What's new

Is the USA at war with pakistan?

je crois que les USA sont en guerre contre tous les pays musulman!
i think that USA is at war with all muslims country!

US is at war with itself.

These are the correct answers.. i would just like to change the word 'muslims' to humanity.
The biggest tool of this war is media... corruption and economic debts and trade restrictions.They own all of this..
 
Last edited:
Yeah but it's the US Government and Congress that matters and they'll just get whatever they want through Government of Pakistan they have no reason what so ever to invade Pakistan and to say that US right now has the capacity to invade Pakistan just for fun would be wrong statement.They are in no position to even attack Iran let alone attack Pakistan which is technically their ally and far more stronger then Iran.
 
Yeah but it's the US Government and Congress that matters and they'll just get whatever they want through Government of Pakistan
its a big mafia and do some research work and you will know the benificiary groups.

they have no reason what so ever to invade Pakistan and to say that US right now has the capacity to invade Pakistan just for fun would be wrong statement.
They don't need to invade Pakistan. There is a systematic approach to madness and war is usually listed as number 3 option...
1. send the economic hit man to corrupt the leadership or opposition / pressure groups.
2. if plan 1 fails than send the jackals... (could be anyone in covert or overt e.g. black water or TTP) remember attacks on Musharraf! those were jackals disguised as TTP.
3. if plan 1 & 2 both fails than is WAR e.g. Iraq! but before war there is also one more option to arm a border country and fuel mutual conflicts.

war is a bussiness and may have been intiated by american tax payers money but it is sustained by corporations and banks.

They are in no position to even attack Iran let alone attack Pakistan which is technically their ally and far more stronger then Iran.

Pakistan and Iran is already at war... already invaded ...Pakistan is not soverign state any more. remember Moeen Qureshi employee of IMF as an unelected PM of Pakistan! perhaps supporters of democracy were sleeping during that time! :lol:
 
Last edited:
lol, why do most threads revert to being an Indian conspiracy? And yes that's a rhetorical question. You have Indian conspiracies, U.S. conspiracies, Jewish conspiracies. Did I miss any? People who constantly cast blame onto others. usually do so becuase they have a victim mentality. they refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions. If you look hard enough at a situation you can usually find something to twist and warp to meet your own view point. But that doesn't make it the truth.


can i ask one thing why US attacked iraq second time, i mean till todate they were not able to find any weapons of mass destruction, arnt they?
 
can i ask one thing why US attacked iraq second time, i mean till todate they were not able to find any weapons of mass destruction, arnt they?
What is YOUR interpretation of 'weapons of mass destruction', aka the initials 'WMD'? Be careful, your interpretation may be different than the UN's.
 
US frustrated as Pakistan abandons military offensive in S Waziristan

LAHORE : Despite strenuous entreaties by top US officials, the government has abandoned plans to mount a military offensive against the group responsible for a two-year campaign of suicide bombings across the country, TIME magazine reported. Although the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has been in disarray since a missile strike from a CIA-operated drone killed the group’s former chief Baitullah Mehsud on August 5, the military has concluded that a ground attack on its strongholds in South Waziristan would be too difficult.

The military has choked off the main roads leading out of South Waziristan, and the country’s fighter jets have been pounding targets from the air (an operation Islamabad insists it will continue). But that falls short of the military campaign the US desires. Instead, the government is hoping to exploit divisions within the TTP to prize away some factions, while counting on the CIA’s drones to take out Baitullah’s successors. US counter-terrorism officials worry that a failure to capitalise on the post-Baitullah confusion within the TTP will allow its new leader, Hakeemullah Mehsud, to consolidate his position and reorganise the organisation.

Officials in Washington say special envoy Richard Holbrooke and NATO commander Gen Stanley McChrystal have both pressed Islamabad to strike while the iron is hot. But after initial promises to launch a ground offensive in South Waziristan, the government has backed off. A top general, Nadeem Ahmed, recently said preparation for such an operation could take up to two months. Now, there will be no ground assault at all, according to a senior politician known to have strong military ties; instead, the politician says the military will try and buy off some TTP factions through peace deals. This alarms US officials, who point out that Taliban leaders have previously used peace deals to expand their influence. “Such deals have been abject failures that, at the end of the day, have made the security situation in parts of Pakistan worse.

Why the Pakistani government keeps returning to this strategy is a mystery,” says a US counter-terrorism official. daily times monitor
 
Why the Pakistani government keeps returning to this strategy is a mystery,” says a US counter-terrorism official. daily times monitor

Ah, yes.
Yet another dime-a-dozen, Sunday morning talk show "terrorism expert". And a nameless one at that...

Dime-a-dozen "terrorism experts" should stick to what they do best. Babble on endlessly to try and excite their audience of bored, doritos-munching, basement-dwelling, video game nerdlingers.
 
The Atlantic Times :: Archive

The following article is from our August 2008 issue.

America at War with Itself The U.S. military deployment in Iraq is not preventing global terrorism – it is promoting it –

By Juergen Todenhoefer

George W. Bush has brought a lot of suffering to Iraq, writes Juergen Todenhoefer, a former CDU politician. His plea: stop the bombing, start negotiating.

In July, Germany’s Minister of Economics chimed in with the chorus of George W. Bush and other American officials, who had testified to “a significantly improved security situation” in Iraq. Clad in a steel helmet and bullet-proof vest, he made his pronouncement from the safety of Baghdad’s fortress-like Green Zone, parroting official Pentagon-speak.

I mailed the American statement to Zaid, a 22-year-old student whom I had met in Iraq last summer. In 2007, Zaid had joined the resistance in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province in western Iraq, because his two younger brothers, Haroun and Karim had been shot and killed, one after the other, by U.S. snipers as they walked in the streets. Since then, he has been fighting the occupiers with just as much determination as he battles the foreign al Qaeda terrorists that the U.S. invasion has lured into the country. He is amazed at the unrealistic Western reporting on Iraq. The reports that he sees on the Internet and on television mostly only show the country from the perspective of the “victors.”

During my visit to Iraq, I also noticed a great divide between fact and fiction as well, the external and internal viewpoints in the reports about a “liberated Iraq.” The U.S. Defense Department uses its information monopoly ruthlessly. Most of the time, journalists only get to see what the Pentagon wants to show them, and that is rarely the truth. Through a mutual Shiite friend, the young Sunni Zaid described to me how he sees the situation in Iraq this summer.

Heavy fighting continues in Anbar despite the cooperation – purchased with millions of dollars – of some Sunni tribes with the occupiers. In late June, hotspots were in Ramadi, Fallujah, Haditha, Rutbah and Heet. The number of U.S. bombing attacks, raids, and shootings in the province is 35 per week; the number of civilians killed weekly numbers 25. The Iraqi resistance conducts 20 to 30 military operations a week against American troops.

In Anbar, al Qaeda is now only a splinter group. The Iraqis have largely driven the foreign terrorists out of their former stronghold and from most of the other Iraqi provinces. But the Pentagon has no desire to give up another alleged reason for the war – “the fight against al Qaeda” – so it now refers to all publicized attacks by the Iraqi resistance on the U.S. military as al Qaeda attacks. The U.S. Defense Department also makes sure that the one-to-two daily al Qaeda attacks are covered as broadly as possible in the press, although they represent less than 1 percent of all the operations by insurgents and the military in Iraq.

Inflation and unemployment have risen to almost 50 percent in Anbar. The only new jobs at this point are with the military, the police and the U.S.-financed militias, who pay $500 a month – double of what a teacher earns. Some Iraqi men solve the social conflict that arises from this situation by working for the U.S.-financed security forces during the day and fighting for the Iraqi resistance at night.

The education system in Anbar is falling apart. Numerous schools in Ramadi have been destroyed, and not a single new one has been built. Despite compulsory school attendance, only half of the children still go to school. Students drop out of university due to lack of money and prospects and join the police.

The food supply continues to deteriorate in Anbar. Food rations are only distributed irregularly at this point. They are smaller and the quality is even worse than in the past. There is only electricity for two hours a day now; before the war it was 12 hours – despite sanctions at the time. The telephone system no longer functions, the garbage removal system has collapsed and clean drinking water is scarce.

Diarrhea-related diseases among children have reached dangerous proportions. The hospitals in Ramadi lack the most basic medical supplies and specialist doctors. Many doctors have fled or are dead. The infant mortality rate in Iraq is one of the highest in the world – in a country that could be among the richest because of its oil.

Zaid, who has lost almost everything he loved due to the American invasion, considers the positive statements by Western politicians on the situation in Iraq as a mockery of his country. One hundred to 120 Iraqi civilians still die every day in this senseless war that violates international law – half of them through American attacks.

At the same time, the worldwide terror threat is not decreasing but is instead growing every day. The Iraq war is not preventing global terrorism but instead promotes it. Ultimately the United States is waging war against itself in Iraq, and against the credibility of Western values.

America has to stop the bombing and start negotiating. The Cold War was not resolved through violence but through tough talking and fairness – by statesmen like Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev – in negotiations within the framework of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Founded in 1975, the OSCE could serve as a model for the resolution of the Middle East conflict and the problem of global terrorism. Even Henry Kissinger sees it that way.

The West has to treat the Muslim world just as generously and fairly as it treats Israel. Muslims are just as valuable as Jews and Christians. The West has to stop demonizing them and treating them like savages. Following the reconciliation of Christianity and Judaism, we now need to achieve reconciliation between the Western and the Muslim world. If we really want it, it is more than possible.

Whatever the future brings, Zaid will never get over the death of his brothers. Sometimes he sends them a text message on his ancient cell phone telling them what he is doing, just like he used to. But he will never get a response again. No one can ever redress the suffering that the American president has brought to the people of Iraq – the countless Zaids, their mothers and their fathers.

– Juergen Todenhoefer, a former Christian Democratic Union parliamentarian, is deputy CEO of Hubert Burda Media. He has written several books on Iraq and Afghanistan. This article was originally published in Süddeutsche Zeitung.
 
What is YOUR interpretation of 'weapons of mass destruction', aka the initials 'WMD'? Be careful, your interpretation may be different than the UN's.



we found just a few rounds of chemical weapons. However Saddam purposly made the worlds intelligence agencies think he had WMD. The U.S. was not the only country that thought he had them.

Saddam Hussein 'lied about WMDs to protect Iraq from Iran' - Telegraph


does it matter what is the UN definition of WMD, when they were not found in iraq.

the killing of innocent iraqi people just for a mere suspicion was wrong, dont you think? and when the UN inspectors were not able to find them before war. please check the following article, this will help you to understand my point of view.



Neglecting Intelligence, Ignoring Warnings
January 28, 2004

A chronology of how the Bush Administration repeatedly and deliberately refused to listen to intelligence agencies that said its case for war was weak

Updated January 29, 2004

Former weapons inspector David Kay now says Iraq probably did not have WMD before the war, a major blow to the Bush Administration which used the WMD argument as the rationale for war. Unfortunately, Kay and the Administration are now attempting to shift the blame for misleading America onto the intelligence community. But a review of the facts shows the intelligence community repeatedly warned the Bush Administration about the weakness of its case, but was circumvented, overruled, and ignored. The following is year-by-year timeline of those warnings.
In 2001 and before, intelligence agencies noted that Saddam Hussein was effectively contained after the Gulf War. In fact, former weapons inspector David Kay now admits that the previous policy of containment – including the 1998 bombing of Iraq – destroyed any remaining infrastructure of potential WMD programs.

OCTOBER 8, 1997 – IAEA SAYS IRAQ FREE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS: "As reported in detail in the progress report dated 8 October 1997��?and based on all credible information available to date, the IAEA's verification activities in Iraq, have resulted in the evolution of a technically coherent picture of Iraq's clandestine nuclear programme. These verification activities have revealed no indications that Iraq had achieved its programme objective of producing nuclear weapons or that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapon-usable nuclear material or had clandestinely acquired such material. Furthermore, there are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for t he production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance." [Source: IAEA Report, 10/8/98]

FEBRUARY 23 & 24, 2001 – COLIN POWELL SAYS IRAQ IS CONTAINED: "I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box." He added Saddam "is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors" and that "he threatens not the United States." [Source: State Department, 2/23/01 and 2/24/01]

SEPTEMBER 16, 2001 – CHENEY ACKNOWLEDGES IRAQ IS CONTAINED: Vice President Dick Cheney said that "Saddam Hussein is bottled up" – a confirmation of the intelligence he had received. [Source: Meet the Press, 9/16/2001]

SEPTEMBER 2001 – WHITE HOUSE CREATES OFFICE TO CIRCUMVENT INTEL AGENCIES: The Pentagon creates the Office of Special Plans "in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true-that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States��?The rising influence of the Office of Special Plans was accompanied by a decline in the influence of the c=I.A. and the D.I.A. bringing about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community." The office, hand-picked by the Administration, specifically "cherry-picked intelligence that supported its pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest" while officials deliberately "bypassed the government's customary procedures for vetting intelligence." [Sources: New Yorker, 5/12/03; Atlantic Monthly, 1/04; New Yorker, 10/20/03]
Throughout 2002, the CIA, DIA, Department of Energy and United Nations all warned the Bush Administration that its selective use of intelligence was painting a weak WMD case. Those warnings were repeatedly ignored.

JANUARY, 2002 – TENET DOES NOT MENTION IRAQ IN NUCLEAR THREAT REPORT: "In CIA Director George Tenet's January 2002 review of global weapons-technology proliferation, he did not even mention a nuclear threat from Iraq, though he did warn of one from North Korea." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03]

FEBRUARY 6, 2002 – CIA SAYS IRAQ HAS NOT PROVIDED WMD TO TERRORISTS: "The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several American intelligence officials." [Source: NY Times, 2/6/02]

APRIL 15, 2002 – WOLFOWITZ ANGERED AT CIA FOR NOT UNDERMINING U.N. REPORT: After receiving a CIA report that concluded that Hans Blix had conducted inspections of Iraq's declared nuclear power plants "fully within the parameters he could operate" when Blix was head of the international agency responsible for these inspections prior to the Gulf War, a report indicated that "Wolfowitz ‘hit the ceiling’ because the CIA failed to provide sufficient ammunition to undermine Blix and, by association, the new U.N. weapons inspection program." [Source: W. Post, 4/15/02]
SUMMER, 2002 – CIA WARNINGS TO WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED: "In the late summer of 2002, Sen. Graham had requested from Tenet an analysis of the Iraqi threat. According to knowledgeable sources, he received a 25-page classified response reflecting the balanced view that had prevailed earlier among the intelligence agencies--noting, for example, that evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or a link to Al Qaeda was inconclusive. Early that September, the committee also received the DIA's classified analysis, which reflected the same cautious assessments. But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration's claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03]

SEPTEMBER, 2002 – DIA TELLS WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS: "An unclassified excerpt of a 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency study on Iraq's chemical warfare program in which it stated that there is ‘no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has - or will - establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.’" The report also said, "A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) actions." [Source: Carnegie Endowment for Peace, 6/13/03; DIA report, 2002]

SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 – DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS: "Doubts about the quality of some of the evidence that the United States is using to make its case that Iraq is trying to build a nuclear bomb emerged Thursday. While National Security Adviser Condi Rice stated on 9/8 that imported aluminum tubes ‘are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs’ a growing number of experts say that the administration has not presented convincing evidence that the tubes were intended for use in uranium enrichment rather than for artillery rocket tubes or other uses. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said he found significant disagreement among scientists within the Department of Energy and other agencies about the certainty of the evidence." [Source: UPI, 9/20/02]

OCTOBER 2002 – CIA DIRECTLY WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa." [Source: Washington Post, 7/23/03]

OCTOBER 2002 — STATE DEPT. WARNS WHITE HOUSE ON NUKE CHARGES: The State Department’s Intelligence and Research Department dissented from the conclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD capabilities that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. "The activities we have detected do not ... add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons." INR accepted the judgment by Energy Department technical experts that aluminum tubes Iraq was seeking to acquire, which was the central basis for the conclusion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, were ill-suited to build centrifuges for enriching uranium. [Source, Declassified Iraq NIE released 7/2003]

OCTOBER 2002 – AIR FORCE WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The government organization most knowledgeable about the United States' UAV program -- the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center -- had sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's UAVs were being designed as attack weapons" – a WMD claim President Bush used in his October 7 speech on Iraqi WMD, just three days before the congressional vote authorizing the president to use force. [Source: Washington Post, 9/26/03]
Instead of listening to the repeated warnings from the intelligence community, intelligence officials say the White House instead pressured them to conform their reports to fit a pre-determined policy. Meanwhile, more evidence from international institutions poured in that the White House’s claims were not well-grounded.

LATE 2002-EARLY 2003 – CHENEY PRESSURES CIA TO CHANGE INTELLIGENCE: "Vice President Dick Cheney's repeated trips to CIA headquarters in the run-up to the war for unusual, face-to-face sessions with intelligence analysts poring over Iraqi data. The pressure on the intelligence community to document the administration's claims that the Iraqi regime had ties to al-Qaida and was pursuing a nuclear weapons capacity was ‘unremitting,’ said former CIA counterterrorism chief Vince Cannistraro, echoing several other intelligence veterans interviewed." Additionally, CIA officials "charged that the hard-liners in the Defense Department and vice president's office had 'pressured' agency analysts to paint a dire picture of Saddam's capabilities and intentions." [Sources: Dallas Morning News, 7/28/03; Newsweek, 7/28/03]

JANUARY, 2003 – STATE DEPT. INTEL BUREAU REITERATE WARNING TO POWELL: "The Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), the State Department's in-house analysis unit, and nuclear experts at the Department of Energy are understood to have explicitly warned Secretary of State Colin Powell during the preparation of his speech that the evidence was questionable. The Bureau reiterated to Mr. Powell during the preparation of his February speech that its analysts were not persuaded that the aluminum tubes the Administration was citing could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium." [Source: Financial Times, 7/30/03]

FEBRUARY 14, 2003 – UN WARNS WHITE HOUSE THAT NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND: "In their third progress report since U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed in November, inspectors told the council they had not found any weapons of mass destruction." Weapons inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council they had been unable to find any WMD in Iraq and that more time was needed for inspections. [Source: CNN, 2/14/03]

FEBRUARY 15, 2003 – IAEA WARNS WHITE HOUSE NO NUCLEAR EVIDENCE: The head of the IAEA told the U.N. in February that "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq." The IAEA examined "2,000 pages of documents seized Jan. 16 from an Iraqi scientist's home -- evidence, the Americans said, that the Iraqi regime was hiding government documents in private homes. The documents, including some marked classified, appear to be the scientist's personal files." However, "the documents, which contained information about the use of laser technology to enrich uranium, refer to activities and sites known to the IAEA and do not change the agency's conclusions about Iraq's laser enrichment program." [Source: Wash. Post, 2/15/03]

FEBURARY 24, 2003 – CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE ‘NO DIRECT EVIDENCE’ OF WMD: "A CIA report on proliferation released this week says the intelligence community has no ‘direct evidence’ that Iraq has succeeded in reconstituting its biological, chemical, nuclear or long-range missile programs in the two years since U.N. weapons inspectors left and U.S. planes bombed Iraqi facilities. ‘We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs,’ said the agency in its semi-annual report on proliferation activities." [NBC News, 2/24/03]

MARCH 7, 2003 – IAEA REITERATES TO WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES: IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said nuclear experts have found "no indication" that Iraq has tried to import high-strength aluminum tubes or specialized ring magnets for centrifuge enrichment of uranium. For months, American officials had "cited Iraq's importation of these tubes as evidence that Mr. Hussein's scientists have been seeking to develop a nuclear capability." ElBaradei also noted said "the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that documents which formed the basis for the [President Bush’s assertion] of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic." When questioned about this on Meet the Press, Vice President Dick Cheney simply said "Mr. ElBaradei is, frankly, wrong." [Source: NY Times, 3/7/03: Meet the Press, 3/16/03]

MAY 30, 2003 – INTEL PROFESSIONALS ADMIT THEY WERE PRESSURED: "A growing number of U.S. national security professionals are accusing the Bush administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the $30 billion intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq . A key target is a four-person Pentagon team that reviewed material gathered by other intelligence outfits for any missed bits that might have tied Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to banned weapons or terrorist groups. This team, self-mockingly called the Cabal, 'cherry-picked the intelligence stream' in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat, said Patrick Lang, a official at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). The DIA was "exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he said. Greg Thielmann, an intelligence official in the State Department, said it appeared to him that intelligence had been shaped 'from the top down.'" [Reuters, 5/30/03 ]

JUNE 6, 2003 – INTELLIGENCE HISTORIAN SAYS INTEL WAS HYPED: "The CIA bowed to Bush administration pressure to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs ahead of the U.S.-led war in Iraq , a leading national security historian concluded in a detailed study of the spy agency's public pronouncements." [Reuters, 6/6/03]

© Center for American Progress
 
CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK, RAND CORP. SAYS BUSH's "WAR ON TERROR" DOOMED TO FAILURE


Gary Ater August 08, 2008



Early this week, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) gave us even more proof of the lie that Iraq's oil revenues would pay for Iraq's infrastructure re-construction. The GAO's latest report informed us that Iraq will have a $79 Billion dollar budget surplus by year's end. They also informed us that Iraq has spent less than $4 Billion of their surplus on the country's reconstruction efforts.

On the other hand, the US taxpayers have already spent $23 Billion (to date) on the rebuilding of Iraq. (The Iraqi surplus revenue is currently sitting in international banks earning interest.) And Bush, Cheney and now McCain, want the US to stay in Iraq without a projected time for withdrawing. Even the Iraqi leadership has stated that announcing a "time-line" for withdrawal would be a good incentive for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi citizens.

Now, four days after the GAO report, the RAND CORPORATION, a conservative nonprofit Washington "think-tank" research organization, has released a comprehensive study that says that the "so called War on Terrorism is fundamentally flawed and doomed to failure."

This was not a study that was just thrown together in a few months. RAND has one of the most extensive databases in the world on terrorist activity. Their database, maintained by RAND and the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, has followed 648 terrorist groups in operation since 1968.

According to the study; "43% of all terrorist groups that no longer exist, were ended as the result of political processes, NOT due to military action, war or violence of any sort".

RAND's report went on to to state that, "The US will continue to fail as long as US leaders fail to understand how terrorist groups can end". The study's lead author, Mr Seth Jones, put it this way: "In most cases, military force isn't the best instrument. I would go further in every instance. FBI stats will support that the US use of the military has simply made terrorism worse, primarily because it plays into the terrorist's hands." Seth went on to say; "The United States cannot conduct an effective long-term counter terrorism campaign against al Qaeda or other terrorist groups without understanding how a terrorist groups can finally cease their activities." Seth Jones is currently a Senior Political Scientist at RAND

Among the other findings, the study notes:

>>> Religious terrorist groups take longer to eliminate than other groups. Since 1968, approximately 62% of all terrorist groups have ended, while only 32% of religious terrorist groups have done so.

>>> No religious terrorist group has achieved victory since 1968.

>>> Size is an important predictor of a groups' fate. Large groups of more than 10,000 members have been victorious more than 25 percent of the time, while victory is rare when groups are smaller than 1,000 members.

>>> There is no statistical correlation between the duration of a terrorist group and ideological motivation, economic conditions, regime type or the breadth of terrorist goals.

>>> Terrorist groups that become involved in an insurgency do not end easily. Nearly 50% of the time they end with a negotiated settlement with the government, 25% of the time they achieved victory and only 19% of the time, have military groups defeated them.

>>> Terrorist groups from upper-income countries are much more likely to be left-wing or nationalistic, and much less likely to be motivated by religion.

The RAND study says that the US should "rethink" the so-called "War on Terrorism" and they also noted that the war and occupation have totally failed to meet President Bush's stated objectives for the invasion. The report concludes that, "It was in fact, the wrong approach to begin with".

RAND stopped just short of saying that the war on terror was just a cover for Bush's assumption of dictatorial powers as president, which he did accomplish with the passing of the Patriot Act and his many, now infamous "signing statements". The study also suggest a fundamental, total rethinking of the "post-9/11, US counter-terrorism strategy".

Since 1968, the evidence has concluded that most terrorist groups ended their efforts because they joined the political process, or the local police and intelligence agencies were able to arrest or to kill the key group leaders. None of the conflicts ended due to any military pressure.

History has shown that having a so-called "War" on terror has never succeeded. In fact, calling it a "War", especially a conflict that involves any religion, is a way of "legitimizing" the terrorist goals as stated by the religious jihadists. The Washington public policy institute known as, The Brookings Institute, has also published studies showing that when President Ronald Reagan waged his great "War on Terror", the terrorist attacks on US interests tripled, as compared to the terrorists activity under President Clinton.

RAND concluded that the most effective strategies have been when the so-called "Wars" were instead called "criminal actions by criminals" and the efforts to stop them were made by law enforcement and intelligence organizations. In other words, treat the activity for what it actually is, "terrorist criminals performing criminal acts against innocent civilians". RAND's study also stated that the US should totally abandon the use of the phrase "War on Terror".

However, if this change in terminology should ever happen, John McCain would be totally without a campaign slogan.





http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/70906
 
does it matter what is the UN definition of WMD, when they were not found in iraq.

the killing of innocent iraqi people just for a mere suspicion was wrong, dont you think? and when the UN inspectors were not able to find them before war. please check the following article, this will help you to understand my point of view.
Of course it does. And YOUR interpretation of 'WMD' also matter since there could be a conflict between yours and the UN's. You probably do not know but all three UN inspection teams were NEVER led by an American. There were two Swedes and one Australian. Their selections were not accidental but deliberate in order to prevent even appearances of American dominance of the teams. If there were any severe disagreements between our interpretations of 'WMD' and the UN's, all three men would have spoken up by now. Instead, all three men wrote books detailing their experiences in Iraq, how dangerous Saddam Hussein was, and how it was crucial that Iraq be disarmed of even the means to produce nuclear weapons. Your article is just another example of those who would pick and chose quotes from various sources to fit their criticisms of US. That is intellectually dishonest. Why have they not quote from Saddam Hussein's chief nuclear scientist...

Amazon.com: The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind (9780471679653): Mahdi Obeidi, Kurt Pitzer: Books

Obeidi led Iraq to achieve the very technically difficult centrifuge enrichment method. He declared his support for the military removal of Sodamn Insane.
 
Of course it does. And YOUR interpretation of 'WMD' also matter since there could be a conflict between yours and the UN's. You probably do not know but all three UN inspection teams were NEVER led by an American. There were two Swedes and one Australian. Their selections were not accidental but deliberate in order to prevent even appearances of American dominance of the teams. If there were any severe disagreements between our interpretations of 'WMD' and the UN's, all three men would have spoken up by now. Instead, all three men wrote books detailing their experiences in Iraq, how dangerous Saddam Hussein was, and how it was crucial that Iraq be disarmed of even the means to produce nuclear weapons. Your article is just another example of those who would pick and chose quotes from various sources to fit their criticisms of US. That is intellectually dishonest. Why have they not quote from Saddam Hussein's chief nuclear scientist...


my dear sir, my point still remain valid. killing millions of inocent iraqi people on the basis of mere suspicion or rumors is not justifiable. moreover, after the invasion there were no proofs of WMD s presence in iraq.

by the way the article that i posted earlier was from © Center for American Progress. if you try to go to the links given at the end of each date and event you will be able to find many refernces quoted from US newspapers and US news agencies. here is something about the center of american progress:

About the Center for American Progress

Who we are


The Center for American Progress is a think tank dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through ideas and action. We combine bold policy ideas with a modern communications platform to help shape the national debate, expose the hollowness of conservative governing philosophy, and challenge the media to cover the issues that truly matter.
Our work builds upon progressive ideals put forth by such leaders as Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, and Martin Luther King. We draw from the great social movements of the 20th century—from labor rights and worker safety, to civil rights and women's suffrage. We translate those values into new ideas and action firmly rooted in the economic and political realities of the 21st century.
Founded in 2003, CAP is headed by John D. Podesta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton and professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. CAP is designed to provide long-term leadership and support to the progressive movement. Our ability to develop thoughtful policy proposals and engage in the war of ideas with conservatives is unique and effective.


now something about the Pedosta

John Podesta

President and Chief Executive Officer


John Podesta is the President and CEO of the Center for American Progress. Under his leadership, the Center has become a notable leader in the development of and advocacy for progressive policy.

Prior to founding the Center in 2003, Podesta served as White House Chief of Staff to President William J. Clinton. He served in the president's cabinet and as a principal on the National Security Council. While in the White House, he also served as both an assistant to the president and deputy chief of staff, as well as staff secretary and a senior policy advisor on government information, privacy, telecommunications security, and regulatory policy.

Most recently, Podesta served as co-chair of President Obama’s transition, where he coordinated the priorities of the incoming administration’s agenda, oversaw the development of its policies, and spearheaded its appointments of major cabinet secretaries and political appointees.
Additionally, Podesta has held numerous positions on Capitol Hill, including counselor to Democratic Leader Senator Thomas A. Daschle (1995-1996); chief counsel for the Senate Agriculture Committee (1987-1988); and chief minority counsel for the Senate Judiciary Subcommittees on Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks; Security and Terrorism; and Regulatory Reform (1981-1987).

A Chicago native, Podesta is a graduate of Knox College and the Georgetown University Law Center, where he is currently a visiting professor of law. He also authored The Power of Progress: How America’s Progressives Can (Once Again) Save Our Economy, Our Climate and Our Country.


i hope this information about the site from which i posted the article and its CEO (former chief of staff of bill clinton) will satisfy your question regarding my dishonest intellectuality to quote anything against US just to say US is bad.

i am sorry sir, but i think i was just sharing my opinion and trying to answer your questions but i never tried any personal remarks about you or question your compabilities/competency and i will like you to be a gentleman and do the same as well, please.:cheers:

regards

sincerely
 
I thought this was about Pakistan. How did it get on to Iraq?
 
I thought this was about Pakistan. How did it get on to Iraq?

it started as US at war with pakistan and i gave my idea about the topic and one member argued since he has a different opinion and i replied to his questions and we went off the topic. i appologise.

okay back on the topic:

my opinion is US is here to stay in afghanistan to keep an eye on china and pakistan and iran. they have india as an ally to counter pakistan and they have japan and south korea on the other side of china to keep them busy. right now, they are facing some tough times and we are not at war with US but both US and Pakistan are making their moves.

there is an interesting thread started by fundamentalist and he posted an article which is an interesting read. i think it is better to merge both the threads together. the thread is in geo political arena and name of the thread is "WOT-a war on pakistan?"

regards

sincerely
 
Back
Top Bottom