Whats the real Motive behind "The War On Terror"???

[ARCHITEKT]

DO we know the truth about the US involvement in the Middle East. Is there a hidden motive? IF we were sitting in on a secret CIA Intelligence Briefing what might the discussion entail? IS it possible the truths more scary than what were being told or is it hyped up for some other financial or tactical means? whats the nature of war? - YouTube Watch that video. EYE OPENING!

 

[radioman]

. IS it possible the truths more scary than what were being told or is it hyped up for some other financial or tactical means? !

-----------------

Well, I would say ALL wars are for some financial or tactical reason.
I will watch the video.

 

[MadLib]

This either should be in the War on Terror section or the conspiracy theory section. Not much to do with current geopolitical developments in the Middle East :shrug:

 

[ilia786]

Whats the real Motive behind "The War On Terror"???

increasing political, economic and military Hegemony in the world. paid by vast majority, benefits for a few.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I thought it started as a money grab for no bid contractors but has become a shameful failure we cannot give up else admit we were wrong, like the war on drugs.

 

[Thoreau72]

There are several motives, I'm sure.

Empire. Profits. Enhancement of government bureaus. Manipulation of the public perception. Advancement of certain Israeli agendas.

 

[Captain Adverse]

If we are offering opinions here I would have to divide mine according to which nation we were in combat with.

For Afghanistan the motive was crystal clear: Revenge. The taliban provided the personnel for the attack on the World Trade Center and then a hiding place for Bin Laden and his leadership as well as the bulk of his forces. They were also a fertile recruiting area for their Jihad against the USA.

For Iraq the motive was Oil and access to Afghanistan. It was not really Weapons of Mass Destruction because our intelligence organizations we aware Iraq had none. But Saddam was mouthing off in glee about 9/11, and Bush used WMD's as an excuse to take control of Iraq's oil production capabilities, and to gain bases and sea access for deployment of troops through Iraq into Afghanistan.

That's all folks.

 

[captainawesome]

Why dont we win wars anymore?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Why dont we win wars anymore?

Cuz we're wussies? lol

Probabbly because our "wars" no longer have a distinct and easily identifiable set of goals...so they have no clear end.

 

[Thoreau72]

Why dont we win wars anymore?

Victory is not a goal, though the public assumes that it is.

Perpetual conflict is the goal, because it's good for the businesses that profit from it. And of course those businesses control the government, just as Ike warned about in 1961.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

DO we know the truth about the US involvement in the Middle East. Is there a hidden motive? IF we were sitting in on a secret CIA Intelligence Briefing what might the discussion entail? IS it possible the truths more scary than what were being told or is it hyped up for some other financial or tactical means? whats the nature of war? - YouTube Watch that video. EYE OPENING!

Um, terrorists, want to kill us?

 

[Oozlefinch]

This either should be in the War on Terror section or the conspiracy theory section. Not much to do with current geopolitical developments in the Middle East :shrug:

From what I am reading so far, seems that Conspiracy Theory would have been a better place.

Um, terrorists, want to kill us?

But they want to kill us because we are stealing their oil, don't you know!

Well, never mind the fact that Afghanistan has no oil, and that from Iraq is going to CHina and Europe, we were trying to steal their oil!

Now excuse me, my tinfoil hat slipped off, and I need to put it on before that CIA brainwave alteration beam starts to hit me again.

 

[MadLib]

But they want to kill us because we are stealing their oil, don't you know!

Well, never mind the fact that Afghanistan has no oil, and that from Iraq is going to CHina and Europe, we were trying to steal their oil!

I'm skeptical of claims that the Iraq War was for oil, considering that oil imports from Iraq actually decreased after the war

 

[Oozlefinch]

I'm skeptical of claims that the Iraq War was for oil, considering that oil imports from Iraq actually decreased after the war

It is complete nonsense. If we were to invade somebody for oil, why not Canada or Mexico or Venezuela? All are a lot closer, and would be no more trouble then fighting on the opposite side of the world.

Plus have you noticed that those oil claims really only appear when a Republican is in the White House? Presidents Carter, Clinton and Obama can mess around in the Middle East all they want, and you almost never hear the "O Word". But put a Bush in the White House, and suddenly it is all about nothing but oil. This is why I eschew partisan politics, always have and always will.

 

[MadLib]

It is complete nonsense. If we were to invade somebody for oil, why not Canada or Mexico or Venezuela? All are a lot closer, and would be no more trouble then fighting on the opposite side of the world.

Canada and Mexico are allies, and would require a larger-scale invasion than Iraq. Venezuela has been hostile and isn't really our enemy, so our motive would be clear if we were to invade them and prompt an immediate international outcry. If I were to pick a country to invade for oil, I would go with either Libya or Iraq. I could easily see Gaddafi supporting al-Qaeda, but he didn't launch the constant aggressive wars that Saddam did. Even though Iraq was probably the safest bet to go with for an oil-based invasion, the drawbacks clearly outweigh the benefits. I doubt that could have been the motivation.

What bothers me is when "doves" ignore the humanitarian and political benefits to toppling Saddam Hussein. If we had left him alone I'm sure he'd still be in power by now, and I highly doubt that he would refrain from engaging in war with his neighbors. Meanwhile the vast majority of people under his regime would continue to wallow in poverty and thousands of people would starve to death. The Kurds would remain a silent and oppressed minority.

Plus have you noticed that those oil claims really only appear when a Republican is in the White House? Presidents Carter, Clinton and Obama can mess around in the Middle East all they want, and you almost never hear the "O Word". But put a Bush in the White House, and suddenly it is all about nothing but oil. This is why I eschew partisan politics, always have and always will.

I also see those claims spouted by far-leftists and conspiracy theorists. They'll also say that we are trying to advance Israeli interests, create human trafficking routes, etc.

 

[cpwill]

If we are offering opinions here I would have to divide mine according to which nation we were in combat with.

For Afghanistan the motive was crystal clear: Revenge. The taliban provided the personnel for the attack on the World Trade Center and then a hiding place for Bin Laden and his leadership as well as the bulk of his forces. They were also a fertile recruiting area for their Jihad against the USA.

For Iraq the motive was Oil and access to Afghanistan. It was not really Weapons of Mass Destruction because our intelligence organizations we aware Iraq had none. But Saddam was mouthing off in glee about 9/11, and Bush used WMD's as an excuse to take control of Iraq's oil production capabilities, and to gain bases and sea access for deployment of troops through Iraq into Afghanistan.

That's all folks.

The bolded is incorrect. It was the assessment of the Intelligence Community that Saddam likely had ongoing WMD production lines, and stockpiled capabilities. What we later found out was that the first assessment was incorrect, and the second one was correct.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The bolded is incorrect. It was the assessment of the Intelligence Community that Saddam likely had ongoing WMD production lines, and stockpiled capabilities. What we later found out was that the first assessment was incorrect, and the second one was correct.

I stand by my original statement. There was no valid evidence to support the "incorrect" assessment, and clear evidence (from our own inspectors) showing there were none. Bush jr. just wanted a reason to go in and be remembered as a "War President." This was the ammo he used to inflame popular support. The idea Saddam had WMD's after Gulf War 1 was ridiculous on it's face.

 

[Oozlefinch]

What bothers me is when "doves" ignore the humanitarian and political benefits to toppling Saddam Hussein. If we had left him alone I'm sure he'd still be in power by now, and I highly doubt that he would refrain from engaging in war with his neighbors. Meanwhile the vast majority of people under his regime would continue to wallow in poverty and thousands of people would starve to death. The Kurds would remain a silent and oppressed minority.

And that for me is the most important reason for going in. Always has been, always will be. The moment they started finding mass graves scattered all through the country, and the jails full of people that had been tortured (and not the "waterboarding" like people now scream about, I am talking meat hooks, electricity to the genitals and disfigurement and beatings), I could not understand how anybody with a soul and calls themselves "human" could not be disgusted and see that taking him out was a good thing.

Yet people still whine and cry that we should not have invaded, and I just don't get it. How anybody can call themselves human, and willingly ignore or diminish what he did I simply don't understand. It just shows that to far to many people, politics is more important then their fellow man.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I stand by my original statement. There was no valid evidence to support the "incorrect" assessment, and clear evidence (from our own inspectors) showing there were none. Bush jr. just wanted a reason to go in and be remembered as a "War President." This was the ammo he used to inflame popular support. The idea Saddam had WMD's after Gulf War 1 was ridiculous on it's face.

Oh please, this has been busted over and over again. Iraq themselves even turned over 2 bunkers of chemical weapons themselves that were not found when they signed the international treaty banning such weapons a few years ago. And Wikileaks has reams of Secret reports about the finding and destruction of chemical weapons. Not to mention the multiple SCUDs that were launched in 2003, all in violation of multiple UN Resolutions, and which Saddam had claimed had all been turned over to inspectors.

Do I really have to go and dig out all the facts for the umpteen-hundredth time?

 

[Medusa]

oil :lol:

 

[BmanMcfly]

DO we know the truth about the US involvement in the Middle East. Is there a hidden motive? IF we were sitting in on a secret CIA Intelligence Briefing what might the discussion entail? IS it possible the truths more scary than what were being told or is it hyped up for some other financial or tactical means? whats the nature of war? - YouTube Watch that video. EYE OPENING!

Well, the war on drugs has seen an explosion in drug use.
The war on poverty has seen an explosion in poverty.
The battle of the bulge and obesity is epidemic.
Now we have a war on terror...

Are these all incompetence or intent?? Don't know and is irrelevant, the point is that when a war is declared, the result is usually a failure in the state intent.

 

[MadLib]

Yet people still whine and cry that we should not have invaded, and I just don't get it. How anybody can call themselves human, and willingly ignore or diminish what he did I simply don't understand. It just shows that to far to many people, politics is more important then their fellow man.

Whenever the invasion of Iraq is discussed I almost never see its detractors discuss Saddam's crimes against his own people. They bring up Dubya's WMD claims and the war's effect on our economy and soldiers, but not the humanitarian reasons given as a reason to go to war. Those who do tend to spout conspiracies, such as claiming that Saddam never used chemical weapons to massacre Kurds at Halabja. I think that they either believe that his tyranny is simply an excuse (one that they don't adequately address) or that it weakens their argument, which otherwise is entirely self-centered.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Whenever the invasion of Iraq is discussed I almost never see its detractors discuss Saddam's crimes against his own people. They bring up Dubya's WMD claims and the war's effect on our economy and soldiers, but not the humanitarian reasons given as a reason to go to war. Those who do tend to spout conspiracies, such as claiming that Saddam never used chemical weapons to massacre Kurds at Halabja. I think that they either believe that his tyranny is simply an excuse (one that they don't adequately address) or that it weakens their argument, which otherwise is entirely self-centered.

Personally, I see them as such politically biased animals, that they only see an opponent and will use anything to attack them. Regardless of anything else.

And yes, I see it equally from both sides. I make no bones about my own political stances, however I defended President Clinton against many Conservatives when it came to Somalia and former Yugoslavia. I think the President had made the right call by involving the US military in an attempt to save lives. I may or may not agree with how they were conducted, but I never questioned the need for them to be there.

I think one of the biggest crimes about Somalia is that we have never gone back. 20 years later that country is still a craphole, spreading it's crap to other nations and the waters off it's coast. And for some reason people still seem to be fine with it being a craphole. I just can't understand that.

Of course, it also proves how impotent the UN is, and why I largely ignore them anymore. I honestly doubt the UN could organize a half-price sale at a brothel, unless the US was in charge. And that is sad.

 

[MadLib]

Personally, I see them as such politically biased animals, that they only see an opponent and will use anything to attack them. Regardless of anything else.

And yes, I see it equally from both sides. I make no bones about my own political stances, however I defended President Clinton against many Conservatives when it came to Somalia and former Yugoslavia. I think the President had made the right call by involving the US military in an attempt to save lives. I may or may not agree with how they were conducted, but I never questioned the need for them to be there.

Both sides are eager to become isolationist when it suits them. I'm sure the leaders from both parties would agree that we should involve ourselves in world affairs to some degree, whether it be for human rights (both Gulf Waor our own national interests.

I think one of the biggest crimes about Somalia is that we have never gone back. 20 years later that country is still a craphole, spreading it's crap to other nations and the waters off it's coast. And for some reason people still seem to be fine with it being a craphole. I just can't understand that.

From what I hear the central government has gotten stronger but al-Shabaab and other militant groups still pose a threat. I hope neighboring countries like Ethiopia don't decide to prey on the struggling state anytime soon.

Of course, it also proves how impotent the UN is, and why I largely ignore them anymore. I honestly doubt the UN could organize a half-price sale at a brothel, unless the US was in charge. And that is sad.

The Syrian civil war is a shining example of how worthless the UN is. Whether or not you think we should assist the rebels, the failure of the UN to do anything all leads me to believe that it needs major restructuring.

 

[Surtr]

The motive behind the war on terror? I'm guessing the same motivation behind Great Britain's war on piracy in the 17th century. The little ****s overstepped some key boundaries, and now they're paying for it. One does not simply **** with the global economy.