The End of the War on Terror

[Xanikk999]

Even if that was true, isn't that "taping American phones"? They weren't allowed to do that prior to 9/11, among other things...
There's also monitering emails and internet, but that's prior to 9/11 I think

Actually they were, they just had to get a court order. And they dont moniter everyones phone conversations, email or whatever. They dont have the manpower. Someone probably screens it out and identifies whats a serious threat and what not.

Hmm and I thought you were smart! (j/k, I didn't ) Ok Fox I'll try to clarify: by murdering their own people they can make an excuse to wage war. During this war, weapon manufacturers would make alot of money by selling arms to the US army (to wage that war, remember?). Also, Halliburton would make aloooot of money by exploiting the oil resources in the land where that war was waged (which was caused by murdering the people).. got it?

Any evidence of your wacky conspiracy theory? No, of course not. Thats why its a conspiracy theory.
Calling people dumb isnt very smart especially when you make yourself look dumb.

What happens often (every other week or so?) is that Americans bomb houses, weddings, or mosques! Needless to say, tens of civlians in Iraq and Afghanestan are killed and deformed by these raids. Usually of whom most are women & children (it's not that women & children don't suck, but still...)

Well not on purpose i have to say. Not that i support whats going on, but you have to understand warfare. There are always going to be unintended casualties. And the courtmarshalled soldiers dont count. They are exceptions to the rule and they get punished for thier misbehavior.

I don't find this to make sense, and it perfectly matches my conspiracy theory. You find it making sense, fine.

No comment.

And you did! 75% of the Iraqi exported oil is given to American and British companies, which is about 80 billion dollars since April 2003. With no contracts given to Russian, German, or French companies (rings a bell?) to "rebuild" Iraq.

True, but TBH, whos putting the most effort into fighting this war? (Yes i know its a hopeless war, im not on fox's side just so you know)

Just a small correction, it's the "Jews" more than the "West". But I agree; our main problem is our own weakness. The West is plotting against China and N. Korea, but they stood strong. It's because we suck, not that the Americans exist (though not denying old and new colonization is part of our problems, of course --> you've been causing us headaches since like 1071!)

Ok can you please give me proof of this plotting against north korea or china? North korea maybe, but doubtful since our attention has been shifted elsewhere the past year and a half, but china...?! What are you smoking sir?

Maybe, but certainly not enough to stop a right-wing "christian crusader" maniac from getting elected twice!

Im sure people agreed with him on other reasons then the war in iraq. And at the time things did not look so grim.

 

[Gogf]

Any evidence of your wacky conspiracy theory? No, of course not. Thats why its a conspiracy theory.

Um... huh? A "conspiracy theory" is a theory that there is a conspiracy, not a theory without evidence.

 

[Xanikk999]

Um... huh? A "conspiracy theory" is a theory that there is a conspiracy, not a theory without evidence.

You had to ruin it, didnt you?

 

[Fachy]

Actually they were, they just had to get a court order. And they dont moniter everyones phone conversations, email or whatever. They dont have the manpower. Someone probably screens it out and identifies whats a serious threat and what not.

So I was right, someone did benefit from the attacks! Btw, did you read 1948? It was exactly that: cameras and monitering everywhere, but you don't know when is an employee watching, so you're always afraid

Any evidence of your wacky conspiracy theory? No, of course not. Thats why its a conspiracy theory.
Calling people dumb isnt very smart especially when you make yourself look dumb.

He's dumb because he kept asking how is 9/11 linked to weapon sales or halliburton. And you maybe dumb or not, but you're certainly ignorant: did you bother to check the wiki link I posted? I don't think I need to repeat what's there on here...

Well not on purpose i have to say. Not that i support whats going on, but you have to understand warfare. There are always going to be unintended casualties. And the courtmarshalled soldiers dont count. They are exceptions to the rule and they get punished for thier misbehavior.

If you don't hate ants, but you know that you will kill 5 ants for every mile you walk, then you're implicitly choosing to kill ants if you decide to walk. I also hope we agree that the number of soldiers courted is nothing if compared with the number of actually guilty ones, especially in torture/prisoner's abuses crimes

True, but TBH, whos putting the most effort into fighting this war?

huh?

Ok can you please give me proof of this plotting against north korea or china? North korea maybe, but doubtful since our attention has been shifted elsewhere the past year and a half, but china...?! What are you smoking sir?

I think you misunderstood what I mean by "plotting"

Im sure people agreed with him on other reasons then the war in iraq. And at the time things did not look so grim.

Yes, a large % vote for "whatever republic" or "whatever democratic" candidate comes up. Anyway, at the time things were "grim enough"

Btw the second part of your signiture is blasphemous, insulting, rude, hate-generating, rediculous, and pointless. There are much smarter and more objective ways to attack Islam. And I refuse to continue talking with you if you keep it

 

[Fox Mccloud]

Hmm and I thought you were smart! (j/k, I didn't ) Ok Fox I'll try to clarify: by murduring their own people they can make an excuse to wage war. During this war, weapon manufacturers would make alot of money by selling arms to the US army (to wage that war, remember?). Also, Halliburton would make aloooot of money by exploiting the oil resources in the land where that war was waged (which was caused by murduring the people).. got it?

Ok. So we are in Iraq now. Why aren't we exploiting that oil now? Whats stoping us from stealing it now that our forces are in Iraq? Furthermore, why do the Americans care about the rest of the country? We just need to defend those oil fields and let the rest of the country rot, right? Why are we trying to stop the vilence in Baghdad?

What happens often (every other week or so?) is that Americans bоmb houses, weddings, or mosques!

intentionaly?

Needless to say, tens of civlians in Iraq and Afghanestan are killed and deformed by these raids. Usually of whom most are women & children (it's not that women & children don't suck, but still...)

Yet, you say nothing about how the "resistance" fighters do the same thing, intentionally to the Iraqi civilians merely because they happen to be Sunni or Shi'a, or there names are "Omar" which have been the cause of most of the casualties in that country. Let me guess. You don't care about crimes commited Muslims or Arabs, right?

I don't find this to make sense, and it perfectly matches my conspiracy theory. You find it making sense, fine.

Al Qaeda isn't as weak as you say it is, but we can't expect daily attacks.

And you did! 75% of the Iraqi exported oil is given to American and British companies, which is about 80 billion dollars since April 2003. With no contracts given to Russian, German, or French companies (rings a bell?) to "rebuild" Iraq.

What is this supposed to prove? That we are buying oil from Iraq? Just like we did with Saddam. OMG OMG!!!

I don't see why a poll conducted by BBC/ABC news would be unbiased when you're comparing America with Osama! Did you expect BBC to say that 90% of Afghans want Taleban back, and condemn the American invasion of their country??

Instead of clicking on the link I provided, you instead assumed I was posting "propoganda". The poll I provided was not from BBC. Second, BBC is left wing, not George W. Bush's "propoganda". Third, here's another article about it: http://afghanwarrior.blogspot.com/2007/01/situation-at-glance.html

Let Aljazeera conduct such a poll and you'll get the same numbers, switched (which, btw, the Iraqi democratic government kicked out of the country & closed their office)

Ok, so what are you trying to imply? That the BBC is lying?

Don't be funny, Egypt "disagees" with the US all the time! Does this mean we're not slaves to the Americans? Does it mean that our "president" (for 1/4 of a century now ) is not an American puppet?

Come on, Egypt is a puppet now? Is everyone an American puppet?

Where's the American Freedom to Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qutur, are all these US-allies democratic? Or did you only remember to rescue the Iraqis?? Give me a break!

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 12, 2002

President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly

...
But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.
...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

I don't know if they're 300, but I know for sure that not all 300 are in power . The ones ruling are the ones with the American blessing

Maliki's party got it's big support from SISTANI supporting it, and he only did that on the first election, not the second. We have no way of telling whether it would have won anyway, without Sistani's endorsement.

Why don't we examine the sources of BBC first??
A spokesman for the International Mission for Iraqi Elections conceded that ..
US President George W Bush described the vote as...

So? They quoted what Bush had to say about it, big deal!

When will you stop dealing with what BBC and CNN say as undeniable facts, surely clean of any political intentions?

Maybe you should stop taking whatever conspiracy theory, lie or rumor you hear against America or Bush as absolute fact as well?

Just a small correction, it's the "Jews" more than the "West".

Fair enough. Just for the record, I don't think Israel should have been founded in the first place.

But I agree; our main problem is our own weakness. The West is plotting against China and N. Korea, but they stood strong. It's because we suck, not that the Americans exist

Agreed. Your people need to aknowledge that America didn't cause ALL of the problems and that some of the faults are their own.

(though not denying old and new colonization is part of our problems, of course --> you've been causing us headaches since like 1071!)

Yeah, colonization really #$@$#@ed up the mideast and Africa.

Disarming mines of the resistence and lending jets to occupation forces is moral? Even if it was totally ineffective, it's a matter of principle! By deploying any type of force you're supporting the idea of occupation, which I thought Norway was more civilized than, till today! So it's not only Sweden!! Shame on you, I'll be migrating to israel then

So? When like 85% approve of the "occupation" vs. 10% who support the "resistance fighters" it's probably moral to help the people fighting the "occupation". The Taliban oppressed the Afghan people for years, but their "freedom fighters" to you.

 

[Xanikk999]

Btw the second part of your signiture is blasphemous, insulting, rude, hate-generating, rediculous, and pointless. There are much smarter and more objective ways to attack Islam. And I refuse to continue talking with you if you keep it

Well i talked to this guy and he condones the death penalty towards gays. What is there to say?

I guess you can go back to your prison and pretend like problems with islam dont exist.

 

[Fox Mccloud]

So I was right, someone did benefit from the attacks! Btw, did you read 1948? It was exactly that: cameras and monitering everywhere, but you don't know when is an employee watching, so you're always afraid

In the case of Afghanistan, as George Orwell has shown us, you have exchanged the truth for a lie and swapped the definitions of justice and evil to create for yourself your own Orwellian world in which the definitions of anything can be swapped or edited to suit your needs.

Btw the second part of your signiture is blasphemous, insulting, rude, hаte-generating, rediculous, and pointless. There are much smarter and more objective ways to attack Islam.

Actually, agreed with you right here. Theres actually a lot of hatred of Islam here in the USA.

 

[Fachy]

Well i talked to this guy and he condones the death penalty towards gays. What is there to say?

I guess you can go back to your prison and pretend like problems with islam dont exist.

You know what is there to say, you're putting it in a way as if he meant something else. I'm totally okay with you simply stating that he agreed

 

[VX250]

Ignore this post.

 

[StarWorms]

This question is primarily targeted to the Bush-fans. That is:

How do you know when we've won the war on terror?

There never was a war on terror.

 

[Fachy]

Ok. So we are in Iraq now. Why aren't we exploiting that oil now? Whats stoping us from stealing it now that our forces are in Iraq?

You don't get it, you are stealing 75%* of the oil, along with your british allies. Why do you think the resistence is blowing oil pipes??

Furthermore, why do the Americans care about the rest of the country?

You don't

We just need to defend those oil fields and let the rest of the country rot, right?

Yup. And just after the fall of Baghdad, the Iraqis were pissed at how the Americans left the whole country to be looted by thieves (including Museums) while they carefully guarded the ministry of Oil's buildings

Why are we trying to stop the vilence in Baghdad?

Um, because it's targetting you, for example?

intentionaly?

Read my ant example

Yet, you say nothing about how the "resistance" fighters do the same thing, intentionally to the Iraqi civilians merely because they happen to be Sunni or Shi'a, or there names are "Omar" which have been the cause of most of the casualties in that country. Let me guess. You don't care about crimes commited Muslims or Arabs, right?

That's a cheap argument. When have we heard of Sunnis killing Shi'es while Suddam ruled? I'm definitely against all forms of inter-Islam violence. Moslems should be united against foreign forces occupying their land (and maybe slaughter each other later, but now is not a good time). I'm totally convinced that the Americans are totally convinced to "divide & conquer", it's been the British philosophy for centuries, too. People blowing themselves up in markets or even in mosques are certainly not resistence. On the contrary, they're giving the yankees an excuse to stay (like they needed an excuse!)

Al Qaeda isn't as weak as you say it is, but we can't expect daily attacks.

No, but at least we can expect more than 2 attacks in 6 years. Also considering the London and Madrid ones weren't that difficult to make. And we're not even sure they comitted them. It all seems too vague to be true

What is this supposed to prove? That we are buying oil from Iraq? Just like we did with Saddam. OMG OMG!!!

It's supposed to mean that: Just like before some middle eastern countries nationalized their oil wells, you're taking 75% "royalties" for drilling it for them. Halliburton goes there with a paper written on it We will take 25% [for example] of the oil revenues that we drill for the Iraqi people and the "elected" Iraqi PM signs it. You didn't think you went there looking for WMDs did you? UN inspectors were allowd to search and destroy long-range missiles by the time the americans invaded

Instead of clicking on the link I provided, you instead assumed I was posting "propoganda". The poll I provided was not from BBC. Third, here's another article about it: http://afghanwarrior.blogspot.com/20...at-glance.html

I skimmed through it. I also found it very illogical for opinions to shift that quickly in one year. They were either bogusing, doing very small/bad samples, or both

Second, BBC is left wing, not George W. Bush's "propoganda".

Not so left to reach Taleban though! They're much closer to bush than to Osama (which I, for some reason, always suspect they're 2 faces for the same coin)

Third, here's another article about it: http://afghanwarrior.blogspot.com/20...at-glance.html

New York times? Oh that's a very unbiased source indeed!
The reason I can't find "magazine and news articles" supporting my point of view is that they would usually be closed if published online (so much for the first ammendment)

Ok, so what are you trying to imply? That the BBC is lying?

I'm surprised you're still asking!

Come on, Egypt is a puppet now? Is everyone an American puppet?

Almost, let's see...
N America = All but Cuba
South America = Not sure about that, certainly not Venzuela though
Europe = UK. And most other countries to a small extent
Middle East = All but Iran (& Israel? You can consider Israel a state not puppet)
Asia = All but China & North Korea. Partially Malasya & Russia
Australia = All but NZ (how many countries are there anyway!)
Rest of Africa doesn't count

But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Why isn't the security council enforcing its decisions for Israel to withdraw till 67 borders?
Why aren't the regimes with no legitmacy in the middle east considered, until now, allies & friends? Who receive US aid (as in the case of Egypt)?? Do you only remember those big words when you're facing an enemy?????????????
YOUR COUNTRY IS THE BIGGEST HYPOCRITE IN THE WORLD

Maliki's party got it's big support from SISTANI supporting it, and he only did that on the first election, not the second. We have no way of telling whether it would have won anyway, without Sistani's endorsement.

Why is it always a "coinsidence" that the party winning the "elections" happen to be pro-occupation? Anyway Sistani is Shee'i, and there have been alot of talks about Shee'i cooperation with the Americans because Suddam has been persecuting them in favor of the Sunnis

So? They quoted what Bush had to say about it, big deal!

Big or small. Get me quotes from independent and unbiased people, then we can take what they say seriously and build a discussion based on what they say

Maybe you should stop taking whatever conspiracy theory, lie or rumor you hear against America or Bush as absolute fact as well?

Check that wiki url I posted. I promise you'll find it very seducing to endorse the conspiracy theory! Maybe you won't, but at least you'll have better image of me than a "mad skeptic"

I don't think Israel should have been founded in the first place

HELP! ANTI SEMITE! HOLOCAUST-DENIER! THROW HIM IN JAAAIL and make a good example of him!!!

So? When like 85% approve of the "occupation" vs. 10% who support the "resistance fighters" it's probably moral to help the people fighting the "occupation".

You're enticing me to send an email to aljazeera suggesting that they do a similar "survey" in Afghanestan so I'll have something to say back to you

The Taliban oppressed the Afghan people for years, but their "freedom fighters" to you

Those "oppressors" were Washington's best friends during the Soviet invasion in the 80's. But then they're "terrorists" when they're fighting American occupation? I'm not surprised... heck, "democracy" was good till Hamas won the elections!!!!!

In the case of Afghanistan, as George Orwell has shown us, you have exchanged the truth for a lie and swapped the definitions of justice and evil to create for yourself your own Orwellian world in which the definitions of anything can be swapped or edited to suit your needs.

huh?

 

[Fachy]

*According to Ali Al-Mash-hadani, head of the "Iraqi Oil Experts Association", in an interview with aljazeera, the Iraqi parliament is getting ready (as of 24th of Feb, 2007) to vote for the law which will grant American & British companies the control of 75% of the oil profits for decades

I don't know if the parliament voted for that law yet, but it's ironic to assume that a legitmate parliament would even consider such a suggestion, let alone pass it

http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/48FC8DA7-CB91-43F0-9E0A-9989E2AAD225.htm

 

[.Shane.]

The War on Terror is too broad to ever be won.

We've always been at war with Oceania.

 

[Xanikk999]

*According to Ali Al-Mash-hadani, head of the "Iraqi Oil Experts Association", in an interview with aljazeera, the Iraqi parliament is getting ready (as of 24th of Feb, 2007) to vote for the law which will grant American & British companies the control of 75% of the oil profits for decades

I don't know if the parliament voted for that law yet, but it's ironic to assume that a legitmate parliament would even consider such a suggestion, let alone pass it

http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/48FC8DA7-CB91-43F0-9E0A-9989E2AAD225.htm

I would doubt it if aljazeera is the only source you can find for that bit of information.

 

[scipian]

It is over when the threat of terrorism is sufficiently low. We don't know how long that will take but it sure is better than letting it fester and rot.

 

[Xanikk999]

It is over when the threat of terrorism is sufficiently low. We don't know how long that will take but it sure is better than letting it fester and rot.

And you think our current strategy is working?

I hope you dont, almost nobody is that stupid.

 

[Fox Mccloud]

You don't

Then why do the Americans bother to station troops anywhere else? Why are we trying to stop a civil war through the surge and Operation Law and Order?

Yup. And just after the fall of Baghdad, the Iraqis were pised at how the Americans left the whole country to be looted by thieves (including Museums) while they carefully guarded the ministry of Oil's buildings

Yes, and many of the things looted by theives were weapons that they still use today. If we had a proper post-invasion plan that could have been avoided.

Um, because it's targetting you, for example?

It targets the Iraqi civilians a lot more. We could just withdraw to defend oil facilities and allow the rest of the country to fight a civil war.

Read my ant example

If you don't hаte ants, but you know that you will kill 5 ants for every mile you walk, then you're implicitly choosing to kill ants if you decide to walk. I also hope we agree that the number of soldiers courted is nothing if compared with the number of actually guilty ones, especially in tоrture/prisoner's abuses crimes

Yet, I ponder what the alternative is? Shall I drive and kill maybe 15 ants for every mile? Or, will I have to forget transportation altogether and stay at home for the sake of a few ants? Shall the sacrifice of the few ants be justified if I walked to stop an anthill from burning?

That's a cheap argument. When have we heard of Sunnis kiling Shi'es while Suddam ruled?

Pretty much all of his 24 or so years.

I'm totally convinced that the Americans are totally convinced to "divide & conquer", it's been the British philosophy for centuries, too.

No. It was simply that with all the deep centuries or even melenia old divisions of religiously tribal Iraq, being at a crossroads for the sectarian divisions of the whole middle east required a tyrannical daeth-grip doing the kiling for them to prevent the natural course of old hatred to take it's almost inevitable course that has been unlocked through the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This is a fact that has been set to motion now and can not be changed by blaming others for your deep and ancient animosity.

People blowing themselves up in markets or even in mosques are certainly not resistence. On the contrary, they're giving the yankees an excuse to stay (like they needed an excuse!)

You want it to stop, tell, no MAKE your murdurous insurgent friends and these corrupters of all that is holy in Islam and they will stop.

No, but at least we can expect more than 2 attacks in 6 years.

Perhaps that can be explained through our invasion of Iraq which has lured the jihadis into a relatively small location thus leaving them preocupied and unable to strike elsewhere? Yes, I think that could be a major factor.

It's supposed to mean that: Just like before some middle eastern countries nationalized their oil wells, you're taking 75% "royalties" for drilling it for them. Halliburton goes there with a paper written on it We will take 25% [for example] of the oil revenues that we drill for the Iraqi people and the "elected" Iraqi PM signs it.

Whats wrong with that? Halliburton drills oil for the Iraqis and they recieve some payment for it.

You didn't think you went there looking for WMDs did you?

Obviously, even the liberals and democrats of America said they were.

I skimmed through it. I also found it very illogical for opinions to shift that quickly in one year. They were either bogusing, doing very small/bad samples, or both

I agree to some extent that polls are innaccurate and subject to the biases of those who conduct the polls.

Not so left to reach Taleban though! They're much closer to bush than to Osama

I would hope so.

New York times? Oh that's a very unbiased source indeed!

I suppose you consider an Afghan blog biased as well?

The reason I can't find "magazine and news articles" supporting my point of view is that they would usually be closed if published online (so much for the first ammendment)

Strange, I wonder how then this article escaped the CIA's radar?

Why voting republican or Democrat will give the same results. This farce called an "election" shows that America is a one party state. Both Democrats and Republicans work for the agenda of the illuminati.

Almost, let's see...
N America = All but Cuba

Mexico is our puppet, now?

South America = Not sure about that, certainly not Venzuela though

Nor Bolivia, whos leader is influenced by the same ideology as Hugo Chávez.

Europe = UK. And most other countries to a small extent

Can't argue there, really.

Middle East = All but Iran

So Syria, Hezbollah, Libya and Sudan are American puppets?

(& Israel? You can consider Israel a state not puppet)

Why? There relations are closer to American then any of those.

Asia = All but China & North Korea. Partially Malasya & Russia

What about Burma, which moved its capital out of fear of American invasion, Laos and Vietnam where the communist regimes came to power despite our attempts to stop it?

Why isn't the security council enforcing its decisions for Israel to withdraw till 67 borders?
YOUR COUNTRY IS THE BIGGEST HYPOCRITE IN THE WORLD

The UN security council has five permanent members (China, France, Russia, UK and US) that have veto power over substantive but not procedural resolutions allowing a permanent member to block adoption but not debate of a resolution unacceptable to it. It also has ten temporary seats that are voted in by UN General Assembly on a regional basis and held for two year terms. You can't blame the US alone for it's lack of consistency.

Why is it always a "coinsidence" that the party winning the "elections" happen to be pro-occupation?

lots of the Iraqi political parties support the US helping with security. Even the main Sunni party has not yet asked the Americans to leave.

Anyway Sistani is Shee'i, and there have been alot of talks about Shee'i cooperation with the Americans because Suddam has been persecuting them in favor of the Sunnis

Sistani supports the UIA because he likes their policies and they like him. More than half of Iraqis like him.

Big or small. Get me quotes from independent and unbiased people, then we can take what they say seriously and build a discussion based on what they say

I wonder now, what people you would consider to be "unbiased"?

Check that wiki url I posted. I promise you'll find it very seducing to endorse the conspiracy theory! Maybe you won't, but at least you'll have better image of me than a "mad skeptic"

Ok. I might read some of it later.

HELP! ANTI SEMITE! HOLOCAUST-DENIER! THROW HIM IN JAAAIL and make a good example of him!!!

Not that I like the Palestinians much either....

You're enticing me to send an email to aljazeera suggesting that they do a similar "survey" in Afghanestan so I'll have something to say back to you

Those "oppressors" were Washington's best friends during the Soviet invasion in the 80's.

We also supported Saddam Hussein in his fight against Iran and even Stalin against the Germans. What the Americans thought then, is that they were chosing to help a lesser evil so that it may fight an even greater evil through it's proxy before the greater evil can grow in too much power and to weaken it. Whether it is or was right or wrong to do so, I will allow you to decide for yourself.

But then they're "terorists" when they're fighting American occupation?

They were ALWAYS terorists, just as Stalin and Saddam were always dictators.

I'm not surprised... heck, "democracy" was good till Hamas won the elections!!!!!

Exactly why I don't like the Palestinains. Their stupid and don't deserve that land much more then the Israelis do.

huh?

You say the Taliban are "resistance" or "freedom fighters" while at the same time calling the Americans terreorists. You mentioned 1948 (I suppose you meant 1984?) , written by George Orwell. Orwell's novels said that if the people are brain-washed by propoganda definitions of anything like freedom and slavery could be swapped, which is exactly what you have done regarding the Taliban. So, you live in an Orwellian world.

 

[El_Machinae]

On a side point, we can have Americans who want to help Iraq and still have people who are in it for power/money. It can easily be said that most of America is interested in making the world a better place for Iraqis, but that there are some people who have profited in making Iraqi lives worse.

It's important to separate those two groups.

 

[Phlegmak]

It is over when the threat of terrorism is sufficiently low. We don't know how long that will take but it sure is better than letting it fester and rot.

How is it possible for you to know when the threat of terrorism is sufficiently low?

 

[innonimatu]

I would doubt it if aljazeera is the only source you can find for that bit of information.

The approved draft is available online in english, for all those interested in reading it.

It's not as bad as I thought it would be, but it has some interesting details. Weakens central government control (divide & rule) and allows for the possibility of companies (currently intended as Iraqi regional companies, but who knows who will control them) appointing some of the members of the "Federal Oil and Gas Council".