They Never Explain

[Eki]

HOW and WHY is the Iraq war an "integral part of the War on Terror"?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296201,00.html


Townsend also called the war in Iraq a "propaganda tool" used by enemies, but objected to a Washington Post op-ed written by Lee Hamilton and James Baker, co-chairmen of the Iraq Study Group, who called the Iraq war a distraction in the War on Terror

It is "not a distraction" but an "integral part of the war effort," she said of the effort in Iraq.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I didn't know Bin Laden was impotent :s

[Daniel]

I agree Eki. If they'd just gone into Afghanistan which is where Bin Laden is/was then I could believe. All the war in Iraq did was destabilise the region and give terrorists more fuel for their fire. Plus the US just lets the Israeli's do whatever they want which adds yet more fuel to the fire :mark:

[BDunnell]

And at the time of the start of the Iraq conflict, the Iraqi regime could not be categorised as 'terrorists', no matter what atrocities it had committed.

At least the British government under Gordon Brown has shown signs of moving away from using the phrase 'war on terror'. It's much more of a brand name than the actual title of a war.

[LeonBrooke]

It's a well-known fact that Osama and Saddam were ideological enemies. Of course, those they have to fool (i.e. the American public) don't know that, so they'll believe that there is some connection.

In other words: They don't care what we in the rest of the world think, and the Americans don't know any better.

They'll never explain.

[Rollo]

HOW and WHY is the Iraq war an "integral part of the War on Terror"?

The "War On Terror" is a perfect justification for a permanent war economy which was first proposed by Charles Erwin Wilson (the then chair of General Motors and who later became United States Secretary of Defense) back in 1944.

US Foreign Policy since 1944 has been entirely about either finding, creating or fighting conflicts. A major conflict roughly co-incides with the next generation of soldiers.
Since the US military is the biggest discretionary ($432bn of $873bn or 49%) component of the budget, that's obviously where the money is going.

[tinchote]

The "War On Terror" is a perfect justification for a permanent war economy which was first proposed by Charles Erwin Wilson (the then chair of General Motors and who later became United States Secretary of Defense) back in 1944.

US Foreign Policy since 1944 has been entirely about either finding, creating or fighting conflicts. A major conflict roughly co-incides with the next generation of soldiers.
Since the US military is the biggest discretionary ($432bn of $873bn or 49%) component of the budget, that's obviously where the money is going.

True, and scary. Millions of US citizens live off the war-industry. Is there any way that can be changed?

[leopard]

to ease the hint how bean laden has altered recently :)
http://asware.net/gallery/d/3707-11/bean_laden.jpg

[leopard]

I agree Eki. If they'd just gone into Afghanistan which is where Bin Laden is/was then I could believe. All the war in Iraq did was destabilise the region and give terrorists more fuel for their fire. Plus the US just lets the Israeli's do whatever they want which adds yet more fuel to the fire :mark:

Not sure about invasion of US to Iraq whether or not was good for future of Iraq, this may need to ask Iraqi which option they would like to run their life, is it preferably with the former regime or the new governance with foreign interference, or new one but without foreign interference. If they chose the first and the third option, then we may conclude that they no longer need foreigns there as it may destabilize the region and stimulate another terrorist movement as the protest over dissatisfaction.

Israeli might have too long lived with their own paradigm over their unpleasant history that make them difficult to live together with their neighbor in the same region. This might have also caused a paranoid that they are too much afraid of existence of others as a treat to their existence. As long as they didn't change their way of thinking, which US always takes it for granted, It is a doubt we will see the real peace in that region, and terrorist might have strong relationship with sort of emphatic that this conflict wasn't accommodated properly.

For whatever reasons, terrorism, abusive action using power of force which victimizes those innocent can be categorized as violation against civilization of human right.

[dime3]

There are just too many questions and not enough answers on that one!! :eek:

[Rollo]

Not sure about invasion of US to Iraq whether or not was good for future of Iraq,

Was it right for the US Military? Absolutely. It gave them a justification as to why they need all this lovely money thrown at them. If it isn't Iraq, it will be Iran, Afghanistan, Nigeria... somewhere where an enemy can be created so that they can spend money on it.

I honestly don't think that there's actually a logical enemy for the US because their home soil hasn't been invaded in well over a century. Yet somehow, they've been involved in more different conflicts than any other nation post WW2 - go figure.

[leopard]

Yeah, that aforesaid countries are named for where they can make justification to actualize their theory about that said enemy, and considering they have built that sophisticated military power and placing their military base in mostly region of the world.

History has their own journey trough that sometimes influence the frame of politic, from what we knew that in the gulf war US has supported armament to Iraq, but then they also destroy it.

Besides, enemy can't be solely justified from the fact that a nation has ever invaded us, because history keeps going as long as they show a will that they can cooperate for the more constructive life.