Define "Victory in the War on Terror"

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by ghi
I don't think victory on ''war on terror'' means, control  over last huge oil reserve around Caspian sea, just  stabile flow on the market. If tomorrow the west world discover new energy sources,who's going to buy their oil? those turbanez will go back from mercedes to camel.
 because in last 50 years they made lot of money out of oil but did't use them for technologic, industrial progres, to create jobs in other sectors, or ecomony independent of oil revenue
 On the other side of the oil bussines, our western goverments make more money/barell  in taxes than those selling crude oil.
    this world is fk up

ghi, good points you make.  However, put this in the equation.  The reason that we connot use corn alcohol right  now is that is too costly to produce in comparison with gasoline.  I believe about 6 dollars per gallon if we were to go pure corn alcohol for the amount of fuel required to power the US.  So a large investment in process would be required to bring that down to about 3 dollars per gallon.  Why arent the govt working to make this happen?  why would we spend $500,000,000,000.00 in iraq on a war to secure the oil fields?
  Control, man, control.  Oil fields are controlable, corn fields aint.
He who controls the energy resources controls the world.  And that is what it is all about!  World domination!  Isnt that what it is always all about?  Everybody wants to rule the world!

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by Arlo
Over two bucks a gallon. Where's the gorram oil? Heh.

They are not interested in bringing us CHEAP oil.  They are still business men.  They are getting what they can for it, but they are still getting it.

[Arlo]

Uh huh.

p.s. Corn fields are controllable.

[ghi]

Those morons were trying to colapse the world economy crashing planes in WTO towers,but did't work.
    The oil price was stabile  after 9/11,(25-35$/barell) untill  the real War on Terror started, with invasion in Irak,and after 2 years is double 50$/barell.
 How much higer oil price can  the world economy take?!
   Yes China need more oil , but in my oppinion the main reason of 50$/barell is the war in Irak
   Soo ,who screw up the economy? B Laden or the War on Terror??
 The US $ lost 25-30% of the value in last 4-5 years,
I hope not, but  9/11 can be for the world economy like a bomb with delay 5-10 or more years, is still not to late for BLaden to reach his goal

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Nilsen
Nobody forgets the good things america has done, but the fumble in Iraq is not a small insignificant mistake... Alot of people are getting killed and its making the world a more dangerous place to live.

Also remember that when america has helped the world, it has not only been to be nice either. It has been in their own self interest, protecting trading partners, stopping communism and nazism to get to close to its own borders etc.

So you're saying that the was safer BEFORE 9/11?!  It is isn't any safer now than it was 50 years ago.  As long as two human beings occupy Planet Earth, there will be conflict.  

So the US was supposed to bend over for the Terrorists when the Trade Center was attacked?  The thing that escapes me is the FACT that whilst the Towers were on American soil, the terrorists attacked the International Community.  They figured we'd leave them alone, they were wrong.  

You are hopping on the "Hate the US" bandwagon, but people like yourself do not realize.  When you need help in future, you will find yourself crying by yourselves.  But even then you will blame the US and not yourselves.  Just like the Americans take the heat on the issue of slavery, you Europeans, had more than the US.

Originally posted by Nilsen
I don't think its all selfish and i fully expected that kind of reply. However... if there were _no_ "benefits" for america, you would have done nothing to stop communism or nazi germany for that matter.

If "and's, If's and but's" were beer and nuts we'd have a hell of a party!

Your "theory" has NO BEARING whatsoever.  Bottom line, We came to the defense of Europe, on two wars that were started in Europe.   BTW, you are a selfish person, just for record.  

Karaya

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Masherbrum


So the US was supposed to bend over for the Terrorists when the Trade Center was attacked?  The thing that escapes me is the FACT that whilst the Towers were on American soil, the terrorists attacked the International Community.  They figured we'd leave them alone, they were wrong.  

Karaya

You attacked Afganistan as a result of 9/11, and everyone was fine with that...

I cant belive you guys still are mixing up 9/11 and Iraq.

You should have attacked Saudi Arabia, not Iraq if you go with your logic Karaya.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Maniac
You attacked Afganistan as a result of 9/11, and everyone was fine with that...

I cant belive you guys still are mixing up 9/11 and Iraq.

You should have attacked Saudi Arabia, not Iraq if you go with your logic Karaya.

I never mentioned Iraq, must have been a "knee jerk, nerve pinch" on your end.

I use logic.  

Karaya

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
I never mentioned Iraq, must have been a "knee jerk, nerve pinch" on your end.

I use logic.  

Karaya

No, but Nielsen did.

Nice logic.

[Elfie]

Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Elfie, that last post of yours is a testimonial for NOT going to war in Iraq.  You are absolutely correct on every point.   The logical conclusion is, we are either the lamest bunch of intel goofs on the planet, or we are getting the OIL.
  Oh, we will find WMD's, AFTER we have secured the oil for the christian forces.  After we find the WMD's, we will pull most of our troops out.  We cannot find the WMD's before that because, there would be no reason whatsoever to be in Iraq anymore, just like if we found Bin Laden, there would be no reason whatsoever for us to be in afghanistan.  Its the OIL, its the OIL, its the OIL.!!  cut and paste brother, time will tell.

I seriously doubt its for the oil fields. From the beginning the Bush administration has stated (repeatedly) that Iraq's oil belongs to the Iraqi people. If it was all about oil why didnt we stay in Kuwait and hijack the Kuwaiti oil fields as our own?

With new technologies emerging (google for waste to oil for one technology) I seriously doubt that we will be dependent on foreign oil in the next 20 years. In fact I believe the Arab countries will lose their single largest cash export due to these new technologies and they will become a non-issue on the world scene.

[Sparks]

And still no-one can say exactly WHAT our troops are fighting towards ...........................

The US just voted a President in based in large part on delivering security and "victory" in the war on terror.  In the UK the current PM facing elections next year is pushing the same approach. But just what "victory" are they looking for ?? How can you say one administartion has done better than another when the goal isn't defined ????

The reasons for going into Iraq have been talked to death - fact is we are there.  But what is the desired outcome.

Some have proposed that the end of state sponsored terrorism is the victory but how do you confirm that ?? If a state is Islamic then couldn't it be said to be sympathetic towards fundamentals ?? And what is the plan when we have declared the world has no states sponsoring terrorism and the bombs keep going off??
Iraq and Afghanistan can no longer be considered "states sponsoring terrorism" and yet the fundamental movement seems to have no problems finding RPG's rifles, ammunition and explosives.

I think we can agree that Fundamental Islam is the basis for the terrorist movement we are facing.  Within an Islamic nation (e.g. Eygpt) there will be a spread of beliefs from moderate to fundamental - how do we as outsiders decide when the line has been crossed between non-threat and threat ??  Delivering security would mean removing the threat BEFORE an attack which means pre-emptive strike. How far are we going to take this ??

In the US you have already voted so what do YOU think GWB's definition of the victory is that you elected him to achieve with your family and freinds in the military ?? I would certainly like to know what Tony Blairs ideas are before we vote in May.

[Elfie]

And still no-one can say exactly WHAT our troops are fighting towards ...........................

Reason no one can say exactly what our troops are fighting towards is because you are asking the wrong people. People on this board arent privy to the tactical and strategic discussions in our gov'ts.

All we can do is give a best guess, which we have done.

[lazs2]

victory?  well sparks.... for me, victory is the end to dictators and despots who use gold toilet seats whole they torture and starve their countrymen and blame the whole mess on affluent countries...  it is the end to the funding these despots come up with and the terrorist training camps..

With no funding I don't care that much that some small groups of disenfranchised hate all that is affluent and happy and free.... let them sit around broken down dinnette sets fondling 30 year old AK 47's and cursing all things not in their religion...  

Better that than the gold toilet seat guy setting them up in a condo in a city near me.

lazs

[ghi]

Originally posted by lazs2
victory?  well sparks.... for me, victory is the end to dictators and despots who use gold toilet seats whole they torture and starve their countrymen and blame the whole mess on affluent countries...  
lazs

      Soo why didn't you invade Cuba first ?

[Yeager]

Soo why didn't you invade Cuba first ?
====
GLOBAL THERMO-NUCLEAR WAR.

The end of life on earth is coming bro.  the end is near so party hardy and get it on!

Pump up the jam!

[Neubob]

Originally posted by lazs2
Better that than the gold toilet seat guy setting them up in a condo in a city near me.

I like this point of view.


BTW Lazs, why do you always write 'Lazs' at the end of your messages?

Neubob