War on terror to last till 2040?

[TankGirl]

Inthenews.co.uk:

US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Washington's wider war on terror, are likely to continue until 2040, a new report states.

Today's study from the Oxford Research Group (ORG) claims that the George Bush administration's mistake in supplanting Saddam Hussein by force has effectively turned the conflict into what the White House itself now dubs the "long war". Report author Paul Rogers, global security consultant at ORG, also explains that political upheaval in the US following the midterm elections is unlikely to signal any lasting change in policy direction. The professor claims that such was the extent of public dissatisfaction with the president's tactics in Iraq, that the Democrats were able to gain control of both houses of Congress without standing on the commitment of withdrawal from the Middle East.

He goes on to say that politicians' hands are effectively tied, however, as any such withdrawal could grant extremists control of an oil-rich region; despite the obvious problem that 150,000 soldiers in Iraq is a "magnet for radicalism". "There still lies the enduring importance of the Persian Gulf oil reserves, with both the US and China increasingly relying on the region, which means that it would be entirely unacceptable for the US to consider withdrawal from Iraq, no matter how insecure the environment," the report states.

Professor Rogers writes that Iraq has become the world centre for the training of Islamic militants, just as Afghanistan was in the face of Soviet occupation in the 1980s.

In the report, the professor says: "Most people believe that the recent elections mark the beginning of the end of the Bush era but that does not apply to the war on terror. "In reality there will be little change until the US faces up to the need for a fundamental rethink of its policies. So far, even with the election results, there is no real sign of that."

[JackSpratts]

we're never getting out of there alive i'm afraid.

- js.

[Nicobie]

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

we're never getting out of there alive i'm afraid.

- js.

As in U?

[Necrodancer]

He's a Professor, therefore his word and guesses are 100% true. He cannot be wrong.

P.S. did I mention he's a Professor?

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by Necrodancer

He's a Professor, therefore his word and guesses are 100% true. He cannot be wrong.

P.S. did I mention he's a Professor?

Who Nics?

[Nicobie]

Originally Posted by malvachat

Who Nics?

yep, me's da professer of (or) pussy.

heshe ...., I likes it all.

Happy Thanksgiving

[theknife]

Originally Posted by TankGirl

Inthenews.co.uk:

US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Washington's wider war on terror, are likely to continue until 2040, a new report states.

Today's study from the Oxford Research Group (ORG) claims that the George Bush administration's mistake in supplanting Saddam Hussein by force has effectively turned the conflict into what the White House itself now dubs the "long war". Report author Paul Rogers, global security consultant at ORG, also explains that political upheaval in the US following the midterm elections is unlikely to signal any lasting change in policy direction. The professor claims that such was the extent of public dissatisfaction with the president's tactics in Iraq, that the Democrats were able to gain control of both houses of Congress without standing on the commitment of withdrawal from the Middle East.

He goes on to say that politicians' hands are effectively tied, however, as any such withdrawal could grant extremists control of an oil-rich region; despite the obvious problem that 150,000 soldiers in Iraq is a "magnet for radicalism". "There still lies the enduring importance of the Persian Gulf oil reserves, with both the US and China increasingly relying on the region, which means that it would be entirely unacceptable for the US to consider withdrawal from Iraq, no matter how insecure the environment," the report states.

Professor Rogers writes that Iraq has become the world centre for the training of Islamic militants, just as Afghanistan was in the face of Soviet occupation in the 1980s.

In the report, the professor says: "Most people believe that the recent elections mark the beginning of the end of the Bush era but that does not apply to the war on terror. "In reality there will be little change until the US faces up to the need for a fundamental rethink of its policies. So far, even with the election results, there is no real sign of that."

i see how long the war on terror is supposed to last - did they mention when it's going to start?

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by theknife

i see how long the war on terror is supposed to last - did they mention when it's going to start?

Would that information have made any difference?

[vernarial]

I certainly hope not. America was involved in Veitnam for over 20 years, although heavily for only around 12 years. I hope this gets' resolved alot quicker. I don't personally think the leaders of the USA want to get out of Iraq at all. It serves too many different purposes for the powers that be.

[Necrodancer]

Originally Posted by vernarial

I certainly hope not. America was involved in Veitnam for over 20 years, although heavily for only around 12 years. I hope this gets' resolved alot quicker. I don't personally think the leaders of the USA want to get out of Iraq at all. It serves too many different purposes for the powers that be.

Please expand upon what you believe these "purposes" to be. I love hearing this shit.

[vernarial]

Well I believe they use it to keep the the citizens at a low level of fear. This pertains to the "War on Terror" in general. Keeping us slightly worried about being attacked helps them pass laws to help control the population. Such as the so called Patriot Act. It also helps them maintain and even increase military spending which helps all of their elite buddies who all but run the industry. Like Halliburton who is building several massive military bases in the middle east.
Mostly you have the elite individuals who control the money and power. They use the "War on Terror" and such to further consolidate the power and wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer individuals. It's not just the USA, or the politicians, who benefit from a war on terrorism. Terrorism has been used in the past as an excuse to weaken civil liberties and consolidate power and wealth.
The war in Iraq is just a symptom of an ongoing effort by the powers that be to control populations and consolidate wealth and power.

[floydian slip]

it riles them to believe that you perceive the web the weave, and keep on thinking free

realize

real eyes

real lies

[Necrodancer]

Originally Posted by vernarial

Well I believe they use it to keep the the citizens at a low level of fear. This pertains to the "War on Terror" in general. Keeping us slightly worried about being attacked helps them pass laws to help control the population. Such as the so called Patriot Act. It also helps them maintain and even increase military spending which helps all of their elite buddies who all but run the industry. Like Halliburton who is building several massive military bases in the middle east.
Mostly you have the elite individuals who control the money and power. They use the "War on Terror" and such to further consolidate the power and wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer individuals. It's not just the USA, or the politicians, who benefit from a war on terrorism. Terrorism has been used in the past as an excuse to weaken civil liberties and consolidate power and wealth.
The war in Iraq is just a symptom of an ongoing effort by the powers that be to control populations and consolidate wealth and power.

Ah, so your belief is that their aren't really terrorists gunning to blow us up, it's all a big conspiracy by BUSHALIBURTONROVE, Inc. to keep us plebes scared? Islamofascists already attacked us numerous times during the 90's and 3000 of us 5 years ago...what more do they have to do for them to show you they are a threat? Nuke us?

[vernarial]

I never said there weren't terrorists. Don't try to twist my words. Yes I do believe there is a "conspiracy" by the powerful and wealthy(not only in the USA) to increase their wealth and power at the expense of us "plebes". I never said terrorism isn't a threat. But a war on terrorism isn't a winnable war in my opinion. There will always be people who believe in a cause so fervently that they are willing to resort to terrorist tactics. The war in Iraq had little or nothing to do with terrorism.

I gave you a few reasons why I believe the powerful politicians would want a war in Iraq. I can't speak for them personally and probably wouldn't believe them if they told us why we are really there. Why do you think we are there? To free the Iraqii people? We already know the politicians lied to us about their reasons for invading Iraq. Why should they need to lie to us if their motives were genuinely good?

[miss_silver]

Originally Posted by vernarial

I never said there weren't terrorists. Don't try to twist my words. Yes I do believe there is a "conspiracy" by the powerful and wealthy(not only in the USA) to increase their wealth and power at the expense of us "plebes". I never said terrorism isn't a threat. But a war on terrorism isn't a winnable war in my opinion. There will always be people who believe in a cause so fervently that they are willing to resort to terrorist tactics. The war in Iraq had little or nothing to do with terrorism.

I gave you a few reasons why I believe the powerful politicians would want a war in Iraq. I can't speak for them personally and probably wouldn't believe them if they told us why we are really there. Why do you think we are there? To free the Iraqii people? We already know the politicians lied to us about their reasons for invading Iraq. Why should they need to lie to us if their motives were genuinely good?

Good question.

Why is this not made more public...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/

Why are they building this anyway?

[theknife]

Originally Posted by miss_silver

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/

Why are they building this anyway?

hope they put a helicopter pad on the roof.

last chopper out of Saigon:

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by vernarial

There will always be people who believe in a cause so fervently that they are willing to resort to terrorist tactics.

There weren't before. Perhaps this isn't the eternal struggle between good and evil you think it is. The threat of terrorism will end, as all things do. It's only a matter of when, and can we expedite that end?

[vernarial]

I just don't believe that. Terrorism has been going on for thousands of years. The weapons and means may have changed, but terrorism itself has been around a long long time.

MW defines terrorism as : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

You can't really honestly tell me that this is a new idea.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

There weren't before. Perhaps this isn't the eternal struggle between good and evil you think it is. The threat of terrorism will end, as all things do. It's only a matter of when, and can we expedite that end?

are you kidding? "there weren't before" - before when, the Bronze Age? before al queda, there were Shining Path, the Tamil Tigers, the Weatherman, the Red Brigade, the Wobblies, thr PLO, the IRA, the Basques etc etc on back throughout history. there has never been a time when human beings weren't committing violence against innocent people for political purposes.

Venarial is correct - the "war on terror" can never be "won".

[Necrodancer]

Originally Posted by theknife

Venarial is correct - the "war on terror" can never be "won".

So the answer is to...ignore it?

That may have been policy under the Clinton admin but it's not going to fly any longer.