Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gixer on August 31, 2004, 07:42:08 PM
-
Not sure about you but stating "War on Terror is winnable" or even declaring a war on terror itself is very confusing. Who exactly is Bush at war with?
-terrorists
-terrorism
-international terrorism
-terror
-fear
-hate
-the forces of darkness
-evil-doers
-Osama Bin Laden
-the Taliban
-Afghanistan
-whoever did this and whoever harbors them
-them
"War on Terrror" is nothing more then political spin for the public and propergander. It's like declaring war on murder.
Plus how will we know when the war is won? When Osama Bin Laden is killed? When the Taliban are all killed? When all Islamic terrorists are killed? When terrorists all over the globe are killed? When all evil people everywhere are killed? When the US runs out of bombs? When Bush says it's over?
War on terror can't be won, the best you can do is manage it. Bush needs to give these terror and fear speeches a rest.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6117856
...-Gixer
-
Already posted.
(http://www.flee.com/cedarinn/images/waffle.jpg)
-
Meanwhile Kerry's campaign disintegrates...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/31/kerry.campaign/index.html
-
It wasn't a Bush v Kerry post. Just a question about the war on terror. I don't care for Kerry anymore then I do for Bush.
...-Gixer
-
Boy, sure am glad I was raised to know the difference between good and evil. Not confusing ,we are at war against evil.
-
The "War on Terror" will be won when the folks still living in the Dark Ages have more of a reason to live than a reason to die.
Like it or not, Bush has made an attempt to move things that way. A working democracy/republic in the Middle East would be a step down the road out of the Dark Ages.
But it's a long, long road.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Boy, sure am glad I was raised to know the difference between good and evil. Not confusing ,we are at war against evil.
Evil? That's pretty simplistic, care to elaborate on that one?
...-Gixer
-
the war on terror is rahter pointless imo.
you will never get rid of the terrorist nutbags. Never. If it is possible then the only way to stop it would be genocide. but still that is remote at best so it is really not worth it imo. always will be terrorist nonthing we can do about it.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
the war on terror is rahter pointless imo.
you will never get rid of the terrorist nutbags. Never. If it is possible then the only way to stop it would be genocide. but still that is remote at best so it is really not worth it imo. always will be terrorist nonthing we can do about it.
I agree! We dont need no stinking tall buldings or big cities any more!!! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I agree! We dont need no stinking tall buldings or big cities any more!!! :rolleyes:
grun terror is a factor of life. we will always suffer at the hands of terrorist. there is simple nonthing you can do.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
there is simple nonthing you can do.
So for example installing hijack resistant doors on airliners wouldnt have stopped 911.
Or improving the flow of imformation between the various intelligence and law enforcement agencies wouldnt have helped track some known terrorists among the 911 hijackers when they were in the USA or taking flight lessons.
Or how about what thje USA did to to stop Al Qaeda's attack on the white house cold in its tracks?
So yea nothing we can do...
-
Originally posted by Toad
A working democracy/republic in the Middle East would be a step down the road out of the Dark Ages.
But it's a long, long road.
Actually, I cannot imagine it. Not when I consider the population, the politics, the history of the region. It just seems real unlikely to me.
I think the best we can achieve is some kind of puppet regime, strongly supported by the U.S. And that won't end the violence, it will prolong it. What a mess.
-
Grun,
As in the steps you've outlined, the best you can do with terroism is manage it best you can. Point is the war on terror itself can never be won hence my original message and points.
...-Gixer
-
I certainly don't want to get caught up in all the politics, but Gixer, your answer is with Kerry and Edwards. When Bush said the war on terror could never be won, (it can't) the Kerry Edwards camp posted that not only could it be won, it will be won, and by Kerry. Someone could find that release I'm sure.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Grun,
As in the steps you've outlined, the best you can do with terroism is manage it best you can. Point is the war on terror itself can never be won hence my original message and points.
...-Gixer
exactly
-
Who said this:
"Saddam Hussein signed that agreement. Saddam Hussein is in office today because of that agreement. It is the only reason he survived in 1991. In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.
I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons."
It was the same guy who later said this in 2004:
"Look, this administration misled the American people, abused the power that they were given, and has run an ineffective war on terror. Saddam Hussein was way down the list, with respect to the targets, even on the Pentagon's own list of targets. And what they did was supplant Iraq for the real war on terror, which is Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and terror across the world. The war on terror is less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering and law-enforcement operation. And we deserve presidential leadership that knows that and knows how to make America safer, and I will do that."
That is waffling. Or more accurrately, political opportunism.
ra
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Grun,
As in the steps you've outlined, the best you can do with terroism is manage it best you can. Point is the war on terror itself can never be won hence my original message and points.
...-Gixer
This is obviously a war aginst global fanatic islamic terrorism. A battle aginst terrorism inspired by that movement.
That can be ended as a serious threat, but it will take time.
Nothing will end terrorism as a tactic. Just as nothingg will end war as a tactic.
Its like saying that we didnt win ww2 because the korean war came after it.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
grun terror is a factor of life. we will always suffer at the hands of terrorist. there is simple nonthing you can do.
French.
-
Grun i disagree this "war" is not just against islam but all the terror in the world. Terrorist aren't just limited to islam. America has even provided its own Christian terror who claimed "I was on a mission from god". So no its not just Islam.
-
Originally posted by Toad
A working democracy/republic in the Middle East would be a step down the road out of the Dark Ages.
But it's a long, long road.
Actually, I cannot imagine it. Not when I consider the population, the politics, the history of the region. It just seems real unlikely to me.
I think the best we can achieve is some kind of puppet regime, strongly supported by the U.S. And that won't end the violence, it will prolong it. What a mess.
-
I think the best we can achieve is some kind of puppet regime, strongly supported by the U.S. And that won't end the violence, it will prolong it. What a mess.
Then what will end it?
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
"I was on a mission from god".
Movie.
-
Originally posted by OneWordAnswer
Movie.
el wrong. maybe you should watch america's most wanted. they did on one terrorist once, and it said "He told friends that he was on a mission from god" he is just a wacko.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
el wrong. maybe you should watch america's most wanted. they did on one terrorist once, and it said "He told friends that he was on a mission from god" he is just a wacko.
Criminal.
-
Originally posted by OneWordAnswer
Criminal.
no terrorist. it was a special on 10 most wanted terrorist. it was reight after 9/11
-
Gixer.....sure, will try.
I havent heard bush give a fear message so cant comment on that. So far as terror message goes, to say he as president should stop giving them, is the same as saying , if we dont think about it it will go away. Evil has never done that.
War on terror is a proper term as we are at war, problem is bush so far is to pc to say the truth, which is, were are in a reglious war, not anything we want, but there it is.
Muslim against just about anything else. All muslims ?, no of course not, but at the least 150 million of them and at most 800 million of them. Do you not remember all of the centuries old buildings of the buddest faith they destoryed a few years ago, and yet they cry about their so called holy stuff.
If you take out hate and them from your list, the rest is intertwined , and evil. This terrorism isnt new, it has been around since the muslim religion took hold. Just different weapons,[ a real problem] and more of them and they have the oil.
It has been defeated before, and can again, Isreal could stop it in less than three months if we let them. It will take us a long time, because of most of the left here and world opionion.
There are just 2 many people that say the war on terror is pointless,yet the goal is to get it back to being like murder, happens once in a while and is not a threat to millions of people.
These people will never, ever have more of a reason to live than to die. As you know they believe they will win because, qoute.... ,we love death and you love life. My goodness that saying has been around as long as their religion has, most people just dont know it.
Although many are beginning to realize, we are at war with a religion, and not a people, the majority dont. That is one of the 5 reasons we went into Iraq, and of these 5 it is amazing how many dont know or have heard of 2 of them.
To those on the left, a warning.....We are at war, this is ww3 as sure as ww2 was ww2. If we as a nation do not wake up,it is possible millions of us and our children will die.
I know how this sounds, I asure you I and others like me are not nut cases, I just dont believe most of those here has really thought about how easy it would be to take us down. There is truth to the saying...united we stand , divided we fall, and divided we are.
NO disrespect intended.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
Grun i disagree this "war" is not just against islam but all the terror in the world. Terrorist aren't just limited to islam. America has even provided its own Christian terror who claimed "I was on a mission from god". So no its not just Islam.
This is not a war aginst the IRA.
This is a war aginst the movement that attcaked us on 911...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
This is not a war aginst the IRA.
This is a war aginst the movement that attcaked us on 911...
and that movement can never be stopped. Just like the idea of Freedom in the british colnies in the late 1800's.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
and that movement can never be stopped. Just like the idea of Freedom in the british colnies in the late 1800's.
Then, as a nation and a civilization lets give up and do nothing.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Then, as a nation and a civilization lets give up and do nothing.
yes let do that. but might i suggust we stop wasting money oversea's that will in the end just end up being a waste and focus more of that money on homeland security? That makes much more sense than spend $1 million to fire a cruise missle and kill few terrorist. That $1 million could be spent on make a New military branch type thing that is regulated by the air force. this military force would be Secruity at airport, train's and all types of Pulbic transport. imo that would be much more resourceful than launch the missle. it is almost as if we are flushing money down the toliet.
i meant to throw in there that instead of ki8lling a few replaceable men, my idea would stop all attempts at terrorist involving transportation items. discouraging them from tring again.
-
Great idea! America should just set itself apart from the world and let it all rot. None of the world's problems wiill ever reach us then...
I'm starting to get annoyed by your lack of hisoric perspective...
-
great grun! BTW you do realize your agruing with a teenager?
-
Gixer Osama is teh salty?
yayaya
ja ja ja
-
Originally posted by oboe
Actually, I cannot imagine it.
Who was the guy who said:
"Some men see things as they are and
say why, I dream things that never were and say why not?
Voter registration a success in Afghanistan (http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/08/16/National/Voter.Registration.A.Success.In.Afghanistan-705660.shtml)
An estimated nine million Afghans are registered for Afghanistan's historical democratic elections scheduled for October. With registration ending Aug. 15, approximately 90 percent of all eligible voters in the country already hold their own voter registration card. Forty-one percent of registrants are women
You can't imagine it. However, the citizens of what was probably the absolutely most repressive Islamic fundamentalist government appear to be able to imagine it, welcome it and plan to take part in it.
It may not work. It may fail.
The sin is not in the failure, it's in the failure to try.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
great grun! BTW you do realize your agruing with a teenager?
I don't know if he does, but everytime I read one of your posts, I do.
-
The sin is not in the failure , it is in the failure to try.
Darn good toad ......can I use your quote?
-
Yes, you may.
Except that I simply insist that you use the full, correct quote and attribute it correctly.
I merely paraphrased. ;)
"It is no sin to attempt and fail. The only sin is not to make the attempt."
SueEllen Fried
-
Originally posted by Toad
I don't know if he does, but everytime I read one of your posts, I do.
:D
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
great grun! BTW you do realize your agruing with a teenager?
Yes. I was trying hard not to bring that into it.
-
Gixer you not post again
Osama teh salty?
<+lemme refresh my bait amerihcah duh suXX0r>
-
"War on Terror" was a poor choice. They should have picked "War on Al Qaeda" or "War on Muslim Nutjobs" or something a little more specific.
-
...well, we did so well with that "war on drugs".
-
Originally posted by Furious
...well, we did so well with that "war on drugs".
Yes! Perfect comparison. All of us know that millions of americans are just damned determined to consume more and more terrorism. If you thought 911 is great like cocaine was in the early 80s then just wait when they come out with the cheaper crack version. Man I cant wait for another buzz of that suicde bomber on the bus... We want wore of that schiet! Hell yea!!!
-
go get some rest man, you are working to hard on all this.
-
Arrg, that's a good point Furious, and that was/is such a failure.
I'm still voting for Bush, and I'm still certain Elizabeth Edwards would win a hotdog eating contest, unless Takeru Kobayashi cheats and enters the first lady weiner eating death match.
(http://www.byroncrawford.com/images/edwardsfatwife-thumb.jpg)
(http://sportsmed.starwave.com/media/other/2002/0704/photo/hotdog_i.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Arrg, that's a good point Furious, and that was/is such a failure.
I'm still voting for Bush, and I'm still certain Elizabeth Edwards would win a hotdog eating contest, unless Takeru Kobayashi cheats and enters the first lady weiner eating death match.
(http://www.byroncrawford.com/images/edwardsfatwife-thumb.jpg)
I hope for his sake that he's getting some action on the side. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Furious
go get some rest man, you are working to hard on all this.
:)
But it is a key problem in your thinking. America is full of millions of willing and paying drug consumers. It is not full of terrorism consumers. Big difference.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The "War on Terror" will be won when the folks still living in the Dark Ages have more of a reason to live than a reason to die.
A nice and simple mission objective, but it doesn't really stand up to even cursory scrutiny.
Is America a bunch of folks living in the Dark Ages with more reason to die than to live?
If not, how are we to explain Timothy McVeigh?
Is Japan? If not, why Aum Shinrikyo?
Is Germany? What then of Baader Meinhof? The list goes on and on, covering all the "Civilized" nations as well as all the ones "in the Dark Ages".
And in an age where the majority of casualties in war are civilians, the line between terrorism and military operations is a very blurry one indeed.
-
Grun,
I respect your views and agree totally that one can't stand back and just let terror have it's way.
War on Terrror is like a War on Crime for the police. The police will never totally eliminate crime. The best they can do is manage it and protect us the best they can. Just like governments around the world are trying to do against terror and as they have always done.
Obviously due to 9/11 this has become even more so to the forefront of worldwide public attention and governments which is an obvious reaction.
Whether it's Bush,Kerry or whoever using the "War on Terror" and saying that they are "winning" or "winable" is false and nothing more then trying to please the simplistic minded and media.
People 50 years ago during the Cold War use to ask the same question. Is the Cold War winnable. As we all know, unexpectedly yes it was.
So when the same questions today are being asked about the War on Terrror and whether it's winnable. The answer is no, simply because unlike the Soviet Union Terror,Terroism isn't confined to just one country or countries.
It's an ideal, a means to an ends for millions globaly hence it will always exist as it has done since history began.
...-Gixer
-
"If not, how are we to explain Timothy McVeigh?"
Your kidding right? He's a mystery? You have heard of Waco Tx, yes?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1321244.stm
another
On April 26, 2001, Timothy McVeigh sent a letter to Fox News correspondent Rita Cosby, to explain what most of us already assumed about his motives for the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building. His primary reason was
"...a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI's "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the '80's; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own.
Search for "Timothy McVeigh motive"
-
hehe.... "evil-doers" :D
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Grun,
I respect your views and agree totally that one can't stand back and just let terror have it's way.
War on Terrror is like a War on Crime for the police. The police will never totally eliminate crime. The best they can do is manage it and protect us the best they can. Just like governments around the world are trying to do against terror and as they have always done.
Obviously due to 9/11 this has become even more so to the forefront of worldwide public attention and governments which is an obvious reaction.
Whether it's Bush,Kerry or whoever using the "War on Terror" and saying that they are "winning" or "winable" is false and nothing more then trying to please the simplistic minded and media.
People 50 years ago during the Cold War use to ask the same question. Is the Cold War winnable. As we all know, unexpectedly yes it was.
So when the same questions today are being asked about the War on Terrror and whether it's winnable. The answer is no, simply because unlike the Soviet Union Terror,Terroism isn't confined to just one country or countries.
It's an ideal, a means to an ends for millions globaly hence it will always exist as it has done since history began.
...-Gixer
I agree. We will never end terrorism, because terrorism is a tactic.
If every last islamofascist was killed now, in a few weeks some other group will do a kidnapping or blow up a pizzeria for some other cause. Again, because terrorism is a tactic.
But what we have here post 911 is not a war on "terrorism" except in name. For political reasons we cannot call this specifically what it is - a war on the islamic extremist political agenda and its armies.
And I do belive that can be defeated, just as communism was.
-
Originally posted by Gyro/T69
"If not, how are we to explain Timothy McVeigh?"
Your kidding right? He's a mystery? You have heard of Waco Tx, yes?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1321244.stm
another
On April 26, 2001, Timothy McVeigh sent a letter to Fox News correspondent Rita Cosby, to explain what most of us already assumed about his motives for the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building. His primary reason was
"...a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI's "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the '80's; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own.
Search for "Timothy McVeigh motive"
I'm not saying his motives are a mystery.
What I'm asking is does his being a terrorist mean he was still living in the Dark Ages with more of a reason to die than to live?
Or not? And if not, then surely Toad's assertion - to wit: 'the "War on Terror" will be won when the folks still living in the Dark Ages have more of a reason to live than a reason to die' - is wrong. Maybe it's just much more complicated than any simplistic "cure" or policy initiative can come up with.
-
"I'm not saying his motives are a mystery."
Sorry. my misunderstanding.
-
If I slap your face, will you slap mine in return?
If not, then may I continue to slap your face until you give me your wallet, your wife, your children, your spritual beliefs, your political ideologies...or whatever else I may demand of you under the threat that I will not cease slapping your face until you aquiesce to me as your sole provider and keeper of your physical and spiritual life?
Terrorism isn't new...nor is the complacency that allows terrorism to exist.
Where do you fit in this picture....or can't you see the picture because it is blurred by international political rhetoric? If this is the case simply wait a bit and the terrorist nearest you will reprint the picture to your liking...after slapping your face.
-
Make up your mind Dead. Is it a "mission statement" or an "assertion"? You need to know which of your straw men you're attacking.
It's an observation.
People that have nothing to live for blow themselves up. You don't see too many folks that love life strapping on the dynamite and boarding the bus.
Note I did not say it was a totally achieveable goal. I said you have to start somewhere.
-
dead... I believe toad is saying that so long as there are places where life is not worth living then they will hbreed terrorists.
Any country of millions of people will breed an occassional malcontent or nut with the brains to kill effectively from time to time..
Poinmt is.. In a land of opportunity this will be rare. giving up is like bganning the right to defend yourself because once every decade or so some nut goes crazy and shoots a few people.
lazs
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
:)
But it is a key problem in your thinking. America is full of millions of willing and paying drug consumers. It is not full of terrorism consumers. Big difference.
The error is yours.
The "WoD" applied, primarily, to the US.
The "WoT" applies to the entire world.
Americans may not be "consumers" of terrorism, but there sure as hell "willing and paying" purveyors of terrorism world wide.
You have about as much chance shutting down every individual terrorist world wide, as you do of shutting down every crack house here. It is not a winnable thing. People want to do either one too much.
-
Kerry:
"With the right policies, this is a war we can win, this is a war we must win, this is a war we will win,"
"In the end, the terrorists will lose, and we will win, because the future does not belong to fear, it belongs to freedom."
Bush:
"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,"
Atleast one of them is starting to think. Why in the world Kerry would say such a thing is beyond me. And playing on the "Fear" and "Freedom" line is very 01.
Also with his opinion that he would still of invaded Iraq today even if he knew what was known today is really starting to place him in the "I have no opinion of my own" catagory.
...-Gixer