OT: Interesting Read

[Katchoo]

Originally posted by Randallw:
Considering the oil, I for one look forward to the day when we no longer need oil (eg electric cars etc), then lets see the middle east survive without any useful resources.

None of us right now will live long enough to see that. There's just too much money being made off oil, too many people with great power & prestiege, for world dependancy, especially in the United States, of oil to go away.

The technologies exist right now to do away with oil. You can buy a car and heat your house without a drop of oil. Unfortunately those technologies are being kept at an especailly high price, making them virtually unatainable to all but the wealthiest people.

Does anyone here think that the people making their fortunes in oil would simply stand by and let their 'money tree' shrivel up and go away with the debut of cheap no-oil alternatives? HELL NO! There's so much money being made off oil, so much money being spread out, that we'll likely never see these better alternatives come into full bloom.

I for one am praying that the Republican Party is ousted in November, because if it's not, you can kiss the United States goodbye. Vice President Chaney, speaking at a rally yesterday or the day before, told the attending audience that Kerry & Edwards had the audacity to vote against a bill (proposed by the Republican Party) that would have helped clear the way towards prospecting, and eventually drilling, for oil in several natural reserve parks in the US, including the land in & around the Grand Canyon.

And that's not the worst that Bush & the Republican Party have done, or are trying to do.

I won't even go into how the Republican Party is trying to manipulate voters in Florida again...



Damn, and I'm not even American!

[Randallw]

Well I'm not American and I don't even live next door, but I hope the Republicans win.

Edit: I just need to add this bit. I am paraphrasing a bit, but you will hopefully get the gist.

President Bush was giving a speech, heres roughly what he said

Our enemies are driven and resourceful
just like us
They take every opportunity to do us and our country harm
just like us.

I've got to tell you, its a funny old world and youv'e got to laugh .

[ August 06, 2004, 05:19: Message edited by: Randallw ]

[primitive]

Originally posted by Randallw:
.
.
Yes, A stable Iraq would be better.
.
.

Sure, that would have been better. However; if the US government really wanted a stable Iraq, they would have done a better job. The war itself was executed perfectly, but the immediate post war period was blundered hopelessly beyond recovery.

Allowing the riots + creating a power vacuum by dissolving the Iraqi army and not having a new Iraqi government ready immediately, destroyed any chances the US ever had of creating a stable Iraq.

I just can�t believe GWB and his henchmen is that incompetent. Only logical conclusion I can see is that they wanted to turn Iraq into a new Lebanon.

Why ? beats me. It drives up the oil price for sure, but that can�t be the only reason. Hopefully it�s a well thought out scheme to keep the Saudis in place and not just a mad Texan on a powertrip.

[Atrocities]

Mistakes were made. But the loss of life now might well have paled the loss of life if Saddam had achieved his goal of becoming a nuclear power. Again something that I am thankful we will never know.

Begin Rant:
(Why we went to war.)
I would also like to note that by beating the **** out of the biggest meanest arse in the Middle East despite the anti sentiment in the world, we sent a message to the rest of that terrorist breeding SOB's that we will come after them regardless of world or liberal media opinion.

And I do not let the media or actors/singers tell me what I should and should not believe. I think I am independent enough to make up my own mind and do not need to be "protected" or fed heavily opinionated propaganda all wrapped up under the disguise of a documentary.

Hell this is something I would have expected from the Nazi party not the Democratic Party!

End rant.

[ August 06, 2004, 10:11: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[primitive]

Saddam ? Nuclear power ?
Thought everybody had understood by now that Saddams nuclear program was a joke.
If you wanted to go after rouge or borderline nations with real capabilities to make nuclear weapons, there would have been at least 10 nations more worthy of an intervention. North Korea, Iran, Egypt, Saudi, Pakistan, Algeria and every former Soviet Central Asian republic to mention a few.

As for sending a message:
US armed forces have sent the message they have the capability to take whatever land they want. Kudos to them.
However; politically GWB has shown all his cards. Any rouge nation now knows that he/you won�t come if they can inflict losses of a few thousand and make it necessary with an expensive occupation afterwards. Mr Sung and the Ayatollahs probably sleeps much better now than they did a year and a half ago.

[ August 06, 2004, 11:01: Message edited by: primitive ]

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by primitive:
Saddam ? Nuclear power ?
Thought everybody had understood by now that Saddams nuclear program was a joke.
If you wanted to go after rouge or borderline nations with real capabilities to make nuclear weapons, there would have been at least 10 nations more worthy of an intervention. North Korea, Iran, Egypt, Saudi, Pakistan, Algeria and every former Soviet Central Asian republic to mention a few.

As for sending a message:
US armed forces have sent the message they have the capability to take whatever land they want. Kudos to them.
However; politically GWB has shown all his cards. Any rouge nation now knows that he/you won�t come if they can inflict losses of a few thousand and make it necessary with an expensive occupation afterwards. Mr Sung and the Ayatollahs probably sleeps much better now than they did a year and a half ago.

I am sorry Primitive, but you missed my sarcastic point. I am far too tired to explain it to at the moment, but I will say is this. Mistakes were made, but in the end, what could have happened will most likely not happen. And whether or not it would have ever happened, well we will never know. And since we have taken on Iraq, terrorists have blown up no US main land buildings. Lets just hope that as time goes on, more and more people decide against terrorism and that the term and ideology that is terrorism fades into obscurity never to be heard from again. (Wishful thinking I know.)

Please don't take this to be mean, but I have to ask you, what would you have done if you were the leader of the US and you had to deal with the same info, situations, and people that Bush has had to contend with? I feel that the simple answer would have to be "I don't know." Why, well because both you and I would be second guessing someone who has information, insight, and choices to make that we will, thankfully, never have to face in our simple protected little lives. Bush was elected to do a job, he has done that job, and I honestly feel that if Gore had been in office instead of Bush, we still would have gone to war against Iraq. I just hope that the next president of the US has enough common sense to recall that appeasement of terrorism only breeds more terrorism. A sad, but true fact of the world we live in.

Hindsight is always 20/20, and we the arm chair warriors/diplomats of the world, will always second guess the decisions that are made by those that we elect into power. That is what it means to live in a free society, and for the first time in over 30 years, the Iraq people have that freedom as well. Albeit some of them choose hostile activities over PEACEFUL ONES!

The Last I looked, no allied force has beheaded anyone. And I do agree, he has shown all his cards, however in this kind of game, that sometimes has to be done.

(edit: spelling errors)

[ August 06, 2004, 11:26: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Atrocities:


Hell this is something I would have expected from the Nazi party not the Democratic Party!

Here we go again with the Nazis.

Atrocities let's look at the real analogies:

Invading a smaller country and convincing your constituency that they are a threat to your people and way of life.
Do this under the guise of patriotism.
Pass laws that limit freedom of speech and freedom of movement (aka the patriot act).
Utilize the popular media to further your agenda - AM radio and Cable News.

Hmm . . . who sounds more like a Nazi?

[ August 06, 2004, 16:47: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Atrocities]

Rex I was being sarcastic, thats all. Nothing more, nothing less. Just sarcasim. I would not literally compare those two parties. (although there are some simularities, that can be said for all parties.)

"Pass laws that limit freedom of speech and freedom of movement (aka the patriot act)."

LOL that people keep bring this up as a republican thing. Democrats voted on this as well. Otherwise it would have never gotten to the presidents desk to be signed into law.

And for the record, we are at war and in war we do invade other countries from time to time. Tis the it goes.

"Utilize the popular media to further your agenda - AM radio and Cable News."

LOL- Utilize the popular media to further your agenda - FM Radio, Tv, Satellite Tv, Movies, books, magazines. Do you really need me to list them out for you? LOL No ONE can deny that the Liberals have the corner marketed in this regard. LOL. Who the hell listens to AM radio or watches public access on cable? Really this does make me laugh.

EDIT:

Not to harp on a sore subject, but this Patriot Act does have me worried. You see under it, any sitting president can expand, broaden, change, or add to it. Under Kerry I fear that it will become a noose around our necks and that alone has me scared to death. I simply do not trust him or his law suite crazy running mate.

I guess this can be said about Bush as well, but simply put, I trust Bush more than I do Mr. Kerry at this point in time.

[ August 06, 2004, 21:16: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by primitive:
Once again AT, you link Saddams Iraq to the 911 terrorists. Why is that ? Do you believe the 911 commission which frees Saddam of any suspicion on this point to be in error ?

I am sorry, I thought was linking terrorism to the attacks. I did not say that "saddam" did it nor did I say that Iraq was behind it.

Whatever reasons GWB had to go to war against Iraq, 911 was not one of them. Neither was WMDs or the wish to bring democracy to the poor Iraqis.

I agree. But the end result, although not justifying the means, will prove its self to be better for Iraq in the long run.

As for me making the same decision as GWB:
No chance (of course I never would have been elected to an office of power ). I pride myself in basing my actions on logic and GWBs actions are totally illogical on any level.

I guess what I was trying to convey to you is that GWB was given information, lots of it, and based on that intel, worthless as it now seems to have been, made a decision to invade a country.

We all have to remember the war with Iraq started in 1991 and was never finished. We backed out of our duty and a lot of inocent kurds died. We played cat and mouse with Saddam for over a decade and finally it was time to end it. We had the military mobalized, and yes to get the job done some intel that was of extreme questionable origins was used to validate the invasion. Although I think what we did was the right thing to do on many fronts, I am concerned that we did ulitmiately invade Iraq on a lie. Tell us the truth and let us make the call. However, the choice to go to war is really not up to us, it is up the President and our elected officals.

BTW: This is not hindsight.
While the US press was all gung ho and supported the �once they see the benefits of democracy they will come around� theory, most of the European press and analysts foresaw the mess we�re in.

I respect that. I wish our leaders would have had the foresight to predict something that seemed as logical and as strait foreward as 1 + 2 = 3. I feel that going into the war and being unprepared for the end of the war was and is a criminal act of negligence on the militarys part. I am sorry, but this is how I feel, and even though the buck stops at the white house door, I do not fully hold GWB to blame for the mess. He is after all only one man. I would go after the men that were directly tasked with the responsiblity and make them answer the hard questions. I will bet top dollar they all will blame someone else.

[ August 06, 2004, 21:00: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[primitive]

Once again AT, you link Saddams Iraq to the 911 terrorists. Why is that ? Do you believe the 911 commission which frees Saddam of any suspicion on this point to be in error ?

Whatever reasons GWB had to go to war against Iraq, 911 was not one of them. Neither was WMDs or the wish to bring democracy to the poor Iraqis.

As for me making the same decision as GWB:
No chance (of course I never would have been elected to an office of power ). I pride myself in basing my actions on logic and GWBs actions are totally illogical on any level.

BTW: This is not hindsight.
While the US press was all gung ho and supported the �once they see the benefits of democracy they will come around� theory, most of the European press and analysts foresaw the mess we�re in.

[ August 06, 2004, 12:12: Message edited by: primitive ]