Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Unlike a standard war if there is such a thing

In reply to: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

Shall we say a war over territory, a peace deal could be drawn up and so and so will then live happily ever after on a specific area.
With terrorism, you can only either meet the terrorists demands over something, or perhaps wipe x number of terrorists out and hope things will improve.
The potential for terrorists will probably still remain, if not about the original gripe, perhaps something else. So a war against terrorism cannot be fully won.

Collapse -
Re: Unlike a standard war if there is such a thing

In reply to: Unlike a standard war if there is such a thing

A war against terrorism is lost the day it begins. Terrorism thrives on causing division, fear and instability. Those are not just its symptoms, they are its objectives. With nothing tangible to negoitiate or fight for (land, dominion, oil), what exactly counts as a "victory" against terror?

Collapse -
Re: Unlike a standard war if there is such a thing

In reply to: Re: Unlike a standard war if there is such a thing

Hi Dale,
Nice to see you back.
I agree 100% about the objectives of these terrorists. I fear the very worst if the terrorists don't stop their continual disruptive actions.
It is becoming dismally clear that Islamics, or at least a large number of them want to force their beliefs onto us. At some stage a flash point will occur. It's a crying shame for any peace loving Islamics, if indeed they exist anywhere.

Collapse -
Re: Unlike a standard war if there is such a thing

In reply to: Re: Unlike a standard war if there is such a thing

Many fundamentalist religious types want to force their beliefs, or at least their behaviors, on others. It's not limited to muslims.

Dan

Collapse -
That's very true Dan

In reply to: Re: Unlike a standard war if there is such a thing

We had to make allowances in Britain to allow turbans to be worn, instead of crash helmets.

Turban

Collapse -
Re: Unlike a standard war if there is such a thing

In reply to: Re: Unlike a standard war if there is such a thing

Dale,

Welcome back, BTW. I reject the assertion that a war on terror can never be won. So, what constitutes "victory"? After all, it's not like the terror masters will file onto the fantail of the USS Missouri as the Japanese did in 1945 to sign the surrender documents, since they're not a nation state, and also since when the victory comes, they'll either be dead or in prison.

Rather, let's posit that the standard by which we'll be able to declare victory is that terrorist attacks will be reduced to a level where they no longer present a major sociopolitical problem to the nations which had had to endure them. For example, take the activities of the various Marxist terror groups such as the Red Brigades, the Red Army Faction and Action Directethat so plagued Europe in the late 1970's through the 1980's. The nations most affected - Italy, Germany and France - were in due course able to claim "victory", as the attacks ceased.

Why did the attacks stop? IMO. there are two primary reasons: 1) The leaders of these groups (and, for that matter, the IRA) were either jailed or, more likely, killed, and 2) Their outside sources of support were closed. This occurred primarily due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and its satellites, but also due to the end of financial support collected by agents of influence such as the slick IRA fundraisers of NORAID here in the U.S., who deceived many an Irish-American into financing the Provos' guns and bombs under false pretenses. When the Federal government closed down NORAID, that funding channel was closed. The result were leaderless groups whose next in command had lost their revolutionary zeal (or more likely just wanted to go on living) and which had lost their financial aid.

So it shall be with the Islamists. Their sources of funding are now being (partially) interdicted, and the heat's on those states who have continued to support these thugs - all this is in addition to the overt military actions that have been taken. The problem is that the Islamists have had a long time to build up a diverse and covert infrastructure unnoticed by anyone - until 9/11. History may well record that the Islamists' gravest error was to begin overt action too soon, instead of biding their time until they were so deeply entrenched in the target societies that they would be impossible to destroy or deal with by other means...

Collapse -
Re: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

In reply to: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

From the article:

Bush himself said in a radio interview with talk show host Rush Limbaugh, "I probably needed to be more articulate."

I did not know that he knew that. I mean, the word. It is a big word.

It's not really a flip-flop he did... or is it? Supporters reply here. I'm listening with open mind or trying to keep an open mind. I DO agree with his first statement that this phantom "war" on terrorism is NOT winnable in any sense of the world. Democracy cannot be exported imo, only plant seeds at best. MOST of the world will not be ready for democracy in our lifetimes. And missteps in foreign policy such as diversionary Iraq, set back the chances for democratizing in the third world. We have played into the true enemy's hands. That true enemy is radical Islam, right? NOT Saddam so far as i know. Glad he's OUT, I hated him too... but is democracy really slated for Iraq? A majority of Iraqis want a theocracy for their nation. Is that democracy, or what? (grin)

Collapse -
Re: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

In reply to: Re: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

Hi, Netsky.

Meanwhile, with his "free-speech zones" and retribution against those who dare not toe the party line (Dixie Chicks, Linda Ronstadt, the Tim Robbins/Hall of Fame snub involving Bull Durham) Bush and his supporters are trying to kill off democracy at home and return to the HUAC McCarthy days when anyone who didn't thing everything's right with America was considered an enemy of the people.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Re: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

In reply to: Re: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

The free speech zones are ongoing debate.

Are you saying Bush retaliated or directly cause retaliation against Dixie Chicks, Linda Ronstadt, the Tim Robbins/Hall of Fame snub involving Bull Durham) ??

And not all of us who favor Bush over the (IMO) poor choice offered by the democratic party nominee agree entirely with the provisions of the patriot act. And certainly don't think it necessarily should be expanded.

But we're not ready to ignore the dangers either.

You maintain we're helping the terrorists win with the extra security etc. I suspect we'd be a lot more upset an another event like 9/11. Just look at all the finger pointing about how 9/11 should have been anticipated and prevented by the government making the rounds now, espcially in many campaign settings.

Or are we to ask the UN and Europe to protect us?

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
Re: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

In reply to: Re: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

Hi, Roger.

Did Bush directly cause retaliation against Robbins, Ronstadt, et al? Of course not -- but those aren't liberal Democrats trying to destroy their careers. Once agan, it's a matter of approach. The black list is historically the tool of the right. If I liked their music enough to consider buying a ticket, I wouldn't hesitate to buy one to the Oak Ridge Boys. Despite Arnie's sape of the democratic process in Ca, I saw Terminator 3. If you believe in democracy, you shouldn't be trying to destroy those who disagree with you, but long history says that's not conservatives' way of thinking -- and THAT's much more un-American than any group HUAC ever investigated. Actually not -- it's in the long sad American tradition that brought us the Know-nothings, the Civil War, Orville Faubus, George Wallace, Sheriff Clark, and the Ku Klux Klan.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Talk about flip-flops

In reply to: Re: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

First you said: "Meanwhile, with his "free-speech zones" and retribution against those who dare not toe the party line (Dixie Chicks, Linda Ronstadt, the Tim Robbins/Hall of Fame snub involving Bull Durham) "

Then you say: "Did Bush directly cause retaliation against Robbins, Ronstadt, et al? Of course not -- "

So who's retribution were you talking about?

Collapse -
Re: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

In reply to: Re: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

Ok so it was his backers and not Bush you're accusing of blacklising and McCartheyism.

Now as far as listeners calling radio stations and saying they didn't want to hear the Dixie Chicks music, when is free speech threatened more? by silencing the request of the public to the station or by the station (actually a business decision, money talks as always) deciding not to alienate it's listeners/supporters?

My main problem with most of the nonsense like the Dixie Chicks is that it wasn't protest, it was just catering to their audience and insulting the US. If they wanted to make speeches at concerts back here I'd have much less problem with it.

If Sean Penn wanted to make speeches here that is one thing, going to Iraq and appearing there in a press conference is wrong. The same back in 70's, ole' Jane protesting war here is one thing, posing for photographs setting at an North Vietnam anti-aircraft gun is downright treasonable. Going to visit POW and praising the North for their treatment of same was treasonable.

It's not just what you believe and say. It's how, when, and where you say it also.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
Re: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

In reply to: Re: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

Hi, Roger.

Contrary to your implication, the Dixie Chicks' popularity and record sales didn't suffer significantly in terms of their fans. However, Clear Channel, largest radio station owner in the country (and run by Bush family friends and political allies from Texas) black-listed them from the play list, and even fired a couple of DJs who dared play their music when listeners requested it on the call-in line. The Black-list of the 50's wasn't officially kept by the government -- it was kept by the Holywood moguls afraid of themselves being targeted by McCarthy and the HUAC if they didn't toe the line. And, btw, Walt Disney was one of the chief architects of the blacklist system. When your career is ruined, it doesn't much matter whether the government or its sycophants did the dirty deed; you're still economically ruined. I'm sure it didn't matter to Thomas a' Becket whether Henry directly ordered the murder in the Cathedral -- he was just as dead either way!

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Re: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

In reply to: Re: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

While "black-lists" can easily be done from fear of retaliation by others, I don't see the conspiracy you do.

Are you saying the radio stations owned by Clear Channel were told not to run the Dixie Chicks music with no public input, only political?

I thought I remembered from all the discussion here then that wasn't the case.

And if they didn't suffer in sales, that's evidence that the system more or less worked. Those that supported or didn't care what their political statements were still bought their music. Those that were outraged didn't. So where is the ruined career.

Organized censorship of the type you see everywhere was and is bad. But actions and public stances on issues are not immune from public reaction either.

And I still maintain that overseas is not the place for Americans to criticize American, even if today's news coverage shows it there anyway. And pandering like making speeches from the enemy's capital is still wrong.

It's one thing to stand up here and critizie your government. It's another to shake hands with the enemy and praise him while demeaning your country.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
Free speech in action

In reply to: Re: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

The Dixie Chicks thing, for example, had nothing to do with Bush. It had everything to do with free speech in action, both by the Dixie Chicks and by those who did not appreciate what they said.

Collapse -
Re: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

In reply to: Re: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

And all these actions are controlled by Cheney in his super-secret hideout where he pretends to be the Wizard of OZ.
No, it simply has to do with people expressing their disagreement with idiots who have no concept of the right time or place. Do I dislike the Dixie Chicks or Tim Robbins for their views? No, but I do think they were EXTREMELY juvenile and stupid in their expression of their views and attempt to use their celebrity to sway their fans like a pack of mindless sheep who will do anything their master tells them to. If they had spoken in a forum with clear, logical statements expressing their views where people expect to hear them, then there would have been no backlash but they would have probably been applauded.
Oh, and this goes for Kerry too. Again, I have no issue with his views over the Vietnam War, but his behavior leaves me to seriously doubt his character and judgement.

Collapse -
I heard that there was no restrictions on protesters

In reply to: Re: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

At the RNC as far as the zones you indicate, unlike at the DNC where there were. If that's true, then please don't sing this song with respect to Bush and the republicans again, Dave.

--Cindi
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email the mods

Collapse -
Re: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

In reply to: Re: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

Meanwhile, with his "free-speech zones"...

You mean like the "free speech cage" Kerry had at the Democratic National Convention"?

Collapse -
I believe a more careful reading

In reply to: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

would have given you the clue. The war on terrorism, as John McCain suggested, is not the standard kind of war, where one side surrenders and both sides sit down to sign a paper to that effect. In that sense, it wont be 'won'. But for all practical purposes, terrorism can be defeated. That counts as a win as far as Bush is concerned.

Collapse -
Re: I believe a more careful reading

In reply to: I believe a more careful reading

Loss, not win. The more compromises are made on the values and freedoms the democratic nations hold dear, for the sake of "homeland security", the more the pendulum of victory swings to the terrorist factions. Disassembling the way of life we know and love is a part of what they want to achieve.

Then consider the announcments, the code alert statuses, the (in the UK) leaflets on "what to do" being distributed to the population. All these things bring a climate of fear to daily life. Yet another victory, with the irony that it is the govt. doing the work of the terrorists with these things.

Collapse -
Orwell might be amused...

In reply to: Re: I believe a more careful reading

...to see so many elements of his 1948 novel, "1984" on track just twenty years after.

The palpable insensitivity of our Republican leadership can be sensed in just one element of this new order: the name they chose for the new anti-terrorism agency: Homeland Security.

Hoo hah mein Homeland, fur mein Vaterland and alles fur Buschland is the not-so-subtle abstraction I draw.

So I ask rhetorically what -were- those ultra conservatives thinking about when they brainsturmed (sic) up that fascist-flavored sobriquet? And I ask, what lesson were they ignoring from the past? Why didn't the country go into an uproar over that incredibly evil-toned name, the connotation of which seems to me to be intentional. Evil or just ignorant?

Now, if my freedoms must be curtailed in slowly growing degrees of martial dictates, I'd much rather the name my governmental protector be "Domestic Security Agency" than Homeland yada yada.

A stink rose by any other name, in this case WOULD smell better to this hooked nose.

Collapse -
It was 'dreamed up' by democrats

In reply to: Orwell might be amused...

most notably a guy named Senator Lieberman. It is a good thing.

What 'martial dictates' have limited your freedom?

Collapse -
Re: Orwell might be amused...

In reply to: Orwell might be amused...

Hi, Netsky.

Bush and co are apparently oblivious to the connotations of words in the light of history -- why else would they have talked about attracting Muslims to "our crusade?"

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
What compromises

In reply to: Re: I believe a more careful reading

on democratic values and freedoms have you experienced? Have these leaflets and threat announcements truely brought fear to your life?

Collapse -
Re: What compromises

In reply to: What compromises

Not my life, as I am a Brit, so have lived with terrorism for decades. However, for those who travel, for those of non-white complexion, or of non-Christian beleifs, yes, much difference.

Suspicion by others of their very existence, fear they will be attacked, victimised, arrested without charge, "disappeared" just as the Gestapo did so long ago. You don't have to be white Aryan to be the victim of terrorism, and you don't have to be coloured or Muslim to be the terrorist.

Do you really think that kind of society is acceptable? If so, then just what did our fathers fight for, when we give it all up so easily?

Collapse -
We arent going to compromise with terrorism

In reply to: Re: What compromises

As long as someone like Bush is president. Its my hope that someday, the terrorist threat will no longer be thought of as newsworthy.

Collapse -
Re: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

In reply to: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

While one could knock Bush for not being clear enough, the Democrats are splitting hairs. Concerning the general occurence of terrorism throughout the world and numerous issues and conflicts, terrorism will always be a tool that weak nations and cultures use to gain power and influence more powerful countries unwilling to use their own strength to stop them.
As for the current "war on terrorism," that concerns Muslim fundamentalists in the Mideast, we can and will win, because we are actively confronting the perpetrators and changing the environment that bred it. Iraq, in the grand scheme of things, was probably the best choice. For us to introduce Democracy in the Mideast, one of the current governments had to be deposed, and Iraq was the logical choice due to their numerous breaches of the cease-fire from Desert Storm.
Over time, when Iraq calms down and becomes a true nation with a democratically elected government, the culture there will change and improve, and neighboring nations will be influenced by it as new generations desire the same freedoms that Iraqis will have. Same idea as the Cold War...the main conflict will be a peaceful one between cultures, we just need a seed of Democracy to begin the process of change...and this time the challenge is not the Berlin Wall but instead the control of the Muslim clerics over the people.

Collapse -
Then terrorism will flourish unabated

In reply to: Re: Bush quickly flip-flops on Terror War

It is not the role of the western nations to introduce democracy, or to shape another country into our perception of a "true nation". That is the same kind of intolerant and antagonistic attitude we employed in the Crusades, trying to convert the "heathen" arabs and kill off their belief system.

The Arab nations recognise this, so they will resist, and they will use terrorism to enforce their absolute right to choose their own way of life. And know what? When that happens for those reasons, they will be in the right, and we will be in the wrong and deserve to lose.

Collapse -
Apples and oranges

In reply to: Then terrorism will flourish unabated

This is a far cry from the Crusades, dont you think? They will have self-determination, but we will use our influence to steer them away from ideas of theocracy in Iraq. Nothing wrong with that, eh?

Democracy is a liberating event, not a confining one, since people will by definition have a say in what goes on. Its much better for the people if their government is accountable to the people.

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

GRAMMYS 2019

Here's Everything to Know About the 2019 Grammys

Find out how to watch the Grammy Awards if you don't have cable and more.