The War on Terror: after 5 years, what has it achieved?

[MonkeyMagic]

i'm no ostrich and i'm no bushite.

 

[Mallard]

i'm no ostrich and i'm no bushite.

You're not serious are you Monkey? Thousands have died the area is more unstable than ever and the government is enacting the most draconian laws possible whilst lots of people live in fear. What on earth is your definition of failure?

 

[MonkeyMagic]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. What is you bangin' on about?

 

[Mallard]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. What is you bangin' on about?

 

[MonkeyMagic]

my original post was sarcastic.

if we look at things simply, the war on terrurs was supposed to make us all safer. i can appreciate that the war against invisible terrurs will take some time to win. however, i would like to see at least some glimmer of progress to prove that we aren't pissing in the wind. i also appreciate that we may also take a few steps backwards in the process e.g. creating two failed states, a heroin epidemic, giving a wannabe nuclear state even more freedom to pursue its goals etc etc.

it's about time we saw some proper progress in this so-called 'war' on the 'opponents of freedom'. i don't appreciate a government attempting to safeguard my rights by attempting to take them away from me. 'we musn't let the terrorists win'. yet they ARE winning through our dsire to score own goals. or perhaps this war on terror is a smelly pile of shit.

 

[Mallard]

my original post was sarcastic.

if we look at things simply, the war on terrurs was supposed to make us all safer. i can appreciate that the war against invisible terrurs will take some time to win. however, i would like to see at least some glimmer of progress to prove that we aren't pissing in the wind. i also appreciate that we may also take a few steps backwards in the process e.g. creating two failed states, a heroin epidemic, giving a wannabe nuclear state even more freedom to pursue its goals etc etc.

it's about time we saw some proper progress in this so-called 'war' on the 'opponents of freedom'. i don't appreciate a government attempting to safeguard my rights by attempting to take them away from me. 'we musn't let the terrorists win'. yet they ARE winning through our dsire to score own goals. or perhaps this war on terror is a smelly pile of shit.

Or perhaps the governments should have just left well alone.

 

[friedaweed]

Oh what a lovely war

great thread much enjoyed.
5 years. It's achieved much for the few.
In terms of humanity and associated progress in the ME i'd say the unattended whelks are breeding salmonella in the warm midday sun whilst the stall keepers are golfing in Barbados.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

How about this? What if there was legislation requiring all politicians to be able to explain the nature and potential drawbacks of and reliably recognise examples of a positive feedback loop before being allowed to take office?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

How on earth did he manage that and where did he get those weapons One appalling totalitarian state invades another.

Iraq enjoyed much wider support, both among Arab and Western nations: the Soviet Union was its largest supplier of arms.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/IranIraq

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

http://www.pmulcahy.com/tanks/iraqi_tanks.html

http://www.soviet-empire.com/arsenal/army/tanks/t55.php

 

[mears]

Keep 'em coming. You are being ironic I hope?

Yes, irony indeed

 

[Julie]

The Iraq War in purely monetary terms for the United States:

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

 

[RHOQ]

One appalling totalitarian state invades another. How was intervening in anyway in the interests of the US public and how were they persuaded?

Through propaganda:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen1228.html

“Hill & Knowlton's yellow ribbon campaign to whip up support for "our" troops, which followed their orchestration of Nayirah's phony "incubator" testimony, was a public relations masterpiece. The claim that satellite photos revealed that Iraq had troops poised to strike Saudi Arabia was also fabricated by the PR firm.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p25s02-cogn.html
http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

 

[nino_savatte]

The Iraq War in purely monetary terms for the United States:

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

It's become something of a real cash cow for the M-I complex and, like with all cash cows, the US state will find it difficult to live without it. Wars prop up its moribund economy.

<sits back and waits for the usual stalker's comments>

 

[phildwyer]

if we look at things simply, the war on terrurs was supposed to make us all safer.

Whatever makes you think that?

 

[zoltan]

Iraq enjoyed much wider support, both among Arab and Western nations: the Soviet Union was its largest supplier of arms.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/IranIraq

Its like sticking your arse up againt a giant circular saw and afterwards attempting to positiviely identify which tooth started the process- its a tangled web etc ec etc .

Um, but additionally :

at what significant point did Saddam Hussein become an enemy as opposed to an ally to the US ?

 

[phildwyer]

at what significant point did Saddam Hussein become an enemy as opposed to an ally to the US ?

After the Iran-Iraq war ended in '88 he was no longer useful to them. His nationalism and intransigence to Israel then made him undesirable.

 

[London_Calling]

After the Iran-Iraq war ended in '88 he was no longer useful to them. His nationalism and intransigence to Israel then made him undesirable.

Yep, but the Berlin Wall was about to come down, and (when it did and the US was running out of military opponents) Saddam morphed into a new role as chief bogeyman with the "4th largest standing army in the world" - which was handy in maintaining the Defence budget.

He was still a tool of US policy, just in a diff way.

 

[phildwyer]

Yep, but the Berlin Wall was about to come down, and (when it did and the US was running out of military opponents) Saddam morphed into a new role as chief bogeyman with the "4th largest standing army in the world" - which was handy in maintaining the Defence budget.

He was still a tool of US policy, just in a diff way.

Yes, I remember noticing a spate of scare stories about Iraq in the US and British press in 1990. It does lend credence to the theory that he was "encouraged" to invade Kuwait.

 

[Barking_Mad]

.....

As the world watched the military build up at the Kuwaiti border, Saddam called a meeting with then US ambassador April Gillespie, who told Saddam: "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." She went on to say: "James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction." (San Francisco Examiner, 11/18/02)

The US was prepared to turn a blind eye to Iraq seizing disputed oilfields on the Iraq-Kuwait border. However, Saddam overplayed his hand, occupying all of Kuwait. American big business was totally unwilling to allow Saddam to have such control over "our" oil supply or the ability to push up the price of oil. The US also feared that Iraq could now attack Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer.

http://www.bnfp.org/neighborhood/jmoore.htm

 

[mears]

Yep, but the Berlin Wall was about to come down, and (when it did and the US was running out of military opponents) Saddam morphed into a new role as chief bogeyman with the "4th largest standing army in the world" - which was handy in maintaining the Defence budget.

He was still a tool of US policy, just in a diff way.

What the hell are you talking about? It was months after Saddams invasion of Kuwait that Operation Desert Storm started. All those meetings in Geneva. The world community begging Saddam to leave Kuwait. Italian porn star willing to sleep with Saddam if he would leave Kuwait. Every country in the Middle East save Yemen imploring Saddam to leave Kuwait.

Every chance to leave but Saddam was to proud. He sacrificed tens of thousands of fellow Iraqis for pride.

And if not for George Bush he would still be in power.

 

[fela fan]

If 911 hadn't happened, there would have been no war in Afghanistan,and the Iraq war would have been impossible to swing in the US.

and no war against terrorism.

So, either 911 happened without prior knowledge and the US then reacted (sharply) by instigating a war against terrorism;

or 911 happened with prior knowledge so that their pre-planned war against terrorism could be instigated in order to achieve planned foreign policy conquests, in order to achieve unchallengable power in the world.

Just as they wrote up in their document headedy by the project for the new american century. Conveniently the action they needed in order to launch their new offensive (no enemies, no wars, no power bids) occurred pretty quickly into bush's watch, and right at the beginning of that new century.

Either OBL was a very obliging chap to the neo-cons, or they were working in tandem.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

and no war against terrorism.

So, either 911 happened without prior knowledge and the US then reacted (sharply) by instigating a war against terrorism;

or 911 happened with prior knowledge so that their pre-planned war against terrorism could be instigated in order to achieve planned foreign policy conquests, in order to achieve unchallengable power in the world.
.

Yep. I believe the former.

If you like conspiracies, you can believe the latter.

 

[fela fan]

Yep. I believe the former.

If you like conspiracies, you can believe the latter.

How does the latter equate to a 'conspiracy'?

You ought not to forget that those neo-cons wrote down in their document that talked about how they should consolidate and strengthen their power, their hegemony, their 'empire', that a big cataclysmic event was required in order to achieve their plans.

That event then happened. Organised by OBL, a man known to have connections with the bush family.

It may be a conspiracy in the true sense of the world, but not in its connotaional sense on these forums. In reality the neo-cons were either complicit in those attacks, or basically begging for them.

Not much difference either way, the outcome from those attacks has been death and mass murder on an 'unimaginable level'. All instigated by the death squads commanded by the USG.

 

[Julie]

It's become something of a real cash cow for the M-I complex and, like with all cash cows, the US state will find it difficult to live without it. Wars prop up its moribund economy.

<sits back and waits for the usual stalker's comments>

Interesting how they (whoever 'they' are ) didn't reply to either of our posts Nino.

And the money counter keeps ticking over......

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

How does the latter equate to a 'conspiracy'?.

If the US govt knew the attack was coming, but did nothing to stop it, so that they could pursue some agenda in the aftermath, well, that qualifies as a conspiracy.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You ought not to forget that those neo-cons wrote down in their document that talked about how they should consolidate and strengthen their power, their hegemony, their 'empire', that a big cataclysmic event was required in order to achieve their plans.
.

Yes, they wrote it out in a public document, then they set about causing or failing to stop 911.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

As I was saying earlier, you can't easily prove motives or conspiracies, but you can very straightforwardly make a judgement on the competence of the politicians who are prosecuting the 'war on terror' against the background of what it is that they are nominally supposed to be doing, ie looking after the interests of their electorates.

If you get side-tracked into motives, conspiracies etc, then you lose focus on the stuff we actually can prove and can potentially hold them to account for.

Perhaps the former mysteries are more exciting, but the materials to make an informed judgement on their *actions* are right here in plain sight.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

They're going to make a film about it.

It's called War of the Whelks.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Nice summary here of one basic problem with the 'War on Terror' from John Le Carre.

So answer me this one, please. If you kill a hundred innocent civilians and one terrorist, are you winning or losing the war on terror? "Ah", you may reply, "but that one terrorist could kill two hundred people, a thousand, more!" But then comes another question: if, by killing a hundred innocent people, you are creating five new terrorists in the future, and a popular base clamouring to give them aid and comfort, have you achieved a net gain for future generations of your countrymen, or created the enemy you deserve?

source