Hey I'm just reiderating the experts and Bush admin officals. I content that the war isn't about oil. Personally, I understand and support a war in Iraq to disarm him and liberate the 24 million Iraqi people. The war on terror's design is to liberate and further seperate the people in the Muslim world from the extremist that inhabit their societies. We can't expect to destroy every Osama, there have been and always will be evil people out there, but we can, by a myriad of means, seperate these people from their believer's and host societies. If we do that we win the war, if we don't we loose. Its that simple.
Agreed I agree, Heflores, but it may be a matter of the issue itself. So Saddam is in violation of UN resolutions. Why do these resolutions exist? Because we're politicking for the oil, at best. The resolutions don't exist because of border violations, else India and Pakistan would be bombed senseless by now. The resolutions don't exist because of Saddam's atrocities; hell, the U.S. sponsored some of them. Now, if we choose to take the bully to court, for instance, and he says, "But my folks don't feed me," now we've got an issue. What is the equivalent, though, for Americans? "But they won't give us the oil for free"? I just wonder why the oil barons presently running the show--especially these folks--don't understand that if we stop dicking the world around in a quest for petroleum and profit, there will be less terrorists aiming at us. To spiral out a little bit on an editorial bender--money is clearly the most importnt thing to Americans. Our love for lucre has pushed us to many an undignified act. And now it has helped fuel the unnecessary fires of fundamentalist anger because while we're happy to point out Saddam's history of atrocities, the American penchant for unmitigated greed and cruelty is apparently a part of history we shouldn't explore--it is somehow irrelevant, if I understand the counterarguments right. So now we arrive at the present, and all of that history comes down to the fact that apparently we "must" take this guy out. We the People of the United States helped build this mess, and the only way out of it is a gun; yet to note our contribution to the mess when there's not about to be shooting is useless--people don't understand why it's important. That seven-second attention span is helpful if you're a warmonger. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Let me just say that I don't think that the primary reason Bushy wants to go to war with Iraq is oil. I think that war with Iraq (or another country) is the only way for Bushy to win the next election. Let's face it, Bushy isn't that bright. I would say that his IQ is in the range of "moderately retarded". Unfortunately, the only way for mentally handicapped President to remain in office is for him/her to start a war. Without some kind of war, what is Bushy going to run on in the next election?? The strong economy?? A booming stock market? His record on human rights? How about a balanced budget? Right after 9/11, when the war with Al Quada and the Taliban began, Bushy's approval ratings were at 90%. Not bad for a retarded president. Unfortunately, even Bushy, with his limited intelligence, learned that the American people will support the President in a time of war (even if the President is the one who started the war). So, who's to blame for the war-like policies of the President? The answer is clear: the American people. Tom
You bitch around this forum as a typical radical and now you wanna take cover in “Hey I'm just reiterating the experts and Bush admin officials”. Saddam has not called his conflict with US a Holy-war, so in this case with Iraq, no one can excuse religious fanatics as a cause. Destroy every Osama?? Sure, great! But there are more Osamas elsewhere, and very, very few in Iraq, so where’s the logic?? We “the Christians” with our casinos, striptease clubs, homeless, child-buses, alcoholism and gas-chambers are going to separate good Muslims from Bad Muslims??? ……..Are you out of your mind?? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Prosoothus – Good post and I agree with you on all of it except Bush’s intelligence. I wouldn’t be surprised if he makes the Forbes 400 (richest people in America) list soon after he gets out of office, due to $10 million per hour “speaking fees” at oil conferences. I don’t underestimate the brains of anyone who achieves that office. Unfortunately brains don’t always have the public’s best interest at heart.
Let’s see... Bush Sr.’s family business is oil and he focused on a remote desert that just happens to cover the bulk of the world’s oil. His son focuses on that same spot. Do we need President Jeb Bush to draw a picture for us?
zanket, In the beginning, when Bushy was running for President, I got the impression from him that he was a total moron. After watching the debates, I was convinced. I will make a bet with anyone, that out of the last 50 years, there hasn't been a dumber elected government official than George W. Bush (even Dan Quale wasn't that stupid). If you want to see some of the stupid things that Bushy said over the past few years, check out this link: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm Unfortunately, it's updated frequently. Very frequently. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Tom
If it was just about getting himself reelected, Bush would wait until 2004 before launching an invasion. Bush sr. rode a high popularity wave after Desert Storm, but over the next two years his popularity dropped so low over domestic issues he lost his reelection bid. Attacking now won't guarantee reelection. Bush is not dumb. He's a bad public speaker, but that doesn't make someone dumb. The US imports less than 20% of its oil from the Middle East, I believe, but oil is still an issue. If the embargo on Iraq is eventually lifted while Saddam is still in power then US oil companies would likely be left out in the cold. He allegedly has contracts with oil companies in France, China and Russia (at least according to a recent article I read), and those American companies would be left out in the cold. If the US can get a regime friendly to the US in power (Iraqi National Congress?), then they could possibly declare those contracts made with the old regime null and void. And there is still the fact that many in the West just don't trust Saddam and his desire to acquire WOMD. When the NPT went into force in 1970 Iraq was on the list even back then of nations that were known to be seeking nuclear capability. And it was the responsibility of the 5 nuclear nations (those that had test fired prior to 1967) to act responsibly when providing nuclear materials to non-nuclear nations. Any transfers had to be done under IAEA monitoring. The US signed the Biological Weapons Convention in 1976, and the same year finally ratified the 1925 Geneva Protocol (outlawing the usage, manufacturing or transfer of biological weapons. And all stockpiles had to be destroyed within 9 months of the date the Convention went into force (Iraq is also a signatory to the BWC). If the story of the 8000 edited pages of the Iraq report to the UN is true, some have speculated that those edited pages refer to the US providing Iraq with material that was illegal according to the NPT and the BWC. If so, then maybe the US has an obligation to clean up its own mess, to destroy the Frankenstein monster it created. Unfortunately, a lot of innocent people will now have to die for a faulty policy in the 80s, when Iran was public enemy #1.
'no blood for oil' all the people in this thread that think it isn't about oil are so jaded by U.S. propaganda it's not even funny. the U.S. has a strict policy with war propaganda: talk about everything BUT the REAL REASON we're going to war. i'd say about 99% of the wars in world history were over land. maybe for it's resources, maybe for it's religious heritage, but in the end it comes down to WORLD DOMINATION, and as tacky as that phrase may sound, it's undeniably true: what does any country do when it wins a war with any other country? it sets up base there and runs the market. so, to say that this war ISN'T over Oil is basically saying that you trust the reasons the government is giving you for seeking world domination, which i think is absurd. don't trust our government, or ANY government. anyone who wants to be in power over a country has one thing on their mind: living like a king.
Coldrake, Bush is dumb. Not only can Bushy not grasp the English language, he can't grasp anything else. His bushisms are not only English errors, but you'll find that they are logical errors as well. Do you remember when Bush said that Osama Bin Laden was the leader of Afganistan? Here are some more bushisms that demonstrate his flawed logic: "We need an energy bill that encourages consumption." —George W. Bush, Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002 "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 "See, we love — we love freedom. That's what they didn't understand. They hate things; we love things. They act out of hatred; we don't seek revenge, we seek justice out of love." —George W. Bush, Oklahoma City, Aug. 29, 2002 "Do you have blacks, too?" —George W. Bush, to Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, Nov. 8, 2001, as reported in an April 28, 2002, Estado Sao Pauloan column by Fernando Pedreira, a close friend of President Cardoso "This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating." —George W. Bush, as quoted by the New York Daily News, April 23, 2002 "There's nothing more deep than recognizing Israel's right to exist. That's the most deep thought of all. ... I can't think of anything more deep than that right." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002 "My trip to Asia begins here in Japan for an important reason. It begins here because for a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times. From that alliance has come an era of peace in the Pacific." —George W. Bush, who apparently forgot about a little something called World War II, Tokyo, Feb. 18, 2002 "I couldn't imagine somebody like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of Hanukkah." —George W. Bush, at a White House Menorah lighting ceremony, Washington, D.C., Dec. 10, 2001 "We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease." —George W. Bush, at a news conference in Europe, June 14, 2001 "It's very important for folks to understand that when there's more trade, there's more commerce." —George W. Bush, at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, April 21, 2001 "I do think we need for a troop to be able to house his family. That's an important part of building morale in the military." —George W. Bush, speaking at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida, March 12, 2001 "You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.''—George W. Bush, Feb. 21, 2001 "I appreciate that question because I, in the state of Texas, had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative eroding the important bridge between church and state." —George W. Bush, speaking to reporters, Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2001 "The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants." —George W. Bush, Jan. 14, 2001 "I am mindful of the difference between the executive branch and the legislative branch. I assured all four of these leaders that I know the difference, and that difference is they pass the laws and I execute them." — George W. Bush, Dec. 20, 2000 "The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law." — George W. Bush, Austin, Texas, Nov. 22, 2000 "They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program." —George W. Bush, Nov. 2, 2000 "It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it." —George W. Bush, Reuters, May 5, 2000 After reading these bushisms, you can see that Bush's sole problem is not his public speaking. His problem is that he's a friggin idiot. Tom
Did you read the article Zech? War is about power. The US wishes to diminish Saddam's power because he is in direct opposition to ours. Oil is a part of this...but it is only a piece of the puzzle.
Bush is stupid? Spoken by a person who graduated from neither Harvard nor Yale. Bush has degrees from both. If you are arguing that idiots have the capacity to graduate from the two most elite universities in America, I have no choice to accuse you of that which you accuse Bush. Secondly, if this war is indeed about oil, so what? Don't you consider cheap, plentiful oil as an absolute necessity for the American enconomy? Our entire economy is based on oil, if it runs out, our economy dies. Modern civilization ceases to exist without oil. Starvation, death and mayhem raise their heads when oil is not to be had. Arguing that the war is about oil is no argument at all. I consider protection of America's oil interests as one of the top priorities of our military. Until the American consumer swears off oil products (computers, cell phones, cars, electronics, plastics, synthetics, etc....), there is no reason to fault the government for protecting our oil interests. A collapse of the oil supply would devastate the poorest Americans most.... they would be the ones doing the starving and dying. Opposing Americas defense of her oil interests is akin to declaring war on the poor. At this point, I really don't support an invasion of Iraq. If Bush came out and said that this was a war to secure oil for America, I would support an invasion. By the way, anybody can buy stock in a big oil company. They are NOT a good investment.... just look at Enron if you don't believe me. Clinton quote: That depends what your definition of "is" is.
Fading Captain-- yes, war is about power. and how do you achieve absolute power if you don't own all the land in the world? zack
brad-- do you seriously think that Bush's class and family influence didn't have an effect on whether or not he graduated from school? he gets everything handed to him because of who he is, it doesn't matter how well he does. he's a puppet for other people's agendas and therefore he'll always appear as an overachiever on paper. on top of it, Harvard is one of those schools notorious for being a "it's who you know in life" school. certain people, like those with politicians and entrapenuers in the family, don't get into the school with good grades alone, they get into it with good connections. zack
Zachie No I don't. But if you have some objective evidence that proves he was given a free ride and didn't earn his degrees, I am all ears. I haven't heard one shred of evidence to date that lends any credence to the theory that he didn't earn his degrees legatimately. You have a made an accusation, (a very serious one). I and the others on this board would like to hear the evidence that backs up your allegation.
Goshy, I wish I could be a Bush, too I wish I could be a Bush so my family could afford to buy off the Ivy League. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Tiassa I really have missed your whole "its true because I say its true and I don't have to prove anything" approach to debate. Not effective but quite amusing.
well first of all, i didn't say he "bought off" anything, just so tiassa is on the same page with me here. but anyways, i haven't seen any evidence either, so i won't try to proof it, so i don't blame you for not renting the theory... but i ask you this: how do you get two presidents in one family? how do you get a family of politicians? i agree if you say that there's a slight possibility it could have just happened that way by chance, but when you look at these families that are full of politicians and Ivy Leaguers, all extremely successful people, you can't seriously think that their mommies and daddies didn't pull any strings there. in a real democracy, we'd have people from all different backgrounds and families getting a chance in office. instead, it's all white guys from the same schools and families. and in the case of Bush, you got two PRESIDENTS, one generation after another. that's just too conspicuous for me. alas, you are right, i have no evidence, so sorry for the major accusation. i just think Bush is a @#$% and i wish he'd get impeached, so i have no problem discrediting him any chance i get. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What's the matter, Brad? Have you not gotten to kill enough Muslims? Have you not gotten to rape enough of them yet? You're no more impressive than you were when you were calling for genocide. Have a banana. --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Having the connections to get in an Ivy League school has no bearing on whether he is 'dumb' or not. He still had to earn the degree. Actually, I can't believe I'm defending Bush. I'm no fan, but to say he's dumb because you've read a bunch of quotes off a political humor website is no proof of it. There's a website for Goreisms also. And of course according to Al he and Tipper were the inspiration for the movie 'Love Story' and he invented the internet. Any educated man can make incredibly stupid statements. You don't become president of the US by being dumb, or 'retarded'. zechaeriah - <i>yes, war is about power. and how do you achieve absolute power if you don't own all the land in the world?</i> There's a much easier way to dominate the world, if you so choose, than controlling the world's lands, which is impossible to do anyway. You control the world's sea lanes. The British understood that back in the days of their empire.
