View Full Version : Is Bush Going Insane?
Fri, 27th Sep '02, 1:07am
After reading several recent news reports on Dubya's latest actions and comments concerning Iraq, I've started to worry that maybe our president is becoming a bit unstable. Despite knowing that Iraq has chemical, if not nuclear, weapons at its disposal, he's backing Saddam into a corner and leaving him with little choice but to use his toys. Not only that, but despite the concuring advice of every one of his generals, including Sec. Powell, he's provoking the U.N. and giving the anti-counterstrikers a firm foothold. France and Germany, both of which are (IIRC) on the Security Council, are against any offensive actions against Iraq, and I doubt they're the only ones. Few people in the U.S. even know of the trouble he's causing, and even less support it. And as for China, the only remaining major Communist state in the world, and therefore our traditional enemies...does anyone even remember they're still there, and heavily armed?
Basically, Bush is pissing off everyone in the world, including his own citizenry. I'm worried that he's going to get the U.S. into a third World War, and this time with us as the bad guys. I think what we need to do is send a large group of average, middle- and lower-class Americans over to the United Nations building, wielding signs that read "Don't Hate Us 'Cause Our President's Nucking Futz." As a citizen in one of the most obvious places to drop a nuke or chemical warhead (namely, central California, one of the largest food suppliers in the U.S), I'd rather not be killed because our idiot leader abused his power and picked a fight his people didn't want.
And just so the Brits and other Europeans who frequent this board know, the only people who support Bush's genocidal actions don't actually know what's going on. You can't get mad at ignorance, or so the saying goes. So if your countries decide to blow up ours, please, ask them to aim for Dubya, not the innocent people who didn't know better.
Eh, that's my heretical two cents. Next?
Fri, 27th Sep '02, 2:24am
In the news recently:
The democrats are now accusing Bush of putting "political motivations" ahead of the safety of welfare of US citizens. Even some republicans are criticizing him. Bush is rapidly losing support for his war. Even a month ago, I think many people would have supported it, but as more and more opposition from other countries makes the headlines, many people are having second thoughts.
It's no longer "The US vs. Iraq", it is becoming "Bush and the US military vs. Iraq". Even Gore (Clinton's VP) is attacking Bush. But all Bill Clinton has to say is "I did not have sex with THAT woman!"
[ September 27, 2002, 02:25: Message edited by: Nutrimat ]
Fri, 27th Sep '02, 2:37am
In Whatnots recently (just page 2 in fact):
Another topic discussing Bush's sanity (http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=002178)
I'm only pointing this out because it's a well established topic (4 pages) and deals with this topic.
It's sad times in America when we have to choose between presidents who can't keep their pants zipped up and presidents who probably have their pants zipped too tight.
[ September 27, 2002, 02:38: Message edited by: Big B ]
Fri, 27th Sep '02, 2:42am
Ack, didn't see that topic. Sorry :p
Fri, 27th Sep '02, 3:07am
I'm not even sure where to begin, I'm tempted not to.
Balance. A lot of the claims recently regarding Bush are not balanced. For example, I remember perusing the "Bush is a Moron" post where people really seemed to honestly believe the Ivy League succesful business man sucessful politician was a moron. I understand not liking his policies, but please, remain rational and strive for some balance.
First, there is the claim, at least the implication that Americans are against action in Iraq. According to a September 19, 2002 Gallup poll, 57% of Americans favor military action in Iraq.
Second, there is the claim that the people who do favor military action are ignorant or just plain stupid. Balance. With a number of Anti-American posters here this is really opening myself up, but I'll go ahead: do you really want to make the claim that 57% of Americans are ignorant or stupid? Isn't it possible, just possible, that your point of view isn't overwhelmingly obvious, and indeed, there might even be legitimate reasons to support military action in Iraq?
Third, what war on Iraq? Did I miss something? Someone with no idea what is happening would think that the U.S. has its troops deployed and ready to strike while the rest of the world begs us to let poor old Mr. Hussein live peacefully in his neighborhood. To this point, there is no war. There is continued skirmishes along the no fly zone, but if this is what you mean, don't lay that at the feet of this Bush, it's been going on since the last Gulf War. Yes, even during the Clinton administration. Thus far, nothing much new other than sabre rattling.
The implication here and elsewhere is that Bush has decided on unilateral action. Balance. He hasn't said he wants unilateral action only that he is willing to take it. Sabre rattling. Meanwhile, Rumsfeld and some higher ups in the CIA either yesterday or the day before were in Europe presenting evidence tying al-Qaida and Iraq. Meanwhile Bush has addressed the U.N. and at least forced Iraq to allow weapon inspectors to return, oh wait, that was a minute ago, Hussein put forth a new restriction -- shocking. Meanwhile a joint resolution originating from the U.S. and U.K. has been drafted and negotiations with other key U.N. members has begun. Powell, who Bush is apparently an idiot for ignoring, is leading these negotiations and was quoted as saying: "This time, unlike any time over the previous 12 years of Iraqi defiance, there must be hard consequences."
It's election time. It's an important election. It helps the democrats if Americans start having a less favorable impression of potential military action. Daschle's words are stunning in this context. More stunning is the fact that Gore, a high ranking democrat who is positioning himself for another possible run at the Presidency would criticize the current President he would have to run against. Yes, the Democrats and Republicans are firmly against the President's bloodthirstiness. Balance. Meanwhile today a bipartisan draft resolution began to be circulated in Congress authorizing the use of force should further diplomatic efforts fail. Balance.
Balance. That's all I'll ask for here. There are legitimate reasons to wish military action and legitimate reasons to not. If you can't acknowledge that, then you're not being rational in my opinion. The question is more nuanced than that as well. Should there be any military action and if so of what type? An inside out campagin? Complete deployment of a traditional sort?
By the way, I voted for Nader. I'm not a Bush proponent and I am only hesitantly in favor of some type of military action in Iraq (not unlike Powell, Kissinger, etc who are all apparently ignorant as well.) I just wanted to speak early in what I know will be another round of: "they're all stupid, arrogant, ignorant etc."
I will go ahead and say I feel rather confident about two things: (1) There will be NO military action in Iraq without Congressional approval. (2) There will be NO military action in Iraq taken by the U.S. unilaterally. Politicians are politicians and during the election season say things for, well, political reasons. Sabre rattling is effective. Ask the Germans who reelected Schroeder recently primarily because he and his company were so obnoxiously rattling their sabres at the U.S. (shortly after his election, the German in his group who referred to Bush as Hitler was forced to step down and the Germans have begun to make peace overtures to the U.S. yesterday voulunteering to take over for Turkey in running the peace keeping troops in Afghanistan.)
[ September 27, 2002, 03:12: Message edited by: Laches ]
Fri, 27th Sep '02, 3:34am
Well stated and thought-out. However, I'd like to refute one point, and leave the rest for others.
"Second, there is the claim that the people who do favor military action are ignorant or just plain stupid. Balance. With a number of Anti-American posters here this is really opening myself up, but I'll go ahead: do you really want to make the claim that 57% of Americans are ignorant or stupid? Isn't it possible, just possible, that your point of view isn't overwhelmingly obvious, and indeed, there might even be legitimate reasons to support military action in Iraq?"
Yes, it is possible that my point of view is obvious, and that there may well be reasons to blow up Iraq. However, I do not see how the reasons *to* attack compare to the reasons not to. If we attack, what point is there in Saddam holding back his weapons? How many innocent people will die just because Dubya wants to finish his dad's work? Not Americans -- the likelyhood of Hussein having anything that can reach our shores is unlikely. But, as was mentioned elsewhere, Israelies, innocent, non-terrorist Middle Easterners, Europeans. Secondly, what *real* reason is there for attacking Saddam? He hasn't been hurting anyone lately, save his own people. So, there are Al Queda members in Iraq. If we're going to bomb every country "harboring" terrorists, we may as well just nuke everyone and get it over with. Ireland has the IRA...let's bomb them! Russia still has anti-American former KGBs...let's bomb them! North Dakota has a couple of militant revolutionary groups...let's bomb them!
Secondly, yes, I do believe 57% of Americans are ignorant, at least to the big picture. I'm not a professional psychologist, but I've read enough to know that most people don't really give any thought to consequences, especially not if the consequences won't directly affect them. So Saddam can start a plague in the Middle East? Eh, those camel-jockeys are all terrorists anyway!
Call me bitter, cynical, or irrational. I agnowledge your viewpoint(s), and that maybe there are legitimate reasons for a war with Iraq. But I still maintain that anyone who would willingly launch such a campaign is either ignorant or insane. As for the whole saber-rattling thing, wouldn't Bush knock it off when he realized it was *costing* him votes? Maybe there are polls showing how his apparent insanity is helping his popularity, and if so, it just further proves how ignorant most Americans are.
Or, maybe this is just some overblown dick-sizing contest, with Bush trying to show the world how much meat he has. If so, then hell, there's nothing to worry about and we'll all be okay. If not, and we end up in the middle of World War 3, I'm gonna have fun saying "I told you so!"
Fri, 27th Sep '02, 5:37am
I like that. Essentially you're saying "Leave poor Hussein alone; he hasn't hurt anyone lately. Well except for his own people, and who cares about that?"
So you want to wait until his weapons program is mature enough that he is even more of a threat than he is now? Someone who has already attacked his neighbors as well as his own people?
The reasons for military force in Iraq is to force compliance with the terms of surrender from the Gulf War as well as the UN resolutions since.
And if Hussein attacks Israel, they'll mop the floor with him since it's doubtful anyone would stop them this time.
[ September 27, 2002, 05:38: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]
Fri, 27th Sep '02, 7:23am
Yes, that's all nice, but the Bush is not attacking Iraq because he likes their neighbours (Kuwait) or because Saddam is so dangerous. What happens there is not Americas business. He's doing it because of oil. And that's it. Oil.
BTW, Blair said that Saddam can put his chemical and biological weapons to use in 5 minutes. Why the hell would you wanna to attack him and provoke him???? If he's ever gonna used them it's gonna be in that situation.
Fri, 27th Sep '02, 1:41pm
I don't understand why people fail to understand basic geography. US does not need the Iraqi oil. Get it. What puzzles me is that even though it has been explained in details, (especially by both Shralp and BTA), some people still don't get it. Its kinda scary.
Corr why not accept or be happy that you can actually learn something from other people's explanations and experiences? I am at a loss.
Fri, 27th Sep '02, 3:57pm
I'm not going to get too involved in this topic, its much too irritating. I would just like to point at that "57% of American's supporting action" is complete BS. What you mean to say is, 57% of the American's *polled* support action against Iraq.
Quite frankly to the rest of it, I haven't heard one good reason the US should invade.
Fri, 27th Sep '02, 3:58pm
1. Everybody gets so tense about Hussein building nukies but Im pretty sure that he aint that dumb.
Cause he knows that if he just fires one shot of his AK-47 over the border with Koeweit that Iraq will be reduced to a nuclear moshpit
2. Anybody heard that story of the connection between Al-sumthingsumthing and Iraq.
Well some prisoners (who are still held as POW´s even though America cant charge them of anything) were forced to say that Iraq taught the "Bin Laden Boys" how the make B/C weapons.
Big coincidence since the news came out when America was looking for a good excuse to nuke Iraq
That's my anti-American-government two cents
Fri, 27th Sep '02, 10:38pm
"Loyalty to my country always, loyalty to my government when it deserves it." Mark Twain
Fri, 27th Sep '02, 10:43pm
Personnaly it is all about oil. bush needs oil irag has oil, and bush has some reasons to attack iraq. once iraq is defeated us will try to gets its hands on iraqs oil
Fri, 27th Sep '02, 10:48pm
Thorin, just out of interest, why does Bush need oil when he has plenty already?
Fri, 27th Sep '02, 11:09pm
Wildfire: Bush has made it clear several times that he wants the US to remain self-sufficient in regards to energy. US consumption of oil is through the roof and they're basically slaves to OPEC because of this. Gaining control over Iraq is excellent for the US government; it will give them another foothold in the Middle East and therefore more control over oil production in the area.
Fri, 27th Sep '02, 11:31pm
USA does not want access to iraqi oil in for its own needs. USA wants iraqi oil because:
a) It (I mean the oil industries) can make profit out of it.
b) The country, which controls oil production and distribution, has the ability to "blackmail" other countries.
Fri, 27th Sep '02, 11:41pm
They are not attacking for oil! They are attacking to keep the war on terror going, which I think is a very worthy cause. America and Britain should show those scum who's boss.
Fri, 27th Sep '02, 11:51pm
Starting a war in order to simply "keep another going" is not a very worthy cause, in my opinion.
Sat, 28th Sep '02, 12:01am
There is not a proof that Saddam is related with Osama Bin Laden. Also, Saddam,even if he has nuclear weapons, does not have the capability to bomb USA or UK, therefore this attack has nothing to do with the war against terrorism.Also, if the British goverment wants to attack a country, which officialy or unofficialy supports terrorists groups, why does it not attack Ireland? The majority of Irish people support IRA.
Also, Bush has said that North Korea belongs to the "evil alliance", so why USA and UK do not attack North Korea? Maybe because, if they dare to do this, they will have to face Chinese army?
Finally, does the fact ,that even Kuweit has denied to allow to USA to use its ground, tell you something about the real motives of this war?
Sat, 28th Sep '02, 12:54am
I can't believe the amount of crap that people come up with. America is not attacking for oil. If you believe otherwise, you are simply blinding yourself with your dislike for America. Think about. I mean really think about it. It makes no sense. Shralp and others have shown why-but of course, their posts are disregarded. Just as this one will be. Why do I even bother?
and if you look closely, you'll notice that iraq has NOT been attacked yet. And yes, Iraq has taken action against America. Early 90s, there was an Iraqi backed plot to crash approximately 10(!) planes or so into assorted targets. Fortunately for us, CIA/FBI cracked it wide open. But, since Clinton was in charge, no action was taken in reply, and it was kept quiet (source for this=Newsweek. I can try to dig up the issue if you like). Kinda like Saddam's attempted assasination of Bush Sr. But you're right, he's been minding his own business all along.
Sat, 28th Sep '02, 1:32am
First, Gallup polls are so well respected for a reason, even if you don't like the results.
Second, I really can't understand how someone can say they can't see one good reason for military action in Iraq. Hell, I can think of a good reason to do just about anything. If a number of people here are so clos minded as to be unwilling to admit there are legitimate reasons to wish military action in Iraq, they are either uninformed or wilfully blind.
The idea that it is the U.S. government only connecting Iraq and al-Qaida is an example of being uninformed, unless you consider the traditionally left-wing magazine "The New Yorker" and its investigative journalism piece on the subject to be the government.
You can't think of one reason to want a regime change via action in Iraq? How about this:
"Let me move quickly to another main point of the piece. In 1988, Saddam used, as you know, chemical weapons against the Kurds of the north. He killed thousands with these weapons (and killed thousands more with conventional tools), and today the survivors of these attacks are suffering in terrible ways.....I will end what could quickly devolve into a rant by posing this question to you: Does it in fact even matter if Saddam is connected to al-Qaida? In other words, why look for a smoking gun when a dozen already exist? This is a man who has attacked, unprovoked, four of his country's neighbors; a man who has committed genocide and used chemical weapons on civilians; a man who is clearly obsessed with the development of weapons of mass destruction; and a man who uses homicide and rape as a tool of governance. Isn't he worthy, by these deeds alone, of removal?
Or am I just naive?
Kanan Makiya, the great Iraqi writer and dissident, argues that the Baghdad regime is similar in ideology and practice to the European fascist dictatorships of the 1930s. This makes it fundamentally different from every other ridiculous Third World dictatorship currently holding a seat in the U.N. General Assembly. Saddam's Iraq is the quintessence of a security state, built on paranoia and homicide and Big Brother surveillance; its charismatic and megalomaniacal Great Leader thinks of himself as father of his people; his regime engages in racialist thought; it commits genocide; it seeks Lebensraum; and on and on and on.
So, what is conservative, or neoconservative, about Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Perle (or Dick Cheney) standing in the front line against fascism? I didn't realize that the fight against fascism is solely the province of the neoconservative movement. Isn't the real story here not the muscular unilateralism of the neocons, but the moral abdication of the moderate left, which is missing a chance to defeat a genocidal fascist?" --Jeff Goldberg
"But that certainly doesn't mean that abhorrence of Baathist totalitarianism is the exclusive preserve of the neocons. (For one thing, that's hard to square with the fact that the beatified Reagan administration pursued "constructive engagement" with Saddam both before and—worse—after he gassed Halabja.) Some liberals have missed the boat in taking humanitarianism out of the case for moving against Saddam. The death of about 100,000 Kurds in the Anfal should still offend the collective conscience of humanity, as did the ethnic cleansing of the Kosovars, which goaded the reluctant Clinton administration into a humanitarian war. There's a fine liberal case for getting Saddam as well." --Warren Bass
For the whole exchange of letters see:
where there is a long exchange debating the Iraq situation.
If you really insist that everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and stupid, look at how the list is growing. Most of America. A substantial part of Britain. People like Powell, Kissinger, Goldberg, the list of democrats in the link above, etc. etc. etc. Now please.
Sat, 28th Sep '02, 1:47am
To use your exact same disasembly method of Z-layrex ideas, in simplicity, on yourself.
There is no proof US wants Iraqi oil
Anyway its even more rediculous. Here is just one of the numerous complications with conquering another country for oil; Which oilcompany would willingly risk their reputation world wide, stambed as those who went to war for oil.
You shock me BOC and others.
Sat, 28th Sep '02, 3:15am
Just read these articles:
Sat, 28th Sep '02, 4:29am
OK, so we are now going to make a policy where the US patrols the world and eliminates any regime it doesn't like for whatever nefarious reasons the government decides to feed the public, which will of course eat it up because we are just a bunch of gun toting renegades who want to fight a war but haven't a clue what that really means.
Would you please stop repeating the BS rhetoric about this having anything to do with ridding the world of terrorism?
Sat, 28th Sep '02, 6:02am
would you please stop spouting the BS rhetoric that it has anything to do with America wanting more oil, and maybe a 51st state?
Sat, 28th Sep '02, 6:27am
People say that the we are going after Iraq because of terroism, others say for the oil.
If we are going after Iraq for the fact they are stronghold of terroists. That would be stupid. Simple why destory a country for the actions of a few. Terroists here that US is going to attack Iraq they will be out of there and in eroupe, africa, or another mild east country before the first bomb is dropped.
What I am getting at is that the US is saying they are going after the terroists. Good for them I say, but what the hell ever happened to the 'black op' you know illegial entry into a country kill the baddies get out of dodge city?
No the stance that bush is presenting is that we are going to attack Iraq. Not only are we going to attack Iraq but we are going to do it in grand style, one massive rush that has been overhyped and broadcasted across the world. I think they forgot that Iraq gets cnn and cspan.
Great by the time we attack the terroists have already left.
Now let us think that bush is doing this for oil. not to get some oil but to secure oil for the states for the next couple generations. First he proves Iraq is evil; he has done that.
Second the say that democarcy needs to go into Iraq; he has done that. Now let us think about this. If US does attack Iraq and does destory there government a democratic government will be established.
Now you are probally thinking what is the problem with that, correct. Now this is where politcs comes into play. The US will only support a government that will play US rules ie Iraq will become a state of the states (also a base of assualt onto the rest of the middle east).
If you think that an oil company will not buy US owned Iraq oil your a fool. there will be a bloodbath, as one of two things will happen.
A) US(government) will agree with Iraq to buy all the oil Iraq can produce. this would replenish the US oil stockpile, plus replinsh the expendures of the military, and give the US government control over the oil market. This would piss of the oil companies so they would jack up the price of oil, making the US government sell all the iraq oil at below market value. This cycle would go on for ever and would never be nice(unles you invest in oil)
B) the second the US government will get Iraq to sell oil at below market value, making all oil companies lower the value of oil. This would make every car in north america happy, and second would allow the US government to buy oil at below market price which could lead to scenario one.
that is just my two cents.
ohh and on a side note I dont hate the US. Bush has fumbled the ball like usual
Sat, 28th Sep '02, 8:23am
Griffin: Your Mark Twain quote has officially become my screen saver :D
Lachel: Another well-said opinion. It's obvious that, unlike many pro-war supporters, you know what you're talking about. And I agree wholeheartedly: I didn't even know about the gassing of Halabja. Jesus. You're right, there's a damned good reason for killing Saddam. The man's sick.
But still, two things concern me. First, as Throrin said, what happened to Black Ops? Did Dubya forget about this? Why, in God's name, would he murder thousands more people than he needs to just to remove a single political regime? And why do it without the U.N's blessing? By making such a grand production of slaughtering a nation about the size of Illinois, Bush seems to be *inviting* people to kill Americans. Here, Middle Easterners. You weren't pissed off enough at the capitalistic evils we and our agents have done you? Maybe bombing the sh*t out of Baghdad will do it! Be sure to wear shirts with your home nation's flag on them, so we'll know who to blow up next.
Second, Bush isn't a liberal. And the timing of this attack is simply suspect. It just seems to me that he's using his little "War on Terrorism" (which, to me, seems more like a "Slaughter of Non-Terrorists"...but that's a whole 'nother topicc) as an excuse to finish daddy's work. His motives don't lie in avenging the horrendous crimes dealt the Iraqie(sp?) people by their fascist dictator. He just wants to show the world how headstrong and incredibly stupid America is. He's telling the world that the United States are above the United Nations, and that even though we expect everyone else, even non-U.N. countries, to comply with the "communal" will, we ourselves are exempt. It's like the cop who goes 80 down a residential street, but pulls someone over for going five miles an hour over the speed limit on an interstate. Dubya is basically raising his middle finger to the world and telling them to sit on it. And rotate.
Geh. What ever happened to liberalism? Even the f'ing Democrats are conservative nowadays. Well, we'll be back in a generation or two...
Sat, 28th Sep '02, 8:44am
Amazing. Simply unbelievable. Destroy a country? Who said anything about destroying Iraq? Nobody has discussed what form of military force will be used (or even IF it will be used yet), yet everyone assumes massive bombing of all of Iraq? Whatever.
I suppose all the negotiations with the UN is Bush raising his middle finger to them eh? Again jumping to conclusions. The US has not yet attacked Iraq without UN approval.
The reason for military force in Iraq is not oil. The US is not going to invade Iraq and take its sovereignty, nor will it dictate who the new ruler will be if Hussein is deposed. So what control will the US have over Iraq's oil? None other than what it already has.
The reason for military force in Iraq is not terrorism. At least not directly. There may be links to terrorism in Iraq, but there are in many other places as well.
The reason for military force in Iraq (I will say it again) is to force compliance with the terms of surrender and UN resolutions, primarily the Iraqi disarmament.
Saddam Hussein is too dangerous to be allowed to develop and maintain weapons of mass destruction. He has already shown the world he is willing to use them, and he has shown that he is willing to invade his neighbors (Iran and Kuwait).
To say that he should be left alone because he hasn't hurt anyone lately is just unbelievable to me. Why do you think he hasn't for the past 10 years? Because he's a good guy now? Or maybe because he can't since there is a military force on his doorstep watching him?
[ September 28, 2002, 08:49: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]
Sat, 28th Sep '02, 10:46am
Rumsfeld to Germany: "Someone who's sitting in a hole shouldn't dig any longer." We understand this as a threat.
Today i received a call from a german boy working in France. The first thing he said was: "I'm working for a rich american couple, but they're quite okay." Well i can't translate it real good.
He was very anxious about us disliking Americans because of politics. :)
I dislike Rumsfeld.
He didn't greeting Strunck in public, but behind a pillar they shook hands. :mad:
After Germany was elected for U.N. Security Council, one of the american government Heinzis (people) told us Germany had been friend of America for such a long time. Slime slime.
[ September 28, 2002, 11:01: Message edited by: Oblate ]
Sat, 28th Sep '02, 12:17pm
This is from your first link BOC
Recent NATO military action in Yugoslavia is part of a long strategic (economic) battle to control the Balkans. The current focus is to secure oil and gas pipeline routes from the oilfields of the Caspian Sea to the consumers of Europe. Multinational oil corporations from the U.S., Britain and other European countries, and Russia are signing multibillion-dollar contracts with KazakhstanNow NATO is part of your rebel alliance too?
I have an idea, I make some random homepage where I claim that Bush actually wants to be Luke Skywalker, and he has a doll of Darth Vader which he calls Osama and one of Emperor Palpatine which he calls Saddam. Each night he plays with his B52-Xwing that destroys the evil deadly BioStar produced in secrecy by Saddam. Of course Bush brings in the help of Tony Solo. Heck! NATO could be in too, as Mon Calamari. And look at Koffi Anan. He would make an excellent General Ackbar. It all adds up, so it has to be true, right?
Then I'll add a lot of random quotes from politicians and journalists, that sum up somekind of idea that US wants oil. Everytime someone disagrees with you, you can link to my page. Cause whats on the net, must be true. :1eye:
[ September 28, 2002, 12:19: Message edited by: Nobleman ]
Sat, 28th Sep '02, 1:37pm
Someone who's sitting in a hole shouldn't dig any longer Probably only the Dutch people living near beaches will see the connections between Germans and digging holes :D
Sat, 28th Sep '02, 3:32pm
Ok this is my first post on this board so why not make it on a controversial topic.
I was opposed to the first war in in Irag and even marched in Washington to protest it.Since then I have grown a little older and hopefully a little wiser and see that not only did it need to happen but was handled remarkably well by the people in charge. Namely Powell and Swartzkoph.
They finished that conflict with minimum loss of life on both sides and more quickly than i would have believed possiable.
This is not to say that it still wasnt a horriable thing for many innocent people in Irag but if you read more about these generals you wil see that they want war perhaps least of all.I think they understand the terriable responsibility that has been thrust upon them.
Laches and Blackthorne make very good points backed up by solid solid facts.It seems the people who are opposed have no good arguments they just resort to name calling.Every one has a right to their own opinion and in cases like this we will all never agree but please support youre arguments with a little more than just oh Bush and the entire US are just war hungry morons.
I mean really.
Anyway Laches and Blackthorne thanks for youre detailed and informative views of this situation.
If god is willing it wont come to war but if it does I will support my goverment this time around.
I will also weep for the many whose lives will change forever if this conflict comes to a head.
anyway thats just my two cents
[ September 28, 2002, 15:54: Message edited by: Dorion Blackstar ]
Sat, 28th Sep '02, 9:47pm
But Bush *is* a war hungry moron. That's sort of the whole point. Like you said, his generals don't want it, his people (no matter what "57% of people polled" -- likely meaning a few dozen guys in an Alabama bar -- say) don't want it, and the nations of the U.N. don't want it.
Personally, as I said, I agree that Saddam needs to be taken out. I didn't even know about the atrocities he's committed, and likely, 99% of other Americans don't either. I, and likely most other people, always considered him just another insane 3rd world dictator. He's not. Kill him. But do you need to start a war to do it?
I guess, when you come down to it, I'm worried most about Bush's motives. He's not a liberal, which basically means he's not doing it for the good of the Iraqie people, or just because Hussein's an evil bastard. He *must* have some alterior motive. And my left-wing mind can't think of anything that won't sound like a conspiracy theory. I'll leave it up to the resident righties to tell us how Bush's motives are logical and reasonable. To me, it looks insane, and hence the name of this topic.
Basically, I'm an idealist. I'm more concerned about *why* he's doing it, and *why* he's doing it that way, than enything else. If Dubya stands up and tells the world about all the crimes Saddam has commited against his people, and not just that he's "evil" and "harboring terrorists," I'll be a little less skeptical about the whole damned thing. But that's not likely to happen anytime soon. Until then, I'll keep ranting and raving my liberalist opinions until someone can convince me that Bush has a good reason for all of this.
And yes, I know we're not at war. And yes, I may be jumping to conclusions that war is coming. Butcha know what? Even if we don't end up slaughtering Iraq, I'll still wonder what the hell Bush was thinking with this whole meat-measuring contest.
William Smit IV
Sun, 29th Sep '02, 1:58am
Well, I recall both Bushes (Dana Carvey and "folks round here call me Dubya") being members of the secret society "Skull and Bones" (frikkin' History Channel buff right here!). Believe me, it's true! His code name is "the replacement" :eek: . I mean, these totally unknown folks (to us) meet and say "I think this law should be passed," and the next day...plinko! law passed.
Maybe they're the driving force behind this whole "let's get Iraq's oil thing, global power for America (right on!), yadda, yadda"... All right, but, anyway, that's my two rambling bits. The whole secret society thing really irks me, for one.....heh, I'm not lying about this stuff!! You wouldn't believe what goes on around our (allegedly "our") government (and over and under). Quit looking at me like I'm crazy, too. :rolleyes:
Sun, 29th Sep '02, 7:58am
Actually, my history prof is having us read a book called the Naked Capitalist, which is all about the "secret organization." I just haven't brought that up because people think us leftists are insane enough without spouting about J.P. Morgan's plans to conquer the world :p
Sun, 29th Sep '02, 10:20am
Ah... global domination, thats the key to this mess.
When you have the strongest army behind your back you can be extremly "peacful"
Mon, 30th Sep '02, 6:21am
Assume for a moment that you are correct in attributing nefarious motives to Bush. This is a bit of a stretch to me, first you state Bush is stupid then you state he is smart and wily enough to bend this issue into his own personal gain, but whatever. Suppose he is only after Iraq because he likes to kill and he likes oil.
That Bush's motives may be bad (I don't really think they are, he may not be correct, but I think he is doing what he honestly feels is best for the U.S.) doesn't change what I believe are purely humanitarian reasons to seek a regime change in Iraq.
I've noticed noone has refuted that there is a strong humanitarian case for a regime change in Iraq. The Europeans were screaming at the U.S. to be involved in their back yard and to help force a regime change in Kosovo, is the regime in Iraq any less viscious?
So, even assuming that Bush's motives are impure, the result of a regime change in Iraq is in my view a good for humanity, and until I see someone at least address this issue with some type of compelling argument, I'll believe that genocide and the use or torture, murder, and rape is enough to justify a regime change.
Now, there is a better argument to be made about how to achieve that regime change. For a decade now the world has sought to use containment. Over two billion dollars in humanitarian aid every year are being diverted by Hussein to the military. Sanctions have failed and will continue to do so in my opinion.
Novak, you ask has Bush forgotten covert ops? Not at all. Early I stated the question was nuanced in that the type of campaign that would be necessary is highly debatable. Just a point though, assassination is illegal both by our own laws and international (not long ago Congress toyed with the idea of legalizing it for our "war on terror.") The Kurds are asking, and have been asking the U.S. for help for a decade, and they are begging us to hit hard and fast to take Hussein out immediately with the first strike so as to tremendously reduce the chance of the use of weapons of mass destruction once again on the secular Kurds to the north.
I suspect that ideally if the U.S. and allies try to hit Iraq they will try to hit Hussein hard and quick. Or they'd like to. Unfortunately, he is a slick s.o.b. and it is very difficult to determine where he is at any given time.
I suspect what the U.S. would like is an inside out campaign like in Afghanistan where we help a local opposition through the use of our special operations (delta force, who as an interesting side note the Army doesn't even officially acknowledge exist,) special forces (green berets who specialize in acting as intermediates and helping opposition forces train and plan,) rangers, and our vastly superior air capabilities.
Unfortunately, in Iraq the opposition forces aren't as strong making the inside out campaign less feasible. At the other end of the spectrum is an all out invasion similar to Desert Storm with 300,000 troops or more. Word on the streets is that maybe a middle route is being considered. 75,000 troops to bolster the local opposition and heavy use of our special operations to take out key installations and try to neutralize those who might order the use of weapons of mass destruction.
Whatever happens, I promise you this -- the goal will be to quickly eliminate Iraq's ability to use their weapons of mass destruction, just like the Kurds are begging us to do. I'd anticipate delta force insertions everywhere we think Iraq might be able to launch such an attack early in the campaign if such a campaign ever comes about.
Also, Novak, why do you say America's generals are against a campaign. Powell is on the record as to saying he thinks a regime change is necessary. I haven't read or heard of anyone in the military being opposed to action, just curious if I've missed something. One of my earlier posts has the quote from Powell by the way.
Mon, 30th Sep '02, 7:28am
And as for China, the only remaining major Communist state in the world, and therefore our traditional enemies...does anyone even remember they're still there, and heavily armed?
I agree in most of your statments but you couldn't possible call China a communist state, and like the sovjet union they never have been, but many don't realise this-
The Deviant Mage
Mon, 30th Sep '02, 8:50am
Uh...China is a communist state. Remember Mao? The Great Leap Forward? That whole Tianamen Square thing?
I don't read them as a threat to the United States, though. They seemed quite wrapped up in their economic free zones, dismantling Hong Kong and moving it to Shanghai, and covering up North Koreans illegally entering their country. If they want to take out some aggression, they'll probably just try to suppress some nomads in the Xianjiang Autonomous Region or maybe flirt with Taiwan.
Mon, 30th Sep '02, 10:39am
No, China is not a communist state today, though communist got alot of power. many of the members in the communist party are capitalists and such.
Well, like sovjet China begun to develop communism, but like Stalin, Mao Zedong begun to strive away from communism and begun to develop his own little version, Maoism.
True communism is probably the best ideology ever, I truly beleave so. Read some Marx and see.
Crush the capitalism!
Mon, 30th Sep '02, 12:46pm
I haven't been able to get on the website for a few days now (whats up with that???) http problems of some sort.
First of all, I have never said this is about oil so that retort to my post is ill placed.
Second of all, I agree with vonGriffon.
We are not really talking about the real subject here... Why Iraq, why now, and what are the REAL reasons.
Of course we can come up with reasons like- it's the humanitarian thing to do, and oh, he has weapons of mass destruction. A number of countries have weapons of mass destruction.
Why aren't we going after Saudi Arabia, or Israel, or Syria???
If Saddam is soooo scary, how come he hasn't done anything to the US in the last 10 years since our inspectors left??
What's the hurry anyway?
That people are so willing to glide pass the bigger issue of whether or not we, the US, want or should become a country that engages in preemptive strikes amazes me.
We are about to make a monumental change in world policy and for what??? I haven't read anything that supplies enough reason to do such a thing. I am not afraid of Iraq. Are you, really?
Even if they have some weapons of mass destruction (which we have no evidence of),
how are they going to use them?
How are they going to send them across the ocean to hit our country?
No one yet has explained how this has anything to with counter terrorism. In fact, it goes against the idea. Iraq is one of the few countries in the Middle East who has a government not based upon religious fundamentalism.
Just take a look at the countries who are very against our position: Russia and China are 2 of them.
Are we going to create an environment that would make them bedpartners?
Shall we enter the next cold war right now?
We already pissed off the Chinese as soon as Bush took office, why not do it again?
China: now THAT is a country I would be afraid to be up against, forget Iraq.
[ September 30, 2002, 12:48: Message edited by: scarampella ]