The New 9/11

[GostHacked]

But they don't need a fallacy to continue....did you think that the WoT was going to stop on inauguration day if a new "event" is not forthcoming?

But they needed a fallacy to begin with. So they will need the fallacy to continue. I know you don't see it as such, but that is not my problem.

No, this fallacy of a war on terror will in fact continue. Gotta cover up all the recent lies with more lies. It will be ramped up severly only after another 'terror attack' on the US Homeland soil. Without it ,the current status quo will just continue.

Remiel

If it does happen, I do not believe that the optimal response will be one involving the invasion of another country, unless it could be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that they were directly responsible and that neutralizing them would not create more favourable conditions for terrorist recruiters.

Sounds on the money there. Iraq and Afghanistan were attacked because most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi's. So yeah makes sense. Sure one infamous Saudi called Osama Bin Laden was, starting terror training camps. Initially they were called the Muhajedeen. They fought off the Red Army, with the US's help.

But since the Saudi's are the US's friend, and they supply much of the oil to the US. Don't want to bite the hand that feeds you, but the hand that feeds you can slap yours anytime they want.

[bush_cheney2004]

But they needed a fallacy to begin with. So they will need the fallacy to continue. I know you don't see it as such, but that is not my problem.

No it's not, because NATO agreed that 9/11 and subsequent attacks were not a fallacy.

No, this fallacy of a war on terror will in fact continue. Gotta cover up all the recent lies with more lies. It will be ramped up severly only after another 'terror attack' on the US Homeland soil. Without it ,the current status quo will just continue.

Current status quo (isn't that redundant ?) is just fine by me. Best defense is a strong offense.

But since the Saudi's are the US's friend, and they supply much of the oil to the US. Don't want to bite the hand that feeds you, but the hand that feeds you can slap yours anytime they want.

Wrong...the Saudis are not even the largest supplier, let alone "much of the oil". Guess who is #1?

[M.Dancer]

But they needed a fallacy to begin with.

I missed that fallacy. Care to elaborate?

[GostHacked]

I missed that fallacy. Care to elaborate?

Not to worry, you were not the only one. I missed it at first as well. The fallacy is that there is a War on Terror. A war on ideology that cannot possibly be won. If that was so, you would see less religions around the world, not the emergence of new ones. The fallacy is this War on Terror to bring freedom to others, is nothing more than a ruse for the real plan of controlling the natural resources, and especially energy resources. Because China is a threat to the US with their booming economy. With that boom, more energy is used. Those who sell energy resouces will sell to the highest bidder. Or who can buy more at any given time. China is growing fast.

The US is never going to leave Iraq. They are there to stay. Bases are being built in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those bases sit very close to energy sources and the delivery systems such as pipelines that cross the lanscape.

BC

No it's not, because NATO agreed that 9/11 and subsequent attacks were not a fallacy.

Well 9/11 happened, that was not a fallacy. The fallacy is .... sorry, cant go into this, you know tin foil hat territory.

Anyways ....you would have more people wanting to contribute to the Iraq situation if it was officially NATO approved and supported. NATO went in balls to the wall in Afghanistan, that I agree with. NATO approved the mission to Afghanistan. I do not know for sure if NATO played any kind of role in Iraq. Did they approve of it? If so, you would actually have Canadian forces serving in large numbers there. I am not talking about the Canadian troops that are on exchange stints in US military forces. Officialy Canada has never send troops to Iraq to support the war. Instead you have the Poles, Aussies, Brits and smaller forces pulling out of Iraq. Some small forces from smaller countries simply pulled out and never returned. Is this a sign of progress, or a sign that things were not what they seemed. Hence the fallacy.

More or less it would be mandatory for NATO forces to join in on the fight. Iraq just shows that clearly is not the case. Sure some NATO countries joined in, but officaly NATO on the whole? Maybe you can shed some light on this.

[M.Dancer]

Not to worry, you were not the only one. I missed it at first as well. The fallacy is that there is a War on Terror. A war on ideology that cannot possibly be won. If that was so, you would see less religions around the world, not the emergence of new ones. The fallacy is this War on Terror to bring freedom to others, is nothing more than a ruse for the real plan of controlling the natural resources, and especially energy resources. Because China is a threat to the US with their booming economy. With that boom, more energy is used. Those who sell energy resouces will sell to the highest bidder. Or who can buy more at any given time. China is growing fast.

The US is never going to leave Iraq. They are there to stay. Bases are being built in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those bases sit very close to energy sources and the delivery systems such as pipelines that cross the lanscape.

You realize don't you that this is codswallop.

Energy wasn't an iisue as the US had as much access to Iraqi oil prior to the war as everyone else, now they have less so and as far as afghanistan is concerned....gime a break....besides, the US doesn't control energy sources ...the market does and iraq's oil still belongs to...iraq.

[bush_cheney2004]

Anyways ....you would have more people wanting to contribute to the Iraq situation if it was officially NATO approved and supported. NATO went in balls to the wall in Afghanistan, that I agree with. NATO approved the mission to Afghanistan.

The US/UK/AUS would have gone to Afghanistan without agreement from you or NATO.

I do not know for sure if NATO played any kind of role in Iraq. Did they approve of it? If so, you would actually have Canadian forces serving in large numbers there. I am not talking about the Canadian troops that are on exchange stints in US military forces. Officialy Canada has never send troops to Iraq to support the war.

Canada couldn't even if it wanted to...PM Chretien said as much...all tapped out for Afghanistan, eh? However, Canada continued to support Task Force 151 in the Gulf during the invasion of Iraq. CENTCOM recognized Canada's efforts in A-stan, and frankly has no beef knowing of resource limitations. Leave the outdated / podless CF-18's at home.

Instead you have the Poles, Aussies, Brits and smaller forces pulling out of Iraq. Some small forces from smaller countries simply pulled out and never returned. Is this a sign of progress, or a sign that things were not what they seemed. Hence the fallacy.

Iraq remains occupied by foreign forces from several nations.

More or less it would be mandatory for NATO forces to join in on the fight. Iraq just shows that clearly is not the case. Sure some NATO countries joined in, but officaly NATO on the whole? Maybe you can shed some light on this.

Wrong...it was not "mandatory". NATO provided military support to Turkey during the invasion, and also supported new member Poland's deployment to Iraq. Officially, NATO has no policy on Iraq, but actions speak louder than words.

[DogOnPorch]

Leave the outdated / podless CF-18's at home.

OK...we'll crack open a few crates and get us some CF-101s. Heck, the RCAF used to fly an old P-80/T-33 around here as part of search & rescue...that would be the 1990s.

--------------------------------------------

Probably the saddest thing you'll ever see is a mosquito sucking on a mummy. Forget it, little friend.

---Jack Handy

[GostHacked]

BC

The US/UK/AUS would have gone to Afghanistan without agreement from you or NATO.

And you say

No it's not, because NATO agreed that 9/11 and subsequent attacks were not a fallacy.

You might be right, and again I stress, that without the catalyst that was 9/11 and the anger it created, the failed intelligence about wmd trumpeted from the roofs which lead to the invasion of Iraq, would have been shown for what it really was. A fallacy.

That failed intelligence that most of us , including you BC, knew was a fallacy to begin with, is now showing up in droves on CNN, msnbc, ECT and many online news sources and blogs.

For Example.

CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/28/mcc...tion/index.html

Richard Clarke responds

"I think the difference with McClellan's book is, he's now telling us something we all know: that the war with Iraq was a disastrous war [and] was sold with deception,"

...

Clarke left government in 2003. The following year, he accused President Bush of ignoring warnings about the September 11 attacks and of using the attacks to push for war with Iraq.

Yes there is some critizism of the book from other officials like;

Fox News contributor and former White House adviser Karl Rove said on that network Tuesday that the excerpts from the book he's read sound more like they were written by a "left-wing blogger" than his former colleague.

YEAH !! There is a man you can trust.

Iraq remains occupied by foreign forces from several nations.

You think Iraq is telling those forces what to do?? Yikes. It was a US LED invasion, just in case you missed that. Which still makes it a US led invasion.... er I mean mission of freedom.

M Dancer

You realize don't you that this is codswallop.

Energy wasn't an iisue as the US had as much access to Iraqi oil prior to the war as everyone else, now they have less so and as far as afghanistan is concerned....gime a break....besides, the US doesn't control energy sources ...the market does and iraq's oil still belongs to...iraq.

How much are you paying for gas now? Iraq can't even pump near the amount of oil out of the ground as it did 10 years ago, even leading up to the war. The defunct corrupted oil for food program was a total farce. All meaning to control the flow of oil out of Iraq, to slowly turn off the taps. And now the US has complete control over Iraq's oil. If you think for one moment that Iraq actually controls anything in that country, you are mistaken. Iraq's oil will not be bringing wealth to the Iraqi's anytime soon.

[M.Dancer]

M Dancer

How much are you paying for gas now? Iraq can't even pump near the amount of oil out of the ground as it did 10 years ago, even leading up to the war. The defunct corrupted oil for food program was a total farce. All meaning to control the flow of oil out of Iraq, to slowly turn off the taps. And now the US has complete control over Iraq's oil. If you think for one moment that Iraq actually controls anything in that country, you are mistaken. Iraq's oil will not be bringing wealth to the Iraqi's anytime soon.

And this more than anything shows why it wasn't about oil. If it were:

1)The US wouild not have risked and ended up with a destroyed oil producer

2) ...WE WOULDN'T BE PAYING $1.30 FOR GAS!!!

Ad the fact remains. oil production is in the hands of iraq, not exxon, not the pentagon and oil production is still below pre war levels.

So much for the oil motivation.

[M.Dancer]

Iraq's oil will not be bringing wealth to the Iraqi's anytime soon.

*sniff sniff*

Are yoiu puilling these facts from the same place as the US supplies israel with nukes?

Whereas Iraqi officials estimated $35 billion in oil revenues last fall, Bowen said the final number is likely to be closer to $60 billion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23578542/

Note that it is the iraq goverment that gets the $$ and decides how and when it will be spent.

[GostHacked]

*sniff sniff*

Are yoiu puilling these facts from the same place as the US supplies israel with nukes?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23578542/

Note that it is the iraq goverment that gets the $$ and decides how and when it will be spent.

So, where are they spending it?

[GostHacked]

And this more than anything shows why it wasn't about oil. If it were:

1)The US wouild not have risked and ended up with a destroyed oil producer

2) ...WE WOULDN'T BE PAYING $1.30 FOR GAS!!!

Ad the fact remains. oil production is in the hands of iraq, not exxon, not the pentagon and oil production is still below pre war levels.

So much for the oil motivation.

The US has plenty of untapped fields in the US itself. And what companies are investing in the Iraqi oil fields?? I was not aware Iraq had any oil companies, or the money to invest in rebuilding their infrastructure after 2 invasions, ten years of sanctions blah blah blah.

Big oil baby, Big freakin oil.

[M.Dancer]

The US has plenty of untapped fields in the US itself. And what companies are investing in the Iraqi oil fields?? I was not aware Iraq had any oil companies, or the money to invest in rebuilding their infrastructure after 2 invasions, ten years of sanctions blah blah blah.

Big oil baby, Big freakin oil.

What you are aware of is apprently irrelevant.

....try the iraqi oil ministry..they nationalized a long time ago...

[bush_cheney2004]

You might be right, and again I stress, that without the catalyst that was 9/11 and the anger it created, the failed intelligence about wmd trumpeted from the roofs which lead to the invasion of Iraq, would have been shown for what it really was. A fallacy.

Only problem is that the same "fallacy" was used for UN sanctions, no-fly zones, special forces ops in Kurdistan, and Operation Desert Fox.....all before President Bush ever took office.

That failed intelligence that most of us , including you BC, knew was a fallacy to begin with, is now showing up in droves on CNN, msnbc, ECT and many online news sources and blogs.

Forgiveness is easier to get than permission.....bombs away!

You think Iraq is telling those forces what to do?? Yikes. It was a US LED invasion, just in case you missed that. Which still makes it a US led invasion.... er I mean mission of freedom.

Ditto Afghanistan.....lead, follow, or get out of the way.

[BC_chick]

In my pessimistic moments, I reckon that we may have to do as Israel and adopt some very severe measures.

And how is annexing more land, and building walls and settlements going to stop terrorism?

Edited September 23, 2008 by BC_chick

[BC_chick]

And this more than anything shows why it wasn't about oil. If it were:

1)The US wouild not have risked and ended up with a destroyed oil producer

2) ...WE WOULDN'T BE PAYING $1.30 FOR GAS!!!

Ad the fact remains. oil production is in the hands of iraq, not exxon, not the pentagon and oil production is still below pre war levels.

So much for the oil motivation.

Well, things didn't go as smoothly as planned obviously. No flowers, no liberators, and certainly no oil paying for the cost of war.

But on the bright side, Iraq - America's arch-enemy - is no longer one of China's suppliers. Like... Iran is now.

Hmm, I'm seeing a pattern here.

Edited September 23, 2008 by BC_chick

[M.Dancer]

Hmm, I'm seeing a pattern here.

LSD thread is two doors to the left.

[BC_chick]

LSD thread is two doors to the left.

Pattern, LSD.... oh how amusing. How long you been telling that joke, 40 years now?

[PoliticalCitizen]

Well, things didn't go as smoothly as planned obviously. No flowers, no liberators, and certainly no oil paying for the cost of war.

But on the bright side, Iraq - America's arch-enemy - is no longer one of China's suppliers. Like... Iran is now.

Hmm, I'm seeing a pattern here.

Don't worry, Mother China will never experience the hardship of oil shortage with the Russian Brother beside her

As to the topic of the thread:

There's no need for any "terrorist organization" to organize "terror acts" in US proper as US Government conveniently supplies them with a steady stream of US Soldiers to practice on, delivered to their doorsteps.

Now that's service

[the janitor]

America can elect whomever it pleases, and there is nothing you can do about it.

OK....but I am always dumber after reading your posts.

America can elect Krusty the Klown for President if they want. Heck, as long as Americans don't mind getting shot at or blown up, who cares.

If you're always dumber after reading my posts you'd better stop reading; it's obvious you don't have much margin to spare.

Edited September 26, 2008 by the janitor

[the janitor]

Nobody's attacked countries like Iceland, or New Zealand, ever wonder why?

Because the US is a bigger threat. Iceland or New Zealand can't do much to stop al Qaeda anyway even if they wanted to.

[beau brummel]

In addition to responding badly to an attack the west will also continue to incite more of the same. It can't seem to help itself.

Going home or not interfering in the affairs of others really is the best option. Nobody's attacked countries like Iceland, or New Zealand, ever wonder why?

Because nobody would care !!!!!

[jbg]

So how long do you think it will be before another 9/11-style terrorist attack against the United States? It's not like they've stopped the Al-Qaeda or won the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. WHat do you think the response will be if and when it happens again?

I think the US's response against the Muslim world have made the US a most uninviting target.

Because the US is a bigger threat. Iceland or New Zealand can't do much to stop al Qaeda anyway even if they wanted to.

Because there's more media in the US to cover it.

[WestViking]

In addition to responding badly to an attack the west will also continue to incite more of the same. It can't seem to help itself.

Going home or not interfering in the affairs of others really is the best option. Nobody's attacked countries like Iceland, or New Zealand, ever wonder why? Because nobody would care !!!!!

Your callous lack of compassion and disrespect for the people of other nations is duly noted.

[jbg]

Your callous lack of compassion and disrespect for the people of other nations is duly noted.

Some people get their jollies out of watching senseless slaughters, such as 911 or the Islamabad Marriot.