The War on Terror

[blueovalboy7]

I agree with parts of Brawny's argument and a little of Tails, Bush is an easy scapegoat like you said Brawny, because he is not a great public speaker, he tends to make idiotic references and that in turn causes people to lose respect for him. I believe that Bush is at fault in part, but the majority of the blame should be put on his advisers and whoever made him believe that there were wmds in Iraq. Sure you can play the oil card, it's not like there aren't facts that would lead you to believe that, but do you honestly believe that? I think that ridding the world of Saddam was a good thing, but I also believe once we did that and discovered that there were no wmds in Iraq we should have started to pull out. Only issue I have with it is that their government is in tatters and if we leave it will fall back into the only form of government they have ever known and then what? Back to square one.

In regards to Squall we aren't really talking about global warming at the moment, but there will be a time and place for it. I think that blankconnection has a point though, the majority of posters on this forum are too young to really be informed of what is going on, so they think and post like their parents would. I doubt he was pointing that at anyone who has made mature/valid posts.

Also if hillary (I will not give her the respect of capitalizing her name) gets elected I will be moving to Canada, I don't have any doubts that this election will go to the democrats just because of all the Bush bashing and the fact that the media casts a negative light over the republican party as a whole. (That would be the influence of privately owned "news" stations)

 

[Brawny]

Nah BOB....the media is anti-power. They bash whoever's in the white house, no matter the party.

And if you take a step back, the Dem's and the Rep's are the most alike opposing parties in the world.

Yeah, the oil thing was stupid. And you can't say 99% of Americans didn't think Saddam had WMD's. And he did...gave them to him...he just got rid of them before we got there....seeing as Afganistan is right next door...he would have had time to realize he was next.

 

[bmurray91]

in my opinion, we should have never started this war. for one, the soldiers who have lost their lives but also for what its done for our government budget. social security will be dry within the next 20 years and where is that money going? on the other hand i think that rather than blame all of our problems bush we should blame it on the bush ADMINISTRATION because they had just as much to do with the problems as he himself did. often he is just a puppet to their beliefs

 

[blueovalboy7]

Brawny, I agree that they are anti-power, but I am led to believe from what I've learned over the past few years in college, is that most media is swinging a bit left, (not all, but quite a few) some more than others. I do think we notice it more when there is a right wing candidate in office because we are more prone to foreign affairs with them than with a left wing candidate who is more focused on (I forget the term) issues at home, while both require adequate attention.

As for the wmd's for some reason I had never thought about it like that. (stupid me) I do agree that most of America and I think quite a bit of the world, believed that there were wmd's in Iraq, we just couldn't prove it

Also I agree with your statement that they are the most similar opposing "parties" just a few key differences and they are merely the same. I dislike politics for the most part, but they will always be here as long as everyone allows it.

 

[Brawny]

Hindsight is 20/20.

Instead of criticizing them for what they did, (and you most likely supported at the time), why not some new solutions? And don't say pull out. That's the worst thing I've ever heard, and hearing EVERY democrat promise a withdrawal.....makes me cringe.

Uh, it's a republic for a reason. :\. You sure you know how the gov't works? Congress has to approve all of the things the executives propose.... and ya know what? It has democrats AND republicans in it.

Ah, I like you BlueOvalBoy lol...

Yeah, the media is left-of-center... (when you say media, you mean print and television, as Conservatives OWN the radio waves lol).

You ever read John Locke? His "natural rights" theories proved the basis for most of the framing of the Constitution, and he will show that politics are necessary in a sinful world. (not JUST a christian worldview that says that humans are inherently selfish)

 

[blueovalboy7]

Yea, I don't listen to the radio at all anymore, so I very rarely think of that angle either, but from everything I've heard on the radio I would have to agree that it's a bit right wing.

I believe I may have read it, but it's been a while. Politics are necessary, unfortunately, but it's the world we live in and I agree with Locke on the principle that we live in a sinful world.

It is just what we do about it that matters.

 

[BrandonMcAuslan]

This has been interesting so far but I have to point a few things out. One thing people keep saying is annoying me...
Bush - he is not a scapegoat. He is soley responsible for whatever cause of action the United States takes in an armed conflict. He is Commander in Chief of the US armed forces, and THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. The president is a scapegoat? I think you need to re-evaluate that view - if its true, then its the most damning evidence to prove that the United States Government is out of control. The President (or prime-minister) CANNOT have excuses - being an idiot is not an excuse for making mistakes on a presidential level?!
You cannot simply excuse Bush for a few mistakes and being led astray - because he is the president. The President does not have the luxury of excuses - it goes with the job.

Secondly the entire cause in Iraq has been about oil - and political control over the middle east.
The lives of the Iraqi people have not been made better by armed conflict in their streets. And as for terror - destruction of homes/families and military occupation breeds terrorism. We're not safer for invading iraq.
There are a lot of countries guilty of being opressive "evil regimes". We won't get involved in liberating those countries - they don't control any natural resources that could effect our way of life.
Also forget comparisons with other "wars". The state of war has not officially been declared. You cannot be at "war" with an idea - or a concept. You cannot be at war with "terror" - ironically the term "War on Terror" only serves to re-affirm the fear associated with the words " War" and "Terror". Iraq is an unsanctioned military occupation.

The issue with iraq is far more complicated than can be surmised here. Its not a case of, we went to iraq based on our ideals/morals. The leaders of the US and the UK lied to the electorate about a foreign power posessing weapons of mass destruction - and told us that an attack was imminent!? When you look at the situation its entirely f*cked up. But as long as the population at large has good quality sit-coms, cheap petrol, can ignore the suffering of people in far away places, as well as feeling morally secure and superior (ideas re-inforced by the media) then none of this **** matters...

 

[blueovalboy7]

Your extremely biased opinions are what annoy me. The only thing you really get in your media is the stupid comments our president says. Sure you can blame him, that's your opinion, but we, the people who live here see things from a different perspective. Do you really know how our system of government works? It's not like the President thinks of all this by himself and then says, you do this you do that and lets kill us some middle easterners and get us some oil, which is apparently how you think it works. Sure you're going to get a lot of liberal support on your positions, but in reality neither of us is entirely correct. I'm sure there was some motivation to get in there because of oil, but you're ignorant if you believe that was the sole reason for it.

I like how you say it was unsanctioned, sure thing boss, meaning we didn't get the support of a lot of liberal nations isn't hard to believe. (go figure on that one) So you disapprove of the removal of Saddam from power? Is that what I'm getting here? I'm sure I have some flaws in my positions, but you do as well so don't try to blame it all on one person is what I'm trying to say, just because we are the most active country in foreign affairs gives us more face time than most other countries and unfortunately we don't have a great speaker as the face of our nation. I unlike you live here in the US and cannot complain with how he has handled things here, sure a liberal world dislikes a conservative president, but things will change here in the next year or so.

BTW I don't dislike Bush, but I'm not a huge fan either, I just prefer him over what the alternatives have been running against him in the past two elections and I have even less faith in the Democratic representatives for the upcoming election.

 

[BrandonMcAuslan]

1. My opinions are not biased - they are weighed upon the information presented to me through various forms of media, as well as what I have learned about these events throught my own experiences.

2. I understand how the American Electoral system and government work - we are tought the various basic principles of different government systems in school. i.e. USA, France, South Africa etc.

3. I'm not naive enough to think that the president is the "only" factor in deciding foreign policy for the US. But in relation to the US military actions overseas (or otherwise) he is the Commander in Chief. The President of the United States has a lot more power than you seem to understand.

4. I don't think the situation was as simple as "lets kill us some middle easterners and get us some oil". In fact it was for a number of reasons - One big reason was that Saddam was seen as a threat to his neighbours (US friendly oil rich countries) wikipedia quote "Saddam continued to loom large in American consciousness as a major threat to Western allies such as oil-rich Saudi Arabia and Israel, to Western oil supplies from the Gulf states". So its not as simple as "get the oil out of iraq" - but maintaining stability in the region so that oil prices remain stable. Saddam was a threat to the Saudi's - thats why he was removed. Because he was a "bad man" for them, and subsequently for the rich elite of the US - particularly the Bush family who have strong links to these middle eastern rulers (including the Bin-Ladens). Saddam was not removed because he was committing evil acts on his people.

5. The reason we didn't get support from our "liberal" allies isn't because they are 'liberal loonies'. Its because we were not threatened in a militaristic way by Iraq - and therefore had no right to send our troops over to fight and die. I don't know about you but If I was in the Army I'd be wanting to protect and (if I had to) die for "my" country. Thats the deal. Not to protect and die for another country I have no connection to and have never been to. halfway around the world - or for economic stability halfway around the world. No country supported us because every other country could see this was a scam.

6. Also some people need to understand that these kind of world events cannot be defined, explained and dictated in terms of Liberals and conservatives. or "Democrats and Republicans". Thats a term of use for internal poilicy making. i.e. Healthcare, welfare, Immigrants etc. In terms of military action it has no bearing.

Bush and Blair have a lot to answer for. This conflict was in self interest for the elite ruling class of the united states - and UK piggybacked the campaign in order to maintain the "special relationship". The money spent on foreign military action could have been put to a lot better use at home.

Also Iraq has nearly nothing to do with 9/11, except the military action is riding on the wave of fear created by the events on that day.

 

[blueovalboy7]

1. My opinions are not biased - they are weighed upon the information presented to me through various forms of media, as well as what I have learned about these events throught my own experiences.

Alright, do you feel the media you get your information is unbiased?

2. I understand how the American Electoral system and government work - we are tought the various basic principles of different government systems in school. i.e. USA, France, South Africa etc.

Alright, so that "basic" principle explains lobbyists and every other unsavory part of our government?

3. I'm not naive enough to think that the president is the "only" factor in deciding foreign policy for the US. But in relation to the US military actions overseas (or otherwise) he is the Commander in Chief. The President of the United States has a lot more power than you seem to understand.

Oh I fully understand the power he has, it is just that he has made decisions based on misinformation and deceit by his own advisers and more than likely influence from his father, ie. oil companies.

4. I don't think the situation was as simple as "lets kill us some middle easterners and get us some oil". In fact it was for a number of reasons - One big reason was that Saddam was seen as a threat to his neighbours (US friendly oil rich countries) wikipedia quote "Saddam continued to loom large in American consciousness as a major threat to Western allies such as oil-rich Saudi Arabia and Israel, to Western oil supplies from the Gulf states". So its not as simple as "get the oil out of iraq" - but maintaining stability in the region so that oil prices remain stable. Saddam was a threat to the Saudi's - thats why he was removed. Because he was a "bad man" for them, and subsequently for the rich elite of the US - particularly the Bush family who have strong links to these middle eastern rulers (including the Bin-Ladens). Saddam was not removed because he was committing evil acts on his people.

If you're going to present me with support please give me a more respectable source than Wikipedia. As for keeping oil prices stable, they sure as hell didn't do a good job with that here in the states, though I know you guys pay more per litre than we do per gallon. Essentially there is no falsity in you statement about the Bush family and their not so savory ties, I just feel that there was motivation outside of oil for this "War" whilst you do not.

5. The reason we didn't get support from our "liberal" allies isn't because they are 'liberal loonies'. Its because we were not threatened in a militaristic way by Iraq - and therefore had no right to send our troops over to fight and die. I don't know about you but If I was in the Army I'd be wanting to protect and (if I had to) die for "my" country. Thats the deal. Not to protect and die for another country I have no connection to and have never been to. halfway around the world - or for economic stability halfway around the world. No country supported us because every other country could see this was a scam.

I went on one of my liberal rants again, my apologies, I know a lot of people in Iraq and the main reason they're disappointed is because they can't be home with friends and family, not because of the reason for the war. I just pray for them, but I doubt we will be leaving while Bush is still in the driver's seat. Also I wasn't implying they were "liberal loonies" I am just saying most liberal countries wouldn't support Bush in any instance.

6. Also some people need to understand that these kind of world events cannot be defined, explained and dictated in terms of Liberals and conservatives. or "Democrats and Republicans". Thats a term of use for internal poilicy making. i.e. Healthcare, welfare, Immigrants etc. In terms of military action it has no bearing.

I disagree and agree with parts of what you said, sure it applies to "Democrats and Republicans" and domestic policies, but you have to notice that we do not usually get into "major conflict" under liberal presidents, while most are under conservative presidents, not saying thats how it is always, just in the most recent history.

Bush and Blair have a lot to answer for. This conflict was in self interest for the elite ruling class of the united states - and UK piggybacked the campaign in order to maintain the "special relationship". The money spent on foreign military action could have been put to a lot better use at home.

Also Iraq has nearly nothing to do with 9/11, except the military action is riding on the wave of fear created by the events on that day.

That is just how it works when two countries, one being a derivative of the other progress over time. The English had a caste system and the rich were powerful and the poor were stepped on, and it is no different today in either society. We have to abolish the unspoken caste system before anything can be resolved in regards to that. As for the money being spent better at home, I agree the cost of the "war" could have helped many things here in the states, but unfortunately we can't change the past. You are also correct when you say Iraq has very little to do with 9/11, but it's an excuse for those in power.

Also I appreciate your comments/opinions, and by no means am I intending to insult you.

 

[Squall7]

Nah BOB....the media is anti-power. They bash whoever's in the white house, no matter the party.

And if you take a step back, the Dem's and the Rep's are the most alike opposing parties in the world.

Yeah, the oil thing was stupid. And you can't say 99% of Americans didn't think Saddam had WMD's. And he did...gave them to him...he just got rid of them before we got there....seeing as Afganistan is right next door...he would have had time to realize he was next.

Actually, I don't think that's entirely correct...

I urge you to read "Unpeople: Britains Secret Human Rights Abuses" by Mark Curtis.

One of the tactics used in the operation, according to Ritter, was leaking false information on weapons to inspectors and then when the search proved fruitless, using that as 'proof' of weapons' existence. He cited an example from 1993 when misinformation led to inspections of a suspected ballistic-missile site; when the inspectors found nothing 'our act of searching allowed the US and UK to say that the missiles existed', he said. The government revealed in January 2004 that Operation Rockingham continued into 2002/3 with a budget of £79,000.

According to former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, Tony Blair probably knew two weeks before the war that Iraq has no functioning WMD. Cook recalls a briefing on 20 February 2003 from John Scarlett, the chairman of the JIC. Cook notes that:

When I put to him my conclusion that Saddam had no long range weapons of mass destruction but may have battlefield chemical weapons, he readily agreed. When I asked him why he believed Saddam would not use these weapons against our troops on the battlefield, he surprised me by claiming that, in order to evade detection from by the UN inspectors, Saddam had taken apart the shells and dispersed them - with the result that it would be difficult to deploy them under attack. Not only did Saddam have no weapons of mass destruction in the real meaning of that phrase, neither did he have useable battlefield weapons.

Powell also stated that the drafters 'need to make it clear that Saddam could not attack at the moment. The thesis is he could be a threat to the UK in the future if we do not check on him'. Yet a week later, Blair launched the document, together with a warning that Iraq could deploy WMD within 45 minutes of an order to do so.

Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon admitted that when the dossier was published he knew that the claim that Iraq could launch weapons within 45 minutes reffered only to 'battlefield munitions' such as shells; i.e., that they could be used by Iraq only in response to an invasion.

On 10 February 2003, five weeks before the invasion began, a secret JIC report stated that any terrorist threat would increase by invading Iraq:

Al Qaeda and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest threat to Western interests and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq... Any collapse of the Iraq regime would increase the risk of chemical and biological warfare technology or agents finding their way into the hands of terrorists, including al Qaeda.

And as for the oil thing:

One solution emphasised strongly in the report is to diversify sources of energy and 'avoid the UK being reliant on too few international sources of oil and gas'. The key gas-supplying countries and regoins will be Russia, the Middle East, North and West Africa, and the Caspian sea region. For oil, which accounts for 40 per cent of global energy consumption, the major producers will be Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states, South and Central America, Africa, Russia and the Caspian region. Of particular importance to ensuring diversity of oil sources, the report notes, are non-OPEC suppliers such as Russia, the Caspian region and West Africa. Therefore, 'we will continue to promote good relations with existing and new suppliers in the Middle East, Russia, the Caspian and Africa'.

US officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, have recently visited African oil-producing countries such as Gabon, Sao Tome and Angola while the US has stepped up military ties to Nigeria at the same time as pressing it to pull out of OPEC. The political advantage of these states to the US (and also to Britain) is that none of them, apart from Nigeria, belongs to OPEC. As Robert Diwan, a managing director of the Petroleum Finance Company has noted, 'there is a long term strategy from the US government to weaken OPEC's hold on the market and one way to do that is to peel off certain countries'. US oil companies were set to invest around £10 billion in African oil in 2003.

Documents leaked to the Guardian in late 2003 provided further evidence of a joint Anglo-American strategy to 'secure African oil'. A US report to the President and Prime Minister noted that:

We have identified a number of key oil and gas producers in the West Africa area on which our two governments and major oil and gas companies could cooperate to improve investment conditions, good governance, social and political stability, and thus underpin long term security of supply.

The level of secrecy is unsurprising: these profits resulted from British control of local resources, and were thus a form of plunder of poverty-stricken populations. This was recognised by foreign-policy planners, as was the need to continue the state of affairs. Explicit British policy was to oppose any suggestion that oil resources be used primarily for the benefit of local populations; the threat of nationalism has always been regarded as the most dangerous on in the Middle East.

Control over Middle Easten oil was (and is) to be secured through close relations with the repressive feudal families of the Gulf sheikhdoms, in turn aided by British arms exports and military training. Then as now, policy was 'to ensure the maintainence of our oil supplies by defending the rulers of the oil states, particularly Kuwait', as the Cabinet Secretary said in 1963. The 'energy future' document recently produced by the Blair government is merely the latest attempts to promote these basic British goals.

For anyone interested, this is OPEC's entry in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC
and the official site: http://www.opec.org/home/

OPEC’s mission is to coordinate & unify the petroleum policies of Member Countries & ensure the stabilization of oil markets in order to secure an efficient, economic & regular supply of petroleum to consumers, a steady income to producers & a fair return on capital to those investing in the petroleum industry.

Make what you want of it, but the book "Unpeople: Britain's secret human rights abuses" is a very good book. I once again suggest people pick it up for a read.

 

[Mingus]

:wtf: Are you saying that anyone in their right mind, and that is also intelligent would automatically vote for Bush?

I suppose there has been a wave of Bush-bashing, especially from the young, but to say that it's basically indocrination is kinda missing the point on what Bush is as a President - a gung-ho, dogmatic and deceitful man. Take for example
"The way to meet this challenge of energy and global climate change is through technology, and the United States is in the lead".

1. The United States has yet to really step up to the Global Warming issue.
2. I think Japan may actually have more advanced technology.

Wow, you didn't take that route did you? Global Warming? You did want to be taken seriously didn't you? Global Warming is happening but is an unstoppable foe. You need to get your facts straight about global warming. Now I'm not gonna go into to explaining those facts but if you actually want to know I'll go gather some real facts and try not to just remember everything I read.

Now, about the post above. Take one look at the title. That's almost all I need to know these people are just looking for some bullcrap to sell. I'll look more thoroughly into it but from the first few paragraphs that I read I can already tell these people put together statements and twists truths. Redesigning peoples true intentions and trying to push their own personal opinion on people by making it seem believeable.

 

[Squall7]

Wow, you didn't take that route did you? Global Warming? You did want to be taken seriously didn't you? Global Warming is happening but is an unstoppable foe. You need to get your facts straight about global warming. Now I'm not gonna go into to explaining those facts but if you actually want to know I'll go gather some real facts and try not to just remember everything I read.

That Global Warming thing was just an example of how Bush can be idiotic.

It portrays the US as already a major player in preventing Global Warming, by saying that it takes technology, which the "US is in the lead". Fact of the matter, is that the US could be doing more to prevent Climate Change (heck, even to slow it down).

In essence, I was just providing an example of how Bush indicates that the US is on first position for everything, not trying to start a debate on Global Warming. That, is for another thread.

"You need to get your facts straight about Global Warming" - What facts did I "present"? I said:

1. The United States has yet to really step up to the Global Warming issue.
2. I think Japan may actually have more advanced technology.

Which one of those is "wrong" then? Considering the first is relative and the second is my thoughts.

Or are you just itching for an arguement on this issue, and are trying to bait me?

Now, about the post above. Take one look at the title.

Uh-huh. It say's Britains human rights abuses. So what?

That's almost all I need to know these people are just looking for some bullcrap to sell.

Why? Because we have no "human rights abuses"? If you want to look at some bullcrap to sell, then go look toward Hollywood.

I'll look more thoroughly into it but from the first few paragraphs that I read I can already tell these people put together statements and twists truths.

Right. So one look and it's "obviously false". Prove it. Put it down to "liberal propoganda" or whatever you want. In essence, dismissing something like this is basically just telling everyone that you have the opposite perspective and that you're too dogmatic to meet it head on.

Redesigning peoples true intentions and trying to push their own personal opinion on people by making it seem believeable.

Which bits exactly? I can go get the book again if you like, and I can read off the numerous references.


Act like a child on these forums and you'll get treated as such. Debate like an adult and people will treat you as an adult.

 

[Barnzy02]

Do people just forget the fact that we went to war because of 9/11 in afghanistan - a war that was justified because that was where al qaeda was (you know them, the people who were responsible for the attack on the WTC). We went in there did what was needed (oh wait, Osama bin laden isnt dead, or captured). And for 5 years now we've been in this quagmire in Iraq, which Bush and co. have honestly said they didnt plan for what was gonna happen after Saddam was brought down. They weren't prepared for what was to follow. How are you gonna go to war and not have a prepared strategy after you topple a dictator who has been in power for close to 35 years?

Do you not think that if you don't control the situation properly it wouldn't erupt into chaos?

Why were we even there?!?! pre emptive strikes? It's the american people's fault and the Senate and the Congress for why we are in Iraq. We were all misled and lied to, and we believed it (or i should say they, i had no part in the vote i was 17 when Bush was first elected.) Now, there were sooooo many red flags before we even wen in there, that i dont understand how it even ended up like this. Bush and his cabinet were using blatantly faulty intelligence and were going to the ends of the earth to find a connection between al qaeda and Saddam, so they could finally have a reason to justify invading Iraq. He did NOT have WMDs, was NOT trying to amass WMDs. He got rid of all of the weapons he had and dispersed them between his regional overlords, if you will, because he didnt feel like dealing with it.

Saddam's army was nonsense, they didnt even want to fight us. And now they don't want to put their country back together.

I get so frustrated when i even think about this topic, that we were attacked 6 years ago. Went to war with the people who were responsible. Then had our attention diverted to Iraq, so we could after this has-been asshole, wasted billions of American dollars on it, and still leave the asshole who killed 3,000 americans to his own devices in his caves in afghanistan.

We should have never gone to Iraq, and we are screwed now because of it. Our next president is screwed because of it. And Bush continues to lie to us and now 7 years later, people are just starting to realize he's a douche. American's deserve every bit of this, because they are all to lazy, apathetic and stupid to open their eyes and maybe think once in awhile.

 

[Mingus]

"You need to get your facts straight about Global Warming" - What facts did I "present"? Act like a child on these forums and you'll get treated as such. Debate like an adult and people will treat you as an adult.

Oh, ok. Don't give me that. You post a close-minded book that obviously is completely against this war with a completely bias opinion. And by getting your facts straight about global warming, well if you knew anything about it, you'd know it's hardly preventable so let's not try and take shots at me without completely knowing what it is your saying. Go get some more books and stay away from an author that's putting his own agenda on people.