Should there be a war on terror and how/who should it be fought?

Well said! End of story

Did you see any other war starting based on intelligence information?England entered WW2 because Hitler actually invaded Poland,not because it had information he was going to attack.The same,Soviet Union entered when Germans attacked,USA when Japanese actually hit,US troops came to Korea when North Korea invaded,Vietnam war started when Vietkongs appeared in South Vietnam,Golf war when Sadam ocupied Kuwait.
These were facts,not some intelligence information.Facts caused the war,actions.Even Hitler needed an event to start the war and set up the attack of Poles on Gleiwitz.
That is why nobody accused USA for starting Golf war because nobody had doubt that Sadam invaded Kuwait,that his troops did not come there without his command.

As a side note, do Poles realize that it was a Polish 'genius' who founded 'a-Qaida'?...this was one Zbigniew Brezinski, who, working for President Jimmy Carter, obtained CIA funding and training for the Aghan 'mujahadeen'?...this was the beginning of al-Qaida, who were originally used to harrass Soviet troops fighting in Afghanistan.

Joepilsudki got it right. Bush has even hinted at new ways of attacking America, albeit through a statement that he cocked up. When u have amassed such a huge national debt, criminal actions often help to redress the balance somewhat. Look at mafia members, why are they so rich? Because they do 9-5 office jobs and behave like good boys? Eh, no!! Because they know how to generate cash in other ways. Another Bush attitude to fighting terror, "The best way to find these terrorists who hide in holes is to get people coming forth to describe the location of the hole, is to give clues and data". No **** Sherlock, at least he acknowledges the need for data

Seanus wrote:

When u have amassed such a huge national debt, criminal actions often help to redress the balance somewhat. Look at mafia members, why are they so rich? Because they do 9-5 office jobs and behave like good boys? Eh, no!! Because they know how to generate cash in other ways.

Baby, you got it right; most wars are fought as a coverup for financial crimes, AND as a way to generate more dirty money AND to loot the taxpayers!

Fact Sheet
The List of Most Wanted Terrorists

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011010-1.html

Oxymoron i.e. . . . lack of intelligence

Not oxymoron.If your information is right,you do not attack.you wait until the enemy makes the move,so that your intervention is justified and you have gained the public opinion.
Intelligence did not know Sadam was going to invade Kuwait?They knew but they did not send any troops to Kuwait to prevent the attack.They had to wait for him to attack in order to get the approval of UN and the public opinion.
In 2003 Bush was in a hurry to attack before the information was proved false.

Remember the expert who claimed that Tony Blairs administration had "sexed up" the intelligence ?
To ascertain just how unusual the injury was, Mr Baker asked the Office of National Statistics how many people in the UK died in 2003 from a cut to the ulnar artery.He was told that Dr Kelly was the only one.

Seems to me we have quite a few terror groups running bombs along the streets of Iraq. Talk to some of the military that are/have been there. I don't think the ones taking lives with car bombs are being looked at in Iraq. Could they be terrorist's. Another thing no one is looking at is how many attacks on USA vs. Europe. Or where they are from. We may have serial killers, you have terrorists.

Carol

You can die from a cut in an ulnar artery if you wait for some hours.
The artery does not close from clot,it is not like veins where the blood flows slowly.

That's not the point szkotja is making

the point is, did Dr Kelly commit suicide or was he murdered

You will find out if you have the autopsy report.These people will never give it to you of course.

Daisy wrote:

the point is, did Dr Kelly commit suicide or was he murdered

Dr.Kelly was murdered...he was a micro-biologist.

http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/talk.religion.bahai/msg09281.html

I will tell you something.Men seldom commit suicide by cutting wrist or taking drugs.Men usually use effective methods like hanging and guns.Women usually take pills because they do not want to die actually but to cause attention.So while women try to kill themselves ten times more often than men,men who die from suicide are three times more than women,so men's suicidal methods are 30 times more effective.
So Dr. Kelly as a man would likely not choose to take drugs or cut wrists.
Moreover he was not a medical person to know where to cut the ulnar artery.He was a PH.D,not an MD.So if he tried to cut his wrists himself,he would probably cut his veins like all people in suicide attempts do(mostly women).


If he were a medical person,he would not prefer to cut wrists or take analgesic overdose.He would choose cyanide or combination of potassium with barbiturates which causes rapid death without suffering(almost the same combination that is used in lethal injections).
32 analgesic pills are not enough to cause death in a man of average weight.40 is the minimum.Most probably 30 lead to coma,so you cannot control the circumstances of death and is likely to be found and taken to hospital before dying.As an MD knowing drugs,Dr. Kelly would choose to take 80-100 pills if he wanted to be sure that he dies in case noone arrives while he is at coma.So his decision to die this way is irrational.

To know the cause of death you need the autopsy report which in this case is difficult if impossible to obtain.I guess a judge can only decide to give it to publicity and no judge in England will do that having to break national security issues etc.
If I were an english journalist,I would pay sb to get a copy of the autopsy but then I would have to go to jail.

Hi again, folks.
1. No one here has stated disagreeing with the administration makes one " anti-American" or an America hater. I've a few disagreements with the administration myself. The implication was made that US forces (of which I am part, btw) go around murdering children. This is extremely different than "disagreement". No one wishes to stand by while someone accuses him of harming children.
2. The source about us not having to sweat in charcoal lined CBR suits is prob. wrong-at the beginning of the war I had to wear one quite often and carry it 100% of the time. Every time a launch was detected we got an alarm; if a rocket hit we had 7 seconds to put on our mask, 30 for the suit, after which we put on outer garments...it sucked...then the chem bio guys had to go test and see if "all's clear"...at 140F.... All our vehicles had detector tape, and we all carried atropine, 2-PAM Chloride, and KANA(sp) injectors.... on the move this is less of an issue as nerve agent is not something used in house to house fighting but put into a rocket and shot at someone waaaaaaay downwind...it was VERY serious.
3. Some people will believe a conspiracy, whether or not it is true, every time. I think it interesting that people here in one post invent low IQ scores and attribute stupidity to Pres. Bush, then a few posts later credit him with pulling the biggest scams in history, fooling all those "much smarter" heads of state...
4. Bush did not run against Clinton. Comparing supposed IQs of the two is moot. He did have better grades at Yale than his last opponent...no Churchills or even Reagans in that lineup..
5. The analogies to provocation in other wars does not hold. There have been multiple provocations but the previous administration stood by...
6. 9-11 was the work of space aliens in the Bush administration...
7. NO building is tested to withstand 100,000 gallons of burning fuel vapor fanned by high wind. Fuel Air explosive, anyone? Far different than structural fires...
8. It really sucks posting mobile...

Somewhow I was expecting 10 points.
The way you got cut off so suddenly, I hope you weren't posting from a gas station while filling your car with gas ;)

This is true.Pralidoxime and atropine for nerve gases.Some people claim these agents caused the Golf War syndrome.

Hi again John -
1.This is the inference I have drawn from a few posts. The implication that US intentionally kill children is very emotive and for mostly untrue,however, the way this war was prosecuted led to 100 - 500 000 civilian deaths. Many of which were children. War cannot be sanitised. By dropping bombs on civilian cities you are going to be sure of killing children,babies, old grannys etc
3. Conspiracies merely detract from the truth which is usually equally bizarre.
8. 10 out of 10 for dedication !

Or maybe it could be the Depleted Uranium?

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8289971231540577673

I doubt it, as people nowhere in the vicinity of the use of depleted uranium bullets have come down with the "syndrome". I will say that there were also pills we were supposed to take while I was there which a few of us were a bit leery of, one of our corpsmen said his father took similar pills during the gulf war and felt they were responsible in part for his "syndrome". I don't know. One was supposedly to reduce our susceptibility to biological warfare (based on the bottle label, not on what they were "telling" us) and the other was supposedly an anti-malarial. One of which we had to keep taking even after leaving Iraq for awhile. To be honest I got sick off some of them and after that I and I suspect others just quietly tossed them away somewhere one by one...
Depleted Uranium is blamed for many things, I don't know how substantiated they are or are not-I know it's extremely bad for tank crews on the receiving end.

Funny...although I believe this to be something of an "old wives tale" and not actually true-but sad now there is a warning about it on every gas station in the USA (at least) because liability lawyers wanted to avoid being sued because "OMG I saw so-and-so at X gas station talking on a phone, and don't you KNOW those blow up?". Only in the movies....I think the people trying to send SMS or talk while driving are FAR more dangerous...

Interesting point, although as far as I can tell estimates of civilian deaths are not actually quantified but are guestimates from people reporting from the green zone, based on local interviews and comparisons to previous wars, which is at best inaccurate and at worse extremely unfair to all sides. It is true war cannot be sanitized, however this is a far cry from the implication that it somehow does not matter to Americans. I guess the point is if we were simply going to "drop bombs on civilian cities" why pay millions for precision guided weapons, why pay hundreds of thousands in fuel alone sending jets to attack a single building, if these implications were true? Why risk a thousand 19 year old American Marines and a few Navy types, taking Fallujah? Why the "hearts and minds" push? Much easier to carpet bomb the entire place flat. Which didn't happen, doesn't happen (civilian cities haven't been carpet bombed by Americans in decades to my knowledge) and which point seems lost on many anxious to make the USA into some sort of monster...
I also think many of the civilian deaths in Iraq are somehow attributed to us when in fact opposing factions are killing each other more than we are killing them. Perhaps it happened before, as well, but unlikely Saddam's secret police reported killings to the UN...
There are entire squadrons wanting to rotate into the war which simply aren't allowed, because the risk of their inexperienced gunners not being able to shoot *only* the enemy when there are friendlies and noncombatants in the area. (Not easy to do-bullets from a helicopter door gun do *not* fly straight, and take considerable practice for the gunner to know how to hit. In real life we cannot afford to "walk the rounds on" with tracers, like in a game. Every missed round could hit someone)
It is impossible to completely sanitize a war, you are correct, but the implication made that there is not great effort to this end bothers me greatly. Even if only armed forces personnel participate and only military targets (not even strategic, because that would include civilian targets) were hit-someone still loses a father, a husband, a brother, uncle-or even a sister.

Literally, one of the cool things I saw over there was a building which had been turned into a crater perhaps a mile from Baghdad International (formerly Saddam International Airport). The building was apparently the headquarters of the local Fedayeen Saddam, a sort of Secret Police, if you will. None of the locals liked talking about the place, and there were even places at the airport with odd stains where horrible things had taken place....but the cool part, directly across the street from this building was a mosque. It was unharmed. As was the building next to it. We were not allowed to enter the mosque, of course.


Isn't that the truth.

Which during down time led to horrible pranks....guys would learn to mimick the "God voice" alarms warning of possible chemical weapons attacks, one time we hid a guy's mask, all of us put ours on, woke him up rapidly yelling, "didn't you hear didn't you hear??!!!" and watched him panic trying to find his gas mask. I know, not funny when you think about it, but strangely hilarious at the time.
This is iffy. War has never been favorable to those concentrating on defense. Ask France about their Maginot line. Very impressive to look at but turned out to be not so effective. A great military mind once said "The best defense is a good offense". Saddam was not just implying he would invade Kuwait again or any such. His cat-and-mouse game with the UN inspectors also did not bode well, (no you can't look here---wait, ok, you can look here tomorrow) which literally screamed something was being hidden. There is in a republic such as ours a point where elected officials have to consider the safety of their country and its interests. Oil seems to be a dirty word, but literally Americans would starve without it-and while Saddam may have been bad, his sons were complete psychopaths. People were disappearing and the whole region knew Saddam had SOMETHING special. Time will tell perhaps. Our own Pres. Lincoln, so often looked up to by current schoolchildren, was looked at far worse than Bush is now, while president. He waged a war against a sovereign nation (our "civil" war) against the US constitution, he wrote a proclamation freeing only the slaves in the nation being attacked, hoping to boost recruitment, and generally conducted dirty politics the whole time. History remembers him as a hero, and savior of the union. Regardless, he did not and could not wait for public opinion. Which is why people should vote for people they feel will use their minds, and have convictions, rather than people who wait for the polls to do anything. Otherwise (and I fear its already a bit too true) the networks actually run the country and public opinion, and not the people themselves.
I've rambled enough for a moment here, so I'll stop and read what someone else thinks now...
John P.

If you have Youtube you can go here and see for yourself what a gas attack from Saddam did.

youtube.com/watch?v=FGnHMplqnJA

Carol

Whats your point ?

Could it be a terror attack from Saddam onto a village.

The terror attack on the village was just one part of a progrom against the Kurds, there was around 24 villages involved.

Is the point that Saddam gassed innocents ? He was a tyrant ? I dont think anyone could argue with that.

Remember, at the time of these attacks, Saddam was an ally of the USA. It was helicopters built in the USA that delivered the deadly gas.

Unless something was vastly different then than more recent times it wasn't US made helicopters. Saddam's helicopters were mostly of Russian and European origin, Hinds, Pumas, that sort of thing. Not that it makes much difference. Iran in those days was a worse threat than Iraq, and Iraq was keeping Iran busy. A lot can happen in 30 years...
John P.

In the early eighties the US sold Saddam -
1982 60 Hughes helicopters
1983 10 Twin engined "Hueys"
1984 45 Bell 214 helicopters ( deal worth $200 m )

All of the above was eased through by Rumsfield.

Ya for "officially for crop spraying"

The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee sent a team to Turkey to speak to Iraqi Kurdish refugees and assess reports that Iraq "was using chemical weapons on its Kurdish population."[29] This report reaffirmed that between 1984 and 1988 "Iraq repeatedly and effectively used poison gas on Iran," the UN missions’ findings, and the chemical attack on Halabja that left an estimated 4,000 people dead.[30]
Following the Halabja attack and Iraq’s August CW offensive against Iraqi Kurds, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed on 8 September the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988" the day after it is introduced.[31] The act cuts off from Iraq U.S. loans, military and non-military assistance, credits, credit guarantees, items subject to export controls, and U.S. imports of Iraqi oil.[32]
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html



Besides it was not the helicopters that killed, it was the gas. The same for if they purchased the gas, it was not the supplier of gas, it was what Saddam did with his purchases.

Carol

Nobody buys gas these days.Either you produce it or not.

OK I just was trying to point out that anything can be purchased with the seller not knowing the buyer will use it for a negitive purpose.


Should there be a war on terror and how/who should it be fought?

Yes, and fought by communication between all country's, not just the ones with victims but the country's that harbor them.