[b]Bush on terror war: 'I don't think you can win it'[/b]

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.

[url]http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1093835907890&p=1006688055060[/url]

so what's your point Delirous?

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

[quote=Jenks]so what's your point Delirous?

do you have a take on any of these articles you copy and paste?[/quote]

Sometimes people accuse me of making too many comments :roll: This time, however, I think Bush said it just fine all by himself :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink:

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?

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

Trying to get your post count up? :WinkNSmi:

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.

[quote=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, [/quote]

One word bro...

MOSSAD.

respect. :RockOn:

[quote=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.[/quote]

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!

Freedom-fighters? :lol:

[quote=Jenks]The war on terror is an imossible fight to win outright. Duh. Where's the shocking news in that?[/quote]

[quote=toasty]^^ I've got to agree. I read this article, and I think to myself, "No shit."[/quote]

"Our first priority must always be the security of our nation. [b]We will win[/b] this war; we'll protect our homeland"

• George Bush, 1/29/2002

"But make no mistake about it: [b]we will win.[/b]" [url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010912-4.html[/url]

This battle will take time and resolve, but [b]make no mistake about it, we will win.[/b]" [url]http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2003/09/02/rtr1070778.html[/url]

Bush: [b]U.S. Will Win War on Terror[/b] [url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119917,00.html[/url]

The point of my post is to show how he's just[size=6] flip-flopped[/size]

:roll: so fucking what.

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. :Wacko:

[quote=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. :Wacko:[/quote]

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? :roll:

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.

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

[quote=Jenks]Don't think anyone is with you on this one Delirious. lol. :lol: moreover, i don't think anyone cares.[/quote]

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. :Barf:

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.

[quote=Jenks]One word bro...

MOSSAD.

respect. :RockOn: [/quote]

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

[quote=delirious] Freedom-fighters? :lol: [/quote]

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?

you should check this book out DaveTlv...

"Gideon's Spies - The Secret History of the Mossad" - by Gordon Thomas

:Bingo:

delirious your comments are pathetic. im outraged. its pitilus theocrats like you and john edwards that take a sentence or a comment and michael moore the shit out of it! what?? are you suggesting that now bush is giving up hope? because of one line from a paragraph where he goes on to to say..."Can we win?" Mr. 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." you can see the article here: [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/30/politics/main639576.shtml[/url]

this is pure michael moorish copy & paste propaganda, and democrats like john edwards who leech these statements, corrode and embellish them, then recirculate them in their firey ra ra chants are dispicable.

[quote=neur0t0xin64]

this is pure michael moorish copy & paste propaganda [/quote]

Does anyone else detect a hint of irony in neuro accusing someone else of "copy and paste propaganda?" Quoting from another of his posts this evening:

[quote]kerry has said numerous times that he would treat the conflict more delicately, he would combat terrorism more sensitively!

[url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/usatoday/20040813/ts_usatoday/cheneyslamskerryssensitivewarplea[/url] [/quote]

[url]http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3590[/url]

It is pretty clear to anyone that heard the entire statement that it was taken out of context. Isn't this the same "copy and paste propaganda" that he's talking about? Hey, neuro, surely you're aware that Bush has also referred to the need to be "sensitive" when dealing with such issues, right? Is that different, somehow?

A man who has literally copied and pasted the talking points from the Bush website on here in support of his position ( [url]http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3290&start=20[/url] ) is accusing someone else of "copy and paste propaganda" -- the hypocrisy is staggering.

toasty im beginning to think there is no hope for you. your puppeted by the liberal media and reject anything otherwise. your attacks on me for outlining to you what the BUSH AGENDA on the labor reform issue truly says (since you did such a magnificent job of misleading and boldly lying to the readers here on MS) are unjustified. your not even making a point here which is what 99% of your posts have become. you lose credibility with every stroke of your engageing little index finger. you and your liberal friends are clearly in a frenzy. your all over the place toasty...all out of sorts with your self and reality. stop spinning your wheels with all your rhetoric. the only irony here is that your comments, after digested, taste like blackened burnt toast...toasty.

I keep hearing this shit about "Oh I def. think Kerry would do a better job on terrorism".

I'm just curious as to why and how you think Kerry / Edwards would be more effective on terrorism. Do you know something we don't??? :roll:

This clown in 19 years has done absolutley nothing for his state, NOTHING. What amkes people think he'll do something for the entire U.S.

You ask any of these Kerry voters why they'll vote for Kerry, their answers are usually b/c he'll be better than Bush. Ok. [size=7][b]THEN TELL US HOW!!!![/b][/size]

It's really sad that people ar actually going to vote for someone they have no idea about or confidence in just b/c they simply hate the other party.

[quote=neur0t0xin64]your attacks on me for outlining to you what the BUSH AGENDA on the labor reform issue truly says (since you did such a magnificent job of misleading and boldly lying to the readers here on MS) are unjustified. [/quote]

Tell you what -- go back to that thread and show everyone how I misled and lied about overtime reform. As I recall, you never responded to my last post. Here's the link, for your convenience:

[url]http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3290&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40[/url]

[quote=neur0t0xin64]your not even making a point here which is what 99% of your posts have become. [/quote]

My intent right now is not to sit here and mindlessly argue ideology with you, if that is the "point" you're looking for -- you and I have different takes on the way the world should be run, and I respect that. What I will critique is your methodology and inconsistencies in the positions you take, and your recent inability to do much more than parrot GOP sound bites. This is a discussion board -- let's "discuss." That, my friend, is the "point."

Re:: Bush says US CAN win War on Terror

Well, here's an interesting development...

Bush Now Saying 'We Will Win' Terror War

[url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20040831/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_bush[/url]

Looks like we'll have more to talk about after Bush's speech.

Re:: Bush says US CAN win War on Terror

[quote=toasty]Well, here's an interesting development...

Bush Now Saying 'We Will Win' Terror War

[url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20040831/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_bush[/url]

Looks like we'll have more to talk about after Bush's speech.[/quote]

He's trying to break the Guiness World Record for "most flops in a week"

[quote=LV-8]I keep hearing this shit about "Oh I def. think Kerry would do a better job on terrorism".

I'm just curious as to why and how you think Kerry / Edwards would be more effective on terrorism. Do you know something we don't??? :roll:

This clown in 19 years has done absolutley nothing for his state, NOTHING. What amkes people think he'll do something for the entire U.S.

You ask any of these Kerry voters why they'll vote for Kerry, their answers are usually b/c he'll be better than Bush. Ok. [size=7][b]THEN TELL US HOW!!!![/b][/size] [/quote]

I don't necessarily think that Kerry will do a better job on terrorism, but I don't think he will do worse, either. I don't think the election will have a major impact on this, personally. To the extent that Kerry does bring something new to the table that Bush does not, it is simply the fact that he is not Bush. Bush has burnt a lot of bridges with our allies and people in his adminstration have helped up the level of anti-American sentiment in the Arab world. Bush can't undo that without backtracking, which we know he will not do (and I don't mean to suggest that he necessarily should), but Kerry (or anyone new) would have a relatively clean slate to rebuild alliances and put some distance between the US and Abu Grahib (sp?) without losing face. I can't see how that could be a bad thing.

[quote=LV-8] It's really sad that people ar actually going to vote for someone they have no idea about or confidence in just b/c they simply hate the other party.[/quote] I don't hate the republicans. I hate the fact that they have chosen W, who is not a republican as far as I can tell, as their leader.

Re:: Bush says US can't win War on Terror

well at least you cant accuse him of lying. any moron with a quater of a brain knows that terrorism will be around for ever and we need to keep fighting. we need to keep doing this :Die: to these guys :Yahoo:

Re:: Bush says US can't win War on Terror

I think the liberal media and other liberals on this board throw stones, but don't have any real answers themselves. Imo, Bush was being honest on terror. There has been and always will be terrorists. But, we can do things to disrupt their operations and capture or kill them before they commit their acts.

What's makes me laugh is how Democrats think that they or Kerry/Edwards would be tougher than Bush and the Repbulicans on terror. I'm willing to bet Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are hoping Kerry wins the election.

Look, toasty im too tired right now to address your previous challenge to continue our previous discussion, havent even had a chance to look at it. And I know I have referenced this article in other threads...BUT WILL EVERYONE ONCE AND FOR ALL READ THIS PLEASE, IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND TELL ME IF THIS IS WHO YOU REALLY WANT TO BE YOUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF? [url]http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241[/url] Please take special notice towards the end where Kerrys aid tells the Associated Press (and actually had(or possibly still has) this posted on Kerrys website) saying that Kerry was the Vice Chairman of the National Intelligence Committe for 7 out of his 8 years on the committee. After researched it was found that the Vice Chairman was actually a former Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska. When questioned about this the Kerry aid responded "John Kerry, Bob Kerrey -- similar names." hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Im outraged and every American should be too!

[quote=neur0t0xin64] Im outraged [/quote]

Dude, you say this [b]a lot[/b]. Either lay off of the coffee, or if that doesn't calm you down, at least consider using the link below:

[url]www.thesaurus.com[/url]

Thanks :WinkNSmi:

Jenks:

I agree with your point of view on terrorism. It's NOT a "black or white" issue.Bush has alienated the rest of the world with his policies (withdrawing from Kyoto, from chemical weapons treaties, saying the Geneva convension was invalid)....etc etc etc.

Even your French and German friends (which have troops risking their lives in Afganhistan) have been attacked by your administration for their own points of view and their decision not the invade Iraq under false pretenses. I still hear conservatives ripping the French - do they think it's "cool" to rip off your allies during a war?

Many other countries including New Zealand, Russia, China, Belarus, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Pakistan, India, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Greece, Austria, Serbia, The Czech Republic, Croatia, Slovenia, Finland, the Vatican City, Canada, United Arab Emirates and South Africa were also against US action.

In fact, during the build-up to war in Iraq, the rest of the worlds opinion regarding a US invasion without UN approval was scarsely more than 10% at any time. Now most Americans think the war was a mistake. Even if Kerry and Edwards JUST RENEWED U.S FRIENDSHIP WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD, the war on terrorism would be INFINITELY easier to win. The US needs intelligence from all the allies it can get. How do you expect countries to fully participate in the war on terrorism when their people and leaders suspect US motives?

These are things Kerry/Edwards can do and things the Bush administration have proven they can't.

[quote=davetlv][quote=delirious] Freedom-fighters? :lol: [/quote]

I can never tell delirious, you being serious here? [/quote]

If you don't know then you shouldn't be implying I think terrorists are freedom fighters. Think before you rant. :wink:

[quote=davetlv] 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?[/quote]

Show me where I said fighting it was wrong. I've already specifically condoned blowing terrorists up. :Die:

I'd fight the war on terror by making it highly unlikely that anyone would ever want to attack the US, as impossible as it sounds. I believe that the US has the strength and character to do it... do you?

[quote=delirious][quote=davetlv][quote=delirious] Freedom-fighters? :lol: [/quote]

I can never tell delirious, you being serious here? [/quote]

If you don't know then you shouldn't be implying I think terrorists are freedom fighters. Think before you rant. :wink: [/quote]

I wasn't implying anything, i was asking you a question, which you have yet to answer.

[quote=delirious][quote=davetlv] 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?[/quote]

Show me where I said fighting it was wrong. I've already specifically condoned blowing terrorists up. :Die:

I'd fight the war on terror by making it highly unlikely that anyone would ever want to attack the US, as impossible as it sounds. I believe that the US has the strength and character to do it... do you?[/quote]

And how would that be, forgive me for repeating myself but yet again you have not answered. What would you do? In what ways would you make it unlikely that anyone would ever attack the US again? (Actually its not just the US is it, many countries face terrorism).

Instead of just bitching, lets hear your solutions!

BTW my earlier comments were in no way a rant - now my Chomsky comments on [MS]1, now they were a rant :Tongue:

[quote=davetlv][quote=delirious][quote=davetlv][quote=delirious] Freedom-fighters? :lol: [/quote]

I can never tell delirious, you being serious here? [/quote]

If you don't know then you shouldn't be implying I think terrorists are freedom fighters. Think before you rant. :wink: [/quote]

I wasn't implying anything, i was asking you a question, which you have yet to answer. [/quote]

Okaaaaaaaaaaayyyy... [quote=davetlv] There will ALWAYS be terrorists (or freedom fighters to you no doubt Delirious) [/quote]

To answer your question? no I don't think terrorists are freedom fighters. A read of my previous posts will show that.

[quote=davetlv][quote=delirious][quote=davetlv] 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?[/quote]

Show me where I said fighting it was wrong. I've already specifically condoned blowing terrorists up. :Die:

I'd fight the war on terror by making it highly unlikely that anyone would ever want to attack the US, as impossible as it sounds. I believe that the US has the strength and character to do it... do you?[/quote]

And how would that be, forgive me for repeating myself but yet again you have not answered. What would you do? In what ways would you make it unlikely that anyone would ever attack the US again? (Actually its not just the US is it, many countries face terrorism).

Instead of just bitching, lets hear your solutions! [/quote]

"We must learn to live together as brothers, or we are going to perish together as fools." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Simple as that.

Not that i wish to critise Martin Luthor King Jr. but are these remarks not a little bit nieve? Sure in an ideal world great, but last time i looked we were a long way from that utopian reality.

So, in the absence of the WWIII (which no doubt will be nuclear, and will lead possibly to the creation on a new world order based on love and respect), how do we stop fundamentalists killing innocent civilians?

toasty im outraged by your comments. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah you know, I have to admit I was honestly waiting for someone to say something about me saying that word alot, and then you said that I say it alot, and now im admitting that I use it alot, and so we're both talking about being outraged alot. more sugar please. :P