Struggle for Civilization

"Bush to Appeal for Unity in Terror War"

After visits to Pennsylvania and the Pentagon, paying respects for 9/11 victims, President Bush addressed the nation with comments about the continuing war on terror.

President Bush, five years after the Sept. 11 attacks, planned to say Monday the war against terror "is a struggle for civilization" and that defeat would surrender the Middle East to radical dictators with nuclear weapons.

"If we do not defeat these enemies now, we will leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons," Bush said. "We are in a war that will set the course for this new century and determine the destiny of millions across the world."

From this article (I didn't see the broadcast) it appears that the war terror is not on the decline. Rather, the US and possibly other coalition members may be gearing up for an extremely long haul.

This speech worries me a little. His speaks of the entire middle east. This war on terror has really broadened, and frankly I'm unsettled at how easily the reasons for this war, eb and flow.

It now seems to be that we are fighting for the cessation of nuclear ambition by middle-east nations.

ops: article here

[edit on 11-9-2006 by nextguyinline]

And by saying nuclear weapons.. yeah right, he was talking about Iran. Also, he forgot to say that Israël is in the Middle-East, is doing wars, have nuclear weapons... is it considered as a threat?

Anyway, after middle-east and islamofascists it will be the big bad red dragon and ultimately, the big bad russian. And after that, we'll be under world wide fascism. But remember this, it's not fascism when we do it!

One thing among other stupid things he said was Clash Of Civilisations... He believes in this crap, and this is not good for us. It's like Hot War... the sequel of Cold War... a war of ideology or civilisation... a concept created by Huntington, and it's very radical, extremist and desilusionnal... Edit: I forgot racist. And they want to prove by force that our civilisation is ``better`` than any other... by defeating them... it's like crusaders with an another name...

JUST CRAZY!

[edit on 11-9-2006 by Vitchilo]

What's really crazy is ...

... all those guys on the other side believe it too.

I don't agree with the war. However, I would like to point to some facts that would have it seem that I do. Being at war helps the economy, even though it brings us into debt. Being in two countries creates a "pincer" against a real threat Iran. Being at war for ten years provides experience. In a military sense, when other contries are at war (Russia and Chechnia) and we are at peace, that's not a good thing. Yes we have made alot of mistakes, however we have learned from them. We have conducted much research and development. We also have a number in the military who stay in the military by re-elisting. Urban combat is not easy, it is the most difficult form of warfare out there. However, our military is doing a good job for thier task on hand.

Would our economy have been better off if we never went to war? Yes. Does the independent movie "Loose Change" bring up alot of vailid points that hint that the governement was behind 9/11. Sure. Does Hailburton want to control the worlds oil and water supplies along with other major corporations? I won't dismiss that. Has Americans lost many of thier Consititnal rights since 9/11? That's not even debatable because the facts prove it true. This could go on, but the point of the matter is a standing military is no good. Never has been since Napoleans time, isn't now. A military in Motion stays in motion. Granted it was nice when Libya gave up it's nukes. It's a challenge having Iranian secret agents fund the Iraq insurgents. The bottom line is, you can't have it both ways. In a perfect world there would be no corporate greed with military imperilism. In this world we have it. People die when we go in to take thier resources (both oil, water and etc.) force thier markets to open. (There's a Burger King or something like it over ther near the airport. There are people buying american dvd's, there are other examples of our overproducted iteams being sold over there.) That's the nature of capitalism. No system is perfect. Yes, ours is prone to corruption. (do electronic voint machines really keep an accurate account?) Granted, it's stinks. but I can not emphasis enough, how it also comes down to the experience we are gettting over there in urban combat.

Big Papa, the only question remains... why get the army out of the country? Why have an army? The problem is that corporations owns the government... and the government are parts of corporations... it's even worse than church and state.. it's not church-state-corporation... All against citizens.

In response we can look at Donald Rumsford approach towards Iraq. Now in the Military there are tons of people who want to join thier branches special forces. There are a lot of them turned down. In fact we could have entire divisions of Special Forces sent over to Iraq. Look at how they took over Afhganistan. (excuse the spelling I'm on a time contrant.) Now instead rumford sent Grandfathers over who are in the National Guard. Old men ready to retire, but instead are killed by hidden roadside bombs. The Special Forces are trained to deal with hidden bombs, but we send the National Guard. Now the enemy has RPG's and our side has m-16's that get clogged from the desert sand. The National guard troops can't fire back when a ten year old kid is firing an RPG round at them. If we sent in a Division of Special Forces troops, they would probably not have this problem, of they would have thier own version of an RPG roound, of one taken from the enemy. Now there are Special Forces troops sitting in America, while we are allowing people over 40 to enlist.

Getting back to the point... When someone in the National Guard leaves to go to Iraq, they temporary leave a job opening behind. If they die over there, then it;s a permanent job opening. I have to go so I'll answer the other questions later.

which statement is true

a) Pakistani Navy kill 70 American Children in 12 weeks say UN

b) French Marines kill 40 English Children in 9 weeks say UN

c) Israeli military kill 50 Palestinian children in 10 weeks says UN