US war on terror: the longest-ever knee-jerk reaction, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times
Topic started on 10-9-2011 @ 02:48 AM by sir_slide
“Policymakers have a right to their own opinions, but not their own set of facts.”

These words belong to former CIA director George J. Tenet, the man many accuse of being indirectly responsible for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It is thought that the Bush Administration made the decision to deploy troops based on intelligence gathered by Tenet and his agency. But in his book “In the Center of The Storm”, the former director claims President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were determined to attack Saddam Hussein long before the tragedy of 9/11 – and frequently embellished intelligence reports in order to get support for the war.

The politicians’ desires had perfect timing, too. The post-9/11 nation was gripped by fear and insecurity, so that many readily believed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Moreover, a Gallup poll taken in 2002 showed that most Americans believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for the WTC attacks themselves. And their fear was used to fund the military campaigns US troops led around the world.

An argument can be made for the US invasion of Afghanistan at the time – it was a direct military response to an attack. But what began as a reaction was taken by the policymakers and changed into an action – one of military aggression and nothing shy of a hostile takeover. And as the days went by, bringing more and more casualties and taking away taxpayer dollars with it, many began to question these actions, wondering why one day in the United States justified 4000 days in Afghanistan, with hundreds of soldiers and civilians dying daily – and the fact that not one of the 19 people directly involved in the 9/11attacks was actually from Afghanistan.



The operation to kill all-time super villain, Osama Bin Laden, carried out by Navy SEAL commandos inside Pakistan with no notification to a supposed ally, was typical of the “war on terror”. Still, it gave hope to many, hope of bringing this costly – every possible meaning – war to an end. But instead, the FBI and Interpol have replaced Bin Laden with Gaddafi on their wanted lists as the devil du jour. And the war goes on…

“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death,” said Dr Martin Luther King. He was speaking about the Vietnam War, but it is still appropriate today, because “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” – Dr King again – is still waging its clichéd war on terror – and does not look likely to stop.

endthelie.com...


A great article I found. This shouldn't be news to anyone but it is interesting to put it all in perspective here. As far as reactions go it was one of the most aggressive in history.

When we take a look at the death tolls from the war on terror in the graph provided we can see a pretty clear picture as to how strong a reaction it was. It seems to me that the war on terror was an action disguised as a reaction, an action which has entailed full scale unilateral military invasions of sovereign nations in a vaguely defined war on an emotion (terror).

The article raises some very interesting ideas and notions. How does one day in the US justify 4000 in Afghanistan? Have a read, Cheers


reply posted on 10-9-2011 @ 04:06 AM by TheThirdAdam
reply to post by fooks


yes you try to get them all, but you don't default on your mortgage to buy rat traps. what good is having a rat free kitchen when the house has been foreclosed on?


reply posted on 10-9-2011 @ 04:34 AM by sir_slide
reply to post by JohnySeagull


I dont really understand the point you're making with the car accidents, can you please elaborate? Very true what you're saying though.


reply posted on 10-9-2011 @ 04:39 AM by JohnySeagull
reply to post by sir_slide


i guess the U.S. should be declaring war on people who drive cars.

they invaded 2countries, killed many people, after 3000 people were killed in a terrorist attack, yet over 10times that number die in car accidents every year in the U.S.

some people will argue that you cannot compare the 2. well maybe that is why i can't get my head around how this planet works.


reply posted on 10-9-2011 @ 05:04 AM by sir_slide
reply to post by JohnySeagull


The big difference is that people die in car ACCIDENTS, 3000 people didn't die in a terrorist accident, it was an attack. I can't see the logic in your statement man, car accidents are pretty irrelevant when you think about it....
Pages:     ^^TOP^^