[xmarksthespot]

A few years ago I had a conversation with a distinguished medical professional, who was doing cutting-edge research on cancer. I asked him if he felt we were close to winning the war on cancer.

His answer was we could never win a war so defined. Asking if we can defeat cancer is like asking if we can prevent people from getting sick. Sure Americans have marveled at the breakthroughs in cancer research. But to suggest all cancers can be defeated is too broad a stroke. We need to be more realistic.

Likewise, in the "war on terroism" we are painting with too broad a stroke if we believe we will end the enimity certain parasites around the world feel towards America.

Instead we should ask, can we wipe out Al Queda and the remnants of the Taliban in the foreseeable future? To that question the answer is a resounding yes.

And if we do it the right way, making certain the enemy suffers devastating defeat -- publically, for all the world to see -- most future parasites will be disabused of the notion any good can come from attacking America or her vital interests.

Just as it's not possible to end all war, ending all wars against terrorists should not be the goal of the current campaign -- nor the yardstick by which we measure success.

[vrwconspiracist]

Unless BH dumped its insurance positions, this sounds like world-class thumbsucking. Don't listen to the man's mouth, watch his wallet.

[cactmh]

Warren Buffet is very good at making money in the stock market. How exactly does this make his opinion matter when it comes to the military and foreign policy? He's no better than the Hollywood types who spout off with their big yappers.

[snopercod]

Good post. Buffet is right. It's simply not possible to prevent a fanatic from trying to take others with him to his supernatural place of reward and/or punishment. All we can do is be aware and prepare.

[Bob J]

The war on terrorism will end when the Islamics and Israel declare peace.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Why do I feel like this is about the third separate thread I've seen whose subject is "Warren Buffet says such and such"?

I might even be inclined to agree that "we will never win the war on terrorism" per se... but who cares whether Warren Buffet "says" such a thing?

What's next, "Billionaire Warren Buffet says superstring theory will be proven within the next year"? "Billionaire Warren Buffet says the Montreal Expos will win the World Series"?

Is it because he's a billionaire that we're supposed to give more weight to his opinion? Is that it?

[moneyrunner]

Anyone who looks at stock market performance has to give credit to Warren Buffet … however … let’s keep a few facts in mind. First, Warren is a political lefty. He is a major supporter of the Clintons and, I should add, their sexual ethics. His views on the stock market should carry some weight; his views on politics and foreign affairs are amateur night.

Second, with regard to his stock market success, it’s useful to keep in mind that the started out rich and got richer. This in no self-made billionaire. The difference between you and Warren Buffet is the difference between a spectator and the main act. Warren Buffet owns a controlling interest in many of the companies in which he invests. He sits on the board of directors of many of the companies he invests in, proving not only inside information, but also the ability to steer the fortunes of his investments. He has even had special classes of stock created just for him, as in the case of US Air a few years ago, which created a special class of convertible preferred stock in return for a bailout. He temporarily ran the company and got a special high dividend rate that converted into millions of shares of stock when the airline rose from near bankruptcy. Try getting that sort of deal with your piddling few thousand dollars of investments.

The fact is that Warren has done well for himself and the shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway, but not in the way that mutual fund managers have done. He uses his wealth to create investment opportunities not available to you and me. This is not necessarily unethical or immoral, but it goes a long way to explaining his success.

Bottom line, if you believe his judgment of the Clintons, you will give more credibility to his judgment of political and foreign affairs.

[Rudder]

Are you sure they meant Warren?

I think it was Jimmy who mumbled this, while he was looking for his lost shaker of salt.

[mombonn]

Warren Buffet should shut up and eat another Dilly Bar.

[Twiceborn]

The sad truth is, the man is probably right... How can we stop terrorism? If in NYC, at this very moment, a bunch of nut jobs decide to pack themselves with explosives and ride the subways one way to allah, how do you stop them? Look at Israel... where (or how) does this end??? This is not war in the sense of fighting another country. This is TOTAL insanity... I for one will not be lulled into a false sense of security. I saw a plane hit a tower. At that very instant, I saw countless people die. A friend of mine lost his wife there. His 2 kids will never see their mom again. His words to me? "20 years of marriage... it wasn't enough" He cried like a baby as I held him...

The world and our way of life, has changed. I'm afraid, it has not changed for the better.

[EternalHope]

And if we do it the right way, making certain the enemy suffers devastating defeat -- publically, for all the world to see -- most future parasites will be disabused of the notion any good can come from attacking America or her vital interests.

Hits the nail on the head.

[Harp]

There were and are still Nazis after WWII as well -- and that didn't mean we lost. The only question will be how decisive our victory is, not whether we'll win.

My man Buffet needs to be less bearish on this.

[Sci Fi Guy]

Buffet has spoken out for liberal issues before. So I wouldn't consider him an objective observer, nor is he an expert in foreign policy, or military tactics.

Just as it's not possible to end all war, ending all wars against terrorists should not be the goal of the current campaign -- nor the yardstick by which we measure success.

I find it hard to believe that Buffet actually said this. Aside from the fact that Bush has clearly defined our goals. Aside from the fact that we(the West) have defeated terrorist groups before. Liberals love the idea of war to end all wars. They are always assuming that we will never need our military.

[mjf]

I suspect that he is correct. We cannot "win" this war on terrorism. There will always be a next crop of terrorists, the way the Islamic schools raise them. And after that, another crop.

But, we can cut their fields clean. Again and again. Let's do that.

[xm177e2]

Actually, in the next few decades, we'll have radical methods to treat most cancers, and they will be wildly successful.

But terrorists will still be a thorn in our side.

[Temple Owl]

Buffett is probably right. But, it can be brought under some kind of control. We had over 25,000 homicides reported in the United States last year. I would call that some sort of terrorism. I live in an extremly low-crime area. We had two homicides committed during robberies in the past two months. Bush appears to be uniting the world against terrorism. Maybe we can bring it under control.

[Revolting cat!]

Warren Buffoon must not have read the memo from his hero Krintong the gist of which is that we can win the war on terrorism if we only share our wealth with the terrorists. Warren would be the prime candidate for wealth sharing.

Beyond that, the statement and the agreements with it are ridiculous on their face. Why, because he is obviously correct in the cosmic sense! Terrorism has been with us since Kain offed Abel, no? It has certainly been with us since the French Revolution. The sun rises in the East, says genius investor Warren Buffoon, let's start another thread here! C'mon let's not contribute to the buffoon's buffoonery!

[HENRYADAMS]

A genius? The guy made lots of money. Ergo, he is a genius on military and political matters. If he is so knowledgeable maybe he should offer his services leading the army or at least a platoon.

Unless this man has military and political experience he should shut up and go back to making his money.

[JimSEA]

One problem aboput the war on terror is that, up to 9/11 it worked rather well for the Islamic fundamentalists. Arafat got more concessions from Isreal with the Intefada than all the wars forced on Isreal by her neighbors. We are slow in learning that if you appease terrorists you merely encourage them to escalate their demands. Clinton and his peace process lead directly to what is going on today.

Now I am not implying nuclear weapons or extermination (just means are the only way to achieve just ends) but the calm, systematic approach Bush is taking is the best approach. Just never back down.

[Designed]

All religions have a spectrum of commitment among their members. There are those who are highly committed to Christianity, for instance, who take the Bible very seriously and try to live by all its requirements. There are others, who claiming to be Christians, approach the scriptures cafeteria style — accepting what they like and rejecting what they don't like. The Moslems who are telling us that Islam is a religion of peace are the religious liberals of that religion. They do not really believe the numerous passages in the Koran that teach Muslims to kill unbelievers. But as long as there are religious conservatives, that is, Muslims who really believe that the Koran is the word of God, there will be terrorism. Like it or not, this is a battle against Islam.