Stupid arguments

Rob The Good wrote: Che Guevara was a murderer. That's the end of that!

so was george washington, and a lot of other heroes for that matter.

Terrorism is a ridiculous argument for war. You can not defeat terrorism by waging war on populatuions of people who are nothing to do with it. That action promotes terror and expands the problem. You would only, therefore, seek to wage a 'war on terror' if the expansion - or the percieved expansion - of the problem, was to your benefit somehow.

IMO..

Good post James.

Warfare has changed. There has always been propoganda, and 'the official line' on all sides in any conflict, but the global conflict at play around us now is like no other.

If we look at Iraq in isolation of the 'war on terror' there are anomilies. At the beginning of the Iraq war, US marines were questioned about what made them proud to be going to Iraq to fight. Many cited 9/11 as the justification for the war, and the need for regime change. In reality, and as even the 9/11 commission concluded there was no Iraqi complicity in the attacks. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were sworn ideological enemies at that point. The 9/11 hi-jackers themeslves ironically came from Saudi Arabia, a supposed economic ally of the US. The US was not likely to wage war on Saudi, but needed an excuse to overthrow the regime in Iraq, which had been on the cards since Bush snr left office. The Bush administration played on the Islamaphobia that was sweeping the Western world, knowing that many of its own citizens were not going to distinguish between one load of Arabs and another. The timing was perfect. In fact it could not have been more perfect if everything from 9/11 onward had been orchestrated and conducted with precision from within.

Since 9/11, Madrid, Bali, and the war in Iraq/Afghanistan the world has changed, and not many people seem to realise the extent of that change IMO, or more importantly, the true nature of that change. We are led to believe that we are great danger, when infact the opposite is true IMO. The danger comes not from terrorism, but environmental disaster; depletion of our natural resources and the resutling 'scuffle' that will ensue between the US, Europe, Russia and China to pin down their share of those resources. Washington has been warned by the scientific community that they are fighting the wrong war. They should be pursuing, in earnest, investment and research into alternative sources of energy. The EU, Russia and China should also be key collaborators and players in this. Instead our leaders scare us with stories of angry Muslims blowing up our cities with nukes acquired from the former Soviet Union.

However, despite George W Bushs apparent lack of intelligence, Washington will be steps ahead of the scientific community and the rest of us. They know the score, and their actions at present are a stepping stone to securing the resources of the ME by establishing, country by country a network of pro US governments throughout the Arab world.

Warfare, in our times is, more than ever a game of perceptions, illusions and sliding panels. Our leaders are actors, spinning and decieving their way to hollow victories. The electorate becomes ever more complacent and apathetic. For our leaders and those that pull their strings, political conditions have never been better.

tuxon wrote: The most stupid argument to begin a war, would be to bring peace

Unfortunately George W. Bush believes in "Si vis pacem, para bellum".