] ] However rhetorical it's become, the following is no less
] ] true: The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks forced the
] ] United States to change the way it responds to external
] ] threats.

But this country has the economic power, the military strength and the political will to do something about it. That's a blessing, because we can defend ourselves in ways few other nations can. It's also our curse, because if we don't deal with the problem--as the United Nations refused to do--no one else can or will. So the duty falls to us, and the time has come to stop playing games with national security and--by extension--the lives of not only Americans but those of oppressed innocents across the globe as well.

...

I am so goddamn sick of people tying 9/11 to this ill-conceived conquest in the Middle East. The current leaders don't give a shit about our security. They still cooperate with terrorists and nations that fund them if it serves US interests.

There is a strong case for showing the Bush administration's complicity in the 9/11 attacks. For example, look at our relationship with Pakistan. We turned a blind eye to their DIRECT FUNDING of Mohammed Atta. Any effective investigation of 9/11 has been shelved. More background:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html

There are still plenty of unanswered questions. Rather than actually investigate and try to root out the base of operations for the 9/11 terrorists, we're conquering Iraq. Figure that one out.

Hijexx wrote:
] There are still plenty of unanswered questions. Rather than
] actually investigate and try to root out the base of
] operations for the 9/11 terrorists, we're conquering Iraq.
] Figure that one out.

You ought to read this link:

'Shit ain't checkers man, its chess.'

Hijexx wrote:

] I am so goddamn sick of people tying 9/11 to this
] ill-conceived conquest in the Middle East. The current
] leaders don't give a shit about our security. They still
] cooperate with terrorists and nations that fund them if it
] serves US interests.
]
] There is a strong case for showing the Bush administration's
] complicity in the 9/11 attacks. For example, look at our
] relationship with Pakistan. We turned a blind eye to their
] DIRECT FUNDING of Mohammed Atta. Any effective investigation
] of 9/11 has been shelved. More background:
]
] http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html
]
] There are still plenty of unanswered questions. Rather than
] actually investigate and try to root out the base of
] operations for the 9/11 terrorists, we're conquering Iraq.
] Figure that one out.

You're right. There's no question that there's blood on Washington's hands too. And the US will continue to use the 'stick and carrot' method of diplomacy around the world. But that doesn't change our agenda and certainly not our strategy. Even when the 'war' is 'over', there will still people that hate us (more even), but they will be at our disposal.

I think the article that Tom posted is dead on in terms of tactical cues, but it's too narrow in its scope. It's not just Al Qaeda we're at war with. It's any force that is opposed to the peace and security obtained from the US's perspective of being the singular superpower. So that includes any organization, not just states, that seek to disrupt or otherwise marginalize our power on the globe. The list of which, might end up being surprising.

So with that in mind, I don't think that the full motivation behind invading Iraq is necessarily to undermine Al Q. It's more a convenience factor for the US. It solves several objectives:

o Eliminate Saddam Hussein and his regime. For obvious reasons.
o Open up the most progressive Arabic state to be a friendly ally with the US/UK. This bodes well financially as well as politically.
o Utilize our new found democratic and liberated friend, Iraq, as the cultural, financial, political, and influential base to spread across the Arabic/Islamic world. This is essentially what the Soviets tried to do, but failed in that they never had the opportunity to truly control a government in this way.
o Utilize the display of our military force as an example of what might befall anyone else who we deem 'against us'.
o Give American's the second dose of 'we feel good about ourselves because we just kicked so much ass.' This will help the economy, spread some peace and security around the country, and boost the current administration's popularity numbers.

So I agree with the article that this is definitely a component of a much larger operation. The ultimate goal of this operation is to relatively squelch the power and inf... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

flynn23 wrote:
] You're right. There's no question that there's blood on
] Washington's hands too.

This is certainly true. We are being beligerant. What we are doing is really not right. But its not a conspiracy. We are doing this for security reasons. I'm not convinced that there aren't more peaceful ways.

] I think the article that Tom posted is dead on in terms of
] tactical cues, but it's too narrow in its scope. It's not just
] Al Qaeda we're at war with. It's any force that is opposed to
] the peace and security obtained from the US's perspective of
] being the singular superpower.

Right.

] In contrast, I just feel snowed and lied to. Why
] this surprises me, I don't know.

Make them beleive they are liberators and they will act with compasion and friendship. Make them beleive they are emperialists and they will act with malice and judgement.

The extent to which this is OK is directly related to the extent to which we do this in order to achieve security rather then to acheive economic dominance. This will probably end badly. The question is how long it will take.

If we manage to accomplish a state of security, then things will be alright for a while, but eventually a generation will come up with no understanding of the past who will beleive that it is stupid that we provide all of this security and in exchange we get nothing financially. We'll hate the burden we bare and seek to tax our subjects to subsidise it. Thus we will begin to become more aggressive and malicious in our dealings with other countries until they decided that they have to destroy us in order to remain free. This process could literally take hundreds of years.

If we do not create peace it will be because people continue to hate us as they do now. The hate grows and we continue to be the victims of terrorist attacks. Terrorism will breed fear and radicalism which will produce a hilter like figure who will enslave to secure. The world will plunge into chaos.

Honest, plan A is what the neo-conservatives had been planning from the start. We've served a bit into plan B because of 9/11. We have a very serious PR problem and we better addresses it quickley. We have a chance to get the international community on our side. If we do not, everyone is fucked within a few decades. If we do, then we simply have a critical political responsibility which can be managed for our lifetimes at least.

Hijexx wrote:

] I am so goddamn sick of people tying 9/11 to this
] ill-conceived conquest in the Middle East. The current
] leaders don't give a shit about our security. They still
] cooperate with terrorists and nations that fund them if it
] serves US interests.
]
] There is a strong case for showing the Bush administration's
] complicity in the 9/11 attacks. For example, look at our
] relationship with Pakistan. We turned a blind eye to their
] DIRECT FUNDING of Mohammed Atta. Any effective investigation
] of 9/11 has been shelved. More background:
]
] http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html
]
] There are still plenty of unanswered questions. Rather than
] actually investigate and try to root out the base of
] operations for the 9/11 terrorists, we're conquering Iraq.
] Figure that one out.

You're right. There's no question that there's blood on Washington's hands too. And the US will continue to use the 'stick and carrot' method of diplomacy around the world. But that doesn't change our agenda and certainly not our strategy. Even when the 'war' is 'over', there will still people that hate us (more even), but they will be at our disposal.

I think the article that Tom posted is dead on in terms of tactical cues, but it's too narrow in its scope. It's not just Al Qaeda we're at war with. It's any force that is opposed to the peace and security obtained from the US's perspective of being the singular superpower. So that includes any organization, not just states, that seek to disrupt or otherwise marginalize our power on the globe. The list of which, might end up being surprising.

So with that in mind, I don't think that the full motivation behind invading Iraq is necessarily to undermine Al Q. It's more a convenience factor for the US. It solves several objectives:

o Eliminate Saddam Hussein and his regime. For obvious reasons.
o Open up the most progressive Arabic state to be a friendly ally with the US/UK. This bodes well financially as well as politically.
o Utilize our new found democratic and liberated friend, Iraq, as the cultural, financial, political, and influential base to spread across the Arabic/Islamic world. This is essentially what the Soviets tried to do, but failed in that they never had the opportunity to truly control a government in this way.
o Utilize the display of our military force as an example of what might befall anyone else who we deem 'against us'.
o Give American's the second dose of 'we feel good about ourselves because we just kicked so much ass.' This will help the economy, spread some peace and security around the country, and boost the current administration's popularity numbers.

So I agree with the article that this is definitely a component of a much larger operation. The ultimate goal of this operation is to relatively squelch the power and inf... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]