Bush said "we" will not stop until "we" achieve total victory. Is this just making Iraq a happy little Democratic country? Let's get one thing straight. There are terrorists all over the world. There are terrorists in Europe. There are terrorists right here in the good old US of A. What is a victory of terrorism going to look like??
I assume you mean, what does a victory OVER terrrorism look like? To the current American leader, it probably means nothing other than maintaining a sense of "state of war" that allows for the current political leadership in America to continue beyond his term. To me, it means a world of cooperation for the good of all, the end of First World vs. Third World, and elimination of explotation and need for small factions to feel they need to kill innocent people to have a voice or make a meaningful difference in the world.
It is a purposely vague, meaningless term to keep the "war" open-ended and not allow for defeat under his "leadership". We can't possibly succeed, so he doesn't have to pull out. We can't possibly fail, short of pulling out, so by refusing to pull out, he is refusing to fail.
The only way you are going to have a 'total victory' against terrorism is to turn the Earth into a wasteland. But then that would be an act of terrorism. Ahh, the irony.
Using the incorrect title of the thread, "what is total victory of terrorism" it includes the following. Restriction of freedoms in the target countries by governments under the guise of fighting terrorism. Removal of freedoms in the target countries by governments under the guise of fighting terrorism. Carrying out of invasions, not internationally sanctioned, by target countries governments under the guise of fighting terrorism. Creating divisions within the target countries, which divisions are deepened by anti-terrorist rhetoric and legislation of those countries goverments. The function of terrorism in this context is to create reaction that will produce changes in the target country so that it no longer is the country it was, but has sacrificed many of its values in order to counter terrorism. And Bush and Blair and their cronies fell for it hook, line and sinker.
When I heard it, Bush said a "total victory of terrorism." I think he said what he meant. We're pretty near there. Bush and his cronies fell for it because they wanted to fall for it.
He meant, an open ended state of war in Arabic and other oil rich countries, which are bound to spawn terrorists eventually and state oppression in the so called free world.
We are actually in a place where fighting against terrorism will destroy everything that we are trying to save.
So should the free nations of the world just let the terrorist blow up it's people without any attempt to stop it or to protect its people? I'm not sure that I fully understand the implications of your statement. Can you explain it more fully? Baron Max
There is a practical problem: you can't fight a war on terror. Indeed, calling it that, and invoking the changes (Homeland Security in the US, Identity Cards in the UK) to fight it are playing into the terrorists hands. The fact that the governments in the US and the UK are going down this route suggests either they haven't thought the problem through very well, or they are using the terrorism as a means to implement a separate agenda. The way to fight a war on terror is three fold: 1) Quiet, continous, properly funded intelligence operations. 2) Removal of the underlying causes of terrorism. In this instance one of the most important is the one sided interminable support of the US for the Israeli government over decades. Invading Iraq sure didn't help, and holding prisoners in Guantanamo without due process is also doing no favours for the US in the eyes of the world. 3) On an individual level spit in the eyes of the terrorist. When the London bombings occured this summer I was in Moscow. I tried to alter my return flight so I could come via London and go into Central London with the express purpose of riding the Underground. On my last trip to Jakarta I stayed at the Marriot Hotel, that had been the target of the fatal bombing a few months before. I am presently considering a holiday in Bali. You see my point.
But as you well know, people don't believe intelligence services anymore and want absolute, total proof of their assertions BEFORE anyone will act or provide money for protection/police/etc. Every time there's a "threat" noted by intell services, there's a big accusation of proof! You know that as well as I do. But there's major arguments and disagreements as to what the "underlying causes" are!! And, just so you know, my own feelings are that terrorists are nothing more than murderers ....and YOU and others think that we should cowtow to them because of their desires to murder?! And if we do, what about tomorrow when someone else in the world doesn't like something? Do we cowtow to them, too? And does that continue forever? I'm laughing! The terrorists don't care about YOU or me, they care about the general media coverage and the sensationalism! And you can't expect news agencies to ignore all major terrorist actions, do you? I actually think I do see your point ....you want to give the terrorists whatever they want. You want the USA and the rest of the western world to turn our backs on Israel just because a few radicals want us to! And if we do, and the terrorists kill all the Israelis, what's next? Who's next? Who else don't the terrrorist like or want? And do we then give them that, too? Baron Max
We had the choice to use better technologies than petroleum. Instead we let Middle East despots become wealthy enough to finance operations like 9/11. All of this terrorism is our chickens coming home to roost, and we want to try to solve the problem by doing more of the same. Good going.
So, MetaKron, you agree that if someone is not happy with the way things are in the world, then they should resort to blowing up things and killing people to get what they want???? Baron Max
Ah Baron, there was I thinking you were clever and twisted, but it turns out you are dumb and twisted. It's a disappointment. I think you really don't get it. You don't see the internal flaw in your statements?
What is a victory over terroism? Simple. It's just like a victory over the War on Drugs. It's just like the victory over the War on Porn. It's just like the victory on the War on Alcohol. It's just like the victory on the War on Copyright Infringements. It's just like the victory on the War of Religions. Put simply, there's no such thing. It'll never end cause you can't stop it. - N
Darn right. These are wars that would have benefited the world greatly by having never been fought. All they do is make things worse. They are just another form of senseless jihad instigated by mad ayatollahs.
It was nothing but a political speach, get over it. If you believe everything a politician says verbatim then you are doomed.
