Rebranded: "War On Terror" Now "The Long War"

And we're sending Canadian troops into Afghanistan ... with no
military objective ... and no exit strategy.

Does anyone know the Harper government's policy on this?

Will the former arms lobbyist, now Minister of National Defense,
want to rebrand "The Long War" as "The Crusades"?

Afghanistan is actually one of the wars I support. As far as no military objective or exit strategy, you're dead wrong. It looks like they have a very good strategy, and they have made real gains.<br />
<br />
Here is a government web site that proves you dead wrong.<br />
<a href="http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/IPS-in-action-en.asp">http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/IPS-in-action-en.asp</a><br />
<br />
I urge you to explore the whole site. It's obvious people far smarter than you or I have planned this all the way to the end.

Well there is no doubt that the plans have been in the works for a long time... since well before the invasion of Afghanistan... and smart has nothing to do with it. In the early 1990s Unocal, in a joint venture with Saudi companies and other U.S. oil firms, developed a major plan for an oil pipeline running from the vast oil and gas reserves of Central Asia, straight through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean where the American oil companies would reap huge profits from sales to China and Japan. But there were "terrorist" groups who wanted to control the resources for themselves. Then 9/11 was triggered and the attempt to gain control of the country was on. Although this pipeline is still in the planning stage, the companies involved want a relatively stabe environment in which it can remain unmolested by people who dont want to see their resources sold to the highest bidder without getting any of the benefits. All countries who are involved in the "rebuilding" of Afghanistan are not rebuilding anything, but are in reality involved in pipeline security. If you are for the war in Afghanistan, then you are for genocide for cheap energy.

In July 2000, Mullah Omar of the Taliban ordered a ban on poppy cultivation in all Taliban controlled regions of Afghanistan. Thats because the Taliban are against drugs. But the CIA is not- because the CIA is in the heroin business and uses funds from illegal drug and arms sales to fund blackop all over the world. Then 9/11 was triggered and the control for the drug trade was on. Since the Taliban has now been pushed out of center stage in Afghanistan, heroin production has exploded. If keeping the lid on drugs was the reason, the Taliban would be supported, not attacked. Any country involved in "rebuilding" Afghanistan, are not rebuilders, but are security for the CIA-controlled drug trade.If you are for the war in Afghanistan, then you are for the CIAs drug-funded blackops all over the world.

That's strange, because I thought I was for a free and democratic Afghanistan, that's not harbouring terrorists that want to blow us up. You have to admit, refusing to hand over Osama was an act of war. I'm sure we would have left them alone to their own devices if they complied. I never knew I was so horribly mistaken.

As for
"Although this pipeline is still in the planning stage"

I beleive they are actually in the finishing stages. I saw a huge doc on this a few months back, they were building it then, so I'm sure they're close to completion now... other than that I mostly agree with what you wrote about why they are there, and not Saudi. However, I should state that I disagree with what you say about:

"If you are for the war in Afghanistan, then you are for genocide for cheap energy."

I disagree with this, they give so many reasons for wars these days, they're bound to touch on something that someone will agree with and be able to justify the means... So just because someone supports an "effort" does not mean they stand for genocide, it means they stand for the reason they were given for that war. We cannot blame eachother for the mis-information handed to us from the mass media and gov. We need to work together to inform each-other and to post links to places that give the information that $ driven media is un-able or un-willing to give. The mis-informed are not our enemy, the mis-informing are. Wow, new quote.

The mis-information Highway... today's reality!

Here's an excerpt from an article written in 2001 on the From the Wilderness website that gives some information that disputes the accepted version of when, and and therefore, why Afghanistan was attacked.


International Law Professor Francis A. Boyle, of the University of Illinois wrote on October 12, "Obviously, the war against Afghanistan was planned for quite some time. We know for a fact that it had been war-gamed by the Pentagon going back to 1997. Right around September 11, two US Aircraft carrier task forces conveniently arrived in the Persian Gulf right at the same time on "rotation." Obviously, preplanned. Just before September 11, the UK had put together what was billed as the "largest armada since the Falklands War" and had it steaming towards Oman, where now 23,000 UK troops are on maneuvers. This had been planned for at least 3 years. Also, the US "Bright Star" operation is currently going on in Egypt. 23,000 US troops plus an additional 17,000 from NATO and its associates. This had been planned at least two years ago. Finally, NATO just landed 12,000 troops into Turkey. This had been planned for at least two years. It is obvious that we are seeing an operational War Plan being executed here that had been in the works for at least the past four years. September 11 is either a pretext or a trigger or both."


Mike

They refused to hand him over because the U.S. refused to supply PROOF.

---
If there was ever a time for Canadians to become pushy - now is the time - for time is running out on this nation called Canada.

If you get the chance, watch "Why We Fight". It sums up this whole "War on Terror now known as the Long War" perfectly.<br />
<a href="http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/main.html">http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/main.html</a><br />
<br />
When war is this profitable, expect lots more of it. War helps perpetuate the military industrial complex, helps perpetuate the Republican stranglehold on America, and helps perpetuate the greed of the already wealthy.<p>---<br>If there was ever a time for Canadians to become pushy - now is the time - for time is running out on this nation called Canada.

Considering the scope of the attack, and Osama's subsequent admission, that's a moot point. And it's not like he hid his desires to bomb the US, even if he didn't commit that specific act. They were quite sure he was behind other attacks. Besides, considering the rhetoric that the Taliban were spouting at the time, it hardly even mattered.

Allies: "We just had a huge attack on our soil that killed thousands. We think someone in your country did it. Give him to us."
Afghanistan: "Fark U. Allah Ackbar!"
Allies: "Ok we start bombing in 5 minutes."

The urgency of war sweeps away "civilized" ways of doing things, and in this case, rightly so. Do you think we should have played nice with the Japanese after they bombed Pearl Harbour? I can't believe you think that the allies should have acted all nice and polite after 9-11.

Subsequently though, the USA has pissed away all the good will they had through bad decision making (such as going into Iraq without UN support.) My defence of attacking Afghanistan in no way implies I support the USA in everything they do. Quite the contrary actually.

Just one question.

Standard practice concerning commercial aircraft deviating off course has, to the best of my knowledge, been to send up air force interceptors to investigate.

Oddly enough, no interceptors were scrambled on 911. They were grounded.

I seriously doubt that Osama had/has the clout to be able to pull off something that only the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of Defense, or the President can authorize.

Did Osama really do it, or was he set up as a patsy in order to get public support for the invasion of Afghanistan?

Stoutlimb asks rhetorically: " Do you think we should have played
nice with the Japanese after they bombed Pearl Harbour?"

Stout, does this mean you think that WWII began with Pearl
Harbour? I don't think so. You are dead wrong.

Hey, ya gotta have a war, eh? Keeps that old military-industrial-complex-state capitalist hog trough filled. Wouldn't want peace. Thats Commie! Would cut into our tax-sucker funded lifestyle of the rich and corrupt.

Vietnam ended thirty years ago, and I wish to God i didn't have to say this but the morons in charge haven't learned a thing.

Not a goddamn thing...