed to their terms, they let the hostages go. When it was discovered that some of their hostages were part of the groups they had determined were non-aggressors, they let them go without harm. They deemed people from our nation as part of an aggressive force, and our people, citizens and military, have been punished for their involvement in our nation's affairs abroad.

That's so clear cut that I am disturbed you would even continue to debate that. Rather than do so in a logical manner, you tried to build a strawman out of my comments and argue against that. Argue against what I actually stated: that terrorists kill for reasons, not simply out of hatred of a constructed 'other.' Mojo seems to think that terrorists simply kill people when they are "a) American b) Muslim c) the white devil."

I'm willing to bet neither he nor you even know what that term, "white devil," means. It doesn't mean evil, although you only understand it in your christian terminology and think you know that they only understand it in their religiosity. The reality is that satan is an accuser, and opposer, and ultimately a trickster. It's a term of derision and speaks to one's stupidity. That's what it means, and if you have a problem with that statement, print this out and ask someone you trust who actually studies the middle east and its culture. I don't know where you have built your ideas about that situation and the cultural implications, but it hasn't been based on a knowledgable source. Your comments indicate that to me. It's not my responsibility to beat knowledge into your head. You are perfecty welcome to walk around thinking you know things that you don't--it's a very comfortable life to have things figured out already. Challenging your assumptions, however, might actually give you a more broad perspective that results in you reaching an intellectual position rather than an ideological one.

smooth,

your condescension is so consistent and so virulent... it really does make posting on TFP less enjoyable and less worthwhile. you are the only poster who speaks to other posters like that on such a regular basis. does it strike you as strange that all positions that counter yours are from ignorant people, that all their arguments are ideological, that they'd broaden their horizons if they'd just agree with you?

i never used the term, but you have no idea whether or not i know the origins of "white devil" or not. i'm surprised you devoted a paragraph to convincing yourself i did not.

the debate on the hostage situation isn't whether or not they possess a methodology in their tactics. my debate with you is that it's irrelevant if their is a method or not, the tactic is illegitimate making the implementation of the tactic irrelevant.

and no, i don't believe you cannot find a rational solution to the problem of terrorism with someone who believes that God's will is being done when they are killing a civilian. call me ignorant, call me myopic... i doubt you can insult me into changing my mind on that one.

edit: a couple grammatical errors that were really bugging me.

It doesn't surprise me in the least given that the two people I consistently see making such ideological tirades against the Iraqi people, TFP'ers in Politics, and just about anyone you have built a caricature of is you and Mojo. If it makes posting less enjoyable, stop posting. When you two left, I remained posting here. Interestingly to me, the level of discourse went up.

That indicates to me that people like Lebell, Seaver, Cynthetiq, and even Onetime (although he won't read this due to what I viewed as a minor squabble) can disagree politely, find middle ground, and not shove words in each others' mouths.

I find that anyone who thinks they aren't ignorant to some degree on a given topic to be a very dangerous person, unwilling to engage new information, and yes, incapable of broadening one's thinking horizons. I would be very surprised to find that anyone on this board didn't understand that their positions are fundamentally ideological. The difference between you and me, however, is that I prefer to expose my ideologies and examine them to see what basis they may have in whatever framework we call 'objective' reality.

You have demonstrated unwillingness to even consider that your caricature of terrorists, in general, are simply carrying orders out from on high. There is a plethora of documentation disputing that, but your beliefs and/or pride won't allow you to consider that as an option.

How you can even claim that I have a monopoly on insulting you or anyone else is beyond me. Anyone curious has the simple option of clicking search right next to your name. I found rare instances when you didn't take a swipe at the posters on the politics board.

But this is so far off course that it should have been handled via PM instead of cluttering Mephisto's thread.

unofficial side-note... i knew this was going straight to hell after i saw the two usual invocations of the right's "why is this news?" and the left's "see? he's a dumbass."-style commentary.

I'm just surprised no one's blamed the "liberal media" yet, honestly.

Why not?

How do you expect a completely underwhelming force to respond to their perceived total destruction at the hands of an overwhelming military force? Are they supposed to attack only military targets? What will that accomplish? It would be a joke. Their goal is assuredly to win. It is logical for them to attack the emotions of the ultimate financiers of their opponent: civilians.

Outrage directed at logic is futility.

Then whats the issue of even the playing fields? Granted I'm no for going door to door and blowing people away. But I just honestly can't fathom that in terms of troop safety and in a sincere effort to keep the war in our favor, if not win, how the Anti-war types say we should be held to a higher standard.

My 'dumbass' comments were really about the two 'sides' in public discourse, not the two main ends of the spectrum on this board.

It wasn't coming from a 'left' perspective, but from the notion that neither side on the far ends is willing to engage with one another. Hence, my sentence indicating that there will likely be a faction that thinks the far right is full of dumbasses and an equally likely faction that thinks the far left is full of dumbasses.

If I suspected it was going to stick in anyone's craw, I wouldn't have used it. It's a pity you took those words as representative of politics as usual in this forum, in my opinion.

i think that there is a big leap, a radical change of direction, when you begin to lose the distinction between a "just" action and an "effective" action. it may well be that there are times when there is no just action that is also effective. so, in order to be effective... a group decides to do things that are unjust.

it may most be effective to murder civilians... but i would not call it just (or fair, or legitimate as the chosen vocabularly for this discussion has determined). so to the terrorists who are resorting to chopping off heads as a desparate measure i say: tough cookies... you've been beaten in the internationally legitimate channels of resolving or fighting conflicts. it seems that their options have now narrowed to few. they can choose to be criminals, or they can choose to maintain their integrity and dignity by trying to work within the law to bring about change (ironically, only a real option since the wars end) or try non-violent methods.

if there were genuine injustice over there for these people who use terror as their weapon of choice (or necessity as it has been proposed), then i'd like to see more condemnation for their methods and more advocates of a Ghandi-like peaceful resistance. to me, their methods seem to indicate that they're not as interested in justice as they are power.

That's great and all, but i wasn't talking about anyone in particular, I was talking about the "liberals" bashing bush... hence the "-style" there. The other one just happened to be what someone else had actually said- what a coincidence- and not a direct jab or quote taken to slight them. My apologies for misunderstandings on either part.

Odd how on one i accidentally use the same words, and on the other, someone is sure i'm talking directly about them in particular. Funny how politics works in its predictability.

As I already pointed out, evening the playing fields would require us commiting approx. 20,000 rag-tag troops (internationally, not just in Iraq/Afghanistan), not using fighter jets, bombs, tanks, etc.

Even with our non-torture and no targetting civilian policies, I do not see us as holding a higher standard - we're simply more capable of targetting more precisely those that we deem problematic. Take the use of such capability away and, naturally, we'd be even worse than those we claim are Evil - think intentionally dropping bombs on hospitals/schools/etc in order to induce the same method of terror that is being used against us. But even with our intentions, we have still killed far more civilians - by orders of magnitude - it is undeniable that this promotes terror in the civilians. The difference is, those civilians have no control over their gov't or the miniscule number of terrorists that fight us - so we scare them, but it cannot accomplish anything.

In essence - I do not see any other option for the enemy of the U.S. in this case. But since I am ostensibly on the side of the U.S., I see numerous problems with our tactics - starting with this concept that we are the Good and they are the Evil.

Killing innocents indiscriminatly(sp) is evil, there is no two ways about.

Also I can see where they are coming from, if the tables were turned I would fight to win, i.e. anyway I could. I however don't think that because we have the advantage we should level the playing fields and hope that the terrorist aspect of the insurgency haults (thats what we are arguing right?).

opie,

if you were the president and (hypothetically) were forced to conduct a war against a country with resources similar to those possessed by pre-war iraq... how would you modify the tactics used by President Bush/General Franks to create a situation where the least number of civilian casualties took place?

please don't say "i'd never fight a war." that may be true, so you're welcome to add the disclaimer, but wars have been an inevitable part of human existence since the dawn of recorded history. we must deal with the realities of our times... and i'm sincerely interested in hearing how you would conduct a war that was more fair/human/legitimate.

if we are to win the war on terrorism, than surely a fair and humane war are in our best interest... so this certainly applies to the thread topic. you can take this request or you can leave it, but i'm interested to hear of any improvements that may be possible.

If the end goal is justice, no action leading up to that goal is unjust. If you hold the belief that your side is Good (as the terrorists assuredly do), the life of one or a dozen or 3000 civilians is collateral damage if taking their life can lead to the ultimate justice of victory.

Ironically, but not suprisingly, it is the exact same policy of the U.S. military - collateral damage is acceptable when unavoidable. If avoiding it meant a loss, it must not be avoided.

Oh, ok, analog. I wasn't feeling slighted or jabbed at by your comment. Since I was the only poster to use "dumbass," I was worried that the comment was ambiguous and had been interpreted as inflammatory.

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?

certainly it is a question of degrees, but to equate the tactic of hiding ammunition in schools with the strategic bombing of schools to destroy said munitions (admittedly, with a chance of hurting civilians) is something i will not do. in many cases, it seems that the hand has been forced. the US military will almost always take care of their own (within boundaries of course) as it relates to collateral damage. but, in the cases where collateral damage is knowingly inflicted... i do not think it is necessary at all times to place the blame on the military for the damage.

Firstly, I would never allow myself to be President. I have much disdain for anyone that would seek such a position - they contain the exact qualities of those who should never have it.

Secondly, if I found myself in the unfortunate position of being President of the U.S., I would not have preemptively attacked Iraq.

(Even) If Iraq had WMDs I would have worked with the U.N. to create effective sanctions. In the process I would also entirely alter the U.S. relationship with all countries in the Middle East - even if it meant the collapse of our economy. There is no justification for our continued existence if it requires the destruction of another's continued existence. We are destroying the Middle East - and by virtue, it is attacking us as its last ditch effort of survival. It will only get worse as long as we continue to suck it dry and finance the dictatorships.

Should we go in and militarily remove those dictatorships? No. I do not see us as capable of doing that at all. We cannot pick the next dictator and we cannot force democracy. The best option, the only option, is to distance ourselves rapidly from those dictatorships and treat terrorists as criminals by using intelligence, diplomatic relations and precision extractions.

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.

"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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Here's more fuel for the fire...

Mr Mephisto

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

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ror/index.html

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.

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.

hahaha...

**RATTLE**RATTLE**RATTLE

Anyone still in there?!


Mr Mephisto

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." "

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!!!"

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

How delightfully ironic.

:-)


Mr Mephisto

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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? ;)

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."