Writing Forums

Writing Forums is a privately-owned, community managed writing environment. We provide an unlimited opportunity for writers and poets of all abilities, to share their work and communicate with other writers and creative artists. We offer an experience that is safe, welcoming and friendly, regardless of your level of participation, knowledge or skill. There are several opportunities for writers to exchange tips, engage in discussions about techniques, and grow in your craft. You can also participate in forum competitions that are exciting and helpful in building your skill level. There's so much more for you to explore!

A War on Logic (1 Viewer)



The War on Terrorism does not make sense. War is the most disastrous thing monkeys have yet invented, though the personal automobile gives it a run for its money. It should never be undertaken lightly, and certainly never without a clear objective that can be won. Terrorism is defined by the US government:

"the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

Was the war in Iraq illegal?
Judge for yourself.

Certainly the war in Iraq has caused massive amounts of violence. 50,000 civilians are dead today.

And there is no doubt the war in Iraq was launched to achieve political, if not ideological objectives.

The war on logic began a long time ago, with Reagan spreading terrorism across the world.

Wikipedia on the Reagan Doctrine said:
Following this policy, the U.S. funded groups the administration called "freedom fighters", such as the mujahideen in Afghanistan, the Contras in Nicaragua, and, with the white government of South Africa, Jonas Savimbi's rebel forces in Angola

Wikipedia on El Salvadore said:
Reagan offered controversial support to the rightist El Salvador government throughout his term; he feared a takeover by the FMLN during the El Salvador Civil War which had begun in the late 1970s. The war left 75,000 people dead, 8,000 missing and one million homeless; some one million El Salvadoreans, fleeing the war and government backed right-wing death squads, immigrated to the United States. He backed attempts at introducing democratic elections with mixed success.

As did the CIA (Must see link).

And, of course, the US provided Saddam with weapons of mass destruction:
Wikipedia on Saddam said:
The U.S. also allowed the shipment of "dual use" materials, that could be used for chemical and biological weapons, ostensibly for agriculture, medical research, and other civilian purposes, but they were diverted for use in Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs.

If you do some searching on "Saddam CIA" on google, you find loads of interesting things:

Google Saddam CIA said:
But Google also turns up stories infrequently if ever reported in the mainstream press about Saddam Hussein and the CIA -- as it turns out the Iraqi dictator and the now reviled Ba'ath Party were once favored CIA assets serving US interests. This is the sort of information you will not find splashed across the front page of the New York Times, let alone buried in section F16. In fact, most of this information appears primarily in papers such as the Hindustan Times or in books written by Arab authors. Since the story is at odds with the Bush version of reality, it's not front-page material in America.

If the US stopped funding Israel, accepted the Kyoto Protocol and tried to reduce its dependance on foreign oil, eliminated illegal and corrupt institutions such as the CIA, and ended the disastrous war on drugs, then some headway might be made.

Newsmax.com said:
Halliburton Co., the oil company that was headed by Vice

President Dick Cheney, signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while he was at its helm, the Washington Post reported.


Washington Post said:
an unnamed CIA briefer who flew to Bush's Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president's attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."

And the so called Butcher of Baghdad?

Rumsfeld and him are old buddies.

In fact, the US government didn't really care that he bombed his own people with chemical weapons:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ said:
The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].

What was the Reagan administration's response? A State Department account indicates that the administration had decided to limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results."

Well, not untill it was a good excuse to make a "Good Guy-Bad Guy" case against Saddam and launch another war.

Saddam is an evil, vile human being, but so is Dick Cheney (a war profiteer in the worst way, as proven above). Al-Qaeda is a terrorist cell, but so is the CIA. Syria is a stronghold of terrorists, but so is the Pentagon.

Did you know the Pentagon formed a plan in 1962 to launch terrorist attacks against the US to incite a war against Cuba?


http://www.aztlan.net/northwoods.htm said:
One proposal made by the Northwoods Project, and this may explain the "phantom" AA passenger airline that supposedly hit the Pentagon on September 11, was to provoke the Cuban government to shoot down a U.S passenger airline that the CIA would substitute with a "drone."

Yes, this is real. It is an unclassified memo obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

Bin Laden said:
I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons,"


Jim Vallette is the lead author of a report entitled "Crude Vision: How Oil Interests Obscured U.S. Government Focus On Chemical Weapons Use by Saddam

Hussein" The interview below sheds some light on exactly how much big oil and

big industry are at play in Iraq

(Note that the CIA helped Iraq calibrate mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops, which no doubt helped them 'calibrate' attacks against the Kurds later on. Source: Washington Post December 15, 1986)

GNN interview with Jim Vallette said:
.GNN: What are the origins of western involvement in Iraq's oil?

Jim Vallette: The U.S. and the British have a history of intervention in Iraq for oil. It really goes back over seventy years to 1911 when the British, German and Turkish formed a pipeline consortium interest. After WWI, the U.K. took over Iraq and installed a king and took over this oil consortium. Herbert Hoover, the former U.S. president, forced the British to allow what is now Exxon Mobil into the consortium.

So by the 1920's you had a king installed by the British and you had oil exploration and production controlled by the origins of British Petroleum (BP), Exxon, Mobil, TotalFinaElf of France and Shell. From the 20's through the 60's, starting with the British and then with the U.S., there was a considerable backlash among the Iraqi people against the control of their resources.

There were interventions to get folks out of power who wanted to nationalize the oil company. In 1958, [Col.] Kassem took over in a coup and started nationalizing parts of the Iraq Petroleum Company. In 1963, the CIA assisted in a coup that wound up with an important deal and their oil interests somewhat protected. Then the Baath Party took over in 1968 and a few years later in 1972 they nationalized the oil interests of Exxon Mobil and BP.

That was the end of sixty-one years of a British and U.S. stranglehold over Iraq's oil. It severed the relationship between the U.S., U.K. and Iraq on a business and political level. They turned their support to the north where the Shah Reza Pahlavi was a very tight friend of the British and Americans. But then, the Iranian revolution in 1979 swept him from power and made Iran a mortal enemy of the U.S. Almost immediately Reagan put out an olive branch to Saddam. He took Iraq off the list of states that support terrorism, despite evidence that they still did - including harboring master terrorist Abu Nidal.

A year later the Iran-Iraq war started and the Reagan Administration took over. Almost immediately they put out an olive branch to Saddam, saying they were interested in reestablishing business connections. They took Iraq off the list of states that support terrorism, despite evidence that they still did [including harboring master terrorist Abu Nidal]. But that allowed the sale of dual-use munitions to Iraq.

In 1983, these business interests ratcheted up quite a bit after Bechtel officials met with State Department officials to discuss a plan to build an oil pipeline from Iraq to Jordan. George Shultz, the Secretary of State, had gone from being president and CEO of the Bechtel Group directly into the Reagan Administration.

GNN: Tell me about Bechtel.

Jim Vallette: Bechtel is a privately held company, one of the largest construction companies in the world. They and Halliburton are dominating the contracting for post-war Iraq. They have deep ties http://www.citizenworks.org/corp/bechtel.php with the Bush-Cheney Administration.

(Full article is here:http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276083.shtml)

Haliburton and Bechtel dominate the bidding for Iraq oil and construction contracts, both of which are connected with the Bush Cheney administration. Bechtel has been trying to build a pipeline through Iraq for many years. And now, thanks to their Bush, they can.

It is not extremely ridiculous to believe that George Bush, coming from a family that made it's money from oil, would realize the importance of placing a US military presence in the most oil-rich region of the world, and either allowed or encouraged or planned the 9/11 attacks to move the American public to support the war for oil.

Have you heard of the Carlyle group? One of the biggest government contractors, which invests in everything from defence to telecommunications, it counts among its investors the Bin laden family, and one of its members is George Bush Sr.

On September 11, George Bush Sr. was meeting with Osama Bin Ladens brother in a Carlyle Group meeting, in Washington DC.

The connections are endless.

Thanks for reading (if you enjoyed please give me some CC of my short story in the critique section :D)!


George Benjamin

Certainly the war in Iraq has caused massive amounts of violence. 50,000 civilians are dead today.

Hello Paul,

You actually used the estimates by the US government themselves.

An independent body in the UK has put the estimate to 600k.

And, flowing with the illogical rhetorical speeches of bush, when he was asked about it he said something like, "its just not credible". No answer was given as to why he thinks they werent correct.


Senior Member
Bin Laden said:
"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons,"
Not particularly sure why you chose Osama Bin Laden as a credible source for this work of non-fiction, but whatever. After reading through it, I'd say it belongs in either a bulletin on MySpace, or some conspiracy-theory website.