Patton Speaks On The War On Terror

Worth a watch or two:

 

My God, I love it so.

 

Now if somebody could just tell me what winning is in this war.

 

That thing is a bigger insult to George C. Scott than it is to Patton.

 

I had an interesting conversation with a "progressive" friend of mine on this subject.

He: "What do you consider victory?"

Me: "Victory. That's what I consider victory."

What an odd question. And obvious answer.

 

Well, Sadam was captured, tried and executed. George Bush landed on an aircraft carrier with the words "Mission Accomplished" behind him.
Seems to me like we won the war and we're losing the peace.

 

Well, it's an obvious tautology. But other than that, meaningless.

I made it through two minutes of that silliness.

JDV's videos are more interesting.

 

That's a pretty open-ended response that begs a bit more explanation. Victory, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. And since mission creep has changed the official definition of what victory would be, even our leaders don't seem to have an answer. Nation building was decried by the Bush Administration in the beginning, but now it doesn't seem possible for us to achieve anything remotely resembling a victory without building a nation.

 

I think it's scary that some people think the "war on terror" resembles anything like World War II. It's more like the ongoing "war on drugs" than a conventional war.

 

John Edwards got raked over the coals for his "bumper sticker" remark, but he was right.
"Terror" is a concept or a tactic or something like that (I'm not sure what the correct word is). It's something people use to accomplish a political objective.
Maybe it's sematics, but "War on terrorists" would be a more correct term.