Are we winning or losing the war on terrorism?
- Thread starter No-name
- Start date
Ma Cherie
Your Goddess is here
Personally I think being in Iraq has only made things much worse. Even though there were only a few other attacks after 9-11. For some reason, the Bush Administration seems to think that the terrorist have "gathered" in Iraq. Which is silly because there was no link in the 9-11 attacks and Iraq. If anything, the so-called war on terrorism isn't being fought correctly. We know by now that Al-Qauda is a network that operates in other parts of the world. Some of these attacks that took place were only inspired by Osama Bin Laden, the terrorists cells operates on their own free will without direct orders from Bin Laden. And we're in Iraq? :clueless:
9/11 made it almost inevitable for the US to invade Afghanistan and start the "war against terrorism". But invading Iraq was still a mistake... What I would really want to know is whether 9/11 was really planned by Al Qaida or other Muslim organisation, or if it was a trick of Bush & Co to turn the public opinion in order to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, so that Bush & Co could seize the control over the petroleum in those regions. I admit being cynical by nature, but something tells me that this latter hypotheis could be closer to reality.
If that is true, the conflict of civilisations between the West and the Muslim world was actually started by Bush & Co. After all, Hitler burnt the Reichstag the accused the Jews to prosecute them more easily. And the Japanese bombed a Chinese railway then accused some Chinese rebels of doing it so that they could take control of the region... Hypocritica manoeuvres have long been the ideal pretext to attack people who haven't done anything with the approval of the general public...
If that is true, the conflict of civilisations between the West and the Muslim world was actually started by Bush & Co. After all, Hitler burnt the Reichstag the accused the Jews to prosecute them more easily. And the Japanese bombed a Chinese railway then accused some Chinese rebels of doing it so that they could take control of the region... Hypocritica manoeuvres have long been the ideal pretext to attack people who haven't done anything with the approval of the general public...
Do you sincerely believe that super-rich people full of advisors, controlling the most powerful country on earth can make so many mistakes, eventhough common folk could tell them it was a mistake ? Don't be so naive. They want it to look like a series of mistake, but it was their intention to control Iraqi oil since the beginning. The only possible miscalculation would be the resistance of Iraqi rebels.sabro said:
I don't consider myself naive, but when I hear hoofbeats, I usually look for horses, not zebras. (Achem's Razor)
I think it was ineptitude from the start. If you just wanted the oil, there are better ways of getting it... and once Saddam was out of power, you should have kept the Iraqi army together to fight the insurgency and guard the oil facilities... OOPs. Dubya blew that one too.
I think it was ineptitude from the start. If you just wanted the oil, there are better ways of getting it... and once Saddam was out of power, you should have kept the Iraqi army together to fight the insurgency and guard the oil facilities... OOPs. Dubya blew that one too.
sabro said:
There may be hidden reasons for doing what they did. One fairly obvious one is that the longer the fightings continue and the more money it makes for the weapon industry, in which Bush & Co have big stakes. As they know how to keep things under control so that it doesn't cause a real threat to the US, but keep the war in the Middle East going, I would say that was a success, not a miserable failure, from their point of view. Again, making it look like a failure to the public and Bush as a victim of his own dumbness is exactly what some people behind Bush wanted, so that they make money from war without bringing in too many suspicions from ordinary folks.