Iraqi Statue honoring President Bush - Page 2

That is utter nonsense. I am getting so sick of people's ignorant ramblings regarding oil. The US gets very little of its oil from the Middle East. Europe and Japan are far more dependent upon it than we. In fact, many experts have argued that the reason France and Germany opposed the war is because they had such a good oil relationship with Saddam.

Which again points to the relevance of oil.

But the fact that the neo con manifesto (PENAC) and its design for global domination of space and resources along with the reality of peak oil and our egregious oil usage can not be undermined.

I agree its not as simple as he put it but it comes down to the same point, we will have control, especially if a puppet government is the end result, because you are right, we don't just need the oil, we will need it, but control over it is the goal.

This goes to the root of my problem with so many of your posts. You always tend to believe the worst about the US.

In 5 years I honestly believe that the Iraqis will have 100% control over thier oil resource. I honestly believe that Bush has absolutely no intention to steal Iraqi oil. Maybe I am a fool but if I am proven right what does that say about ya'll?

My problem is that I am not a pessimist and I find its prevalence so depressing.

History would also show that life in America has gotten better. People have longer lifespan, less starvation, more freedoms, less racial divisions etc etc and on and on.

Re: Cheney - thats such a naive statement. Do you have any clue as to how much money he gave up to be VP?

McTex - Is my skepticism legitimate? Do I have summon a historical example? After the American-Spanish war, Cuba was "freed" and put under US occupation. Cuba's new constitution explicitly surrendered to US economic and political interests (through preferential sugar agreements, independent foreign policy was banned, a giving a military base).

What's stopping the US doing that today?

I would say your skepticism is semi-legitimate and biased. I do not think you place many of your critiques in a proper context - one that looks at how the world was viewed At The Time and ignores other serious international events.

The funny thing, and I dont know if you understand this about me, is that I actually agree with much of your critiques although I do not share many of the conclusions you seem to be drawing. For example, did USA fuck up in Iran - hell yes. My father lived and worked there and quit his job when they told him to move us there. I have a lot of first hand knowledge about that time period. Hell, his Iranian friends are the ones that told him to NOT bring his family there and to get out fast.

But it is so easy for me to say the USA fucked up in hindsight and I do not necessarily blame the motives of the administration or the CIA in the same manner as you.

Regarding the Cuba issue its been years since I studied it and I would have to bone up. So on that issue I am not knowledgable enough to really comment.

If wikipedia is to be trusted, then there's this good article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platt_Amendment

Its all the more striking because, unlike Iran or Chile, there was no Cold War and no sense of immediacy in this particular intervention in another nation's affairs.

Thanks for the link - I'll check it out.

BTW, you said you are in England? Are you a Brit, an American lving there - are you French? Just curious...

Off to bed - until later...

LOOOL

All three. My dad's American, mom's English but I'm born and raised in France. I think of myself as a 'westerner'.

"Maybe I am a fool but if I am proven right what does that say about ya'll?"

If you are right then we are wrong, sure.

But like what was mentioned, history has painted the picture we speak of, not ourselves.

And have you read or know much of PNAC, this is important because its purpose it global domination in military, intelligence, space, and resources.

Your assumption of Cheney's loss is just that, kickbacks and corporate cronyism are quite common and allow for illegal benefits, the Bush's themselves even own or chair many international banks that are infamous for money laundering and naivety to this would account for your posistion. When G H W Bush is still intimately involved, as well as Bin Ladens were, with The Carlyle group who gained in no bids I believe and even more.

Following the money trail and corporate ties is very important and underrated, Halliburton and no bids contracts and the significance of Lawsuits against Cheney while he was CEO and on and on.

People associate with certain types, not to overgeneralize but the concept still is important, when the Bush's are good buddies with Kenneth Lay of Enron who becomes Bush's number one contributer, and the other details which I would need to refresh on as well as to whether Kenneth benifited from a law that allow his corrupt tactic or what it was again, but non the less we know of the result and of who Bush's like to work with.

Just portraying Bush's as hicks and either lucky or decent business men undermines to no end what and who the Bush's are and what they gain from our current foreign policy.

Should the US maintain its superior status in military, intelligence, space, and resources or let another nation over take us?

Only if that nation is sure to have hostile intentions towards us. China, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea would have to be limited until they become democratic.

I see no reason to limit Indian, European or even in some case, Latin American power.

What about the reason that no one can be trusted as much as yourself?

Why would any nation even want to risk it? I mean the Germans had been democratic and did elect Hitler.

quote:

---

"We will build a statue for Bush," said Ali Fadel, the former provincial council chairman. "He is the symbol of freedom."

---

Although the French, Germans and other Leftwing and Anti-Americans don't get it, many Iraqis do!
Ah, Let US erect an idol to the new way & it's messiah!

Do I sense sour grape?

LMAO

Does it make you utterly crazy that to many Iraqis Bush "is the symbol of freedom"?