Did Kerry really say that the "War on Terror" was winnable?

[MercutioATC]

Granted, it came off our favorite Freeper board, but is it true?

[Pirate Smile]

1. Yes, he did during the speech he just gave. Why?

[MercutioATC]

9. What a friggin' maroon.

Does ANYBODY here really think that it can be "won"? Yes, we can mitigate terrorism's effects with smarter foreign policies and enhanced security, but how do you "win" a war against a faceless enemy?

This isn't a question he was ASKED, he said it as an unsolicited response to Bush's statement. Somebody should really clue him in that a even a stopped clock is right twice a day...

Yes, he has my vote, but I'm really unhappy with his idiotic pandering.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

15. it's an ideal

unachievable or not it's good PR. Thank God the tables are not turned on this one.

[quinnox]

16. thank god you aren't a Kerry advisor

That would be the height of stupidity to back up Bush's blunder, which he had to retract the next day.

[MercutioATC]

18. Who said I'd back it up? I'd just keep my mouth shut.

It's great to show how Bush has actually decreased our security. It's great to detail how Kerry would do it diffrerently.

It's ridiculous to call it "winnable".

[Kolesar]

17. Please realize that we are now on "Parallel Earth"

...where logic does not apply. All that counts here is slogans, flag waving, patriotism, and support the troops.

I think JK has got Bush in a vice-like grip with this one.

[MercutioATC]

22. I think a stronger case to be made is that terrorism is a fact of life...

It's a presence that, by its nature, is impossible to entirely eradicate. In fact, suggesting terrorism can be eliminated shows a complete ignorance of its nature.

[AP]

37. As is crime generally. But I think it's probably not all that impossible

to dramatically reduce the likelihood of another 9/11.

Just look at all the things the government had to fuck up that led to 9/11.

[Kolesar]

38. Yes, you are right

Further, this simplification of a "war on terror" misses the real story with is that we have an enemy, Al Qaida, who uses the method of terror against us. One cannot "win a war" against the method which is terrorism.

Further, I think that we will not have peace until we honestly consider their grievances: we are have troops in their "holy" countries (that one is tough for an atheist to deal with), we are taking the oil treasure of their countries, and the US does support Israel, who is oppressing the Moslem Palestinians.

Achieving peace is going to be difficult.

AP has a fair point that our counter-terrorist intelligence and operations were incompetent.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

28. My first "ignore"! I'm honored!

I'm terribly sorry you don't choose to listen and respond to differing viewpoints. I find it to be the best part of DU.

[AP]

35. Yeah, I think it's winnable. I mean, you're never going to stop crime.

But democracy, equitable distribution of wealth, bringing down fascists governments everywhere, social justice, and a vigorous uncompromised intelligence network all are ways to bring an end to terrorism.

Hell, if Bush had done everythign he said he do (and if Homeland Security money wasn't used as a political tool) we'd probably have won the war in just a couple years.

I think terrorism networks are probably the easiest of all networks to infiltrate and conduct intelligence against.

Afterall, they are very fractured and accept all comers. They must be incredibly easy to infiltrate.

For example, look at 9/11 -- look at all the stuff the government had to NOT do to let those guys accomplish their mission.

[Monte Carlo]

2. It sounds like something he'd say...

... the day Kerry says that we can't win the war on terror is the day every news outlet in the country has the same top story.

[BayouBengal07]

3. I dunno.

I for one don't think it can be won (you can't bomb an ideology into history), but then I haven't spent the past three years talking about how we will win it.

[AngryAmish]

34. You can bomb an ideology into history

early 20th century Japan ideology (Emporer worship, militarized society) was bombed out of existence. Nations have disappeared from the face of the earth because of military conquest -(Third Punic War). You can do it, but only with great bloodshed.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. Are you saying you want endless war?

I want the 'war on terror' to end some day.

[MercutioATC]

14. I don't want it, but I think it's a reality.

To use a sound bite like this (unsolicited) is just stupid.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

30. Endless war will be a reality if Bush is elected, yes.

As far as your comment that it is 'stupid' to use Bush's flip-flop against him -- :wtf:

[MercutioATC]

32. I believe it will be, regardless...

It'll take decades to "win", if it can actually be "won" at all (which I doubt).

It's not stupid to call attention to a "flip-flop". It's stupid to waste a Bush mistake like that. There were less simplistic ways to deal with the issue.

[JohnKleeb]

5. I thought it was Edwards who said it

I believe it was a response to Bush saying it was unwinnable.

[quinnox]

6. Yea ... did you think he would agree with Bush and say it wasn't?

[LisaL]

12. Bush doesn't even agree with Bush.

Bush first said we can't win war on terror.
The next day he said that we can win war on terror.
According to the "talking heads" and newspapers, Bush adjusted his position.
Kerry, if he did anything like that, of course, would be flip-flopping.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

[rocktivity]

7. This war is extremely winnable if done right.

It's a global problem, and therefore it requires a global solution. When he couldn't get the rest of the world do exactly what he wanted, George went at it alone.

:headbang:
rocknation

[pocoloco]

8. The "War on Terror" is certainly winnable,

but you can't use bombs and bullets to fight it!

[Massacure]

10. Well you do need bullets -- but it needs more police and less military

[magnolia]

36. Exactly!

The war on terror is like the war on crime or war on drugs. Not a literal military war. Neither terrorism, drugs or crime will ever be wiped off the face of the earth (in our life time), so "winning" is getting to a point where it no longer is a major, life consuming problem.

Nothing in life is black and white, as Bush sees it. I'm sure Kerry's idea of terrorism and winning is much more complex. If he tried to explain it to a bunch of old veterans or republicans, he'd lose them in the first sentence.

As I heard Bill Maher say yesterday...there's a difference between being right and being correct. Kerry may be right if he says this so-called war isn't winnable, but if he did, he might as well concede the election now. The "correct" thing for him to say is that he will be a strong leader and the best guy to handle terrorism. And to do it in the black and white terms they understand. He did that.

[BlueEyedSon]

11. The phrase "war on terror" is nonsensical.

I'm sickened that Kerry has to reply to Bush, with Bush framing the language/debate.

Was WW2 the "war on blitzkreig?"

[buczak]

13. redefine the war and work to make it winnable.

The best thing that Kerry need to do after he is elected
is to redefine the war. And to make that war winnable.
And then go about to win it.

The greatest problem I have with this 'war on terrorism' is it
too abstract and subject to scope creep. Al Quada, Iraq, ANWR,
Endangered Species Acts, EPA, TSA, Taxes, Debt, all these
issues have been referred to as the 'war on terrorism'. This
war on Islamic Fundamentalist and Al Quada should be job one.

This is what should be the presidents' number one job.

Focus.

[ItsMyParty]

19. Kerry said winable but not in the "we kill them all" and we win sense

He talked about not just the global relations necessary to track down these people, the intelligence services, etc.; but of the using of the world resources and the like to improve the lives of people around the world that is making terrorism thrive.

[shraby]

24. Remember that Kerry was instrumental

in bringing down BCCI which laundered money for terrorists. I would think he will go after money laundering in a big way which will help immensely. Also the poppy fields in Afghanistan that help finance terrorism can be done away with. There are a lot of ways to stop terrorism and he's smart enough to think of them and wanting to know which books people are reading is not one of them.

[benburch]

20. It *is* winnable.

By making it a law-enforcement and covert operations "war" on one hand, and on the other addressing the things we do that so anger other nations on the other, we can damage existing terror organizations badly enough that they rarely are able to strike and improve our respect and trust in the world in general such that the motivation to strike at us is sufficiently reduced to be able to call the war "won".

[MercutioATC]

27. I disagree.

Unless we're able to find a way to make all people respect each other's beliefs and provide a decent standard of living to everybody on the planet (religion and poverty being the biggest motivators for terrorism, IMHO) terrorism will continue to exist. I think it's shortsighted to promise the ability to "win" in an endeavor of this magnitude.

...and I think that Kerry just said it to counter Bush's recent statement.

[benburch]

33. We don't need to make the world perfect!

People have to be very motivated to become terrorists.

You simply placate enough of them that the few nutcases remaining can be rounded by by the protective services.

[LuminousX]

21. It can be won so long as you first clearly define 'Terror'

I think we can win the War on Terror, so long as we link 'Terror' with Al Qaeda and not 'Terrorism.'

You can't wage a war on a tactic, but you can wage a war against the effects of a tactic.

[DrFunkenstein]

25. You Win It With Access To Jobs, Education, Peaceful Alternatives

Kerry understands this, has spoken at length about this, but it simply will not "sell" in the current environment.

[Cocoa]

26. Kerry's right!

this madness will end someday. The first step is to get rid of Bush.

[stellanoir]

29. a war on a "tactic" is no more plausibly win-able

than a war on drugs.

Addressing the root causes of terrorism (impoverishment, desparation, unemployment, desparation under dictatorships), and no longer perpetuating a simplistic foreign policy of bullying, espousing stupid rhetoric of "evil doers" etc. might just help to quell the ever burgeoning anti-American sentiment that is so thriving under *.

Diplomacy and compromise might help a bit.

In the words of a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia (who served under a Repuk administration) said recently, anyone who would say, ""you're either with us or against us," doesn't know anything about democracy" (or diplomacy for that matter.)

In the words of WJC, "there is no way we can capture or kill those who oppose us."

Fundamentally, we need a leader who's thoughts transcend dualism to ameliorate global conditions. Let's hope we get one.

[MercutioATC]

31. THAT, I agree with. n/t