Bush Gets Away with Lies, Lies and More Lies in History-Illiterate America

[Chrisuperfly]

Even as an Iraq war supporter I still have to agree that this has more to do with oil than humanitarian reasons. But, I know for a fact that we have little "things" going on in some african countries that are not being talked about and that people don't know about.

 

[krime13]

That may be so, however the killings continue cos to the current administration human life is worthless compared to the barrel of oil....and need I remind you, we are paying for theyr opportunity to get even richer.

 

[ViRedd]

If its "all about oil," then why haven't we just surrounded the oil wells and carpet bombed the infrastructure and machine-gunned the civilian population? Lord knows we need the oil in this country ... so why haven't we confiscated the Iraqi oil already? Especially in view of krime's viewpoint that the present administration has the attitude that "human life is worthless."

Vi

 

[medicineman]

If its "all about oil," then why haven't we just surrounded the oil wells and carpet bombed the infrastructure and machine-gunned the civilian population? Lord knows we need the oil in this country ... so why haven't we confiscated the Iraqi oil already? Especially in view of krime's viewpoint that the present administration has the attitude that "human life is worthless."

Vi

Vi

This has to be one of your worse posts yet. Surround the oil wells, you are not the least bit funny, actually, with all due respect, the Bush regime does think that our lives are worthless. And I do believe, we have control over what oil comes out of Iraq. And, we have carpet bombed the civilian population, 600,000 dead Iraqis should attest to that. You are spouting right wing rhetoric without any back up, do-do bird stuff'. BTW why don't you answer my post about how you guys drove the price of houses through the roof.

 

[ViRedd]

This has to be one of your worse posts yet. Surround the oil wells, you are not the least bit funny, actually, with all due respect, the Bush regime does think that our lives are worthless. And I do believe, we have control over what oil comes out of Iraq. And, we have carpet bombed the civilian population, 600,000 dead Iraqis should attest to that. You are spouting right wing rhetoric without any back up, do-do bird stuff'. BTW why don't you answer my post about how you guys drove the price of houses through the roof.[/quote]

I've already answered your inane question in another post a few weeks ago. But I WILL answer again if you will explain how "we" are now driving the prices down.

Vi

 

[clekstro]

Vi, I am starting, in all honesty, to get tired of petty little comments. You know that you could have said something much more intelligent than that. But I'm going to fire it down anyway...

The short answer is simple, and it's an answer you could have given yourself: it can't look like we're there for oil, or the world would be completely outraged. The mission cannot be defended economically as dictated by the long tradition of christian just war theory. We should fight because we have to, and the economy is not a reason for doing so as long as other non-violent steps could be taken.

Iraq's feeble connection to terrorism leads everyone who doesn't accept this explanation to look for other motives that might lie at the source of our actions. When one considers fact on the one hand, facts about Iraq's threat [no terrorist connection of WMD], it's resources [2nd largest crude reserves], it's political actions [moving to the Petroeuro and further weakening the American dollar], and compares it with the bogus explanations [all of the ones we were given regarding an actual threat]and humanitarian reasons we were told to accept [God wants us to liberate them], then it's no longer reasonable to consider the false reasons as valid. You can do it, but you'll sound every bit as unreasonable and phony as the president.

 

[ViRedd]

"The short answer is simple, and it's an answer you could have given yourself: it can't look like we're there for oil, or the world would be completely outraged."

But wait a minute ... I thought Bush was a Nazi. If Bush is a Nazi, don't Nazis just take what they want and to hell with the rest of the world and what everyone else thinks? Why would Bush care if the world is "outraged" if he, as krime says, "thinks human life is worthless?"

I'll make the point again: I did not vote for Bush either time. I do not agree with many of his policies. He is NOT a conservative. He is a big government politician. But, I will defend the guy when outrageous statements are made like "he thinks human life is worthless." The Leftist Whackos hate the guy. Bush defeats them at every turn and they end up looking like fools. Even so, the Left continues to be relentless in their inane, insane attacks against the guy. They have divided the country for political gain ... and the "useful idiots" have bought into the lies of the Left.

Vi

 

[krime13]

You are right Vi, the country is devided, on one side you have people with moral belief that warmongering for profit is wrong, on the other side there are people who are willing to disregard moral grounds for this war in the name of economy (mostly rich conservatives like your self who are constantly bribed by the current administration).As far as beeng blatant in taking over the oil supply, that it is, however the tactic of the current administration has slightly changed from its predecessors, the third Reich,.I guess even idiots can learn from other idiots mistakes.

 

[clekstro]

"The short answer is simple, and it's an answer you could have given yourself: it can't look like we're there for oil, or the world would be completely outraged."

But wait a minute ... I thought Bush was a Nazi. If Bush is a Nazi, don't Nazis just take what they want and to hell with the rest of the world and what everyone else thinks? Why would Bush care if the world is "outraged" if he, as krime says, "thinks human life is worthless?"

I'll make the point again: I did not vote for Bush either time. I do not agree with many of his policies. He is NOT a conservative. He is a big government politician. But, I will defend the guy when outrageous statements are made like "he thinks human life is worthless." The Leftist Whackos hate the guy. Bush defeats them at every turn and they end up looking like fools. Even so, the Left continues to be relentless in their inane, insane attacks against the guy. They have divided the country for political gain ... and the "useful idiots" have bought into the lies of the Left.

Vi

You didn't really respond to me at all, Vi. And frankly, the statement that "to him human life is worthless," is not unreasonable, unless it's unreasonable to phrase something passionately. What that really means, and you got it too, was that he's commanding a lot of killing, responsible through the toppling of the dictator of the following killing, getting our troops killed, gives speeches in praise of killing people he can label as "terrorists," threatening to do more killing in Iran, etc.
What doesn't make sense, and you're right, is that he claims that he believes life to be sacred, that it should be protected, that he's against abortion and research on discarded and lifeless frozen embryos that could potentially lead to curing millions of people, and that's what makes that previous statement so ridiculous, am I right? I think you're overlooking the broader ridiculousness by focusing only on the statements that Bush makes, and not somehow catching on to his hypocrisy on this issue.

But you've defended the president numerous times on the issue of Iraq, the most divisive question of neo-conservatism: pre-emptive, manipulative war...You've been defending that for a long time, and are just backing away from the talking points now that this policy is (publicly, openly) a huge stack of fucking cards and a goddamn tragedy; somehow the leftist wackos and the true conservatives like Ron Paul got it right.

 

[medicineman]

Well hello Clekstro, I believe you've hit vi square on the jaw with that post. You're absolutely right about him, he's a wannabee rich prick so he buys the koolaid without knowing they'll never let him join the club. Those are the worst kinds of pricks, the wannabees as they suck so much ass to get to the top they can't see anything but buttcheeks, then they figure out the real elites will never let them have real power and it pisses them off even more and they become bitter and mean.

 

[7xstall]

iraq's entire oil supply is a tiny, irrelevant drop in the bucket.

the neo-cons and socialist wanted a place to plant the flag... geopolitical strategy. a presence between Israel and Iran.

if anyone is imprisoned by the media propaganda and actually thinks that iraq can produce enough oil to matter; go to the DOE website and look at production figures and look at what gets imported to the U.S. you'll notice that iraq is almost non-existent.






.

 

[Chrisuperfly]

iraq's entire oil supply is a tiny, irrelevant drop in the bucket.

the neo-cons and socialist wanted a place to plant the flag... geopolitical strategy. a presence between Israel and Iran.

if anyone is imprisoned by the media propaganda and actually thinks that iraq can produce enough oil to matter; go to the DOE website and look at production figures and look at what gets imported to the U.S. you'll notice that iraq is almost non-existent.






.

I think its hard to make an accurate determination of how much oil Iraq is producing right now in comparison to how much they are capable of producing because the oil producing infrastructure is for shit right now. The oil field that Iraq sits on has the capability of producing anywhere from 4-6 million barrels of oil per day with the proper equipment. It also doesnt help that insurgents are running around stirring up shit in places like Basra, Haditha, Kirkuk, Mosul, etc. These are most of Iraq's largest oil producing cities.

 

[7xstall]

like you said, we know based on their infrastructure and historical data that Iraq can produce a max of about 2.9mill/day under perfect conditions (3.5mill/day in 1990). they are currently pulling less than 2mill/day because of the violence, poor management and corruption.

their equipment is neglected, has been since the 70s, and it's not fit to use really. if the war for profit theory was entirely true, surely we'd see Halliburton doing what they do best.








.

 

[krime13]

Dont wory 7x ,its coming, its a fact that the US is building permanent bases in Iraq and Halliburton is going to suck the country dry, I think the unspoken plan is to take care of Iran first so the instability actually helps the current administration to build the case against Iran.

 

[medicineman]

like you said, we know based on their infrastructure and historical data that Iraq can produce a max of about 2.9mill/day under perfect conditions (3.5mill/day in 1990). they are currently pulling less than 2mill/day because of the violence, poor management and corruption.

their equipment is neglected, has been since the 70s, and it's not fit to use really. if the war for profit theory was entirely true, surely we'd see Halliburton doing what they do best.

The oil reserves in Iraq are the 2nd largest in the world. If you can't see the "facts" that we went to Iraq for oil, then you sir are blind. As soon as the insurgency dies down, If ever, Then your good buddies at Haliburton can get busy building the infrastructure, that is if they can force the Iraqis into signing over 85% of the profits on new reserves, which is the US plan. That is precisely why there are no oil laws signed in Iraq, They were written by big oil and Condoleeza Rice in Washington, and shoved up the Iraqis asses. Problem is, the Iraqis were smarter than they thought, and so no oil laws.



.

...............................

 

[7xstall]

we can get more than that out of ANWR, why spend so much money on war? buy low sell high, that's business. if all we're doing is buying the Iraqi oil we're paying one hell of a premium! it makes no sense.

the purpose of bases is to insinuate things. we're not building them so we can actually fight. it's like the meathead steroid guy walking around with his shirt off - "see my arms, they're big, i can crush things."





.

 

[medicineman]

we can get more than that out of ANWR, why spend so much money on war? buy low sell high, that's business. if all we're doing is buying the Iraqi oil we're paying one hell of a premium! it makes no sense.

the purpose of bases is to insinuate things. we're not building them so we can actually fight. it's like the meathead steroid guy walking around with his shirt off - "see my arms, they're big, i can crush things."

You still don't get it. War is the most profitable thing the elites can do to increase their wealth. Think about it, There has been a war somewhere since I've been alive, and I'm sure long before that. The US has been involved in 95% of them in one fashion or another,IE arms sales etc. The elites are heavily invested in waring industries. They are making a killing on Iraq. Iraq is the best of both worlds, War profiteering and a jackpot of oil at the end of the rainbow, an elites dream come true.


.

...................................

 

[krime13]

Thats the point 7x, WE are paying for this war whyle THEY make all the profit, THEY (current administration) spend the tax dollars on this war while reaping the profit through Halliburton and the likes.

 

[7xstall]

there's not enough oil to matter and there's no way to safely launder it into our system.

the companies are making a profit, that's what they do, but they are doing it while SAVING tax dollars. is that moral, not really. war is war and it belongs to the Army, you don't set up a concession stand on the battlefield and charge the American people for it - the Army should be completely self-reliant when overseas.

is it a terrible scheme? yes, but since there were enough votes to go in there that's what we get. our Army is not capable of sustaining itself so we had to bring in private companies.

where are the numbers, how much are they making over there? isn't it a publicly traded company?



we need to vote for a man who will stand up against this kind of thing.




.

 

[ViRedd]

Vi, I am starting, in all honesty, to get tired of petty little comments. You know that you could have said something much more intelligent than that. But I'm going to fire it down anyway...

The short answer is simple, and it's an answer you could have given yourself: it can't look like we're there for oil, or the world would be completely outraged. The mission cannot be defended economically as dictated by the long tradition of christian just war theory. We should fight because we have to, and the economy is not a reason for doing so as long as other non-violent steps could be taken.

Iraq's feeble connection to terrorism leads everyone who doesn't accept this explanation to look for other motives that might lie at the source of our actions. When one considers fact on the one hand, facts about Iraq's threat [no terrorist connection of WMD], it's resources [2nd largest crude reserves], it's political actions [moving to the Petroeuro and further weakening the American dollar], and compares it with the bogus explanations [all of the ones we were given regarding an actual threat]and humanitarian reasons we were told to accept [God wants us to liberate them], then it's no longer reasonable to consider the false reasons as valid. You can do it, but you'll sound every bit as unreasonable and phony as the president.

Is it unreasonable to believe that continued unrest in the Middle East will disrupt the economies of the free world? Is it unreasonable to assume that dictators like Saddam, who attacks their neighbors for the purpose of controlling their oil, and therefore controlling the economies of the free world, should be removed from power? The entire world runs on oil and the most prolific sources of that oil, at the present time, are countries in the Middle East. Is establishing a stable government in Iraq an unreasonable thing to do in view of the countries surrounding Iraq? Once a stable government is established in Iraq, many of the rest, especially Iran, will fall into line as well. The Iranian government's worst fear is a free, democratic Iraq setting an example of free market liberty for the Iranian people to follow. Iran is moving ahead with their nuclear program. They admit to the construction of 3000 centrifuges at this point, but its probably many more than that. The President of Iran has stated that once they have nuclear weapons they will wipe Israel off the map. Is it unreasonable to take him at his word? The leaders of Iran's best hope is for the U.S. to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible. The Saudis have just surrounded their oil fields with 35,000 troops in order to protect their oil facilities in the face of that scenario. The Saudis know the Iranians will attempt to take over their life-blood as soon as we pull out of the Middle East conflict. The Iranian people WANT their totalitarian government to fall. And it WILL fall if we stay the course in Iraq.

So, what's best for the West? What's best for the Middle East? In my opinion, the unreasonable thing would be to just abandon the Iraqi people and leave them to the devises of the Iranians.

Isn't it unreasonable to use the situation in the Middle East as a political ploy to gain power and money? Isn't that what the Left is doing so unreasonably? No? Then why would the leaders of the Democrat Party stand up before the entire world and announce that the war has been lost, while at the same time, our troops are fighting their asses off in an effort to win it? Yeah, the Left supports the troops alright ... my ass.

Now if you think these comments are "petty little comments," so be it.

Vi