And he continues with his Crusade.....

Originally posted by uss: quote: Originally posted by Stratos: Didn't the "War on Terror" used be called the "War on Terrorism"? When did this shift happen?

Bush decided that he should take up a more broad variety of evil ideals to destroy. Wars against Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Lust, Anger, Greed and Sloth are to follow. [/QUOTE]That's funny enough I wish I'd said it... nice one.

[Aragorn1]

Originally posted by Aerich: Dunno. Maybe when 3 syllable buzzwords fell out of favour. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] Anybody remember the War on Communism 40 years ago? Parallels to Vietnam are frightening.

Well the US defence industry has got to have some boggy-man to persuade the government to buy its weapons. It has far to much influence on US foreign policy, stretching back to before the Korean War.

[Stratos]

Methinks that the "War on Terrorism" (in particular) was expanded into the "War on Terror" (in general) to allow targets like Saddam Hussein, who wouldn't fit very well into the "War on Terrorism" alone.

Saddam can't really be called a terrorist by the common definition of the term, but he sure as hell terrorized his countrymen. Ergo, the shift in terms.

[shamrock_uk]

How much of those theories are true? I mean, you hear people like Michael Moore banging on about it, but I'm always a bit sceptical of conspiracy theories like this.

Surely the US can't actually go to war for the benefit of a few companies...

[Aragorn1]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist myself, but most wars are motivated by money on some level. The influence these companies gained in the 50's was considerable and Truman commented on the fact. It was to influence US involvement in Vietnam and other future wars. Its in history text books, not the realm of conspiracy theoists.

[Aerich]

It's difficult to gauge the level of influence, no matter what anyone says (from either side of the debate).

I think it's too easy just to blame it all on the companies. They do have influence, but it is more from the fact that they are power players, not from some insidious bribing scheme. There are kickbacks and "perks" (see Cheney and Halliburton, for example), but I can't believe that those are the prime motivators. The people making the decisions have to believe that what they are doing is right, or at least have to justify it to themselves in some fashion. To take the invasion of Iraq for a recent example, I believe that Bush & Co really did think that Saddam had WoMD, and maybe had links to terrorist organizations.

On the other hand, one has to question the pre-existing beliefs of the administration and the extent to which contact with the military-industrial complex has shaped those views. There are enough circumstantial links between the adminstration (Bush, Cheney, Rice) and oil and the weapons companies that we must at least be aware that such contacts have molded the ways in which the administration will think about certain things.

To me, the scary thing is belief. Although we cannot know what goes on behind the scenes (absent the type of disclosure to the public of things like the Pentagon Papers, a large set of Pentagon documents relating to the Vietnam war which were stolen and published by a Pentagon employee), it appears that there is a lack of diverse thinking within the establishment about foreign policy etc. It is very possible that the weapons companies are in part responsible for that.

[Aragorn1]

Oh, i'm wasn't talkin about bribes per se, just the economic influence they have over the government.