The Terrorism on War

H

hypewaders

Save Changes
Registered Senior Member
We are experiencing a lull in terrorist attacks against US interests leading up to the occupation of Iraq. Since terrorism against the US has been clearly explained as a response to US foreign policy, this could be an indication that the Bush Administration is now in unwitting alignment with extremist organizations, who wish to see the Middle East status quo upended: Al-Qaeda and similar organizations are in other words satisfied with the direction and ultimate outcome of the present course of events. It is possible there is a shared objective among both Pentagon and Arab revolutionary planners, to polarize the region and ignite a regional conflict pitting the US & Israel against all comers in a final showdown.

Another possibility is that the Busheviks are naiive. Feel free to jump in, those who feel the US will be winning Arab "hearts & minds" with "shock & awe". I would welcome any clear explanation of how of stability and prosperity will be delivered in the Mideast through warfare.

I would like to share opinions on the possibility that if peaceful political activism doesn't defenestrate the Busheviks, or reverse their policies in the next administration, then less scrupled organization (terrorists, if you like) will take increasingly horrific measures to do so.
 
Personally I think there will be some rather nasty retaliatory strikes against the USA after they attack Iraq. And the USA government will say "See? Told ya so! Bad guys, over there! More money for "defence"!"
 
Our government has being governing with excessive use of “executive orders” , hardly ever there has been objections by congress. This political tool is very similar to the decree use by totalitarian and dictator governments. In October 2001, a 3000 page “Patriot Act” was prepared (ahead of 9/11) and passed, a little rush into time since they were using the 9/11 incident as a support for that act. By reducing the freedom of citizens and spreading widespread fear for terrorism our government has moved closer and closer to dictate what they want to do and how in whatever way it pleases them.

Retaliations? Maybe, but how many people will be able to distinguish between self made retaliation and those conducted by outside force?? As an example, the anthrax scare was intended to compliment the effects of 9/11. No real (unquestionable) terrorist could be fabricated in time, so once the scare completed its objective, it just faded away.

State terror its inside our own boarders. The problem its that our government thinks to have everything under control and by intelligent perpetrated acts and intelligent psychological media control the expect to have mayor citizen support. The real problem will begin the moment something goes wrong with their over secured plans.
:rolleyes:
 
Saddam probably has more up his sleeve then we think. If he does indeed have biological weapons, why are we messing with him? Sure, it'd be nice to have one less threat in the world, but why does America always have to step in? America is a nosy country who thinks that it's their job to clean up the world's act. We have no business sticking our noses into things like those, especially since we are risking our own asses. If Bush wants to go for this, he can stick his head in the lion's mouth.
 
? Sure, it'd be nice to have one less threat in the world, but why does America always have to step in? America is a nosy country who thinks that it's their job to clean up the world's act.
Click to expand...
Because everyone else is too chicken, and too weak.
 
Not to mention the fact that every time something goes awry the US is ASKED for assistance - financial or otherwise.
 
I suspect that someday soon, Uncle Sam will reach deep, and find his pockets empty. So long as he doesn't then reach for his gun, we could all end up learning from his overconfidence.
 
This is indeed a problem and a scary thought. In a wider war the us would win because we are not russia.
 
Since this thread has resurfaced, I'll make this plea again:

I would welcome any clear explanation of how of stability and prosperity will be delivered in the Mideast through warfare.
 
If there is a large power house (i.e. the USA) there is no point in violence because you will lose. Also with this warfare there is stability enough that forieng investors can start up industry so that the USA can leave because there will be money in the country and war will take that away.
 
Oh:eek: OK:rolleyes:

So why has this not already made paradise throughout South America? We've been trying this there for over 100 years.
 
Originally posted by hypewaders
Oh:eek: OK:rolleyes:

So why has this not already made paradise throughout South America? We've been trying this there for over 100 years.
Click to expand...

Alot of South America is peacful actually. The US hasn't really invaded many South American nations and held ground.
 
It has peace though it does also have continual govenrnmental oppression in many places and a truely crappy economy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top