Is GW Bush Cursed

[Ford Prefect]

Has another Shiite even tried to take a leadership role since what happenned to the last one? I doubt anybody would be too willing after that.

[Braden]

They wouldn't put a Shiite or Kurd in power, they'd just put a Suni in power who will tolerate the Shiites and Kurds.

[David Jamieson]

first..a link:

http://www.forbes.com/global/2001/1112/020.html

secondly, I recommend that anyone who thinks oil is not the motivation of the Bush administration and for that matter all involved (all western UN countries) both "friend" or "foe", read "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin.

You have to understand that the western world runs on ptroleum products.

Venezuala can be worked out a lot quicker than the middle east situation. IN South america it's about ROI for the workers who are producing the petroleum products.

Not unlike an auto plant strike occuring nation wide.

The entire lifestyle of the Western world is undeniably in a state of total dependence on petroleum products.

It's not really about greed either, it's about power in it's ultimate percieved form and pushing the geopolitical agenda of a very small group.

In the west we take everything for granted and for the most part are asleep on the real issues of the world today. Entire transportion systems across North America would shut down completely if not for oil. Trucks, PLanes, trains and automobiles.

If you control the oil, you control everything that is dependent upon it.

With any luck, human kind will make the leap to higher technologies in the near future and we can look forward to an end toall the fussin and a feudin and move into a brave new world.

Otherwise, be prepared for bad things to continue to happen.

cheers

[MightyB]

Darn commies...


Evil US--- Oil oil oil--- bad US --- GW devil --- oil oil oil --- we want nuclear weapons for peaceful reasons --- blah blah blah --- America bad --- yada yada yada --- bad bad bad --- oil oil oil --- blah blah blah blah blah --- alah --- America evil --- blah blah blah...

My head hurts.

[@PLUGO]

pops head out from behind desk...

we would just go in and kick Venezuela's butt too.

Well the US did seem OVERLY eager to open up relations with the "new" president the day after the 3 day COUP...

talk about supporting "democracy"

1983... Reagan is convinced to remove Iraq from the US's likely terrorist list... By Donald Rumsfeild who then goes to Iraq to open diplomatic relations...
The US wasn't so upset by IRAQ "gassing his own people." An event that has also been refuted in an op-ed piece in the WASHINGTON POST just over a week ago.

ducks back under...

[@PLUGO]

They wouldn't put a Shiite or Kurd in power, they'd just put a Suni in power who will tolerate the Shiites and Kurds.

I remember reading an announcement naming the General who would run the "temporary" occuping government similar to one put in place in post WWII Japan...

[Robbie]

Originally posted by GeneChing
I'll never forget the cover of Conspiracy Report that had Bush Sr. standing menacingly inside the CIA logo. It still scares me. For another scare check this out WARNING - if you look at this site, no doubt the home security/patriot act agents will be confiscating your computer soon.

Gene,
That site has been debunked. It looks really interesting until you check out any of the other pictures that they didn't include. By the way, I think the terrorists were idiots for flying into the side that just got remodeled. Made a good test for our systems and did minimum damage. Had they hit any other side the damage would have been a few times worse.

[David Jamieson]

Evil US--- Oil oil oil--- bad US --- GW devil --- oil oil oil --- we want nuclear weapons for peaceful reasons --- blah blah blah --- America bad --- yada yada yada --- bad bad bad --- oil oil oil --- blah blah blah blah blah --- alah --- America evil --- blah blah blah...

mighty b, everyone's head is hurting about it. It's a rock and a hard place.

here's a scenario to think about:

you are the head of a country.
your country depends on your leadership to ensure that everyone gets at least a little bit of a fair shake and at least a fairly comfortable lifestyle.

you understand that in order to provide this, through the will of the people as a nation that certain needs must be met.

someone else comes along and threatens to cut off what you need. If they are successful, you will have a country that becomes poor, with a not so good lifestyle (most of the world is like this) when compared to what there is now.

what do you do to get that thing that keeps the wheels turning in your country?

hmmmmmn...what do..you do???

You also have to consider that you may have to commit shameful acts. How do you sell a nation on the idea that if they want to keep their lifestyle then people elsewhere must make sacrifices?

The U.S aren't the only ones who practice geopolitics like this. But the US does have huge amounts of money and power invested. Many other countries do the same things. And they do hear about it in their media. It's not all about the U.S afterall. It's about the world order and the imminent threats to the lifestyle of the bourgois in the first world countries.

anyway, food for thought..."fight the power man"

cheers

[yenhoi]

Just for the record the United States has a long history of generally ignoring the United Nations as much as possible.

I dont see why going to war vs another nation in order to take its natural resources is a evil cause. For those of you that think oil is THE motivating factor for the Bush Administration to pursue these courses - you sure are on to something! I bet the guys who make these decisions probably got together and asked "What is the hardest way possible to make oil more accessible to us and our friends, and cheaper, any ideas?!" Get real. Look at the big picture. There are many spoils to Iraq besides oil and women.

Afghanistan was about what? Opium fields? To install airbases on chinas ass? Maybe a comittee decided it was the hardest way to get more dirt?

Yes, it is very sad that the US is the most powerful and most prosperous right now. And, yes, its very sad that we are using our power and prosperity to ensure that we get even more powerful and more prosperous. And, yes, its very very sad that we are doing all this at the expense of other countries, nations, peoples, and cultures, instead of our own. And, yes, its very very ver sad for the rest of you that when we decided to play this game 100 years ago, that we decided to win.

See ya'all on the flip side, winners get cool t-shirts.

[Braden]

Kung Lek -

You're 100% right. The war is entirely about promoting a certain group's geopolitical agenda.

However, what I don't understand is why you see that as a bad thing.

Everyone has geopolitical agendas. Of note here, specifically, Saddam certainly does.

From my previous post - it's NOT the case that all things are equal. Social relativism is a crock of ****. You can't excuse Saddam's geopolitical agenda under the pretext of respecting his culture. What he does is wrong. Period.

So we're going to go in there and promote our geopolitical agenda. Which includes things like not committing genocide. You know what? That's good. Period.

Are there problems that go along with it? Goodness me, yes. There's problems that go along with _everything_. That's why us humans have been blessed with a faculty called judgement - to choose the best solution to a given problem.

There is a problem here. We're picking the best solution.

Again, I challenge you: if you have a better one, let's hear it.

[David Jamieson]

However, what I don't understand is why you see that as a bad thing.

I don't think I said it was a bad thing.

You have to understand that generally I am a pragmatist and a realist at heart.

I fully understand that choices must be made by all to conserve their own agendas.

I fully understand that people are gonna die because of this.
I don't even see this reality as a necessarily "bad" thing.

It just -is-.

cheers

[Braden]

Then what's your problem with Bush? And what's your problem with the war?

[David Jamieson]

Then what's your problem with Bush? And what's your problem with the war?

Problem? Hmmm. Well from a political viewpoint I don't care much for Bush for pretty much one reason alone. that reason is:

For his first 100 days in office he was on vacation for 47 of those days.
He didn't come onto the stage until 911 and all of a sudden he's a hero? Can you say Harry Truman? (Speaking of electoral votes over popular votes to get a president in the whitehouse.)

Secondly, word on the street is, war is bad, but there it is. Truly, I hope it doesn't come to my doorstep. But if it does, I will do my best to defend my own personal patch of "homeland".

That's life I guess.

cheers

[Braden]

Yeah, war is bad. Sometimes it's just less bad than the alternatives.

I don't understand why 911 makes you have a problem with Bush. Would you have a problem with Gore if the situation was reversed?

[myosimka]

dnc101, If Bush met with Enron and refused them bailout assistance then why won't they divulge that fact. Your assumptions about the subject of a meeting doesn't make it a fact(And no they haven't.)

Radhnoti, we can agree to disagree all over the palce and that's cool. I read the text of a Gallup poll and it doesn't use the wording you quoted, I don't know where you got it but it's ceratinly possible it was leading. Problem with most polls and most stats for that matter. For example, if 42% of Enron's political donations were to democrats what was the other 58%? (You can't think it was the Green party) Yes, they played both sides but it's clear where there primary loyalties lied. As to the comment about the BJ, I certainly have a problem with perjury and certainly do not defend those actions. But the story was national news well before he perjured himself. So I still stand by the proposition that we are now looking at a backwards standard on disclosure. The Executive Branch is clearly under a greater onus to disclose facts about personal lives than it is to disclose meetings that relate to policy. Actually that has always been true so long as the executive branch and congressional oversight committees are run by different parties. 1974 would have been a much duller year politically if it had been a Republican congress. And again, not defending the Democratic Party. I certainly believe they'd behave the same way if in the other shoes.

Also, I didn't use the term fiasco so I don't think that the Republican win constituted a fiasco despite issues in reference to an election commissioner related to a candidate. Florida was a disgrace and I believe that a democratic election of the president is the way to go but I never thought his win under the current system constituted a "fiasco". And rebellion by less populated states? Maybe 200 years ago. You really believe Arkansas citizens would attempt to secede over elimination of the electoral college? Even if the Senate remained in place? Hyperbole is fine but let's acknowledge it's hyperbole. Agian, it's all about sides. Prior to the election it looked like it might go the other way (Bush wins popular and loses election) and I heard tons of Republicans clamoring about the unfairness of the electoral system and its antiquated nature. I'm cool with the situation the way that it turned out but I just wish the man would stop operating as if he had the mandate of the people. He doesn't. The bad news is that his refusal to acknowledge this fact is resulting in a further polarization of the parties and less compromise. Wouldn't have thought this country could get more partisan but it is.