The effectiveness of a "War" on terror

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree with you that installing a dictator does not help to promote democracy. Note, though, that the US has not supported dictators in countries that were previously democratic.

What?!!

Then what happened in th congo with mabuto and lamamba?

Listen man, I have posted so many things here about what really is going on and I do believe that some, if not most here have got it. but apparently some of you are still a bit confused.

The war on terror is a fraud plain and simple, so get that through your thick head. Here is an audio clip that lays it out very nicely ok; it's 15 mins long. Check it out.

http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/100107woods.mp3

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I'm not so sure about that. Didn't the CIA help overthrow a democratically elected leader in Guatemala during the cold war?

Guatemala's leader was turning their country Communist, and as I recall, he was working hand in hand with the USSR.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Come on Lief that’s pie in the sky stuff at this point. Its been made clear that many many generals “on the ground” disagreed with many ways that this operation was run but the Cheney/Rumsfield cabal nixed any change in planning that they suggested no matter how vehemently. And then what you usually saw was generals stepping down. One after the other.

If you can provide me with good citations that provide quotes from the leading generals in Iraq, in which they say that they originally argued for more troops but were stopped by Rumsfeld, then I'll seriously consider accepting your point.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

By soaking its own tax paying citizens to make Cheney’s old company’s executives rich? How in the world does that help us? Who do you think pays for those ridiculous contracts? Not the Iraqis.

Generally, our high ranking leaders do come from the wealthier class because they can best afford to get a high education and campaign. So that Cheney or others would have connections to big companies is only logical, and is certainly not proof of engaging in a war for simple personal cash interests.

Actually, the fact that the US is not experiencing any big personal gains in terms of dropping gas prices from our having liberated Iraq is an indication that we did not invade to get the oil.

Originally Posted by Telecontarion

The war on terror is a fraud plain and simple, so get that through your thick head.

Let's leave the density of my head out of this, shall we?

Originally Posted by Telecontarion

What?!!

Then what happened in th congo with mabuto and lamamba?

Good point- I didn't know about that. The US thought he was a Communist working with the USSR, and hence our role in deposing him was part of the Cold War. Kind of logical considering the times, though it may have been unjustified. I haven't researched it enough to give a personal opinion on that. But you're right that he was democratically elected.

I'm not going to listen to the clip you linked though, because it's longer than I'm interested in taking the time to listen to. My loss. If you're willing to summarize it in an argument in your own writing, I'll read that.

[Nurvingiel]

Jonathan said that about Guatemala, not me. In the interest of quote accuracy and all.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The USSR was a terrible menace to the world. Supporting certain dictators in the Middle East, in countries that had always been totalitarian, in order to stop the forward movement of the USSR was a necessary US policy.

It was in furthering this policy that Osama bin Laden and other Afghanis were trained in guerilla tactics in order for them to fight the Soviets. (They were already at war with the Soviets, but the USA wanted them to win.)

In hindsight, that policy was not a good idea for long-term peace.


The Telcontorian is absolutely right about Patrice Lumamba, the duly elected, socialist President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Ten weeks later, he was dismissed (in a method of dubious legality) from government which started the Congo Uprising, and was captured, tortured, and murdered by soldiers loyal to Mobutu, who headed the coup and was later installed as a dictator.

IIRC the CIA was involved, and supported Mobutu, naturally, since they sure know how to pick 'em.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Let's leave the density of my head out of this, shall we?

Actually, sorry about that comment, my apologise. I do get too passionate sometimes.

Can't listen to the audio, well here you go:

The Real Agenda Of The Global Elite In Somalia
Neocons are backing the same warlords that slaughtered US troops in 1993

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Wednesday, January 10, 2007

This week has seen the latest example of the US power elite bombing a broken-backed country in the name of the global 'war on terror'. The phantom menace of 'Al Qaeda' has again provided a pretext for the further destruction and destabilization of struggling state, this time Somalia, in order that the Western elite power-mongers can move in and control its valuable resources.

The Bush Administration is essentially asking us to expect to believe that it is bombing a country in an attempt to kill three terrorists– Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, that killed 225 people, and accomplices Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan and Abu Talha al-Sudani.

The Somali government has today claimed that four more airstrikes have been carried out, killing more innocent people. The US has denied this. Also today, a senior Somali politician said US troops were needed on the ground to fight a Muslim extremist threat.

Monday's strike reportedly killed around 200 people, including Canadian and British citizens.

Critics of the action have said it could misfire by creating strong Somali resentment and feeding Islamist militancy. Analysts fear that US interfering and backing of one Somali faction against another could ignite an Iraqi-style insurgency across a swath of East Africa.

There is no doubt that this is a part of the escalation of the wider war of aggression planned and executed by the neoconservatives who published their Project For the New American Century before they came to power.

"Before this, it was just tacit support for Ethiopia. Now the U.S. has fingerprints on the intervention and is going to be held more accountable," said Horn of Africa expert Ken Menkhaus. "This has the potential for a backlash both in Somalia and the region."



The truth is that, once again, the terror myth is being promulgated as an excuse to unleash violence against a largely innocent Muslim population, and one that has struggled for a peaceful existence for decades.

As prominent blogger Kurt Nimmo has stated:

"In other words, it was a turkey shoot, and the targets were not necessarily “al-Qaeda” but rather members of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), Muslims who not long ago ruled Somalia under the Shariah, or Islamic law. CBS does not bother to mention the fact ICU was popular in Somalia, a Muslim nation."

Last December, the popular ICU lost control of the country after a short lived form of peace. The UIC had controlled Mogadishu and other areas of the country after defeating several local warlords who held Somalia in the grip of terror since the collapse of central rule in 1991. The Islamists had succeeded in defeating the warlords primarily through rallying people to their side by creating law and order through the application of Shariah law, which Somalis universally practice.

15,000 Ethiopian troops, with U.S. backing, invaded in an illegal war of aggression and ousted the IUC leaders who fled to the southern-most tip of the country.

Many Somalis in areas controlled by the UIC welcomed the security and order that the Islamists brought to the country. The Bush Administration is playing on reports that the Islamists are 'Taliban like' and is lumping them in with 'Al Qaeda' terrorists.

But the UIC does not appear to be a monolithic organization and seems split between moderates who want peace and dialogue and more right wing Muslims who want to impose Muslim Sharia law. In any case neither have the means or the desire to commit an almighty Jihad against the West, they are simply concerned with creating some kind of law and order within Somalia.

The US response has been to provide major funding to the warlord groupings, via the Ethiopian army, that are opposed to the UIC. Before bombing the hell out of villages on Monday, the Bush Administration has long been providing backing to ruthless killers intent on keeping Somalia in civil strife because it benefits each warlord's plundering rule to keep the nation carved up.

These are the same marauding warlords who drove out American forces in 1993, killing and maiming 18 US troops in the streets then dragging their bodies around in celebration.

Many of these warlords were part of the puppet regime transitional "government" that had been organized in Kenya in 2004. But the "government" was so devoid of internal support that it had to turn to Somalia's arch enemy, Ethiopia, to maintain control.

So why are the US power elite funding sectarian warlords in Somalia and now bombing Islamist areas of the country?

Because the control of Somalia via puppet government, just like in Iraq, is a key factor in the Neocon plan to "shrink the non-integrating gap" of the new world order, as Thomas Barnett's 'New Map' of the world has it.

As with Iraq, the real agenda is to obtain a direct foothold in a highly strategic region. The Horn of Africa is newly oil-rich, and lies just miles from Saudi Arabia, overlooking the daily passage of large numbers of oil tankers and warships through the Red Sea.

Not surprising then that multiple US warships and Ticonderoga-class cruisers are now stalking the coastline off Somalia and routinely sending intelligence-gathering flights over the country. The location is also prime in order to be able to instantly mobilize forces for any conflict with Iran at the drop of a hat.

The American oil giants Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips also hold concession rights in Somalia. According to the Los Angeles Times, “corporate and scientific documents disclosed that the American companies are well positioned to pursue Somalia’s most promising potential oil reserves the moment the nation is pacified,” - i.e. kill the "Islamofascists" and install a weak and pandering government that could never control its own resources well enough to compete with the Western global elite.

“Somalia is of geostrategic interest to the Bush administration, and the focus of operations and policy since 2001,” writes Larry Chin. “This focus is a continuation of long-term policies of both the Clinton administration and the George H.W. Bush administrations. Somalia’s resources have been eyed by Western powers since the days of the British Empire.”

“A new US cleansing of Somalian ‘tyranny’ would open the door for these US oil companies to map and develop the possibly huge oil potential in Somalia,” notes F. William Engdahl. “Yemen and Somalia are two flanks of the same geological configuration, which holds large potential petroleum deposits, as well as being the flanks of the oil chokepoint from the Red Sea.”

Of course the American public will simply be told that we're after 'Al Qaeda' because of 9/11, and they will buy it again. No matter that operatives involved in the African bombings at the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were admittedly working for the CIA. Nah, that's a side issue, LOOK AMERICA, Al Zawahiri said Somalia is Islamofascist, so we gotta bomb the hell out of it and control it's oil - just get used to it.

[Lief Erikson]

For the future, I would appreciate it if you gave me the arguments in your own writing, rather than through either audio or lengthy articles . I'm going to respond to part of your article this time, but here is my view that I'll be holding to, for the future:

If you aren't going to take the time and effort to put your arguments in your own words, why should I take the time to do that myself? Why shouldn't I just respond to you by going to FOX News and giving you a long response article about the situation in Somalia, rather than taking the trouble to argue it myself?

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Actually, sorry about that comment, my apologise.

Accepted.

Originally Posted by the article

This week has seen the latest example of the US power elite bombing a broken-backed country in the name of the global 'war on terror'.

We didn't bomb a country. We bombed one group of Al'Qaeda supporters.

Originally Posted by the article

The Bush Administration is essentially asking us to expect to believe that it is bombing a country in an attempt to kill three terrorists– Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, that killed 225 people, and accomplices Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan and Abu Talha al-Sudani.

And according to a top US official, though these men were missed, Somalis with close links to Al'Qaeda were killed. And think about it this way. If you intend to go on a bombing campaign against a country to plunder its resources, you won't construct such a short-term excuse for going in as, "we want to hit the bombers that blew up our embassies." For that is an extremely short-term goal that you've announced. You can't use it to launch extensive bombings, because that wouldn't make sense. You can't claim, "we're after a small band of Al'Qaeda operatives," and then do to Somalia what Israel did to Lebanon, or anything like that. On that excuse, you can't do much of anything, in terms of intervention.

Originally Posted by the article

The Somali government has today claimed that four more airstrikes have been carried out, killing more innocent people. The US has denied this. Also today, a senior Somali politician said US troops were needed on the ground to fight a Muslim extremist threat.

Well obviously the government of Somalia has wanted us involved for a long time. They want our troops on the ground, but if I recall correctly, President Bush has already ruled out sending troops into Somalia. And I don't believe these reports of further US airstrikes. According to BBC News, those could just as easily have been Ethiopian fighters. There's no real way of knowing, and people tend to be pretty paranoid about the US nowadays.

Originally Posted by the article

Critics of the action have said it could misfire by creating strong Somali resentment and feeding Islamist militancy. Analysts fear that US interfering and backing of one Somali faction against another could ignite an Iraqi-style insurgency across a swath of East Africa.

The UIC was calling for an insurgency before the US did this, and the US is not involved in a major way in this war. We have some boats patrolling Somalia's coast, but no ground troops or extensive air attacks.

Originally Posted by the article

There is no doubt that this is a part of the escalation of the wider war of aggression planned and executed by the neoconservatives who published their Project For the New American Century before they came to power.

And this shows the bias of your article, in its reporting.

Originally Posted by the article

The truth is that, once again, the terror myth is being promulgated as an excuse to unleash violence against a largely innocent Muslim population, and one that has struggled for a peaceful existence for decades.

By declaring war on Ethiopia and the warlords' government, and rejecting all peace overtures .

Originally Posted by the article

"In other words, it was a turkey shoot, and the targets were not necessarily “al-Qaeda” but rather members of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), Muslims who not long ago ruled Somalia under the Shariah, or Islamic law. CBS does not bother to mention the fact ICU was popular in Somalia, a Muslim nation."

Their popularity doesn't make them any less a threat, when tied to Al'Qaeda. It makes them more of a threat.

I'll focus more on responding to the rest of your post if the predictions in the earlier part of it come true. If the US sends ground troops of any significant number into Somalia, your argument will look stronger to me, and then I'll try to find time to respond to the rest of your article.

[The Telcontarion]

Lief Erikson

I have to say I agree with you about the way I post, to a certain degree, to be sure it is not for a lack of want. In the past here I have spent hours posting replies that are miles long. You know I have been in many debates here. Besides I rather think that those links are more credible than my own opinion/thoughts/ideas and is appreciated by many here.

However time doesn't allow me to do as I would like, but due to the importance of the topic I had to find a way communicate my thoughts without consuming to much of my time, therefore the links of audios articles etc.

I just wanted to say that. I have not read all of your reply yet but I will; I can't promise that there won't be links in it though, sorry.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If you can provide me with good citations that provide quotes from the leading generals in Iraq, in which they say that they originally argued for more troops but were stopped by Rumsfeld, then I'll seriously consider accepting your point.

Lief this is fairly common knowledge… Have you missed all the generals speaking out in the media the last year or two? Its been so widespread that many have come to call it a “General’s Revolt”.

Major General John Batiste commanded an Army division in Iraq before he retired and said in an interview that he thought the Defense Department needed "a fresh start."

I think the military deserves leadership that understands teamwork and builds strong teams without resorting to intimidation. I think respect is a two-way street; the respect given from the military to the senior civilians ought to be reciprocated.

I think the current administration repeatedly ignored sound military advice and counsel with respect to the war plans. I think that the principles of war are fundamental, and we violate those at our own peril. And military leaders of all ranks, particularly the senior military, have an obligation in a democracy to say something about it.

He also said:

There are times that you're told to do things that you don't agree with and you're given an opportunity to rebut, to give reasons why it shouldn't be that way. And at the end of the day, you either salute and execute or you make a decision to retire or resign; that's the way it is.

And this is why we have seen a virtual stream of “retiring” generals since this conflict began…

More…

Army Major General Paul Eaton, who oversaw the training of Iraqi army troops in 2003 and 2004 before retiring, has been critical of Rumsfeld, as has Retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, the former commander of CENTCOM, the Central Command.

GEN. ANTHONY ZINNI, Former Commander, U.S. Central Command:

I believe the civilian leadership in the Pentagon ignored the advice. This advice was not just coming from me, these warnings, but other former commanders at U.S. Central Command.

In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption.

I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was dereliction in lack of planning. The president is owed the finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He didn’t get the first two.

I blame the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly. Because if they were given the responsibility, and if this was their war, and by everything that I understand, they promoted it and pushed it - certain elements in there certainly - even to the point of creating their own intelligence to match their needs

This from Batiste:

It is much harder than warfare, and you need to have sufficient troops on the ground to control the people, to secure the borders, to intimidate the insurgency, to own the ground in every respect. My area in Iraq was the size of the state of West Virginia, huge. And we were forced over time to conduct a series of movements to contact where we only controlled the ground for a moment in time; that's not how you fight an insurgency.

More from that interview:

”Did you ask for more troops?”

MAJ. GEN. JOHN BATISTE: "We always asked for more troops, within our chain of command."

"And what happened when you asked for more troops?"

MAJ. GEN. JOHN BATISTE: “We saluted and executed; I had to keep my soldiers alive and focused on the mission at hand.”

“As you know, Secretary Rumsfeld has said from the beginning every time the military asked for more troops in Iraq, they were given what they wanted. Not true in your case?"

MAJ. GEN. JOHN BATISTE: “I suspect, going way back five years to the beginning of this whole war, there were ample times when people said to him, as General Shinseki did, "We need more." In the case of General Shinseki, he was retired early. And as I recall, the secretary didn't even go to his retirement ceremony; I have never forgotten that.”

More…

Retired Marine Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold was director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff for two years until shortly before the Iraq invasion. In an opinion article in Time magazine, Newbold criticized Rumsfeld and other top officials for snuffing out dissenting voices, saying "The consequence of the military's quiescence was that a fundamentally flawed plan was executed for an invented war.

And this is interesting...:

The president on Friday nominated Adm. William Fallon, described by people who have worked for him as "caustic," "arrogant" and an "SOB," to take over central command from Gen. John Abizaid. Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, perhaps the most controversial officer in the Army because of his "Type A" personality and what many view as his too-cozy relationship with the media, will replace Gen. George Casey as top American general in Iraq. Both men must be approved by the Senate.

Both Abizaid and Casey have expressed qualms in recent weeks about boosting U.S. forces in Iraq. Abizaid said an increase of 20,000 could not be sustained for long by the overburdened American military, and Casey said such a boost should be used only to advance U.S. strategic goals.

So Theres a LOT out there on this Lief. I hardly think you need me to fish out “citations” over such a well known issue…

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Actually, the fact that the US is not experiencing any big personal gains in terms of dropping gas prices from our having liberated Iraq is an indication that we did not invade to get the oil.

When did I say anything about invading to get oil? I said the war provides a great opportunity for Halliburton and the like to get rich off tax payer dollars. The tax payers themselves get no pay back at all for engaging in this conflict as you originally suggested. Just the executives at the companies that coincidentally have direct ties to Cheney and some other administration hawks.

[Lief Erikson]

Thanks for finding those citations for me.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So Theres a LOT out there on this Lief. I hardly think you need me to fish out “citations” over such a well known issue…

I did remember four generals stepping down because of having problems with Rumsfeld. I also remember seeing a different general praise Rumsfeld's leadership, in response to their accusations. And I haven't seen Tommy Franks or the very highest leaders make this accusation of the Administration. My guess is that it's the responsibility of the highest general in charge of operations to make the request of the Administration, that they send in more troops, and the advice of lower ranking generals wouldn't be as likely to be heeded if their superior doesn't agree with them.

But that's just my guess as to how it works; I don't know for sure.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

When did I say anything about invading to get oil? I said the war provides a great opportunity for Halliburton and the like to get rich off tax payer dollars.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

The tax payers themselves get no pay back at all for engaging in this conflict as you originally suggested. Just the executives at the companies that coincidentally have direct ties to Cheney and some other administration hawks.

Yeah, though as I mentioned, that's not such a huge coincidence. I expect that there are Democrats in Congress who also have connections to oil companies. Many of our political leaders are rich and well connected.

[brownjenkins]

All wars are motivated by self interest.

It's interesting that even in such an "advanced" nation as the United States, that one person still basically calls the shots where going to war is concerned.

Democracy still has a long way to go.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

All wars are motivated by self interest.

I think you're too quick to generalize your Western perspective to the rest of the world.

[Jonathan]

I don't see why that couldn't be applied to the rest of the world as well.

[Lief Erikson]

Religion can be a much more powerful influence on people's minds than self.

But there are other reasons for war too. Hannibal Barca started the Second Punic War for revenge against Rome, though it was against his and his country's interest.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Religion can be a much more powerful influence on people's minds than self.

Religion is also based in self-interest.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But there are other reasons for war too. Hannibal Barca started the Second Punic War for revenge against Rome, though it was against his and his country's interest.

His interest was in fact "revenge". It outweighed what should have been more important interests. That's why putting too much power in the hands of one individual, or a select few, is generally a negative thing.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Religion is also based in self-interest.

Many people throughout time have done their utmost for what they believe to be right, even when that means great personal loss to themselves. That is not self-interest, but an interest in right and wrong, in morality. It is an interest in principles that they hold above their own lives.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

His interest was in fact "revenge". It outweighed what should have been more important interests.

Hmm. Maybe you're right. Revenge is about self-gratification, which does look like a self-interest . . . I guess I agree with you on this one. Scratch that example.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

That's why putting too much power in the hands of one individual, or a select few, is generally a negative thing.

I tend to agree with you on this last.

[Lief Erikson]

Oh, I'm so frustrated right now with the US position on the Israeli/Palestinian crisis. That is one of the major parts of the world where we could make an impact in this battle between Islamic extremism and the West, but we're only making matters worse through our policies in that region.

Favoring Israel against the Palestinians strengthens opposition to us and the West in general, in the Muslim world. Favoring Fatah against Hamas and engaging in an economic boycott on the Palestinians is probably a major contributor to the near civil war in the Palestinian territories.

Right now, I'm considering the idea that we should probably open negotiations with Hamas, the elected government of the Palestinian people. If we do not, all the Middle East will probably continue to see the US as hypocritical in its call for democracy. Negotiating with Hamas also would prove to all parties that we are genuinely interested in peace in the Middle East.

Perhaps negotiations would fail. It's very possible that they would fail. However, simply holding them may be a useful step forward in bringing back credibility to the US in the Middle East.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Religion can be a much more powerful influence on people's minds than self.

You are quite right but I was thinking that leaders use religion to fuel conflicts and their own self-interests. Religion and self-interest are not mutually exclusive.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

You are quite right but I was thinking that leaders use religion to fuel conflicts and their own self-interests. Religion and self-interest are not mutually exclusive.

Oh, I agree with you there. There are certainly leaders who have used religion "to fuel conflicts and their own self-interests." But there also are leaders who have genuinely believed in the ideology they are preaching and who adhere to it in spite of the fact that their self-interests would indicate that they should do otherwise.

I think that Osama bin Laden would be an excellent example of this. Muhammad would be another. Sorry I'm only mentioning Muslims as examples- it's just that as I've been reading about Islam, they are the first examples that spring to mind. I'm sure that there are many Christian leaders who gave up their lives or acted strongly against their own self-interest because of religion, during the religious wars.

[The Gaffer]

Christ would be one of them, I presume.

Lief, I congratulate you on recognising that the root of the problem lies principally in the Palestine situation. Of course, previous US presidents have also recognised this; Clinton got as far as the Oslo accord before getting bogged down in Kosovo and the Starr witchhunt.

I always said that the one true opportunity Dubya had to change the situation was on this issue: as a conservative, he has the credentials to bring US conservatives along with him, and is more likely to be trusted by Israel.

In fact, encouraging noises were made shortly after 9/11 and I hoped that there would be some action. However, I was disappointed.

Maybe this time...?

* doesn't hold breath *

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Christ would be one of them, I presume.

He's obviously someone who placed his beliefs higher than his self-interest. I was trying to think of people who have done that while simultaneously being leaders, and he was not a political leader.

Who's Dubya?

[The Gaffer]

George Dubya Bush (phonetic!)