bush greedy?

Subject: bush greedy?
From: hillbilly
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 12:52 PM

dose anyone else think we going to war with irac just for oil.word to your mother

Subject: RE: bush greedy?
From: DougR
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 12:54 PM

Well, hillbilly, you will have a lot of folks here that I'm sure will join you. Count me out though.

DougR

Subject: RE: bush greedy?
From: Troll
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 01:14 PM

If it was just for oil, why didn't we take over the Iraqi and (for that matter) Kuwaiti oil fields after the Gulf War? We were there. Saddam was on the run.
Who could have stopped us?

troll

Subject: RE: bush greedy?
From: DougR
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 01:17 PM

Troll: do not confuse this forum with facts and common sense! When will you learn? :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: bush greedy?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 08:32 PM

We (as a nation) still had a conscience back then?

Subject: RE: bush greedy?
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 08:49 PM

Our oil consumption has imncrease by 30% since the last Bush war?

That Junior's daddy told Junior to go "finish" the job so daddy won't have to hear that "you didn't finish the job" crap any more?

Because Junior needs a cover for the horrid job he's doing a president?

Because the Senate and House are ow packed with a lot of fundalmentalist Christains (which is debatable) rednecks who just thing that blowing up other folks is what makes America great?

Because the folks bought Juniors selection want a return on their investment?

Because the folks who just bought the Senate want a return on their investment?

Because Junior and Vice Junior are oilmen with closew ties to other oilmen?

Because there are two dogs named Harkin and Halburton waitin' to bite Junior and Vice Junior?

Because defense department (war department) has a lot of stuff on the shelf that needs to be blown up so they can order bigger and better stuff for future shelves?

Because Junior is afraid that if he doesn't keep the American peoiple's attentions diverted that they will figure out that his I.Q. is about equal to a box of animal crackers?

Because as a kid he really liked the fireworks displays on the Forth of July and gets a winter craving?

Because...

Because...

Bobert

Subject: RE: bush greedy?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 08:53 PM

Well, since greed is such a basic psychological component of the affluent lifestyle in North America, and is encouraged at every level by the "competitive" marketing philosophy that is rampant in our media and culture...would if be surprising if George W. Bush was greedy?

I don't think so. A lot of other people are. Go look at the crowd in a casino and ask yourself why they are there.

The more important thing is...what do you think of his policies? Not just in Iraq, but at home too. What are the real aims and objectives of those policies? Are they workable or not? Are they realistic? Is the war really about terrorism or is it about other agendas that are not being spoken of? Or is it about those AND terrorism?

- LH

Subject: RE: bush greedy?
From: GUEST,G
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 10:49 PM

Naw--not greedy. Power mad. And not as good an actor as the conqueror of Grenada---Ronnie Reagan.

Subject: RE: bush greedy?
From: Bert
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 03:16 AM

Which one? You be the judge

Subject: RE: bush greedy?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 01:05 PM

Oh, well, that's typical. People are only really interested in indictments being brought against politicians they already don't like. If you were brought up Republican, you will only see Democrats as deserving indictment...if you were brought up Democrat, it's the other way around. :-) An indictment against a guy on your team will only get your support if...he has murdered women, raped children, and kicked dogs in a public place in front of at least 75 witnesses...and it's ON FILM!!!

So are the sins of the fathers passed on the sons, yea, even unto the seventh generation! LOL!

- LH

Subject: RE: bush greedy?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 01:58 PM

The reasons the Gulf War coalition didn't remain as an occupying force in Iraq and Kuwait include:

1. The expense of maintaining an occupying force is very high, without very good payback. Easier to hand it back to the owners, and just pay for the oil. That is the main economic reason.

2. The coalition achieved it's objectives when it "won back" Kuwait, and returned it to it's rightful dictator. The international community did not give the Gulf War coalition a mandate to remain in Kuwait or Iraq as an occupying force. That is the main political reason.

3. At the time of the Gulf War, the prospect of a post-Saddam Iraq was one too terrible to contemplate, and pretty much still is. This is not a part of the world which values democratic traditions. It's more about food, prayer, and manipulating one's family's status within the traditional hierarchy, largely through the swapping of wives and daughters with other men.

Subject: RE: bush greedy?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 04:03 PM

I believe those are pretty accurate comments, GUEST. I would suggest that our system doesn't value democratic traditions all that much either, when it comes to practicing realpolitik...but our public certainly values them. And that is the main reason why politicians blather on about democratic traditions as much as they do...gotta keep the public befuddled and obscure the real facts of the deadly games they play.

- LH

Subject: RE: bush greedy?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 11:24 PM

Okay, here's my usual paranoid take on the whole situation:

Saudi Arabia is the U.S.'s largest oil trading partner. However, Saudi/U.S. relations are currently at a low point. Does anyone seriously think that the "contingency planners" in the Bush administration have not given some thought to what would happen if the Saudis should decide to shut off oil exports to the U.S.? What better way to minimize the effect of such a cut-off than to "own" a country such as Iraq with huge oil reserves? With a puppet government in Baghdad, Bush could tell the Saudis to keep their steenking oil. Then, he could launch an invasion of Saudi Arabia from the new U.S. military bases in Iraq.

Yes, it's paranoid. But, don't forget, so is Dubya.

Bruce

Subject: RE: bush greedy?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 10:09 AM

Bruce, I don't think the right wing Republicans would hesitate for heartbeat to invade Saudi Arabia if they cut of the flow of oil. Don't forget, House of Saud IS the US and British puppet government.

Subject: RE: bush greedy?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 12:00 PM

Yes, and there is a great ongoing risk of a popular uprising in that country, given the fact that the House of Saud is despised by much of its public and seen for what it is...a rich stooge of America and the U.K. Saudi Arabia is in fact the absolute heartland of Islamic fundamentalism, and the site of Islam's holiest shrines...a potential powder keg.

The western assumption that Muslim populations are opposed to "democracy" is facile. They mostly crave true democracy, if they could only find a way to achieve it. What they are against is foreign-supported, foreign-dominated, foreign-controlled dictatorships run by hypocrites who pretend to be "Islamic" while fattening on corporate payoffs from big oil companies.

The western values they ARE opposed to are cultural values, not democratic ones. Cultural values such as western clothing styles (specially on women), various forms of gender equality, religious customs, various forms of entertainment that they consider immoral, eathing pork, etc...

Now you and I, of course, believe that gender equality is part OF democracy. What I am saying above is that Islamic peoples are not per se, opposed to "democracy". They want it. But they want it within the structure of the cultural assumptions they are familiar with, which are different from ours. We had a "democracy" not too long ago historically in which women could not vote...and we STILL CALLED IT a democracy. Remember? And it was...but not nearly as democratic as it would become at a later stage in our social development.

These differences between Islamic and western views are based on religious and social traditions, and have little or nothing to do with a desire on the part of muslims to oppose democracy.

Bush does not want you to know that. He wants you to think you are defending democracy by fighting Muslims. You're not. The vast majority of Muslims also want democracy...within the perameters of their cultural traditions...which you may or may not consider reasonable ones. I consider numerous of their traditions (and of ours) to be quite unreasonable, but I'm not going to go out and kill people over it or support others in doing so.

- LH

Subject: RE: bush greedy?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 12:04 PM

LH, I honestly don't know if Muslims living under dictators in the Middle East want a democratic form of government or not. I do know they have no democratic political traditions on which to draw, to form an opinion.

Subject: RE: bush greedy?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 12:17 PM

All the ones I've ever spoken to do (want democracy). But that's just my experience, which is limited. I've read articles by Muslim authors which indicate the things I said above.

In some places they DO have democratic traditons to draw on. Pakistan has several times had a democratically elected government, only to have the military move in and depose it in the interests of "stability". This has also happened in Turkey, in Iran, in Indonesia and in a number of other Muslim countries that attempted democracy.

The general rule is...if a democratic government is elected in an Islamic country, and then has the bad judgement to do things that America or the U.K. do not WANT it to do...

Then, hey, PRESTO! There's a military coup, and the democracy ceases to exist.

Guess how that happens. Money. Big money.

It's the same thing that has occurred in any number of Latin American countries over the years.

I have never met ANYONE from the 3rd World who did not long for democracy, although some of them have very archaic attitudes about women's role in society. The fact is, people want to have a voice, but they want it under their own cultural assumptions, not someone elses. We're just like that too.

- LH

Subject: RE: bush greedy?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 12:22 PM

Have you travelled much in the Middle Eastern countries with dictatorships LH? I disagree strongly that it is the same as Latin America. Much of the population in Latin America has European roots, including political ones, and the ties with the Western democracies are much, much stronger than is the case with the Middle East.

To say you have never met anyone from the 3rd world who did not long for democracy sounds like something George Bush would say. He hasn't met many "3rd world" people, and has rarely travelled outside the US at all. Which is a large part of the problem with our current adminstration's political worldview. Remember, the Bush administration's ambassador to France can't even speak French. But he does, apparently, speak right wing US Republican quite fluently.

Subject: RE: bush greedy?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 12:53 PM

Now I imagine that if the Iraqi government decides to cooperate with the arms inspectors that will really mess up things. Though I incline to doubt if that would be allowed to get in the way. "Where there's a will there's a way."

Remember the wedding party in Afghanistan where people firing celebration shots in the air was interpreted as "hostile fire" and a devastaing air raid resulted?