NationStates Jolt Archive

I just want to know how many people believe Iraq was really part of the
'War on Terror'.

Well officially it was, as the 'war on terror' is whatever Bush says it is. Whether it was actually a war on terrorists is debateable.

I just want to know how many people believe Iraq was really part of the
'War on Terror'.
It was, but I don't buy into the "War on Terror" propaganda. The title itself is propaganda and Bush is not interested to stop it, because with military might it will be made worse instead of stopped.

The war really should be against the Left, not on something as nebulous as "terror". It's the Left that put Saddam in power, during the Soviet era, and it's the Left that supported terrorists in Iraq during his tenure. Nor was this the only case in which the Left was ultimately behind the terrorists as recent developments with the FARC and PKK attest.

The war really should be against the clowns, because they are behind everything that is wrong in this world. :rolleyes:

The war really should be against the clowns, because they are behind everything that is wrong in this world. :rolleyes:

Tell that to LG when he comes on...

It depends what you mean when you say "part of".

Iraq was a classic resource war. The War on Terror is a vague policy of interventionism which was used as justification. The two are certainly linked, but not in the way implied - Iraq was not a campaign part of a wider war, rather a distinct war conducted under an umbrella term lacking the physical existence implied by its name.

Or to put it another way, there was never a real War on Terror to start with.

The war really should be against the Left, not on something as nebulous as "terror". It's the Left that put Saddam in power, during the Soviet era, and it's the Left that supported terrorists in Iraq during his tenure. Nor was this the only case in which the Left was ultimately behind the terrorists as recent developments with the FARC and PKK attest. :eek: Wow, talk about revisionist history! I'm trying to figure out how you could justify pulling that one out of the hat and the only thing I could think of was that maybe it had something to do with the fact that three rights equal a left so if three right wingers conspire....

Nope. Still doesn't compute. Ease up on the medication buddy.

I'm still expecting Bin-Laden to appear in US Custurdy just before the election happens... as a little publicity boost.

I'm still expecting Bin-Laden to appear in US Custurdy just before the election happens... as a little publicity boost.

http://www.osamasweepstakes.com/

http://www.osamasweepstakes.com/

Heh... I voted November the 1st.

I'm still expecting Bin-Laden to appear in US Custurdy just before the election happens... as a little publicity boost.I personally think his body is in a freezer just outside of D.C. and they're just waiting for the right moment to 'break' the news that "a Body recovered after a raid on suspected Al-queda militants has been identified as Osama Bin Laden".

The war really should be against the Left, not on something as nebulous as "terror". It's the Left that put Saddam in power, during the Soviet era, and it's the Left that supported terrorists in Iraq during his tenure. Nor was this the only case in which the Left was ultimately behind the terrorists as recent developments with the FARC and PKK attest.

Yeah!

Fuck that Ronald Reagen! He's the stupid ass leftist scum that got him there! I hope he burns in hell for his support of terrorism!

The war really should be against the Left, not on something as nebulous as "terror". It's the Left that put Saddam in power, during the Soviet era, and it's the Left that supported terrorists in Iraq during his tenure. Nor was this the only case in which the Left was ultimately behind the terrorists as recent developments with the FARC and PKK attest.



Lost Planet had it right. Remember it was Reagan who armed Saddam to the teeth to fight the Iranians in the 80's. And it was Reagan and his Christian right wing nazi corps who set up the Taliban as well. And no matter what type of puppet regime is installed by our government now in Iraq, whichever one of the Bush twins becomes president 20 years down the road will try to blame it on the left when Iraq attacks America.

Yeah!

Fuck that Ronald Reagen! He's the stupid ass leftist scum that got him there! I hope he burns in hell for his support of terrorism!

He probably is. :D

I was thinking about the war on terror as if it were against al queda and osama.
S11 was after all the reason for the whole war on terror thing.

Hi

-I think George W Bush has abused the trust given to him by almost half the voters in the USA 2000 election. To be a good president you need skill, intelligence and heart.

-The reputation of the USA has suffered greatly. Violations of international lore and the UN system, was a clear case of bad judgement. To attack Afganistan was okay... but attacking Iraq was stupid. May judgement be swift and hard against the poor leadership of George W Bush.

-The world has not become a safer place in the "war against terror". We can still hear the cheers from Osama Bin Laden somewhere in Pakistan after the attack on Iraq!?

Harry Broe Thomsen Christensen
Brendstrupvej 6, 3 tv
8200 Aarhus c
Denmark

I refuse to answer your question on the grounds that I reject your premise. The 'War on Terror' isn't real.

A lesson in vocabulary...
A "war" means at least two nations fight against each other. Therefore, you need TWO nations, not just one.
"Terror" could be defined as actively making others feel scared by means of violence.
So, to have a "war on terror" would mean that two nations fight each other because one is trying to terrorise the population of the other through violence. This was not the case for Iraq (however, you could say that this is now the case for the US in Iraq).

However, this illustrates perfectly why Bush chose to call it that. Label it a war and you've got the people united behind you, ready to use force. Also, a war is not over untill the enemy is defeated. Since terror is a thing you can find all over the world, this "war" might last a little while, and like George Orwell stated, wars are great for controlling people, as they get scared and usually unite against the enemy, making the government's job a heck of a lot easier.

Besides, as everybody knows, it's only history that makes the final difference between "freedom fighters" (if they win) and "terrorists" (if they lose). This does not mean that we should condone the targeting of civilians in the most gruesome ways as e.g. Al-Qaeda has done, but if I remember correctly, do we not celebrate the "Resistance" in Europe, even though they too sometimes used terror tactics? Had Germany won the second WW, they would surely not be remembered as such (thank god they didn't).

This just to illustrate that all things are not as simple as the current US president.

The Iraq conflict has not reduced in any way the 'War on Terror'. It is a fact that US forces in Afghanistan have not been reduced or diverted in any way. The only thing that has been diverted is the attention of the massively stupid public, who think that they know better than the Joint Chiefs, thousands of military officers, and a president, just because Johnny Demagogue 'empowers them' to resist the evil 'republican black magic'.

The war really should be against the Left, not on something as nebulous as "terror". It's the Left that put Saddam in power, during the Soviet era, and it's the Left that supported terrorists in Iraq during his tenure. Nor was this the only case in which the Left was ultimately behind the terrorists as recent developments with the FARC and PKK attest.


Sad really that this post shows a lack of knowledge about history. The west supported Saddam, armed him, looked the other way when he used illegal chemical weapons against Iran, and sold him more conventional weapons after he used those chemical weapons against Iraqi civilians.

And when I say the west, I mean France, Germany, the UK and the good old USA. All nations in the west were backing Saddam, and all are responsible for what he did.

Saying that, while the invasion if Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror, I still consider this a just invasion. Though not for the reasons Bush says it is.

The war really should be against the Left, not on something as nebulous as "terror". It's the Left that put Saddam in power, during the Soviet era, and it's the Left that supported terrorists in Iraq during his tenure. Nor was this the only case in which the Left was ultimately behind the terrorists as recent developments with the FARC and PKK attest.

I would seriously like to hear what specific things you are speaking of . . . I had always thought that the rise of saddam came after the bath (spelling?) party came into power and after being a thug for his cousin eventually took the reigns of power through threats and intimidation because he had the loyalty of all the other thugs in the party. Then during the reagan admin we chose to ally ourselves with him against Iran. Ashcroft is seen in photographs shaking his hand as the US helped him build a nuclear power infrastructure. What 'left' are you speaking of? I honestly want to know what I'm missing, because I have heard similar statements from others and have never been given an answer. . .