Convince Me Our President Isn't A Terrorist

[NoCalMike 0]

I thought Saddam invading Kuwait in the Gulf War had to do with Oil, and how Kuwait was like siphoning oil off from a pipeline or something, so naturally since it hurt our oil interests if Saddam got back control of more oil, we went over there and invaded. Whatever the reason, I refuse to ever buy into a scenario that we are pre-emptively striking countries to "liberate a people" our governments inconsistent stances on just exactly which people deserve freedom, and which countries that treat their people like shit, yet we will still do business with them, and allow american corporations to operate and give them kickbacks for doing so is a disgusting thing. Any and all talk of Iraq being some type of threat died off awhile ago and now the flavor of the month reasoning is that we are "liberating people" Well how about all those ultra-conservatives think about invading hostile African nations next since they are in the "liberating mood" of course guys like Pat Robertson might not like ousting terrorists in Africa because it might hurt his stocks in those diamond mining projects.

[Dr. Tom 0]

All that taken into account I'd like to know how George W. Bush isn't a terrorist.

Because terrorists wantonly and routinely target innocents, and try to kill as many civilians as possible. The President is nothing like that, and neither are our Armed Forces, and such a comparison is bloody disgusting.

 

I'm an American, a once proud American infact who doesn't feel as if he lives in the greatest part of the world anymore.

Your problem, from which you should spare the rest of us. We're still the greatest country on earth.

 

I live in a country where the leaders profit on the hundreds of thousands of deaths over in the Middle East right now.

Everybody makes money on something. The implication that we started the war for those profits is absolutely and unequivocally wrong and dishonest.

 

Where they have no problem sending the financially poor youth overseas to fight while they keep their own family safely stored away here.

Folks in the Armed Forces knew what they were signing up for. Is the fact that there supposedly aren't a lot of "rich kids" in the Armed Forces supposed to bother anyone?

 

Our Vice President is largely in charge of the company that is suppose to rebuild Iraq once we destroy it.

Cheney's not actively involved in Haliburton anymore, and hasn't been since the first campaign. I'm sure he knows what they're doing and all, but it's not like he's running them from the Senate floor.

 

Our President now has his friends' companies in the oil bussiness taking care of the oil wells and drilling.

So?

 

Some of those people helped finance his campaign.

So?

 

If they're qualified to do the job, BFD.

 

If you can't explain how a man invading a country who posed no threat to us and killed a ton of people so he and his friends could cash in, yet you voted for him...then could you just say you're sorry?

How about you apologize for starting this abortion of a thread? You're going into this presuming the absolute worst, and anyone who doesn't buy into your leftist vision is wrong, evil, and needs to apologize for freely electing a man who has taken a stand to keep his country safe. It's all a pile of rubbish. Stop subscribing to the Politburo's communiquaes and realize that we're doing the right thing, both for the US and the world as a whole.

[Guest Cerebus]

First of all fuck Pat Robertson.

 

Second, yeah I've heard all the hypocracy junk before. I still don't understand how dealing with one dictator and knocking down another is worse than dealing with two dictators.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

First of all fuck Pat Robertson.

 

Here here!

 

Second, yeah I've heard all the hypocracy junk before.

 

No, you've heard the *hypocrisy* junk.

 

I still don't understand how dealing with one dictator and knocking down another is worse than dealing with two dictators.

 

It just makes the premise that you're warring in order to remove a dictator seem less genuine if you openly support other dictators. Why is this one so much worse than all the others?

[NoCalMike 0]

First of all fuck Pat Robertson.

 

Second, yeah I've heard all the hypocracy junk before. I still don't understand how dealing with one dictator and knocking down another is worse than dealing with two dictators.

It's not the act of "dealing with the dictator" as much as it is me as an american not being able to trust the government in regards to the reasons being given for doing such things. Nothing Bush has said so far has added up to a valid reason for why 1200+ american soldiers are dead right now, why the Iraq war has no end in sight, and why Osama Bin Ladin is still at large. I mean, whenever Bush seems to be asked, he sits there and squirms like a caterpillar and repeats the same old lines, asif if people don't read the paper or watch the news. Supposedly we are in a "War on Terrorism" however we are being told that we are in Iraq to "liberate a people" from a bad person, but not a terrorist.

 

Hey and why not require Haliburton to share about 25% of the billions and billions in profit they are getting from this war, with the soliders and their families(Mike's unrealistic thought of the day... )

[Guest Cerebus]

Yeah...too drunk to think of a good response.

 

I will be back tommorow.

[cbacon 0]

Why does it matter? He's not up for re-election again anyways.

 

Apathy isn’t going to change anything.

 

 

I've read that Halliburton is really the only company with the capabilities of doing the type of rebuilding job required in Iraq. Sure, the no-bid contract looks bad, but what are ya gonna do?

 

The point here is, the huge conflict of interest arising from an unjust war.

 

I don't disagree with him being removed, but the timing is awfully strange. He should have been removed from power back then. It would have saved numerous future lives in doing so.

 

Because they needed the 9/11 pretext to spur the ‘War on Terror (Islam)’

 

Because terrorists wantonly and routinely target innocents, and try to kill as many civilians as possible. The President is nothing like that, and neither are our Armed Forces, and such a comparison is bloody disgusting.

 

ter•ror•ism 

n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

 

Has the US aided terrorists in the past? Yes. Have they participated in terrorism in the past? Again, yes. Are they now? By definition, of course. Except when they’re doing it, it’s conveniently labeled ‘counter-terrorism’.

 

 

Cheney's not actively involved in Haliburton anymore, and hasn't been since the first campaign. I'm sure he knows what they're doing and all, but it's not like he's running them from the Senate floor.

 

Within 48 hours, Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey pointed reporters toward Cheney's public financial disclosure sheets filed with the US Office of Government Ethics. The sheets show that in 2002, Cheney received $162,392 in deferred salary from Halliburton, the oil and military contracting company he ran before running for vice president. In 2001, Cheney received $205,298 in deferred salary from Halliburton.

The 2001 salary was more than Cheney's vice presidential salary of $198,600. Cheney also is still holding 433,333 stock options.

Flushed into the open, Cheney spokeswoman Catherine Martin said the vice president will continue to receive about $150,000 a year from Halliburton in 2003, 2004, and 2005. If President bush wins a second term, that means Cheney will make at least $800,000 from the company while sitting in office.

 

 

Boston Globe

 

 

 

Basically, this whole mess is a result of a military occupation that establishes secure military bases at the heart of the energy producing region in the world, with oil being part of the equation. The puppet regieme has been installed the 'elections' slated for next month will be a farce should they happen given the current chaos of the country, but as long as democracy is installed, a democracy that the Bush Administration wants, then everything is kosher.

 

There is no moral or humanitarian motive here, and it certainly not the official move. What about WMD’s? Why wasn’t this wasn’t true in 1988 when it was a much more serious threat? Humantarian reasons are certainly not believable given the US track record, specifically when you look at Iraq when Saddam was their favorite dictator and mass human rights violations were occuring and afterwards during the sanctions.

So, to say that Bush is a terrorist, isn't really that far of a stretch. He's a far greater threat to global peace and security then Saddam ever was, and moreso than Osama bin Laden even. But unless you regard Western lives as the only ones that matter, then George Eastwood truly personifies our safety from those evil Iraqi terrotists hell bent on bombing America tomorrow. Cause you know, they 'hate our freedom' and all...

 

Of course anyone with an opposing view to this is clearly one of those Moore-brainwashed lefty's poking and proding for things that aren't there. How silly to assume that the world's largest power would do ANYTHING that would be remotely unjust and free from self interest.

[MrRant 0]

Didn't we have this thread about 4-5 times last month?

[cbacon 0]

Most of this stuff gets regurgitated in any thread dealing with Bush, the 'War on Terror', Iraq, etc.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

If W. is a terrorist that means 51 percent of the voting public are terrorists, which means America is a terrorist state.

 

Works for me...

[Slickster 0]

Jackson was wildly popular, yet he violated the Constitution by refusing to enforce the 1829 ruling of the Supreme Court regarding the Cherokee. He was reelected in 1832 with 55% of the popular vote. Were 55% of Americans therefore in favor of martial law or dictatorship?

[Guest INXS]

I agree wholeheartedly with the opening post which won't come as any surprise I think.

 

I think if people look at the whole picture objectively, putting their misplaced patrioticism aside, they will see that the war was based on mistruths, for the oil (I know it's a hackneyed arguement but it's there to see) and for the re-building contracts.

 

If Saddam had WMD's and had links to terrorist groups or even committed terrorist acts himself then I would have been all for an invasion.

 

If Saddam's Iraq had invaded say Saudi Arabia, claiming that they had WMD's and were linked to terrorism as a guise to get their oil, we would be up in arms and condemming Saddam for invading another country.

 

It's double standards, and the post 9/11 feelings of uber patriotism and the need to nail terrorists has allowed Bush to go down this route.

[Guest BDC]

Wait, YOU'RE saying look at this OBJECTIVELY?

[2GOLD 0]

Wait, YOU'RE saying look at this OBJECTIVELY?

 

You suddenly feel like that guy in Scanners don't you?

[Ted the Poster 0]

This thread makes me want to blow up somebody's head. *nanananananana*

[Justice 0]

The point here is, the huge conflict of interest arising from an unjust war.

Conflict of interest? Cheney isn't with Halliburton anymore and doesn't get any more money helping them than hurting them.

 

Secondly, Halliburton took care of the oil fires and other problems in the First Gulf War and have a lot of veterans from that one. Why shouldn't we get the best people to do it when all that's stopping it is a flawed idea of "conflict of interest".

 

Because they needed the 9/11 pretext to spur the ‘War on Terror (Islam)’

 

 

Has the US aided terrorists in the past? Yes. Have they participated in terrorism in the past? Again, yes. Are they now? By definition, of course. Except when they’re doing it, it’s conveniently labeled ‘counter-terrorism’.

 

Oh great, this again. It's cool that you ignore historical context like you do, but it gets dull after a while. OMG WE ARE A TERURIST STATE~!@#$$@#!$@

 

On Cheney: What's the point of bringing up his continual pay? He gets that whether or not they go out of business. It's made to disconnect him completely from Halliburton, but he doens't lose the money that he would have made anyways. It's basically a long term serverence package. I can't understand why so many on the left try to hang onto this as some continuing connection to Halliburton when it's a standard practice.

 

Basically, this whole mess is a result of a military occupation that establishes secure military bases at the heart of the energy producing region in the world, with oil being part of the equation. The puppet regieme has been installed the 'elections' slated for next month will be a farce should they happen given the current chaos of the country, but as long as democracy is installed, a democracy that the Bush Administration wants, then everything is kosher.

 

Read: War for Oil, it's all a hegemonic capitalist plot.

 

There is no moral or humanitarian motive here, and it certainly not the official move. What about WMD’s? Why wasn’t this wasn’t true in 1988 when it was a much more serious threat? Humantarian reasons are certainly not believable given the US track record, specifically when you look at Iraq when Saddam was their favorite dictator and mass human rights violations were occuring and afterwards during the sanctions.

 

Of course, it's never humanitarian. Jeez, I mean, all we've done is kill innocent people, burn and bomb their houses, while setting up as tolitarian regieme friendly to us so that we may eventually control all the oil reserves of the Middle East. I mean, we wouldn't be building schools and other public buildings like we are right now if it were humanitarian, right? We wouldn't have been unloading food and water for the citizens of Iraq on the first day of the invasion if it were for humanitarian reasons. Right?

 

Perhaps I don't remember this, but we've never given that much support to Iraq. We gave some tolken support when he invaded Iran, but never anything more than that. It doesn't compare to the full-fledged support of France and Russia before and after sanctions.

 

So, to say that Bush is a terrorist, isn't really that far of a stretch. He's a far greater threat to global peace and security then Saddam ever was, and moreso than Osama bin Laden even. But unless you regard Western lives as the only ones that matter, then George Eastwood truly personifies our safety from those evil Iraqi terrotists hell bent on bombing America tomorrow. Cause you know, they 'hate our freedom' and all...

 

 

Of course anyone with an opposing view to this is clearly one of those Moore-brainwashed lefty's poking and proding for things that aren't there. How silly to assume that the world's largest power would do ANYTHING that would be remotely unjust and free from self interest.

 

Hey, if the shoe fits...

 

Perhaps it's the assumption that everything we do and have done is completely unjust and in our own self-interests that makes it so hard to actually listen to you. To hear you constantly harp on US foreign policy as making us a "terorist state". All we do is invade sterling countries like Iraq and Afganistan for no other reason to further our own evil gains as we look to dominate the world's energy resources.

[TheBigSwigg 0]

Oh great, this again. It's cool that you ignore historical context like you do, but it gets dull after a while. OMG WE ARE A TERURIST STATE~!@#$$@#!$@

 

Explain how it's out of historical context, please.

[Justice 0]

Oh great, this again. It's cool that you ignore historical context like you do, but it gets dull after a while. OMG WE ARE A TERURIST STATE~!@#$$@#!$@

 

Explain how it's out of historical context, please.

Many of the times he talks of us terrorizing or intervining often involves some sort of Communist state being involved. When looking at the Communist States at the time (China, USSR, North Korea), Communist states tend to be militaristic and usually destroy the population with an initial purge of any dissenters. Almost ever instance of "US Terrorism" that he brings up involves the overthrowing of a Communist government. Given the previous examples, it's not too hard to see why the US worked so hard against them. Not to say they didn't work out all the time, because there were obviously failures. But to say we just put into place dictators for no reason other than to watch their countries suffer is a pretty dumb assumption.

[Guest Cerebus]

And its the same brilliant organization that set up so many of these clowns that fucked up our security.

 

Someone please tell me why aren't we tearing down the CIA and rebuilding from scratch?

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

America is not the greatest country in the world, as DrTom would like to say. The sad thing is I know he and many others in this folder would say that with a straight face, which is the type of nationalism that stirs up lots of problems, but that's not the point of this thread I suppose.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

And what is, hippie -- Canada or one of those funky European countries where it snows 350 days out of year?...

[Justice 0]

America is not the greatest country in the world, as DrTom would like to say. The sad thing is I know he and many others in this folder would say that with a straight face, which is the type of nationalism that stirs up lots of problems, but that's not the point of this thread I suppose.

Huh?

 

I honestly don't get this. It's wrong to believe you live in the greatest country in the world? I honestly don't see that to be too bad as long as it doesn't run your life. It's simply an opinion. What is the greatest country in the world in your opinion?

[Guest Loss]

Bragging about living in the greatest country in the world is like bragging about dick size. Who fucking cares? And what message does it send to our allies when we demean them by saying we're better than them?

 

I do personally think America is the greatest country in the world. But harping on and on about it is pointless and jingoistic.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

America is the greatest country in the world. Its influence is far beyond that of any other nation, its economic power is overwhelming, and militarily it is dominant.

 

Best country in the world to live in? That's a different issue.

[Justice 0]

I do personally think America is the greatest country in the world. But harping on and on about it is pointless and jingoistic.

I'd agree with this.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

They did have that power. And 51% of this country said they supported the President's vision and agreed with his plans for this nation.

That's not exactly accurate in light of today's politics. It's more correct to say "51% of the nation thought the current President was less of a fuck-up and/or enjoyed his sound bytes."

 

Failed Mascot, Iraq is a mess. I don't know m/any people who still think we should have gone in over there, unless they have a political career to worry about. The least we can do in the meantime is try and leave it a better place than it was before we went in. We could just pull up stakes all over the country and pack everyone up and fly away and leave them to their own devices, but then the country will plummet into civil war and then you won't be happy again either.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I've read that Halliburton is really the only company with the capabilities of doing the type of rebuilding job required in Iraq.

Spin by the administration's fanbase to deflect the no-bid contracts. The answers to this claim are Bechtel and Schlumburger, at which point your average Bush Follower will scream "OMG THAT SOUNDZ SO FRENCH/GERMAN", at which point the proper retort is:

 

1) At this point, we'd need all the international help in Iraq that we could get.

 

2) Bechtel is HQ'ed in San Francisco. At this point you may hear "OMG HIPPIES IN A BLUE STATE", at which point you should walk away, having proved that they are insane.

[cbacon 0]

Conflict of interest? Cheney isn't with Halliburton anymore and doesn't get any more money helping them than hurting the

 

It's been widely reported that he is indeed recieving profit from the company, nevermind his buddies will be reaping the benefits.

 

Why shouldn't we get the best people to do it when all that's stopping it is a flawed idea of "conflict of interest".

 

Because the reasons for going to war don't add up, but rather the militaristic and imperialistic goals seem to be falling into place?

 

Because they needed the 9/11 pretext to spur the ‘War on Terror (Islam)’

 

 

Glad you agree. Hey, amongst other sources you can find the part where the PNAC declares that they needed 'an event like Pearl Harbour' to carry out the strategies they are now.

 

 

Oh great, this again. It's cool that you ignore historical context like you do, but it gets dull after a while. OMG WE ARE A TERURIST STATE~!@#$$@#!$@

 

Well, that's the jist of it really.

 

Read: War for Oil, it's all a hegemonic capitalist plot.

 

Oil, partly. Access of it rather than control. Hegemony? Quite.

 

Of course, it's never humanitarian. Jeez, I mean, all we've done is kill innocent people, burn and bomb their houses, while setting up as tolitarian regieme friendly to us so that we may eventually control all the oil reserves of the Middle East. I mean, we wouldn't be building schools and other public buildings like we are right now if it were humanitarian, right? We wouldn't have been unloading food and water for the citizens of Iraq on the first day of the invasion if it were for humanitarian reasons. Right?

 

Iraq is not in better shape, post-invasion. No one can honestly say that with a straight face. Of course some measure of aid is going to be supplied, otherwise the US would be seen literally as tyrants. I'm not saying all the soldiers there are maliciously targeting cilvians and shooting random people on the streets (although by some accounts, there have been such incidents). The intent isn't to totally wipe out as many people as possible, but to walk over as many as possible that get in the way to acheive a certain means is definetly in the cards.

 

Perhaps I don't remember this, but we've never given that much support to Iraq. We gave some tolken support when he invaded Iran, but never anything more than that. It doesn't compare to the full-fledged support of France and Russia before and after sanctions.

 

Sure, brush over Reagen's delivery of WMD's to Saddam. Brush over the fact they were supporting him after the gassing of the Kurds until 1990. Not that big of a deal really. But i'm strapped for time to go over the colorful US/Saddam relationship. But here's a couple of timeline's I posted before that undoubtly shows that the US didn't really help Saddam that much, heavens no. Of course if Europe does it too, than that rectifies everything though dosen't it?

 

http://www.ithaca.edu/politics/gagnon/talks/us-iraq.htm[/url]

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

 

 

Perhaps it's the assumption that everything we do and have done is completely unjust and in our own self-interests that makes it so hard to actually listen to you. To hear you constantly harp on US foreign policy as making us a "terorist state". All we do is invade sterling countries like Iraq and Afganistan for no other reason to further our own evil gains as we look to dominate the world's energy resources.

 

"If the shoe fits"

 

Many of the times he talks of us terrorizing or intervining often involves some sort of Communist state being involved. When looking at the Communist States at the time (China, USSR, North Korea), Communist states tend to be militaristic and usually destroy the population with an initial purge of any dissenters. Almost ever instance of "US Terrorism" that he brings up involves the overthrowing of a Communist government. Given the previous examples, it's not too hard to see why the US worked so hard against them. Not to say they didn't work out all the time, because there were obviously failures. But to say we just put into place dictators for no reason other than to watch their countries suffer is a pretty dumb assumption.

 

Except the goals here, weren't to 'help' the citizens from those evil commies. Hell, they're too stupid to vote in a proper government so we have to think for them, which of course is totally contradictory to the democracy that the US values so much. If the security of the population was really the reason that the US had to interevene in Latin America, why did they carry out attacks against the civlian population? This isn't like Iraq where they're considered 'collateral damage' soft targets were specifically targeted by aiding Contras in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, etc.

 

If that's not bad enough, the regiemes installed proved to be far worse. So if humanitarian needs were the goal why did they not intervene again and oust the dictators? Well, because it was for their best interests in the time, a communist regieme isn't going to play ball. No, the US didn't put dictators into place to watch countiries suffer, I didn't assume that. Rather, humanitarian needs were not a major concern in the long run and using the evil communist regimes excuse dosen't fly.

 

Oh, and irony in that Cox and Forkum comic is quite interesting. Of course if they were at least funny, they'd have some merit. Instead the lame conservative commentary they incite is anything close to truth. In summary, activists or anyone anti-war = beatnik hippy. Good to know.

[Justice 0]

The answers to this claim are Bechtel and Schlumburger, at which point your average Bush Follower will scream "OMG THAT SOUNDZ SO FRENCH/GERMAN", at which point the proper retort is:

 

1) At this point, we'd need all the international help in Iraq that we could get.

 

2) Bechtel is HQ'ed in San Francisco. At this point you may hear "OMG HIPPIES IN A BLUE STATE", at which point you should walk away, having proved that they are insane.

Oh God.

 

First off, how much experience does Bechtel actually have in Iraq? We were expecting oil fires and other such stuff, which Halliburton has handled in the past.

 

Secondly, we need international support from COUNTRIES not COMPANIES. It shouldn't matter where they are from. Your two points are pretty much irrelevent.

 

Edit: Hell, Bechtel got a contract after the invasion anyways.. What's the big deal here?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

But when your President is saying "Hey, none of you countries who wouldn't help us fight the war are going to be able to get your companies in to help with the rebuilding!", you're denying yourself both.

 

Yes, I know the spin then was "they didn't want to pay the bill, why should they get the riches, etc etc" but it's COMPANIES your punishing for the faults of GOVERNMENT, and it looks incredibly stupid in today's hindsight since we had no clue how big of a trainwreck the rebuilding would be.