If re-elected, will Bush win the war on terror?

[Guaranteed]

[arcane1]

1. fear and terror is all BushCo has!

they would never "win" such a war, nor is that their plan

[opihimoimoi]

2. Arrogant people are not diplomatic

Bush has revealed a disdain for real diplomacy, he being an amateur in this realm. A loose cannon he is.

[BlueEyedSon]

3. The "war on terror" is unwinnable

it is a meaningless name

[LittleApple81]

4. There is no "winning" a "war" on an idea or crime with no definite

location. Remember the war on drugs?

[Skittles]

5. what exactly does "WIN THE WAR ON TERROR" mean???

nt

[Guaranteed]

8. I really have no idea.

But I'm damned sure that Bush is nowhere near doing it. Invading Iraq sure didn't help the situation.

[FunBobbyMucha]

6. To paraphrase David Cross, That's like going to war against resentment.

And since we've angered and alienated the majority of the world with our grudge match, I'd say George W. is Terror's best ally.

[Skittles]

9. "winning the war on murder"

would be a good analogy too

[BlueEyedSon]

10. How about a quote from Zbigniew Brzezinski

(ok, its a paraphrase)

Terrorism is a tactic and so to declare war on terrorism is equivalent to Roosevelt's declaring war on blitzkrieg. Its meaningless and it doesn't identify who the enemy is.

In a word, unwinnable.

[ComerPerro]

7. He has no intention of winning the WOT

He wants to keep it going as long as possible.

Besides, how the hell does one win such a war?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. By Bush's definition

It probably means eradicating all Arabs.

[AntiCoup2K4]

12. Since they have neither defined "war" or "Terrorism"

...and have blatantly said that such a "war" could last for "a generation" (a vague term in and of itself) the "war on terrorism" even in their own terminology is unwinnable.

The only true way of eliminating terrorism is eliminating those who created the terrorist organizations in the first place. It is indisputable that Al Qaeda was a creation of George Bush Sr's CIA, and that Hamas was created by Mossad as a way of discrediting the PLO.

Perhaps the true war needs to be against those who claim to be protecting us who in reality are stabbing us in the back?

[ewagner]

13. Had to vote "maybe"

Because if the (insert favorite insult here) is re-selected, then he will have to protect his "legacy". Declaring a victory in the wot would be absolutely necessary....the trick is: It depends on what the meaning of "victory" is.......

[DieboldMustDie]

18. He doesn't care about his legacy.

After all, "we'll all be dead." :scared:

[SeveneightyWhoa]

14. How about a sixth choice:

"LMAO!!!"

Hell no, he won't "win" the "war on terror". It'll only be extended under Bush--although it won't really be about terror, as well all know. It'll be about "changing" the Middle East and/or anyone who disagrees with or is a target of neo-conservative imperialistic motives.

[greatauntoftriplets]

15. No! A tactic cannot be an enemy.

THE WAR ON TERROR
A tactic cannot be an enemy

By Don Rose. Political consultant and freelance writer Don Rose has worked for Democrats and Republicans
Published April 25, 2004

Bob Kerrey, a member of the Sept. 11 investigating commission, made a profound comment during his confrontation with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, telling her the whole concept of a war on terror is incorrect--that terrorism is a tactic, and you can't declare war on a tactic. The media ignored the remark, but Kerrey, a former senator and governor of Nebraska, reiterated it a few days later in an op-ed piece in The New York Times:

"I believe President Bush's overall vision for the war on terrorism is wrong. Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. The real enemy is a small group of radical Islamists who have chosen to wage a war on all infidels--military and civilian alike."

A war on terror or terrorism is absurd on the face of it.

It is like declaring war on guerrilla warfare, a related tactic. We are not at war with the tactic--however much we hate it and denounce it--any more than we are at "war" with drive-by shootings. There really is a tangible enemy out there, and it should be clearly identified, but for political reasons, the actual enemy goes unnamed, and the broad, scary word "terrorism" is substituted for propaganda purposes.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/perspective/chi-0404250025apr25,1,2865195.story

[genius]

16. You can't win a war against an intangible

[genius]

17. "1984," Book II, Chapter 9, "War Is Peace"

This section from Goldstein's book clearly explains Bush's War on Terrorism. If you haven't read it in a while, re-read it and you'll find out what 9-11 was all about.

[CTLawGuy]

19. Kerry said Bush would though

:shrug:

[corporatewhore]

20. Kerry says bush will

[DaveSZ]

21. No

The neocons plan to escalate the war to other regions, and this will lead to WW3.

[cornfedyank]

22. you don't change people's minds by shooting at them. they want respect

wage peace------it's cheaper.

this is shrub et al's idea of respect.

Also, there was a mosque ... here; it had a minaret 50 to 60 feet high. Marine commanders say they were taking sniper fire from that minaret.

That minaret has now been leveled by U.S. military ordnance, missiles and mortars. There's nothing left at all of that minaret. ...

[Claire Beth]

23. if * is "elected"... since the first time * was only "SELECTED" n/t

[MrSlayer]

24. Sure, as soon as we win the war on "Blue" and "Wet"

This whole thing is stupid, you cannot win a war against an emotion.