What is Bush doing?

[Confuscious]

First off, I strongly believe that Bush is waging war on Iraq solely because of the oil. Why else would he put the army closest the the large oil fields. Also, before Bush was President he was governor of Texas. He and his father tried to make an oil deal with Saddam Hussein. Now, this ultimately screwed up, hence the Gulf War. Bush Jr is just finishing off what his Dad couldn't do. Or, atleast he's attempting to.

Secondly. If this war was to defeat terrorism of "weapons of mass destruction" why doesn't the United States disarms theirs first. The States do really reflect on their military power "leadership". One of the principles of leadership is to "Lead by example". I don't see this happening. They're owning the majority of the worlds nuclear weapons, and yet he's telling the other countries not to build them. He wants the nuclear weapons himself so if any country has beef with the States, they can blow them up.

These are my thoughts on the whole campaign.

Oh yeah, by the way. "Friendly fire isn't" Hence, the 4 Canadians dead. (For those that are kind of slow. Friendly fire isn't friendly.)

[conkermaniac]

Originally posted by Confuscious
First off, I strongly believe that Bush is waging war on Iraq solely because of the oil. Why else would he put the army closest the the large oil fields. Also, before Bush was President he was governor of Texas. He and his father tried to make an oil deal with Saddam Hussein. Now, this ultimately screwed up, hence the Gulf War. Bush Jr is just finishing off what his Dad couldn't do. Or, atleast he's attempting to.

Yes, I agree. The fact that Bush owns a large oil company and wants to go to war with Iraq, a major power in the oil industry, certainly sounds very fishy to me.



Secondly. If this war was to defeat terrorism of "weapons of mass destruction" why doesn't the United States disarms theirs first. The States do really reflect on their military power "leadership". One of the principles of leadership is to "Lead by example". I don't see this happening. They're owning the majority of the worlds nuclear weapons, and yet he's telling the other countries not to build them. He wants the nuclear weapons himself so if any country has beef with the States, they can blow them up.

Yes, I have always wondered why the US believes that they can impose restrictions on Iraq and North Korea, when they themselves have far more nuclear weapons than those two countries. I know that they have made agreements, but I personally felt that those pacts were unfair and one-sided. These guys only want nuclear weapons for protection -- I seriously doubt that Saddam or Kim would attack if not provoked.

Oh, and BTW, I loved this part of your statement:

One of the principles of leadership is to "Lead by example".

Now I can see where you got your username. :p

[Blank Verse]

While I agree with you and your statements, and hop eto God war doesn't happen, the cynic in me has this to say:

Thank you Captain Obvious :p :D

[zoobie]

What is Bush doing?

The funky chicken? :biggrin2:

[Conscript]

All of you are wrong.

1. People said Gulf War I was about the oil. If it was, why didn't we take it????

2. Bush 41. and Saddam never did try to make an oil deal that resulted in war. The Gulf War in 1991 was about liberating Kuwait and protecting Saudi Arabia from an Iraqi invasion.

3. If the United States gets rid of its weapons everyone will attack it. The reason no one wants N. Korea or Iraq to have these weapons is so that their DICTATORS don't blackmail the world, as North Korea has done BTW.

4. The casulaty rates are so low in today's war. 4 Canadians dead is better than thousands, right? In WW2 America lost 400,000 people and Canada lost thousands too. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have fought WW2, nor does it mean we shouldn't fight now.


I hate it, absolutley hate it, when people spew this garbage about oil wars. Next time your paid by Saddam to post something like this, think about what you're saying, and find concrete PROOF.

Besides, if this was an oil war, and its not, but IF it was, think about this statement (i found on another website):



All these peace protestors talk about oppression. Hey guys, think of the people in Iraq, North Korea or even Saudi Arabia. These people ought to be living far more prosperous lives than they are, simply because of where they live. They live where the oil is. Yet all these oil riches never reach them. Why is that? Also, if this was really just about oil, why wasn't the same argument made against Clinton when he was saying the same things about Saddam Hussein in 1998?

I find it so hypocritical that all these liberals constantly worry about home heating oil and gas prices every winter, yet when it comes to actually securing oil, whether drilling or protecting other sources of it, they're totally opposed. This is one of the most contradictory, hypocritical positions they own.

Talk about dictatorial control of oil! The same people out there accusing Bush of wanting to secure oil for himself and his buddies, are doing everything they can to keep the Iraqi oil supply in exactly that status for Saddam Hussein. Think about that.

[conkermaniac]

Originally posted by Conscript
All of you are wrong.

1. People said Gulf War I was about the oil. If it was, why didn't we take it????

Probably because he simply never got around to it. The war was largely left unfinished because Saddam was never overthrown. If he had been replaced with a pro-US leader, then America would be able to secure oil from Iraq with ease.



3. If the United States gets rid of its weapons everyone will attack it. The reason no one wants N. Korea or Iraq to have these weapons is so that their DICTATORS don't blackmail the world, as North Korea has done BTW.
If North Korea and Iraq get rid of their weapons, they risk an invasion from other nations as well.



I hate it, absolutley hate it, when people spew this garbage about oil wars. Next time your paid by Saddam to post something like this, think about what you're saying, and find concrete PROOF.

Look, the United States is not the "international good-guy" - nobody can afford that kind of status for nothing in return. For every war, they are looking to profit somehow. In this war, they want to overthrow Saddam so that they can put in place a new leader who will sell oil to the US at dirt-cheap prices.

[PH Lamar]

Just to make you think:

A serial killer, who loves to mutilate young blonde women, gets out of his conviction on a technicality (the police officer gave him his rights from memory, instead of reading them).

He moves across the street from you.

You are a young blonde woman.

Handguns are outlawed in your state/province, yet you see him every day, pointing a gun at you from across the street, while yelling curses and death threats at you.

You call the police. They show up and ask the man about the gun. He denies having a gun.

As soon as the police leave, he gets out the gun and yells across the street how he wants your children dead. He makes it very clear what he will do if he gets to them.

You fear for your safety and the safety of your family.

You call the police again and report the incident.

The police show up again, but the serial killer says he does not have a gun. The police ask to search his house, but he says, "No."

The police obtain a search warrant, search the house, find some old bullets, but can not find a gun.

When the police leave, the killer gets out the gun again and yells across the street that you and your children are gonna get it now! You are very careful with your children, but realize it is not humanly possible to watch them every moment.

You call the police again, but they say that they could not find a gun when they searched, so they can do nothing.

You talk to your neighbors and friends, asking for help. They all say they do not want to get involved. Even friends you have had for a long time.

Now, what do you do? Wait for him to kill your children, so that you can be totally vindicated while saying, "I told you so"?

Do you take matters into your own hands by taking the killer's life before he kills your children?

My point is this: Many, many people are over-simplifying the situation with Iraq. It is easy to stand on the side-lines and watch and criticize.

The purpose of this post is not to make anyone angry, just to get you to view things from a different perspective.

-Lamar

[zoobie]

Originally posted by Conscript
All of you are wrong.

The mashed potato? ROTFLMAO

[Conscript]

Probaby cause we never got around to it? LOL! We sent 500,000 troops to get their oil and we said, nah screw it, we'll get it some other time? LOL!!!!!!!! Tell me you're joking.

And who is North Korea risking an invasion from? China is their biggest ally, so any invasion would result in Chineese involvement and the invading nation would be f'd. No one is going to invade north korea. They don't have any reason to have nukes other than to blackmail the world.

[Daniel]

Originally posted by Conscript
Probaby cause we never got around to it? LOL! We sent 500,000 troops to get their oil and we said, nah screw it, we'll get it some other time? LOL!!!!!!!! Tell me you're joking.

And who is North Korea risking an invasion from? China is their biggest ally, so any invasion would result in Chineese involvement and the invading nation would be f'd. No one is going to invade north korea. They don't have any reason to have nukes other than to blackmail the world.

Actually, the US did seize several Iraqi oil fields, but before Iraq's defeat, Sadaam ordered that all the oil in his oil refineries be burned so it was of no use to the Americans.

[patton]

I am all for Bush and all for the war.

This is how it is: All this talk about the war about being oil... well yeah it is. But the views that are held by the opposition to the war are completely incorrect. The French and Russians are the ones with massive oil interests in Iraq. The US does not have any refineries, nor any fields. The French do. The Iraqis have $10 billion in debt to the Russians.

If nothing is done to remove Saddam, the promise of two centuries of freedom and democracy for the US will tremble and ultimately crumble.

[n7of9]

Originally posted by Conscript
All of you are wrong.....In WW2 America lost 400,000 people and Canada lost thousands too.


i think when referring to lives lost in WWII, these loss figures aren't actuallyt he ones that matter - how about the 1,000,000 jews and the 20,000,000 russians that were killed?? (no, that is not a typo)....your figures are just irrelevant in this case

[patton]

Actually 6,000,000 jews from what I recall.

Actually if it weren't for the American/Canadian/British invasion of Normandy... Hitler would of been abled to hold off the Russians. So yes it does matter.

[keith]

all i have to say is that anyone who thinks we're going to war because of oil is an ignorant, uneducated buffoon.

[conkermaniac]

Originally posted by keith
all i have to say is that anyone who thinks we're going to war because of oil is an ignorant, uneducated buffoon.

Well, if that's true, then give me one good reason why Bush so eagerly wants to go to war? And don't tell me that America is only getting involved in war for the sake of others. The US may be rich, but they don't have money to waste for nothing in return.


Probaby cause we never got around to it? LOL! We sent 500,000 troops to get their oil and we said, nah screw it, we'll get it some other time? LOL!!!!!!!! Tell me you're joking.

Read what Blank Verse said. He's right. :rolleyes:

[Archbob]

Originally posted by patton
Actually 6,000,000 jews from what I recall.

Actually if it weren't for the American/Canadian/British invasion of Normandy... Hitler would of been abled to hold off the Russians. So yes it does matter.

I will debate this point with you. By the time D-day happened, Russia had already pushed Germany out of Russia and was advancing on Eastern Europe. Even if D-Day never have happened, Russia would have probably eventually defeated Germany because at the time the 2nd invasion happed, they already had the upper hand on the Germans. Stalin was yelling for a 2nd front in 1942 and 1943 but it didn't happen, by the June of 1944, he was yelling so hard anymore. Contrary to American popular belief D-Day was not the turning point of the European theatre, Stalingrad was. Russia deserves far more credit for defeating Germany than all the other allies combined, they fought the hardest, and killed the most German troops.

[Blank Verse]

It's not all about the oil, but it's a huge factor in everything.

The U.S.A. is not some international police making sure peace is restored everywhere. There is no humanitarianism in war, it's all founded upon greed and hate. I'm not saying there would be no issue between Iraq and the USA, but the tension wouldn't be at such a high level if Iraq didn't control something the Americans want.

[keith]

so much ignorance...

if this were about oil, we would have confiscated their oil fields after the persian gulf war.

whoever said war is based on greed and hate is right! saddam hussein hates us, and has billions of dollars he'd be no doubt willing to use to fund terrorist organizations against the u.s., so we have to take him out to prevent him from ever taking action against us [action every well-grounded american knows he'd take].

...and, like it or not blank verse, the u.s. is the police of the world. it's nothing we've formally declared, but a position we've assumed throughout history. we're the lone remaining super-power on this planet, so why are so many of you ashamed to live here? move to canada.

[Confuscious]

A third possible reason for this anticipated war might be the factor Bush wants to divert the attention away from Iraq. Where is the concrete proof the Osama Bin Laden is dead? They ASSUMED he was dead, but found no bodies. So, he might be still alive, and Bush just flexes his military might to Iraq where he had tons of beef with, and gives an excuse to attack them. Why not North Korea? Why not Russia, or China? Or Commuist North Vietnam? All these has a threat towards United States in one subtle way or another.

Over-throwing a country and placing a puppet in there will drastically decrease the cost of shipment of oil over to the United States. It will decrease tarrif rates and also foreign exchange rates. It's all about walking on dead peoples back.

I have a feeling if this war does take place, it will throw the equilibrium off in the world. If U.S acheives it intended goals, the world will be completely monopolized in the "American" way.

[Webdude]

Let me point something out. America is the ONLY country to drop a nuke on someone. It's kind of like being the only person in your neighborhood to ever shoot and kill someone. For most, a gun is a power trip with which they dont have enough responsibility to handle it. They think it's a fun toy.....yet the person who had to kill another in self defense knows what it's really like. He knows the guilt you feel afterward, he knows what it's like to see the life die in a person's eys.

Same with countries. For Saddam, a nuke would be a play thing. He hasnt shown enough responsibility to have one. India and Pakistan have nukes, thus far they have proved able to hold them as a last resort. Saddam on the other hand has always used his worst at every chance. If a nuke becomes his worst....he WILL use it as a first resort, not last.

Lastly....although many other countries have nukes.....the dont have the advanced missile technology to nail the U.S. That's a bigger issue than nukes themselves. All middle east countries have "dirty nukes". But they DONT have the delivery system technology.

For those who say we should disarm. Let's say we do. You would be the first one crying revenge when a city with all your family in it gets nuked by a dictator like Saddam....too bad, you demanded we disarm, remember?

[Gayowulf]

Originally posted by keith

the u.s. is the police of the world. it's nothing we've formally declared, but a position we've assumed throughout history. we're the lone remaining super-power on this planet, so why are so many of you ashamed to live here?

CNNism.

a little beside the point, but ever notice how CNN gives showbiz names to world events? evil, evil CNN.

[CareBear]

Originally posted by Gayowulf
CNNism.

a little beside the point, but ever notice how CNN gives showbiz names to world events? evil, evil CNN. There was an item on the news here about current American tv stations "fighting" for the viewer. Most common grievance was all the patriotic brainwashing without giving a broader background or asking any decent questions. It kind of made sense when they went around popular networks and noted that NBC was owned by a weapon manufacturing company, Bush' brother has a high stake in Fox, etc...
It was really sad to see that where other parts of the world follow current events, US networks can't seem to wait for war to start with all the "iraq countdowns" just so they can get that one extra viewer. I'm sure they could ask something more interesting then: "how much do the weapon inspectors earn a month?" as well, like "how many civilians will die in Iraq when we go to war?" :(

[Blank Verse]

Originally posted by CareBear
There was an item on the news here about current American tv stations "fighting" for the viewer. Most common grievance was all the patriotic brainwashing without giving a broader background or asking any decent questions. It kind of made sense when they went around popular networks and noted that NBC was owned by a weapon manufacturing company, Bush' brother has a high stake in Fox, etc...
It was really sad to see that where other parts of the world follow current events, US networks can't seem to wait for war to start with all the "iraq countdowns" just so they can get that one extra viewer. I'm sure they could ask something more interesting then: "how much do the weapon inspectors earn a month?" as well, like "how many civilians will die in Iraq when we go to war?" :(

http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/propagandhi/news.shtml

[conkermaniac]

Originally posted by Webdude
Let me point something out. America is the ONLY country to drop a nuke on someone. It's kind of like being the only person in your neighborhood to ever shoot and kill someone. For most, a gun is a power trip with which they dont have enough responsibility to handle it. They think it's a fun toy.....yet the person who had to kill another in self defense knows what it's really like. He knows the guilt you feel afterward, he knows what it's like to see the life die in a person's eys.


Harry Truman dropped the a-bomb. Most Americans have all but forgotten the guilt after the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima. And George W. Bush wasn't even born then! He seems to regard nuclear weapons and war as a game. I wouldn't trust him any more than I would Hussein or Kim.

And keith, maybe if you actually READ other people's post, you'd know why America didn't seize the oil last time around. As Blank said, this war is not only about oil, but oil is certainly a big part of it. I agree with Confuscious - drawing attention away from the failed War on Terrorism is another goal that Bush hopes to achieve. In the Gulf War, America did not succeed in overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Contrary to (apparently) popular American belief, seizing a few barrels of oil (most of them were destroyed by Saddam himself anyway) does nothing for your economy. This time, Bush aims to overthrow Hussein and put in place a new leader who will sell oil to the US at dirt-cheap prices. At least that's what I speculate, considering the mess America created in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with Joseph Mobutu.

Some analysts have even proposed that countries go to war just so that they can use up the weapons that they have spent so much money in purchasing/building. America, with the biggest military budget in the world, has not needed their military for quite a while. Maybe they're just restless and want to show the nation that they're putting their tax dollars to use. :biggrin2:

Oh, and one last thing, I got an ICQ message from, guess who? (HINT: Madonna sang a very famous song about his country.) :rolleyes:

[Jan]

Much as I hate these type of threads :rolleyes:

US Secretary of State Colin Powell kept up the pressure from his end, saying America knew that one day war might eventuate because Saddam would not disarm.
"We are getting closer to that moment of truth," he said.

Mr Powell dismissed suggestions the US wanted to secure Iraqi oil stocks.
He said those stocks would be held in trust for the Iraqi people.
"If we are the occupying power, it will be held for the benefit of the Iraqi people and it will operate for the benefit of the Iraqi people," he said.

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,5881981%255E401,00.html

[conkermaniac]

Jan, don't be so naive. Politicians are dishonest - in fact, they usually are lying. As they say, politics is a dirty business. Don't believe everything that someone says, especially not when it's coming from the mouth of a politician.

And anyway, I never said that America would take the oil. I said that they would put in place a new leader who would sell the oil to America at cheap prices. :rolleyes:

[Archbob]

Politicians are usually lying, but I have more faith in Colin Powell than most.

[Confuscious]

I don't think the politicians legitmately lie. They just word their speeches very carefully and let you perceive it anyway you choose.

Damn it, now Canada announces we'll follow Bush. Hrm, big brother goes, little brother follows:confused2.