Opinion on the 'War on Terror'

simplistic

War in perspective and minus this insane love for the US bred by our media.

Manic Moran

Were the Canadians giving sanctuary to those responsible?

NTM

Ping Chow Chi

I think Canada is probably meant to equate Iraq in the above picture, not Afghanistan.

The picture does not make the greatest sense though, maybe it should read 'a small group of mexicans, who where trained in America ...'

teddy_303

The Taliban were the USA's allies over time. Armed to the teeth to fight the Russians by the US. 19 of the 9-11 bombers were Saudi, as is Bin Laden, not Afghans or Iraqis. Saddam Hussein actually hated religious fundamentalists. The US would not attack Saudi Arabia. The Saudis own 10% of the wealth in Americas banks. Perhaps that was the real objective of 9-11. To drive a wedge between the two countries, the US economy would have collapsed without doubt. As for Afghanistan, the coalition of the willing, or coerced or whomever, they could have finished that in 2 weeks if they wanted to. The reason they didn't is because they could not invade Iraq without doing so. And that will continue until the dirty business of relieving Iraq of its oil reserves will continue at an extremely high human, especially for the local populations. Iran will not be invaded, according to Noam Chomsky, at a speech he did in UCD a few years back. He stated the reason he felt this is because the Uni he lectures in, MIT Boston, developed software which the US administration of the day, gave to Iran, to make enriched weapons grade plutonium, insisting the needed nuclear weapons to protect themselves in such a volatile area. This is how the US knows they have the capability to eventually make nuclear weapons, because the same corrupt low lives insisted making it and making them take it. So, who made it Volatile? Its Volatile by design? For a purpose. I think so.

Taliban, armed by US
Saddam Hussein, armed by US and British,
(at expense of their tax payers also.)
Iran, same
Northern alliance, same

Nuff said.

OS119

teddy_303 wrote: »

The Taliban were the USA's allies over time. Armed to the teeth to fight the Russians by the US. 19 of the 9-11 bombers were Saudi, as is Bin Laden, not Afghans or Iraqis. Saddam Hussein actually hated religious fundamentalists. The US would not attack Saudi Arabia. The Saudis own 10% of the wealth in Americas banks. Perhaps that was the real objective of 9-11. To drive a wedge between the two countries, the US economy would have collapsed without doubt. As for Afghanistan, the coalition of the willing, or coerced or whomever, they could have finished that in 2 weeks if they wanted to. The reason they didn't is because they could not invade Iraq without doing so. And that will continue until the dirty business of relieving Iraq of its oil reserves will continue at an extremely high human, especially for the local populations. Iran will not be invaded, according to Noam Chomsky, at a speech he did in UCD a few years back. He stated the reason he felt this is because the Uni he lectures in, MIT Boston, developed software which the US administration of the day, gave to Iran, to make enriched weapons grade plutonium, insisting the needed nuclear weapons to protect themselves in such a volatile area. This is how the US knows they have the capability to eventually make nuclear weapons, because the same corrupt low lives insisted making it and making them take it. So, who made it Volatile? Its Volatile by design? For a purpose. I think so.

Taliban, armed by US
Saddam Hussein, armed by US and British,
(at expense of their tax payers also.)
Iran, same
Northern alliance, same

Nuff said.

the edge of reason is right.

DoireNod

This is just a suggestion for the mods.

I think I may have been wrong to have the poll open for a week only. This seems like a topic which should have more opinion voiced. Support or opposition. With only 27 voters, it seems like it hasn't had enough input.

Is it possible to 're-open' the poll or does a new one have to be created?

Hagar

Poll voting date extended to 31st Aug.

Manic Moran

Iran will not be invaded, according to Noam Chomsky, at a speech he did in UCD a few years back. He stated the reason he felt this is because the Uni he lectures in, MIT Boston, developed software which the US administration of the day, gave to Iran, to make enriched weapons grade plutonium, insisting the needed nuclear weapons to protect themselves in such a volatile area.

Out of curiousity, did he give a timeframe for this purported claim? The US hasn't been on the best of terms with Iran for nigh on thirty years, now. I'm sure that even Iranians are capable of developing an enrichment process in that timeframe.

NTM