Is the War on Terror a Hoax?

[Bullet1987]

It's hard not to turn on the TV now and not hear the words War on Terror repeated ad nauseum. I lot of people have criticized the term itself, and some of our allies have even dropped usage of the term altogether. With the growing anticipation of some to attack Iran, and seeing our absolute failure in Iraq...what purpose does the term "War on Terror" have anymore? And will it die out after the Bush Administration? It started with the Reagan administration who started the failure that is the "War on Drugs." Maybe it's something about Conservatives and pushing for wars on things that's the problem.

[boobooday]

1. It was always a meaningless term

War on Terror? It sounds like Bush should have been targeting Stephen King and Freddy Krueger.

If they are going to have a war on emotions, they should call it what it is: A war FOR terror, and AGAINST understanding.

[Catshrink]

2. It's an excuse

for the neocons and their corporate masters to take over the mideast oilfields for their own profit. The prime evidence for this is "hidden" in plain sight: that fat bastard in the OVP.

[CJCRANE]

3. It's a smokescreen.

The "War on Terror" is simply a vague term used to cover up the fact that Bushco allowed America to be attacked by one group of terrorists and blamed it on another country that had nothing to do with it.

on edit: changed subject line.

[Old and In the Way]

4. It's a War on Democracy.

The Bush-Cheney WOT is a contrived plan to enhance their political and economic power while limiting our civil rights here in the USA. It's a twofer.

[BayCityProgressive]

6. it is a new guise

for imperialism, sabotage, and colonialism. That is all.

[Benhurst]

5. Of course. You can't wage war against a strategy. The United States, itself,

has long used terror as a tactic. The "War on Terror" is bullshit to keep the dummies in line and the money flowing into the pockets of the Bush Crime Family.

[ixion]

7. it's a hoax by defintion: you cannot declare 'war' on an abstraction

like 'terror' or 'drugs'.

So, yes indeed, it is a hoax, IMO.

[IndianaGreen]

8. The GWOT serves the same purpose as the burning of the Reichstag in 1933

It provided an opportunity for the totalitarian among us to sweep away the Constitutional restraints on the Executive, and infringe our civil liberties, all in the name of making us more secure.

GWOT is a pretext for global domination. It would have worked, had it not been for the people of Iraq refusing to welcome our troops with singing and dancing in the streets.

[tularetom]

9. Ya think?

It's another example of the corporatist government setting up a straw man to keep the yokels scared shitless while they take our money and give it to their big bidness buddies. It worked so well for the war on drugs didn't it? Now that there are no more drugs we can all agree on that, can't we? It's the same fucking bullshit and it will continue until politicians remember who they are supposed to be working for, not who is greasing their palms and they won't remember that unless we keep reminding them of it.

[PLF]

10. kinda like "spreading democracy" while supporting death squads

All the things you have ever been raised to believe about how our govt. operates is a lie.

[GreenArrow]

11. yes. And here's another question

how many of the nominal Democratic candidates support it? Which of them is willing to call bullshit on it?

[Bullet1987]

12. Well,

I've heard pretty much everybody use the term (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, etc).

[teryang]

13. Because it is a fraud...

It is especially disturbing to hear democratic leaders using the slogan and accepting all it entails.

You've got more chances of being hit by lightning multiple times than ever being threatened by a terrorist. This was stated by an author who wrote a book recently on just how rare terrorism really was.

[MGD]

23. Your chances of being killed in a hurricane are pretty slim too statistically speaking

However, do you doubt that a hurricane can have a devestating effect on a country beyond the relative handful of people killed? I wasn't killed on 9-11 nor was anybody that I know; however, I knew a lot of people who were devestated by the economic fallout of that day. Imagine if it had been a WMD of some sort. We might very well never recover from such a thing.

[Solon]

24. Problem is that you pose a hypothetical that just happens to be damned near impossible...

Comparing 9/11 to, let's say, Katrina, and there is no real comparison. 9/11 was terrible enough, but the effect was limited, directly, to areas of New York, the death toll was high due to the concentration of people within the area of effect, and proximity to Wall Street ensured economic disruption in the nation.

However, even all that can't really compare to Katrina, hundreds of thousands of people displaced, the death toll isn't as high, however, the area of effect, the coastal areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, was huge, and the economic impact was devastating. Also, just a note, depending on where you live, you are MUCH more likely to either die or be directly affected by a hurricane than any terrorist strike, even in New York.

The problem is this, you assume that terrorists may be able to use a WMD to great effect. I strongly doubt that, each of the most popular WMDs have problems that limit their effectiveness outside of a battlefield, or concentrated fire or exposure. The easiest and most devastating are chemical weapons, however, these require labs, research, and a suitable medium in which to transmit the chemical weapon. They are also reliant on wind, and most are ineffective outside of confined areas, like subways. Look up the subway attacks in Japan as an example of that.

Biological weapons also pose many of the same problems, in addition to containment. Even the most virulent strains of most diseases that are "weaponized" are treatable, and those that are developed are developed by governments, and can be traced back to its source easily enough, using gene sequencing.

Onto nuclear material and things get REALLY complicated, first off, there is no such thing as a "suitcase nuke", actually, it CAN fit in a suitcase, but one that weighs several hundred pounds, and you MIGHT be able to fit it in the trunk of a large car. However, delivering the weapon to an area you want would be difficult, and almost impossible to do with PROPER precautions taken to detect nuclear material. A Geiger counter, that you can buy off the Internet for about 100 bucks, is sufficient enough to detect these weapons.

The thing about nuclear material, especially weapons grade nuclear material, is that its tightly controlled, and is also traceable back to its enrichment plant through isotope tracking. If such a device could be detonated anywhere where people will get killed, the plant where it came from would be tracked, and if traced to a hostile nation, let's just say they won't exist anymore. No nation on the planet would allow its nuclear arms to actually be used in this manner, for the "blowback" wouldn't be survivable.

Now, "dirty bomb" scenarios are much more likely, of any nuclear scenario, however, the effectiveness of the device wouldn't be nearly as large as advertised on television. A worst case scenario, let's say a truck bomb the size McVeigh used in OKC, but with several pounds of let's say U-238 in it, wouldn't dramatically increase the death toll. Most people who will die in the attack would have died in the conventional explosive blast. For most other people in the city, they would probably be given a radiation tablet, as a precaution, and those closest to the blast would be advised by a doctor that their chances of developing cancer increased 10% or so.

Now, for the blast area itself, nuclear cleanup would have to take place, similar to many toxic waste dumps and industrial accidents that occur damned near weekly in this country as is. Around the immediate are of the blast, they would try to clean up the U-238 as best as possible, the danger wouldn't be immediate unless it completely vaporized, but even then, it would begin to settle pretty quickly. The danger is in PROLONGED exposure, the area would be cleaned up, some measurements taken, THEN they would rebuild anything that was destroyed.

This isn't to say any of these wouldn't be potent PSYCHOLOGICAL weapons, people have a tendency to panic, especially when the actual danger is overblown by either the media or government. That's part of the problem, FEAR, fear is a great survival technique, all part of the "fight or flight" mode we all have built within us, on an instinctual level. However, the danger comes in abusing this very instinct to your advantage, I'm reminded of a few gas station owners in my area that, on the day of the 9/11 attack, increased prices of gasoline to upwards of 10 to 20 dollars a gallon, capitalizing on people's fear and panic. Thankfully, a few days after that, they were arrested for that little stunt.

The point being that we must put all threats to our lives in perspective, just because, tomorrow, you may be struck dead by a lightening bolt, doesn't mean you shouldn't go outside today and enjoy the fresh air. Instead, you take necessary and common sense precautions to reduce the risk of lightening striking you today. Don't go golfing when a storm is raging, don't hang out under trees, stick lightening rods on roofs of buildings, etc. You do not blow the threat all out of proportion and only go outside wearing a rubber suit from head to toe.

The War on Terror is much the same way, first, we must realize that declaring a war on a tactic of asymmetrical warfare is doomed to failure. You cannot declare war on a tactic of an enemy, what's next, a war on "freedom fighters"?

What we need is a comprehensive and common sense approach to meeting this threat, you cannot bomb terrorism, however, you can reduce the EFFECTIVENESS of terroristic threats. First thing I can think of is prevention, just like Lightening rods, which redirect energy from lightening bolts to the ground, and are therefore harmless. The same could be done with terrorism, its a tactic that is used by the desperate, and those that persieve themselves as powerless, simply enough, remove the desperation and powerlessness, and you remove most of the motivation of terrorists. A way to do this is to encourage DOMESTIC democratization in nations like Iran, and, in addition to this, STOP SUPPORTING DICTATORS AND BRUTAL MONARCHS. Some of the governments that may arise from this type of policy may not have our best economic interests at heart, but that is far better than them wanting to actively kill us using proxies.

This wouldn't eliminate all terrorism, there are always crazies out there, so we need to increase our intelligence, to intercept any communications. In addition to this, increase inspections of our ports and economic and shipping centers, to prevent dangerous materials from entering the country. I don't know how much we can increase our law enforcement in this country, however, we can do pretty much all that is needed without violating the Bill of Rights and other applicable laws.

This would eliminate most of the terroristic threat, and wouldn't involve us in any wars or invasions which seem to breed more terrorists than we could ever hope to destroy.

We need a comprehensive approach at this, similar to treating a disease, people turn to religion when in desperate straights, and they turn to violence when other methods of influence fail. We eliminate one, then the other, and the threat is, by and large, eliminated, outside of the occasional, McVeigh type of crazy.

[ProudDad]

26. What Solon said!

And very well, I might add.

[MGD]

31. Wipe the foam from your mouth there ProudDad.

[MGD]

30. I think you missed my point.

My point was that even though your chances of being killed by a terrorist may be slim from a purely mathematical perspective, that doesn't mean that you won't be affected by the fallout of an attack. look at the direct and indirect costs of 9-11. I have read that the direct monetary loss alone was $83 billion. Hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs, thousands of businesses failed, the instability ruined retirement accounts and led to a massive plummet on wall street. No, I wasn't killed but I was affected and so were plenty of other people. To put a finer point on it, just because you can statistically show that you are unlikely to die by terrorist, you can not claim that the "war on terror" is a hoax.

[ProudDad]

47. You can't tell me what I can "claim"

The so-called "War on Terror" (or bullshit war on a noun) is just that; bullshit.

It's a ploy by the pukes to scare you. It seems to have worked in your case...

Some people who are otherwise "powerless", when pushed to extremes, use "terror" as a tactic. The example of the Zionists in Israel during the British Mandate leaps to mind.

Some governments also use "terror" as a tactic or strategy; first Hitler bombing London then the Allies carpet bombing Japan and Germany -- terror tactics. The U.S. bombing Vietnam "back to the stone age"...

It would be as likely to rid the world of the tactic of "terror" as it would be to rid the world of people who "use drugs" ("War on Drugs" -- another Bullshit hoax).

But you continue to feed the beast with your fear if you wish. That's your right -- the right to be afraid for no rational reason...

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

64. A fantastic dismantling of the "must fear terrorists!" meme.

Considering the poster to whom you replied has repeatedly advocated a preventative nuking of Iran, I sincerely appreciate your successful effort to defuse his fearmongering.

Well-said!

[teryang]

37. Had 3 hurricanes in just one summer but no terrorists in a lifetime....

there are millions here in Florida who could say the same.

[Nimrod2005]

14. Yes........nt

[ShortnFiery]

15. Yeah, it is about as successful as The War on Poverty.

:thumbsdown:

You can't declare war on a tactic, morAns! :P

[rman]

39. Or the War on Drugs, for that matter

Plan Colombia - Cashing-In on the Drug War Failure
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8209584922518474909

[OHdem10]

16. Iraq has created so much ire

and created Terrorists---we now must take it seriously.

The attacks around Europe confirm this.

[Zhade]

65. Why are you pushing the rightwing lie that Iran = Al Qaeda?

The attacks in London and Spain were NOT tied to Iran by anyone aside from rightwingers.

Take that bullshit lie elsewhere, we're not stupid.

[Lone_Wolf]

17. You need a scary enemy in order to justify the Pentagon's bloated budget

Otherwise, people just might start demanding things like universal health care, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, better schools, etc with our tax dollars.

[Australian]

34. scary enemy in order to justify

Neo-colonial (note the word) corporations who support GW Bush also need an excuse to establish new governments in resource rich regions they hope to access; as well as keeping the media out of existing colonies the corporations have not yet depleted the resources of.

- who besides Bush would declare a civil war in Africa to be a genocide in order to conceal an actual genocide in the Pacific?

[Generic Brad]

18. Just where is the land of "Terror"?

Is it next to "Drugs", "Marriage", "Poverty" and "Christmas"? I can't seem to find any of them on the map.

[Imagevision]

19. Yes! Bush wants to control Iraq's flow of oil, & the insurgents know the consequences

if this is allowed to happen.

[LoZoccolo]

20. That's like asking if politics is a hoax.

There are real elements and fake elements, as well as effective strategies and ineffective ones.

[MGD]

21. No, it's very much for real; however, it has not been waged effectively.

America and America's allies have been attacked by various terrorist entities countless times in the past during six separate presidential elections including both Democrats and Republicans. The world trade center was bombed twice by radical Islamic terrorists during two different Presidential administrations. There is no hoax, there is no grand conspiracy, there is only incompetence of execution. It is fair to say that "terrorism" is a doctrine and not a country but it is disingenuous to assert that the war on terrorism is a hoax because of this. It is also fair to say that the "war on terrorism" as a concept has been used and abused by the administration for its own disingenuous purposes; however, that does not alter the reality that we are at war against a group of like minded people who do not question whether they are at war with us. It's also fair to say that our policies have, to a significant extent, contributed to the hostile nature of this complex relationship; however, one must ask oneself, when does a change in policy become appeasement and when does appeasement become retreat and where, when, and how does that retreat end?

[ProudDad]

27. appeasement!!!! Retreat????

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN??? In the context of the bullshit "war on a noun" they're meaningless terms...

Are you suggesting that it's appeasement if instead of outright theft of 25% of the worlds resources for 4% of the population we examine how we treat the rest of the world and alter our actions?

U.S. foreign policy should be thourougly examined and the U.S. should learn to HELP the rest of the world's population instead of rob them.

If that's "appeasement", I vote for appeasement. If that's retreat, I'm all for it!!!

"Appeasement" and retreat are a bullshit right-wing talking points. They're MEANINGLESS in this context...

[MGD]

29. That's what I said.

"appeasement!!!! Retreat????WHAT DOES THAT MEAN???"
It should be obvious. If not you should look the words up in an online dictionary.

"Are you suggesting that it's appeasement if instead of outright theft of 25% of the worlds resources for 4% of the population we examine how we treat the rest of the world and alter our actions?"
I wasn't aware that we were stealing anything. I know I'm paying for my gas every week and my heat and electricity every month. I'm pretty sure nobody is stealing anything. What's more, I'm sure I wasn't suggesting that.

"U.S. foreign policy should be thourougly examined and the U.S. should learn to HELP the rest of the world's population instead of rob them."
Again with the robbery accusations. We aren't robbing anybody of anything. We all spend our hard earned federal reserve notes on those resources. Furthermore, we do help plenty of people even though we are over 8 trillion dollars in debt. With that in mind, I think maybe we need to focus more on domestic policy than foreign policy.

"If that's "appeasement", I vote for appeasement. If that's retreat, I'm all for it!!!'
Of course you are. I would expect no less from a proud dad.

"Appeasement" and retreat are a bullshit right-wing talking points. They're MEANINGLESS in this context..."
I'm sure Neville Chamberlain and his followers said similar things in 1939.

[ProudDad]

46. Weasel all you want

Most here know that "appeasement" and "retreat" in this context are bullshit right-wing weasel words...

Thanks for the flame bait, MGD....:spank:

[MGD]

54. Actually,

most here ascribe to a cult like group think mentality which often conflicts with reality; for example, your position that 9-11 was caused by Bush. There is another mindset prevalent here which is more accurately described as pathological neagtivism. These people can't be happy about anything at any time. Even now that we control the House and the Senate, they still find an excuse to bitch, moan, complain, and be unhappy. Should we win the presidency, the Democratic president will not be Democrat enough for them and they will continue to come here to DU bitching and whining about how so and so is a such and such and how the DLC is this or that. They exist to agitate and they too are blind to reality.

back to your assertion that appeasement and retreat areright wing talking points.
It is the stated goal of the terrorists (assuming you can even accept that there are such things as terrorists)to push us out of the middle east and sever our support for Israel. Would you then say that leaving the middle east and severing our support for Israel is not surrender, appeasement, and retreat but rather a simple "change of U.S. policy"?

[ProudDad]

59. Ah, I see you got the memo

from your fellow fear mongers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3112248

[MGD]

62. And I see that you are unable to answer the question.

[Zhade]

67. You're equating a tiny handful of radical Islamists with the entirety of the Nazi state?

:rofl:

Your arguments are laughable!

Most conservatives' arguments are pretty ludicrous and misinformed. You should stop imitating them.

[Zhade]

66. Considering you advocate a preventative nuclear strike on Iran...

...despite their NOT having nuclear weapons at this time, I'm not surprised you posted this.

However, your very obvious fear may be a clue as to why you've fallen for the bullshit lies about the "threat' from Iran.

You shouldn't be so afraid. It can't be fun living like that!

[Vidar]

22. Yes, just as the war on drugs is.

[ProudDad]

25. The war on a noun is absolute bullshit!

Terror:

# S: (n) panic, terror, affright (an overwhelming feeling of fear and anxiety)
The bushies are spreading this around everytime they speak.

# S: (n) terror, scourge, threat (a person who inspires fear or dread) "he was the terror of the neighborhood"
bush, cheney, gonzales, rumsfeld, rice

# S: (n) terror, brat, little terror, holy terror (a very troublesome child)
DEFINITELY bush

# S: (n) terror (the use of extreme fear in order to coerce people (especially for political reasons)) "he used terror to make them confess"
They use 'terror' to steal our rights.

Total, complete, utter bullshit.

"Terrorism" is a tactic. It's a tactic the U.S. has used to its advantage throughout its history. From the Native tribes of the Northeast to the Cherokee in the South, from Havana to Manila, from Guatamala to Iran, from Mexico to Managua the U.S. has sown terror in order to steal the world's resources.

This group of American bullshit artists is just one of the worst of a bad lot.

[leftofthedial]

28. It's a meaningless marketing slogan

intended to provide legitimacy to the blatant criminal enterprise of the neocon repukes

[MGD]

32. is this a hoax:

or this:

or this:
http://www.terrorism-victims.org/terrorists/beirut-marine-barracks/us-embassy-beirut-bombing.
or this:

or this;

Or this:

etc, etc, etc.

[ProudDad]

48. Nope

The bushies did it.

At best, they allowed it to happen by ignoring all of the warnings in their mad dash to cut the taxes on the rich...


On Edit: Oh, I get it. From your profile:

Hobby: Stirring the pot.

Got us goin' didn't ya' :scared: :scared:

[MGD]

53. Was Bush President when the USS Cole was bombed or when the WTC was bombed the first time

or when the Khobar towers were bombed or when the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed or when the Marine Barracks and US embassy in Beirut were bombed or when Iranians kidnapped 66 Americans and held them hostage for 444 days? The answer is obviously no. George Bush was President only during the 9-11 attacks. The war on terror is not a hoax and it is not a Bush cabal conspiracy as evidenced by the fact that it has been ongoing since the Carter administration. The "Bushies" did not make anything happen.

[leftynyc]

60. I agree with you

Terrorism is very real and it's been happening for decades. I don't let my feelings for bush (who I think is an asshole) change that reality. That said, this administration has created more terrorists and enemies. They are totally inept and have proven that over and over again. I hope this country can survive this administation and come out the other end as something recognizable.

[Greyhound]

50. Not a hoax, a symptom.

At some point we have to realize that we can't just go around the world doing whatever we want to whomever we want without bearing the consequences of our actions.

Now the so-called WOT, that is a hoax, or more accurately, an excuse to get the sheep to surrender their individual sovereignty to the wolves that will "protect" them.

[Skittles]

33. just the name WAR ON TERROR is ludicrous

war IS terror

[Toots]

35. Just think without the "War on Terror" there would be no "Unitary Executive"

It takes one hell of an ego to want to become President of the USA and imagine how they all will drool over the prospect of becoming the "Unitary Executive" Long live the "War on Terror" By definbition it will last forever. There has always been terror and there will always be terror so the "War" is endless by definition...

[KansDem]

36. It replaced the "war on communism."

When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, there was no "boogieman" to scare Americans. No boogieman meant no rifling of the American treasury by the military/industrial complex. So, enter the "terrorists." Notice how the first WTC attacks took place just 4 years after the fall of The Wall? And notice how the two events took place during Bush Sr.'s administration? (Okay, okay, the WTC attack occurred during Clinton's watch, but planning took place during Bush Sr.'s regime. Besides, Clinton tracked down, tried, and convicted the culprits, something Bush Jr. hasn't even began to do with OBL some six years later).

So just change "communism" to "terrorism" and there you have it!

[Nutmegger]

38. You can't delcear war on a noun.

I believe Michael Moore said that once.

[EndElectoral]

40. Terrible name...the war should be against Al Queda...

[rman]

42. Which isn't really an organization

as such.

[TheWatcher]

41. Yes.

[rman]

43. Very much so

If you dig deep in (recent) history, you find false-flag terrorism of some kind (ranging from instigating to executing) all over the place. It seems to be the rule rather than the exception. See Northwoods, Gladio, Russia 1999 bombings (see docu "Disbelief").

[TheWatcher]

52. Also See Gulf Of Tonkin

[Roy Eidelson]

44. "Trapped In the War on Terror"

For a insightful, in-depth analysis of this issue, I recommend the recent book "Trapped in the War on Terror" by Professor Ian Lustick of the University of Pennsylvania. The following from the book's website offers an excellent summary of the argument Lustick makes:

"The first principle of terrorism is to understand that the weak win by exploiting the strength of the powerful. When 9/11 terrorists with box cutters hijacked American airliners, they transformed America's preeminent transportation system into a devastating weapon of attack. They also set a trap with the promise of revenge and security as the bait. The hijackers' biggest victory was to goad our government into taking the bait by unleashing the War on Terror. The worry, witch-hunt, and waste that have ensued are, according to Ian S. Lustick, destroying American confidence, undermining our economy, warping our political life, and isolating us from our international allies.

The media have given constant attention to possible terrorist-initiated catastrophes and to the failures and weaknesses of the government's response. Trapped in the War on Terror, however, questions the very rationale for the War on Terror. By analyzing the virtual absence of evidence of a terrorist threat inside the United States along with the motives and strategic purposes of al-Qaeda, Lustick shows how disconnected the War on Terror is from the real but remote threat terrorism poses. He explains how the generalized War on Terror began as part of the justification for invading Iraq, but then took on a life of its own. A whirlwind of fear, failure, and recrimination, this "war" drags every interest group and politician, he argues, into selfish competition for its spoils.

Facing the threat of nuclear incineration during the Cold War, America overcame panic about nonexistent communist sleeper cells poised to destroy the country, a panic fueled by the destructive hysteria of McCarthyism. Through careful analysis of the Soviet threat, the nation managed to sustain a productive national life and achieve victory, despite the terrifying daily possibility of catastrophe. This book is inspired by that success. It points the way forward, not toward victory in the War on Terror but to victory over it. The first and most difficult step toward that victory is to know the enemy. In large measure, as Trapped in the War on Terror shows, that means understanding how al-Qaeda is making us our own worst enemy."

[ProudDad]

49. You've got it

Osama bin Laden won!

bush won (just not the elections)!

We lost and continue to lose...

[LibertyorDeath]

45. Terror is a tactic

A tactic that any person or group can adopt

The neocons seem to be doing well with it.....

The communists are gone as an enemy the Pentagon is sucking up over a half Trillion $ a year
the War machine needed a Bogey man to justify all the expense
The new Bogey man is a tactic "Terror"

[HughBeaumont]

51. Did the "waronterr" even START?

We attacked two countries that had nothing to do with 9/11. Al Qaeda hasn't been vanquished. Osama Bin Laden hasn't been cared about in 4 years.

I wish our newly elected congress would start a REAL "war on terror" . . . by impeaching both of the PNAC bloodthirsters and getting this country right again!

[CRH]

56. The war on terror replaced the cold war ...

as the fear generating excuse for aggressive militarist colonialism.

[Bushwick Bill]

57. Think of it as an Energy War.

This article connects all of the dots.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020707P.shtml

Here is some more.

The "War on Terror" is a sequential war to control the remaining oil supplies as we reach Peak Oil.
http://www.oilempire.us/worldwar4.html

The leverage that petroleum gives over the rest of the over-developed world, as well as nuclear Russia and industrializing China is absolutely and inescapably logical from a strictly mechanistic, military point of view. This is the reason that Southwest Asia is now the epicenter of world crisis.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/120604_material_accumulation.shtml

[Doondoo]

61. it's not a hoax. shrub's just not fighting it.

[Alcibiades]

63. It depends on what you mean by war

If you mean "a military conflict both sides intend to win," then no, the War on Terror is a--well, not a hoax, but a fraud. I've become convinced that Bush has no intention of winning the so-called war on terror, and that the whole point is never ending war. No other hypothesis explains his actions, not even the incompetence hypothesis, one I also entertained for a while. How else can you explain the decision to outsource the job at Tora Bora to warlords, just at the moment we almost had Bin Laden? How else to explain the choice to move into Iraq at that same moment? How else to explain the continuation of the Taliban, our refusal to go into the areas in Pakistan where they are hiding (as if international borders were suddenly significant, as if the Bush administration suddenly respected international law!)? How else to explain the decision to disband the Iraqi Army, the one thing everyone agreed would be most destructive to the public order in Iraq? How else to explain the choice of the administration not to rescind this order once Bremer "made" it (unless he was acting on their instructions all along)? How else to explain the choice to go into Iraq with too few troops? To allow looting? Etc., etc., etc.

Incompetence simply does not cover it. Even a monkey will make the right choice when acting randomly--the consistency with which this administration has done the wrong things (i.e., things not conducive to actually winning), means that they must know what the right things are. I now am of the belief that Cheney, Rove and the neocons think that, so long as the Americans see the Republicans as the martial party and the Democrats as the weak pacifist party, they can obtain a permanent electoral lock by engaging us in a permanent war. In other words, the real objective is a domestic and political. The fact that they and their friends in the oil and military businesses can make a killing is also a bonus to them.

The beauty of this plot is that no one would ever believe it. To the Republican base, what Cheney and co. are actually doing is unthinkable. Yet I firmly believe that permanent war is the real goal.

[Disturbed]

68. PNAC is key.

It is all spelled out there.

[DisgustedTX]

69. Much like the War on Drugs, War on Everything, Rove's indictment

Yes.