So how do we continue the "War on Terror" when Iraq is won?

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Reality is, it's gotta be short, and catchy. Too bad, but true.
I'm not sure if that's the media's fault, or the nature of man.
But, yep, the idea has to be marketed, in such a way.

I'm sorry, but in light of how the description 'War on Terror' has actually been utilized by the Bush Administration in actual force, (i.e. using such a vague description to gain support of invading Iraq - despite the lack of actual credible evidence to support this action), that argument is just not acceptable.

Make catchy names all you like or deride them as you will but consider it a chessboard instead of a marketing campaign and the strategy becomes readily apparent. Afganistan and Iraq bracketing Iran is no accident and long range plans do include Iran in one form or another no doubt about it.

Originally posted by Phoenix
Make catchy names all you like or deride them as you will but consider it a chessboard instead of a marketing campaign and the strategy becomes readily apparent. Afganistan and Iraq bracketing Iran is no accident and long range plans do include Iran in one form or another no doubt about it.

Yep. Control of the entire Gulf and Central Asia as well. Not too shabby and quite lucrative. Iran we're choking on, though, and plans for control of that country are pushed off indefinitely.

Originally posted by Phoenix
Afganistan and Iraq bracketing Iran is no accident and long range plans do include Iran in one form or another no doubt about it.

That does sound interesting, Phoenix. Could you elaborate somewhat?

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi

And what is the meaning of winning in this case? Don't forget that Iran is also an islamic 'democracy'.

[edit on 21-11-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]

I beg to differ when the 'other' parties candidates were all disqualified.

Originally posted by Phoenix
Make catchy names all you like or deride them as you will but consider it a chessboard instead of a marketing campaign and the strategy becomes readily apparent. Afghanistan and Iraq bracketing Iran is no accident and long range plans do include Iran in one form or another no doubt about it.

I don't know if I understand you well but if you mean that US or the present administration had already plans from Iran, yes I agree with you.

Now while Mr. edsinger is clueless, you seem to see some reality of the situation In Iraq. You do understand that the present situation in Iraq and the cost of supporting the war piled with not having enough troops to maintain control is going to make a move in Iran suicidal to our nations military and economically is going to damage us immensely.

"I don't know if I understand you well but if you mean that US or the present administration had already plans from Iran, yes I agree with you.

Now while Mr. edsinger is clueless, you seem to see some reality of the situation In Iraq. You do understand that the present situation in Iraq and the cost of supporting the war piled with not having enough troops to maintain control is going to make a move in Iran suicidal to our nations military and economically is going to damage us immensely. "

This is true.
We do have plans for iran,we have plans for the entire region.
and these plans call for direct conflict with any and all countrys that produce oil and dont play like we want them to.
If the war on "terror" is a chess game,then irag was us castling.

Originally posted by Samhain

Now while Mr. edsinger is clueless,

If the war on "terror" is a chess game,then irag was us castling.

Interesting, clueless? hehe thats funny

Anyhow, I would more think of it as a Knights Gambit

i think indirect tactics is the way to go.
i mean direct tactics dont seem to work,take iraq. we take tanks and planes yet they are able to fight with only guns and grenades and cause great ammount of damage.
i think its time for some sneaky squirrel tactics.

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by Samhain

Now while Mr. edsinger is clueless,

If the war on "terror" is a chess game,then irag was us castling.

Interesting, clueless? hehe thats funny

Anyhow, I would more think of it as a Knights Gambit

That is why I still like you edsinger.

Originally posted by edsinger
Well I disagree, they are tied together and there is more to the story of the Saudi royals than you know...


Saddam and Al Qaeda were connected and they both had to go......

Tell us your Alice in Wonderland version, please.....

Originally posted by spacedoubt
ok, fair enough you 2...

Where would YOU have gone next after Afghanistan?

Would you have called the War on Terrorism over?

LOL, concentrating on the "real" culprit, Osama, would have been a good start...

Originally posted by dgtempe

Originally posted by spacedoubt
ok, fair enough you 2...

Where would YOU have gone next after Afghanistan?

Would you have called the War on Terrorism over?

LOL, concentrating on the "real" culprit, Osama, would have been a good start...

Osama is only a figurehead in this war, there are many Osama's, He is even training his son for the eventual turning over the Jihad when he dies.

I see, that makes purrrfect sense, as always So if an employee steals at my work and i'm the supervisor, i can just go ahead and bag anyone who talked to the thief instead of the perpetrator and this is your analogy, correct?
You're always entertaining.

Osama is only a figurehead in this war, there are many Osama's, He is even training his son for the eventual turning over the Jihad when he dies.



Remember, Osama is only a patsy
Little to do with 911 onwards except to accept last-minute ownership to sway the vote towards Bush

[edit on 21-11-2004 by dh]

I hope that edsinger continues posting on this board, because reading his rant and rave is amusing enough, and kind of addictive.

He'd repeat over and over that Al Qaeda and Saddam were connected, ad nauseam, and ignore the fact that the title of this thread is an oxymoron - you can't continue a discontinuity. Iraq has been a sabotage of the real war on terror. And no, I don't feel safer now that Saddam is gone. He couldn't do jack to the US anyway, and now $100B and 1,500 US military lives down the road, he still can't.

Edsinger I posted my pick in my avatar for a while. I really will like to put a face to the person that has keep us hook to these coloful posts.

I want to know how you look like.

Originally posted by marg6043
Edsinger I posted my pick in my avatar for a while. I really will like to put a face to the person that has keep us hook to these coloful posts.

I want to know how you look like.

I shudder to think that his avatar is actually a Photoshopped image of him

[edit on 21-11-2004 by Aelita]

Has anyone seen those charred bodies they have buried in Fallujah? They look like Napalm burn.

Originally posted by Aelita

I shudder to think that his avatar is actually a Photoshopped image of him

[edit on 21-11-2004 by Aelita]

I think Edsinger is just a littler kid in a grown man body. so naive is just cute sometimes, when he does not make me angry.