The war on "Terror"

[Cardinal Ape]

What is America doing!?

So Iraq is next, for what reason? That they have a hunch Saddam might of been involved? On the west all you hear is bull**** rehtoric about all these unstable countries being the worlds problems but who is the country declaring war right now?

I mean are we actually ever going to get any solid evidence on Usama bin Ladens supposed connections with sept 11? Or are we just working on a guilty till proven innocent system?

Its all about the oil. Lets have a look at Armenia and Azerbaijan. They had a war about 94 I think, America was not intrested in them then but now the war has finished. There is going to be a pipeline running through Azerbaijan (from the caspian) through to Turkey to feed the west. This is being implemeted whilst Armenia and Azerbaijan are still to settle with any peace treaty. America pops in to calm things down so that it can ensure the pipeline will be completed on schedule to feed them. Only after the oil.

How many countries will America declare war on before one seriously bites back? Before you know it America could be the instigator of WW3. Some might say I am mad for generating such a theory but wars have started for much less.

What really is America after?...

First Afghanistan next Iraq...Where do you want a war today?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by Cardinal Ape
What is America doing!?

So Iraq is next, for what reason? That they have a hunch Saddam might of been involved? On the west all you hear is bull**** rehtoric about all these unstable countries being the worlds problems but who is the country declaring war right now?

I mean are we actually ever going to get any solid evidence on Usama bin Ladens supposed connections with sept 11? Or are we just working on a guilty till proven innocent system?

Its all about the oil. Lets have a look at Armenia and Azerbaijan. They had a war about 94 I think, America was not intrested in them then but now the war has finished. There is going to be a pipeline running through Azerbaijan (from the caspian) through to Turkey to feed the west. This is being implemeted whilst Armenia and Azerbaijan are still to settle with any peace treaty. America pops in to calm things down so that it can ensure the pipeline will be completed on schedule to feed them. Only after the oil.

How many countries will America declare war on before one seriously bites back? Before you know it America could be the instigator of WW3. Some might say I am mad for generating such a theory but wars have started for much less.

What really is America after?...

First Afghanistan next Iraq...Where do you want a war today?

STOP PRESS! We are hearing the "America was only after oil" conspiracy story for the first time! And comrade, I tell ya, it's convincing!


This type of hackneyed idiocy has been doing the rounds for quite a few years now. It begs the question that how an allegedly advanced race like humanity can produce so many throwbacks who believe this tripe.

Now, the points addressed in order.

"So Iraq is next, for what reason? That they have a hunch Saddam might of been involved? On the west all you hear is bull**** rehtoric about all these unstable countries being the worlds problems but who is the country declaring war right now"

The reason the Hussein regime in Iraq is going to end is because it is a foul and evil regime that has waged wars of aggression on its neighbours, used weapons of mass destruction on its own people, sponsored and rewarded terrorism, and refused to comply with international arms inspectors according to the terms of the ceasefire.
It is time for this cancer to be removed, and it will be, no matter what the bleatings of the maniacal left may be. The level of opposition to the removal of Saddam Hussein is astounding among these...individuals
Iraq started the war of aggression on Kuwait, and violated the ceasefire imposed when they got kicked to kingdom come. This is legal grounds for military action to recommence.
No bulldung rhetoric.
Basic fact and law.
Live with it.

"I mean are we actually ever going to get any solid evidence on Usama bin Ladens supposed connections with sept 11? Or are we just working on a guilty till proven innocent system?"

Tell me, have you ever visited the Planet Earth in the last few months.
The man has confessed on video tape, among other proofs released to the public. As the war against evil terrorism is still ongoing, the full intelligence on the matter will not be released for operational reasons, and doubtless, a lot of it will not make the public arena for a while, as there is no need to know, and operational security must be preserved.
They are not supposed connections. They are established and accepted by every right thinking individual on the face of the earth.
The "thing", as I will not call it a man, is guilty, and will never be innocent. It will be killed like the dog it is, and it's megalomaniac neo-fascist dreams of Islamic empire will crumble with it, and become just worthless ash in the wind.

"Its all about the oil. Lets have a look at Armenia and Azerbaijan. They had a war about 94 I think, America was not intrested in them then but now the war has finished. There is going to be a pipeline running through Azerbaijan (from the caspian) through to Turkey to feed the west. This is being implemeted whilst Armenia and Azerbaijan are still to settle with any peace treaty. America pops in to calm things down so that it can ensure the pipeline will be completed on schedule to feed them. Only after the oil."

No it is not. I can personally think of over 3000 reasons at least why "it" is going on. Now, if the pipe is going from the Caucasus republics of Azerbaijan and Armenia to the west and Turkey, why in heavens name do they need to run it through Afghanistan, which is a very long way to the east, and totally unconnected?...
There has been internal strife in the ex-Soviet republics in the Caucasus area, and continues to be. And the presence of substantial oil in the area is not a new thing. Think to the goal of Army Group South in Barbarossa.
Why the United States would go to such trouble to extract the Caspian/Caucasus oil when there is a stated intention to exploit deposits in Alaska is a point conveniently ignored.

The war on terror has nothing to do with oil pipelines and conspiracies.
It has got everything to do with hunting down and destroying a misbegotten bunch of inbred imbeciles who thought to attack the rest of the world in order to conquer it for their own dastardly caliphate of oppression. This is their stated goal. Read the bloody fatwas.

"How many countries will America declare war on before one seriously bites back? Before you know it America could be the instigator of WW3. Some might say I am mad for generating such a theory but wars have started for much less."

The United States of America, and the civilized world, will not go about randomly declaring war on states. To paint Saddam in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan as anything but disgusting pariahs in need of annihilation is to be utterly foolish. No rogue state has the capacity to seriously "bite back" against the collected might and will of the rest of the world.
I am quite sorry to spoil your illusions, but there will be no global conflict in the manner of previous Earth-spanning regular conflicts, with massive nuclear exchanges. Live in the real world, sunshine.
I will not say you are mad for generating such a theory as you did not generate it. You are gullible and silly for believing and espousing it, though.

"What really is America after?...

First Afghanistan next Iraq...Where do you want a war today?"

America is after the utter and irrevocable destruction of sources of terrorism, terrorist networks and individuals , and of those who illegally proliferate weapons of mass destruction for their own nefarious purposes.
As to where I want a war today, I can think of several places, but George isn't answering my calls this week, after I soundly beat him at tiddlywinks.

 

[G-Man]

Would you please tell me what do you have against attacking Saddam? He's a threat to anyone but himself and has done enough war crimes to make any attempt to stop him a blessing.

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade

The United States of America, and the civilized world, will not go about randomly declaring war on states. To paint Saddam in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan as anything but disgusting pariahs in need of annihilation is to be utterly foolish. No rogue state has the capacity to seriously "bite back" against the collected might and will of the rest of the world.

Completely agree with the bulk of your statement, but I think that the "we must remove these evil regimes because of human rights / gassing their own people / opressing woman" justifications are rubbish dreamed up by spin doctors to make the actions taken more palatable to the men and women on the street.

The war on terror is nothing to do with this - it is directly about removing threats to the security of the US and its allies. It is indirectly about removing threats to the world in general.

Unfortunately, the more palatable reason (as above) is flawed in that the West is then seen as very selective. If the West really was about removing opressive regimes, there's plenty of other targets, and the UN would be a much better vehicle.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by ainwood


Completely agree with the bulk of your statement, but I think that the "we must remove these evil regimes because of human rights / gassing their own people / opressing woman" justifications are rubbish dreamed up by spin doctors to make the actions taken more palatable to the men and women on the street.

The war on terror is nothing to do with this - it is directly about removing threats to the security of the US and its allies. It is indirectly about removing threats to the world in general.

Unfortunately, the more palatable reason (as above) is flawed in that the West is then seen as very selective. If the West really was about removing opressive regimes, there's plenty of other targets, and the UN would be a much better vehicle.

I go along with your general sentiment (as I see it). Say it is about human rights and the rest of the world will provide you with about 1,000 other places you should go just as soon as you get done.

All factors play a part in determining where a country will commit its forces. Threats to be removed, strategic resources, improved trade, human rights abuses, freedom, etc. Some will weigh more than others, but they are all factors.

I never understood why the US couldn't say during the gulf war, "You're damn right its about oil. We don't want someone like Saddam having control over the oil in Both Iraq and Kuwait with an easy avenue to the entire Saudi peninsula." Why does there always need to be suffering people to fight for? Can't it be enough that our goal is to stop a despot from acquiring large amounts of power?

Simon: I applaud your response and would recomend that if you haven't already, save it somewhere since it seems you are continually having to trot it out in rebuttal to these type of claims. Thanks.

Originally posted by Cardinal Ape
rehtoric about all these unstable countries being the worlds problems but who is the country declaring war right now?

It isn't always the nation declaring war that is causing the problem. It occurs to me that both the UK and France declared war on Germany to start WWII. Do we blame them for starting it?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by ainwood


Completely agree with the bulk of your statement, but I think that the "we must remove these evil regimes because of human rights / gassing their own people / opressing woman" justifications are rubbish dreamed up by spin doctors to make the actions taken more palatable to the men and women on the street.

The war on terror is nothing to do with this - it is directly about removing threats to the security of the US and its allies. It is indirectly about removing threats to the world in general.

Unfortunately, the more palatable reason (as above) is flawed in that the West is then seen as very selective. If the West really was about removing opressive regimes, there's plenty of other targets, and the UN would be a much better vehicle.

They may be used by spin doctors, but hell, they are true anyway.
We are going to turn the feckers into dust, we may as well mention all the reasons. And they are evil; have used WMD on their own people; and do oppress their populations.
This is not the one and only reason they are going to die for, but it is one of them.
I do think that the West should go after other oppressive regimes; I am on the record here calling for an imperialist invasion of Zimbabwe.
But the UN is only a good vehicle theoretically.
In reality, the starter motor is rooted, the radiator is buggered, and every single part of the engine has its own agenda, and wants to head in its own direction. It is a battered old Volkswagen, and personally, I prefer a large Ford truck for running over dictators in.

 

[VoodooAce]

I know Lee Greenwood is praying for an invasion of Iraq.

Sales of "God Bless the USA" are beginning to lag.

Sorry, saw that story in the Onion a couple weeks ago.

USA! USA! USA! USA!

I'd like to see Sadam toasted. But Dumbya needs to go through Congress and handle things properly. I think there is a large enough consensus in the US to go ahead and take him out. He has permission to go after the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. He needs to ask for further permission to deviate from that.

But we really do need to exercise caution to be sure that we don't loose focus.

I wouldn't expect anything now, though. Its still only March....a long way from November.

 

[Cardinal Ape]

Saddam Hussiens weapon testing has not been going on for quite a while. Considering America and other powers of the UN have weapons of mass desctruction as well I think it stupid to be barking orders at Iraq. Nukes can hurt too. As for who does what in Iraq and all these atrocities, things can easily be manipulated (including the media, as it may suprise you) to further the backing of the nations people for a war on Iraq.

If America is so determined to root out terrorism then why don't they do anything against the IRA. The whole world has to be up in arms because America got attacked by terrorists but no-one came to Britians aid fighting against the IRA. The fact is American industrialist where even funding the IRA. How can you really believe the American government was and still is always looking after the intrests of the "free-world" and not just America.

Just how many innocent Iraqis will have to die to the almost random damage of the American air strikes? There are other ways to attack rather than inaccurate air attacks.

I hardly consider a dodgy video tape which can barely be translated as hard proof.

On a side note. To Simon Darkshade:

I did not make a personal remark against you however you made several unneccesary remarks at me. Normally when I argue politics with many other people they keep it on the subject not on slandering me. You strike me as a very emmotional person. It is important when arguing about such subjects to leave your emmotions out. Your remarks where uncalled for but something we must come to expect when speaking to people on the internet.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by Cardinal Ape

Just how many innocent Iraqis will have to die to the almost random damage of the American air strikes? There are other ways to attack rather than inaccurate air attacks.

I hardly consider a dodgy video tape which can barely be translated as hard proof.

On a side note. To Simon Darkshade:

I did not make a personal remark against you however you made several unneccesary remarks at me. Normally when I argue politics with many other people they keep it on the subject not on slandering me. You strike me as a very emmotional person. It is important when arguing about such subjects to leave your emmotions out. Your remarks where uncalled for but something we must come to expect when speaking to people on the internet.

Fully agree with this first statement, here, Cardinal. I'd rather see one of our boys die than two innocent civilians. We have an army for a reason. Send them in.

That said, civilian casualties in Afghanistan were very minimal. The US Army is very well aware of the demands of the world to limit civilian casualties, and they wisely pay heed.

And don't take things so personal. There's nothing you can do about hackneyed ignorance; some will turn a blind eye to things they don't want to know.

 

[Cardinal Ape]

Originally posted by VoodooAce


And don't take things so personal. There's nothing you can do about hackneyed ignorance; some will turn a blind eye to things they don't want to know.

Oh no I did not take the remarks personally. I was merely pointing out how Simon might better conduct himself so as to keep the level of flaming to a minimum in this thread. It is quite possible to voice your opinions without regressing the discussion into a 'slagging match'.

However I do welcome a friendly arguement.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Cardinal Ape
Saddam Hussiens weapon testing has not been going on for quite a while. Considering America and other powers of the UN have weapons of mass desctruction as well I think it stupid to be barking orders at Iraq. Nukes can hurt too. As for who does what in Iraq and all these atrocities, things can easily be manipulated (including the media, as it may suprise you) to further the backing of the nations people for a war on Iraq.

If America is so determined to root out terrorism then why don't they do anything against the IRA. The whole world has to be up in arms because America got attacked by terrorists but no-one came to Britians aid fighting against the IRA. The fact is American industrialist where even funding the IRA. How can you really believe the American government was and still is always looking after the intrests of the "free-world" and not just America.

Just how many innocent Iraqis will have to die to the almost random damage of the American air strikes? There are other ways to attack rather than inaccurate air attacks.

Are you sayin Saddam ISN'T killing hundreds of Iraqis whenever he wants, that he didn't kill thousands to secure his rule and that he didn't use chimical weapons against Iran and the kurds? He shouldn't be allowed to have weapons of mass distruction because he showed he is willing to kill civilians using his scuds and he would gladly kill more.
The IRA is already being fought by Britain. It's a very minor orgenization that isn't even close to muslim extrimist terrorists orgenizations in term of size, ability, mobility, money, weapons and the support they get.
And will you please tell me, how many innocent Iraqis will have to die before someone will stop this madman?

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by VoodooAce


Fully agree with this first statement, here, Cardinal. I'd rather see one of our boys die than two innocent civilians. We have an army for a reason. Send them in.

You wouldn't be suggesting that ground troops result in less casualties than percision bombing would you? You would prefer that the US armed forces attack without airial bombardment? I would point to the death toll in one 24 hour period in Somalia as a good reason not to just send the army in as a first step. Somali casualties were measured in the thousands. That was one operation in a city against a militia. Imagine the carnage in Bagdad if an army actually had to fight its way through the city against another army (Stalingrad comes to mind). Of course an army doesn't have to actually fight through a city. They can just sit outside and not let anything in or out (Vicksburg and Leningrad come to mind). Perhaps that is preferable to a few misguided bombs.

 

[Cardinal Ape]

The question has to be asked would America be considering attacking Iraq if the september 11 incodent had not happened?

And nothing has been hapening in Iraq recently. Where are all these murdered Iraqi's? It seems that Saddam has not been mass butchering recently.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by knowltok2


You wouldn't be suggesting that ground troops result in less casualties than percision bombing would you? You would prefer that the US armed forces attack without airial bombardment? I would point to the death toll in one 24 hour period in Somalia as a good reason not to just send the army in as a first step. Somali casualties were measured in the thousands. That was one operation in a city against a militia. Imagine the carnage in Bagdad if an army actually had to fight its way through the city against another army (Stalingrad comes to mind). Of course an army doesn't have to actually fight through a city. They can just sit outside and not let anything in or out (Vicksburg and Leningrad come to mind). Perhaps that is preferable to a few misguided bombs.

Not really. I was more just making the statement that, if we were to determine that that is the best way to limit civilian casualties, then that IS the way to go.

As I said in the same statement you quoted me from, I believe we have the ability to greatly limit these casualties with the precision strikes.

I don't buy into the philosophy that its better to bomb, civilian casualties or not, as long as we don't risk 'our boys' lives. This philosophy places a higher value on an American soldier's life than it does on an Iraqi civilians. Now maybe that Iraqi civilian is one of the guys we see on the news prancing around, buring Old Glory. I'm not going to cry for that guy. But all Iraqis aren't that guy. While he's hopping around burning things, most Iraqis are waiting in line somewhere for some bread.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Cardinal Ape
Saddam Hussiens weapon testing has not been going on for quite a while.

You would know this from the weapons inspectors who are regularly visiting Iraq I would presume?

Considering America and other powers of the UN have weapons of mass desctruction as well I think it stupid to be barking orders at Iraq. Nukes can hurt too.

This is what the victors get to do. Iraq always had the option of not agreeing to the peace requirements.

As for who does what in Iraq and all these atrocities, things can easily be manipulated (including the media, as it may suprise you) to further the backing of the nations people for a war on Iraq.

Ah, Iraq is innocent. Saddam has done no wrong. America just picked him out because that is where the dart landed. Give me a break. Do you have any basis for this, or should we just accept that these attrocities didn't happen becuase the media could have manipulated them? What else didn't happen? The Moon Landing? The Holocaust?


If America is so determined to root out terrorism then why don't they do anything against the IRA. The whole world has to be up in arms because America got attacked by terrorists but no-one came to Britians aid fighting against the IRA.

Now I haven't watched the news every day for the last thirty years, but I seem to have missed where the British government requested the 82nd Airborne to help out in Northern Ireland. Perhaps you have some sources that indicate where the US has refused requests by the British for assistance.

The fact is American industrialist where even funding the IRA. How can you really believe the American government was and still is always looking after the intrests of the "free-world" and not just America.

Because the US government is not supporting the IRA. Also, where did you see the statement that the US is or should always be looking after the interests of the "free-world"?

Just how many innocent Iraqis will have to die to the almost random damage of the American air strikes? There are other ways to attack rather than inaccurate air attacks.

"Almost Random" can you back this up at all? There are misses, There are mistargeting, but almost random seems a bit of a stretch to me. Almost random puts me in mind of someone in WWI droping hand gernades out of their Fokker Tri-plane.

I hardly consider a dodgy video tape which can barely be translated as hard proof.

More easily manipulated media fabrications, eh? I hardly consider it to be the only proof. World leaders were convinced.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Cardinal Ape
The question has to be asked would America be considering attacking Iraq if the september 11 incodent had not happened?

And nothing has been hapening in Iraq recently. Where are all these murdered Iraqi's? It seems that Saddam has not been mass butchering recently.

We should have been considering something. The endless no fly zone crap and blocked weapons inspectors wasn't making anyone happy and wasn't solving anyone's problems. It was a situation of holding the wolf by the ears.

 

[VoodooAce]

I think the blocked weapons inspectors really are enough. They were told let them in, or else.

I fully believe its time for 'or else'.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by VoodooAce


Not really. I was more just making the statement that, if we were to determine that that is the best way to limit civilian casualties, then that IS the way to go.

As I said in the same statement you quoted me from, I believe we have the ability to greatly limit these casualties with the precision strikes.

I don't buy into the philosophy that its better to bomb, civilian casualties or not, as long as we don't risk 'our boys' lives. This philosophy places a higher value on an American soldier's life than it does on an Iraqi civilians. Now maybe that Iraqi civilian is one of the guys we see on the news prancing around, buring Old Glory. I'm not going to cry for that guy. But all Iraqis aren't that guy. While he's hopping around burning things, most Iraqis are waiting in line somewhere for some bread.

Okay, I can accept this. To my mind, what is important to remember is that arial bombardment reduces the need for US ground forces to engage in battle. While that does of course reduce American casualties, historical example shows that it also has a very high likelyhood of reducing loss of life in general. Bagdad did not need invaded to force the Iraqi's to surrender. Warlords did not have to be hunted in the warrens of Kabul. These factors reduce civilian casualties, as well as all casualties.

If it were an arguement between civilian casualties or military ones, the anti bomb people might have a case, but in truth civilians die both ways. I believe that less die because of precision bombing.

 

[ComradeDavo]

sorry double post

 

[ComradeDavo]

Well I agree with Cardinal Ape even if the rest of you don't!!

The IRA is already being fought by Britain. It's a very minor orgenization that isn't even close to muslim extrimist terrorists orgenizations in term of size, ability, mobility, money, weapons and the support they get.

Sounds like you really don't understand the IRA issue. I think you should go do some research into some of the IRA bombings before you make go dismissing them like that. It is such an arrogant opinion to simply dismiss the deaths of so many civilians like that