Thanks for providing an explanation of your position, Harmonica. Some of it I agree with. Other points, not so much.

I agree with you that Osama's network is more of a threat to America than Iraq at the moment. But I think the priority right now should be within our own borders. You know, the hurricane.

Terrorism won't just go away, true. But it can't be defeated by force like a traditional war, either. All that can be done, in my opinion, is keep it to a minimum through efficient national security operations and compromise when possible. If it is clear that we are being reasonable and our adversaries are not, then we should have a lot more cooperation from the international community.

I think that the troops have to come home too, but I thought they never should have been there in the first place. But how does one piss off a refinery?

The last point is where i feel you've truly beeen brainwashed. There is no evidence that Saddam ever planned to attack the United States. It would have been incredibly idiotic on his part, and you don't maintain a dictatorship for thirty years without being overthrown by being an idiot. The only way someone could possibly get away with a direct attack on the United States is if they're constantly on the run, and heads of state can't be doing that.

The terrorists have no means to take over oil fields.  They wouldn't know what to do with them even if they did.  This is just another scare tatic but the administration.


Exactly so. It's the same scare tactic used to perpetuate the legend that terrorists can develop nuclear weapons with a handful of plutonium and an Internet connection. Building, delivering and detonating a nuke isn't like putting a pipe bomb in a box on the subway and setting it off. The whole idea of a "War on Terror" is just a tool to control the masses through fear. It takes the tangibility of an enemy entity away and replaces it with a bogeyman. No longer does the enemy wear battleship gray, or speak Japanese, or Korean. No longer are they "over there". Suddenly, no one knows who the enemy is. They could be anyone. It could be the guy on the plane next to you. Did that woman leave that box on the subway station because she's merely forgetful, or is it a bomb? There's an Arab-looking guy on the bus who's always looking out the window, at his watch, shifting in his seat. Is he nervous because he's new in town, doesn't speak the language and wants to make sure he doesn't miss his stop, or is he agitated because he's a suicide bomber? This is the sort of paranoia and fear that declaring "war" on an intangible concept like "terror" creates. And the war never ends, because if you stamp out one kind of terror, something else will spring up that you can call "terror" to replace it, and keep control over the masses forever. It's exactly what Orwell predicted, but it's come to pass twenty years later than he envisaged. There is no War on Terror. It's merely a war, and don't expect it to end anytime soon.

Exactly so. It's the same scare tactic used to perpetuate the legend that terrorists can develop nuclear weapons with a handful of plutonium and an Internet connection. Building, delivering and detonating a nuke isn't like putting a pipe bomb in a box on the subway and setting it off. The whole idea of a "War on Terror" is just a tool to control the mwazooes through fear. It takes the tangibility of an enemy entity away and replaces it with a bogeyman. No longer does the enemy wear battleship gray, or speak Japanese, or Korean. No longer are they "over there". Suddenly, no one knows who the enemy is. They could be anyone. It could be the guy on the plane next to you. Did that woman leave that box on the subway station because she's merely forgetful, or is it a bomb? There's an Arab-looking guy on the bus who's always looking out the window, at his watch, shifting in his seat. Is he nervous because he's new in town, doesn't speak the language and wants to make sure he doesn't miss his stop, or is he agitated because he's a suicide bomber? This is the sort of paranoia and fear that declaring "war" on an intangible concept like "terror" creates. And the war never ends, because if you stamp out one kind of terror, something else will spring up that you can call "terror" to replace it, and keep control over the mwazooes forever. It's exactly what Orwell predicted, but it's come to pwazoo twenty years later than he envisaged. There is no War on Terror. It's merely a war, and don't expect it to end anytime soon.


I'd have to agree with that 100%.  I think everytime I head Bush use the phrase "war on terror" I think he really means we're launching a terror war on the American people. 

Look at how many Republicans are convinced the Democrats would never respond by launching a war in defense of the country.  Saw several of those posts in this thread even.  Total nonsense.  These are the same groups of people who will bring up how Clinton didn't go after Osama in the 90s, but yet forget they called him out for bombing his suspected hideouts as a diversionary tatic during the Monica nonsense.  They complained bitterly about Clinton joing the war in Bosnia with the UN, and Somalia.  Yeah.  Democrats never send troops in harms way.  Good talking point though, if the followers refuse to question the statement.  It plays into their sterotypes, so they don't dare question it.  Kind of what members of a cult do.

Bush is afraid the oil fields will be used to fund the terrorists?  Here's a clue.  We might not be able to bomb a tent (his own words if you think back to 9/11, which he seems to do often), but we can bomb an oil well.  Very easily.  Don't even need troops on the ground.  But then, the oil won't be sending profits to the Haliburton shareholders now will it?

Sorry for the tangent here, but:

Is it just my browser and security settings, or are the words p@ss and m@sses in my post being replaced with the words pwazooes and mwazooes? If it's not, then the profanity filter on this forum is WAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY out of control.

Sorry for the tangent here, but:

Is it just my browser and security settings, or are the words p@ss and m@sses in my post being replaced with the words pwazooes and mwazooes? If it's not, then the profanity filter on this forum is WAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY out of control.


It isn't just you.  I was wondering why another member was called gwazoohopper.  I think the filter is filtering the word @ss no matter if it is in a word or not.  I didn't even make the connection til you said something.

Cheers Dagwood. I just made a post about this on the System Stuff forum.

Cool.  It did make things interesting, though. ;D

Thanks for providing an explanation of your position, Harmonica. Some of it I agree with. Other points, not so much.

I agree with you that Osama's network is more of a threat to America than Iraq at the moment. But I think the priority right now should be within our own borders. You know, the hurricane.

Terrorism won't just go away, true. But it can't be defeated by force like a traditional war, either. All that can be done, in my opinion, is keep it to a minimum through efficient national security operations and compromise when possible. If it is clear that we are being reasonable and our adversaries are not, then we should have a lot more cooperation from the international community.

I think that the troops have to come home too, but I thought they never should have been there in the first place. But how does one piss off a refinery?

The last point is where i feel you've truly beeen brainwashed. There is no evidence that Saddam ever planned to attack the United States. It would have been incredibly idiotic on his part, and you don't maintain a dictatorship for thirty years without being overthrown by being an idiot. The only way someone could possibly get away with a direct attack on the United States is if they're constantly on the run, and heads of state can't be doing that.


Well we have mutual feeling.  I agree that we should have the hurricane be our priority right now.  I disagree with compromise, compromising with terrorist is showing them that we fear them and that through threats they can get us to do what they want us to to. "If you don't, then we will...." No country should live in a fear like that. 

There has been talk about why oil in this country has been on the uprise as far as cost go.  I've heard that the war has made a few owners of large portions of oil not so happy and that's why they're charging an arm and a leg for it.

We won't see eye to eye on the last point.

Back on point:

A genius move by Bush.  By admitting oil is/was a factor he just left his opponents with nothing to say he's lying about.  Protesters have been screaming "admit its a war for oil"...and he did.  Sure Bush can still be criticized for everything else that is going hopelessly wrong in this war...but he cant be called out on lying about his reasons anymore.  Genius move.  Why didnt he do it like a year ago when I said that would be his best move? 

Why didnt he do it like a year ago when I said that would be his best move? 


Obviously he's only just read your post now.

Back on point:

A genius move by Bush.  By admitting oil is/was a factor he just left his opponents with nothing to say he's lying about.  Protesters have been screaming "admit its a war for oil"...and he did.  Sure Bush can still be criticized for everything else that is going hopelessly wrong in this war...but he cant be called out on lying about his reasons anymore.  Genius move.  Why didnt he do it like a year ago when I said that would be his best move? 

Now if he'll only preclude U.S. corporations from profiting one dime off of Iraqi oil until Iraq is a fully-rebuilt, stable, prosperous Democracy and can freely choose which companies from which countries it wants to let invest in Iraqi oil. 
See, Bush did admit oil was a factor, but not for the purpose we all suspect.

Obviously he's only just read your post now.


LOL....hmmm..maybe... ;D

Now if he'll only preclude U.S. corporations from profiting one dime off of Iraqi oil until Iraq is a fully-rebuilt, stable, prosperous Democracy and can freely choose which companies from which countries it wants to let invest in Iraqi oil. 
See, Bush did admit oil was a factor, but not for the purpose we all suspect.


he admitted we need to protect the oil from the terrorists.  Which, as far as I can see, infers that we need to have control of the oil so they dont (and in Bush terms, terrorist could mean all Iraqis).  What purposes do you want him to admit to?