Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Comrade · Jun 8, 2004, 11:20 pm

I've heard lots of reasons why he DIDNT go to war :)
But, I havent heard many alternatives that make sense, unless you consider "family feud" a reasonable alternative.
Going to war so that Halliburton can gain some profits also seems like too "small" of a reason.
So list some, for me, so I can know.

btw, I did read the article on whatreallyhappened about the Dollar vs. Euro war thing, if its true then that is VERY scary, because there's no way to win and still be the good guys. I'm not knowledgable enough to know whether its true or not.
Here's the article, thanks to whomever posted first it in another thread.
http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/2003...04/20030409.php

Mr.Vicchio · Jun 8, 2004, 11:37 pm

1991 Cease fire, 14 UN resolutions ignored, 9-11 and Saddam's unwillingness to comply with the worlds demands he prove without a doubt he disarmed.

Seems more plausible then any of the other contrived evil Bush is a tyrant puppet of Haliburton/Skullandbones/shadow government lines usually spouted about around here.

Comrade · Jun 8, 2004, 11:39 pm

Strange how many responses the other threads are getting, but when it comes around to a topic where its a little harder to bash bush without adequate reasons...

bishop · Jun 8, 2004, 11:40 pm

i've read that article before... it is very possible and can be true. i'm not sure if we'll ever know the truth on it though, it's definitely not something anyone would ever admit. our currency's linkage to oil is perhaps the sole reason why we're able to maintain such an enormous national debt and trade deficit.

however, i don't particularly buy it. i think that bush simply is an incompetent decision maker. i believe that he was successfully persuaded by his neocons that he could get away with it as there supposedly was credible evidence that wmd were there - which would have vindicated bush.

people like cheney and rummy would've launched an attack against iraq long before bush decided to.. they were getting noticeably antsy, and bush painted himself into a corner with his rhetoric and positioning troops on iraq's border. he was faced with the prospect of dealing with an iraqi summer and he listened to the voices in his ear telling him to invade.

bishop · Jun 8, 2004, 11:41 pm

1441 didn't automatically authorize war... bush CHOSE to invade.

the inspectors were in iraq, doing their job. as we have seen, our own inspectors have found just as much themselves.

Comrade · Jun 8, 2004, 11:41 pm

Yeah, someone horrible incompetent at making decisions made his way up to being president of the united states. =\

bishop · Jun 8, 2004, 11:42 pm

if his last name wasn't bush, he would never have been anything other than an alcoholic in the back of a pickup truck.

Comrade · Jun 8, 2004, 11:43 pm

That's a moot point, just hate.

Jun 8, 2004, 11:46 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by bishop,
if his last name wasn't bush, he would never have been anything other than an alcoholic in the back of a pickup truck.

Wow, great debating tactics, so great old Mia, OS, Sonart, and the gang just skimmed right over it. :rolleyes:

bishop · Jun 8, 2004, 11:49 pm

how is being born into one of the most powerful families in the country a moot point???

where did bush develop his friendship with good ol' prince bandar? while he was becoming a self-made man, or from his daddy's contracts in saudi arabia?

Comrade · Jun 8, 2004, 11:49 pm

It's moot because, unless you believe in alternate realities, Bush was born a Bush. I didn't realize we were blaming him for that too...

Mr.Vicchio · Jun 8, 2004, 11:50 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by bishop,
if his last name wasn't bush, he would never have been anything other than an alcoholic in the back of a pickup truck.

Yes this is such a useful and debatable line.

Lets play with it shall we?

If Kennedy wasn't the son of a rich man and the brother of a slain president, he would just be a local town drunk.

If Kerry wasn't the product of New England Elite Living he would never have been able to escape vietnam

Mia · Jun 8, 2004, 11:51 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by URnotmeRU,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (URnotmeRU,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-bishop,
if his last name wasn't bush, he would never have been anything other than an alcoholic in the back of a pickup truck.

Wow, great debating tactics, so great old Mia, OS, Sonart, and the gang just skimmed right over it. :rolleyes:[/b][/quote]

Pardon me? I haven't even posted in here yet. What are you saying?

Compugasm · Jun 8, 2004, 11:55 pm

As comrade said, there is nothing to debate. To everything bishop has said thusfar, I say "So what"?

bishop · Jun 8, 2004, 11:56 pm

Quote:

If Kennedy wasn't the son of a rich man and the brother of a slain president, he would just be a local town drunk.

i agree.

Quote:

If Kerry wasn't the product of New England Elite Living he would never have been able to escape vietnam

"escaping" vietnam with several medals... you can't really smear kerry on vietnam. as it is, all of the chickenhawks in bush's cabinet, including bush himself all chickened out. kerry VOLUNTEERED.

giuliano · Jun 9, 2004, 12:00 am

bush went to war in iraq becuase:

1. he ran on a platform of military superiority going right back to his '99 election campaign. he spent $billions on transforming the military into a networked, agile force. for a republican govt, that leads to one particular need: war.

2. iraq holds enormous geo-strategic importance. it was of course saudis who committed sep.11 and who are the major funders of anti-american terrorism. however the US is hamstrung in demanding saudi reform, due to its heavy reliance on saudi oil. by replacing french oil companies like schlumberger in iraq, another major holder of global oil reserves, with halliburton, the US can start applying more pressure to the saudis, and other ME oil-producing nations.

3. china is set to place enormous strain on global energy supplies. again, much better to have american halliburton pumping ME oil than french or russian companies.

Compugasm · Jun 9, 2004, 12:03 am

[deleted because this whole thread is already pointless.]

Comrade · Jun 9, 2004, 12:06 am

Quote:

Originally posted by giuliano,
bush went to war in iraq becuase:

1. he ran on a platform of military superiority going right back to his '99 election campaign. he spent $billions on transforming the military into a networked, agile force. for a republican govt, that leads to one particular need: war.

You were asking me "What broad sweeping generalizations do I make?" All republican goverments who upgrade our military do so because they want to start wars out of nothing?

2. iraq holds enormous geo-strategic importance. it was of course saudis who committed sep.11 and who are the major funders of anti-american terrorism. however the US is hamstrung in demanding saudi reform, due to its heavy reliance on saudi oil. by replacing french oil companies like schlumberger in iraq, another major holder of global oil reserves, with halliburton, the US can start applying more pressure to the saudis, and other ME oil-producing nations.

the saudis committed 9/11? Or people who were born in saudi arabia committed 9/11?

3. china is set to place enormous strain on global energy supplies. again, much better to have american halliburton pumping ME oil than french or russian companies.
I'm glad you have such personal knowledge of Bush's thought process, or no, wait, I see this one coming "Bush is dumb, he doesn't HAVE a thought process

giuliano · Jun 9, 2004, 12:14 am

comrade,
all of those items are of course based on evidence, and opinion. they are not conclusive proof. the only way you will find proof is if bush admits it, or an admission is leaked.

1. it cannot be denied bush ran on a platform of improving military capability. this provides motivation for him to prove that to the voting public. i am not suggesting this was THE reason for invasion, but it is a factor and does lend credibility to the argument he was more predisposed to starting a war than someone like howard dean, for example.

2. the saudis are widely believed to be the major funders of anti-american terrorism. no, not the saudi govt, but saudi clerics majorly. however the system of govt in saudi arabia facilitates this. the US would love dearly to change that, but it cannot at present, due to the major reason i stated in the previous post.

again, invading iraq and controlling iraqi oil supply undeniably puts bush in a better position to address the saudi problem, and reform the middle east in general.

3. it cannot be denied controlling iraqi oil will potentially hedge against supply problems that will clearly occur as china emerges as a major energy consumer.

there is no questoin that bush and the US has gained very significant strategic advantages from invading and occupying iraq. are these factors pure coincidences and uninvolved in the real reasons for war?

i sincerely doubt it.

especially since the "real reasons" have more-or-less evaporated now.

Comrade · Jun 9, 2004, 12:22 am

I am disagreeing that you think that Bush's reasons to go to war are the only possible ones...

Jun 8, 2004, 11:20 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Comrade Hot Lava Location: Texas Posts: 1,229	I've heard lots of reasons why he DIDNT go to war :) But, I havent heard many alternatives that make sense, unless you consider "family feud" a reasonable alternative. Going to war so that Halliburton can gain some profits also seems like too "small" of a reason. So list some, for me, so I can know. btw, I did read the article on whatreallyhappened about the Dollar vs. Euro war thing, if its true then that is VERY scary, because there's no way to win and still be the good guys. I'm not knowledgable enough to know whether its true or not. Here's the article, thanks to whomever posted first it in another thread. http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/2003...04/20030409.php Oh, it's really too bad, isn't it? -- http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050121/480/watw10701210224 Hahaha, that's funny. Liberals are so silly!

Jun 8, 2004, 11:37 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,031	1991 Cease fire, 14 UN resolutions ignored, 9-11 and Saddam's unwillingness to comply with the worlds demands he prove without a doubt he disarmed. Seems more plausible then any of the other contrived evil Bush is a tyrant puppet of Haliburton/Skullandbones/shadow government lines usually spouted about around here. Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

Jun 8, 2004, 11:39 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Comrade Hot Lava Location: Texas Posts: 1,229	Strange how many responses the other threads are getting, but when it comes around to a topic where its a little harder to bash bush without adequate reasons... Oh, it's really too bad, isn't it? -- http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050121/480/watw10701210224 Hahaha, that's funny. Liberals are so silly!

Jun 8, 2004, 11:40 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	i've read that article before... it is very possible and can be true. i'm not sure if we'll ever know the truth on it though, it's definitely not something anyone would ever admit. our currency's linkage to oil is perhaps the sole reason why we're able to maintain such an enormous national debt and trade deficit. however, i don't particularly buy it. i think that bush simply is an incompetent decision maker. i believe that he was successfully persuaded by his neocons that he could get away with it as there supposedly was credible evidence that wmd were there - which would have vindicated bush. people like cheney and rummy would've launched an attack against iraq long before bush decided to.. they were getting noticeably antsy, and bush painted himself into a corner with his rhetoric and positioning troops on iraq's border. he was faced with the prospect of dealing with an iraqi summer and he listened to the voices in his ear telling him to invade. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Jun 8, 2004, 11:41 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	1441 didn't automatically authorize war... bush CHOSE to invade. the inspectors were in iraq, doing their job. as we have seen, our own inspectors have found just as much themselves. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Jun 8, 2004, 11:41 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Comrade Hot Lava Location: Texas Posts: 1,229	Yeah, someone horrible incompetent at making decisions made his way up to being president of the united states. =\ Oh, it's really too bad, isn't it? -- http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050121/480/watw10701210224 Hahaha, that's funny. Liberals are so silly!

Jun 8, 2004, 11:42 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	if his last name wasn't bush, he would never have been anything other than an alcoholic in the back of a pickup truck. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Jun 8, 2004, 11:43 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Comrade Hot Lava Location: Texas Posts: 1,229	That's a moot point, just hate. Oh, it's really too bad, isn't it? -- http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050121/480/watw10701210224 Hahaha, that's funny. Liberals are so silly!

Jun 8, 2004, 11:49 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	how is being born into one of the most powerful families in the country a moot point??? where did bush develop his friendship with good ol' prince bandar? while he was becoming a self-made man, or from his daddy's contracts in saudi arabia? hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Jun 8, 2004, 11:49 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Comrade Hot Lava Location: Texas Posts: 1,229	It's moot because, unless you believe in alternate realities, Bush was born a Bush. I didn't realize we were blaming him for that too... Oh, it's really too bad, isn't it? -- http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050121/480/watw10701210224 Hahaha, that's funny. Liberals are so silly!

Jun 8, 2004, 11:55 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
Compugasm Son of X51 Location: San Diego Posts: 3,637	As comrade said, there is nothing to debate. To everything bishop has said thusfar, I say "So what"? I'd like to thank Charlie Hodge, bringing me scarves and water.

Jun 9, 2004, 12:00 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
giuliano Tres COOL Location: melbourne australia Posts: 819	bush went to war in iraq becuase: 1. he ran on a platform of military superiority going right back to his '99 election campaign. he spent $billions on transforming the military into a networked, agile force. for a republican govt, that leads to one particular need: war. 2. iraq holds enormous geo-strategic importance. it was of course saudis who committed sep.11 and who are the major funders of anti-american terrorism. however the US is hamstrung in demanding saudi reform, due to its heavy reliance on saudi oil. by replacing french oil companies like schlumberger in iraq, another major holder of global oil reserves, with halliburton, the US can start applying more pressure to the saudis, and other ME oil-producing nations. 3. china is set to place enormous strain on global energy supplies. again, much better to have american halliburton pumping ME oil than french or russian companies. sheik's progressive islam online* *with editorials by bishop

Jun 9, 2004, 12:03 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
Compugasm Son of X51 Location: San Diego Posts: 3,637	[deleted because this whole thread is already pointless.] I'd like to thank Charlie Hodge, bringing me scarves and water.

Jun 9, 2004, 12:14 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
giuliano Tres COOL Location: melbourne australia Posts: 819	comrade, all of those items are of course based on evidence, and opinion. they are not conclusive proof. the only way you will find proof is if bush admits it, or an admission is leaked. 1. it cannot be denied bush ran on a platform of improving military capability. this provides motivation for him to prove that to the voting public. i am not suggesting this was THE reason for invasion, but it is a factor and does lend credibility to the argument he was more predisposed to starting a war than someone like howard dean, for example. 2. the saudis are widely believed to be the major funders of anti-american terrorism. no, not the saudi govt, but saudi clerics majorly. however the system of govt in saudi arabia facilitates this. the US would love dearly to change that, but it cannot at present, due to the major reason i stated in the previous post. again, invading iraq and controlling iraqi oil supply undeniably puts bush in a better position to address the saudi problem, and reform the middle east in general. 3. it cannot be denied controlling iraqi oil will potentially hedge against supply problems that will clearly occur as china emerges as a major energy consumer. there is no questoin that bush and the US has gained very significant strategic advantages from invading and occupying iraq. are these factors pure coincidences and uninvolved in the real reasons for war? i sincerely doubt it. especially since the "real reasons" have more-or-less evaporated now. sheik's progressive islam online* *with editorials by bishop

Jun 9, 2004, 12:22 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
Comrade Hot Lava Location: Texas Posts: 1,229	I am disagreeing that you think that Bush's reasons to go to war are the only possible ones... Oh, it's really too bad, isn't it? -- http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050121/480/watw10701210224 Hahaha, that's funny. Liberals are so silly!