British officials heard 'drum beats' of war from US before 9/11
mg
to prevent a terrorist attack. Was he hoping for a terrorist attack in
order to justify an invasion?
"British officials heard the "drum beats" of war with Iraq emanating
from the US government more than two years before the 2003 invasion
and several months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Sir John
Chilcot's Iraq inquiry has heard.
But the UK in 2001 refused to back a policy of regime change because
the British view was that toppling Saddam Hussein would have been
illegal." [. . .]
-----------------------
"The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem
of terrorism. What they will do is stagger along until there's a major
incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh my God, shouldn't we be organized
to deal with this? They've been given a window of opportunity with
very little terrorism now, and they're not taking advantage of it."
--Paul Bremer, Feb 26, 2001, Robert R. McCormick Tribune Foundation
conference on terrorism
Igor
> Bush was planning on invading Iraq before 9/11 and was doing nothing
> to prevent a terrorist attack. Was he hoping for a terrorist attack in
> order to justify an invasion?
>
> "British officials heard the "drum beats" of war with Iraq emanating
> from the US government more than two years before the 2003 invasion
> and several months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Sir John
> Chilcot's Iraq inquiry has heard.
>
> But the UK in 2001 refused to back a policy of regime change because
> the British view was that toppling Saddam Hussein would have been
> illegal." [. . .]
>
>
> -----------------------
> "The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem
> of terrorism. What they will do is stagger along until there's a major
> incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh my God, shouldn't we be organized
> to deal with this? They've been given a window of opportunity with
> very little terrorism now, and they're not taking advantage of it."
> --Paul Bremer, Feb 26, 2001, Robert R. McCormick Tribune Foundation
> conference on terrorism
All the answers can be found here:
Morton Davis
"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:5d20c96c-cd09-48d2...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
---------
The Bush administration quaded Clinton's anti terror resources.
John Fahrtlington Poopnagle
East except war -- as sponsored by America's ever-hungry MILITARY-
INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX?
No less than one-third of the U.S.'s GDP is buttressed by the MIC.
War weapons and materiel manufacturing, research, development, U.S.
jobs, domestic and foreign sales, grants, contracts ....you name it.
And don't you think we'd be better-off withdrawing our military forces
from Muslim lands and using our military to stabilize and democratize
Latin America, where Iran, Al-Qaeda and other terrorist gangs are
making serious inroads in Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, and even Colombia
and Mexico?
Let's accept fact: The MIC exists to foment and sponsor foreign
wars. It's too powerful and ingrained in the U.S. economy to be
reigned-in.
But since our main export is war, why not do some good by circling the
wagons around our own hemisphere and "closing down" the Castro and
Chavez regimes and others of their ilk?
Isn't it about time?
Day Brown
> Don't you think the U.S. has no real business in the Islamic Middle
> East except war -- as sponsored by America's ever-hungry MILITARY-
> INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX?
global free market. The national debt/deficit is what the US charges the
global system for security services. That system decided it was in its
best interests to try to stop Islamic terrorism, which was funded by oil
money.
> No less than one-third of the U.S.'s GDP is buttressed by the MIC.
> War weapons and materiel manufacturing, research, development, U.S.
> jobs, domestic and foreign sales, grants, contracts ....you name it.
Well of course. And were it not so, other nations would be contending
for that market share, and the competition would result in even more
total global military research.
> And don't you think we'd be better-off withdrawing our military forces
> from Muslim lands and using our military to stabilize and democratize
> Latin America, where Iran, Al-Qaeda and other terrorist gangs are
> making serious inroads in Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, and even Colombia
> and Mexico?
Who's "we"? If we legalized recreational drugs, and let the families of
addicts sue a legal vendor and supply chain, then the druglord income
would dramatically fall, and with it the money funding terrorism.
Moreover, if we left, Pakistan would fall into the hands of zealots. It
has nukes, which would go off in New York, Washington DC, San Francisco,
and other port cities where ships come in without being searched until
they arrive. I'd worry if I lived in one of those cities.
>
> Let's accept fact: The MIC exists to foment and sponsor foreign
> wars. It's too powerful and ingrained in the U.S. economy to be
> reigned-in.
Foreign wars went on before the USA was a factor. "The only time the
Italians had any peace, was when the French king threatened to invade."
Machiavelli. look at what happens to places US troops leave with the
understanding they will not return, like Lebanon and Somalia.
My main complaint with the MIC is misdirected resources. We dont need
bombers, jet fighters, nuclear missiles, or other such mass killing
systems. We do need more drones with more capability to track the
leaders and gatherings of terrorists. Take out just the warlords, not
the whole damn city, town, or even village, and the opium trade... declines.
> But since our main export is war, why not do some good by circling the
> wagons around our own hemisphere and "closing down" the Castro and
> Chavez regimes and others of their ilk?
Any system put in place there would be crippled by corruption and
ineptitude; let them run their own mess and not blame us.
> Isn't it about time?
To apply the lessons of Machiavelli? Certainly.
lorad
Ok.. thanks for that..
Your shiny new Nobel War Prize is in the mail, too.
Really, don't you think that economic stimulus couldn't be better
directed towards some other goal - rather than towards blowing up
phantoms (of Bush and PNACers creation) on the other side of the
planet?
I think you would find a bit more Goddess approved activity in , say,
colonizing Mars and the moon - than in invading primitives' countries.
Fact of the matter is that I still prefer 'cultural diversity' - by
actually still having sovereign countries - rather than having a world
government controlled by 'people' like Bush, Cheney, Berlesconni,
Bliar, Murdoch, and Rumsfeld.
Day Brown
and develop military methods, it do so effectively. This has nothing
whatever to do with my personal cosmology. All the rest is the result of
policy by the power elites, not us. Nobody gives a fuck what we think,
or what you still prefer. That's a different thread.