Is Bush really serious?!

[Dark One]

This has no relevance. What is your point? That Bush hasn't taken away these freedoms yet? Well gee whiz, neither have any of your past presidents, and neither will Kerry. Anyhow it's highly debatable whether "freedom" is a "human right" but that's another discussion.

I'm not saying any other regime has or will take away our freedom, and why would you even infer that that's what I was implicating?? I'm glad you brought this up though because it does sort of further what I was saying about the breakdown in our polictical system causing dissention among those supporters of the differing party lines. We ALL enjoy our freedom together. It transcends party lines, and I wish more ideas and philosophies did as well.

The "if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all" sentiment is hardly relevant... I don't see anyone saying that Bush has done NOTHING GOOD, I just see people saying that the bad things he have done are bad enough that they want him GONE.

UGH. Again, I'm NOT saying the "if you don't have anything nice...." sentiment is relevant. IT ISN'T. What is relevant is that the incessant, non-stop Bash-Bash-Bash over the top negativity takes our fundamental right to question and debate to a level that results in counterproductivity and divides us a people. As a result of this kind of mentality, we truly tend to look at each other who have differing views and opinions across the party lines as enemies, at least to a certain unhealthy degree. I don't see you as an "enemy" based on your beliefs at all Erik, and I certainly don't wish to single you out by any means, in fact, I'm glad that people can be so passionate and behind what they believe in, I just wish the desire to change or question things wasn't done in such a divisional manner.

Heh heh... How about letting the people decide what's in the best interest of the country? You know, democracy and all that? But sure, I mean, Saddam was obviously a large threat, what with all those gigatons of WMD:s hidden in his bedroom...

Um... the administration's job is to do just that, it's impossible for an administration to cater to everyone's beliefs, but the system of democracy allows the people to vote to put an administration in place. And I don't want to foster any "Bush stole the election" debates either. Regardless, millions upon millions upon millions voted for him just as they did for Gore.

Sigh, and again with the WMD, it's always the WMD. Completely ignoring the point about the harboring and supporting of terrorist factions and going right back to the WMD reasoning as to why Saddam should not have been seen as a threat. That's exactly the kind of mentality I'm talking about.

It's amazing how you fail to see the difference between pre-emptively attacking countries that might possibly harbour people who might perform terrorist deeds in the future and trying to prevent a specific attack by securing and defending your own country. Not that I think that 9/11 could have been prevented. Not that I think that future, more inventive, attacks on the US can be either...

Might? Possibly? Come on. And not "attacking countries", but attacking horrible, despicable and influential regimes to bring freedom to those who have never known it.

No, of course Saddam was never a threat. He never tried to invade and take over another country or anything like that. He was strict, but fair to his people. He didn't terrorize and wipe out his own people or anything like that. He certainly allowed the people to vote for who would be in power. He wasn't a dictator like Bush is. Bush won't allow for the possibilty of being voted out of office, he won't give the people a choice like Saddam did. He's taking away our democracy, unlike Saddam, who allowed open questioning of policies, and championed the cause of freedom.

And again, like I said, the world CHANGED after 9/11. We were all in a "comfort zone" prior to 9/11. Bush, Clinton, etc., everyone. I do believe 9/11 could have been prevented if the way the world was viewed today was the way the world was viewed then. I'm not saying it would have, but the chances would be far greater that it could have. But of course, if the world WAS viewed differently then, it would have been the result of some other major terrorist attack prior to it. 9/11 was the "slap in the face".

Agreement. As I said, it's absolutely retarded to have to settle for "a lesser evil." That's not far from Soviet-style one-party "democracy."

Yes, I agree 100%, and to further that thought, it also fosters so much hostility, pointless bickering, and division among our people. There is sooooo much we all have in common, that I just can't believe a middle ground isn't attainable. I just KNOW that if we had a President who did not align him or herself with one "side" or the other "side" and was at least "somewhat" capable, that people would really begin to start focusing on the good things, and achieving peaceful and positive middle ground solutions to so many of the challenges we are faced with. Obviously it would take a very long time to get over the problems of the two party system, but having a regime in charge that is dictated by neither is a helluva place to start.

If only it were possible. Is it?

 

[Hell Mike]

How nice to see someone who is COMPLETELY brainwashed by pro-US propaganda.

About the oil issue: I am absolutely CERTAIN that the oil and/or car companies will come up with a million solutions when the problem actually becomes a problem. They have bought all clever solutions they've heard about and locked them in a basement somewhere for later use.

 

[Dark One]

How nice to see someone who is COMPLETELY brainwashed by pro-US propaganda.

More great reasoning. Ohh, Ohh, I can use that reasoning too! Gee, how lovely it is to see someone who is COMPLETELY brainwashed by anti-US propaganda.

Now doesn't that sound ridiculous? Of course it does. See, I don't really believe that. What I do believe is that just because I have a viewpoint that differs from yours does not make me some sort of brainwashed puppet. Why do you have to go straight to the condescending "attack dog" mentality? You can disagree with me without putting me down. If more and more people could learn to debate or disagree in such a manner, I can guarantee that we'd be more willing to listen to each other and compromise on so many divisional issues.

 

[J.]

BUSH CONTRADICTS SELF AT HIS OWN PRESS CONFERENCE

During last night's prime time press conference, President Bush once again
claimed that "there was nobody in our government, at least, and I don't
think the prior government that could envision flying airplanes into
buildings" (1). But just minutes later at the same press conference the
president proved he was not telling the truth.

Specifically, Bush said the reason he supposedly requested intelligence
briefings before 9/11 "had to do with the Genoa G-8 conference I was going
to attend" in 2001. Bush was referring to the fact that, prior to that
conference, he was warned that "Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill him
and other leaders by crashing an airliner into the summit" meetings (2).

His statement that "the prior government" had not taken precautions against
terrorists using planes as weapons is also contradicted by the facts. The
Wall Street Journal recently reported that under President Clinton, "the
federal government had on several earlier occasions taken elaborate, secret
measures to protect special events from just such an attack" (3) after
receiving intelligence warnings (4).

At the press conference, Bush also claimed to have no "inkling whatsoever"
(5) about an attack before 9/11. But the Washington Post today reports that
newly-declassified information shows that the president did not just receive
one intelligence briefing about an imminent Al Qaeda attack, but "a stream"
of repeated warnings (6). In April and May 2001, for example, the
intelligence community titled some of those reports "Bin Laden planning
multiple operations," "Bin Laden network's plans advancing" and "Bin Laden
threats are real." The CIA explicitly told the Administration that upcoming
attacks would "occur on a catastrophic level, indicating that they would
cause the world to be in turmoil."

Sources:
1. President Addresses the Nation in Prime Time Press Conference,
04/13/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1278303&l=28724.
2. "Italy Tells of Threat at Genoa Summit", Los Angeles Times, 09/27/2001,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1278303&l=28725.
3. Wall Street Journal, 04/01/2004.
4. "Report Warned Of Suicide Hijackings", CBS News, 05/10/2002,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1278303&l=28726.
5. President Addresses the Nation in Prime Time Press Conference,
04/13/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1278303&l=28724.
6. "Panel Says Bush Saw Repeated Warnings", Washington Post, 04/14/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1278303&l=28727.

-----------------------------

C'mon people. He's lying to ALL of us!

 

[Hell Mike]

More great reasoning. Ohh, Ohh, I can use that reasoning too! Gee, how lovely it is to see someone who is COMPLETELY brainwashed by anti-US propaganda.

Now doesn't that sound ridiculous? Of course it does. See, I don't really believe that. What I do believe is that just because I have a viewpoint that differs from yours does not make me some sort of brainwashed puppet. Why do you have to go straight to the condescending "attack dog" mentality? You can disagree with me without putting me down. If more and more people could learn to debate or disagree in such a manner, I can guarantee that we'd be more willing to listen to each other and compromise on so many divisional issues.

Do I really seem completely brainwashed by anti-US propaganda? I may not approve of everything that happens over there and absolutely not of the stupid "culture" that spills over on me and what's mine, but I'm actually a bit jealous that you can play world cop and not me.
If you happen to like the american agenda, why would I be putting you down by saying so? Yes, I may have aexaggerated a bit, but that's no big deal, I think.
I don't want to compromise.

 

[Ayeka]

Sigh, and again with the WMD, it's always the WMD. Completely ignoring the point about the harboring and supporting of terrorist factions and going right back to the WMD reasoning as to why Saddam should not have been seen as a threat. That's exactly the kind of mentality I'm talking about.

What terrorists are these? I thought it was already known that Saddam had no links to al-Q'uaeda, isn't it? In fact, aren't they supposed to be ideological enemies? And while we're on the subject of supporting terrorist factions, the USA gives unconditional annual funding to Israel, so when's the invasion of America going to come around?

That reminds me, I need to confirm stuff I've heard about America funding the IRA. Mofos pray that that was just made up...

Might? Possibly? Come on. And not "attacking countries", but attacking horrible, despicable and influential regimes to bring freedom to those who have never known it.

Zimbabwe?

No, of course Saddam was never a threat. He never tried to invade and take over another country or anything like that. He was strict, but fair to his people. He didn't terrorize and wipe out his own people or anything like that. He certainly allowed the people to vote for who would be in power. He wasn't a dictator like Bush is. Bush won't allow for the possibilty of being voted out of office, he won't give the people a choice like Saddam did. He's taking away our democracy, unlike Saddam, who allowed open questioning of policies, and championed the cause of freedom.

I wonder...did the American government that helped him into power know about these tendencies before they put him in?

Respect about the point of critiscising for the sake of critiscising though. I'm gonna keep doing it though

 

[J.]

Sigh, and again with the WMD, it's always the WMD. Completely ignoring the point about the harboring and supporting of terrorist factions and going right back to the WMD reasoning as to why Saddam should not have been seen as a threat. That's exactly the kind of mentality I'm talking about.

Of course it's again with the WMD, because that's the ENTIRE REASON WE WENT TO WAR WITH IRAQ! Then when none were found (because there aren't any), Bush spins it into "uhm, they were supporteting them thar terrorists (which there is NO proof of), and we, uh, need to bring freedom to dem Iraqisis, yeah"

Again, the entire point that Bush gave our gov't, the American people, the UN and EU, not to mention the rest of the Middle East was that Saddam was a threat to America (and the rest of the world) because he had WMDs. Some threat, his army was decimated within what, a month? It is/was an illegal war, and everyone knows it.

Oh well, them damn terrorists hate our freedom, so what can you do?

 

[JayKeeley]

George W Bush is such a dumb cunt that he went to war with Iraq thinking it was Saudi Arabia.

 

[NAD]

Probably.

Concerning Saddam invading Kuwait, we were given ample warning he was going to. In fact, the entire reason Saddam did invade Kuwait was because Kuwait was breaking the OPEC agreement by supplying more oil than their production cap. Also from what I understand Kuwait was actually drilling into Iraq's oil supplies to do this. The US just got pissed off because of the lack of stability the invasion was causing, and also the fact that Kuwait is one of our largest suppliers of oil, not too far behind Saudi Arabia.

The US never NEVER NEVER NEVER invades a country just to be the nice guy. Were this true we would have saved Sri Lanka, Rwanda, Burundi, China, Venezuela, etc. (the list goes on and on). There are ALWAYS motives behind it and the outcome must be positive for the US for us to even bother getting involved, with the exception of Somalia during the Clinton Admin. That was a horrific failure and will probably never happen again. The closest thing the US does by just being nice is handing US troops over to the UN for peace keeping missions. Then of course one must debate what the motives of the UN are, but that could go on for weeks.

 

[Demonspell]

George W Bush is such a dumb cunt that he went to war with Iraq thinking it was Saudi Arabia.

Bush, who looked and sounded completely out of the loop at his latest denial session, would never go to war with Saudi Arabia, the country that was home to the majority of the hijackers and has one of the most oppressive governments in the world...we are massively dependent upon their oil reserves, and the relationship between the Bushes and the Saudi royals is well-documented, at least outside of the mainstream press. However, nothing short of a new energy source will break this entanglement, which has presisted long before Bush.

 

[JayKeeley]

Bush, who looked and sounded completely out of the loop at his latest denial session, would never go to war with Saudi Arabia, the country that was home to the majority of the hijackers and has one of the most oppressive governments in the world...we are massively dependent upon their oil reserves, and the relationship between the Bushes and the Saudi royals is well-documented, at least outside of the mainstream press. However, nothing short of a new energy source will break this entanglement, which has presisted long before Bush.

Yeah I know, I was just being...er, what's the word...?

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

Facetious.

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

FYI, to clear up some serious mistruths in this thread:

The United States gets its oil from:
46% from ourselves. At year-end 2002, we were the 3rd-largest oil producing nation in the world (only 1.8 million barrels/day behind Saudi Arabia and 1.2 million barrels/day behind Russia). The USA produces just shy of 6 million barrels/day and is not using all its own resources btw.

17% from Saudi Arabia
16% from Canada
15% from Mexico
13% from Venezuela
8% from Iraq
6% from Nigeria
5% from Columbia
4% from Norway
2% each from Great Britain and Angola
and a whole bunch of countries at or less than 1%

So please, don't make it seem like without Saudi Arabia we'd be walking to work.

 

[JayKeeley]

FYI, to clear up some serious mistruths in this thread:

The United States gets its oil from:
46% from ourselves. At year-end 2002, we were the 3rd-largest oil producing nation in the world (only 1.8 million barrels/day behind Saudi Arabia and 1.2 million barrels/day behind Russia). The USA produces just shy of 6 million barrels/day and is not using all its own resources btw.

17% from Saudi Arabia
16% from Canada
15% from Mexico
13% from Venezuela
8% from Iraq
6% from Nigeria
5% from Columbia
4% from Norway
2% each from Great Britain and Angola
and a whole bunch of countries at or less than 1%

So please, don't make it seem like without Saudi Arabia we'd be walking to work.

I'm not sure what this list indicates. Although it's almost entirely accurate with regards to where US oil is derived, it doesn't reflect which countries play host to the largest oil reserves, right?

Largest oil reserves (per billion barrels):

1 - Saudi Arabia (265)
2 - IRAQ (115)
3 - Kuwait (99)
4 - Iran (96)
5 - United Arab Emirates (63)
6 - Russia (54)
7 - Venezuela (47)
8 - China (30)
9 - Libya (30)
10 - Mexico (27)

Actually, to be completely fair, Canada does have the largest potential oil reserve but it can't be refined too easily. 300 billion barrels worth is spread across the sands of the Alberta tundra, but the process to extract it is just too expensive, and so traditional methods keep the current list intact. The middle-east, without a shadow of a doubt, has all the oil. What they do with it, or who they supply, is neither here nor there. It's all about who eventually wins control of that oil.

The rest is self-evident. Unless of course there are people out there who truly believe that this bullshit war was to save Iraqi people and offer them a taste of freedom fries.

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

I hope you're not suggesting that this was for oil.

Also, the list I posted was in response to comments like "we rely too heavily on Saudi's oil to ever attack them" etc. Also, it's not like there aren't billions of barrels in reserves in the USA's 10 largest fields. On top of what you've mentioned already in Canada, plus quite possibly the greatest source outside of the Saudi desert, the Gulf of Mexico. Lastly, there is potentially a new "greatest" source in I think Kazakstan, which is being worked on by Chevron (yes, a USA corporation).

My whole point is that the USA doesn't rely anywhere near what some people think on the Middle East. Of course, most of Europe does, so therein lies their vehement opposition to our having any say in things over there.

 

[JayKeeley]

I hope you're not suggesting that this was for oil.

Perhaps not entirely, but I'm sure it helped shape the agenda at some point - at least from a treasury perspective, since it's so much easier to turn the mass oil reserves into actual liquid assets for companies like Haliburton to feed off. KPMG audit Haliburton and actually assist in distributing funds to all their off shore tax-free accounts, so the tax doesn't even come back to balance the US economy which is what some cynics would at least hope for. It's daylight robbery, and makes it even more insulting that Iraq went through 13 years of sanctions before this take over occurred. And now it's on the brink of civil war.

Also, the list I posted was in response to comments like "we rely too heavily on Saudi's oil to ever attack them" etc. Also, it's not like there aren't billions of barrels in reserves in the USA's 10 largest fields. On top of what you've mentioned already in Canada, plus quite possibly the greatest source outside of the Saudi desert, the Gulf of Mexico. Lastly, there is potentially a new "greatest" source in I think Kazakstan, which is being worked on by Chevron (yes, a USA corporation).

Canada is just incredible with what's out there. I was reading that the oil reserves are laying flat like a sandy topsoil, to the point where the actual oil and sand have congealed. So the trick now is to find a way to extract it, and all of a sudden, Canada are holding all the cards. Just amazing. That deserves some real investment right there.

My whole point is that the USA doesn't rely anywhere near what some people think on the Middle East. Of course, most of Europe does, so therein lies their vehement opposition to our having any say in things over there.

European governments, maybe. The people? Nah, it's just a better understanding that the Islamic world is still in the equivalent of its dark ages. Imagine going to medieval Britain and trying to prevent the Church of England from burning witches at the stake or thinking the world is flat. It would be incomprehensible.

When Bush says things like "freedom in Iraq" or whatever, it's just short sighted. Yes, go after terrorists that pose a threat to the US and those that harbor or support them by all means, but how Iraq came up on this particular list ahead of North Korea, Saudia Arabia, or Iran is beyond me.

 

[Papa Josh]

I hope you're not suggesting that this was for oil.

Also, the list I posted was in response to comments like "we rely too heavily on Saudi's oil to ever attack them" etc. Also, it's not like there aren't billions of barrels in reserves in the USA's 10 largest fields. On top of what you've mentioned already in Canada, plus quite possibly the greatest source outside of the Saudi desert, the Gulf of Mexico. Lastly, there is potentially a new "greatest" source in I think Kazakstan, which is being worked on by Chevron (yes, a USA corporation).

My whole point is that the USA doesn't rely anywhere near what some people think on the Middle East. Of course, most of Europe does, so therein lies their vehement opposition to our having any say in things over there.

Dude, you've got your politics all fucked up..

 

[Hell Mike]

FUKU I H8 nSHILLCRIS

 

[Black Winter Day]

sorath, go here ----> http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=146721

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

Yes, go after terrorists that pose a threat to the US and those that harbor or support them by all means, but how Iraq came up on this particular list ahead of North Korea, Saudia Arabia, or Iran is beyond me.

I can't answer for N.Korea or Iran, because I agree that they were considerably more significant threats to not only the USA, but the world really. But Saudi Arabia houses our single-most important military & air force base(s) in the Middle East and has long been a political ally. Just because a marginal fraction of the extremists come from there doesn't make the entire nation a threat to us. I mean, fuck all, there are more terrorist-types homegrown here in our own country and we're certainly not against ourselves. You know what I mean.