Bush says US can't win War on Terror

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • delirious
    Addiction started
    • Jun 2004
    • 288

    Bush says US can't win War on Terror

    Bush on terror war: 'I don't think you can win it'

    President George W. Bush acknowledged that an all-out victory against terrorism may not be possible - but said that staying the course in the war on terror will make the world safer for future generations.

    In an interview on NBC-TV's "Today" show broadcast to coincide with Monday's start of the Republican National Convention in New York, Bush said retreating from the war on terror "would be a disaster for your children."'

    "You cannot show weakness in this world today because the enemy will exploit that weakness," he said. "It will embolden them and make the world a more dangerous place."

    When asked "Can we win?" the war on terror, Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the - those who use terror as a tool are - less acceptable in parts of the world."

    That brought a storm of Democratic criticism just as the convention was getting under way.

    "I decided a year ago that he cannot win the war on terror," said retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, former Air Force chief of staff, at a news conference organized by Democrats.

    North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, the Democratic vice presidential candidate, seized on the comment.

    "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," Edwards said. "This is no time to declare defeat."

    White House spokesman Scott McClellan sought to clarify the president's remarks, telling reporters aboard Air Force one, "He was talking about winning it in the conventional sense ... about how this is a different kind of war and we face an unconventional enemy."

    Bush planned to campaign Monday in New Hampshire, which has voted for only four Democratic presidential nominees in the past 100 years but is up for grabs this November. It's his eighth trip to the state as president.

    Four years ago, Bush won New Hampshire by 7,211 votes, or just a little more than 1 percentage point. While Republicans outnumber Democrats among the state's registered voters, more than a third of those registered are independent.

    Breaking news about Satellite from The Jerusalem Post. Read the latest updates on Satellite including articles, videos, opinions and more.
  • Jenks
    I'm kind of a big deal.
    • Jun 2004
    • 10250

    #2
    so what's your point Delirous?

    do you have a take on any of these articles you copy and paste?

    Comment

    • delirious
      Addiction started
      • Jun 2004
      • 288

      #3
      Originally posted by Jenks
      so what's your point Delirous?

      do you have a take on any of these articles you copy and paste?
      Sometimes people accuse me of making too many comments This time, however, I think Bush said it just fine all by himself :wink:

      Comment

      • Jenks
        I'm kind of a big deal.
        • Jun 2004
        • 10250

        #4
        The war on terror is an imossible fight to win outright. Duh. Where's the shocking news in that?

        That doesn't mean you don't still fight it. While i don't think it's possible to wipe terrorism completely off the face of the planet, i think we can sureliy put a dent in it, and cause massive problems for the terrorists by closing a lot of their channels for getting money, weapons, and plotting future attacks. That is the war on terror.

        So, what's your point Delerious?

        Comment

        • toasty
          Sir Toastiness
          • Jun 2004
          • 6585

          #5
          ^^ I've got to agree. I read this article, and I think to myself, "No shit."

          Trying to get your post count up?

          Comment

          • davetlv
            Platinum Poster
            • Jun 2004
            • 1205

            #6
            Bravo Jenks!

            As my country is well aware, its the infrastructure of terrorism that you need to combat. There will ALWAYS be terrorists (or freedom fighters to you no doubt Delirious), the question is can you stop them moving forward at the speed that they want?

            This year in Israel we have had only a handful of terrorist attacks, thats not becasue they've given up, its because our intel is so good we find them before they find us, additionaly the free flow of cash to prop up these people has also dried up.

            Fighting terrorism is not about hand to hand combat, its about thinking on your feet, being one or two steps ahead of your enemy, and not giving a f*ck about what everyone else thinks.

            Comment

            • Jenks
              I'm kind of a big deal.
              • Jun 2004
              • 10250

              #7
              Originally posted by davetlv
              This year in Israel we have had only a handful of terrorist attacks, thats not becasue they've given up, its because our intel is so good we find them before they find us,
              One word bro...

              MOSSAD.

              respect.

              Originally posted by davetlv
              Fighting terrorism is not about hand to hand combat, its about thinking on your feet, being one or two steps ahead of your enemy, and not giving a f*ck about what everyone else thinks.
              Geroge Bush.

              Kerry gives a fuck what the UN and the rest of the world thinks, Bush doesn't. This isn't a popularity contest. RE: Terrorism - Go W!

              Comment

              • delirious
                Addiction started
                • Jun 2004
                • 288

                #8
                Freedom-fighters?

                Originally posted by Jenks
                The war on terror is an imossible fight to win outright. Duh. Where's the shocking news in that?
                Originally posted by toasty
                ^^ I've got to agree. I read this article, and I think to myself, "No shit."
                "Our first priority must always be the security of our nation. We will win this war; we'll protect our homeland"
                - George Bush, 1/29/2002

                "But make no mistake about it: we will win."
                The latest news and information from the Biden-Harris administration.


                This battle will take time and resolve, but make no mistake about it, we will win."


                Bush: U.S. Will Win War on Terror


                The point of my post is to show how he's just flip-flopped

                Comment

                • Jenks
                  I'm kind of a big deal.
                  • Jun 2004
                  • 10250

                  #9
                  so fucking what.

                  Comment

                  • Balanc3
                    Platinum Poster
                    • Jun 2004
                    • 1278

                    #10
                    so who you think can win the war on terror? If you say John Kerry your farking nuts. Shit I don't even think Rambo could win the war on terror by himself. so WTF.. are you gettin at? maroon.
                    JourneyDeep .into the sound

                    Comment

                    • delirious
                      Addiction started
                      • Jun 2004
                      • 288

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Balanc3
                      so who you think can win the war on terror? If you say John Kerry your farking nuts. Shit I don't even think Rambo could win the war on terror by himself. so WTF.. are you gettin at? maroon.
                      I don't think that war on terror can be "won." You can't win wars against nouns. When will the war on drugs be won?

                      I do however think that Kerry/Edwards would be FAR more effective at fighting terrorism. Bush is the kind of figure Osama LOVES because it helps him recruit thousands more terrorists. By being more cooperative in the world, you become more powerful, and the terrorists less popular.

                      Comment

                      • Jenks
                        I'm kind of a big deal.
                        • Jun 2004
                        • 10250

                        #12
                        Don't think anyone is with you on this one Delirious. lol. moreover, i don't think anyone cares.

                        Comment

                        • delirious
                          Addiction started
                          • Jun 2004
                          • 288

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Jenks
                          Don't think anyone is with you on this one Delirious. lol. moreover, i don't think anyone cares.
                          I don't care either if people agree with me or not. I just enjoy having discussions that don't degenerate into meaningless name-calling matches.

                          Comment

                          • Jenks
                            I'm kind of a big deal.
                            • Jun 2004
                            • 10250

                            #14
                            well, i'll argue with you on this one then, because you're delirious.:P

                            Winning the war on terror doesn't mean we're going to wipe terrorism from the face of the planet. Everyone knows (well, except you i suppose) that winning the war on terror means limiting their capabilities to terrorize, which we are in fact doing.

                            A football game 24-7 means we scored more than they did, doesn't mean we shut them out, but we still won the game. Terrorism, we're going to take our hits, the world is going to take some hits, but it's about doing all we can to limit their ability to score. That's a win in my book.

                            Kerry/Edwards, i guess we'll never know if they could have or would have fought terrorism in this way, because from now on the groundwork for this fight has been made. The tough positions have been taken by Bush, (i.e. - fuck the UN, we'll do this alone.) Now if kerry wins, he'll probably step in and take undue credit. I do not believe the democrats have an ounce of balls in them to take such a drastic stance against terrorism as Bush has, without getting the permission of the entire world, checking the polls to see what the popular decision is, etc. If the (D) did have this fight in them, then Clinton wouldn't have sat idle for 8 years with his thumb in his anus, and his finger in some fat secretary's hole instead of taking out the necessary targets...and maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't know "9/11" by any other term than the phone number for emergency calls, and a horrible song by Public Enemy.

                            Comment

                            • davetlv
                              Platinum Poster
                              • Jun 2004
                              • 1205

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Jenks
                              One word bro...

                              MOSSAD.

                              respect.
                              Actually it's the Shin Bet - Mossad International/Shin Bet at home

                              Originally posted by delirious
                              Freedom-fighters?
                              I can never tell delirious, you being serious here?

                              So try and explain something to me then delirious, how would you approach the war on terror? You obviously think that fighting 'it' with military force is the wrong way to go about it, so what would you do?

                              Comment

                              Working...