Buftex Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 So what would have to happen for us (being the US or president Bush, or you specifically) to declare victory in the "war on terror"? Just curious. Also, while you are at it, can you give me an approximate date (say within a decade or two) when to expect this victory to occur?
UConn James Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 So what would have to happen for us (being the US or president Bush, or you specifically) to declare victory in the "war on terror"? Just curious. Also, while you are at it, can you give me an approximate date (say within a decade or two) when to expect this victory to occur? 66327[/snapback] 23 April 2036. :) The current response to terrorism and the constant spotlight on it is exactly what is sought by AQ. I don't know about you but when I have a sinus infection, I don't cut my nose off with a chainsaw, I just take a decongestant.
blzrul Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Victory on the war on terror will take place around the same time we win the war on drugs, the war on poverty and the war on crime.
tennesseeboy Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 23 April 2036. The current response to terrorism and the constant spotlight on it is exactly what is sought by AQ. I don't know about you but when I have a sinus infection, I don't cut my nose off with a chainsaw, I just take a decongestant. 66477[/snapback] Very good observation.
BillsFanNC Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 I don't know about you but when I have a sinus infection, I don't cut my nose off with a chainsaw, I just take a decongestant. 66477[/snapback] Yes, but a sinus infection is merely a nuisance. A better analogy perhaps, and I'm no MD, but when someone has a potential terminal illness such as cancer it may not be wise to treat it with aspirin.
Rich in Ohio Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 My guess is that after this election, and a GWB victory, the end will be closer then if we had elected the johnny twins.
DC Tom Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 So what would have to happen for us (being the US or president Bush, or you specifically) to declare victory in the "war on terror"? Just curious. Also, while you are at it, can you give me an approximate date (say within a decade or two) when to expect this victory to occur? 66327[/snapback] A better question would be "What is 'victory' in the war on terrorism?" You can't ask how to get there before you know what it is.
Buftex Posted October 12, 2004 Author Posted October 12, 2004 Victory on the war on terror will take place around the same time we win the war on drugs, the war on poverty and the war on crime. 66480[/snapback] Those are all important "wars", but I am waiting for the candidate that can win the war on jealousy.
DC Tom Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Those are all important "wars", but I am waiting for the candidate that can win the war on jealousy. 66808[/snapback] Is that really a war? I thought it was more of a "police action on jealousy".
Generation ME Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Victory on the war on terror will take place around the same time we win the war on drugs, the war on poverty and the war on crime. 66480[/snapback] So just ignore it, it will all go away. Sage advice. and now, back to our dreamworld.
Buftex Posted October 12, 2004 Author Posted October 12, 2004 A better question would be "What is 'victory' in the war on terrorism?" You can't ask how to get there before you know what it is. 66786[/snapback] I guess that is the problem. The president doesn't seem to have a clue as to where "there" is, either.
DC Tom Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 I guess that is the problem. The president doesn't seem to have a clue as to where "there" is, either. 66886[/snapback] And the challenger? And yourself? I'd wager that I've studied the issue longer than all three of you. And I still don't have the answer. I'm bloody sure you and Kerry don't. Why don't you try to solve the problem, instead of looking for someone to blame for it?
IUBillsFan Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 23 April 2036. I don't know about you but when I have a sinus infection, I don't cut my nose off with a chainsaw, I just take a decongestant. 66477[/snapback] And if you do the same thing no matter the degree of the infection it will kill you...
Buftex Posted October 12, 2004 Author Posted October 12, 2004 And the challenger? And yourself? I'd wager that I've studied the issue longer than all three of you. And I still don't have the answer. I'm bloody sure you and Kerry don't. Why don't you try to solve the problem, instead of looking for someone to blame for it? 66915[/snapback] DC, I think we are saying the same thing...all due resepct. So is the best solution, because there isn't one, to just keep sending soldiers to the middle east to fight/die for a goal that is not obtainable? That seems ludicrous to me. I am not saying Kerry would have a better solution to the mess that has evolved in Iraq, but he may be able to shift the focus of things over there, and set some reasonable goals for the US involvement. President Bush clearly seems unable, or unwilling. He keeps saying that there is no option for the US to fail in Iraq. What exactly does that mean to you? It sounds like plans for long-term occupation, and fighting. Believe me, I don't think Kerry is the ideal candidate, but at this point, the president just seems to be living in a different world. I do believe that Kerry would prioritize things, including building a stronger alliance than what we have now. If somebody doesn't, this is going to be an endless war, with no point. One thing that Kerry said, which I believe true, is that "Just becasue the president says something can't be done, it doesn't mean it can't be done."
nobody Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 I don't know about you but when I have a sinus infection, I don't cut my nose off with a chainsaw, I just take a decongestant. Are you proposing chemical warfare?
spidey Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Are you proposing chemical warfare? 67141[/snapback] Nah I think Richio would say Nuke em till they glow. DCTom, I agree when will we know when the wars are over? At least in WW2 you had formal surrenders by what is a controlling government. There has been no surrender to date in Iraq and without a real formal leader of terrorism not sure when that war will ever be over. Even if Osama himself is captured or killed can we really declare victory?
DC Tom Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 DC, I think we are saying the same thing...all due resepct. So is the best solution, because there isn't one, to just keep sending soldiers to the middle east to fight/diefor a goal that is not obtainable? That seems ludicrous to me. I am not saying Kerry would have a better solution to the mess that has evolved in Iraq, but he may be able to shift the focus of things over there, and set some reasonable goals for the US involvement. President Bush clearly seems unable, or unwilling. He keeps saying that there is no option for the US to fail in Iraq. What exactly does that mean to you? It sounds like plans for long-term occupation, and fighting. Believe me, I don't think Kerry is the ideal candidate, but at this point, the president just seems to be living in a different world. I do believe that Kerry would prioritize things, including building a stronger alliance than what we have now. If somebody doesn't, this is going to be an endless war, with no point. One thing that Kerry said, which I believe true, is that "Just becasue the president says something can't be done, it doesn't mean it can't be done." 67055[/snapback] Actually, I think we are saying completely different things. My point was way beyond partisan political stevestojan. My point was: have we, as a nation and a society, given the slightest thought as to what "victory" really means? Spidey had a good point above: conventional wars have definitive start and end points, through the simple virtues of "declarations of war" (such as they exist now; at any rate, even conventional modern conflicts have definite starting points) and "cease-fires" and 'treaties". That makes identifying "victory" a hell of a lot easier: victory is the imposition of a cessation of hostilities on one party by another - be it through treaty, occupation, genocide (nasty word - but it happens. Look at the Mongol campaigns in Central Asia. Or more recently, the Viet Cong and NVA against the Hmong and other hill tribes in Vietnam), or any other means. Now take all the "Bush says this..." and "Kerry says that..." nonsense out of the equation and simply do this: define "victory" within the framework of anti-terrorism. Not an easy question. As I said, I've been studying it (weird hobbies, I know. I've been told already). I'm pretty conversant on the requirements of a successful insurgency or terrorist campaign. I have yet to figure out how to stop one. (The best analogy I can think of is AIDS: drug cocktails can push it into remission...but it can't cure it. The choices are eternal vigilance or eternal darkness.) What's more, I haven't seen a single damned thing that makes me believe anyone has thought it through any more successfully than I have. And until someone does (and more importantly, someone in a position to make a difference, not some amateur theorist dicking around on the internet like myself), discussing how to gain that victory is an obvious waste of time. It's akin to trying to achieve checkmate in chess without knowing the first thing about the game (or worse, trying to do it playing by Monopoly rules...which is what the DoD, being geared for large-scale conventional conflict rather than low-intensity counter-insurgency, has usually tried to do historically.) All the political rhetoric from the candidates is empty-headed stevestojan, since I'm damned sure neither one has any sort of clue as to what the "War on Terror" means on a time scale longer than a presidential term. The real short-term goal of any counter-terrorism right now should be to gain enough breathing space that we can be more proactive than reactive, so we have the luxury of actually thinking about what "victory" actually is, and the shape the war should take long-term to meet that goal.
UConn James Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 You know, I'm reading this thread and thinking What's the point? Terrorism has been around in one form or other since the days of the cavemen. The Huns one day, Al Queda the next. Same thing throughout human history. There is no way to stop it so long as one group of people hates another; some type of weapon will be used to make a psychological impact/promote fear in the Other. Go ahead and waste your breath, time, money and stamina thinking it can be stopped and debating what the definition of "victory" is. Keep living and reacting with fear; you screw up a lot when you do that.
IUBillsFan Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Go ahead and waste your breath, time, money and stamina thinking it can be stopped and debating what the definition of "victory" is. Keep living and reacting with fear; you screw up a lot when you do that. 67434[/snapback] With your last statement what do you think of this? Fear?
Buftex Posted October 12, 2004 Author Posted October 12, 2004 You know, I'm reading this thread and thinking What's the point? Terrorism has been around in one form or other since the days of the cavemen. The Huns one day, Al Queda the next. Same thing throughout human history. There is no way to stop it so long as one group of people hates another; some type of weapon will be used to make a psychological impact/promote fear in the Other. Go ahead and waste your breath, time, money and stamina thinking it can be stopped and debating what the definition of "victory" is. Keep living and reacting with fear; you screw up a lot when you do that. 67434[/snapback] That was exactly my point! I will admit, it was a leading question, directed at those who are still clinging to the idea that George Bush is achieving anything in Iraq that will ultimately benefit winning a war on terror. As DC Tom points out, we can't even define what a victory is. How wise is it to committ yourself to a war that will never end?
Recommended Posts