America's Secret War - The True Reason for war in Iraq...

Originally posted by deltaboy
Al Qaeda has to do with 9/11 since Osama admited it in the video. maybe u havent forgotten his explanation why he targeted America, says somthing to do with supporting Israel. maybe u should look at the date of 9/11 and 2001. also Osama talks about "80 years of Muslim humiliation". he talks about the British helping to established the Jewish Homeland and the carving up of territories of the former Ottoman Empire which was the last evidence and bastion of the former Islamic Empire and into the Islamic Darkage in my view.

thats wrong, surprised by the US claims Alqueda at the first time deny the attacks, the problem is that the americans would not change the opininon -because they needed someone to blame, and Alqueda was perfect- so they accept the authory, but mostly becaouse to turn in heroes and perhaps to cover the organization that done the attacks, then the rest is just politics, i mean the "80 years of humiliation" etc..... is the same crap of some politians of the "iraq freedom" or " the war against terror"


[edit on 9-9-2005 by grunt2]

American state and yet we are PAYING market price for their oil?

well the oil corporations are making a loot of money with that, but basically is again the lack of analysis from the US, they thought that take iraq could be easy, turn in a pro-US country and controll their resources, but now they are trapped, they are paying by their error, now the best solution that the US have is to turn in a pro-Iran country and leave the most sooner possible

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I like it when people lable others america bashers.
damn right people bash america
your soo friggen stupid to go into iraq you deserved to get bashed.
if you dont liek the bashing stay out of world friggen affairs.

Stupid?
Can you tell me do you like dictators being in power?
If not suggest how to stop the dictator in charge of iraq before the invasion?

Market price for oil?.... lucky you even get any oil
people wait for days in lines in IRAQ for oil

Because most of the looters and terrorists have attacked the facilities there.

and yes ,its now an american state.
what else would you call it?

I'd call it iraq, a nation in regime change.
Are you now saying that britain, and the other coalition countries are all secretly the US but in disguise? ITS A CONSPIRICY! Quick ed board up the windows with crooked peices of wood!

Iraqi?.. The us didnt spend all this money, and sacrifice its own troops just for the Iraqi's to take control and push them around.

No they went in to save lives and to secure the area from a rogue and dangerous state.

Its an american state.
thats how the middleast see's it...

Oh its american now is it?
Those british soldiers there are now american?
Get your facts straight and your conspiricy ideas correct before you accuse anyone of anthing.

what else would you call it, when a government invades, removes the leaders, then sets up what it deams responsible leaders...

I would call that a pupet government BUT thats not what happened in iraq.
It did remove the government, it DID invade BUT it let the iraqi people ellect who they wanted.

c'mon edsinger, Israel was HATE simply for its involvment with american affairs.
IRaq is now an AMERICAN Funded, and RUN STATE!

Iraq is NOT an american state, no more than the PRC is an american state.

The people that dont have a clue are the people like you, that still beleive the middleast is going to be all peachy with an IRAQ, that has been invaded by the USA.

I dont believe ANY of the above you've mentioned, know your enemy before you try and debate with him.

Its a fairytale... made by idiots to convince the losers that your country is supreme.

Make my country supreme? WTH would I want that?

America is a good country, but it had no right to decide on flaud intellegence, on faked memo's and dodgy squeelers to invade a country that was clearly no threat
you my friend are the ones that dont have a clue.

I dont have a clue? Pot calling kettle black comes to mind.
You have no idea what the other side is saying.

I agree devilswasp after the gulfwar 1, in 1991 IRAQ was destroying WMD.

but from 2000 - 2003 IRaq had nothign to dowith WMD's.

WRONG, there are videos actualy videos of iraqis running buldozers over WMD missiles, THATS one of the reasons that the weapon inspectors knew the iraqis where destroying them.

and until PROOF. hard PROOF comes to light the world will never beleive it
I mean america CONTROLS IRAQ, has free access ANYWHERE.. can read, investgate ANYTHING, yet they still havent found a god damn thing!

America doesnt control iraq, some US citizens thought they did but they dont, as tim collins showed them but paid for it with his career.
BTW, do you call hard proof video evidence of bulldozers destroying weapons of destruction . hard evidence?
Do you call left over supplies, that have been found, hard evidence? Or is it just another lie that the other side has made up and will we keep going in this merry dance of "its a lie" by both sides?

.. yeah. u keep telling ya self WMD's was in iraq if it helps ur sleep, knowing what your countries donig.

What helps me sleep at night is that our troops are doing the right things.

... new orleans.. wow you really are struggling for reasonable responses.

Am I? Didnt know you where telepathic.

New Orleans is a distarter zone ofcourse its in chaos....
thats expected.

So? Iraq is in the middle of a warzone, of course parts of it are in chaos.

America invaded Iraq what... 3 yrs ago?... and ALL of those events on the list still occur, so i would say that order is a long long way off.
I never said it all evolved around the sunni triangle, thast a spin you placed on my message.

Yet again "america this" america that, get your mind off america for 1 second and you might JUST understand what actually happened.
The Coalition went in, not just american, not just british but multiple countries.
All those event happen in certain area, not in all.
Ofcourse its still a long way off, there are still people there that hate order.
You said yourself the sunni triangle I AM talking about IRAQ, not some area of it but the whole damm country. Oh and believe me if I was going to spin or twist your words...I would and could do so...I am british, take a look at our papers can do...

The sunni triangle is considered the more violent section of iraq, but thast not to say violence and explosions arent occuring all over IRAQ...
and it doesnt change a thing, being the CAPITAL city of a country, and majority of its second in charge cities are constantly under military occupation, with car bombs, murders, rapes and all that carrying on.
i still fail to see how u consider order to be upon them.

Yet agian, I am talking about the country, not parts of it but the actual country.
The capital city is simply a city with the goverment in it, nothing more.
Murder, rapes and "all that" carrying on every where in the world, the car bombs ,etc happened in belfast but they had control ,they happened all over NI but they still maintained control...
I dont care if you fail to see order when it is there...that has no bearing on my life and frankly I dont care.

I agree, wrong ful murder happesn everywhere in the world.
the peopel like urself who call it order are the ones in chaos.

I am in chaos? Wow you know me better than I do!

So it doesnt matter the factions are getting closer and closer to conflict...
because in those small rural area's where there arent militants roaming the streets, we consider this to be very much order......???

"Small rural areas" , what about the entire of southern iraq? I have heard of what only 1 attack lately and that has been after quite a quiet time.
I condsider that order.

.. u seem to think america 's army is invincible.

No I dont and I dont care about americas army...its frankly not my buisness...mabye eds or westys but not mine.

If they wiped out your army in IRAQ it would cripple your countries ability

Not really, they'd need to destroy the RN to cripple my country...island nation hint hint..

As you said before, if the us wanted a base in the middleast they would simply be in israel is stupid.

Oh really?Nice opinion....pitty it doesnt matter to me.

because israel is already target number1.
putting a large section of ur militry in israel is idiotic, bad planning and suicide.

Eh?
The western WORLD is the number 1 target.
Hell the white house is NO1 target with no 10 comeing up a close second.

If you want to take a cheap shot at me asying those soilders DIDNT die for the cause ur being told... go ahead.

Its not a cheap shot, its frankly insulting the dead...do you enjoy that? It appears that you do.

I never said anything about the bravery of those soilders, your just fishing now!

You tried to insult thier honour!

Id consider IRAQ To have mre chance of being democratic than safe..
these insurgents arent terrorists.. they are IRAQI's... they are IRAQI's who feel cheated, becuase they felt secure under SAdadm, they worked, they obeyed theyre government rules, they worked, raised families.
and NOW... they have daily bombings, murders and everything the USA brought to IRAQ.

Yeah they felt safe, guess what...the b'ath party felt quite safe, the IRAQIS didnt...
You know why most of the iraqis are killing iraqis?
Because there part of the B'ath party...hell british solderis had to STOP iraqis killing IRAQIS.
The iraqis that are stirking at the coalition forces are acting for thier own reasons, nethier you nor I can say with any certianty that the terrorists are fighting for one cause.

Thats why there is a insurgency
and it will grow DAILY.. why?
because every person the americans kill, is another brother/father/mother/cousin/uncle what ever wanting revenge.

Yet again...get your mind off america for once and we can discuss this..
You are makeing it out like the iraqis are not fighting these terrorists, which is simply untrue.

They dont trust the government, why did it take so logn for the constitution to pass? they eventually FORCED it.
why are soo many officials being assinated?

Says who? You?
Constitutions take quite a while to be passed.
Why are they being assasinated? Because it doesnt help thier cause by them being alive.

if they didnt thnk Iraq was tainted, why are they tellign America to leave the land, if they thought america was going to help , bring safety and democracy, why would u hurt the one country trying to help yuo?
because they know the truth, they see the bodis in the streets, they hear the stories from friends, they watched as there country was bombed to crap, there government removed, and now th western invader has taken up residence in the FORMER presidents palace.

Yet again, get your mind off america then we can talk.
Why are SOME telling americans to leave? A variety of reasons, none of which you listed.
Also, many iraqis are helping the Coalition and infact thank the Coalition for helping them.

not tained..... thats a joke.
Coudl you handle a foreign goverment destroying your military, taking up residence in the whitehouse?... would you not consider the American ladn now tainted?

Well not really since scoltands several hundred miles away from the nearest peice of american soil, except mabye thier bases here but heh.
I am british, never been america, not anything else. If some one did destroy my military and take my land then we would evict them and frankly I wouldnt see it tainted.

of course not..... for the sake of this argument im sure your able to come up with an excuse for YOUR country...

Yeah I think I will since I am not even anywhere NEAR the country you said!

but those iraqi's should learn to love there new way of life huh? if they dont liek it toooo bad... beacuse the americans are there to stay until the countery accepts the new leaders

Not really, if they dont like it , dont accept it..work with the Coalition BUT dont point a gun in thier face because they will blow you away.
Oh and BTW, as far as I know there is no clear "exit" strategy... thats what worries me.

thats a pretty stupid scnario..
parade an american ship along iran waters..
are you realy that challeneged at mind?...

Yeah thats why I said it...if they wanted to start a war they could just parade the biggest ship in the american navy ( As far as I can remember...am I corect ed?) just off thier coast.

who said they would do that?..
they dont need to...

You mean about isreal?
You where the one suggesting that they send a large number of troops ther, the only large number of troops near iraq are Coalition forces.

and Iran isnt stupid enough to fall for your countries bait...
....They might send some weapons acros the border, but they are going to try there hardest to keep there involvement secretive.

Mine?
Britain doesnt have a nimitz class carrier lololol!
Yeah and while they do the Coalition can legally engage the forces crossing the border and arrest all of them Like they do to ours :dwn: for helping damaged sailors.

And finally, when your president has only a year to months remaining in his presidency, and no large scale attack is imminent, he will hit you again.
And you sheep will be happily led to your own death, bcause ur to ignorant to think foruself and look at this war for what it really is..

Pres?
In the UK? I think the queen might have something to say about that lol Same with good old tony lol.
Hit me? Whats he going to do? Invade scotland to hunt down those damm Al'qui-haggis-ida?

Democracy in Iraq?... huh!
You cant even get it right in your country ..

We dont even have a democracy in ours LOL!

ahh you make me laugh.
I enjoy people who are still stupid enough to protest for this god damn war.


the whole worlds going down the toilet becuase of the ' coalition of the bribed '
and you sheep that still think it was the godo thing to do.. hahaha how ignorant you are!

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
ahh you make me laugh.
I enjoy people who are still stupid enough to protest for this god damn war.


the whole worlds going down the toilet becuase of the ' coalition of the bribed '
and you sheep that still think it was the godo thing to do.. hahaha how ignorant you are!

And I laugh at those who are blinded as the reasons in which it was necessary and I am sure glad enough that those in power do not hold to your great appeasement attitude and run.

It boils down to this, they attacked the US more than once BEFORE 911, we did nothing but swat at flies, but when someone in office with the balls to take the fight to the enemy was there, they tried again to show how weak the US is......did'nt turn out that way now did it. Well at least you can continue to think that, meanwhile the war goes on and your ideas mean less and less. You are wrong and full of hate.....


Have a nice day.

Your right.
You supopsidly get hit by alqaeda so you hit Iraq.

wow yuor logic must make you a A class person huh?

By they you mean Iraqi's? Muslims? Alqaeda? which one do you want to see murdered?
why not eradicate the group that hit you edsginer? instead of putting all your military might into a nother country and letting the leader walk around free to plan more attacks..
I spose tho, thats logic to you isnt it?...
Because those damn tulipwalkers.. how dare they want peace. peace is for the week.. lets KILL SOMEPEOPLE! and show how strong we are!

Im looking forward to the day this all gets the cover blown off it, and ur american government gets called infront of a world court to answer for its crimes.

What will you stupid sheep have to say then?
duh duh... we were patriotic???

You should get some guts.. and some brains.. and stop listening to the BullCRAP your government is feeding you.
ITS Because of stupid sheep such as yourself that there still ABLE TO Shovel it in the bucket loads they are.

and edsinger my idea's may mean less and less.. but its you stupid sheep americans that the world are hating as every day goes by.
Id rather have a say and be called stupid, than have the whole international community look upon me as a member of a murderous, lying curropt government, especially when i support them!



[edit on 14-9-2005 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 14-9-2005 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 14-9-2005 by Agit8dChop]

Thanks ED,

This seems like a good read and I am looking forward to buying the book.

The Whole Pakistan situation makes a whole lot of sense.

I dont care for Musharaff (Prez of Pakistan) but I am worried that if Pakistan does somehow fall under Musharaffs leadership, what will happen with all those nuks. Dangerous situation.

Thanks again ed for the info on the book!

Has anyone finished reading the book yet????

-reason

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
ahh you make me laugh.
I enjoy people who are still stupid enough to protest for this god damn war.

Realy? I didnt know you where automatically labelled "stupid" for saying your opinion but hey never mind mate..

the whole worlds going down the toilet becuase of the ' coalition of the bribed '
and you sheep that still think it was the godo thing to do.. hahaha how ignorant you are!

I do think it was a good thing.
Ignorant? Pot calling kettle ...come in kettle...pot calling kettle...

urrm that kinda doesnt make sense.. my opinion about someone really isnt an automatic thing. I decide my opinion on them, when i figure out the stuff they follow.
Its my opinion devilwasp. I think the poeple whom stand up telling the world they still fall for the crap the government is feeding them, are stupid.

*Only a stupid person would STILL believe we went there for WMD,
Democracy and to free the Iraqi's.
*Only a stupid person would defend bush against being dishonest.
*Only a stupid person would still believe all the crap about sept11, the
Iraq evidence and the terrorists whom still ' ELUDE ' the strongest and
most sophisticated government in the world.

If you fit into one of the above catergories, my personal opinion of you is that your a stupid fool!
And Im prepared to have a healthy debate with ANYONE whom feels my personal opinion is based on INCORRECT assumptions.

Anti american, Anti Bush, Bush Bashing what ever you want to call it I dont really give a darn hoot. Because I make my own opinion based on 1 simple thing.

-EVIDENCE-

If you aint got none, or arent prepared to SHOW ME, then I dont belive a thing that your saying.

I apply this to the above catergories!









[edit on 27-9-2005 by Agit8dChop]:

[edit on 27-9-2005 by Agit8dChop]

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
urrm that kinda doesnt make sense.. my opinion about someone really isnt an automatic thing. I decide my opinion on them, when i figure out the stuff they follow.

It doesnt? Oh well then I suppose I'd be in my right to call you stupid wouldnt I? But I wont.

Its my opinion devilwasp.

Yeah I kinda guessed that.

I think the poeple whom stand up telling the world they still fall for the crap the government is feeding them, are stupid.

But "crap" not only comes from the government, just because its the oposite or against what the government says its still possibley crap.
Hell there is no "white and black" , public vs government here....its grey.

*Only a stupid person would STILL believe we went there for WMD,
Democracy and to free the Iraqi's.

2 out of those 3 are on the agenda , every soldier over there beleives that and plans are already underway to make that happen. IMO it would be stupid to think the government didnt go there for 2 out of those 3.

*Only a stupid person would defend bush against being dishonest.

I not defending bush at all, hell no offence to america but frankly Roger Moor means more to me than him.

*Only a stupid person would still believe all the crap about sept11, the
Iraq evidence and the terrorists whom still ' ELUDE ' the strongest and
most sophisticated government in the world.

A) Crap? You mean the "crap" about several hundred peope dieing? You mean the crap about high powered jet aircraft smashing into the side of a populated building?
B) You mean the evidence that was actually ratified by several sources but is flawed and if the blame fell to anyone its the intel services and the weapon inspectors.
C) You ever tried to hunt down a world wide terror cell? We could barely hunt down a terror cell in NI never mind all over the world.

If you fit into one of the above catergories, my personal opinion of you is that your a stupid fool!

IMO thats a pretty "wide" way to decide whos an idiot or not but heh thats your opinion.

And Im prepared to have a healthy debate with ANYONE whom feels my personal opinion is based on INCORRECT assumptions.

Ah isnt saber ratling fun?

Anti american, Anti Bush, Bush Bashing what ever you want to call it I dont really give a darn hoot. Because I make my own opinion based on 1 simple thing.

-EVIDENCE-

What type of "evidence" ? Hearsay? Physical?

If you aint got none, or arent prepared to SHOW ME, then I dont belive a thing that your saying.

My isnt paranioa fun?

I apply this to the above catergories!


[edit on 27-9-2005 by Agit8dChop]:

[edit on 27-9-2005 by Agit8dChop]

You apply what?

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

and edsinger my idea's may mean less and less.. but its you stupid sheep americans that the world are hating as every day goes by.
Id rather have a say and be called stupid, than have the whole international community look upon me as a member of a murderous, lying curropt government, especially when i support them!

Well first of all, stupid is a stupid does.


I do not listen to the damn press. I do research and I listen to people in the know. We did not go into Iraq for just oil or WMD. yes it was part of the equation but not the sole reason.

Now, as for the stupid sheep Americans comment. I assume that you will throw into this catagory the others who 'believed' in the WMD? I mean MI6, the german Intel, Jordanian Intel, Isreali Intel, French Intel, Russian Intel, shall I go on?

No, its more likely you will continue to blame GW Bush and them nasty Americans. Next thing it will be all McDonalds fault as they are taking over the world and making it fat.

Iraq will be a defining moment for this generation, just as the early 80's was with the Tulipwalkers of the world. Reagan was right, you were wrong. At least admitt it for we all know it to be the truth.

What a hilarious thread.

The "real reason" for the war on Iraq.

Well, it may come as news to some people here, but wars of aggression are illegal under the Geneva Conventions. A country must be a genuine threat - which Iraq was not - for the war to be legal. There were no WMDs, none of the official reasons stood up. So now we have this Stratfor fellow saying, "here are the real reasons"... and it's all just a longer admission that the war is a criminal act.

Oh, I really liked the part about Major Cee wearing his gun to church, by the way. That was funny. Whom would Jesus shoot, one wonders? So many of you want to live in a country where you can wear guns... I prefer to be in a country where they aren't necessary, thanks.

I would, however, like to answer a singularly foolish post by Faust:

1) Saddam Hussein is no longer in power threatening his neighbors and defying U.N. demands.

2) There are no more torture chambers that cost the lives of children

3) There are no more rape rooms where husbands were forced to watch their wives get raped and beaten.

4) Free elections have been established.

5) Every day power plants are updated and running, bringing electricity, running water and light to cities

6) Women, Kurds and Shiites have equality for the first times in their lives.

1. Saddam was not a threat to any of his neighbours at the time of the invasion, and in fact many Arab states made representations to the US to this effect in the run-up to it. As for "defying UN demands", well that would be true if there were had been WMDs found... but there weren't. It is true, however, that Saddam is no longer in power.

2. There are places like Abu Ghraib where people are tortured regularly, and many, many children are killed or maimed by US soldiers without even being taken to a secluded room first - they're just shot. And of course, why should the US soldiers even wait for the children to be born when they can shoot pregnant women on the way to hospital? (Head shot, by a sniper, on a woman in the back of a car that was driving away from the sniper at the time.)

3) As above: US soldiers can just rape women out in the open and then kill them, it seems. Or did you miss that news story?

4) You can elect as many politicians as you like but if they don't have the power to remove the US, or change its PSAs with the oil companies, or stop it annexing an enormous area of land in central Baghdad to build the largest embassy in the world, or building deep desert bases... what is the point? Those politicians are powerless and the elections mean nothing.

5. Really? Then why does the US ambassador say that his workers in Baghdad struggle along with only a very few hours of electricity per day?

6. Women in Saddam's Iraq had the best deal in the Islamic world. Saddam was a secularist, and now the fundamentalists are in the ascendancy. Nowadays a woman can be raped on the street for not wearing a hijab, and many have been forced out of the jobs they used to have. The Kurds had their own enclave and had achieved some independence in all but name, and the Shias were living in peace with their Sunni neighbours. Many families were in fact integrated. However, it seems that the US has been fomenting strife between the sects to try and take the edge of the insurgency, an old tactic called "divide and rule".

It is rather dreary that so many gung-ho patriots out there just will not see the damage that they're doing, but nonetheless, one must continue to point out that, as Steven Colbert said, reality seems to have a liberal bias.

Or, at least, it doesn't conform to the delusions of right wing ideologues.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

So now it's Jimmy Carter got Al Queda going?

Most amusing.

Carter might have sent a tiny amount of money but by any sane reckoning the real exploitation of fundy Islam was done by that traitor Ollie North, his CIA boss Poindexter and the ever so forgetful Reagan.

A tiny amount? Do you consider more then a Billion dollars in arms, supplies and cash a tiny amount of money?

Zbigniew Brezinski, Carter’s national security adviser has come forward and talked about this its not secret. Carter knew what was going on he wasnt some stupid peanut farmer no matter how much people want to make it seem.

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

and edsinger my idea's may mean less and less.. but its you stupid sheep americans that the world are hating as every day goes by.
Id rather have a say and be called stupid, than have the whole international community look upon me as a member of a murderous, lying curropt government, especially when i support them!

Well first of all, stupid is a stupid does.


I do not listen to the damn press. I do research and I listen to people in the know. We did not go into Iraq for just oil or WMD. yes it was part of the equation but not the sole reason.

Now, as for the stupid sheep Americans comment. I assume that you will throw into this catagory the others who 'believed' in the WMD? I mean MI6, the german Intel, Jordanian Intel, Isreali Intel, French Intel, Russian Intel, shall I go on?

No, its more likely you will continue to blame GW Bush and them nasty Americans. Next thing it will be all McDonalds fault as they are taking over the world and making it fat.

Iraq will be a defining moment for this generation, just as the early 80's was with the Tulipwalkers of the world. Reagan was right, you were wrong. At least admitt it for we all know it to be the truth.

People hate America because the world press hates America; heck, our own American press hates the U.S. (except Fox News). Personally, I say who cares. We do what needs to be done to protect this nation. When you are the most powerful nation culturally, economically, politically, and militarily, in the world, it is a given you will be hated.

And when you are hated because of outright jealousy, you must protect yourself. If the rest of the world doesn't like that, then whatever, that's they're problem. Terrorists have been carrying out attacks against American assets for years now, and they really did a big one with 9/11. If the U.S. were to just sit by, then they'd only strike larger. They are brain-washed and driven by a real hatred. You cannot appease them. You have to destroy them.

Appeasement NEVER works when one seeks to conquer and destroy.

Originally posted by WheelsRCoolAppeasement NEVER works when one seeks to conquer and destroy.

Couldnt agree more....

Love the Sig.....From Harvard even?????


"Liberalism - The political ideology of people who live in a world filled with sunshine, lollypops, and rainbows."--Harvard University Institute of Politics glossary

thats just 2 funny!

Well I have my own 'noun' for them

1. tulipwalker

A single grouping of leftist, liberal, communist, pinko, enviro-nazi tree hugging, anti-American peace nicks.


Tulipwalker

Those tulipwalkers are at it again, protesting the war, even at the cost of more hatred, putting American lives at greater risk.

Mod Edit: No Quote – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: New Policies for Political Bickering – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/7/2006 by Mirthful Me]

I read through some of what was in this thread. The attemps to justify the war, scuttle the truth and to attempt to show off a pair of bawls come-on, Does the Fox State News Source now provide the coolade fountains. Funding the Iraq invasion weakened the war on terror, put this country in debt for 60plus years and growing. Saddam as much a tirant he is, at least kept it at bay. Now it's open season and Afghanastan is falling back to Taliban control. If you sak me, I say the one swatting flies knew what he was doing after all, Saddam was just a fly. Those in control have now squandered a powerfull economy, brought major debt upon the nation, caused the deaths of 10s of thousands of people men, women and childern. The same party that screems about abortion yet could care less about the people once born "Aw that's just colateral damage". We now have a new Enron operating in Iraq now posing as a service bilking the US and Allies out of millions of dollars. We also saw a loss of intellectual leadership since 2000. Seems we had more control of what was going on in terror cells, global cooperation and swift action manouvers to take out camps and weapons caches. Now we have a new beurocracy call Homeland Security, what's that a late night TV show. We already had a National Guard (but they are deployed). Department on Interior, FBI, Coast Guard, Defence Department, CIA and NSA. NSA could have brought all the departments together, no this is the new Watergate to spy on Democratic activities and a little Terrorist activities.

For the Men and Womens who have lost theirLives, their families ... pause in respect ... we salute you. It's not a bad military, just a rouge administration!

God Ed, I used to have some respect for you! Jeeze and the Ann Coulter captions you can do better. [not a slam just wake up dude!].

I hope everyone will excuse me for trying to return, however briefly, to the thread topic . . .

Edsinger, I read the material you pasted and linked, and I have a few comments up front. I don't think I will buy the book, because of the following.

1. The author claims that we are "winning" the "war on terror" (more on that name and what it reveals momentarily), purely on the grounds that al-Qaeda is not succeeding in its ultimate intention (which the author does identify correctly).

Don't we have goals of our own as a nation in this conflict? Are we merely trying to ensure that Osama bin Ladin does not rise to power as a new Caliph, or are we trying to stop the attacks on the U.S. by Muslim fundamentalists? We are not succeeding in the latter purpose, if that's the goal -- and I think most people would agree that it is.

One must also question how realistic the goal of restoring the Caliphate ever was to begin with. My own opinion is that it is and always was a pipe dream, and OBL is exactly as close to success now as he would have been if we'd done nothing at all, which is to say, not very.

2. I can see no sign that the author understands or acknowledges that some actions taken supposedly in pursuit of the "war on terror," most obviously and dangerously the war in Iraq, make no sense at all if that's what we were really trying to do. We had been attacked by a Muslim fundamentalist group, so in retaliation we invade a land ruled by a secular Arab tyrant who is universally loathed and despised by Muslim fundamentalists and returns the feelings with interest? However despicable Saddam was as a ruler, if we had been seriously trying to hammer down or round up the Muslim fundies, it would have made more sense to enlist him as an ally. There is precedent for this. We were allied with Stalin against Hitler, you may recall.

For this reason, the war in Iraq showed me that, however happy President Bush was to use the "war on terror" as a political tool or a justification to do what he wanted to do, he wasn't serious about pursuing it.

Now, as promised, some thoughts about the phrase "war on terror." Bush is widely viewed by his detractors as not the sharpest tool in the shed, but as a propaganda slogan, "war on terror" is pure diabolical brilliance. If he came up with that one himself, he's a friggin' genius. If he didn't, then at least he has the brains to recognize genius when someone drops it in his lap.

Who attacked us on 9/11/01? "Terror"? No. Al-Qaeda did. One Muslim fanatical paramilitary organization that sometimes uses terror as a tool. And they'd attacked us before that, as well, if not so spectacularly.

A less diabolically brilliant leader might have responded that we were at war with al-Qaeda. I mean, that's ordinary reasoning, right? Somebody attacks us, well, gee whiz, we're at war with them. Duh! On December 8, 1941, President Roosevelt didn't call for a war on airplanes or ships, or a war on sneak attacks, did he? No, he called for a war on Japan, the nation that had hit the U.S. with a sneak attack using ships and airplanes, and got one.

But by declaring, not a war on al-Qaeda, but a war on "terror," President Bush in effect crafted an umbrella war, nebulous enough in its definition to justify attacking or invading just about anyone in the world that he wants to. The more so if it's a Muslim country, of course.

Thus: if we were at war with al-Qaeda (who actually attacked us), there is no way we could justify an invasion of Iraq on that basis. But since we are at war with "terror," well, Saddam, however much he and bin Ladin hated each other, sure did terrorize his own people, and he had ties to a couple of Palestinian terrorist groups that had nothing to do with al-Qaeda but were certainly practitioners of "terror." It's so convenient! And now all this rumbling over Iran? A Shiite country, Iran is on bin Ladin's list of apostate regimes (he's a devoute Sunni himself or pretends to be one), but hey, Iran has "ties" to "terrorists," doesn't it?

Even more disturbing than its breadth is the timescale of the "war on terror," a "war" with no beginning and no end, where the enemy is so poorly defined that we can never be sure whether he exists or not, nor can we tell whether we've eliminated him. How can we ever win such a war? How can we ever lose it? When it's time to make peace, with whom do we negotiate? Whom do we approach with our surrender demands, or our offer of peace?

Calling what we are doing a "war on terror" is a recipe for a state of war without end, justifying a permanent sacrifice of the civil liberties which are supposedly America's raison d'etre. It is, as I said, a piece of diabolically brilliant propaganda. And although it doesn't make me think well of him, it does make me wonder of Bush is really the idiot that some people suppose.

Well I would still argue that the over 'war on terror' DID include Iraq for many reasons. Follow the link and read the chapter summaries.

Iraq harbored terrorists, that's a FACT.
He had used WMD before -- FACT
All the western nations including Russia, thought he had them -- FACT

He could have given them to 'highest bidder' --- conjecture but not worth the chance... ( See Iran and North Korea in today news )


And just so I am clear on this, I FIRMLY believe he HAD them. I think they went to Syria and just as today's news is breaking, guess what? Yup..... Syria is in the background.

There is more to this story and I also firmly believe that had Scary been elected we would still be in this mess. Who is president means nothing, it just means in this case we have one a bit more aggressive than the other would have been..


The link has much to read without buying the book....I find it interesting indeed.

Originally posted by edsinger
Well I would still argue that the over 'war on terror' DID include Iraq for many reasons. Follow the link and read the chapter summaries.

Iraq harbored terrorists, that's a FACT.
He had used WMD before -- FACT
All the western nations including Russia, thought he had them -- FACT
~

More excusses for the politicos.
Fact: The US has harbored terrorists both knowing and unknowingly. Those of 911 trained amongst us! Look up School of the Americas!
Fact: Halibuton was directly involved with Iraq but most of what SH had was now unusable and of little threat to US or the Saudis.
Fact: The fact is that the UN was already dismantling what little he had! "Oh no we can't have blue hats involved".


[edit on 16-7-2006 by AlabamaCajun]

Osama BinLaden didn't even call his rag-tag band of Islamic Jihadists, that had failed to gain widespread support, al Qaeda until after 911 and the American neo-cons dubbed it and exagerated its size and threat.

'Al Qaeda and the neo-conservatives serve each other's purpose better than anyone else's needs and goals.

Now I suppose the Islamic Jihadist movement has gained wider support as a result of the actions taken after 911. I still think the majority of people want peace.