break off from 1000 dead thread

[Pale Hose Jon]

i don't want to argue in that thread so i'm bringing it to a new one.

 

im probally gonna sound like an ass but 1,000 dead is not that many compared to what would happen if they continued to bring the war to the U.S. those men knew what they where fighting for and its to bad not all of them could come home but, it is war and people die just be happy the totals are not in the 50-60k range

 

we only had around a hundred die in afghanistan.

 

 

Iraq and 9/11 HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ONE ANOTHER

Our media tried to make these two thing related but they are completley different.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

As SF420 told me, you're only getting your media from the ultra left (despite the fact right wingers like Pat Buchanan and Congressman Ron Paul are coming out against the war and Libertarians now are even coming out against the Iraq war) and that the sources you'd cite to have evidence that Iraq and AQ did not work together are "unproven sources" (yet somehow all the media that lauded the rush to war was somehow credible and above reproach?)

[soxfan420]

As SF420 told me, you're only getting your media from the ultra left (despite the fact right wingers like Pat Buchanan and Congressman Ron Paul are coming out against the war and Libertarians now are even coming out against the Iraq war) and that the sources you'd cite to have evidence that Iraq and AQ did not work together are "unproven sources" (yet somehow all the media that lauded the rush to war was somehow credible and above reproach?)

and the al'queda sending troops to iraq to kill the most americans possible has no tie? it wasnt the originol reason for going in but if you can kill 2 birds with one stone go for it.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

and the al'queda sending troops to iraq to kill the most americans possible has no tie? it wasnt the originol reason for going in but if you can kill 2 birds with one stone go for it.

Pre-war there was no tie with AQ and Iraq having a direct relationship.

 

After Bush's ill-conceived war, membership in AQ has increased and more anti-US sentiment around the globe has flourished. That's not exactly "winning" the war on terror.

 

From the San Francisco Chronicle: "Killing him [bin Laden] is not a silver bullet," said James Jay Carafano, a senior fellow and defense expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. "Cutting off the head can be significant, but I wouldn't argue that it will stop the threat or end the war on terror. We should disabuse people of that notion."

 

The bin Laden who was described in the Sept. 11 commission's report as a hands-on commander -- running training camps, receiving oaths of allegiance, personally selecting some of the hijackers and arguing over the precise timing of the attack -- has been driven underground by U.S. forces. He is now believed to be somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

 

Nonetheless, experts say, he serves as a highly effective symbol of defiance motivating what is now a global terrorist movement, not a single organization with a clear membership and a structure. Bin Laden, partly through his image and partly through the tapes he has smuggled out, inspires attacks rather than plots them, and his power appears to have grown, with or without his active participation.

 

"This is no longer about bin Laden," said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, which recently organized surveys of public opinion throughout the Arab world. "Bin Laden has become a symbol, a metaphor. It's now much, much bigger than one person or one group. He's become a symbol of a feeling that they can strike America -- that it is honorable."

 

Bin Laden's power to motivate would-be terrorists might only be increased by his capture or killing, which could make him a martyr, experts say. In other words, bin Laden may be more influential not because he has more control over his old organization but because he has less.

 

"Bin Laden is now an inspiration for a social movement that is run from the bottom up, not from the top down, like the old al Qaeda," said Marc Sageman, a former CIA operative who ran groups of mujahedeen guerrillas in Afghanistan against the Soviets. "It has changed the game completely. In a way, we have defeated al Qaeda, but that doesn't mean we won. The global jihad is alive and well, and it has been strengthened by our own policies."

 

Sageman, now a professor of forensic psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania and author of the book, "Understanding Terror Networks," added: "It's irrelevant where bin Laden is. It doesn't matter anymore." "What the U.S. has succeeded in eliminating was the 2001 al Qaeda leadership," said Sageman. "But that's not what is leading the movement now."

 

--

Thinking that the Iraq war is making America safer is absolutely laughable. It has just caused our troops to be engaged in a quagmire for the long term and vastly increased reasons for terrorists to attack us again which is a very disheartening f***ing situation.

[soxfan420]

Pre-war there was no tie with AQ and Iraq having a direct relationship.

 

After Bush's ill-conceived war, membership in AQ has increased and more anti-US sentiment around the globe has flourished.  That's not exactly "winning" the war on terror.

 

From the San Francisco Chronicle: "Killing him [bin Laden] is not a silver bullet," said James Jay Carafano, a senior fellow and defense expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. "Cutting off the head can be significant, but I wouldn't argue that it will stop the threat or end the war on terror. We should disabuse people of that notion."

 

The bin Laden who was described in the Sept. 11 commission's report as a hands-on commander -- running training camps, receiving oaths of allegiance, personally selecting some of the hijackers and arguing over the precise timing of the attack -- has been driven underground by U.S. forces. He is now believed to be somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

 

Nonetheless, experts say, he serves as a highly effective symbol of defiance motivating what is now a global terrorist movement, not a single organization with a clear membership and a structure. Bin Laden, partly through his image and partly through the tapes he has smuggled out, inspires attacks rather than plots them, and his power appears to have grown, with or without his active participation.

 

"This is no longer about bin Laden," said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, which recently organized surveys of public opinion throughout the Arab world. "Bin Laden has become a symbol, a metaphor. It's now much, much bigger than one person or one group. He's become a symbol of a feeling that they can strike America -- that it is honorable."

 

Bin Laden's power to motivate would-be terrorists might only be increased by his capture or killing, which could make him a martyr, experts say. In other words, bin Laden may be more influential not because he has more control over his old organization but because he has less.

 

"Bin Laden is now an inspiration for a social movement that is run from the bottom up, not from the top down, like the old al Qaeda," said Marc Sageman, a former CIA operative who ran groups of mujahedeen guerrillas in Afghanistan against the Soviets. "It has changed the game completely. In a way, we have defeated al Qaeda, but that doesn't mean we won. The global jihad is alive and well, and it has been strengthened by our own policies."

 

Sageman, now a professor of forensic psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania and author of the book, "Understanding Terror Networks," added: "It's irrelevant where bin Laden is. It doesn't matter anymore." "What the U.S. has succeeded in eliminating was the 2001 al Qaeda leadership," said Sageman. "But that's not what is leading the movement now."

 

--

Thinking that the Iraq war is making America safer is absolutely laughable.  It has just caused our troops to be engaged in a quagmire for the long term and vastly increased reasons for terrorists to attack us again which is a very disheartening f***ing situation.

so taking them from the 3rd world country, and turning them into a nation is a bad thing?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Nice loaded question, 420.

 

1. George W. Bush from the 2000 debate: "And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building." Flip-flopper.

 

2. The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), an organization founded by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Richard Perle and other members of the administration has been calling for the invasion of Iraq since 1997 to make it a tactical pivot to a) control oil supplies and B) give a military base of operations for future wars against Syria, Iran, etc. (Their original plan called for the US invasion of over 60 countries)

 

3. As for turning them into a "democracy", would that be the shutting down of al Sadr's newspaper just because the US didn't like what it was saying or would that be the shutting down of al-Jazeera because they didn't like what it was saying (some freedom of speech, huh?) or would it be the arresting of, according to the BBC, approx. 70-90% innocent people and throwing them into prison indefinitely until the US finds out if they are of any worth intelligence wise (most people arrested for traffic violations and other small offenses) or would it be the democratic values of the US trying to hand pick the candidates for the elections instead of letting a "free Iraq" choose who they want as their leader?

 

The deposing of Saddam Hussein has just led to greater increased terrorism, terrorist threats and greater anti-US sentiment. (not to mention, a bulk of our troops are bogged down in an area for a very long period of time). If the US was serious about helping out 3rd world nations, then why make the case on WMD? It went from "Weapons of Mass Destruction" to "Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs" to "Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Programs" to "Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Program Activities"...What in the blue f*** is a "Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Program Activity"?

 

As Nuke has told me numerous times, the US does not have an effective "post-war" plan for Iraq and that the troops had no idea what the f*** they are doing there post-war.

 

Perhaps reading a book called "War is a Racket", by one of the most highly decorated Marines (Major General Smedley Butler) will open your eyes to the military industrial complex which Eisenhower warned us about.

 

And another good article by a retired special forces master sargeant: http://www.counterpunch.org/goff11142003.html

[israel4ever]

Nice loaded question, 420.

 

1. George W. Bush from the 2000 debate: "And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."  Flip-flopper.

 

2. The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), an organization founded by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Richard Perle and other members of the administration has been calling for the invasion of Iraq since 1997 to make it a tactical pivot to a) control oil supplies and B) give a military base of operations for future wars against Syria, Iran, etc. (Their original plan called for the US invasion of over 60 countries)

 

3. As for turning them into a "democracy", would that be the shutting down of al Sadr's newspaper just because the US didn't like what it was saying or would that be the shutting down of al-Jazeera because they didn't like what it was saying (some freedom of speech, huh?) or would it be the arresting of, according to the BBC, approx. 70-90% innocent people and throwing them into prison indefinitely until the US finds out if they are of any worth intelligence wise (most people arrested for traffic violations and other small offenses) or would it be the democratic values of the US trying to hand pick the candidates for the elections instead of letting a "free Iraq" choose who they want as their leader?

 

The deposing of Saddam Hussein has just led to greater increased terrorism, terrorist threats and greater anti-US sentiment.  (not to mention, a bulk of our troops are bogged down in an area for a very long period of time).  If the US was serious about helping out 3rd world nations, then why make the case on WMD?  It went from "Weapons of Mass Destruction" to "Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs" to "Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Programs" to "Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Program Activities"...What in the blue f*** is a "Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Program Activity"?

 

As Nuke has told me numerous times, the US does not have an effective "post-war" plan for Iraq and that the troops had no idea what the f*** they are doing there post-war.

 

Perhaps reading a book called "War is a Racket", by one of the most highly decorated Marines (Major General Smedley Butler) will open your eyes to the military industrial complex which Eisenhower warned us about.

 

And another good article by a retired special forces master sargeant: http://www.counterpunch.org/goff11142003.html

This is an incredible response, Apu. I am impressed.

 

Where can I get more info on PNAC?

 

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I4E, I gotta go to class (damn quiz) and get some reading done at the library but I'll post some PNAC expose info when I get back...but here's a few.

 

http://pnac.info/

 

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) also had a really kick-ass speech in Congress entitled "Neo-Conned": http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/neo-conned.htm is the transcript.

 

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/ has profiles of the major PNAC players

 

Oddly enough, PNAC took the statement about needing a "Pearl Harbor like attack" out of their statement of principles on their site.

 

The following is from the UK Guardian in an article by John Pilger:

Perle is one of the founders of the Project for the New American Century, the PNAC. Other founders include Dick Cheney, now vice-president, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, I Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, William J Bennett, Reagan's education secretary, and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's ambassador to Afghanistan. These are the modern chartists of American terrorism. The PNAC's seminal report, Rebuilding America's Defences: strategy, forces and resources for a new century, was a blueprint of American aims in all but name. Two years ago it recommended an increase in arms-spending by $48bn so that Washington could "fight and win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars". This has happened. It said the United States should develop "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons and make "star wars" a national priority. This is happening. It said that, in the event of Bush taking power, Iraq should be a target. And so it is.

 

As for Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction", these were dismissed, in so many words, as a convenient excuse, which it is. "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification," it says, "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." How has this grand strategy been implemented? A series of articles in the Washington Post, co-authored by Bob Woodward of Watergate fame and based on long interviews with senior members of the Bush administration, reveals how 11 September was manipulated.

 

On the morning of 12 September 2001, without any evidence of who the hijackers were, Rumsfeld demanded that the US attack Iraq. According to Woodward, Rumsfeld told a cabinet meeting that Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round in the war against terrorism". Iraq was temporarily spared only because Colin Powell, the secretary of state, persuaded Bush that "public opinion has to be prepared before a move against Iraq is possible". Afghanistan was chosen as the softer option. If Jonathan Steele's estimate in the Guardian is correct, some 20,000 people in Afghanistan paid the price of this debate with their lives.

 

Time and again, 11 September is described as an "opportunity". In last April's New Yorker, the investigative reporter Nicholas Lemann wrote that Bush's most senior adviser, Condoleezza Rice, told him she had called together senior members of the National Security Council and asked them "to think about 'how do you capitalise on these opportunities'", which she compared with those of "1945 to 1947": the start of the cold war. Since 11 September, America has established bases at the gateways to all the major sources of fossil fuels, especially central Asia. The Unocal oil company is to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. Bush has scrapped the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, the war crimes provisions of the International Criminal Court and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. He has said he will use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states "if necessary". Under cover of propaganda about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, the Bush regime is developing new weapons of mass destruction that undermine international treaties on biological and chemical warfare.

 

In the Los Angeles Times, the military analyst William Arkin describes a secret army set up by Donald Rumsfeld, similar to those run by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger and which Congress outlawed. This "super-intelligence support activity" will bring together the "CIA and military covert action, information warfare, and deception". According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld, the new organisation, known by its Orwellian moniker as the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group, or P2OG, will provoke terrorist attacks which would then require "counter-attack" by the United States on countries "harbouring the terrorists".

 

In other words, innocent people will be killed by the United States. This is reminiscent of Operation Northwoods, the plan put to President Kennedy by his military chiefs for a phoney terrorist campaign - complete with bombings, hijackings, plane crashes and dead Americans - as justification for an invasion of Cuba. Kennedy rejected it. He was assassinated a few months later. Now Rumsfeld has resurrected Northwoods, but with resources undreamt of in 1963 and with no global rival to invite caution. You have to keep reminding yourself this is not fantasy: that truly dangerous men, such as Perle and Rumsfeld and Cheney, have power. The thread running through their ruminations is the importance of the media: "the prioritised task of bringing on board journalists of repute to accept our position".

 

"Our position" is code for lying. Certainly, as a journalist, I have never known official lying to be more pervasive than today. We may laugh at the vacuities in Tony Blair's "Iraq dossier" and Jack Straw's inept lie that Iraq has developed a nuclear bomb (which his minions rushed to "explain"). But the more insidious lies, justifying an unprovoked attack on Iraq and linking it to would-be terrorists who are said to lurk in every Tube station, are routinely channelled as news. They are not news; they are black propaganda.

 

This corruption makes journalists and broadcasters mere ventriloquists' dummies. An attack on a nation of 22 million suffering people is discussed by liberal commentators as if it were a subject at an academic seminar, at which pieces can be pushed around a map, as the old imperialists used to do.

 

The issue for these humanitarians is not primarily the brutality of modern imperial domination, but how "bad" Saddam Hussein is. There is no admission that their decision to join the war party further seals the fate of perhaps thousands of innocent Iraqis condemned to wait on America's international death row. Their doublethink will not work. You cannot support murderous piracy in the name of humanitarianism. Moreover, the extremes of American fundamentalism that we now face have been staring at us for too long for those of good heart and sense not to recognise them.

 

It should also be noted that many members of the PNAC think tank also have ties to defense contractors and weapons manufacturers, so excuse the pun, they are making a killing money-wise in these wars being waged.

[YASNY]

For some reason, I find every word of the above post to be 100% conceivable. Even believable.