PDA

View Full Version : What's it all about Georgie


MadScot
Feb 24, 2006, 12:06 PM
There's been a lot of talk about this war being all about oil. I was never too quick to jump on that bandwagon. I like to try and look between the lines I think it's often where the truth lies. I don't think it was plan to help Haliburton make record profits that was just a bonus for Cheney. It wasn't about 9-11 Sadam had nothing to do with that. It wasn't about Sadam being an evil tyrant and killing his own people, we've got plenty of those running countries around the world where we don't invade. Preventive self defense. Knowing what we do now and most of who were against this war knew before we entered it Sadam posed no tangible threat to us. The no fly zone we imposed didn't even let Sadam fly planes over all of his own country. Spreading democracy is an interesting concept hard to disprove and it plays well i'll get back to it.

There was a prevasive opinion among the intelligence community of would happen if Sadam was removed from power, it was what prevented us from toppling Sadam the first time. It would lead to destabilization of the entire middle east. Iraq would end up in civil war and it would spread.

We have moments that are entrenched deep in our memory. Many of us remember clearly where we were when we heard the sad news of JFK, John Lennon, the shuttle disasters etc.

There is a another moment that vivid for me. It's when George Bush uttered the word crusade. A Freudian slip or foreshadowing for a plot designed to destroy Islam. It's been reported Pope John Paul once referred to Bush as the anti-christ and said he wished he was younger and had the strength to fight him. I don't think the Pope was that far off.

Bush was told what the probable outcome of this war was and jumped in with both feet. The fears of the intelligence community are now coming to fruition. Civil war in Iraq, Hamas taking power, Saudi Arabia facing revolution and a secular embolden Iran flaunting it's disregard for nuclear agreements. Why did Bush push so hard for Palestinian elections was the outcome really that hard to predict? There is a crusade at work a modern crusade designed to cripple Islam from within. Bush has often said history will judge him. A single point on which I must agree. George Bush will have had one of the most profound effects on our history as any leader the world has known. When I look into the mans eyes I must agree with the Pope I see pure evil. A man responsible for spreading death, pain and suffering abroad while ignoring the death, pain and suffering of his own people. History judged Nero he fiddled when Rome burned. How will history judge George? The President who peddled while New Orleans drown. The Texan who started the great Islamic civil war. In the story Robin Hood the good(?) King Richard is off fighting the crusades. Will history record him as a madman or genius?

Yosemite Joy
Feb 24, 2006, 05:00 PM
Wanted to add this.. and I agree wholeheartedly MadScot.

"On Sunday, Bush warned Americans that "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile." He and other US officials have said that renegade Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden is the most likely suspect in the attacks.

His use of the word "crusade," said Soheib Bensheikh, Grand Mufti of the mosque in Marseille, France, "was most unfortunate", "It recalled the barbarous and unjust military operations against the Muslim world," by Christian knights, who launched repeated attempts to capture Jerusalem over the course of several hundred years."

-September 19, 2001, Christian Science Monitor

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html

jakobscalpel
Feb 24, 2006, 07:16 PM
Interesting points MadScot. I certainly know some people who see this as Christian vs. Muslim. And, although I don't personally know any people of Islamic faith, I imagine there are many of them who see it as Muslim vs. Christian.

I'm not really behind the theory, however. In this case I think Islam is secondary to the attractiveness of the location. Without considering morality, it makes alot of sense to control central Asia and Mesopotamia if the goal of the world's lone superpower is to remain in that position.

John @ 3300ft.
Feb 24, 2006, 11:46 PM
I need a barfing smilely...

What a pantload of crap.

jakobscalpel
Feb 26, 2006, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by John @ 3300ft.:
I need a barfing smilely...

What a pantload of crap.

Ask and thou shalt receive. Just don't use it against me (at least too much).
http://www.geocities.com/jakobscalpel/barf.gif

jakobscalpel
Feb 26, 2006, 08:06 AM
This one also seems potentially useful. http://www.geocities.com/jakobscalpel/yahoo_talktohand.gif

I'm still looking for the slowly extending middle finger...

MadScot
Feb 26, 2006, 10:59 AM
So how do you think history will judge Bush?

My whole idea hindges on this paragraph.

There was a prevasive opinion among the intelligence community of would happen if Sadam was removed from power, it was what prevented us from toppling Sadam the first time. It would lead to destabilization of the entire middle east. Iraq would end up in civil war and it would spread.

This was a widely held belief at the end of the first Gulf War. Bush's own father expressed this as a reason for not continuing the war. If you except that you have to question what possible motive could prompt you to go ahead and invade if you know this is the logical outcome.

The forged Nigerian documents are evidence that the Bush people themselves didn't believe Iraq was a threat. The Italian investigation has fingered the source as the same person who acted as a go between for the CIA and Iran in the Iran-Contra scandel.

As a rule Republicans don't go to war to stop genocide. Even if Sadam was a tyrant who killed his own people. Let us not forget Tren Lott uttering those words for which we liberals have been bashed. I can support our troops without supporting this war. He was talking of Kosovo a war where we were preventing genocide. Of course that was a genocide where Christians were killing Muslims.

Spreading Democracy what can one say of this idea. Laughable, sad, unrealistic or just plain stupid. Anyone who studies the history of the middle east knows the past outcomes of nation building in the region. France and England both tried it and failed at great cost. Those who fail to study history repeat it's mistakes it's more that just a witty phrase.

Coldwolf
Feb 26, 2006, 01:00 PM
I'm still looking for the slowly extending middle finger...


Not in response to anything except the request:
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/sauer/angry-smiley-011.gif or

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/sauer/angry-smiley-009.gif or http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/sauer/angry-smiley-034.gif or http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/sauer/angry-smiley-009.gif