They are all as bad as each other. But Osama is way too deranged, hes the one that must be stopped.

I guess none of them are sane and it seems Bush is the "sanest" one of them all. I did hear Saddam killed a whole lot of muslims and bin laden hates his guts for it. So pretty much its almost Bush VS Hussein VS bin Laden.

I think Bush is just making accusations, and possibly jumpking to conclusions. Saddam has claimed he had no links to Al-Qaeda but Bush could be right they are selling weapons to them one way or another. Maybe not to bin laden himself but to his associates and stuff.

// But i thought part of the trouble was that hussien could be selling weapons to Bin Laden? Or this is what they try to make out over here. Can anyone clear this up for me?

that's what people would like you to believe. in fact the likelihood is that hussein and bin laden have probably never spoken to eachother yet alone even met or conducted business. it's like saying tim mcveigh and bill clinton were in cahoots. the only thing that binds them being they've all killed thousands on innocents.

remember terrorism comes from two places: fringe lunatics who are not part of a government, and puppet governments acting as proxy to the CIA.
let's not forget the weapons that hussein obviously has would have been made from materials the US provided over the last twenty years. iraq invaded kuwait with US weapons.

[ external link ]

I figured I'd weigh in with my 2 cents here, for what its worth.

The invasion of Iraq isn't anything to do with stopping terrorism, IMHO. In fact supporting Hussein would be a good way of curbing fundamentalist muslim terrorism (IE bin Laden) as Iraq is the most secular state in the middle east. Quite the opposite to the US backed Saudi Arabian government.

Also, I dont know whether you can say Bin Laden is worse than Bush. I mean, Bush has killed more people in Afghanistan in his hunt for Laden than the plane crashes into the WTC did. And he's threatened to use nuclear weapons in his invasion of Iraq as well. At least bin Laden was a little bit inventive eh?

Oh, and as far as Kurds go, if the US were really concerned about them, they wouldn't let the Turkish air force fly over the no-fly zone they patrol in northern Iraq. You might wonder what the Turks are doing there, its bombing Kurds.

I think Saddam is the sanest of the three, because at least there's pretty much no chance he will invade anybody in the next 5 years. Then I'd go with Osama being 2nd, because he doesn't have the resources to kill heaps of people. And at the top of my heap is Bush because he can wipe out hundreds of thousands of people, and doesn't seem to worried about doing so.

And lucifer, i agree, the best was Australia and NZ could contribute to the 'war on terror' is watching out for themselves, and not running off to this iraq war. And if we are fighting the war against terror arn't we allies of america still? And isn't that what australians are worried about not being. I don't know. Someone please fill me in.

yup thats the way to go. Sharon is the one destroying the middle east peace process and not Arafat who actually is pressuring for peace, Arafat has no control over these militant groups such as HAMAS and al aqsa martyrs brigades yet he has outlawed them but still they practise there terror, even Arafat has called for an end to terrorism against israelis, but come to think of it it was a jewish militia man who assassinated yitzak rabin in 1995.

personally i recjon had labour won the israeli election, the intifada will be over now, Sharons lukid movement occupied the settlements deliberatly thus making the violence worse,

Michael Moore, in his book Stupid White Men, pointed out that the oil problem in the US would be resolved by legislating so that SUVs (or 4x4s) had to conform to more restrictive emission standards. The technology exists to make SUVs more energy efficient than cars are now, and if a policy along these lines was implemented, then the US wouldn't need iraqi oil. Problem is that it would cost car companies about US$1000 extra per SUV.

This issue would suggest that the american government really doesn't give a shit about resolving their oil problems either, but only cares about protecting the interests of the industry giants who fund them. This really really pisses me off.

i've also read that if the oil companies go bust then the world economy is going with it...

so a few things come up... we should be slowly starting to use alternative fuels/energy so if oil runs out, then the world suddenly does not just fall over...

Rather than cry about america and governments not doing enough.. start making changes your self, try and show the positives to family and friends to make them change...

//Definitely worth taking part - this could be the last chance to speak out against it before it happens.

And for the sake of not being hypocritical, how 'bout not driving to the events? Good luck, m'dears.

> The US is so scared that they could be struck down in their beds at any moment that the
> government feel they need to beat up someone to prove that they are still in control.

Except the US is scared largely _because_ of the government's rhetoric. To put the WTC tragedy in perspective, _many_times_ that many americans are murdered _every_year_ by each other. The government and media could have said "this is a great tragedy, but it's a one off event that won't be allowed to happen again - let's mourn and then move on" instead of fostering as much fear and patriotic aggression as possible. Even if you ignore the high level obstruction of FBI investigations that could have uncovered the plot, the remarkable failure to lanuch fighters to intercept the hijacked planes, the decidedly unislamic prior behaviour of hijackers who are apparently so devout that they'd give up their own lives for their religious beliefs, etc.

> It doesn't even matter who the target is, as long as it's someone they can justify attacking,
> and who they have a good chance of bringing down.

And as long as there's oil involved. The main outcome of the invasion of Afghanistan has been that pipeline projects blocked by the Taliban before the invasion are now back in motion. Osama was not captured or killed, and the lives of the Afghani people haven't significantly improved.

> It's the new Cold War.

Well, possible a Luke Warm War.

> The problem this time is that the US don't really know who their enemy is.

Oh, they know, they just can't admit it to the public or attack them directly. The EU is possibly the number one enemy here - the US doesn't want a serious rival, and maximising control over oil is the best way to maintain their dominant position.

> This could be a very nasty situation as it may not just begin and end with Iraq.

Absolutely.

> there's a small chance the US may start to unleash its wrath and fear on western countries

Hence the reluctance of the NZ government to stand up to Bush.

[ external link ]

Looking back on my last post, it sounds pretty naive in some respects, but I think the comments about oil oil oil, power, money, are overly cynical, so I think it provides a good balance.

The problem with he line of thinking that you can justThe way economists think, is that once you deplete the source of one resource, you just move onto the next source of the same resource.
Fossil fuels are not a replenishable resource, oil, coal, gas, takes thousants(or longer) of years to form. So once that resource is gone, that's it.

http://www.runningonempty.org

Just to add to my point, we have just seen an example of this right here in New Zealand this week. A warning has gone out that the cost of gas is going to go up because the Kupe oilfield does not have the capacity they had envisaged. So, prices will go up as a kind of rationing, but the resource will be used up and then there will be no more natural gas from that particular field. Humans, huh.

Herein lies my main dilemma. I don't trust the information relayed by conventional media organisations endorsed by government. However, I also don't trust the information that extremist conspiracy theorists regurgitate over the internet. A lot of it is hearsay, inconsistent, and/or taken out of context.

After looking for as much info as I could from both sides about the failure to scramble jets after the attacks, I decided that it was very unlikely that it was as sign of the government allowing the disaster to occur.

Ultimately, I don't pretend to know what lurks in the hearts and minds of US government officials, but I still seriously doubt that anyone high up in the US, when alerted that hijacked aircraft were in the skies, would say "no, just leave it a bit and let them blow something up". I have no doubt there are corrupt individuals and groups in US government, but the idea is patently ludicrous on so many different levels.

...and that said, I'm always interested to check out further details.

> There's quite a good summary of various conspiracy theories (and why they're bunk), here...

Interesting, but it's basically just saying that the US government isn't competent enough to have done it. I find it hard to believe that a small terrorist organisation would be capable of carrying out something beyond the abilities of the US government. Given that it _was_ done by someone, why should the ones who benefit most be exempt from suspicion?

"The sacrificial lambs could have included White House staff or members of Congress, had the fourth plane not crashed in Pennsylvania" - interesting that that was the one that _didn't_ reach its target.

// I find it hard to believe that a small terrorist organisation
// would be capable of carrying out something beyond the
// abilities of the US government.

I'd be tempted to think the exact opposite. The American Government is a massive overbloated bureaucracy which leaks information like a sieve (despite the Hollywood propoganda that would lead you to believe otherwise). If the US governement was involved in a conspiracy to bring about the 11 September bombings, they've done remarkably well to keep everyone involved from talking about it.

On the other hand, a small terrorist cell, working in de-centralised groups would find it much easier to organise and carry out such an attack. No leaks to worry about, no sense of patriotic betrayal. After all, if there was US government involvement, there would have been a lot of people aware of the fact that they were going to be killing thousands of fellow Americans, and destroying national icons -- I find it very hard to believe everyone would have played along quietly.

// why should the ones who benefit most be exempt from suspicion?

I think this has been raised somewhere else, I think, so apologies for rehashing what may have already been said. Bush certainly gained some points in the polls from the attacks, but, again, I really doubt an American president, even Dubya, would go to such extremes just to bolster his own position. Especially that early in his tenure -- maybe if he had six months to go to the election...

Actually, to quote Heather: I'm just bollocksing now.

> Felice, say Gore had won the 2000 election (not improbable since more people voted for him
> than Bush). Do you think the attacks on Sept 11 would have succeeded in that case?

I don't know... quite possibly not, though I wouldn't bet on it.

//I fail to see why we can readily accept that terrorists are willing to sacrifice their own lives along with thousands of innocent civilians just to make some kind of point (and I haven't even seen any coverage of what the point was!), yet find it implausible that a few of the most powerful people in the world would be willing to make a much smaller sacrifice for much more tangible benefits.

Touche! Interesting point, and one I will have to consider carefully...

// I still seriously doubt that anyone high up in the US, when alerted that hijacked aircraft were in the skies, would say "no, just leave it a bit and let them blow something up".

yep -- I suspect it was more just a balls-up than anything sinister. People make mistakes, especially in surreal situations like September 11. There's quite a good summary of various conspiracy theories (and why they're bunk), here...

[ external link ]

the only reason why nz has ships in the UAE is to intercept terrorists as part of OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM a totally different mission to what OPERATION ................ will be about.

but again i do reckon NZ should defend its own waters from terrorists.