War on Terror or War of Vengeance?

[NYghtSaber]

Really now. This "war on terror" is just some sort of front for the US to control other countries and jack resources. Anyone else agree?

[Reverend-Kyle]

It could be anything, but I'm thinking it's a way for Bush to stay in the White House. The more statistics they pump out, the more votes he will probably get-- but that's just my theory.

[Ravens-Grin]

At 1/24/04 07:17 PM, HayatoSan wrote: Really now. This "war on terror" is just some sort of front for the US to control other countries and jack resources. Anyone else agree?

Nope I don't agree.

[RedSkunk]

At 1/24/04 07:17 PM, HayatoSan wrote: Really now. This "war on terror" is just some sort of front for the US to control other countries and jack resources. Anyone else agree?

not much here, just something to start flaming america with..

[bumcheekcity]

At 1/24/04 07:34 PM, Kyle_22 wrote: It could be anything, but I'm thinking it's a way for Bush to stay in the White House. The more statistics they pump out, the more votes he will probably get-- but that's just my theory.

Sounds like a pretty good theory to me.

[NYghtSaber]

Heck, this War on Terror is a crock. There's proof of NO weapons of mass destruction. I think Bush just wanted to capture Saddam for not giving in earlier. If he gave in earlier, maybe the conversion of Iraq woulda happened sooner. If it did, hell, the USA would have more oil.

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

At 1/25/04 05:17 PM, HayatoSan wrote: Heck, this War on Terror is a crock. There's proof of NO weapons of mass destruction. I think Bush just wanted to capture Saddam for not giving in earlier. If he gave in earlier, maybe the conversion of Iraq woulda happened sooner. If it did, hell, the USA would have more oil.

Look, show that proof of NO weapons of mass destruction. And if Saddam gave in, how would that change the situation in Iraq in anyway? Just because a big leader left doesn't mean that ethinic amninosities are just going to go away.

[Reverend-Kyle]

Of course it's a war of vengeance. To say otherwise would be ludicrous. Terrorism was around before 9/11/01, and this war on "terror" makes it sound like it was the first time it has ever happened. Maybe if we cared about things before they affected us, we wouldn't look as if we are acting for personal gain.

[NEMESiSZ]

At 1/25/04 05:17 PM, HayatoSan wrote: Heck, this War on Terror is a crock. There's proof of NO weapons of mass destruction. I think Bush just wanted to capture Saddam for not giving in earlier. If he gave in earlier, maybe the conversion of Iraq woulda happened sooner. If it did, hell, the USA would have more oil.

What are you talking about? It's a logical impossiblity to establish proof of nothing, but I'll assume you just messed up the syntax there and meant "there's no proof" not "proof of no." If you want proof, ask the Kurds Saddam gassed with blood agents, ask the Iranian soldiers who were subjected to mustard gas shelling. Every politician since the first President Bush has established Saddam as a dictator, and Clinton made it part of policy to remove Saddam from Iraq in 1998.

Oil has nothing to do with the war, you really think the US could just fill up a bunch of tankers and sail off without anyone noticing?

You've really show your ignorance, learn politics before posting in a politics forum.

[IceWraith15]

At 1/24/04 07:17 PM, HayatoSan wrote: Really now. This "war on terror" is just some sort of front for the US to control other countries and jack resources. Anyone else agree?

No, because the terrorists are a direct threat to the safety of American citizens, and America is NOT controlling other countries, it you're refering to the LIBERATION of Iraq, you should acknowledge that the Iraqis are set to regain sovereignty in the next few months.

Secondly, don't you remember September 11th you anti-american bastard? You are probably one of those dumbass people who thinks that America is a tyrannical and imperialist empire trying to control the world, that is complete bullshit, America makes up 30% of the world's economy and it's military is ranked #1 in the world, and it is stronger than the next 8 on the list combined. Perhaps you should research America before you go claiming that it's efforts to secure the world from terrorism are fake. Oh wait, you probably are to busy trying to figure out the difference between a Democracy and a Dictatorship.

[ZombieLennon]

At 1/25/04 09:36 PM, IceWraith15 wrote: Secondly, don't you remember September 11th you anti-american bastard? You are probably one of those dumbass people who thinks that America is a tyrannical and imperialist empire trying to control the world, that is complete bullshit, America makes up 30% of the world's economy and it's military is ranked #1 in the world, and it is stronger than the next 8 on the list combined. Perhaps you should research America before you go claiming that it's efforts to secure the world from terrorism are fake. Oh wait, you probably are to busy trying to figure out the difference between a Democracy and a Dictatorship.

em·pire ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mpr)
n.

A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.
The territory included in such a unit.
An extensive enterprise under a unified authority: a publishing empire.
Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control

Without trying, you've defined that America is an empire, since America has the top military, and top economy. America defines the contours of politics in every single part of the world due to a strong military, and it's culturual influence, this is not always a good thing.

Before 9/11 happened, China was the only reason we had a military around the world. Now we have "justification" to intimidate Middle Eastern countries, put soldiers in their countries, and piss off arabs who attacked us on 9/11 because we had soldiers in their countries in the first place. Not to mention most of the shit happening in the Middle East right now, besides Israel, is due to US arms sales, and playing buddy buddy with countries. In the 1980s, we sold weapons to Iraq so that Iran's presence in the region would not be too strong.

And even before that, we've had the CIA install puppet leaders in those countries like in 1963. In that year, the CIA supported a coup that overthrew the Qassim regime and we gave them the names of communists to murder.
http://rwor.org/a/v24/1181-1190/1184/iraq.htm

There's a fine difference between nationalism and patriotism. It isn't "american" to verbally attack someone because they think your foreign policy is fucked up beyond belief, it's american to question what your government tells you, and to check all sources. The founding fathers questioned their colonial owners, and they decided they wanted to be a independent nation. What you're saying is pure racist nationalism against anyone who doesn't like the idea of Pax Americana. Your mind was obviously warped by the constant waving of neat flag animations from Fox News's television show, or by the constant pronounciation of the "War on Terrorism". Ever notice how the United States never gives names to wars anymore, just vague terms like "War on Welfare", "War on Drugs"? These things are failing, and the reason why the world has been pissed off at the United States for the last 3 years is not because they're "anti-american", but because some high-ranking people in the government like Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolowitz are deciding what the US does with corporate methodology
Go read up on PNAC and it's members and maybe you'll learn something valuable http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=PNAC