Iraq
- Thread starter Richardp
- Start date
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
pickles said:
America is 5% of the world's population yet they use 25% of the World's oil and emmit 25% of the world's CO2.
They are nothing more than global vandals.
Who actually owns the oil that the USA buys on the open market? Where does Exxon/mobil fit in?
pickles said:
Comparing America to Iran or China is not a reasonable comparison - how about comparing this administration with previous administrations? Can you tell me one that was much worse in international relations? I think America is a great country, but the way it is being run at present does not do it justice.
I do not know why America invaded Iraq...I thought you were originally saying that it was because of their need for oil, but maybe I misunderstood you? The Bush administration still hasn't given a plausible explanation.
pickles said:
There may well be people on the left who want to make it simplistic, just as there are those on the right who seek to do likewise, but there are many respected people of every political hue who have deep reservations about the way America has acted. I remember seeing John Major, who had his own misgivings, on Breakfast with Frost before the invasion saying that winning would not be the problem, but the aftermath could be like armageddon! Many have warned America and this government that the way that they were acting was ill-advised, yet they ploughed their own furrow and are now stuck in the mud.
Why did America choose this course? I'm still waiting for a believable answer, however complex. I do think the spin, half-truths and barefaced lies do not help the American or British governments' cause. Even the head of the army in Iraq has spoken out, which says a lot.
Well said, noodlz 
My personal reason for being more critical of the US administration than the Chinese or, say, Iranian, is that I feel, being British, quite close to US culture. We share the same language (almost) and many aspects of what we consider constitutes 'civilisation'.
But the current administration are, in my view, extreme. They are hawks who actually (seemingly) know nothing about the pursuit of peace or even how to get on reasonably well with their neighbours. They seem obsessed with 'American interests' to the detriment of global stability (OK, perhaps all US administrations have shared this obsession, but this latest lot are total zealots).
They (arguably Americans in general) seem scarily ignorant of other cultures and even less tolerant of cultural differences. They are, at best, clumsy in their handling of global affairs, and at worst capable of horrific war crimes which they know they'll get away with as they are, seemingly, above international law. They are ther biggest kid in the playground, which is why Britain is sucking up to them. They are impressive, yes, but also quite scary in their gung-ho attitudes.
My feeling is that the US should be more accountable to international law and exhibit more humility and be less carried away by their own insular sense of their own primacy. Europe should stand up to them more: in fact it would really help if the UK was more alligned with Europe and we presented a rational, united front to counter US imperialism.
OK, I got to go to work now....hope I don't sound too anti-American, because I'm not - I have a lot of family living there. I just fear what this current bunch of neo-con republicans are capable of, especially if their actions go unchecked.
My personal reason for being more critical of the US administration than the Chinese or, say, Iranian, is that I feel, being British, quite close to US culture. We share the same language (almost) and many aspects of what we consider constitutes 'civilisation'.
But the current administration are, in my view, extreme. They are hawks who actually (seemingly) know nothing about the pursuit of peace or even how to get on reasonably well with their neighbours. They seem obsessed with 'American interests' to the detriment of global stability (OK, perhaps all US administrations have shared this obsession, but this latest lot are total zealots).
They (arguably Americans in general) seem scarily ignorant of other cultures and even less tolerant of cultural differences. They are, at best, clumsy in their handling of global affairs, and at worst capable of horrific war crimes which they know they'll get away with as they are, seemingly, above international law. They are ther biggest kid in the playground, which is why Britain is sucking up to them. They are impressive, yes, but also quite scary in their gung-ho attitudes.
My feeling is that the US should be more accountable to international law and exhibit more humility and be less carried away by their own insular sense of their own primacy. Europe should stand up to them more: in fact it would really help if the UK was more alligned with Europe and we presented a rational, united front to counter US imperialism.
OK, I got to go to work now....hope I don't sound too anti-American, because I'm not - I have a lot of family living there. I just fear what this current bunch of neo-con republicans are capable of, especially if their actions go unchecked.
Sponsored Links
noodlz said:
How can you make a comparison with previous administrations, they didn't have 9/11 to deal with. The last time America, suffered an unprovoked attack on this scale was at Pearl Harbour. They reacted to that by destroying the economies of Japan and Germany and dropping two nuclear weapons. Americas position is a logical reaction to what was effectively a declaration of war, the problem is not that they have reacted but that they did not think their strategy through in advance properly.
No one seems suprised when the use of violence radicalises say the Palestinians or the rest of the Islamic world, but when America reacts to violence in the same way everyone seems suprised, why are the rules different for them. Don't forget that prior to 9/11 the criticism of America was it's isolationism and refusal to engage in world affairs, it had absolutely no intention of engaging in a war or invading anyone, it had left Bin Laden alone despite having him in its sights on more than one occasion and didn't react even to provocations like the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 or the earlier world trade centre bombings in 1993
noodlz said:
It's not complex it's simple. America chose this course for the very simple reason that having attacked and defeated the taliban it saw Iraq Iran and Syria as the next enemies it had to deal with. It thought that by destroying Saddams regime it could create a democratic regime in the middle east and drive a wedge between Iran and Syria, leaving them isolated and more amenable to it's will and creating the economic stability it wants. The sad fact is that it has miscalculated, not because that is not possible but because it misunderstood the ethnic divisions in Iraq and does not accept the price that would have to be paid in time money and lives to do that. It would take them several generations and a full scale mobilisation onto a war footing to gain control in Iraq.
In many ways Iraq only exists in the mind of the Western world. It was created by the British out of 3 ethnic groups and is now coming apart along it's natural ethnic fracture lines greatly enhancing Irans influence in the process
noodlz said:
Your a victim of media hype if you believe that. There is no more spin or lying in this government than in any other government that has gone before. All governments use spin and mislead people, it's a natural extension of human nature. The difference is that they are having to deal with extreme circumstances that no UK government has faced since the second world war. The head of the army seems to be a victim of the same attitude that a lot of people have fallen victim to in ignoring the lessons of history and believing that if we do nothing and leave them to it all this will somehow go away.
America will loose this round and be forced to withdraw but history will probably judge them as the country that had the wisdom to try to do something now rather than burying it's head in the sand
The Jeep said:
Has only ever been a word that dominant cultures use to describe themselves. I'm not sure it really exists.
The Jeep said:
Like I said to Noodlz they have 9/11 to deal with, what are they supposed to do, sit on their hands and wait for the nerve gas. The whole Islamic world cheared loudly and has been queing up to join in ever since.
You say you are concerned about the pursuit of peace so perhaps you could explain an alternative strategy that they could use. I would like to know what you think they should do and how they are supposed to negotiate with a world view that requires their total destruction as a religious necessity and sees them as the root of all evil
The Jeep said:
Agreed, that's why they have ****ed up in Iraq, they don't understand the culture or the history, all of this could have been forseen if they had thought it through first.
The Jeep said:
All war is a crime, what are you saying they have specifically done that doesn't fit into that general category. They have prosecuted and imprisoned the Abu Ghraib guards and are currently prosecuting 3 soldiers for rape and murder who may face the death penalty. As far as I can see there hasn't been anything on the scale of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam or anything of that nature.
The Jeep said:
Blair has made a strategic decision that their world view is right and has acted accordingly. If they ultimately prevail then history will prove him right, or wrong if they don't . It is actually far to soon to say whether he is wise or a fool. Britain and europe, particularily the French do owe America something for being hauled out of the **** in the second world war and not being overun by the Russians after it. You could say that the difference between Britain and europe is that we remember who our allies are and they have forgotten. What exactly is the European position apart from a bit of hand wringing and doing nothing, do they actually have a position.
The Jeep said:
Agreed, but I think Al Queda should show them the way by example first
Firstly, Pickles, may I say that it is refreshing and enlightening for me to hear such compelling points being put with such eloquence, and I hope you realise that this is in no way personal. It may appear a silly statement to start with, but unfortunately many heated debates have descended in the past and sometimes also because of the internet's shortcomings as a means of communication. I’m only here to learn and express my views, however limited they may be.
So, now we cannot compare American administrations because of 9/11, but a comparison of America to China or Iran is valid? To be fair, I do agree with you that potentially China and Iran are a greater concern to the world, however, what I was trying to get across is that this American administration, by its actions, has destabilised the world more than improved our security. The invasion of Iraq happened a long time after 9/11 and there is no link between the two. How and when did Iraq declare war on America? America's was an illogical reaction and at the wrong target at that. When America suffered the attack at Pearl Harbour, it did not react by bombing China a couple of years later? The problem is, as you rightly say, that they did not think the stategy through in advance properly AND they reacted, if the attack on Iraq was a reaction to the aftermath of 9/11, against the wrong target.
Two wrongs do not make a right. The Palestinians don’t have their country anymore and are treated as outcasts in their own land…it is not right, but one can comprehend how such people can become radicalised. Iraq is a different issue from Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
Firstly, America may have deposed the taliban, but they and other warring forces are still reeking havoc in Afghanistan.
If, as you imply, it was a strategic attempt to weaken Iran and Syria, it is the first I’ve heard of it. If this truly were the reason, it seems odd as Saddam was such an enemy of Iran anyway. Also,as Richardp has already said, the panel set up to advise the White House on future policy on Iraq headed by Bush’s former Secretary of State, James Baker, apparently advises a course of action where Iranian and Syrian troops replace American forces in Iraq?! …or maybe now America has created such a mess in Iraq, it’d only be too happy now for Syria and Iran to get stuck with it? Where and when have America ever put forward your reasoning which you say is so simple?
Iraq was a can of worms that didn't need opening. Yes, Saddam was a cruel dictator and in an ideal world would have been removed, but precisely for the reasons you have given about Iraq's structure, no matter who replaced this tyrant who had ruled with a rod of steel, there were going to be severe problems. The short-sightedness of not seeing this is amazing. To try to impose democracy in such a country in the state that it was in was utter folly.
I agree every government has always used spin and lying, and maybe this is even more obvious now with the advances in communication, but I believe this government and America have taken it to another level and it's backfiring. I don't think the head of the army should have spoken out in his position, all I am saying is that it does say a lot...at some point America and Britain will have to realise they need to change tack.
Ah, Pickles, you do remind me of Mrs T.
This last statement is the type of blanket mentality that will not help the situation. There are a minority of extremists in the Islamic world perpetrating these vile crimes against humanity. The majority of muslims are decent law-abiding people just the same as any other creed. Any large groups who did celebrate 9/11 were ill-educated rabble whipped up by sick minds. The problem now is that more are turning towards the extremists precisely because they perceive America to be acting unjustly, even better educated people are turning against the West because of its actions.
I am not proposing to do nothing, if anything, do more, but direct the actions with more intelligence. Understand the regions in which you work and utilize the knowledge for a positive outcome. For instance, in Afghanistan, this is a feudal country where tribal leaders control particular areas. It would make more sense to work with them and support them in return for help removing Al Qaeda and training camps from the region – it may not be ideal, but its pragmatic and I believe would be more successful. I would’ve helped set up schools, hospitals and businesses to educate, treat the sick and improve the economy of the country. This is even more difficult in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the way America has acted.
For a long time the West, particularly Britain, should’ve been tougher on preachers of hate and extremist organizations, who had been allowed to drum up support out of disillusionment. Guantanamo Bay is another example of American action that has created more radicalisation than it solves.
Who are you talking about when you say a “world view that requires their destruction as a religious necessity”? If its extremists, such as Bin Laden, you must confront them with force, but at the same time do everything in your power not to alienate and demonise a large group of people.
History will more likely judge the present American administration as one that made matters worse. Time will tell.
pickles said:
So, now we cannot compare American administrations because of 9/11, but a comparison of America to China or Iran is valid? To be fair, I do agree with you that potentially China and Iran are a greater concern to the world, however, what I was trying to get across is that this American administration, by its actions, has destabilised the world more than improved our security. The invasion of Iraq happened a long time after 9/11 and there is no link between the two. How and when did Iraq declare war on America? America's was an illogical reaction and at the wrong target at that. When America suffered the attack at Pearl Harbour, it did not react by bombing China a couple of years later? The problem is, as you rightly say, that they did not think the stategy through in advance properly AND they reacted, if the attack on Iraq was a reaction to the aftermath of 9/11, against the wrong target.
pickles said:
Two wrongs do not make a right. The Palestinians don’t have their country anymore and are treated as outcasts in their own land…it is not right, but one can comprehend how such people can become radicalised. Iraq is a different issue from Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
pickles said:
Firstly, America may have deposed the taliban, but they and other warring forces are still reeking havoc in Afghanistan.
If, as you imply, it was a strategic attempt to weaken Iran and Syria, it is the first I’ve heard of it. If this truly were the reason, it seems odd as Saddam was such an enemy of Iran anyway. Also,as Richardp has already said, the panel set up to advise the White House on future policy on Iraq headed by Bush’s former Secretary of State, James Baker, apparently advises a course of action where Iranian and Syrian troops replace American forces in Iraq?! …or maybe now America has created such a mess in Iraq, it’d only be too happy now for Syria and Iran to get stuck with it? Where and when have America ever put forward your reasoning which you say is so simple?
Iraq was a can of worms that didn't need opening. Yes, Saddam was a cruel dictator and in an ideal world would have been removed, but precisely for the reasons you have given about Iraq's structure, no matter who replaced this tyrant who had ruled with a rod of steel, there were going to be severe problems. The short-sightedness of not seeing this is amazing. To try to impose democracy in such a country in the state that it was in was utter folly.
pickles said:
I agree every government has always used spin and lying, and maybe this is even more obvious now with the advances in communication, but I believe this government and America have taken it to another level and it's backfiring. I don't think the head of the army should have spoken out in his position, all I am saying is that it does say a lot...at some point America and Britain will have to realise they need to change tack.
pickles said:
Ah, Pickles, you do remind me of Mrs T.
pickles said:
This last statement is the type of blanket mentality that will not help the situation. There are a minority of extremists in the Islamic world perpetrating these vile crimes against humanity. The majority of muslims are decent law-abiding people just the same as any other creed. Any large groups who did celebrate 9/11 were ill-educated rabble whipped up by sick minds. The problem now is that more are turning towards the extremists precisely because they perceive America to be acting unjustly, even better educated people are turning against the West because of its actions.
pickles said:
I am not proposing to do nothing, if anything, do more, but direct the actions with more intelligence. Understand the regions in which you work and utilize the knowledge for a positive outcome. For instance, in Afghanistan, this is a feudal country where tribal leaders control particular areas. It would make more sense to work with them and support them in return for help removing Al Qaeda and training camps from the region – it may not be ideal, but its pragmatic and I believe would be more successful. I would’ve helped set up schools, hospitals and businesses to educate, treat the sick and improve the economy of the country. This is even more difficult in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the way America has acted.
For a long time the West, particularly Britain, should’ve been tougher on preachers of hate and extremist organizations, who had been allowed to drum up support out of disillusionment. Guantanamo Bay is another example of American action that has created more radicalisation than it solves.
Who are you talking about when you say a “world view that requires their destruction as a religious necessity”? If its extremists, such as Bin Laden, you must confront them with force, but at the same time do everything in your power not to alienate and demonise a large group of people.
pickles said:
History will more likely judge the present American administration as one that made matters worse. Time will tell.
2
2scoops0406
pickles said:
It's Canada that routinely comes top of the best standard of living. In terms of healthcare America rates quite poorly compared to some other countries.
Life expectancy in the states is lower than many european countries.
Such as?
Quite a discussion, gentlemen...not sure if I have the energy right now to interject with something that is very likely to generate a hostile response from some (hint: couuld get me into a bit of a 'pickle', if you noodle what I mean )
OK, gents, what's your politics? Left or right or safely in the middle? Me, I come from a socialist-friendly background and I have grown up with an inate distrust of the 'right'. So you can imagine that the current US administration are not exactly people I see eye-to-eye with. And as for why a traditionally leftist UK government should climb into bed with them without so much as missing a beat, I really don't understand. New Labour? They should be prosecuted under the trades description act, or whatever.
Sorry, I am not as handy with the multiple quotes as you guys, but 9/11, Pearl Harbour, are you (pickles) utterly convinced that what you have been told about these events is completely true? You seem to be, fair enough, but I am decidedly not. OK, before you deafen me with shouts of 'conspiracy theory nutter', I have to say I've come across a LOT of very interesting information from a wide variety of people (mainly American) who offer an entirely different take on these events, particularly the latter one. In my opinion, the very least that the US admin should do is answer the dozens of very pertinent questions surrounding this attack that have surfaced in the last 5 years. Why the apparent cover-up?
Now many honest, well-meaning peple will think 'how could a modern 'elected', 'democratic' Western government be involved in acts so unspeakably awful that they beggar belief? Well, my gut feeling is that these afore-mentioned hawks are actually capable of it. Not the good citizens of the USA, but those mega-rich war-mongers who are part of the global elite who benefit financially from every squalid act of war wherever in the world it's perpetrated.
An American friend of mine suggested that, if it is indeed true that the US neo-cons planned and implemented the 9/11 attacks - and the almost-too-obvious question to ask is 'who benefitted?' - then they were only doing our (western, particularly US & Britain) dirty-work. Maybe that's why no-one is bringing them to account, or to at least ask the probing questions that have surfaced in many circles, many of them scientific and academic. Maybe their dirty-work is ultimately a necessity for the continuing survival of western capitalism (too political a term? I hope not).
BUT....what is happenning, imo, is WRONG. If greed, selfishness, dishonesty, xenophobia, insensitivity, etc are your actual motives when you enter a conflict in which you claim to be 'liberating' a people, then your actions will have a negative outcome, vis-a-vis what is happenning in Irag & Afghanistan. The motive has not been a positive one of love for your fellow man but a very negative one that has created hell for untold thousands. Hardly very Christian, either.
OK, I haven't addressed the threat from radical Islamists, but I believe that they are the nemesis that we have brought upon ourselves by our own actions (well, maybe not yours or mine, but by our 'elected' governments, or, perhaps more accurately, those who weild the true power behind the scenes).
So, it's all a bit of a mess
)OK, gents, what's your politics? Left or right or safely in the middle? Me, I come from a socialist-friendly background and I have grown up with an inate distrust of the 'right'. So you can imagine that the current US administration are not exactly people I see eye-to-eye with. And as for why a traditionally leftist UK government should climb into bed with them without so much as missing a beat, I really don't understand. New Labour? They should be prosecuted under the trades description act, or whatever.
Sorry, I am not as handy with the multiple quotes as you guys, but 9/11, Pearl Harbour, are you (pickles) utterly convinced that what you have been told about these events is completely true? You seem to be, fair enough, but I am decidedly not. OK, before you deafen me with shouts of 'conspiracy theory nutter', I have to say I've come across a LOT of very interesting information from a wide variety of people (mainly American) who offer an entirely different take on these events, particularly the latter one. In my opinion, the very least that the US admin should do is answer the dozens of very pertinent questions surrounding this attack that have surfaced in the last 5 years. Why the apparent cover-up?
Now many honest, well-meaning peple will think 'how could a modern 'elected', 'democratic' Western government be involved in acts so unspeakably awful that they beggar belief? Well, my gut feeling is that these afore-mentioned hawks are actually capable of it. Not the good citizens of the USA, but those mega-rich war-mongers who are part of the global elite who benefit financially from every squalid act of war wherever in the world it's perpetrated.
An American friend of mine suggested that, if it is indeed true that the US neo-cons planned and implemented the 9/11 attacks - and the almost-too-obvious question to ask is 'who benefitted?' - then they were only doing our (western, particularly US & Britain) dirty-work. Maybe that's why no-one is bringing them to account, or to at least ask the probing questions that have surfaced in many circles, many of them scientific and academic. Maybe their dirty-work is ultimately a necessity for the continuing survival of western capitalism (too political a term? I hope not).
BUT....what is happenning, imo, is WRONG. If greed, selfishness, dishonesty, xenophobia, insensitivity, etc are your actual motives when you enter a conflict in which you claim to be 'liberating' a people, then your actions will have a negative outcome, vis-a-vis what is happenning in Irag & Afghanistan. The motive has not been a positive one of love for your fellow man but a very negative one that has created hell for untold thousands. Hardly very Christian, either.
OK, I haven't addressed the threat from radical Islamists, but I believe that they are the nemesis that we have brought upon ourselves by our own actions (well, maybe not yours or mine, but by our 'elected' governments, or, perhaps more accurately, those who weild the true power behind the scenes).
So, it's all a bit of a mess
Don't get the hint, could you expand?The Jeep said:(hint: couuld get me into a bit of a 'pickle', if you noodle what I mean
Now that is an excellent idea, but not original.
I am, but I am not sure whether this is just directed at pickles.
Not really surprised that they were american. Conspiracy theorists can often come up with a lot of "interesting" to back up their claims. If I was a conspiracy theorist I could come up with "interesting information" within a matter of minutes!
What questions?
No they won't, western governments do unspeakably awful things on a regular basis.
Good luck to them. Long Live the British Empire!
Not the you're a conspiracy theorist, of course?
Gentlemen, I don't have the time or energy to pick up the thread on this one tonight and I am about to disappear for a week so I probably won't get the chance to reply before I go. It will be long dead by the time I get back.
I would just like to say that no personal offense was taken or intended. It's a pleasure to debate with people who have opinions and can argue their corner even if I don't agree with them. I have been told I can be overly direct when I don't agree with people so I apologise if I have ruffled any feathers.
Interesting that you should think I am now like Attila the Hun, as I come from the same general background of ideas as you. 9/11 and Iraq seem to have radicalised my thought processes in completely the opposite direction to normal
I would just like to say that no personal offense was taken or intended. It's a pleasure to debate with people who have opinions and can argue their corner even if I don't agree with them. I have been told I can be overly direct when I don't agree with people so I apologise if I have ruffled any feathers.
Interesting that you should think I am now like Attila the Hun, as I come from the same general background of ideas as you. 9/11 and Iraq seem to have radicalised my thought processes in completely the opposite direction to normal
pickles said:
Hey, pickles, a bit of plagiarism going on here?
I hope you don't think I've been on the attack. Not really, just enjoying an eloquent discussion (for a change). Have a good trip: you never know, this thread may still be running when you get back!OK, I do sound like a conspiracy theorist, and maybe I am in this instance.
However, I like to trust my gut instincts and when 911 happened I thought 'hmmm...' there's something fishy here, and when the (imo) dangerously hawkish characters like Rumsfeld (in particular, less so Bush as he's clearly got someone pulling his strings) announced this new 'war on terror' which, in effect, gave the US carte blanche to carry out whatever military action they chose, then I thought 'hmmm' some more.
Last year, a friend of mine who I know to possess conspiratorial views mentioned that 911 might've been carried out by Bush & Co, I thought 'no way! I bet he believes the moon landings were faked, too'.
However, a couple of months ago, another friend of mine, who I hold in high regard as a very 'sensible and down-to-earth' person gave me a couple of DVDs to watch, I found myself being absolutely gob-smacked by what I saw. The videos were 'Loose Change', which has since been taken off the 'Net because of copyright infringement, and 'Confronting the Evidence: A call to reopen the 911 investigation'. This latter one, I believe, can be downloaded or viewed from https://secure.reopen911.org/freedvd.php
If you watch these DVDs you will see that dozens of very interesting questions arise. On the latter DVD, demolition experts, academics, firemen and even a republican politician gather at a public meeting in NY to discuss these discrepancies. This important meeting was, incidentally, completely snubbed by all the network news agencies.
So, if you want to know what the questions are that are being asked, just have a look at these documentaries and a host of other information and links, including 'Academics for 911 Truth', which has a vast number of established academics from the US, UK and elsewhere who have signed up in support.
Maybe there's nothing in it. Maybe it's all a load of tosh. But I don't think so. Too many questions are raised, check it out, it really is an eye-opener. At the very least, the investigation should be reopened. The technical evidence presented on how the towers could only have fallen down in the time they did under controlled demolition, the fact that the so-called 'plane that hit the pentagon only made a circular hole (before the subsequent collapse of the upper structure) which does not account for wings, tailfin, engines, etc, etc,. There's a ton of stuff here and I recommend checking it out, even just to see what the arguments are and to decide for yourself.
I'm sorry if this may be uncomfortable for some, but even if it's true, they'll probably get away with it as it's just too 'unthinkable'. And maybe they knew that
.This conspiracy theory stuff is now making me paranoid Wrote a response that didn't send and dumped me from the site
I wouldn't go so far as to say that 9/11 was the hawks doing, but it is in the public domain what PNAC stood for even before the event and they have been able to push their political agenda as a result.
I really am curious why they claim to be fighting a "war on terror", yet still do not see as one of the main priorities to shut down the training camps? Militant training camps are still in Pakistan and Afghanistan, yet America with all its military, technological and political resources can not close them down?
http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/aug/10camp.htm
The militants who caused the 7th July bombings and others will have been to these or been influenced by those who have. If they are sincere about fighting terror make this a central goal.
It does beg the question...are there those who might be quite happy for a war on terror to continue? Fear is a very powerful manipulating force to get people's support.
The attack on Lebanon by Israel where they bombed the South back into the dark ages, which was militarily supported by the US and had Britain's tacit support, will only encourage militants. If America were sincere about world peace, it'd make the resolution of a Palestinian state alongside Israel a priority. Of course both sides won't be happy, but they have to give more to get more. Israel give up land and Hamas/Hezbollah the recognition of Israel and the if one of their people jeapodises the peace they take them to task themselves.
Anyway, have a good time Pickles
Wrote a response that didn't send and dumped me from the site I wouldn't go so far as to say that 9/11 was the hawks doing, but it is in the public domain what PNAC stood for even before the event and they have been able to push their political agenda as a result.
I really am curious why they claim to be fighting a "war on terror", yet still do not see as one of the main priorities to shut down the training camps? Militant training camps are still in Pakistan and Afghanistan, yet America with all its military, technological and political resources can not close them down?
http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/aug/10camp.htm
The militants who caused the 7th July bombings and others will have been to these or been influenced by those who have. If they are sincere about fighting terror make this a central goal.
It does beg the question...are there those who might be quite happy for a war on terror to continue? Fear is a very powerful manipulating force to get people's support.
The attack on Lebanon by Israel where they bombed the South back into the dark ages, which was militarily supported by the US and had Britain's tacit support, will only encourage militants. If America were sincere about world peace, it'd make the resolution of a Palestinian state alongside Israel a priority. Of course both sides won't be happy, but they have to give more to get more. Israel give up land and Hamas/Hezbollah the recognition of Israel and the if one of their people jeapodises the peace they take them to task themselves.
Anyway, have a good time Pickles
noodlz said:This conspiracy theory stuff is now making me paranoid
I've gone into hiding just in case (not sure how long I can stay in the wardrobe, though: it's a bit cramped in here with my PC). Doh! How did they manage to find me (and weren't they quick?)
I must admit, after I came across all this 911 stuff I initially felt really mad that I might be living in such an evil world, then I felt depressed because I realised that, if true, they'd still get away with it. If untrue, then how little trust did I have in our so-called rulers?
Another thing, did you watch Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 911'? What about his alleged connection between the Bin Ladens and the Bushes? And what of Mr. Moore himself? Hiding in a cupboard?
Basically, there have always been those on this planet who hold the power. They, I believe, are utterly driven to maintain their power and generally work to expand it. They are unlikely to view ordinary citizens like you or I with anything more than contempt, something to be squashed underfoot if we ever make a pathetic attempt at redistributing this power. They are quite likely organised around family groups (dynasties) and are probably genuinely convinced of their right to this ascendancy. For some reason our royal family vs Princess Diana comes to mind as one outcome of this defensive behavior.
So, we can create all the conspiracy theories we want, many may be true, but we'll all be confined to the margins (loonies) and not taken seriously by the established-media-believing majority. It won't make a blind bit of difference: we are, literally, powerless
Unless....
Sponsored Links
