|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Is the war in Iraq a war on terrorism?
If none of the 9/11 terrorists were trained in Iraq, funded by Iraq or from Iraq then how is the war in Iraq connected with 9/11 other than in a broad sense of a war on terrorism? Maybe we should have gone to war against Saudi Arabia since most of the 9/11 guys were from there and some, if not all of the funding came there, besides they have more oil there even if the war is not about oil! So which is it a war that is fueling and training Islamic terrorists or is it a war that we have to win, no matter what the cost?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/27/nie.iraq/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/27/nie.iraq/index.html
| Quote: |
| The Iraq war is also shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives who could be a "potential source of leadership" for new Islamic terrorist groups, which are becoming harder to combat because they are increasingly decentralized and dispersed, the report concluded.
In addition, the intelligence analysts concluded the insurgency against U.S.-led forces in Iraq was an "underlying factor" fueling the spread of Islamic radicalism -- and that the underlying factors contributing to its spread will "outweigh its vulnerabilities" for at least the next five years. But Bush, speaking earlier Tuesday before the key findings in the intelligence estimate were released, insisted its conclusions were not a surprise, and that he agreed with them. "I'm not surprised the enemy is exploiting the situation in Iraq and using it as a propaganda tool to recruit more people to their murderous ways," he said. |
Well, what can you say. It is obvious that USA is first of all making money of eploating oil in Iraq. Second, Bush makes millions of dollars just developing new weapons. A great documentary that I recommend is "Fahrentheit 9/11" by Michael Moore.
Iraq was never about terrorism. Iraq did not have a terrorist problem before the invasion and, despite Bush's best efforts, no link to Al-Qaeda has been shown. The invasion was about oil, but only indirectly. More immediately it was about :
1) Securing and strengthening US influence in the region
2) a test run for future operations in the region
3) setting a new 'world order' in place - The US has now illustrated it's policy of 'preventative war'. Previously the only justification for invasion of a state was self-defense. The US decided over a decade ago that military strength would be the way to maintain and protect it's dominant position in the world, since it has no superiority in the economic or social arena. It is set out in National Security policy documents from 1992 onwards.
The new paradigm of preventative war is specific - the US (and ONLY the US) has the right to attack any state which it feels could threaten it's position of dominance.
If that sounds a bit 'conspiracy theory' I can assure you it is not. It is all quite logical and predictable and the US doesn't even try to hide the reasoning.
Anyone who has read Orwell can instantly spot several familiar themes in US policy.
1) Doublespeak. Phrases like 'war on terror' and 'fighting for democracy' are perfect examples. They are completely meaningless but, even so, are enthusiastically taken up by the population as statements of both justification and purpose. The idea of a war on terror is one of the finest examples of this type of doublespeak. Not only is it logically meaningless (how do you fight a concept ? With an army of philosophers ?), it is designed to be used to justify the very thing it claims to be against - terrorism. The US/UK invasion of Iraq is a clear example of terrorism, even using the State Departments own definition :
That is why the definition specifies subnational groups, by the way. That specifically excluded states from the definition and allows the US to claim that it cannot be conducting or supporting terrorism because it's definition rules it out.
2) Perpetual war. Control of populations in non-dictatorship regimes is a tricky thing. One common technique is to introduce a 'fear factor' which enables the executive to justify whatever steps it needs to protect itself and keep power. The 'war on terror' has been used by states all over the world as a justification for increasing repression and control. Chechnya, the occupied territories, Timor, etc. Any state with some repression in mind now had a great opportunity to get it done whilst claiming to be in support of the US position. In the UK and US it has been used to introduce laws which weaken public rights and increase the power of the executive.
History is full of examples of this technique for retaining power.
The major problem with this new world order is that it is very dangerous.
Any state has undoubtedly realised that if it is in the sights of the US then the only sensible thing to do to protect yourself is to go nuclear as quick as possible. Iraq was invaded because it was weak. Had it really possessed WMD (as claimed) then the US would not have invaded. This is easily demonstrated by reference to other states like Korea.
The logic is indisputable - since the US reserves the right to attack any state it choses then the only sensible defence is to get nuclear weapons fast. That is certainly a factor in Iran. This, of course, will foster proliferation of nukes which cannot be a good thing.
The other major problem with this strategy is that it is obvious that it will increase the number of terrorists. Iraq has created a whole new generation of angry young men who will undoubtedly be attracted to terrorist causes as a way of paying back the US. Terrorism thrives on injustice and oppression such as this. I genuinely worry that the next major terrorist attack could be much more damaging that 9/11.
The shock of 9/11 was partly the fact that it was televised and, to US citizens, partly the fact that this was the first attack on their homeland.
Here in Europe that second factor doesn't play - we are well used to such things. It was certainly a big example, in terms of scope and death toll, but nothing very new. The next major attack could be a level up, if the terrorists are serious. A nuclear weapon is not too difficult to make. The materials are around (especially in the former USSR) and the techniques are well known. It is even easier to make a dirty-bomb. Both of these would be a step-change and both are nearer becoming reality as a direct result of US policy. It worries me.
In summary, then, no it is not a war on terrorism but a war OF terrorism.
Chris.
1) Securing and strengthening US influence in the region
2) a test run for future operations in the region
3) setting a new 'world order' in place - The US has now illustrated it's policy of 'preventative war'. Previously the only justification for invasion of a state was self-defense. The US decided over a decade ago that military strength would be the way to maintain and protect it's dominant position in the world, since it has no superiority in the economic or social arena. It is set out in National Security policy documents from 1992 onwards.
The new paradigm of preventative war is specific - the US (and ONLY the US) has the right to attack any state which it feels could threaten it's position of dominance.
If that sounds a bit 'conspiracy theory' I can assure you it is not. It is all quite logical and predictable and the US doesn't even try to hide the reasoning.
Anyone who has read Orwell can instantly spot several familiar themes in US policy.
1) Doublespeak. Phrases like 'war on terror' and 'fighting for democracy' are perfect examples. They are completely meaningless but, even so, are enthusiastically taken up by the population as statements of both justification and purpose. The idea of a war on terror is one of the finest examples of this type of doublespeak. Not only is it logically meaningless (how do you fight a concept ? With an army of philosophers ?), it is designed to be used to justify the very thing it claims to be against - terrorism. The US/UK invasion of Iraq is a clear example of terrorism, even using the State Departments own definition :
| Quote: |
| "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." |
That is why the definition specifies subnational groups, by the way. That specifically excluded states from the definition and allows the US to claim that it cannot be conducting or supporting terrorism because it's definition rules it out.
2) Perpetual war. Control of populations in non-dictatorship regimes is a tricky thing. One common technique is to introduce a 'fear factor' which enables the executive to justify whatever steps it needs to protect itself and keep power. The 'war on terror' has been used by states all over the world as a justification for increasing repression and control. Chechnya, the occupied territories, Timor, etc. Any state with some repression in mind now had a great opportunity to get it done whilst claiming to be in support of the US position. In the UK and US it has been used to introduce laws which weaken public rights and increase the power of the executive.
History is full of examples of this technique for retaining power.
The major problem with this new world order is that it is very dangerous.
Any state has undoubtedly realised that if it is in the sights of the US then the only sensible thing to do to protect yourself is to go nuclear as quick as possible. Iraq was invaded because it was weak. Had it really possessed WMD (as claimed) then the US would not have invaded. This is easily demonstrated by reference to other states like Korea.
The logic is indisputable - since the US reserves the right to attack any state it choses then the only sensible defence is to get nuclear weapons fast. That is certainly a factor in Iran. This, of course, will foster proliferation of nukes which cannot be a good thing.
The other major problem with this strategy is that it is obvious that it will increase the number of terrorists. Iraq has created a whole new generation of angry young men who will undoubtedly be attracted to terrorist causes as a way of paying back the US. Terrorism thrives on injustice and oppression such as this. I genuinely worry that the next major terrorist attack could be much more damaging that 9/11.
The shock of 9/11 was partly the fact that it was televised and, to US citizens, partly the fact that this was the first attack on their homeland.
Here in Europe that second factor doesn't play - we are well used to such things. It was certainly a big example, in terms of scope and death toll, but nothing very new. The next major attack could be a level up, if the terrorists are serious. A nuclear weapon is not too difficult to make. The materials are around (especially in the former USSR) and the techniques are well known. It is even easier to make a dirty-bomb. Both of these would be a step-change and both are nearer becoming reality as a direct result of US policy. It worries me.
In summary, then, no it is not a war on terrorism but a war OF terrorism.
Chris.
This war comes down to that sadam tried to have the presidents father killed, if you beleave that story. To me Afganastan is where the usa should be looking, even then, seems no matter what they try to do no matter where they try to fight this war, it will not end terroism. It has been around for as long as I have been, and beyond. To me as an american the Iraq war is one that was started by our pompus goverment that feels everyone should share our values and insights. I just say do what you can to protect yourself and let those countries that this goverment is h*** bent on changing, let them do for them selves. All I know is most of what I have seen in the last 46 years from this country hasnt solved to heck of alot, just piss off more and more people of the world.
The only thing the USA has succeeded in doing is breeding a new generation of terrorists,by invading iraq they have bred resentment in a whole generation of muslims not only in iraq but in the whole arab world. if its true that you reap what you sow,then the USA shouldnt be looking forward to the harvest.
First its not a real war!!!!!
The 'enemy' hasn't really done anything to the US (outside their own country) since 9/11.
Second 9/11 is meant to be the whole reason for the war, yet it was clearly covered up by the US government (and not even very well). If you still believe that the US government was blameless in 9/11? then WATCH THIS!.
To answer you question (Is the war in Iraq a war on terrorism?), absolutely not! and although I can't be bothered explaining why, for any who open their eyes, for even a moment, is is so blindingly clear!!!
The 'enemy' hasn't really done anything to the US (outside their own country) since 9/11.
Second 9/11 is meant to be the whole reason for the war, yet it was clearly covered up by the US government (and not even very well). If you still believe that the US government was blameless in 9/11? then WATCH THIS!.
| Me, Damit wrote: |
| The so called plane that crashed into the pentagon was caught BY THREE DIFFERNT SECURITY CAMERAS and if the US government wanted to clear that bit of 9/11 up ALL THEY WHOULD HAVE TO DO IS RELESE THE TAPES!!! (the FBI turned up WITHIN MINUTES of the crash to confiscate the tapes) |
To answer you question (Is the war in Iraq a war on terrorism?), absolutely not! and although I can't be bothered explaining why, for any who open their eyes, for even a moment, is is so blindingly clear!!!
A war against terrorism? i dont think so.. ah btw what the hell was bush thinking, and hey what is he thinking now?? i see him every weekday on the news saying "We are there to help the people of IRAQ" .. the funny thing is, he isnt GODFATHER nor a holy guy, whois he to even care for a country so far far away? first he should try to improve himself and then his country to the best.. as its clear to all of us that all he planned and all he did, made U.S.A impression more worse among every muslim nation of the world..
o dear truespeed, did you see what he have done? and now he is planning for more.. SYRIA will be a not-so-easy grab for his government.. but IRAN is impossible for them, and to be frank i hear people saying that muslims are terrorists, and trust me those people who are doing unjustice and unhuman are not muslim at all, so those who say Islam was the religon spread thru sword, they give examples from a book hardly 100 years old and our history is 1500 years older.. Islam was the very first among religons to give a concept of what you people call "Justice & Equality" .. and well if someone puts on the uniform of Islam and do anything wrong, hail to Ameircans then, as Bush is wearing Americas Uniform for now
| Quote: |
| truespeed wrote:
The only thing the USA has succeeded in doing is breeding a new generation of terrorists,by invading iraq they have bred resentment in a whole generation of muslims not only in iraq but in the whole arab world. if its true that you reap what you sow,then the USA shouldnt be looking forward to the harvest. |
o dear truespeed, did you see what he have done? and now he is planning for more.. SYRIA will be a not-so-easy grab for his government.. but IRAN is impossible for them, and to be frank i hear people saying that muslims are terrorists, and trust me those people who are doing unjustice and unhuman are not muslim at all, so those who say Islam was the religon spread thru sword, they give examples from a book hardly 100 years old and our history is 1500 years older.. Islam was the very first among religons to give a concept of what you people call "Justice & Equality" .. and well if someone puts on the uniform of Islam and do anything wrong, hail to Ameircans then, as Bush is wearing Americas Uniform for now
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Iraq did not have a terrorist problem before the invasion |
HuH?
| S3nd K3ys wrote: | ||
HuH? |
I think it's fairly plain English....There was no terrorist problem in Iraq pre-invasion.
Chris.
I don't think there is any confusion about this right now ... war on iraq for terrorisum ... this say of bush is now a days absard ... everybody knows the reason he showed to the world and his country is totally false ... and on this fulse assupmtion he presents the world a country of blood. By this time, Bush also success his ultimate goal, taking out the oil from iraq. In my sense, this is the target of US .. THE OIL .. not for the democracy of IRAQ and ther r right on their targer ...
Too simplistic an argument. Oil is factor but not so directly as you suggest.
US foreign policy has been directed for decades at control of the middle east to ensure oil stability. It has largely attempted this by backing Iraq against Iran in an effort to balance out the regional powers and keep them busy with each other. It has also setup and maintained a puppet government in Saudi Arabia and based a significant military presence in that state. Finally it continues to be the major obstacle to any palestinian/Israeli land settlement by backing the Israel line of wait, wait, wait and sooner or later the problem will be solved without the need to dismantle settlements and hand much land back.
It is this whole picture that needs to be seen, not a simple smash and grab raid on Iraq's oil. Having said that, the US has, unsurprisingly been found with it's hands in the till several times and the level of financial mismanagement has to be seen to be believed. Here are a couple of sources:
Haliburton and Iraq Oil
The Iraq Rip Off
Pentagon committee members links to Iraq contracts
Top profiteers from Iraq
US foreign policy has been directed for decades at control of the middle east to ensure oil stability. It has largely attempted this by backing Iraq against Iran in an effort to balance out the regional powers and keep them busy with each other. It has also setup and maintained a puppet government in Saudi Arabia and based a significant military presence in that state. Finally it continues to be the major obstacle to any palestinian/Israeli land settlement by backing the Israel line of wait, wait, wait and sooner or later the problem will be solved without the need to dismantle settlements and hand much land back.
It is this whole picture that needs to be seen, not a simple smash and grab raid on Iraq's oil. Having said that, the US has, unsurprisingly been found with it's hands in the till several times and the level of financial mismanagement has to be seen to be believed. Here are a couple of sources:
Haliburton and Iraq Oil
The Iraq Rip Off
Pentagon committee members links to Iraq contracts
Top profiteers from Iraq
yes .. i do agree what u say. Unfortunately, the country who could do a major role in this situation, always keep silent. Saudi Arbaia is the most strongest country is middle-east and also the muslim world. But, everybody sees it's role in all situation. Keeping silent and do support US from the back. Actually, to keep contain their kingdomship, they have to satisfy US. Otherwise, their kingdomship will be in problem by US policy.
If we just leave - all of our work will be undone. Another tyrannical Muslim regime will come to power, torture and kill the people, and we'll be back at square number 1.
The idea (whether you think it is right or wrong) is not terrorism, but to establish democracy in the middle east. To show these people that they don't have to live under society completely dominated by a very warped religion. That women can (and should be) treated as equal. That they don't have to live in fear of a dictator who tortures and kills his own populations. That they can be free.
The idea (whether you think it is right or wrong) is not terrorism, but to establish democracy in the middle east. To show these people that they don't have to live under society completely dominated by a very warped religion. That women can (and should be) treated as equal. That they don't have to live in fear of a dictator who tortures and kills his own populations. That they can be free.
Soulfire - America just supported the bombing and virtual destruction of one of the best examples of democracy in the middle east - Lebanon. You supplied the bombs which rained down on Beirut.
As for your aim of making Iraq less Islamic - well that is the opposite of what happened. The parties in the Iraqi government are overwhelmingly Islamic, religious based, parties. Islam is enshrined in the constitution. Right now these same parties are fighting US troops, and each other, on the streets of Baghdad. They have members inside the police, the military and the various ministries.
Oh, and by the way, women had rights under Saddam. His was a secular regime, not an Islamic one. In fact, women are much more restricted now, because they run the risk of being shot if they don't wear a headscarf or drive. Recent reports say that torture has gone up, not down, under the new regime.
It's a nice idea, having a nice peaceful Iraq where everyone gets along - but they way the US has gone about it is not working. You can't go in with big guns and tell everyone what to do. That hasn't worked, and will not work in the future.
As for your aim of making Iraq less Islamic - well that is the opposite of what happened. The parties in the Iraqi government are overwhelmingly Islamic, religious based, parties. Islam is enshrined in the constitution. Right now these same parties are fighting US troops, and each other, on the streets of Baghdad. They have members inside the police, the military and the various ministries.
Oh, and by the way, women had rights under Saddam. His was a secular regime, not an Islamic one. In fact, women are much more restricted now, because they run the risk of being shot if they don't wear a headscarf or drive. Recent reports say that torture has gone up, not down, under the new regime.
It's a nice idea, having a nice peaceful Iraq where everyone gets along - but they way the US has gone about it is not working. You can't go in with big guns and tell everyone what to do. That hasn't worked, and will not work in the future.
Hrm, interesting, because did Lebanon not attack Israel? Although, I don't remember who did what, I would look it up, but I find it pointless - because arguing the war in Iraq is pointless.
Anyone can sit back and scratch themselves, bitch, and complain - that's the problem with the liberals. All talk and no walk.
Anyone can sit back and scratch themselves, bitch, and complain - that's the problem with the liberals. All talk and no walk.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| If we just leave - all of our work will be undone. Another tyrannical Muslim regime will come to power, torture and kill the people, and we'll be back at square number 1.
The idea (whether you think it is right or wrong) is not terrorism, but to establish democracy in the middle east. To show these people that they don't have to live under society completely dominated by a very warped religion. That women can (and should be) treated as equal. That they don't have to live in fear of a dictator who tortures and kills his own populations. That they can be free. |
What work that has been done?
oh you mean the prop government the US set up so that they can control what's happening in the country (like the signing of oil contracts) ---- it's not a democracy
And living in fear of a dictator... no one is saying that horrible things weren't happening before the INVASION, but come on - do you really think that the people are better of now; fearing for their lives as the constant persistent WAR wages on.
The people of Iraq were better off before, and continuing of the war (in the way that the US is fighting it) will not help them. Maybe other ways can be found to help them....
not only is the "war on terror" helping the terrorists BUT now there have been more atacks on the us and uk now than ever. the terrorists are basicly useing the war as free advertising. also i think bush is just going for Iraqs fuel resourses and useing terrorist as an excuse to steal oil
Related topics
 |