This war on terrorism is bogus

[BecauseIKnow]

Michael Meacher: This war on terrorism is bogus | Politics | The Guardian

Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia".


Edited for Copyright.

Please, only include a small portion of an article.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

This is a good read. Can anyone still portray ignorance after all this evidence?

 

[BecauseIKnow]

US drones kill up to 80% civilians ? Pakistan Interior Minister ? RT

 

[Dot Com]

its definitely good for the military industrial complex/cash cow for those in-the-know or without any scruples as to how they make their $. Thats not a sufficiently good reason to start a war however. GWOT was/is a big money-making machine paid-for on the backs of tax-payers & future tax-payers because it was put on the credit card. Those who claim to cherish liberty the most are also the same ones who are for putting up cameras/drones & body scanners.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

its definitely good for the military industrial complex/cash cow for those in-the-know or w/o any scruples as to how they make their $. thats not a sufficiently good reason to start a war however. GWOT was/is a big money-making machine paid-for on the backs of tax-payers & future tax-payers because it was put on the credit card. Those who claim to cherish liberty the most are also the same ones who are for putting up cameras/drones & body scanners.

Couldn't have said it better, it's unfortunate Americans, 85% of them support drone attacks. It's sad ignorance, a majority of our population refuses to look at facts and like to stick to their arrogance.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

This 'war' is endless insanity. Doesn't add up people......

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Michael Meacher: This war on terrorism is bogus | Politics | The Guardian

Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia".


Edited for Copyright.

Please, only include a small portion of an article.

Shouldn't this be in conspiracy theories?

 

[Charles_Main]

The Fact that the Military Industrial Complex Benefits, and the fact that the War on Terrorism is real are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

BecauseIKnow, is your post suppose to make me feel bad for SAND-*******, because its not working.
Let me tell you how the SAND-****** WORLD will go down, and you will see it happen in your lifetime.
Women can now have key combat positions in the US Armed Forces, having said that, a lot of money and political influence will go towards recruiting women for the military in dangerous combat positions, Infantry, Fighter Pilots, Artillery to name a few.
Once a substantial female US Military force is established, this ALL female military will take out Iran first, this has never been done in the HISTORY OF THIS EARTH nor has it been spoken of, an entire military force of women defeated an entire nation, as people will then speak of an all female military defeated Iran, the people of Iran will endure a shame and disgrace that will last 5000 years and beyond, as from that point nobody will claim to be an Iranian or a descendant of them, becauseTHEYwillKNOW such a claim will just cause them to be lightly bitch slapped, YOU WILL take on this disgrace and shame half way through your life, but your children and grand children will be born into this disgrace and shame, from that point the rest of the SAND-****** WORLD will ..... SUBMIT ...
to America.

 

[Meathead]

An idiot posting the words of another idiot from an idiotic newspaper beloved of the British left. All this, because the demise of the Taliban, Al Queda and Saddam are great tragedies to some I guess.

 

[Oldguy]

BecauseIKnow, is your post suppose to make me feel bad for SAND-*******, because its not working.
Let me tell you how the SAND-****** WORLD will go down, and you will see it happen in your lifetime.
Women can now have key combat positions in the US Armed Forces, having said that, a lot of money and political influence will go towards recruiting women for the military in dangerous combat positions, Infantry, Fighter Pilots, Artillery to name a few.
Once a substantial female US Military force is established, this ALL female military will take out Iran first, this has never been done in the HISTORY OF THIS EARTH nor has it been spoken of, an entire military force of women defeated an entire nation, as people will then speak of an all female military defeated Iran, the people of Iran will endure a shame and disgrace that will last 5000 years and beyond, as from that point nobody will claim to be an Iranian or a descendant of them, becauseTHEYwillKNOW such a claim will just cause them to be lightly bitch slapped, YOU WILL take on this disgrace and shame half way through your life, but your children and grand children will be born into this disgrace and shame, from that point the rest of the SAND-****** WORLD will ..... SUBMIT ...
to America.

This thread started out idiotic, but you've taken it to a completely different low.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Why is this idiotic? Did anyone bother reading?

 

[BecauseIKnow]

An idiot posting the words of another idiot from an idiotic newspaper beloved of the British left. All this, because the demise of the Taliban, Al Queda and Saddam are great tragedies to some I guess.

Says the guy who's never seen any proof of a Al Qaeda, I know hundreds of people from Iraq, they never spoke about Al Qaeda, they spoke about the American invasion, and they're all Christians.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Michael Meacher: This war on terrorism is bogus | Politics | The Guardian

Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia".


Edited for Copyright.

Please, only include a small portion of an article.

Shouldn't this be in conspiracy theories?

Refute one of those facts you coward.

 

[Dot Com]

The Fact that the Military Industrial Complex Benefits, and the fact that the War on Terrorism is real are not mutually exclusive.

true but companies like blackwater (I think they're currently on their 2nd name change as we speak), Halliburton, KBR, Boeing, etc... You get the idea. This is a business boon for them & their water-carriers in Congress. Earlier it was the carlyle group that was making $ hand over fist while the American tax-payers were getting fleeced. Trial lawyers & Teachers Unions may be aligned w/ the Left but we know what the Republicans most cherished (IRONICALLY tax-payer financed BTW ) cash cow is:

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Michael Meacher: This war on terrorism is bogus | Politics | The Guardian

Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia".


Edited for Copyright.

Please, only include a small portion of an article.

Shouldn't this be in conspiracy theories?

Refute one of those facts you coward.

What facts? If there are any facts anywhere in your post Glenn Beck is a genius, because this is exactly the same thing he does.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Shouldn't this be in conspiracy theories?

Refute one of those facts you coward.

What facts? If there are any facts anywhere in your post Glenn Beck is a genius, because this is exactly the same thing he does.

Every single thing he mentioned is a fact.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Refute one of those facts you coward.

What facts? If there are any facts anywhere in your post Glenn Beck is a genius, because this is exactly the same thing he does.

Every single thing he mentioned is a fact.

The sun is a ball of gas.

The oceans are wet.

Therefore, the sky is blue.

Everything there is a fact, yet the post makes no sense.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

What facts? If there are any facts anywhere in your post Glenn Beck is a genius, because this is exactly the same thing he does.

Every single thing he mentioned is a fact.

The sun is a ball of gas.

The oceans are wet.

Therefore, the sky is blue.

Everything there is a fact, yet the post makes no sense.

Did you read anything? Forget his analysis if that doesn't satisfy you, but look at the things that did happen prior to the attack, the warnings, arrests, the higher command rejecting multiple engagements, etc. There's an agenda behind it because it simply doesn't add up. The actions following did not make sense and were very suspicious.

 

[dblack]

Michael Meacher: This war on terrorism is bogus | Politics | The Guardian

Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia".


Edited for Copyright.

Please, only include a small portion of an article.

Shouldn't this be in conspiracy theories?

No. Because there's nothing theoretical about it. The PNAC stuff is for real. Unfortunately.