NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been talking to allot of people lately and the general consenus is that the war on terror is very different than other kinds of campaigns, I was wondering what peoples thoughts were on this. Please be constructive don't just say, "no blood for oil" let's face it most people who justify the war on terror with oil are only stringing together a bunch of coincidences not much fact. I don't want Bush lied people died either if any one took 2 seconds to do any independent research they would find out that Bush was wrong about Iraqi WMD's not lying; the general concesus of the intelligence community (CIA, Mi6, Mossad, DGSE, SVR as well as numerous think tanks) before the war was Iraq certainly had at least chemical and biological weapons as well as production capabilities. So what are your thoughts?

No blood for oil!

Bush lied, people died!

And just for fun, a third:

No war but the class war!

On a more "constructive" note, the reason the war on terrorism is different from other campaigns is that rather than being an actual war, it is a mere propaganda construct.

No blood for oil!

Bush lied, people died!

And just for fun, a third:

No war but the class war!

On a more "constructive" note, the reason the war on terrorism is different from other campaigns is that rather than being an actual war, it is a mere propaganda construct.

I'm not saying that I neccessarily disagree with you but could you give me an example of this?

It's a broad based, internationalist police action, as opposed to a General War, much like what was fought between the Great Powers for the past couple of centuries. Instead of differing views of order being the primary contestants, order and disorder are instead the contestants. The foes do not exist within the same paradigm, which makes it weird and tough.

It's a vague and open-ended "war" that's basically a blank check for the United States to play World Secret Police and move in on anyone they like using the Uncle Jimbo Doctrine.

I'm not saying that I neccessarily disagree with you but could you give me an example of this?

The war in Iraq and its justification as part of the "war on terror" is the clearest example.

It's a vague and open-ended "war" that's basically a blank check for the United States to play World Secret Police and move in on anyone they like using the Uncle Jimbo Doctrine.

Look out, it's coming right for us!

Why does that quote seem so...relivent?

I'm not saying that I neccessarily disagree with you but could you give me an example of this?

Iraq. Despite Saddam being a neutered ex-US Bitch dictator, Dear Leader kept harping on the propaganda that Iraq helped out Al-Qaeda and that invading the country would reduce global terrorism.

And five years later, the quagmire still keeps bubbling.

Look out, it's coming right for us!

Why does that quote seem so...relivent?

Because that's what Dear Leader effectively screamed out to the gullible American Public before Iraq was invaded.

That's what Olmert effectively screamed out to the gullible Israeli Public before Lebanon was invaded.

Because that's what Dear Leader effectively screamed out to the gullible American Public before Iraq was invaded.

That's what Olmert effectively screamed out to the gullible Israeli Public before Lebanon was invaded.

Allthough I agree there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq there can be no doubt that Iraq had links with many other terrorist entities, thats beyond a shadow of a doubt. Also this wan't what the American public feared from Iraqi that has allot more to do with the WMD and regional threat. As for Israel do some research, the second news got out that Hezbollah had kidnapped two Israeli soldiers israelis were screaming for blood, this has nothing to do with government propoganda.

:rolleyes: Way to bias the conversation....

1) The enemy. All previous major conflicts have been against defined nation-states with governments, territorial areas of claim, traditional militaries, etc. Terrorists, on the other hand, are a decentralized organization with no territorial boundaries and no traditional military or governmental structure who do not respect the rules of war or follow normal military tactics. Their targets, their methodology, their motivation, their hierarchy are all vastly different from those of a normal nation-state. Defending against an invading military is very different from defending against a small number of infiltrators whose goal is civilian casualties and whose lives are not necessarily to be preserved at all costs. Bombing the military bases and government buildings of a nation will do little to combat the terrorists who may inhabit it, but it works well for conventional warfare.

2) The nature of what we're fighting. We're not fighting a people, a government, or a territory - we're fighting an idea, a tactic. A meme. How do you fight a tactic? How do guns kill an idea?

3) Divorcing oil concerns from Middle Eastern conflict is poor logic. Protection of oil interests has been a part of US foreign policy for decades, and the involvement of oil companies in the decision-making in situations like the Iraq War and the runup thereof is not to be discounted. For an exhaustive coverage of this topic, complete with reams of evidence and statistics, see the first section of Kevin Phillips' American Theocracy - it's about the intersection between oil interests and the American government.

4) It is a documented fact that evidence presented by the President in favor of going to war in Iraq was judged unreliable and probably inaccurate by the Pentagon well before he presented it, and that he was made aware of the dubiousness before he told it to the public. It is a fact that the administration was told by senior generals that the war was going to require more money, troops, and time than Bush wanted to hear, predictions that have clearly been borne out - but which the administration ignored. It is a docimented fact that Bush and other administration officials constantly implied and hinted that Saddam Hussein was a key figure in 9/11 - they never said he ordered them, but they said that he may have been involved, that he was connected to the people who did it, etc. etc. - when there was absolutely zero real evidence that this was the case.

5) It's self-extending. Fighting the war on terror in the Middle East creates more of the sentiment that spawns terrorists - witness the Iraqi insurgency. Our action against the enemy simply creates the next wave of them. This could go on forever. One is eerily reminded of the superwars of Orwell's 1984.

The war on terror is a war that cannot be won, much like the war on drugs. It just can't be won, but we wage it anyways, just to make the people think that the gov't is actually doing something useful

Free Mercantile States allthough I agree with the first 2 points as well as your fifth point. You can read many novels detailing corprate Americas rule of American foreign policy but it doesn't hold salt with Iraq or Afghanistan. In Afghanistan the argument goes that America invaded to get a pipeline built through Afghanistan to access the vast oil resources in central Asia, it just doesn't stand up I'm sorry they still have difficulty of getting that pipeline through tribal territory in Pakistans west meaning invading Afghanistan would be only part of the equation and let's face it America is not going to invade Pakistan any time soon. As for Iraq even if Iraq was pumping at it's highest levels and all the money was going to the American government the cost of keeping the American army in the field far outweighs any possible revenues from oil. After all if Americans really wanted oil why did they not just buy it off Saddam, why go to war to get control of the supplies? He would have sold it to them gladly during the embargo, he did illegaly with allot of other countries. As for the Pentagon report I challenge you to do your own idnependent reasearch read almost any book post 1992 and pre 2002 and they all will say that saddam probably has no nukes, much of the bio production facilities were destroyed in 1991 by the air war but stocks remained while chemical production facilites as well as stocks were vitually untouched. One only needs to remember the last list of WMD that Iraq gave to the UN inspectors, the UN specifically said that Iraq did not show all it's weapons nor did provide any proof that weapons that they said were destroyed were trully destroyed.

a) Allow me to clarify - I think there is little to no connection between oil and Afghanistan, specifically. Perhaps some, but not much. Afghanistan was a justifiable war against a hostile government sheltering the architect of an act of war. Invasion was legitimate and based on exactly what it was supposed to be based on. Iraq, on the other hand....

b) From an oil economy standpoint, the problem was that Saddam had nationalized the oil industry and had control over supply, prices, outflow, etc. It isn't just the oil that we need - it's American companies being able to get it out of the ground themselves, at profit and with preferential service to the US, and oil flowing freely on the free market, not being nationalized or chained to the market-distorting machinations of OPEC. There's also the political/NatSec issue of Saddam using the oil money to fund his regime and military, and to develop weapons systems he might use for another war with a neighboring nation, another attempt to exterminate the Kurds, or to actually initiate a serious WMD program.

c) The WMD issue is over with. The empirical verdict is in - there aren't any. There were a few shells containing traces of old stuff leftover from the early 90s, and one small chemical laboratory in a trailer with no indications of significant use or production. He didn't have shit.

c) The WMD issue is over with. The empirical verdict is in - there aren't any. There were a few shells containing traces of old stuff leftover from the early 90s, and one small chemical laboratory in a trailer with no indications of significant use or production. He didn't have shit.

I really fail to see how this issue is over, I completly agree very few WMD of any kind were found wether stocks storage or production. However, once again in no way did Bush lie on this issue he was wrong, I really wish people would just reasearch this for two seconds to see that all major intelligence services concured with Bushes statements on WMD's in Iraq at the time. As for your assertion he didn't have shit, during the gulf war Saddam ordered nearly his whole airforce to fly to Iran to escape destruction, Saddam was a mortal enemy of Iran but still did it, for his trouble the Iranians simply kept the Iraqi plains. Now comes Iraqi freedom 2003 where is the Iraqi air force, so far only part of it has been found buried beneath 20 feet of sand. Large portions of it are still missing what stopped Saddam doing this with his WMD's or even more of conspiricy how do we know he didn't just train the materials to the Syrians or the Iranians there are extensive rail and road links to both countries.

I've been talking to allot of people lately and the general consenus is that the war on terror is very different than other kinds of campaigns, I was wondering what peoples thoughts were on this. Please be constructive don't just say, "no blood for oil" let's face it most people who justify the war on terror with oil are only stringing together a bunch of coincidences not much fact. I don't want Bush lied people died either if any one took 2 seconds to do any independent research they would find out that Bush was wrong about Iraqi WMD's not lying; the general concesus of the intelligence community (CIA, Mi6, Mossad, DGSE, SVR as well as numerous think tanks) before the war was Iraq certainly had at least chemical and biological weapons as well as production capabilities. So what are your thoughts?

Why bother asking, if you've clearly already made up your mind to listen only to a mere portion of the opinions people have out there?

Why bother asking, if you've clearly already made up your mind to listen only to a mere portion of the opinions people have out there?

Because I wasn't asking for bollocks about oil or wmd I don't care about that, the question is how is the war on terror different, only a few poeple have acctually given me outside of oil or wmd, I'm looking for well you know Sativa this war is different because of the enemies formation is much different i.e. the network or the war on terror has is different because it has shown how conventional forces may not be as usefull as they have been in previos campaign perhaps we are seeing the birth of a larger special forces. Give me anything other than crap that I here every day i.e. oil and wmd. I fail to see how I'm not listening to other peoples views merely replying shows that I have considered them.

The war on terror is a war that cannot be won, much like the war on drugs. It just can't be won, but we wage it anyways, just to make the people think that the gov't is actually doing something useful

You're quite the demoralizing one. Besides they're not an unstoppable rebel force. The stance George W. Bush is taking against Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda is progress. Personally I think George W. Bush should have gone after Bin Laden when Clinton did nothing and ignored the holy war. When a powerful person declares war, I assume we should take it seriously? But of course American's are soooo superior, and so impenetrable, we can't possibly be invaded by a jawa. Well guess what, we ignore the problem, they're gonna keep attacking us. We fight the problem, we stop it. The more agressive we are, the more people will begin to loose faith in the islamic fascist movement. In only rare extreme cases like this, you have to fight the enemy by using terror tactics. Call it hypocrisy if you will, but we have a right to defend ourselves against these horrible people who hide behind civilians. The civilians of the eastern world have a responsibility to take action against this ambitious tyrants.

For people who think terrorism is only sparked because we invaded them. WRONG, they've declared a holy war on America, declaring they will destroy America, destroy it's people, it's ideals, and it's religious freedoms. And it's little douchebags like you, is making us weak. If you were a legislature or a senator, i'd indite you for war crimes. We were attacked by Al-qaeda, and don't draw us into Iraq, because it's not about Iraq, it's about Al-qaeda and all terror states. You think Iraq is going into a civil war, just fuckin wait 20 years, and see as the seperation between ideals will draw the line into seperation.

You're quite the demoralizing one. Besides they're not an unstoppable rebel force. The stance George W. Bush is taking against Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda is progress. Personally I think George W. Bush should have gone after Bin Laden when Clinton did nothing and ignored the holy war. When a powerful person declares war, I assume we should take it seriously? But of course American's are soooo superior, and so impenetrable, we can't possibly be invaded by a jawa. Well guess what, we ignore the problem, they're gonna keep attacking us. We fight the problem, we stop it. The more agressive we are, the more people will begin to loose faith in the islamic fascist movement. In only rare extreme cases like this, you have to fight the enemy by using terror tactics. Call it hypocrisy if you will, but we have a right to defend ourselves against these horrible people who hide behind civilians. The civilians of the eastern world have a responsibility to take action against this ambitious tyrants.

For people who think terrorism is only sparked because we invaded them. WRONG, they've declared a holy war on America, declaring they will destroy America, destroy it's people, it's ideals, and it's religious freedoms. And it's little douchebags like you, is making us weak. If you were a legislature or a senator, i'd indite you for war crimes. We were attacked by Al-qaeda, and don't draw us into Iraq, because it's not about Iraq, it's about Al-qaeda and all terror states. You think Iraq is going into a civil war, just fuckin wait 20 years, and see as the seperation between ideals will draw the line into seperation.


No offence, you really need to read the question because in no way did you answer it at all. Not to mention all the crap that was spewed forth by your piece, How the hell was Bush going to do anything while clinton was in office, bush wasn't even into politics yet, other than that texas governor thing. Acctually i don't really want to reply past that you sound like a racist white trash idiot, just turn your computer off and get back to your sister.

The war on terrorism is completely different from any other conflict in human history. Never have so many innocent people been the target of Mayrterdom operations, the terrorists we fight against have no flag and no set language. These terrorists could be living in your town or even your street.

The war on terrorism abroad is not only a military campaign but should also be about heart's and mind's. In Afghanistan (Helmand province) former opium farmers fight with the Taliban for money to buy their children food, if Aid agencies were on the ground feeding these children that would greatly reduce the ammount of new recruits for the Taliban.

I'm looking for well you know Sativa this war is different because of the enemies formation is much different i.e. the network or the war on terror has is different because it has shown how conventional forces may not be as usefull as they have been in previos campaign perhaps we are seeing the birth of a larger special forces.

Well look no further, as you seem to be supplying your own answers perfectly well on your own anyway. No need to ask strangers to do it for you, now is there?

The war on terrorism abroad is not only a military campaign but should also be about heart's and mind's. In Afghanistan (Helmand province) former opium farmers fight with the Taliban for money to buy their children food, if Aid agencies were on the ground feeding these children that would greatly reduce the ammount of new recruits for the Taliban.

I agree completly with you that the war should switch directions away from insurgent death counts to building schools hospitals and providing other varios forms of aid. Hearts and minds would work much better in a region where every dead muslim wether insurgent terrorist or civilian is seen as loss to the whole umma, these deaths only create more anger and provide more recruits to terrorist organizations willing to give angry youth the tools to get back at there percieved oppressors.

Well look no further, as you seem to be supplying your own answers perfectly well on your own anyway. No need to ask strangers to do it for you, now is there?

Damn your arrogant Dobbs, this is no a single issue where I have all the answers there are many things that make this war different, there are points I will agree and disagree I simply gave two of the many examples that make this campaign different from others. It's pre-pubecent bastards like you who are so stuck on there own individual rhetoric that they will never take the time to here what people have to say. Dobbs grow up or maybe contribute don't try to hijack a thread just because no one gives a shit about what you have to say in any of yours.

I've been talking to allot of people lately and the general consenus is that the war on terror is very different than other kinds of campaigns, I was wondering what peoples thoughts were on this. Please be constructive don't just say, "no blood for oil" let's face it most people who justify the war on terror with oil are only stringing together a bunch of coincidences not much fact. I don't want Bush lied people died either if any one took 2 seconds to do any independent research they would find out that Bush was wrong about Iraqi WMD's not lying; the general concesus of the intelligence community (CIA, Mi6, Mossad, DGSE, SVR as well as numerous think tanks) before the war was Iraq certainly had at least chemical and biological weapons as well as production capabilities. So what are your thoughts?
There is the first mistake, Iraq wasn't part of the Terrorist plot, silly GW.