You aren't going to get a fair answer from the right on this because most of them are to pigheaded and drunk on the administration's kool-aid to see the facts of the matter.
You can dispute until your blue in the face whether Bushco Inc was complacent with the actually 9/11 attacks or not, but PNAC's pre-war intentions and the Bush perogative prior to those attacks are well documented. Still, people would rather ignore the facts and spin the truth as "conspiracy theories"... or simply attempt to discredit the source.
Greenspan got it right. It was oil. It's about oil. It will always be over oil. Black gold. Texas tea.
2007-09-28 03:48:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Terrorism isn't a thing it is a method. Often used by people who are desparate and who have no political or military clout.
When the reason those people are upset goes away the terrorism ceases. That is how it has been for centuries. Hannibal, Alexander the Great, The Thugs, and the Huns all used some terrorism to make their point. Some were successful others were not. The war in those times was not a war on terrorism but on an ideal, a concept or a people or government. That is the same way it is today. To frame that mess in the Middle East as a war on terror is mere propaganda.
2007-09-28 10:33:07
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
A means to an end that has not gone well .
Had those ends been explained to the people it is possible they may have gone along with it .
Our energy program is at the heart of our nations security and well being and to ignore our need for oil is what you purpose .
As china emerges it is possible for them to drive the price high enough that oil keeps profits in other sectors so low that a depression sets in .
Its a carefully crafted plan that requires cooperation between business sectors and pricing .
If the property market begins to charge too much rent or the value rises too quickly the other sectors including the government must act to protect their business .
As Bush's tax cuts left shortfalls in funds to the states they needed to make up the difference and did so by raising property taxes and increasing the value of property to cover the shortages that Bush created .
Now I happen to feel that we need to control the oil fields for our own best interests as a nation our we could have years of depression .
The return of 60-68% of the population without work .
As it stands now half the population is not working .
We have only to see oil prices rise and soon people will not be able to afford to eat out as often , or buy as many clothes as they do now and the retail and food service industry will suffer .
Those workers are often helped by family in times of trouble with a few dollars to fix a transmission or some new tires or even some rent assistance . But that source will not have enough money to help because they also are now hit with higher prices on everything because the people at the top still consider this as a profit business and a loss sets them into bankruptcy mode to protect themselves and still profit .
SO you have to look at the big picture and we need these oil fields and controll of them .
To COME RIGHT OUT AND TELL THE TRUTH would leave americans shaking their heads or turn us into the most blood thirsty capitalists in the world supporting the control of all resources we want world wide . Oh wait , we are doing that now in almost 100 nations around the globe .
2007-09-28 10:45:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Thanks for posting this link.
I find it funny when people talk about how Saddam killed thousands every year, butt forget to mention how it was more than OK by us as we provided him with the weapons to do so and called him an ally when he was being the "blood thirsty tyrant" which suddenly we had to dispose of.
Also that Iraq broke UN resolutions... And we don't?
The article seems to be a thorough and well presented fact sheet and I will finish reading it now. I just wanted to see a few of the answers and was shocked by the one who's still defending the Iraq/AQ connection after the white house (including Cheney) have admited a lack of any correlation.
2007-09-28 10:03:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by TJTB 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Conceptually, I believe the "war on terror" is essential, given that terrorism has been festering for decades. It is past time to confront not the end result of terrorism, but rather its financiers, its leaders and its various supporters.
In its implementation, I agree that the "war on terror" has been horribly and criminally bogus. I'm reminded of the dichotomy created by Rumsfeld when he termed this war "a new kind of war" that required unconventional approaches -- and proceeded to use conventional warfare in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11.
2007-09-28 09:59:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
I did not even have 2 click on that article and i can already tell u that the war on terror is BS.
2007-09-28 10:40:43
·
answer #6
·
answered by Mr. Dog 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
This is nice and all, but you need to get ahold of more information. For the past 30 years, various groups have been conducting acts of terror against various western powers all over the world. I see no mention of that in this article. This article is terribly incomplete; it only looks at the side that wants to suggest that the War on Terror is a sham and it's taking over our lives. There is so much more to the story; if this is the only type of information you take in you need to do yourself a favor and conduct more exhaustive research.
2007-09-28 09:56:13
·
answer #7
·
answered by Pfo 7
·
1⤊
3⤋
Anything Bush does is suspect to being bogus.
2007-09-28 10:11:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by niddlie diddle 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
yes it's bogus and here's another link.. The war my spread to Iran for the same bogus reasons....Oil and saving the Petro dollar cycle..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1oPEfa9Lws
I'll take look at yours...thanks
2007-09-28 09:58:16
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
Simply put . What do you call the attack on 9/11? I and most stupid people would call it an act of terrorism, right? Well, what else would you do? Just stand around and let it happen again? Of course not so why would people not believe we are ACTUALLY fighting against terrorist?
2007-09-28 10:21:43
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋