On the "War on Terrorism"

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Helios, Jan 29, 2008.

  1. Helios
    Offline

    Helios Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    334
    Thanks Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +21
    Salvete populi,

    One of the greatest capitalists in American history, Henry Ford, once said: "It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."


    In the beginning, there was ignorance. Once they had the America people so dumbed down that they had no voice, they began using their second favorite tool: fear. A good strong foothold in spawning fear was 9/11 (which is a whole other interesting story). Fear is in turn combined with misinformation in the years leading up to the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, creating a general atmosphere of panic, which was used to justify plunging the country into two costly (1 trillion dollars a year spent maintaining our empire), ill-advised and completely unjustified wars based on lies and half-truths.

    Just to get one thing straight, I don't blame Bush personally for anything that's gone wrong in this country. I pity the moronic speech-impeded man, he has no real power, and is only the mouthpiece of a corrupt government and of the corrupt business interests and bankers that control it. I also don't blame our loyal troops, who believe in what they are fighting for and have sacrificed more than I can imagine in America's misguided wars.

    So Bush announces the "War on Terrorism," partially to ease people's fear, partially to create more fear and confusion. First off, how can one conduct a "War on Terrorism"? Terrorism is an idea, a tactic, and cannot be targeted by an army, cannot even be targeted by the smartest bomb in the world. It is, however, useful to say you are fighting a tactic, because one can easily extend this war to other countries under the banner of "Terrorism."

    The War on Terrorism was initiated primarily to:
    • Protect the interests of oil companies, and their rich executives
    • Justify taking away American civil liberties and rights guaranteed by the Constitution
    • Protect the interests of the defense industry, which has made profits of 100's of billions of dollars off the Iraq War alone
    • To lower the value of the currency and create inflation. Through inflation, which causes an increase in America's debt to the Federal Reserve, is money in the pocket for the banking interests that run this nation.

    War has, throughout America's past, always been a tool of the rich for extorting money from the poor and middle class. They use the money of the working class to finance their highly profitable enterprises, using their war hawking propaganda to push the country in line behind them. When it's from history its called propaganda, but if it's current it's called news. On top of all this, 99.9% of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps is from working class backgrounds.

    First Afghanistan, now Iraq. What's next, ladies and gentlemen? Iran? Syria? Pakistan? North Korea? All of the above? Wake up, America, and realize you are being told the same bullshit story that has been repeated throughout history!

    "There was, and still is, no "war on terrorism". Instead, we have watched a variation of the great imperial game of swapping "bad" terrorists for "good" terrorists, while untold numbers of innocent people have paid with their lives..." - John Pilger



    Helios
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. shepherdboy
    Offline

    shepherdboy Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    234
    Thanks Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    The occupied zone(CA.)
    Ratings:
    +34
    The Islamist filth were invading Christian lands for 480 years before the first Holy Crusade against the heathen was launched and yet its liberal shit in the west who apologize for the Crusades.Thank Almighty God for El Cid and the Brotherhood of Christ who fought against islamic murder and slavery.
     
  3. Helios
    Offline

    Helios Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    334
    Thanks Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +21
    I disagree. We should bring our troops home today. Yesterday. There was no good reason for going to Iraq, and nothing good will come of it. Killing is but a politician's end to his means. A politician is but a businessman's end to his means. There is no right in war, only wrong. I ask myself why you are so hateful... humor or genuine emotional problems?
     
  4. eots
    Offline

    eots no fly list

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    28,995
    Thanks Received:
    2,034
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    but what about the surge ?....what about the recent reduction in the death toll...?...what about all the great news coming out of Iraq ?..oh a lets not forget womans rights..we have to stop the talaban so their daughters can wear low cut jeans and whale tales and get abortions on demand !
     
  5. Helios
    Offline

    Helios Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    334
    Thanks Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +21
    I must say the "Surge" tactic will only be effective as long as we are "surging." Are we going to keep surging till the sun burns out or what? We are merely suppressing the enemy with these new troops... they are not the kind of enemy that can be defeated by more troops. Gorilla warfare. Remember? That's what the U.S. used to defeat the big bad British empire, wasn't it?
     
  6. Zoomie1980
    Offline

    Zoomie1980 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,658
    Thanks Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +128
    Actually that was true, early on, but by 1780 the continental army had grown strong enough to begin facing the British straight on in classic 18th century warfare. Those tactics bought the time for the army to finally get it together.

    The same thing happened in N. Vietnam. The NVA was a piss poor force for most of the war. TET was a massive failure for them. But they outlasted the US politically without ever winning a single traditional battle. By the time we left, the NVA was a pretty solid functional Army, and without the US presence, they had no trouble beating back the worthless SVA.

    Well funded and manned insurgencies take, on average, historically, between 15 to 30 years to crack. So we have quite a bit of time yet to finish this job.
     
  7. Zoomie1980
    Offline

    Zoomie1980 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,658
    Thanks Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +128
    Maintain the unrestrained flow of oil from the Persian Gulf is absolutely vital to the survival of the US, and in turn, the global economy. That may not be the reason given at the start, but it is the strategic reason why we are there and why James Baker, way back in PG I, stated we had to go the last time. This is just a continuation of that....which was only a cease fire...which Saddam broke, 1057 times.

    But yes, there is a VERY GOOD reason we are there. Oil. IN fact, it is the only REAL reason. But it's perfectly good enough for anyone with a brain larger than a walnut.
     
  8. Dr Grump
    Offline

    Dr Grump Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    19,295
    Thanks Received:
    3,059
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    From the Back of Beyond
    Ratings:
    +4,249
    Both your examples bring me to the conclusion that eventually the insurgents will form an army that will kick the US's butt...
     
  9. Zoomie1980
    Offline

    Zoomie1980 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,658
    Thanks Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +128
    The insurgents lack the resources of a nation-state or major nation-state ally. N Vietnam had the Soviet Union. In Burma in the 1920's, the native insurgents did not have a powerful nation-state behind them and by 1935 the British had largely put that one down....but then the Japanese arrived seven years later.

    It took the British about 15 years to put down Zulu and other native tribal insurgencies in Africa back in the late 19th century. They had no powerful nation-state backing them, either.

    These insurgents, likewise have only Iran....a fairly weak and easily isolated nation-state backing them.
     
  10. Dr Grump
    Offline

    Dr Grump Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    19,295
    Thanks Received:
    3,059
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    From the Back of Beyond
    Ratings:
    +4,249
    I disagree re Iran. If a small state like Syria can back Palestinian groups in Lebanon, then a major player like Iran can arm the insurgents til the cows come home. The biggest problem with Iraq is that it is really three nations in one....
     

Share This Page