Bush Asks For Patience!!

[Gorgo]

Rainbow, the thread is about Bush asking for patience. Criminals ask for a lot of things, but we generally try to be reasonable about what we allow them.

My response was to you, who seems to assume that something good might accidentlally come from this criminal attack upon the people of Iraq. There is no reason to think so.

[Livemike]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Quote by: Zeebadee Yeah, you are right about one thing. I don't understand how a two-bit chickenhawk, who complains that he doesn't get a tax break to support his own children, can have the balls to dismiss the deaths of 31 GI's who died in an unnecessary war that he supports, as "Shit happens when you fly." You should be ashamed. Shit in the form of lies dribbles down your chin every time you open your mouth. There were no WMD's. There was no connection to WTC. There was no clear and present danger to this country from Iraq. Every justification you mouth in support of this war has been disproved. You, sir, have no honor whatsoever. You are the lowest of the low. I could be in Iraq next month, dying so you can spout whatever oyu want.

What rot. Nothing that happens in Iraq could possibly affect the right of Mr. Zeebadee to state his opinions. In fact if you go to Iraq it will be to prevent Iraqis stating their opinions.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Are you willing to die for my right to speak? Didn't think so.

Are you prepared to die for his? If so your duty is clear, prepare to revolt against the US, since that state is clearly gearing up to become an elected dictatorship.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio __________________ My blog as it were. http://www.livejournal.com/users/mrvicchio/ Where to find crazy ideas http://www.wsws.org/

[bishop]

I could be in Iraq next month, dying so you can spout whatever oyu want.

hopefully you will be in iraq. might as well be you instead of someone that doesn't believe in this crock. after all, you believe in what bush did to us..

[Scribbler1]

Bush said of the chopper crash on Wednesday that it "...is going to be very discouraging for the American people. I understand that." And he followed with, "But it is the long-term objective that is vital, and that is to spread freedom." (emphasis mine)
It is painfully obvious that we are supposed to completely forget the so-called threat to the United States this war was based on. It WAS the reason and we were supposed to be scared enough to support anything Bush did. Simple common sense dictates that if there was a real threat, and a real enough one to justify invading another country, the fact of that threat would still remain a historical truth and Bush would not NEED to downplay it. In other words, if it rained today, two years down the road you can't say it didn't.
But with Bush, the Iraqi "threat" was real and directed at US. Then the threat was effectively disproved and now the focus is NOT on that "fact" but the NEW "fact" that we wanted to bring freedom to Iraq, and that was the reason all along.

Why does it seem that if Bush started to repeat over and over that the reason we went into Iraq was to bring the Iraqi people affordable big screen televisions, we would be seeing people on this very forum saying what a great and noble goal THAT was?

[giuliano]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Why does it seem that if Bush started to repeat over and over that the reason we went into Iraq was to bring the Iraqi people affordable big screen televisions, we would be seeing people on this very forum saying what a great and noble goal THAT was?

you want to deny them hi fidelity viewing?!

[Scribbler1]

I'm sorry, but a line MUST be drawn! If Saddam didn't give his people High Definition television, that's not my fault and I don't think I'm a bad guy for insisting that NONE of my tax money goes to give the Iraqis cable. It's not the business of the United States to be the world's cable guy, and I for one am sick of those whiners crying about the "poor" Iraqis and their rabbit ear antennas.
Besides, it's not like it wasn't available. WE were giving Saddam satellite dishes and TiVo boxes right up until the Gulf War. I even have a photo of Donald Rumsfeld wearing overalls and carrying a roll of wire and a toolbox at Saddam's palace. One picture shows Saddam pointing at Rummy's ass-crack as he bends over and screws the TV into the wall.
I'm outraged, simply outraged that people would even support such a thing. If that's what Bush and the Congress want, let them send their OWN cable guys to Iraq. Not ONE MORE FOOT of coax to the Iraqis.

[giuliano]

lol

i see you are right inside the pockets of the neocon cable company execs.

we even sent cable inspectors over there and they found nothing! just a bunch of tvs tuned to the iraqi state television station. every month 5000 iraqis are denied the right to watch american reality television and are instead forced to view repeat transmissions of speeches by saddam.

and who controls the media? that's right, the jews!

[MerlinsByte]

The only problem I have with the Iraq war is that Bush lied. I would went for the oil too. Blood for oil is a worthy reason to die, in my opinion.

(translation cheap oil IS National security)

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: MerlinsByte The only problem I have with the Iraq war is that Bush lied. I would went for the oil too. Blood for oil is a worthy reason to die, in my opinion. (translation cheap oil IS National security)

If Bush had told the truth but everything else was the same you would have supported this disaster? 1000+ U.S. lives, 200+ billion dollars, loss of international respect and a fractured United States would be worth it to you, just to get oil that we would have been able to buy ANYWAY?

And the reason Bush lied is that the American people would NEVER have agreed to support him in this and he knew it. Why do you think he lied otherwise? You might want to ask around about oil as a reason to invade a country. I don't think most people would consider American blood as cheap as you do.
And I really didn't need a translation. Cheap oil is economic security, not national security.

[RickSp]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Blood for oil is a worthy reason to die, in my opinion.

I agree, but only if it is your blood. You die first, OK?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Cheap oil is economic security, not national security.

A minor observation - gasoline in the US still costs less than bottled water. We already have cheap oil in the grand scheme of things. Blood on the other hand is costly.

[MerlinsByte]

quote by Scribbler1

"Cheap oil is economic security, not national security"

Merlin's reply "Isn't economic security national security? When an OPEC nation member passes gas too loudly the price of oil rises faster than my blood pressure when reading a mean spirited reply.

Oil is what I feel the next world war will be about. If the united states goes bankrupt buying oil we will bring the rest of the world down with us economically, in a world wide depression. OPEC, and oil producing nations, are fine parasites. They must keep the host alive to continue the symbiotic relationship. They fear killing the host much worse than an invasion. Death of the USA host is thier sure death as well, in my humble opinion. "

MB

[RickSp]

Merlin, you are still around? I thought you said cheap oil was worth dying for. And you obviously aren't dead. Guess you meant cheap oil is worth other people dying for. Other people dying so folks can drive gas guzzling SUVs, I suppose.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: MerlinsByte quote by Scribbler1 "Cheap oil is economic security, not national security" Merlin's reply "Isn't economic security national security?

No, it is not. If need be, rationing, alternative fuels, more reliance on mass transit and other alternatives can be implemented. The right wing is always good at lumping anything they support in with "national security" but the ability to drive a hummer 1/2 mile to buy a pack of cigarettes has nothing to do with the real security of the U.S..

Oil is what I feel the next world war will be about. If the united states goes bankrupt buying oil we will bring the rest of the world down with us economically, in a world wide depression. OPEC, and oil producing nations, are fine parasites.

Oil producing nations are NOT parasites, we are. We might not like them, but these countries are the ones who OWN the oil and they sell it to us. How is that parasitic on their part?

They must keep the host alive to continue the symbiotic relationship. They fear killing the host much worse than an invasion. Death of the USA host is thier sure death as well, in my humble opinion. "

MB

The United States is not the only consumer of oil in the world, and the producers will not go broke if we do.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Scribbler1 The United States is not the only consumer of oil in the world, and the producers will not go broke if we do.

A rather naive statement considering the fact that we won't lack for oil even if we go broke. We have the strongest military on earth right now, and, if it comes to that, we will simply take the oil. Why do you think the oil producing nations agree to try and keep the price down? They know that if the price goes too high, they'll be looking at U.S. troops "protecting" their oil fields.


"In March, Venezuela's pugnacious president, Hugo Chavez, made a speech warning the United States not to invade Venezuela for oil because it would trigger a "hundred-year war." This unlikely scenario apparently did not seem outlandish to many Venezuelans. Chavez's positioning of himself as the defender of Venezuela's oil against Yankee designs undoubtedly helped him survive a recent recall."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...VG488IK0Q1.DTL

"Under the current path chosen by the Bush administration, America had made it clear that any threat to oil security is also a threat to its national security and it will protect global oil supplies by any means necessary. ... The net result may ensure America gets the oil it needs but it is a policy that makes America secure, not safer. More U.S. troops will perish protecting oil and the hatred of America will extend far beyond the ravings of Islamic extremists."

[Gorgo]

It isn't just about America getting the oil it needs, it's about America having some say over who controls the oil that the world needs. It's making sure that Europe and Japan have some dependency on the U.S.

[RickSp]

Oil seems to make our leaders (and many Americans) simply stupid. Or more stupid, as the case may be. A bunch of gasoline Chicken Littles.

It reminds me of the Japanese and rice and few decades ago. The Japanese were obsessed with being self sufficient in rice. It was irrational. Japan was a trading nation who could buy all the foreign rice it wanted, or fish or beef or whatever their taste buds demanded. Nevertheless the Japanese spent billion subsidizing rice production by local farmers.

Now some Americans start talking about world war if the price of gasoline goes up. On an inflation adjusted basis the price of gasoline is lower than it was in 1980.

And if the price of gasoline jumped from $2.00 to $3.00 (or 1980 prices) what would happen? There would be a hardship to those dependent on their cars to be sure. There would be greater incentive to use mass transit, if available. There would be an incentive to drive more fuel efficient cars. There would be a justification to develop alternate fuel alternatives.

Notwithstanding the obvious hardships, increased gasoline prices might not be bad thing. Even with the modest run up in prices, we have seen the sales of gas guzzling SUVs fall by 20%. All the preaching about "energy efficiency" or "energy independence" is a bad joke if gasoline costs less than bottle water. If there is no economic reason to develop energy alternatives, it just won't happen.

[giuliano]

Quote by: Gorgo It isn't just about America getting the oil it needs, it's about America having some say over who controls the oil that the world needs. It's making sure that Europe and Japan have some dependency on the U.S.

that is correct. with china driving demand up quickly, it will pay handsome dividends to tie up suppliers.

the US is certainly thinking strategically. it already has had the saudis drinking from its teat for a while, soon the pro-US iraqi govt will be doing the same.

[bishop]

imo, the u.s.'s ability to influence oil producers is overstated. certainly we can put more pressure on producers than anyone else, but short of invading, i don't see what we really to to persuade them. the reason why oil producers seem to respond to oil shortages with accomodation is because they're heavily invested in the markets of developed countries.

some interesting points made here: http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/29/news...reut/index.htm

Economists agree there is little sign yet of an energy price shock, partly because the U.S. dollar's decline on currency markets has protected non-dollar importers from the rise in dollar-denominated oil prices. "Yes, oil prices are high but the U.S. economy hasn't skipped a beat and the weaker dollar has insulated many growing economies from a shock," said Yasser Elguindi, analyst for Medley Global Advisers. "High oil prices are not hurting demand because the value of the dollar allows emerging economies to afford higher prices." Several in the 11-member group point to forecasts that oil demand in energy-hungry China will rise strongly again this year. "Between $45-$55 (for U.S. crude) has not affected global economic growth," said Nigeria's Daukoru. Ministers, meeting next in Isfahan, Iran on March 16, may yet decide to shave production to contain a seasonal quarter stockbuild. At Friday's U.S. close of $47.15 a barrel, oil prices were too high to justify arranging cuts now for implementation at the start of April, when seasonal demand ebbs. "Now is not the time to cut," said Zanganeh.

[giuliano]

the US and west views oil producers, particularly arab ones, like children who need supervision. look at iraq, which forgot about how it was sitting on huge reserves while saddam was off playing saladin.

they need training. the saudis have fallen in line nicely, as you mentioned they are invested heavily in the US.

imo what pissed the US off about iraq was that saddam was encouraging french and russian investment in its oil industry (altho from what i can tell that wasn't going swimmingly), while locking out the hated US.

while denying black and blue that the war was about oil, it is undeniable that the US military has kicked french and russian oil companies out of iraq, and they are not being given the opportunity to bid for new contracts.

it doesn't get much more blatant than that.

how much control the US retains after elections, and so-called sovereignty continues to take hold in iraq, remains to be seen.