Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jun 6, 2006.
i'm still reading it myself, but pretty interesting.
This just makes me ask "why"?
I mean, why were the Bush Administration so hellbent on going into Iraq?
What are we all missing here, what's the hidden motive?
In many parts of the world, the US military and intelligence services are working as they mostly always have - small-scale and covertly, or funneling aid to proxy parties. You see it in East Africa, in other parts of the ME, in Central and South America - pretty much everywhere.
I just can't figure out what was so important...if there was such a threat, then why the PR/propaganda blitz?
one big "huh"?
I thought it was Nigeria.
The Bush administration was so hellbent because Saddam threatened his daddy.
Now, this is really one of the most under-reported and under-investigated parts of the whole Iraq debacle. It's been basically swept under the rug with the claim that the guys involved wanted money, but you don't generally cross the CIA on something this big for the price these guys are alleged to have charged. Something doesn't add up there. So there definitely needs to be some light shone on the origins of these documents, as well as the CIA and the WH roles in assessing and using this information.
However, I can look at that list of experts and pick out three that are known outspoken Bush critics. Not that that necessarily makes them wrong, but that's an easy rebuttal for any righty.
No surprises here, its more of the same from the administration of spin and lie, or is it Lie and spin, yeah thats it. Lie and Spin. Truth & honesty are missing from this administration in almost any topic they talk about. Whats worse is America doesnt seem to care anymore.
It's all about controlling resources.
You can't control the entire world without first having all its resources in your power.
Going into Iraq had nothing to do with WMD's, and everything to do with SUV's.
Once the resources are in control, they can force people to need those resources and then do whatever necessary to obtain it.
It also was not some spur of the moment decision by the Bush administration. Everything that's happening today is happening because it has been well-thought out, planned, and set up in many, many years previous.
The combustible engine has been obsolete for over 20 years, and more effecient and cheaper solutions exist. But oil is easy to force people to use, and far more easier to control its limited sources than to try to control all the water, hydrogen, or electricity on the planet.
Planned perhaps. Well-thought out, maybe not.
Well-thought out in the sense that they lied and knew all along the reasons they told us did not exist.
But rather than saying: "We lied to you, tricked you, brainwashed you via propaganda, and are further persuing world domination and control..." they can just say "Oops. Our intelligence was wrong" and look like idiots.
Personally, I believe the Bush administration *wants* people to hate them and the republican part. That way, the next person (definitely a democrat) to carry out the rest of the plans for domination will be eagerly invited in to office.
The two parties being different, and having different goals, is a false facade.
Exactly. This has been a neo-conservative wet dream for a decade now, going back to the mid 90'd PNAC white paper spelling out how the US would maintain strategic dominance in the 21st century.
That their plan is only worth some used Kleenex is only now becoming known.
What in important article -- thanks for that link.
Perhaps my own paranoia, but I think the administration saw several things in Iraq. As others have pointed out they saw oil and a "task to complete." But with Afghanistan "under control," Iraq was an ideal opportunity to extend the American colonization of the Middle East. It also allowed the US to surround Iran.
If Iraq had gone "as well" as most in the adminstration had hoped, I have no doubt that Iran would have been invaded and toppled by now.
Make no mistake. The invasion of Afghanistan -- however justified -- gave the administration big ideas about just how easy it could be to remake the Middle East in their own image.
Huh? The GOP plans to give up power to a Democratic member in '08? I'm afraid I don't follow.
They have the same goal: stay in power. They both suck up to corporate interests. But there are many, many differences between them beyond that.
I think the proposition is that US plans for World Domination are a bipartisan effort.
That still doesn't explain why someone would seek out lower approval numbers?
I'm not saying I agree. I'm sure Dick and Don and their pals would like to think they're smart enough to execute a super-secret Plan for World Domination, but they aren't. It's just that so far the US public has been foolish enough and the US media have been supine enough to allow them to try it with impunity.
OT, but what the hell....
Thanks for the vocab lesson skunk, I learned a new word today. The dictionary keystroke in Tiger is doing wonders for my diction.
If I don't agree, does that make me contradictionary?
Lose the adiction.
Very smart. Does that make you a cunning linguist?
My tongue has a mind of its own.