Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
;So we should invade everyone. After this administration everyone is going to hate us…so I say attack the world continent by continent. We can claim we are there to liberate our peoples since the US has citizens from every country in the world. All bush has to do is grow a little mustache.'
"All bush has to do is grow a little mustache.'"
he's admitted the war was illegal.
The war 'officially' was for WMD's. Which haven't been found obviously
the war was illegal. but when you think about how international law is formulated. who seriously gives a fuck?
I am convinced we are in the process of a neo-con (nazi) take over from the bottom to the top of our government. I think it is being financed by the drug trade, from the local level to the whitehouse. The encouragement of debt aquisition is designed to acelerate this process. Never before has anyone been able to borrow their way out of debt and it will not happen for us either. When the collapse occurs, martial law will be the method of control and the extermination of dissidents will start. The rest will die of starvation, Then the neos will choke on their own poison. They think their political machine and money makes them immune, it doesnt because politics and money will be worthless. The stone age returns!
Comment by Mike Miller — August 22, 2006 @ 3:57 pm"
i cant imagine this having any repercussions whatsoever.
they'll just sweep it under the carpet. Notice how obscure the source is. Not many people will hear about it.
but it'll still be swept under the carpet...
that the people who like bush anyway just wont care. if you employ even the tiniest bit of logic, its obvious that hes a stupid liar, and just one more piece of evidence isnt going to make any difference.
in my illinformed opinion.
although how anyone could be so mindnumbingly stupid as to still support him is beyond me.
Not that anything will be done about it...
in two years.
he is NOT gonna overturn/violate the 22nd amendment
he will not do that.
He is a poor president. He is NOT Hitler etc
he'll be gone - it's not as if Bush is in the driving seat of the NeoCon agenda - he's just its temporary hood ornament
Completely open field for the first time in years, as the president is ineligble and the VP is not running...
give me the odds...
I'd have thought...
has NO Chance.
Condi has a chance, but it seems unlikely.
I tip Guliani or McCain for the Republicans. I HOPE it's McCain who gets the nomination.
i was a US citizen, i would vote for McCain ahead of any shite the democrats vomit up
to whichever white male they choose to team her with
could be Arnie the Governator - imagine that!
he is Austrian...
Schwarzenegger as president of the U.S. was jokingly referenced in the 1993 Sylvester Stallone film, Demolition Man, where a future America passed a constitutional amendment to allow naturalized Americans like Schwarzenegger to become President of the United States, and that film has reference to a "Schwarzenegger Presidential Library"
stranger things have happened...
I Would Vote for that.
supporters have a right to be represented as well.
McCain is my prefered candidate for it all really.
I think he is the best bet to unify the states and try and remake friends internationally.
I wanna see a Fullerov/ Ho_Fo ticket
he will have been in power for 8 years. 7 of those years overshadowed by the 'war on terror'.
How the fuck did he earn another term....
a large enough number or americans believed he was doing a competent enough job at the time.
I have significant doubts over whether he would have been re-elected in an election a year later
he shouldnt have been elected in the first place, he hasnt done bad for himself.
a reply to?
i think it was irish magpie, but it's open to anyone.
I WOULDN'T have invaded Iraq...
i would have done. but i would have been fucking awesome at it.
...called (I think) Weapons of Mass Deception.
Basically it outlined how Iraq had come to be linked with the attacks on the World Trade Centre.
As I recall there was an early witness report that identified an Al-Quaedea member meeting with (I think) a member of the Iraqi government which was later proven to be mistaken identity.
Therewas a very short period of time when the CIA beleived there was a legitimate potential connection but, even once this was disproven, the Bush Administration continued to insinuate that there was a link between the two.
I don't know about the research thing. From what I remember the book seemed to be backed up with sources and examples but it's more than possible that you know more than I do about this.
The thing is, Al-Qaeda don't exist. Ignore them. What matters is whether Saddam's Iraq harboured terrorists and exported terrorism. And they did. See Abu Nidal. See Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.
Saudi Arabia hasn't fooled around with WMD , committed genocide or invaded a neighbouring state. Nor is it subject to 15 UN resolutions. That's a piss poor analogy
Your first post:
"What matters is whether Saddam's Iraq harboured terrorists and exported terrorism"
Your second post:
"Saudia Arabia hasn't fooled round with WMD, committed genoicide or invaded a neighbouring state".
Surely your first post implies your points in the second post are by-the-by?
I am aware it hasn't CONCLUSIVELY been proved that the House of Saud supports terrorism.
THAT is the difference
Iraq is a Secular state. Islamic Extremists/Terorrists and Saddam's regime had little time for each other.
I'm yet to see anytthing to prove that Saddam Hussain supported Islamic Extremism/Terrorism
not at all. the harbouring of terrorists justifies regime change as does a multiply affirmed UN resolution that a country must disarm its WMD.
There are overlapping cases for the intervention but Iraq had, theoretically, been confronted with a prospective invasion since 1991. There was/is no similar pretext in any other country in the region so ...
A) I'm yet to see conclusive proof or Saddam Hussain's Iraq harbourng terrorists.
B) Given that no WMD were found, surely we have to assume (until proven otherwise) that Saddam Hussain did disarm the WMD.
with Palestinian terror groups.
Ansar al-islam have been linked repeatedly to him.
I don't know otherwise so won't further the argment.
al-zarqawi was in baghdad from December 2001.
"Given that no WMD were found, surely we have to assume (until proven otherwise) that Saddam Hussain did disarm the WMD."
either way, the resolution on this unambiguously places the burden of proof on Iraq.
It's pretty foolish to assume that he disarmed his WMD, though, because you're just guessing something which fits with your worldview. Just like arch-supporters of war saying "the fact that we haven't found any WMD in Iraq means we MUST ASSUME it was sneaked across the border into Syria"
But I still maintain it'd be equally foolish to assume he didn't disarm his WMD
i don't assume that at all. i just know that he was legally obliged to prove to the international community that he had done so.
the September 11th Commission concluded there was repeated contact throughout the 1990s but that there were no direct operational ties.
and as for the bush administration claiming that there were operational ties?
Meet the Press, September 8, 2002
Tim Russert: “Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to [9-11]?”
Vice President Cheney: “No.”
Tim Russert: “Has anything changed, in your mind?”
Vice President Cheney: “Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I’m not
here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I
can’t say that.”
Tim Russert: “Anything else?”
Vice President Cheney: “I want to separate out 9/11, from the other relationships between
Iraq and the al Qaeda organization.”
Tim Russert: “But no direct link?”
Vice President Cheney: “I can’t — I’ll leave it right where it’s at. I don’t want to go
beyond that. I’ve tried to be cautious and restrained in my comments, and I hope that
everybody will recognize that.”
not sure what you're trying to respond to?
i've just had a quick skim through the transcript of his speech. he says alot about zarqawi being in baghdad and speculates that a relationship between saddam and al-qaeda could develop in the future.
i don't really see where the lies are there, at all.
it's usually illogical to appeal to authority, but to appeal to the authority of Michael Moore? That is desperate stuff. If you took Fahrenheit 9/11 at face value then I can't really help you. Sorry
I can only suggest you download this
Here's an extract:
Fahrenheit shows Condoleezza Rice saying, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what
happened on 9/11.” The audience laughs derisively.
Here is what Rice really said: “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on
9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you
think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes
into buildings in New York.”
Moore's film deliberately cuts up clips of members of the bush administration talking to the media to misrepresent their position. the quotation i posted is just one example.
you say "they ... implied terrorists were training there" but I'm not aware of any statements to that effect. I could ask you to give me a reference, but no doubt you're talking about 'insinuations' again.
What do you mean by 'one of the most tolerant' ?
indeed. but then there's never been a better time to be a kurd.
you'll have to google a news story about that report for me. I don't recall it at all.
not as patronising as describing Saddam's Iraq as fucking 'tolerant'
is this really that controversial? Give me two minutes and I can dig up a quotation of Condoleeza Rice saying basically the same thing.
the real reason we went into Iraq.
Everyone also knows he isn't going to admit it.
I don't see why people keep kicking up a stink about it. Obviously, the innocent casualties are tragedies, but now we don't have to worry about Saddam, AND we have oil.
It was obviously unjust.
What I'm saying is its no use crying over spilt milk.
Given Iraq's appallingly limited export capacity, it won't sell enough oil to pay for the war. So the idea that the war was for profit is just ridiculous.
that's interesting. then why do people assume individuals in the bush administration launched the war for personal gain>
is that all the way up to World War One it was accepted as pretty standard that a country would go to war for resources and most wars prior to this century were motivated by a desire for land or resources.
But now if you accuse a country of going to war for oil, certain people look at you as though it's a ludicrous accusation.
To be honeest I don't think oil was the real (or at least the motivating reason) so much as the US wanting to make their mark and restore their pride post-September 11 and Iraq being the most suitable place to go for.
Then there is a serious chance of a reumption of war for resources.
yep, and it's as likely to be over water as oil
difficult to say, really. depends on the oil price n that.
known world oil reserves, measured in terms of years of consumption remaining, have been steadily increasing since 1940 - even while consumption simultaneously increases. At current rates of consumption, the one trillion barrels of currently known reserves will last about 36 years. The same analysis done 36 years ago would have yielded somewhat lower known reserves.
But there are reasons to be optimistic. Mining for bitumen is much much cheaper than ever before and it now costs around $8 to produce a barrel of oil.
Oil production from tar sands in Canada and South America would add about 600 billion barrels to the world’s supply. So that's an increase of about 60% on existing known reserves which will give us oil at current consumption for another two decades.
Then there is the possibility of using shale oil which is more competitively priced ($25 per barrel) and exceed existing reserves by about 50%. I remember reading Bjorn Lomborg arguing that it could last about 5 times as long as present known reserves at an inflated price of around $40 per barrel.
i think we've probably got a little over a hundred years left. which is enough time to invest in renewables and build a new fuel infastructure for greater use of natural gas.
i was waiting to be accused of colluding with "companies"
there is alot of oil which we're aware of but which is barely exported. there are two major potential exporters who either haven't entered the market at all for years (iraq) or have only become significant players in Europe in the last 12 months (azerbaijan).
i would have thought prices would rise over the next few months to around $100 per barrel which would probably make biofuels cost competitive which would prolong existing supplies. China can continue to serve most of its oil and gas needs without buying from countries we have traditionally sourced oil from (kazakhstan for the oil and turkmenistan for the gas). Now, obviously that won't last forever but I think China receiving really significant supplies of oil from the middle east is quite a long way off. Obviously, turkmenistan is well placed to supply india with gas too.
i just think there are probably too many factors at work to put an accurate timescale on the depletion of the world's oil reserves and that the geopolitical situation is likely to prolong its life.
China has recently bought a load of LNG from Iran. But Iran's exports of gas, when you consider the size of their reserves, are absolutely tiny.
As for the rest of your post, i mean, what does "under the tumb of the Russian oil monopoly" even mean? that Gazprom controls the Central Asia-Center-IV pipeline ?
And no, I said it was a reasonably short-term solution
"Politically Turkmenistan cannot upset Russia"
like supplying gas to Ukraine?
all the stuff you mention about the budgetary significance of oil to Russia is true but not that relevant to the argument we're having.
I didn't say China didn't get energy from the middle east, just that it wasn't a major purchaser of oil.
i'm not sure my attitude is very optimistic or if i'm arguing for the sake of it. i'm not totally certain what the long term solution is but i guess we need as diverse a range of sources as possible and i think we'll probably need a temporary nuclear element to buy enough time to properly develop renewables.
ideally, we'd have a global regime that could tax the externalities of energy use and then we wouldn't consume unsustainable amounts but i don't think such a system is really plausible at all.
different people made different cases for the same war. cheney's case was different to wolfowitz's, i imagine.
i don't think it was just a matter of pride. i think there are some naive people in the current US govt. who genuinely think that sabre-rattling is the way to security. if you show that you're willing to invade a country against the wishes of the international community who regard your rationale as specious, then nobody will dare threaten you again.
the reality, of course, is that it absolutely guarantees a continuation of the threat.
but interesting how the media in this country wrung its hands at corrupt bankers being extradited to America to face charges, broken families, crying children etc, but we won't extradite Israeli soldiers who have murdered British civilians to face justice here, which they won't in Israel, being promoted instead. Is being murdered less traumatic for families than being caught with your hands in the till ?
totally agree. there is no way the media in this country would have given a toss about the natwest three if they weren't middle-class bankers.
Please, calling all middle class, white, educated americans: Shoot the fucker.
That would pretty much mess everything up. Just whats needed.
It's hard to do...
In case any SS members are reading this i am in no way advocating the assasination of President Bush :)