Worst President Ever?

[Narcoleptic Jumper 0]

By all means, I won't tell you anything you don't want to hear.

[Jingus 0]

Couldn't think of any decent counterpoints?

 

Show of hands, everyone who thinks that Saddam was good for Iraq and that the American government was behind the 9/11 attacks.

[Nightwing 0]

2. Of course America's involvement has something to do with it. Namely, the fact that we changed the previous situation. That situation being the rule of Saddam and his party, who tended to execute anyone who looked at them funny. And then execute their family, their friends, their entire hometown, and everyone who sat near them in first grade. Except for the women, who got tossed into the rape rooms. That sort of tyrannical rule has the side effect of thoroughly discouraging people from committing "sectarian violence".

 

I guess I'll take your word for that? I don't know what's worse though, living under an asshole, but in reasonably peaceful conditions or having a bigger asshole blowing the fuck out of your neighborhood and killing your children and destroying your city and letting criminals run wild all over the country.

 

Okay, now I'm definitely laughing out loud. Not an empire? Really? 150 some countries around the world currently housing the American military might take issue with that. Hell, anybody who isn't seriously deluded would take issue with that.

 

Military installations don't prove anything, though, because we haven't exerted any sort of control via them on the 'subject' country. Besides the fact that we didn't force these installations in (actually, we're normally welcomed in, since we create a large amount of jobs for the locals), we've failed to use them to directly influence anything. I mean, if this were actual imperialism, and we took your quote to heart, how in God's name could the UN possibly vote against us? You fail to realize that one of the prime tenants of Imperialism is powerful control (normally absolute) over another country's political process. We don't have that through our military bases.

 

Who says we're doing "true imperialism in the old-school sense"? It's not like we're advertising the fact that we're an empire. We're low-key about it, especially to our own citizens, as you seem to be a prime example of. Empires aren't good for PR anymore.

 

Sorry, but Jingus highlighted the exact right part. Calling someone a 'sheep' will just get you called 'crazy' in return.

 

And I still don't see where we are an Empire when the world can so easily toss us down like this. I mean, we must be a really shitty Empire to let people just stray away from us like this. Personally, "Superpower" is much more accurate, because we simply don't have the land-holdings of an Empire.

 

He was saying that after 9/11, it would be hard for people to not try it, "it" presumably being attacking America. That did not happen. People start attacking us OVER THERE after WE went OVER THERE started attacking THEM for a crime against us that no one has ever been punished for.

 

Wow, what a jackass to completely miss the point of what I said. 9/11 doesn't simply limit people to attacking us through the United States, but all over. Regardless, it shows that a massive terrorist attack can be successful. If another one hasn't been yet, that doesn't mean that there still isn't the chance (Nor does that mean there haven't been attempts). But regardless, it showed that a terrorist attack can be insanely successful if pulled off correctly. It doesn't matter where you pull it, as long as the target is the same. This idea that "Well, it wasn't in the country, so it's not the same" ignores the point that I never specifically said "domestic terrorism".

 

No, Bush had very little (re: nothing) to do with it (like everything else about the job of presidency; he's a mouthpiece), and was possibly not even informed of it until well after the fact. Two words: plausible deniability.

 

Wow, way to avoid the dare there. I like the fact that they can pull off 9/11 in such an incredibly efficient way, but can't do something simple in Iraq like plant chemical weapons (Which is arguably easier). I mean, they couldn't find any whistle-blowers to just outright killing 3,000 American citizens, but trying to plant evidence to overthrow a horrible dictator? Whoa, we have to draw the line somewhere, right?

 

It just doesn't make sense. How can you pull off something so objectionable as 9/11 but screw up the slam dunk in Iraq?

[Nightwing 0]

Bawk Bawk BaGAWK!!

 

Exactly.

[snuffbox 0]

Something called the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority is bailing out Citigroup. Probably not the best development for our president.

[Jingus 0]

Depends. Abu Dhabi, one of the seven members of the United Arab Emirates, is tiny but insanely wealthy, proportionately the richest city on earth. Compared to countries like Saudi Arabia, they're relatively secular, in that Islam is the state religion and you can still get locked up for being gay, but you can practice different religions without worrying (much) about being beheaded and women aren't completely treated as men's property. On the flip side, they've got a bad track record with regards to mistreating the immigrant workforce (which makes up almost 90% of the population) plus a li'l slice of Bangkok with a thriving forced prostitution industry. So they're not as bad as the Taliban or our "friends" the Saudis, but having them own a large chunk of something like Citigroup would definitely worry some people in this country. Plus, you can't walk down the street there without tripping over an adorable kitten called Nermal.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

You don't seem to know what the word "empire" means. In an empire, there wouldn't be those 150 countries. They wouldn't be their own sovereign nations with their own laws and governments.

 

Study 20th century imperialism, particularly the terms "sphere of influence" and "protectorate."

 

On that note:

 

President Bush on Monday signed a deal setting the foundation for a potential long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq, with details to be negotiated over matters that have defined the war debate at home - how many U.S. forces will stay in the country, and for how long.

 

The agreement between Mr. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki confirms that the United States and Iraq will hash out an "enduring" relationship in military, economic and political terms.

 

CBS News' Pete Gow in Baghdad reports the proposals are to offer the U.S. a continued military presence in Iraq, as well as favorable business interests (such as investment opportunities for American companies), in return for guarantees to Iraq's future security.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/26/...tr=HOME_3539432

 

Note: I am not taking sides in the "is the US an empire" scrum.

[Guest Pizza Hut's Game Face]

you can't walk down the street there without tripping over an adorable kitten called Nermal.

Stellar callback.

[snuffbox 0]

The big problem with this Abu Dhabi thing isn't the Arabic/Muslim/terrorist/whatever aspect, though it certainly doesn't look good for the president or his party. The big problem with stuff like this, the big question, is whether America wishes to continue with the fiscal policies that lead to foreign interests owning large chunks of their country.

 

I don't see how this huge debt/expenditures & foreign-ownership stuff will look at all positive in the future. Especially when the taxpayers recieved little to nothing ou of the record-shattering expenditures.

[Jingus 0]

I guess I'll take your word for that? I don't know what's worse though, living under an asshole, but in reasonably peaceful conditions or having a bigger asshole blowing the fuck out of your neighborhood and killing your children and destroying your city and letting criminals run wild all over the country.

That's one thing I really don't understand: where the hell did this idea come from that Iraq was "peaceful" under Saddam?

 

Hussein and the Ba'athists started two different wars which resulted in the deaths of around two million people. Saddam led a long, brutal campaign against Kurdish and Shi'ite minorites which racked up almost another half million casualties, all civilians this time, including using very real WMDs against a city mostly filled with women and children. In fact, the only reason we never found the WMDs was because we'd destroyed all his stockpiles of them after the first Gulf War (well, not all, since a frightening amount of it apparently vanished into thin air and has never been accounted for). Saddam's government carried out so many executions of other citizens that they're still finding the mass graves. Hussein himself is said to have murdered multiple people personally. For minor crimes, common punishments included branding irons, chopping off limbs, and rape for the women. The invading US forces found torture rooms all over the country, and I'm not talking about waterboarding, I mean real hardcore "hang them on meat hooks and electricute their genitals" torture. Hundreds of women were beheaded for alleged prostitution, often in front of their own families, with the heads stuck on poles afterwards for everyone to see. Iraq's citizens weren't allowed to vote, or travel without the government's permission, or assemble in large groups for any reason other than to hold pro-Saddam rallies. To further prevent any possible political unrest, the government engaged in an endless brainwashing campaign which glorified Saddam and the Ba'athist party; every school indoctrinated their youngest students with this propoganda. Thousands of young boys were basically kidnapped from their homes and forced to undergo military training in order to eventually join the armed forces. In short, Saddam did all the same shit that guys like Stalin and Hitler did, just on a smaller scale because it was a smaller country.

 

What about that sounds peaceful?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Wait, wait. You mean Saddam was bad?!?! Holy shit. I was under the impression that he was the Arab Gandhi!

[Nightwing 0]

God damn it, that post is entirely a fuck-up. That's why you don't rush things before class.

 

Jingus: That was me not erasing part of his own post. I was in a hurry and didn't get nearly everything right in my post there.

 

Anyways, a better representation of my views.

 

 

 

I stand by my "You can't completely blame him" statement. Your argument doesn't prove anything, since it doesn't prove that there wouldn't be terrorism elsewhere if we weren't occupying Iraq at the moment. Yes, a majority of it is occurring in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that the US mainland or other targets aren't being considered (Jingus already gave us examples). The fact of the matter is 9/11 showed that terrorism can be amazingly successful. Even if it fails a hundred times, one success like 9/11 is worth that sort of risk. I have a hard time believing that terrorism wouldn't be a problem Post-9/11 if we weren't in Iraq. Iraq simply provides an easily accessible spot. Of course, a lot of the violence isn't even about the US when it comes to Iraq as it is about ethnic differences, but then again I never said that Bush was completely exempt, only partially.

 

 

 

I don't think we are empire, nor really a 21st Century equivalent. The number of military bases across the world doesn't prove anything as we aren't actively using them to influence our neighbors. The fact that a lot of nations really like the economic effect having a US base (Mostly in providing jobs) would tend to argue against that as an Imperialistic Oppression device.

 

If I had to define us, I'd rather keep the moniker of Superpower. Our sphere of influence is huge, but it's hardly absolute, as has been proven in the post-Cold War age in the UN: We are out there in the cold often enough, and our allies are hardly absolute. Poland (OMG HUGE PLAYER IN IRAQ) wouldn't be able to back out if we had an Imperialistic relationship with them like Britain and its protectorates and holdings (India, Canada, etc).

 

I'm not even sure if "Sphere of Influence" is something we can use accurately nowadays with the global economy and communication being so different than it was back then. By that definition, China and Japan have a massive amount of influence as well due to their economic strengths. They aren't empires. They're big players, but I'd hardly call them 'Imperialistic' powers. Calling people Imperialistic nowadays seems more 'buzzwordy' than anything else.

 

 

 

I don't believe in these big conspiracies. The way the War in Iraq has been handled is the easiest tool to debunk the idea: There are few wars that are as unpopular and mishandled as this one. If 9/11 had been set up presumably, so that we could invade places like Iraq, not planting weapons in Iraq is such a moronic failure it is simply breaks the logic. Why shoot yourself in the foot on such a slam dunk, especially when it is far less likely to encounter whistleblowers?

 

Planting weapons in Iraq, if that had all been planned out with the expert hands that had executed the 9/11 attack (in record time, no less), should have been a simple set of moving a few things and getting someone to bury them. We were still searching up to a year after we invaded and held the country, so it's not like they had to bury them immediately or on a strict time-schedule. To botch things so badly as to completely ruin holding that you've obviously planned for and even killed your own countrymen for... God, I can only hope that a few people got killed for leaving the cargo behind on a runway.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I didn't toss out protectorate and sphere of influence to argue that the US had either one of those, I did it to show that Jingus' definition of empire was incomplete.

[Nightwing 0]

I didn't toss out protectorate and sphere of influence to argue that the US had either one of those, I did it to show that Jingus' definition of empire was incomplete.

 

No no no no no... I didn't mean to suggest that. I simply used them because you're right (Examples being T.R. in Latin America, the Japanese "Co-Prosperity Sphere", Britain's relationship with its commonwealths, etc), and it's only proper to use them when arguing for or against them. I'm not trying to bring you into this.

[Narcoleptic Jumper 0]

I don't believe in these big conspiracies. The way the War in Iraq has been handled is the easiest tool to debunk the idea: There are few wars that are as unpopular and mishandled as this one. If 9/11 had been set up presumably, so that we could invade places like Iraq, not planting weapons in Iraq is such a moronic failure it is simply breaks the logic. Why shoot yourself in the foot on such a slam dunk, especially when it is far less likely to encounter whistleblowers?

 

Why? Simple, to make people like you and I think that they're obviously incompetent, and incapable of pulling off an operation like 9/11. And your little tool for debunking still doesn't account for the massive amounts of gaping holes and leaps in logic and changed timelines that permeate the 9/11 Commission report, not to mention the blatant obstruction by the government of any and all independent inquiry into the events of the day, which make it obvious to anyone with an open mind that it's a cover-up. Philip Zelikow? Right, a real beacon of objectivity there. Christ, Bush originally wanted fucking Henry Kissinger to head the commission. That has to tell you something.

[Guest Pizza Hut's Game Face]

You're too stupid to use Wilco lyrics; go away.

[Jingus 0]

people like you

Do you have any idea how condescending and arrogant statements like that make you sound?

 

If you're gonna argue this point, please satisfy these two questions. In detail, with better proof than the old standard "the holes in the Tower didn't look like they were made by a plane" usual junk. Preferably with footnotes.

 

1. How would the government successfully pull off an attack like 9/11 (which according to you fooled the whole world, except for the almighty Blogosphere)?

 

2. Why would the government do something like that, considering the overall massive negative effect 9/11 had on this country's economy, society, and foreign relations?

[Narcoleptic Jumper 0]

I said "people like you and I," meaning regular citizens. How is that condescending? Of course you probably didn't read any further than what you quoted, so whatever. That first question you posted is incredibly broad. What kind of answer are you looking for, exactly? To answer it "in detail" would take a couple hundred pages. Go read Michael Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, that's 500 pages worth. I would be more than happy to answer more specific questions you may have though.

 

They did it in order to give them excuse to launch the phony War on Terror, which is really just propaganda for treating the middle east like a gas station, where we go over and embroil the middle east in war in order to steal all of their oil, because they know that the world is running out of it, and damned if those arabs deserve any of it, because by god, we're americans and we need our oil. 9/11 did not have a "negative effect" on this country as you say--the outpouring of international support we received afterward was unprecedented. It's only after 4 years of their incredibly fucking stupid, shortsighted and arrogant plan have proven to be a total disaster that our economy is slipping quietly into a recession.

[Jingus 0]

I said "people like you and I," meaning regular citizens. How is that condescending? Of course you probably didn't read any further than what you quoted, so whatever.

Actually, you're right. I missed the "and I" part, and assumed it was just a second statement exactly like the condescending one you made earlier.

 

That first question you posted is incredibly broad. What kind of answer are you looking for, exactly?

In today's society, where they couldn't even cover up Clinton's blowjobs, how the hell could the government possibly pull off a conspiracy of that magnitude and get away with it?

 

They did it in order to give them excuse to launch the phony War on Terror, which is really just propaganda for treating the middle east like a gas station, where we go over and embroil the middle east in war in order to steal all of their oil, because they know that the world is running out of it, and damned if those arabs deserve any of it, because by god, we're americans and we need our oil.

THE WAR IS NOT ABOUT THE OIL. Jesus CHRIST I'm tired of hearing this blatant falsehood. Here's specific reasons proving why.

 

1.It's not like we get the gas for free. We didn't march into Iraq and annex their production facilities for ourselves; the Iraqis still own them. Middle Eastern companies still pump it out of the ground, refine it, and then sell it to us in exchange for our money, the same way it's always worked. And it costs a LOT more than it did before 9/11.

 

2.Even if we had gotten all of Iraq's oil for free, it would still have been a money-losing plan. If we took every drop of oil Iraq exports for the next twenty years and never paid a penny for it (which is not at all the case), we'd still be way, way in the hole from the hundreds of billions of dollars we spent on the war.

 

3.Iraq is in 15th place in terms of actual volume of oil produced. The United States is 3rd. Iraq produces one quarter the amount of oil that America itself does. We don't need their oil. Hell, Iran has more than twice the amount of oil that Iraq does; if it's all about the oil, why didn't we invade them instead? Mexico has a lot more too, why not have illegal immigrants supposedly cause 9/11 and kill two birds with one stone by invading them? Not to mention that we're firmly in bed with the single biggest oil producer in the world, Saudi Arabia, and already get (relatively) preferential treatment from them.

 

4.If the war was about the oil, what was the point of Afghanistan? They don't have shit for petroleum there.

 

9/11 did not have a "negative effect" on this country as you say--the outpouring of international support we received afterward was unprecedented. It's only after 4 years of their incredibly fucking stupid, shortsighted and arrogant plan have proven to be a total disaster that our economy is slipping quietly into a recession.

5.The economy is growing at the same rate now as it did during the 90's. Just look at the gross domestic product figures and other similar market indicators. In fact, it slowed down in the couple years following 9/11, and then recovered. 9/11 caused a recession, and America has since mostly pulled itself out of that recession. This is not my opinion, it's documented mathematical fact.

 

6.Not to say we don't have economic problems, of course, but it's not entirely due to foreign policy like you're saying. The dollar's exchange rate isn't great, and our level of debt is rather nerve-wracking, but they're double-edged swords which also have positive effects which some people don't realize and most news outlets find way too complicated to even try to explain. Our single biggest problem is the sagging real estate market, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Iraq war.

 

7. Oil costs about quadruple what it used to, mostly because of the political instability in the Middle East (well, partly due to instability, and partly due to the rest of the world using that as an excuse to raise prices further), which the American government knew would happen if they invaded. The jump in production costs and prices would make any evil Bush plot to steal teh oil completely worthless, since we now pay far more money to get far less oil. And don't say "yeah, that's because their st00pid plan didin't work"; the American analysts knew this would happen.

 

 

The American government was fully aware of the fact that invading Iraq would make it harder, not easier, for America to get oil. The war was not about the oil. We didn't get any oil. We weren't ever going to get any oil. We knew that from the beginning. It wasn't about the oil. Period.

 

Oh, and still waiting to hear exactly how you think America blew up the WTC.

[Guest Pizza Hut's Game Face]

In today's society, where they couldn't even cover up Clinton's blowjobs, how the hell could the government possibly pull off a conspiracy of that magnitude and get away with it?

All the previous whistleblowing was planned just to lull the public into thinking the government was so incompetent that they could never pull off the inside job! Come on, dude.

[snuffbox 0]

Bill Clinton didn't seem to have any problem covering up those 47 murders, though.

[Nightwing 0]

Why? Simple, to make people like you and I think that they're obviously incompetent, and incapable of pulling off an operation like 9/11.

 

Your answer doesn't fit any logic. Pull the means off perfectly, but ruin the reward to fool the people? They wouldn't have to fool people if it had looked like they were right about WMDs. If WMDs had been there, there would be far fewer questions about Bush's invasion of Iraq than there are today. If anything, it'd only help to hide a conspiracy because less and less people would be looking into it. Again: If you can convince American citizens to kill thousands of your own people, how can you not convince some of them to bury some WMDs to frame one of the most reviled characters in recent history?

 

It doesn't add up.

 

And your little tool for debunking still doesn't account for the massive amounts of gaping holes and leaps in logic and changed timelines that permeate the 9/11 Commission report, not to mention the blatant obstruction by the government of any and all independent inquiry into the events of the day, which make it obvious to anyone with an open mind that it's a cover-up. Philip Zelikow? Right, a real beacon of objectivity there. Christ, Bush originally wanted fucking Henry Kissinger to head the commission. That has to tell you something.

 

Leaps in logic? I ask, in all seriousness, to point a few out so we can discuss them.

 

I also like that you say "With an open mind". Again, trying set other people up as "Sheeple" will only hurt your claims. Heck, look at my 'debunking' with yuo

 

On Philip Zelikow: Is it because of his writing about a "Drastic need for scaling back civil liberties and other such things" 3 years earlier? Coincidences like that have occurred before. Ever heard of Morgan Robertson? Or is it just because he was a Bush staff member? If I'm missing some other sort of conspiratorial thing here, fill me in. I'm not up on all the new ones...

 

Again, completing the means but completely botching the reward doesn't add up.

[EricMM 0]

Jingus you are missing the point with the "it's about oil" issue. No shit oil is more expensive. No shit Iraq didn't get us cheaper oil. But it got easy access to American oil companies to set up shop in Iraq.

 

Oil costs and thus oil profits are at record levels right now...

[Jingus 0]

I just don't buy that the government would spend billions in order to help some corporations make millions.

 

IMHO, when you get right down to it, I think it's that Bush and others in his circle just plain had a personal vendetta against Iraq and Saddam. This is a guy that they gave a shitload of support to back in the 80s in the war against Iran, and he turned around and bit the hand that fed him, repeatedly. In terms of actual atrocities committed by tyrannical dictators, there's unfortunately quite a few cocksuckers who rule various third world shitholes that are near the same league as Hussein. But none of those guys ever tried to assassinate Bush's dad. I do think that they legit believed that Saddam is evil and needed to be taken out, but they had other feelings subconciously affecting them.

 

Plus, there's the REAL way that oil plays into this conflict: namely, Saudi Arabia. We're their ally, essentially because they've got more oil than anyone else in the world. It's an unfortunate situation, because they're just as evil and vicious as any other Islamofascist government you'll find over there, as that one rape victim in the news now could tell you. They also had a very tense relationship with Iraq, which came to a head in the first Gulf War. Hell, 9/11 came directly out of this situation; Bin Ladin has repeatedly stated that his motivation was that he felt the Great Satan was blaspheming his home country by stationing troops in the holy land. (The fact that the Saudi government ASKED for those American troops in order to protect them from secular Saddam always seems to escape his attention.)

[Narcoleptic Jumper 0]

In today's society, where they couldn't even cover up Clinton's blowjobs, how the hell could the government possibly pull off a conspiracy of that magnitude and get away with it?

 

You assume they actually wanted to cover up Clinton's blowjobs and that that whole fiasco wasn't a carefully planned smear campaign by the right to give them the best chance of being elected. It didn't work, apparently, so that's why they stole the election.

 

THE WAR IS NOT ABOUT THE OIL. Jesus CHRIST I'm tired of hearing this blatant falsehood.

 

Then what is it about? Do you honestly believe that we went over there to spread "democracy," to "liberate" the people? That's a fucking delusion, man. Tell me what this war is about if it isn’t about oil.

 

1.It's not like we get the gas for free. We didn't march into Iraq and annex their production facilities for ourselves; the Iraqis still own them. Middle Eastern companies still pump it out of the ground, refine it, and then sell it to us in exchange for our money, the same way it's always worked. And it costs a LOT more than it did before 9/11.

 

2.Even if we had gotten all of Iraq's oil for free, it would still have been a money-losing plan. If we took every drop of oil Iraq exports for the next twenty years and never paid a penny for it (which is not at all the case), we'd still be way, way in the hole from the hundreds of billions of dollars we spent on the war.

 

This is all conjecture. I'm not convinced you have any idea what you're talking about. Of course, you probably would say the same thing about me, but that's okay.

 

3.Iraq is in 15th place in terms of actual volume of oil produced. The United States is 3rd. Iraq produces one quarter the amount of oil that America itself does. We don't need their oil. Hell, Iran has more than twice the amount of oil that Iraq does; if it's all about the oil, why didn't we invade them instead? Mexico has a lot more too, why not have illegal immigrants supposedly cause 9/11 and kill two birds with one stone by invading them? Not to mention that we're firmly in bed with the single biggest oil producer in the world, Saudi Arabia, and already get (relatively) preferential treatment from them.

 

Where are you getting this information, out of curiosity? US oil production peaked in 1970. Iraq is currently sitting on 11% of the world’s petroleum reserves, the 2nd most in the world behind Saudi Arabia, with allegedly more possible reserves that have yet to even be properly explored. Iraq is a veritable goldmine for petroleum. They are/were also virtually defenseless, and ripe for invasion, whereas Iran is more dangerous. Not to mention that they had a tyrant leader, making it easy-as-pie to convince the American people that we were doing a good and noble thing. And are you really asking why we didn’t invade our neighboring country, our ally, and start a ground war on our own soil instead of attacking someone on the other side of the globe? Think.

 

4.If the war was about the oil, what was the point of Afghanistan? They don't have shit for petroleum there.

 

Good question. I can’t emphasize enough that you should read Mike Ruppert’s book. I’ll just say that from 1997 to 2000, Afghanistan was the world’s largest producer of opium. The Taliban banned opium production in late 2000 and destroyed almost all the poppies that still remained planted, so that in 2001, production of fresh opium in the country went down by an unprecedented 94%, from 3,276 tons to 185 tons, this according to UN drug control program statistics. Cut to late 2001, we invade the country, liberate a bunch of known opium warlords claiming that they would help US forces, and by the next year, Afghanistan is again numero uno, with an estimated 3700 ton crop. that figure has only increased since. I’ll leave it to you to connect the dots.

 

5.The economy is growing at the same rate now as it did during the 90's. Just look at the gross domestic product figures and other similar market indicators. In fact, it slowed down in the couple years following 9/11, and then recovered. 9/11 caused a recession, and America has since mostly pulled itself out of that recession. This is not my opinion, it's documented mathematical fact.

 

Right, and in a couple of years we will be right smack in the middle of the worst recession in the country’s history and there will be no getting out of it. You may think I’m wrong, and that’s okay, but I just want you to remember me (and everyone else who is saying the exact same thing) when it does happen.

 

6.Not to say we don't have economic problems, of course, but it's not entirely due to foreign policy like you're saying. The dollar's exchange rate isn't great, and our level of debt is rather nerve-wracking, but they're double-edged swords which also have positive effects which some people don't realize and most news outlets find way too complicated to even try to explain. Our single biggest problem is the sagging real estate market, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Iraq war.

 

Exchange rate isn’t great? It’s the worst it’s been in decades. The Canadian dollar is worth more than our dollar now. And wow, I’d sure love to hear about those way-too-complicated benefits to a multi-trillion dollar debt. And to say that the ridiculous amounts of money we’re spending on the war has nothing to do with our other economic problems is just outright insanity. It ALL has to do with the Iraq war.

 

7. Oil costs about quadruple what it used to, mostly because of the political instability in the Middle East (well, partly due to instability, and partly due to the rest of the world using that as an excuse to raise prices further), which the American government knew would happen if they invaded. The jump in production costs and prices would make any evil Bush plot to steal teh oil completely worthless, since we now pay far more money to get far less oil. And don't say "yeah, that's because their st00pid plan didin't work"; the American analysts knew this would happen.

 

And who do you think is profiting off of $100 oil? Hint: it’s not Middle Eastern companies.

 

The American government was fully aware of the fact that invading Iraq would make it harder, not easier, for America to get oil. The war was not about the oil. We didn't get any oil. We weren't ever going to get any oil. We knew that from the beginning. It wasn't about the oil. Period.

 

Sure thing. Keep telling yourself that.

 

Oh, and still waiting to hear exactly how you think America blew up the WTC.

 

Autopilot, thermate, and compromised security.

[Jingus 0]

You assume they actually wanted to cover up Clinton's blowjobs and that that whole fiasco wasn't a carefully planned smear campaign by the right to give them the best chance of being elected. It didn't work, apparently, so that's why they stole the election.

How exactly did they carefully plan for Clinton to independently decide to have a cigar party?

 

Then what is it about? Do you honestly believe that we went over there to spread "democracy," to "liberate" the people? That's a fucking delusion, man. Tell me what this war is about if it isn’t about oil.

Firstly, why not? Secondly, see my last post above yours for some other possible motivations.

 

This is all conjecture. I'm not convinced you have any idea what you're talking about. Of course, you probably would say the same thing about me, but that's okay.

...what? So you're claiming we DO get all of Iraq's oil, all to ourselves, for free? Proof, please.

 

Where are you getting this information, out of curiosity?

Right here.

 

They are/were also virtually defenseless, and ripe for invasion, whereas Iran is more dangerous. Not to mention that they had a tyrant leader, making it easy-as-pie to convince the American people that we were doing a good and noble thing. And are you really asking why we didn’t invade our neighboring country, our ally, and start a ground war on our own soil instead of attacking someone on the other side of the globe? Think.

Iran isn't so much more dangerous that it would have made a difference with our military, and they've got a tyrant too. As for "starting a war on our soil", you think that's a bigger stretch than the government masterminding 9/11?

 

Good question. I can’t emphasize enough that you should read Mike Ruppert’s book. I’ll just say that from 1997 to 2000, Afghanistan was the world’s largest producer of opium. The Taliban banned opium production in late 2000 and destroyed almost all the poppies that still remained planted, so that in 2001, production of fresh opium in the country went down by an unprecedented 94%, from 3,276 tons to 185 tons, this according to UN drug control program statistics. Cut to late 2001, we invade the country, liberate a bunch of known opium warlords claiming that they would help US forces, and by the next year, Afghanistan is again numero uno, with an estimated 3700 ton crop. that figure has only increased since. I’ll leave it to you to connect the dots.

So you buy into those "the CIA is funded by heroin" theories? Once again, even if Uncle Sam directly pocketed every nickel from that poppy crop, we'd still be in debt from the military expenditures it took to get us there.

 

Right, and in a couple of years we will be right smack in the middle of the worst recession in the country’s history and there will be no getting out of it. You may think I’m wrong, and that’s okay, but I just want you to remember me (and everyone else who is saying the exact same thing) when it does happen.

What are you basing that on? Our economy has been growing ever since the end of WWII. It slowed down some after 9/11, but it didn't stop, and returned to normal afterwards. Most credible projections all predict further continued growth.

 

And wow, I’d sure love to hear about those way-too-complicated benefits to a multi-trillion dollar debt. And to say that the ridiculous amounts of money we’re spending on the war has nothing to do with our other economic problems is just outright insanity. It ALL has to do with the Iraq war.

For one thing, it kinda makes the countries who loaned us the money our bitches. It's in their best interests to make sure that America remains strong in order to pay back the debt. Also, the government debt is actually just a fraction of the total that America owes; corporate debt is a roughly equal number, and stuff like social security is another huge chunk. And like I said earlier, why do you insist that we spent billions of government dollars on Iraq in order to make private corporations millions of dollars in oil?

 

And who do you think is profiting off of $100 oil? Hint: it’s not Middle Eastern companies.

Do you actually have the figures in front of you, showing that Exxon made a mint off this? The higher costs start at the very source. Or did you think that all those oil fields that the Iraqis set on fire were a cheap fix?

 

Autopilot, thermate, and compromised security.

Oh bullshit. If you're gonna insist on keeping the details to a minimum so will I, but I will bring up one thing. What about the people on the planes? Did the government just toss them into the Phantom Zone? Were all the relatives and loved ones who got cell phone calls from the passengers on the planes ALL just lying? Also, was Bin Ladin such our puppet (when contrary to popular belief, he was never trained by the CIA) that we faked all those other terrorist attacks that Al Quaeda committed all across the globe?

[BorneAgain 0]

Based on what I've read in Imperial Life in the Emerald City, the ideal goal with Iraq was not so much collecting oil, but rather setting up a secular free market that they could get American corporations to invest in. Iraq was supposed to a capitalist paradise (15% flat tax, little government involvement in the economy), but well we all see what happened there.

[Guest Pizza Hut's Game Face]

You assume they actually wanted to cover up Clinton's blowjobs and that that whole fiasco wasn't a carefully planned smear campaign by the right to give them the best chance of being elected. It didn't work, apparently, so that's why they stole the election.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'll take Alan Greenspan's word over Jingus', thanks.

[Gary Floyd 0]

I'll take Alan Greenspan's word over Jingus' thanks.

I'll take a lot of people's word over Jingus'.