Terrorism is the new way of war. At least until somebody figures out something better (using the term advisedly). The key to successful war is always technological and tactical advantage. Terrorism offers poor nations a tactical advantage against advanced nations, so that’s why they use it. But electromagnetic pulse weapons or cybersabotage may eventually serve as the tactical advantage that renders nuclear deterrence obsolete and returns us to the era of catastrophic world war.
Did you read what I wrote?
Terrorism offers an advantage to those who can’t afford to spend much on war. Box cutters are cheap. And they worked.
How can you fail to see the point?
You clearly placed the statement with reference to the terrorism’s tactical advantage within the context that suggests that they use a technology and tactical advantage. If you didn’t mean this, the sentence is inappropriately placed.
Thanks for letting us Canadians sell this oil, but I guess you aren’t apparently aware that most of the oil here is shipped through pipelines that go directly to the States.
Are you serious? What would that have to do with my point, where I specifically mentioned the oil from tar sands (slated to move through the proposed Keystone pipeline)?
I was referencing how you worded yourself. First, you gave the impression that America has some innate right over Canada’s concerns: “...We’re about to let Canada…” implies that you are our authority. I’m guessing you didn’t mean this and that your choice of , “let”, was not meant to convey this.
Iraq was about a combination of things. (1) War itself is a business and the government wanted to (2) test their new technologies in action. (3) Oil is a concern. It was why Saddam lit his supply lines to their own detriment in the first Gulf War and why the States was so highly involved in extinguishing them: to save the oil! (4) Taking Iraq was also meant to create a more U.S. friendly and manipulable country for Israeli support.
Rocinante, I didn’t want to move this to a discussion about the definition of war or nations.
That’s fine, and I understand. And thanks for answering my side questions. But I don’t know what else to discuss regarding your original claim about the Iraq war being about oil. It is a conspiracy theory plain and simple. It is not grounded in facts. Just saying, “Everyone knows this” doesn’t make it so.
You have every right to your opinion that the war was wrong or a mistake. But your original “elementary” claim of, “We invaded Iraq for oil” in your first post of this thread is a conspiracy theory that any skeptic should reject after careful evaluation. But you apparently haven’t rejected it. So all I can do is point out the flaws in your conspiracy theory (see Brian Dunning’s Skeptoid article I posted) and hope you honestly reevaluate your position. But I’ve learned the hard way from attempting to have prolonged, logical and rational discussions with Troofers and other conspiracy theorists not to get into a long discussions with them about their favorite CT. They rarely seem to abandon their conspiracy theory.
This is ad hominem abuse meant to poison the well of anyone taking challenge to the subject. I wish you and others would stop accusing one another of being conspiracy theorists as the term, conspiracy, can describe logically any two or more people decided to act in some way together that opposes any other outsider group. I urge those who choose this to attempt to prove that no conspiracy theory is even possible before they assume that someone else is being irrational. The term is a relative term. In contexts to skepticism, we usually apply “conspiracy theorists” to refer to people who claim conspiracies with dubious possible claims, not real ones. If you believe a false claim of conspiracy has been made, you must show why merely labeling it with the associative conspiracy [dubious] theories should be made.