![]() |
|
||||
|
I can see this and other stories like it being used to argue against spending any more money on the war on terror:
FBI finds most terrorism threat reports baseless It's almost as disturbing as: Hamas leader ready to talk to Obama
__________________
Irate Nation's Resident Curmudgeon ![]() Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. -- P.J. O'Rourke I'll keep my guns, my money, my freedom and my religion. You can keep the change. |
|
||||
|
The first 100 days will be intersting.
__________________
Irate Nation "When a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have NO CHOICE but to exercise their original right of self defense- to fight the government" Alexander Hamilton |
|
|||
|
There never really was a war on terror. The whole thing was faked to over throw Iraq.
Wars cannot last past 4 years. The reason is economics...they cannot be financed for decades. Government cannot afford it. On another note. Pakistan officials released a report when after doing autopsies on dead "Taliban" the found that a huge number of these "Arab Terrorist" were circumcised. Muslims do not circumcise the males. So, where those resistance fighters even Muslim to begin with??? Something smells really funny with the war on terror. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Not to shoot a hole in the thought but it seems a moot point. As for wars lasting more than 4 years. Wars can last decades and centuries. Look at the infighting that has been going on since WWII in the Israeli area. Look at the fighting that has been going on in Afghanistan since the early 80's against 2 superpowers. Look at how Vietnam was fought first by the french and then us. Wars last as long as the people have a difference of opinion strong enough to maintain the levels of aggression needed to have a war. We never did have that level of aggression in the war on terror since it was so obviously a political sham to gain control of a source of fuel. Other than wars within a country(IE Civil wars like the one that I have been predicting here) all of our future wars are going to be fought over fuel/energy. Look at what happened with Georgia and Russia recently. No matter what either side was saying it was obviously over fuel rights and control over that fuel. The final agreement made that blatantly obvious. Look at our little toe fight going on with Iran recently. They are yelling about restrictions on Nuclear energy and we are yelling that we don't want them to have the ability to make nuclear arms. Who is right? Sadly the ability to make one allows you to make the other.(one valid argument FOR the U.S.) But Iran KNOWS that the fuel is running out and wants an alternate source for electricity(so one valid argument FOR Iran) we are at a Mexican standoff with them over this. Where we lose credibility is in how we have interfered so much IN THE PAST with their political makeup and are now claiming innocence of wrong doing. I barely remember what the Carters driving force was but all of the hoopla started with him. Facts are we now have to deal with the little monster we created. When it comes down to it the fight will be over energy. but I digress. As a country I agree with you that we can no longer afford to have a war that has turned into a holding action. The reason that this has been a null war has to do with the powers that wanted it. There is a theory that the Federal Reserve helps to push the Presidents into the wars because the Controllers of the FR can make a profit on both sides of the war. The countries ultimately suffer but the FR and the Banking moguls come out ahead no matter what. There is some validity to that if you look in history. IBM was selling stuff to both the Allies and Nazi Germany both before the war and during it. Some Gasoline company (I don't recall which one) was making a killing by supplying fuel for the German Luftwaffe that had an additive in it that was required for the machines to run correctly. Now why are we still at war? We are understaffed when it comes to providing Combatants(the Army is trying to up the ante again with more recruiting. they may get it with the economy going tits up) Our equipment is not exactly 'cheap' or 'replaceable' nor are our troops. And yet those that we are fighting are still using 1930's rifles, hand loaded ammunition and maneuvering in POV's Even with all of our advances in surgical precision bombing, UAV's, and various other "tools of the trade" we are right back to where we were during Korea and our troops are being issued newer rifles that shoot .30-06 (7.62NATO more specifically) because "IT WORKS" where the rest of the toys are showy and not worth a crap in mountain and cave environments. We are still at war because someone with a LOT OF MONEY wants us to be so that they can make LOTS OF MONEY for a long time.
__________________
The world was here first, it owes you nothing. Count yourself fortunate if you get all you've earned. Count yourself a thief if you get what others have earned. Count yourself a parasite if you believe you're entitled to it.-Mark Twain |
|
||||
|
When history is written, remember the name Judge Ricardo Urbina.
WASHINGTON -- Lawyers for a Guantanamo Bay detainee will be allowed to question -- in writing -- accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a federal judge has ruled. The decision is a setback for government lawyers who had sought to limit the scope of detainee lawyers' challenges to the detention and prosecution of terror suspects. In a written ruling, Judge Ricardo Urbina says lawyers for detainee Abdul Raheem Ghulam Rabbani can submit written questions about their client to Mohammed. Prosecutors say he worked for Mohammed, but Rabbani's lawyers contend he was just a menial servant, not a part of any terror network. The ruling says prosecutors may review the answers before delivering them to Rabbani's lawyers to remove any national security information. Government lawyers had unsuccessfully sought to convince the judge that any questioning of Mohammed by Rabbani's lawyers would risk exposing details of sensitive intelligence programs. Urbina's 15-page decision says Mohammed may have information that could help Rabbani's case, and allows Rabbani's lawyers to submit "a list of narrowly tailored" questions for Mohammed. Mohammed has boasted of masterminding the Sept. 11 attacks, and he is the most high-profile detainee of the 229 terror suspects held at the detention facility at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. His possible testimony was a contentious issue in another terrorism case, the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. The court ruled in that case that some specific parts of Mohammed's statements to investigators could be introduced, but not all. Urbina's ruling comes in a civil court challenge to Rabbani's detention, but if it is upheld it could have broader implications as the government prepares to bring detainees to trial in federal criminal courts and military commissions. President Obama has ordered the Guantanamo Bay prison closed by January 2010.
__________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum
|
|
||||
|
Maybe just maybe we are after the wrong terrorists.
THIS article explains much better than I could what I mean here. As it stands though there are lists being made and checked over frequently for changes to routines. In the words of Micheal Collins: "I want to know what they eat for breakfast"
__________________
The world was here first, it owes you nothing. Count yourself fortunate if you get all you've earned. Count yourself a thief if you get what others have earned. Count yourself a parasite if you believe you're entitled to it.-Mark Twain |
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|