Bush's Lie

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ARogueTrader, Nov 24, 2003.

  1. Romeo


    when George W. wins in 2004 , from thinking about creatures like nolan-vinny-sam, and how much he will be crying at the result.
    #51     Nov 26, 2003
  2. ElCubano


    it would not be genocide if they would follow orders...period the end....hey this is WAR ( although i wasnt for going in) we are in...and id rather we put order whichever way need be than have our soldiers die day in and day out.....

    My question, is how did the planners overlook this type of scenerio??? I mean to think we were just going in and they would welcome us and put up no resistance what so ever after grabbing baghdad........and to have no plan in affect to fight this type of guerilla war with an unknown enemy is absurd....

    Tripack brings up a good point in not knowing who the enemy is...well looks like you will never know for sure..so being that you can't tell wether the next child walking up the street is an enemy or not...there leaves us no choice but to start realizing that anyone and everybody is our enemy....id much rather kill 100 innnocent iraqis ( for not following orders ) than have one of our soldiers die because we have to wear our white gloves.....

    Yes I know the Iraqi's didnt ask for this,,,blah blah blah....well then bring home our boys and let them kill each other .......
    #52     Nov 26, 2003
  3. What makes you think it was overlooked?:confused:

    Have you ever considered that bumya/oil buddies, extreme neocon chickhawks DON"T really CARE? GI's are treated as expendable assets, take a look at the R.O.I.
    The only think they care is money and oil:( The "scenario" worked out like a charm. Iraq's oil is ours, US treasury money is smoothly transferred to HAL/Betchel et all:( Me wonders if they pay taxes on them overseas revenues :D

    What part don't you understand????:confused:
    #53     Nov 26, 2003
  4. ElCubano


    i guess i dont understand any of it...because according to TIME mag...they also fucked up on the OIL part.....peace
    #54     Nov 26, 2003
  5. jem



    regardless of what you think I was saying.

    I want to know what is wrong with my previous statement:

    The U.S. is not liked because the Arab leaders instill hate.

    I was illustrating that the educated lib/lefty was using this goering quote to to indict the U.S.--- in contrast it was much more appropo to apply it to the mid east and all other U.S. haters. (In general).

    Just to be clear nolan

    Again I ask is it our foreign policy or corrupt midddle eastern leaders that cause animus towards the U.S. and Isreal in the mid east?

    I await your response?
    #55     Nov 26, 2003
  6. While I disagree with much of the way our foreign policy has been handled by the Bush administration, I do not disagree with this statement.

    Throughout history, ethnic groups have been used as scapegoats to promote hatred among the weak minded masses, and to create a common "enemy" among them. Hitler did it with the Jews, as have the many Arab leaders for the greater part of the past century. But Jews have no monopoly on being the targets of this kind of politics. We saw what happened with "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia just a few years ago. The list is endless of the peoples that have been used to unify unjust causes as scapegoats. Chinese, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Blacks, American Indians, Serbs, Kurds, and on and on. The list is really endless. The politics of hatred go back to the dawn of history.

    Even in Islam itself, today the hatred between the sects is almost (if not equal to) as bad as the hatred of the non Islamic "infidels". Look at the war between Iran and Iraq. Now the extremist Wahabe sect is represented by Bin Laden and Al Qada. They want to overthrow Islamic theocracies that are not of their own sect. Is it really about religion? Or is it about power?

    The most fanatic of the fanatics may or may not have their "God is Great (as long as it's our god)" beliefs driving their causes. Or maybe not. Certainly Mohammed Atta and his crew were willing to die for a ticket to paradise. But you don't see Bin Laden, or Arafat, or Quadaffi, or any other "leaders" making martyrs of themselves. They seem only interested in power. And money.

    Jem is just right.

    When they found the home of Mullah Omar, the opulence was in total contrast to the supposed beliefs of the Taliban.

    Nolan-Vinny-whoever may have his legitimate points in his distaste for our leader's way of handling the war on terror. But Nolan...what do you suggest as better alternatives?

    There really can't be (IMO) much of an argument against the statement by Jem regarding the hypocrisy of the Arab leaders (the ones that support terrorism, and have ALWAYS managed to unite the Arab world in their one common cause...the elimination of Israel).

    The use of scapegoats is one of the most effective motivations for working up the masses into a frenzy. Got problems? Hey, it's not us (your government)....blame it on the Jews, Christians, Serbs, ....(fill in the blanks). This has worked for thousands of years. Why would a successful strategy not be employed now?

    While I am not a supporter of Bush and his administration, I do hand it to them all for suppressing the initial national anti-muslim reaction here after 9/11. I give the administration a lot of credit for calming the populace as well as they did. Clearly there was potential for a lot of our outrage to turn a lot more ugly than it did regarding American Muslims. Perhaps we learned our lesson after the internment of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor. Whatever the reason, we should be proud as a nation that we did not see massive violent reaction against the American Muslim community.

    There were isolated instances for sure. There always are. But anyone who knows what the "Crystal Night" was about should appreciate what a great country ours is. And no matter what Prescott Bush's politics were, clearly GWB, as big an idiot as he may appear, is far from evil. (not so sure about Cheney:)).

    #56     Nov 26, 2003
  7. :D


    I got no opinion on Israel other than seeing billions of our tax $$$ siphoned by them.:( Why is Israel down there? What was the Arab stance towards US before Israel? What is our historical involvement in the middle east?.:confused: Who benefits from the turmoil, and who suffers?. Most answers are in there.:confused: corrupt leaders?... It takes 2 to tango.

    If a foreign country comes over on a fraud for excuse, bombs the crap out of you, kills your family, clearly shows they are primarily interested to steal your natural resources... WHAT SENTIMENT WILL YOU HAVE????? :confused: You'll get married again have children if you survive that is. WHAT will you be teaching them about the war and the aggressors behind it?:confused:

    Please answer.:)
    #57     Nov 26, 2003

  8. Read some history, as an example look up DeBeers....... Price control through "perceived luck of supply" rings a bell?:D :D Then let's chat again.:D :D
    Oil cos were pumping billions profits into their coffers at crude prices in the mid low teens not too long ago. :cool: What do you think they are doing these days at 30+ a barrel????
    Do you honestly believe their production costs have risen? ahahahaha run the numbers it's all there for those who care to see the "true scenarios" :D :D :D
    #58     Nov 26, 2003
  9. jem


    NVS I wrote long answer then I reread your question, and decided to write this instead.

    I do not subscribe to you point of view( Sting) regarding taking their natural resources.

    I do know they hated Jewish people for a very long time and there got pretty pissed off at Britain and others like the U.S. who helped Isreal re establish itself.

    I also know that some of the current hate must stem from the history of Islam vs. Christian.

    I know there was a lot of killing of Jews and war among tribes. I do know that many of their leaders teach hate as opposed to ours.
    #59     Nov 26, 2003
  10. I don't have to "claim" anything. That you see only see extremes is your problem, not mine.

    No. As I've said before, they wouldn't be as effective as professional soldiers. Do you have any idea of the time limitations the Guard troops are under? How long it would take to train them? And how long could we expect them to put aside their jobs and families? Do you have any military experience at all? Do you know how long it takes for policy to become effective in our regular armed forces let alone our Guard and Reserves? Simply saying "with a little training" does not make it so....You attempt to discuss that which you know nothing about.

    It obviously strikes a chord with you, so it is in fact effective.


    As open as yours.

    No, you began this thread with an opinion that Bush and company's thinking is dangerous. Nothing more.

    So because terrorists killed 3,000 of our countrymen, we are responsible for that? You are assigning those who kill us a blanket rationality, arguing that because they have acted in a negative way towards us we have done something negative to them deserving of their actions on 9/11. Bin Laden attacked us because we had troops and equipment on Saudi soil, something he considered sacriligious. Why were our troops and materiel there? As a result of the first Gulf War and to have them close by in case they had to be used again in the region. You can argue that by virtue of having troops and equip. there, this infuriated bin Laden to the extent that 9/11 occured, and thus the US is partially responsible. But does that make the presence of those men and machines there wrong? Should they not have been there? Was bin Laden's response - the killing of 3,000 noncombatants - thus justifiable? Only to fanatics, I would argue. One could say the US is responsible for 9/11 only because we were so "self-centered" that we also took on the responsibility of kicking Saddam out of Kuwait and safeguarding the region - to the utter relief of most of the world. Shame on us.
    I heartily disagree. IMHO Israel has shown considerable restraint and willingness to compromise. Each time they do so a suicide bombing takes place and scuttles the progress. It is not Israel's fault that Arafat is unwilling or unable to reign in the bombers.

    I do not conclude that we are good in all that we do.
    Mere supposition on your part.

    That you fail to see that the sarcasm is a means of trying to enable you to understand my opinion - since normal discourse obviously does not - is not my concern.

    Give examples, not fluffy conjecture.

    How do you know that for a fact? Furthermore, why should he say anything in defense of his critics, who espouse vitriol towards him en masse every day?

    You assert that Bush is using lies couched under the banner of patriotism, that we are in danger of being turned into a totalitarian state, and that the ad in question is cause for alarm. That is merely your opinion. It is impossible to dissuade you from that opinion, thus you will always consider it to be logical, reasonable, and unassailable. I, who do not share your opinion, believe it to be illogical, unreasonable, very assailable, and quite frankly, laughable.

    Happy Thanksgiving
    #60     Nov 26, 2003