View Full Version : Is the War on Terror the real deal?
2003-11-26, 02:21 AM
I am seriously wondering whether many Americans can see behind the lies of our President.
Ever since 911 Bush has been brandishing the words "Terror", "Terrorists", "The War on Terror" as if they are going out of fashion.
Check any one of his post-911 speeches and you will see them riddled with these words.
CNN, AP, etc have jumped on the wagon and are mirroring the Administration's words in their news articles.
I have met parrots with a greater vocabulary.
Let's face reality - there is more chance that an American living in America will die of the flu than they will have their life snuffed out in a terrorist attack. There is more chance of an American being killed in a car accident than being caught up in a terrorist hijacking.
Air travel was and still is the safest mode of mass transport available, and the events of September 11, 2001 did absolutely nothing to change that. Facts such as that regardless of 911, America is still a safe place to live. The odds of anyone being caught in a terrorist hijacking are virtually zero. Thatfs rightczero.
And yet everyone seems so scared.
Bush is brainwashing us so that we won't complain when his mates pump BILLIONS of our hard-earned dollars into defense, "Homeland Security", good grief - does anyone know how much of this is lining Bush's mates' back pockets?
The Bush Administration has still failed to prove that Iraq was a threat, and the U.S. Governmentfs rationale behind the invasion is springing more holes than a leaking boat.
One area where they have excelled beautifully is in creating a climate of fear amongst us.
We need to stop and take a reality check.
Does anyone have a clue around here? This is really crazy and I sincerely hope that more Americans start seeing Bush and Co. for what they are.
Check out the book, "Addicted to War" by Joel Andreas.
Sums up the US government in 62 pages.
Michael Moore for President!
2003-11-26, 04:49 PM
americanboy, what is your arguement? Terrorism within the geographic confines of the US is insignificant so leave the world alone?
2003-11-26, 05:25 PM
Sculler, my argument is that Bush, by ramping up the 'terror-factor' in the so-called 'War on Terror', he has pretty much given himself and his cronies a free rein to spend what they want to assert their own brand of terrorism on the world.
Of course, Terrorism within the geographic confines of the US IS significant.
Terrorism anywhere is significant.
Bush and Co. have been extremely successful in making people think that "we are all in danger of being knocked off by terrorists!"
Thanks to their invasion of Iraq, this risk has risen considerably as can be clearly noted by the recent bombings and attacks in Turkey and Afghanistan.
Sculler, I presume you are American?
IF so, I presume you know that your President, on October 1, signed "the largest defense bill in history," - $368.2 billion to be precise.
How does it feel to learn that your tax dollars are being wasted - sorrt - "spent" like this?
I am livid.
There is a lot more to this so-called "War on Terror" than meets the eye and Bush doesn't want people like you to know it.
I would be very interested to hear your thoughts.
And that bill doesn't include the cost of the 'war on terror' which is another 150 billion dollars!
Its the old politicians ploy, blow some percieved threat up out of all proportion to scare the public and then play the hero by being seen to be doing something to alleviate the situation. Of course, Bush's mistake is that he hasn't alleviated the situation, but made it worse by invading Iraq. I hope he'll be kicked out of office next year.
2003-11-29, 12:30 AM
sculler>> the world was safe; except that bush didnt mind his P's and Q's in proactively deleting a threat when he was advised to.
bush could have acheived the same means diplomatically.
now it looks that it is going to take twice as long with exponential cost in lives and money.
i cannot completely say it was hype but it is surely an idiotic retaliation plan by bush.
2003-12-02, 04:57 PM
Westsan please clarify your rather gnomic remarks. I am a simple soul and become befuddled by loose assertions.
"the world was safe; except that bush didnt mind his P's and Q's in proactively deleting a threat when he was advised to."
I will leave the first clause alone. What are you alluding to, what threat, what advice?
"Same things diplomaticaly." err what things we talking about. The removal of Saddam? The overthrow of the Baathists? A neo-con plan for the arab world? Weapons inspections? Alledged state sponsorship of al quaida? Some emotional gesture of retaliation for 7-11?
2003-12-02, 07:05 PM
Hmm, Americanboy my thoughts. Well you did ask.
I dont like the linking of the Iraq war with the notion of the war on terror. A global strategy against Al Qieda is needed but the invasion of Iraq is something else.
At the time of all the pre-war sabre rattling I was prepared to contemplate that maybe some strange strategic shift had occurred in the murky depths that now found Sadam and Bin Laden as unlikely bed-fellows. I was prepared to countenace an alleged meeting between some Iraqi secret service bod and an Al quieda maniac. Such a meeting was hinted at by Christopher Hitchins.
Now as to its veracity, who knows? What I can say is that the Baathists definetly dont have the same project as Al queida. Even this week the Syrian regime, you know part of the axis of evil, (ho hum), has been handing over AQ operatives it has detained to the US. They have been giving them good intellegence for years in this regard.
Americanboy the way in which the war was hyped for internal US consumption you have more insight than myself. That a significant proportion of americans still believe Sadam is a 7-11 bogeyman fuels European frustration/incredualty with the US. There are a range of views as to the reasons for the invasion from@y side of the pond but I will share them later if you wish. Also have some obs on gw as a political animal, and some obs on the components of the military coallition, and american politics.
The internet has its disadvantages as a discussion medium. Pity we cannot share a nice pot of tea, have a chat and invite westsan over. I have been dying to tell him something about rice.
2003-12-02, 07:17 PM
Michael Moore for president of what? The NZ RFU?
Sculler, when you say you are a simple soul, do you mean simple as in retarded?
What the hell are you talking about?
and what happened on 7-11? Did I miss something?
2003-12-02, 10:41 PM
Micheal Moore has some good points, it's a shame he wastes them by mixing good information with bad. I think that someone needs to say the things he says, to get people thinking, but he dissapoints me. He throws around statistics that are misleading and sometimes just stupid. Like one I remember about the number of US soldiers who died since the first gulf war. Can't remember the stats, but his show proclaimed something like "70,000 US soldiers have died since the first gulf war!!!" implying that there was biohazardous chemicals used and abused during the gulf war. There probably was, but how many of the 70,000 actually went to the war? And how many would you expect to die over the 11 year period from non chemical causes?
If you don't present things properly, you've got no point. You're no better than the salespeople on late night tv claiming that their super cleaner was scientifically proven to work 8 thousand times better than the competitors.
And like I said, it's a shame, because some of the stuff he wrote in his book about the politicians being in bed with the companies, and the antics of GWB in his younger days is pretty interesting and should be talked about.
2003-12-02, 10:46 PM
9-11 obviously, and senile rather than retarded. Michael Moore was ok, but now has become repetative and inaccurate. He plays to his crowd and evidently pushes your spot Gman.
My questions refer to the westsan post that precedes my post.
Post Edited (12-02-03 23:05)
Repetitive, inaccurate and pushes peoples' buttons
Hmmm...........sounds like a certain president I know.
2003-12-10, 01:13 AM
I think Americans place too much faith in their presidents, much like Europeans once did in their monarchs. Divinely ordained, democratically elected (or not), it's no guarantee of fair play once they're in the chair. Is supporting your President an act of patriotism, or just old fashioned nationalism?
Don't expect the war in Iraq, or Afghanistan, to end anytime soon. This is not in the US interest, even with elections on the horizon. So long as 'terror' remains at large the US has a perfect excuse to stay in the Middle East. The elimination of terrorism would remove this foil and they'd be labelled occupiers, not liberators. So long as US casualties are kept minimal and the electorate fears the still 'at large' Hussein, bin Laden, Al Qaida, etc, Dubya has a strong chance at re-election, esp. if the prized scalp of either bin Laden or Hussein appears during the run-up to the election. They're probably now in Cuba, on ice, waiting.
The war on terror is a farce, a perfect excuse for expanding the US sphere of influence and further developing the military market, the worlds biggest. The US economy is more dependent upon military spending (including its foreign clients) than any other industry. If you see the war on terror as 'operation infinite justice' or 'Iraqi freedom' then you really need to get your head out of your anus. When you see it as an expansion of the US sphere of dominance, militarily and economically, then you can begin to make a judgement on its merits.
Riktam de Voil
2004-01-27, 11:51 PM
Although try as I will not to hate Bush and Blair, in one sense we have to thank them for showing those of us who didn't already know only too well, how appalingly immoral and dishonest US administration was, is and no doubt always will be. Bush and his pathetic ally, Blair asks us to recognise for ourselves just how baloney the so called ideals they claim their "democratic enlightened" governments supposedly speak for.
In the past, anything could be condoned for "war on communism", then it was "war on drugs", now "war on terrorism". Anyone no matter what their political views only has to study last 50 years of intl. conflicts and their causes to see that "freedom fighting America" is the biggest and most blatant lie perpetarted on all of us.
Wake up and smell the stinking reality of what the USA stands for:
S- State sponsored violence, abuse, terror
A- Arrogance of a nation and frighteningly, its people locked in delusions about its nature, its role and the affects of its decades long violence against any nation which does not bend to its will.
Look up "terrorism" in the world court and only 1 nation has been found guilty of terrorism by the world court- the USA against Nicaragua.
Only 2 nations refused to sign a pact stating that they would not participate in terrorism against other nations: USA and Israel
Usa's post world war 2 "peace heritage"- has bombed over 24 nations.
Sickening but truth is that your average American is brain washed about what their government and nation stands for. Lets hope Bush can help wake more people up faster.
Go to www.copvcia.com
the truth is out there...........
2004-08-08, 12:53 AM
As Public Enemy wisely pointed out way back then: "Don't believe the hype!"
Bush and his cronies exploited September 11 to further their extreme right-wing agenda -- the invasion of Iraq, the suspension of civil liberties, tax cuts for the rich, etc.
Fortunately -- the Bush mission has already backfired. That is why, in a way, I don't think it matters whether he wins the next election or not. Even if he wins, he will be stuck in a dead-end situation in Iraq. He will be unable to launch new wars, because all his soldiers all locked down in Iraq. In a way, it would be almost worthwhile to see GW Bush elected for another term. Then we could see what a festering, impotent president he really is. How will people be viewing the Iraqi Occupation in 2008? The US death toll at that time: maybe 5000 dead. The Israeli/Palestinian war still not resolved. Osama bin Laden still on the run. The Japanese economy still in recession. North Korea still a threat. Global Warming becoming more and more of a problem. And Hillary Clinton for President in 2008?!