George W. Bush

[Casa]

An Election Day Note: Thanks, President Bush By Andrew Breitbart
I have a dark secret to tell before the election so that it's on the record. It's something that is difficult to say to certain friends, peers, family and, lately, many fellow conservatives. I still like George W. Bush. A lot. For starters, I am convinced he is a fundamentally decent man, even though I have read otherwise at the Huffington Post. President Bush is far smarter, more articulate and less ideological than his plentiful detractors scream, and, ultimately, he will be judged by history - not by vengeful Democrats, hate-filled Hollywood, corrupt foreign governments, an imploding mainstream media or fleeting approval ratings.

George W. Bush is history's president, a man for whom the long-term success or failure of democracy in Iraq will determine his place in history. He may end up a victim of his own tough choices, but the cheerleading for his demise when Iraq's outcome is yet determined has hurt America and possibly set up the next president for the same appalling partisan response. The fact that the United States has not been attacked since Sept. 11, 2001, far exceeds the most wishful expert predictions of the time. Perhaps facing another al Qaeda-led barrage would have reinforced our need for national unity, caused us to recognize the gravity of the Islamist threat and fortified Mr. Bush's standing at home and abroad. Yet, thankfully, that never happened. And Mr. Bush has been punished for this obvious success.

By most accounts, al Qaeda is reeling from the damage inflicted by our efforts against the once-thriving terror network. Yet reflexive enemies of the president - including Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee - shamefully mock him for not having caught Osama bin Laden. It's a playground taunt from the same people who never seriously advocated for a strong military foray into the regions where bin Laden could have been caught. These Daily Kos armchair generals also rhetorically ask why we don't invade North Korea or Saudi Arabia. Yet no one takes this hypothetical warmongering seriously, or expects a President Obama to go on the offense in any of these conveniently preferable hot spots. It's meant to hurt, not help, the president.

While President Bush has been marshaling a multinational force to take on modernity's enemies in foreign lands, the American left has decided to go to war against not only Republicans but also moderate Democrats. Bush hatred was a fait accompli. Back in November 2000, when Al Gore contested Florida and the demonizing of George Bush began full-bore ("President Select," "Bush Chimp," "the illegitimate president"), I told Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund, "You watch, the Democratic Party will never grant Bush his humanity, and they will never let up." And they never did. The Democratic Party chose to send a clear message that the impeachment of President Clinton incurred by the newly minted Republican-led Congress and the upstart new media - talk radio and the Internet - would be countered by unprecedented partisan fury.

The media will shape "the truth" that Democrats were always behind the initial Afghanistan effort or were poised to grudgingly accept the president whom they previously mocked as "illegitimate." But those brave liberals who stood by the president were mostly a small minority, and all of them have since been excommunicated for their apostasy. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and actor Ron Silver were presented as cautionary tales to left-of-center politicians and public figures who would lend support to a wartime Republican president. Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent who was described as the "conscience of the Senate" when he ran for vice president with Al Gore in 2000, was summarily dismissed from the Democratic Party for dissenting over one thing. And the youth movement that is fueling Obama-mania is riddled with minds that do not have the perspective of what happened before Mr. Bush, and why the media and the Democratic Party have stood against Mr. Bush and his motivations from the word go.

Much of Mr. Bush's 28 precent approval rating is born not of "failed policies" - of which there are many - but of the ill-gotten gains pilfered from a pre-Bush inauguration strategy to send the message to Republicans that the Democrats play politics harder and better. Mr. Obama said it best: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." I don't think Albert Einstein could have devised an equation to guide the leader of the free world during the wildly tumultuous post-9/11 realities without a modicum of help from the opposition party and the vast majority of the print and electronic media.

Right now, America appears to be leaning toward electing a man for whom popularity is a paramount concern. That means he must trust the American media and the American electorate to guide him to difficult decisions, not the other way around. The American people pay closer attention to "Survivor: Gabon" than to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Yet the majority will soon have a greater say in how we proceed in the war on terror. We are headed to the "American Idol" presidency. The last thing I want is my text vote on the financial crisis to have a say on how we proceed. If Barack Obama is elected the next president of the United States on Tuesday, I hope the Republican Party and conservatives take the higher road. The republic cannot handle another four years of undeclared civil war while we have real enemies out there to fight.

thoughts, opinions on this? George Bush has finished his job soon and will be stepping down, so I'm just gathering opinions, not even attempting to "troll" :rolleyes:
i agree 100% with this article.. George W. has done the best job he possibly can for his country and his success in Iraq with violence down immensely, and he'll be looked at late on in history for his success in Iraq. And the fact there's no terrorist attack since 2001 is a huge success.

[7thgenvic]

mehhh. Media is Media. I don't think Obama would have had as glorious of a campaign if the media wasn't in love with the man

[Casa]

Originally posted by 7thgenvic
mehhh. Media is Media. I don't think Obama would have had as glorious of a campaign if the media wasn't in love with the man

I totally totally agree. The media was in serious love with him. And while he was charismatic, he isn't this savior everyone thinks he is.

[Supa Dexta]

A huge success... bahahaha.. No attack because alqaeda's on record saying they can sit back and watch the country fuck themselves. Fuck george bush. PS you are a troll, a 48k with 4.3 (annoying) posts a day.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by Casa
George W. has done the best job he possibly can for his country and his success in Iraq with violence down immensely, and he'll be looked at late on in history for his success in Iraq. And the fact there's no terrorist attack since 2001 is a huge success.


Wow, are you out of it.

Ok, yes, there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11... but how many foreign born attacks were there prior to 9/11?

Violence down in Iraq? That's laughable, it's still WAY up from before he decided to invade, and will be looked at for his success? Laughable.

As for the "best job" comment. I'm barely going to graze the surface with that one, but really, the man put his country 3 trillion in debt over invading Iraq, when it had NOTHING to do with terrorist attacks to begin with.

[Casa]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok



Wow, are you out of it.

Ok, yes, there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11... but how many foreign born attacks were there prior to 9/11?

Violence down in Iraq? That's laughable, it's still WAY up from before he decided to invade, and will be looked at for his success? Laughable.

As for the "best job" comment. I'm barely going to graze the surface with that one, but really, the man put his country 3 trillion in debt over invading Iraq, when it had NOTHING to do with terrorist attacks to begin with.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/081031/world/us_afghanistan_iraq_military_1

READ
"Sent to Iraq in 2007 to salvage the explosive situation there, Petraeus is credited with turning around a Sunni insurgency in the west and using a 30,000 troop "surge" to secure Baghdad and its environs.

Many hope that Petraeus will bring his counter-insurgency expertise to bear in Afghanistan as he did in Iraq, where levels of violence have dropped sharply and combat deaths are now at the lowest point since 2003."

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/10/14/afghan-nato.html?ref=rss
stay on top of things man.
and better yet, read the article?

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by Casa

stay on top of things man.
and better yet, read the article?

Ah, so you think shuffling insurgents between the 2 countries is a good thing.

Yeah, 3 card monty can be fun.

I stand by my original statement, and your first link is dead.

[Casa]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


Ah, so you think shuffling insurgents between the 2 countries is a good thing.

Yeah, 3 card monty can be fun.

I stand by my original statement, and your first link is dead.

Link fixed, interesting thoughts. I think its good to hear different opinions.

[3g4u]

While i definetly dont think Bush was or is all that great, I do believe that the media definetly had a HUGE part in Obama becoming the next president. The only nice things on the tele that i heard about McCain was after he lost. lol what a joke.

[Casa]

Originally posted by 3g4u
While i definetly dont think Bush was or is all that great, I do believe that the media definetly had a HUGE part in Obama becoming the next president. The only nice things on the tele that i heard about McCain was after he lost. lol what a joke.

I agree. The media was in love with him, and played him up huge. McCain to me, fought a good fight, but the economy brought him down, and coupled with Obama's declaration of "change", and the fact that he was of a different color, helped with his win.

[flipstah]

Originally posted by Casa


I agree. The media was in love with him, and played him up huge. McCain to me, fought a good fight, but the economy brought him down, and coupled with Obama's declaration of "change", and the fact that he was of a different color, helped with his win.

McCain did his best but he had George Bush stuck with his party and those undecided voters probably thought that he'd be Bush Jr. II and went with the hype.

Barack however is good for the USA but I'm not sure if it's beneficial for Canada as he wanted to re-negotiate NAFTA and going to introduce 'new school' policies.

[TorqueDog]

He did the 'best job' he could is akin to saying "My four year old is doing the best job he can driving my car", all the while bouncing it off of trees, poles, and people's grandmothers. Some people just aren't cut out for certain jobs; GWB and the Presidency are a prime example.

The US impeached a president for getting a blow-job (who at the time ran the country VERY well), and this guy wants everyone to stop giving Bush such a hard time for starting a stupid war and blowing all their money on it? Bush should have been impeached.

If I had an employee and he got a hummer from the secretary, I'd write him up. If I had an employee and he stole $100,000 from the company and spent it on G.I. Joes, I'd fire his ass.

[Casa]

Originally posted by flipstah


McCain did his best but he had George Bush stuck with his party and those undecided voters probably thought that he'd be Bush Jr. II and went with the hype.

Barack however is good for the USA but I'm not sure if it's beneficial for Canada as he wanted to re-negotiate NAFTA and going to introduce 'new school' policies.

I very much agree with you. Obama was hugely hyped and thats definitely a big part of how he got elected.

Either McCain or Obama would have made a good president for different reasons. People in the US like to take sides and vilify the opposing team, but McCain would have been a pretty liberal conservative, and people expecting Obama to go in and start redrawing US policy are going to be disappointed. I don't understand those who believe Obama will come in and start redrawing US policy.. that makes no sense. Half of the US is divided.

I think the biggest problem the US has right now is the two party system and the competition each seems to have to beat the other despite the countries best interests.

[benyl]

Originally posted by Casa


thoughts, opinions on this? George Bush has finished his job soon and will be stepping down, so I'm just gathering opinions, not even attempting to "troll" :rolleyes:
i agree 100% with this article.. George W. has done the best job he possibly can for his country and his success in Iraq with violence down immensely, and he'll be looked at late on in history for his success in Iraq. And the fact there's no terrorist attack since 2001 is a huge success.

No terrorist attacks on US soil. What about the rest of the world?

Bush should have never gone into Iraq. The rest of it, I agree, he did the best he could. Iraq was a huge mistake that he could have prevented. He was finishing the war that his dad couldn't.

[CUG]

I think Obama should thank Bush for handing him the election on a silver platter :rofl: :rofl:

[Casa]

Originally posted by benyl


No terrorist attacks on US soil. What about the rest of the world?

Bush should have never gone into Iraq. The rest of it, I agree, he did the best he could. Iraq was a huge mistake that he could have prevented. He was finishing the war that his dad couldn't.

what if Bush didn't go into Iraq and terrorists did have WMD's? We'd be all over Bush saying he was the worst President for not invading and protecting the American people.

[CUG]

Dude, Bush was so... 2008 I wouldn't even give that meatbag the honor of mentioning his name.

[Destinova403]

Originally posted by Casa


what if Bush didn't go into Iraq and terrorists did have WMD's? We'd be all over Bush saying he was the worst President for not invading and protecting the American people.

Tyler you are forgetting that there was NO evidence that they had WMD's... the UN commission said that they had no WMD's the international inspectors said that there were no WMD's and the UN declared that the invasion of Iraq was not justified and illegal.

the whole WMD's thing was just an excuse to get the American population riled up for an invasion against anyone who stood against the US.

Afghanistan was justified, Iraq was over oil and revenge for his daddy
Bush was an idiot neo-con, and the world is better off now that hes gone.

god... i sound like Toma...

[benyl]

Um, all the intel suggested that there were no WMDs. Why do you think Chretien didn't support Bush in the invasion of Iraq? There was no proof of WMD.

And guess what, there are no WMD.

[The Cosworth]

Originally posted by TorqueDog
He did the 'best job' he could is akin to saying "My four year old is doing the best job he can driving my car", all the while bouncing it off of trees, poles, and people's grandmothers. Some people just aren't cut out for certain jobs; GWB and the Presidency are a prime example.

The US impeached a president for getting a blow-job (who at the time ran the country VERY well), and this guy wants everyone to stop giving Bush such a hard time for starting a stupid war and blowing all their money on it? Bush should have been impeached.

If I had an employee and he got a hummer from the secretary, I'd write him up. If I had an employee and he stole $100,000 from the company and spent it on G.I. Joes, I'd fire his ass.

:werd:

[Casa]

Originally posted by Destinova403


Tyler you are forgetting that there was NO evidence that they had WMD's... the UN commission said that they had no WMD's the international inspectors said that there were no WMD's and the UN declared that the invasion of Iraq was not justified and illegal.

the whole WMD's thing was just an excuse to get the American population riled up for an invasion against anyone who stood against the US.

Afghanistan was justified, Iraq was over oil and revenge for his daddy
Bush was an idiot neo-con, and the world is better off now that hes gone.

god... i sound like Toma...

I disagree on the fact that the US went to war just rile up the American population. lawl policy papers FTW
the reasons to invade Iraq weren't totally acceptable though, this I agree on! The intelligence by US, Russian, and British was faulty and thus the Iraq war was doomed initially.

[The Cosworth]

Originally posted by Casa


I disagree on the fact that the US went to war just rile up the American population. lawl policy papers FTW
the reasons to invade Iraq weren't totally acceptable though, this I agree on! The intelligence by US, Russian, and British was faulty and thus the Iraq war was doomed initially.

You misread his post.

Claiming MWD's were to get the population riled up (i mean who really wants to be nuked)

Going to war was a business decision.

[benyl]

.com bust, lagging economy. Fire up the war machine. It has worked before.

[Casa]

Originally posted by The Cosworth


You misread his post.

Claiming MWD's were to get the population riled up (i mean who really wants to be nuked)

Going to war was a business decision.

Interesting viewpoint thats for sure. Its good to hear all these different thoughts I think.

[b_t]

I still think Bush as a person is a good guy. He sounds dumb because he isn't the best English speaker, but he knows that and has joked about it from time to time. He was still charismatic enough to steal two elections in a row. All the blame for the poor decisions he's made isn't entirely his - do you think that one man decided in a total vacuum to do the things he did? What are his advisors for?

His government made some extremely poor decisions. That much is true. Iraq is the new Vietnam - as soon as Obama pulls the troops out, the situation there will improve. But history will definitely be his judge.. how many people remember the Bay of Pigs disaster and the president in charge of that debacle?

[b_t]

Originally posted by benyl
.com bust, lagging economy. Fire up the war machine. It has worked before.

If I remember right, the big upswing in the economy that the world wars caused was because the manufacturing sectors exploded and needed a huge amount of manpower and a large portion of the population that didn't do much (women) started participating in the workforce more. It wouldn't have the same effect today.

[Casa]

Originally posted by b_t
I still think Bush as a person is a good guy. He sounds dumb because he isn't the best English speaker, but he knows that and has joked about it from time to time. He was still charismatic enough to steal two elections in a row. All the blame for the poor decisions he's made isn't entirely his - do you think that one man decided in a total vacuum to do the things he did? What are his advisors for?

His government made some extremely poor decisions. That much is true. Iraq is the new Vietnam - as soon as Obama pulls the troops out, the situation there will improve. But history will definitely be his judge.. how many people remember the Bay of Pigs disaster and the president in charge of that debacle?

I very much agree with you. Bush didn't make every single 'wrong' choice. Its unfair to blame it one man. His advisors, his government, everyone is partially to blame.


Originally posted by b_t


If I remember right, the big upswing in the economy that the world wars caused was because the manufacturing sectors exploded and needed a huge amount of manpower and a large portion of the population that didn't do much (women) started participating in the workforce more. It wouldn't have the same effect today.

i was just going to say, the economic times of the Great Depression were much different than now. I agree.

[em2ab]

Am I the only person that sees what a failure he was at his job? He started a war in Iraq because the government over there was going to switch over to the Euro, causing the US dollar to plummet. Then he blamed it on terrorist attacks in his home country to try and cover it up. Does anyone remember the Reichstag? What a joke.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by b_t


If I remember right, the big upswing in the economy that the world wars caused was because the manufacturing sectors exploded and needed a huge amount of manpower and a large portion of the population that didn't do much (women) started participating in the workforce more. It wouldn't have the same effect today.

It sure work wonder for this town tho. Puts quite a few Lambos and Ferraris on the street.

[Super_Geo]

Originally posted by Casa


what if Bush didn't go into Iraq and terrorists did have WMD's? We'd be all over Bush saying he was the worst President for not invading and protecting the American people.

Haha that's pretty cute. Oh, look at the time! I think recess is over... better hurry back to your grade 3 social studies class!!

[Casa]

Originally posted by Super_Geo


Haha that's pretty cute. Oh, look at the time! I think recess is over... better hurry back to your grade 3 social studies class!!

brb, did you pack me my lunch? k thx

[Super_Geo]

Originally posted by Casa


brb, did you pack me my lunch? k thx

Yes, PB+J and juiceboxes for you today, sweetie!

Don't come home late, otherwise I won't have time to tuck you in and tell you your favorite fairy tale about Mr. Bush!

[b_t]

Originally posted by em2ab
Am I the only person that sees what a failure he was at his job? He started a war in Iraq because the government over there was going to switch over to the Euro, causing the US dollar to plummet. Then he blamed it on terrorist attacks in his home country to try and cover it up. Does anyone remember the Reichstag? What a joke.

Wow one dictatorship switching their modest reserve from US dollars to the Euro is enough to make the US invade them? That would cause the dollar to plummet.... how?

Even after all of this, with all the US economic problems, people still are not switching to the Euro for their primary currency reserves. Have you noticed that our exchange rate against the Euro and Pound have been improving, and are now the cheapest they have been in months, whereas American dollars are as expensive as they were a couple years ago?

Reichstag? Which conspiracy video are you pulling this from? Zeitgeist?

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Casa


what if Bush didn't go into Iraq and terrorists did have WMD's? We'd be all over Bush saying he was the worst President for not invading and protecting the American people.

And just imagine if he found a way to convert excrement into oil, and devellop cold fusion, and made a car that ran on Co2 and relased oxygen and clean drinking water...he'd be like, the best president ever!

[SilverGS]

Originally posted by Casa


what if Bush didn't go into Iraq and terrorists did have WMD's? We'd be all over Bush saying he was the worst President for not invading and protecting the American people.

There are too many what if scenarios to even consider.

Fact is he went in without any proof with a reason that ended up being entirely wrong. Yet they are still in there pushing around insurgents from one country to another that they created in the first place. Suddam and Osama were at one point friends of the states and were given supplies by them.

I think a lot of things that have happened has a lot more to do with Oil than anything else

[SilverGS]

Originally posted by b_t


Wow one dictatorship switching their modest reserve from US dollars to the Euro is enough to make the US invade them? That would cause the dollar to plummet.... how?

Even after all of this, with all the US economic problems, people still are not switching to the Euro for their primary currency reserves. Have you noticed that our exchange rate against the Euro and Pound have been improving, and are now the cheapest they have been in months, whereas American dollars are as expensive as they were a couple years ago?

Reichstag? Which conspiracy video are you pulling this from? Zeitgeist?

Bingo!

[01RedDX]

.

[Casa]

Originally posted by Super_Geo


Yes, PB+J and juiceboxes for you today, sweetie!

Don't come home late, otherwise I won't have time to tuck you in and tell you your favorite fairy tale about Mr. Bush!

okay bb! can i have a bedtime story about Iraq?


Originally posted by 01RedDX
This is the most naive thread I have read in a long time. Get your head out of your ass, OP.

explain.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Casa


okay bb! can i have a bedtime story about Iraq?



explain.

One day, George decided to invade Iraq. Lots of Americans and Iraqi's died. Oil prices went up and there is no end in sight.

The end...

Or is it?

[Casa]

Originally posted by kertejud2


One day, George decided to invade Iraq. Lots of Americans and Iraqi's died. Oil prices went up and there is no end in sight.

The end...

Or is it?

haha I'd say the Iraq war (which had 90% approval rating when the US first invaded) is the #1 cause for George Bush's hatred from so many.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Casa


haha I'd say the Iraq war (which had 90% approval rating when the US first invaded) is the #1 cause for George Bush's hatred from so many.

Way to step out on a limb. The hate probably started when he lied about the reasons for going to war (but hey, what if he had been right about the stuff he was 100% sure on).

[b_t]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
This is the most naive thread I have read in a long time. Get your head out of your ass, OP.

I think naive is assuming that it was George Bush doing all these things with zero advice, going completely on his own, and that he is actually a horrible person who brought nothing but malice for his country to the White House. So, he embarked on an eight year destruction spree to ruin the US (and he didn't quite manage that).

There are a lot of people to blame here.
- Alan Greenspan, for almost totally deregulating the US financial market, leading to the most spectacular market collapse since the Great Depression.
- Iraq and the UN, for their inspection program and disclosure failings. If you had one mean son of a bitch in power who had been making chemical weapons, and it was proven he had extensive stockpiles of chemical weapons and was willing to use them... and then a great amount of doubt exist as to whether or not he has resumed production, is it not better to err on the side of caution and invade? The intelligence was not strong, but until they failed to find anything, it was not certain that Saddam didn't have WMDs.
From the research I'm gathering here, it was actually the UK that went ahead and authorized an invasion of Iraq first, and then the States followed after a few months of deliberation.
People also seem to discount the fact that Saddam was without question a right bastard, had threatened to resume his weapons building programs at any time, etc. The States effectively took care of him quickly, but in the years they have stuck around since, have not fared so well.

etc..

[Casa]

Originally posted by b_t


I think naive is assuming that it was George Bush doing all these things with zero advice, going completely on his own, and that he is actually a horrible person who brought nothing but malice for his country to the White House. So, he embarked on an eight year destruction spree to ruin the US (and he didn't quite manage that).

There are a lot of people to blame here.
- Alan Greenspan, for almost totally deregulating the US financial market, leading to the most spectacular market collapse since the Great Depression.
- Iraq and the UN, for their inspection program and disclosure failings. If you had one mean son of a bitch in power who had been making chemical weapons, and it was proven he had extensive stockpiles of chemical weapons and was willing to use them... and then a great amount of doubt exist as to whether or not he has resumed production, is it not better to err on the side of caution and invade? The intelligence was not strong, but until they failed to find anything, it was not certain that Saddam didn't have WMDs.
From the research I'm gathering here, it was actually the UK that went ahead and authorized an invasion of Iraq first, and then the States followed after a few months of deliberation.
People also seem to discount the fact that Saddam was without question a right bastard, had threatened to resume his weapons building programs at any time, etc. The States effectively took care of him quickly, but in the years they have stuck around since, have not fared so well.

etc..

it was the UK who authorized the invasion first.
and I 100% agree with your post.

[b_t]

Originally posted by kertejud2


Way to step out on a limb. The hate probably started when he lied about the reasons for going to war (but hey, what if he had been right about the stuff he was 100% sure on).

But they did not lie.
If you believed that something extremely dangerous (WMDs) could be produced by someone that clearly hates you in a matter of months.. if intelligence could not certainly indicate they did not have WMDs and they had a history of uncooperation with UN authorities.. basically, if there was more or less a 50/50 chance a rogue dictator had the ability to kill millions of your people on his whim, what would you do?

[01RedDX]

.

[ZorroAMG]

PURE, UTTER :facepalm: for Casa.

Wake up, child.

[b_t]

And to expand on that, you are the man in charge of a country. You have to make an executive decision that all your people indicate will have a drastic effect on your economy and the potential safety of your country. When you present your declaration of war to the public, how will you phrase it?
"They might have WMDs, so I guess we should invade an check it out."
"We believe that they have WMDs that pose a danger to us and our society. We need to invade this country."
Things get overrepresented because he's the president. Half assedness will get him nowhere. Approval was still high. People have burnt out on him since.

[benyl]

Originally posted by b_t

But they did not lie.
If you believed that something extremely dangerous (WMDs) could be produced by someone that clearly hates you in a matter of months.. if intelligence could not certainly indicate they did not have WMDs and they had a history of uncooperation with UN authorities.. basically, if there was more or less a 50/50 chance a rogue dictator had the ability to kill millions of your people on his whim, what would you do?

So why didn't he invade North Korea? North Korea has even done missile tests.

[Casa]

Originally posted by b_t
And to expand on that, you are the man in charge of a country. You have to make an executive decision that all your people indicate will have a drastic effect on your economy and the potential safety of your country. When you present your declaration of war to the public, how will you phrase it?
"They might have WMDs, so I guess we should invade an check it out."
"We believe that they have WMDs that pose a danger to us and our society. We need to invade this country."
Things get overrepresented because he's the president. Half assedness will get him nowhere. Approval was still high. People have burnt out on him since.

Approval was at 85% when he invaded Iraq.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by b_t
And to expand on that, you are the man in charge of a country. You have to make an executive decision that all your people indicate will have a drastic effect on your economy and the potential safety of your country. When you present your declaration of war to the public, how will you phrase it?
"They might have WMDs, so I guess we should invade an check it out."
"We believe that they have WMDs that pose a danger to us and our society. We need to invade this country."
Things get overrepresented because he's the president. Half assedness will get him nowhere. Approval was still high. People have burnt out on him since.

Do you know who else actually has WMDs, and who could actually deliver them? North Korea. China. Why not invade them? People knew why they wanted to go into Iraq, and they used the bs WMD excuse to gain support. In short, they lied to cover up their real morals.

If you were to declare war, would you say "We want to risk thousands of American lives to secure oil reserves for an oil company my buddy here used to run" or would you say "They have WMDs and they aren't afraid to use them."

They didn't just "believe" they had WMDs. They had them. They were in the areas north of Tkrit and Baghdad, you know, East, West, South and North.

Then of course when it was clear that they weren't going to find these WMDs and the facilities to make them, the tune changed to Liberation.


But I guess its okay for the administration to flat out lie to its people on such important issues like war.

[b_t]

Originally posted by benyl


So why didn't he invade North Korea? North Korea has even done missile tests.

They can't afford it :dunno:
And now that North Korea actually has done missile tests and could in theory bomb some shit, an invasion becomes much more difficult. There are also a lot of big regional powers involved there that would object to direct US intervention so close to their borders (China!)
This isn't fuckin Risk its not just like the States can roll in wherever they want.

[benyl]

Originally posted by b_t

This isn't fuckin Risk its not just like the States can roll in wherever they want.

You mean, like they did in Iraq?

That looked to me like they "rolled in."

[bwling]

Originally posted by benyl


So why didn't he invade North Korea? North Korea has even done missile tests.



Originally posted by b_t


They can't afford it :dunno:
And now that North Korea actually has done missile tests and could in theory bomb some shit, an invasion becomes much more difficult. There are also a lot of big regional powers involved there that would object to direct US intervention so close to their borders (China!)
This isn't fuckin Risk its not just like the States can roll in wherever they want.

Wrong...North Korea doesn't have oil.

[01RedDX]

.

[b_t]

Originally posted by kertejud2


Do you know who else actually has WMDs, and who could actually deliver them? North Korea. China. Why not invade them? People knew why they wanted to go into Iraq, and they used the bs WMD excuse to gain support. In short, they lied to cover up their real morals.

If you were to declare war, would you say "We want to risk thousands of American lives to secure oil reserves for an oil company my buddy here used to run" or would you say "They have WMDs and they aren't afraid to use them."

They didn't just "believe" they had WMDs. They had them. They were in the areas north of Tkrit and Baghdad, you know, East, West, South and North.

Then of course when it was clear that they weren't going to find these WMDs and the facilities to make them, the tune changed to Liberation.


But I guess its okay for the administration to flat out lie to its people on such important issues like war.

Halliburton's attempts to rebuild Iraq's oil fields were apparently a huge failure and they were not able to exploit them like their resources elsewhere. Profit margins on that work are very thin. Cheney has only earned $350,000 from Halliburton since he left and that was part of a deferred compensation package.
They did not invade Iraq for oil, or if they did, Halliburton continually fucked it up so that didn't turn out so well for them. All the no-bid contracts they are receiving is bullshit though.
Iraq had a history of uncooperation with UN weapons inspectors. Full disclosure was not guaranteed, and satellite photos probably identified potential sites for WMD production. So, they forged ahead probably knowing full well they might be wrong.
When WMDs didn't turn up, you need a positive PR spin on things. I can't really justify that though - the decision to stay was inexplicable, just as the decision to remain in Vietnam was totally inexplicable.
I'm not pro-Bush by any means. I'm just picking apart all these people who default to "Bush sucks" when criticizing any policy made by anyone in the US government in the past 8 years.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by b_t


They can't afford it :dunno:
And now that North Korea actually has done missile tests and could in theory bomb some shit, an invasion becomes much more difficult. There are also a lot of big regional powers involved there that would object to direct US intervention so close to their borders (China!)
This isn't fuckin Risk its not just like the States can roll in wherever they want.


So in short, invading countries that could actually attack with weapons they actually have, is stupid and expensive (hmm, putting a price on national security and the safety of families), while invading countries that could attack with weapons they might be able to develop is necessary as well as cost effective.

So ignore the threats, go after the red herring. Sounds like a brilliant foreign policy.

[b_t]

Originally posted by kertejud2



So in short, invading countries that could actually attack with weapons they actually have, is stupid and expensive (hmm, putting a price on national security and the safety of families), while invading countries that could attack with weapons they might be able to develop is necessary as well as cost effective.

So ignore the threats, go after the red herring. Sounds like a brilliant foreign policy.

The US has run into the problem of not being able to afford wars before. Also, again, the UK approved an invasion of Iraq first.
North Korea's strong relationship with China, who already dislike the States, complicates things tremendously whereas Iraq had no powerful allies. Certainly none as dangerous as China.

[bwling]

Originally posted by b_t


Halliburton's attempts to rebuild Iraq's oil fields were apparently a huge failure and they were not able to exploit them like their resources elsewhere. Profit margins on that work are very thin. Cheney has only earned $350,000 from Halliburton since he left and that was part of a deferred compensation package.
They did not invade Iraq for oil, or if they did, Halliburton continually fucked it up so that didn't turn out so well for them. All the no-bid contracts they are receiving is bullshit though.
Iraq had a history of uncooperation with UN weapons inspectors. Full disclosure was not guaranteed, and satellite photos probably identified potential sites for WMD production. So, they forged ahead probably knowing full well they might be wrong.
When WMDs didn't turn up, you need a positive PR spin on things. I can't really justify that though - the decision to stay was inexplicable, just as the decision to remain in Vietnam was totally inexplicable.
I'm not pro-Bush by any means. I'm just picking apart all these people who default to "Bush sucks" when criticizing any policy made by anyone in the US government in the past 8 years.

Just because Haliburton did not execute their plan as well as they had hoped does not mean that the U.S. did not invade Iraq because of oil.

The contracts for rebuilding Iraq are secondary. What they were really hoping to accomplish by getting rid of Saddam was to setup a government that is friendly to the U.S. and would help to secure their energy supply.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by b_t


The US has run into the problem of not being able to afford wars before. Also, again, the UK approved an invasion of the US first.
North Korea's strong relationship with China, who already dislike the States, complicates things tremendously whereas Iraq had no powerful allies. Certainly none as dangerous as China.

And look at how the UK took the news, not only was it the leading cause for Tony Blair's retirement, but overwhelming public opposition caused them to pull out.

And then they were bombed (by somebody other than the Provos).

[benyl]

Originally posted by b_t


The US has run into the problem of not being able to afford wars before. Also, again, the UK approved an invasion of Iraq first.
North Korea's strong relationship with China, who already dislike the States, complicates things tremendously whereas Iraq had no powerful allies. Certainly none as dangerous as China.

China does not dislike the States. They dislike their foreign policy.

If China hated the US so much, why do they trade with them?

[b_t]

Originally posted by bwling


Just because Haliburton did not execute their plan as well as they had hoped does not mean that the U.S. did not invade Iraq because of oil.

The contracts for rebuilding Iraq are secondary. What they were really hoping to accomplish by getting rid of Saddam was to setup a government that is friendly to the U.S. and would help to secure their energy supply.

They already had an oil supply. This is another conspiracy theory predicated by some idiot who doesn't understand how the whole situation works.


Originally posted by kertejud2


And look at how the UK took the news, not only was it the leading cause for Tony Blair's retirement, but overwhelming public opposition caused them to pull out.

And then they were bombed (by somebody other than the Provos).

I'm not saying they were right. I'm saying they did they best they can. They are human too :dunno:

[b_t]

Originally posted by benyl


China does not dislike the States. They dislike their foreign policy.

If China hated the US so much, why do they trade with them?

You have to think in political terms here.. just because they may "dislike" someone does not mean they are just one wrong move away from declaring war. Everybody needs money. 21% of their exports go to the US. An embargo is not an option.
Remember the Cold War? Threats and posturing are enough. I doubt China would directly intervene in an invasion of North Korea, but brinkmanship would make a big comeback.
You people make it sound like these guys sit around in the UN and "go ahead and invade me, I dare you." They have a job to take everything very seriously. If you phone the police with a bomb threat as a joke, they are not amused and you will get hit with a fine. Iraq set themselves up for an invasion by being obstinate and pushing their luck - basically, phoning in a bomb threat on an international level.
If they had opened right up, instead of sitting there with thumbs up their asses, they would have UN peacekeepers in their country right now.. not the US army.

[zipdoa]

Originally posted by Casa


what if Bush didn't go into Iraq and terrorists did have WMD's? We'd be all over Bush saying he was the worst President for not invading and protecting the American people.

The entire fucking world knew Iraq didn't have WMD's.

It's not a WAR in Iraq, it should be correctly labelled: "The Illegal invasion and destabalization of Iraq by the USA"

[bwling]

Originally posted by b_t
They already had an oil supply. This is another conspiracy theory predicated by some idiot who doesn't understand how the whole situation works.
Yes, the U.S. has many suppliers, but as you can see from the link below, Iraq was the 6th largest exporter of oil to the U.S. Which countries are above them? Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Nigeria. There is instability in 3 out of their top 6 suppliers. Sounds like a pretty good reason for the U.S. to be worried and to take action.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_a.htm

[b_t]

Originally posted by bwling

Yes, the U.S. has many suppliers, but as you can see from the link below, Iraq was the 6th largest exporter of oil to the U.S. Which countries are above them? Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Nigeria. There is instability in 3 out of their top 6 suppliers. Sounds like a pretty good reason for the U.S. to be worried and to take action.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_a.htm

Notice how imports to the US from Iraq have dropped since 2004... :facepalm:

[Trini]

Originally posted by ZorroAMG
PURE, UTTER :facepalm: for Casa.

Wake up, child.

the face palm sums up Casa and his posts

[bwling]

Originally posted by b_t


Notice how imports to the US from Iraq have dropped since 2004... :facepalm:

Does it look like Iraq was a success for them?

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by bwling


The contracts for rebuilding Iraq are secondary. What they were really hoping to accomplish by getting rid of Saddam was to setup a government that is friendly to the U.S. and would help to secure their energy supply.

You're absolutely right. A few years ago, I believed that this was about BushCo trying to secure further profits and markets for their corporate friends, but wow, I see with clarity, that this was about far more than that; It was about ensuring American access to the largest remaining fossil fuel on the planet.

While there's a certain brilliance to the strategic foresight of that, it's a shortsighted foresight. At best, America has postponed it's day of fossil fuel reckoning, and now it has less resources that can be used to cushion America's inevitable transition away from fossil fuels.

[Casa]

Originally posted by Trini


the face palm sums up Casa and his posts

wow harsh, who are you?

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by bwling


Does it look like Iraq was a success for them?

Absolutely, although it has come at a far higher cost than they expected.

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by b_t
[B]

They already had an oil supply. This is another conspiracy theory predicated by some idiot who doesn't understand how the whole situation works.

Since you clearly "understand how the whole situation works", I challenge you to explain the following:

1) What oil supply did "they already have", what BPD was it providing, and what were their estimated recoverable reserves (conventional)

And, for comparison:

2) What BPD can Iraq be reasonably expected to provide, and what is Iraq's estimated recoverable reserves (conventional)?



Please enlighten us "idiots", b_t.

[benyl]

Originally posted by b_t

If they had opened right up, instead of sitting there with thumbs up their asses, they would have UN peacekeepers in their country right now.. not the US army.

Last time I checked, Iraq was a sovereign nation. Why does the UN have the right to "police" their internal workings?

[bwling]

Originally posted by Legless_Marine2


Absolutely, although it has come at a far higher cost than they expected.

Agreed...it didn't quite go according to their original plan, but at the end of the day oil is still flowing to them from Iraq.

[b_t]

Originally posted by Legless_Marine2


Since you clearly "understand how the whole situation works", I challenge you to explain the following:

1) What oil supply did "they already have", what BPD was it providing, and what were their estimated recoverable reserves?

And, for comparison:

2) What BPD can Iraq be reasonably expected to provide, and what is Iraq's estimated recoverable reserves?



Please enlighten us "idiots", b_t.

I can't enlighten you because none of these people saying "they wanted to get oil" even knows what that means, exactly. "Get oil?" You can get oil from anyone who refines it. Oil is cheap and readily available from anyone. "Oil imperialism" is a crock of shit.

Blowing up a country that produces it is a horrible rationalization for a war and was more than likely the last idea on their mind when they went into Iraq. To produce oil, you need infrastructure. What gets blown to shit in war? Infrastructure. No matter how good of a job you do invading a country, things get blown to pieces, so what happens then? Oil production either does not increase, or falls.

Oil is not scarce, and was even less scarce four years ago. In twenty years it might make sense to invade someone for oil, but right now you'd have either a) be a retard or b) be listening to the retards with blogs and TV shows to think that the US invaded Iraq for oil.


Originally posted by benyl


Last time I checked, Iraq was a sovereign nation. Why does the UN have the right to "police" their internal workings?

They already were there :dunno: If Saddam wanted to avoid a war, all he had to do was increase his transparency. Nobody could have justified a war if Iraq removed all doubt that they had WMDs, by openly inviting everyone to look for themselves and not interfering with the process.


Originally posted by bwling


Agreed...it didn't quite go according to their original plan, but at the end of the day oil is still flowing to them from Iraq.

:facepalm: Oil is still flowing to them from about eighty different fucking countries.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by b_t

They already were there :dunno: If Saddam wanted to avoid a war, all he had to do was increase his transparency. Nobody could have justified a war if Iraq removed all doubt that they had WMDs, by openly inviting everyone to look for themselves and not interfering with the process.



It was a catch 22 for him. Go completely transparent, and he'd have his awesome neighbors at his doorstep in weeks (the threat of him with nukes was the only thing keeping them at bay), or remain semi-transparent, and hope the U.S. wouldn't do go against the UN, and illegally invade.

[bwling]

Originally posted by b_t


I can't enlighten you because none of these people saying "they wanted to get oil" even knows what that means, exactly. "Get oil?" You can get oil from anyone who refines it. Oil is cheap and readily available from anyone. "Oil imperialism" is a crock of shit.

Blowing up a country that produces it is a horrible rationalization for a war and was more than likely the last idea on their mind when they went into Iraq. To produce oil, you need infrastructure. What gets blown to shit in war? Infrastructure. No matter how good of a job you do invading a country, things get blown to pieces, so what happens then? Oil production either does not increase, or falls.

Oil is not scarce, and was even less scarce four years ago. In twenty years it might make sense to invade someone for oil, but right now you'd have either a) be a retard or b) be listening to the retards with blogs and TV shows to think that the US invaded Iraq for oil.


:facepalm: Oil is still flowing to them from about eighty different fucking countries.


Haha...this response verifies how little you actually know about how the oil industry works and the role oil plays in international politics. I suggest you find and read a book called "The Prize" before your next post.

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by b_t


I can't enlighten you because none of these people saying "they wanted to get oil" even knows what that means, exactly. "Get oil?" You can get oil from anyone who refines it. Oil is cheap and readily available from anyone. "Oil imperialism" is a crock of shit.


Lacking any comparative data of the quantity Iraq's reserves vs. what "[America] already had", your claim that oil is universally available is irrelevant.



Originally posted by b_t


:facepalm: Oil is still flowing to them from about eighty different fucking countries.

If you can't understand the difference in value between a trickle of oil from El Salvador, or a gusher from Iraq, I've got a great deal on some Salvadoran oilfields for you.

[b_t]

Originally posted by bwling



Haha...this response verifies how little you actually know about how the oil industry works and the role oil plays in international politics. I suggest you find and read a book called "The Prize" before your next post.

I'm not burning a couple days reading an 800 page book that is 15 years out of date.
Why, on earth, would anyone spend trillions of dollars invading & taking over a country.. when a perfectly stable, first world country that is only a couple hours away is developing a massive reserve of their own? :dunno: If they wanted oil, it would have been much, much cheaper and easier to just buy us out instead.

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by b_t


I'm not burning a couple days reading an 800 page book that is 15 years out of date.


If you don't know WTF you're talking about, and have no plans to remediate your ignorance, why are you even bothering making claims about something you clearly know nothing about?

And you call others "idiots"?



Originally posted by b_t

Why, on earth, would anyone spend trillions of dollars invading & taking over a country.. when a perfectly stable, first world country that is only a couple hours away is developing a massive reserve of their own? :dunno: If they wanted oil, it would have been much, much cheaper and easier to just buy us out instead.

I'm afraid you don't have the required foundational knowledge for any short answer to this to make sense.

Acquiring the requisite foundational knowledge may require some reading.

Plenty of great books out there if one cares to start.

[Casa]

Originally posted by Legless_Marine2


If you don't know WTF you're talking about, and have no plans to remediate your ignorance, why are you even bothering making claims about something you clearly know nothing about?

And you call others "idiots"?

From his arguements, he's given his own opinions and they're a lot more concise and make more sense than yours.


I'm afraid you don't have the required foundational knowledge for any short answer to this to make sense.

Acquiring the requisite foundational knowledge may require some reading.

Plenty of great books out there if one cares to start.

Books mean shit. That's merely someone's opinion. The facts aren't adding up..
- oil export has decreased since 2004
- trillion dollars of fighting an unpopular war, thousands of casaulties for no apparent reason for what, oil without infrastructure?

[b_t]

Originally posted by Legless_Marine2


If you don't know WTF you're talking about, and have no plans to remediate your ignorance, why are you even bothering making claims about something you clearly know nothing about?




I'm afraid you don't have the required foundational knowledge for any short answer to this to make sense.

Acquiring the requisite foundational knowledge may require some reading.

Plenty of great books out there if one cares to start.

I read some articles from peer-reviewed journals, published in 2001 and 2007, instead. Stability is key, a guaranteed supply is key, etc. so by all of those measures America's invasion of Iraq was a massive failure, a huge miscalculation, and an incredible waste of money. The Iraq government they installed is already clamouring for less American intervention in their affairs. They made things worse by going in there.

So they would have to be completely incompetent if that was their main aim, or maybe ensuring the security of the mainland US and an important ally (the UK) was. That seems just a little bit more likely, but it is a lot less sensational.. and therefore less likely here on the internet, apparently.

[bwling]

Originally posted by b_t
I'm not burning a couple days reading an 800 page book that is 15 years out of date.
I am sorry you feel that way. Please continue to be ignorant.


Originally posted by b_t
Why, on earth, would anyone spend trillions of dollars invading & taking over a country.. when a perfectly stable, first world country that is only a couple hours away is developing a massive reserve of their own? :dunno: If they wanted oil, it would have been much, much cheaper and easier to just buy us out instead.
Do you think that the U.S. planned for this mission to cost trillions of dollars and last 5+ years?

Oil from Iraq is already flowing and helps to satisfy their immediate energy needs. Alberta's oil sands are a vast reserve, but current production levels are about 1 million bbls/d. The U.S. consumes 21 million bbls/d (http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html). Do you need help doing the math? Developing Alberta's reserves takes money, and more importantly, time.

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by Casa


The facts aren't adding up..


They aren't adding up because you've ridiculously oversimplified your "facts", and you don't have the required understanding to do the math in the first place.


Originally posted by Casa

Books mean shit. That's merely someone's opinion.


You still here?

[benyl]

Originally posted by Casa


Books mean shit. That's merely someone's opinion. The facts aren't adding up..
- oil export has decreased since 2004
- trillion dollars of fighting an unpopular war, thousands of casaulties for no apparent reason for what, oil without infrastructure?

:facepalm: :facepalm: :rofl: :rofl:

Continue your ignorance...

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by b_t


I read some articles from peer-reviewed journals, published in 2001 and 2007, instead. Stability is key, a guaranteed supply is key, etc. so by all of those measures America's invasion of Iraq was a massive failure, a huge miscalculation, and an incredible waste of money. The Iraq government they installed is already clamouring for less American intervention in their affairs. They made things worse by going in there.

So they would have to be completely incompetent if that was their main aim, or maybe ensuring the security of the mainland US and an important ally (the UK) was. That seems just a little bit more likely, but it is a lot less sensational.. and therefore less likely here on the internet, apparently.

Before we shift the discussion, perhaps you'd do us all the courtesy of substantiating your previous claims. Having read "some articles from peer-reviewed journals", I'm sure this shouldn't cause you too much difficulty.

1) What oil supply did "they already have", what BPD was it providing, and what were their estimated recoverable reserves (conventional)

And, for comparison:

2) What BPD can Iraq be reasonably expected to provide, and what is Iraq's estimated recoverable reserves (conventional)?

[b_t]

Originally posted by Legless_Marine2


Before we shift the discussion, perhaps you'd do us all the courtesy of substantiating your previous claims. Having read "some articles from peer-reviewed journals"[1], I'm sure this shouldn't cause you too much difficulty.

1) What oil supply did "they already have", what BPD was it providing, and what were their estimated recoverable reserves (conventional)

And, for comparison:

2) What BPD can Iraq be reasonably expected to provide, and what is Iraq's estimated recoverable reserves (conventional)?

We're (still) waiting...



[1] I love it when people inappropriately invoke academese.

I'll take a scholarly publication written by guy with a PhD over a book dumb enough to be a #1 best seller :dunno:

Quit wasting my time and make your point directly, if you have one.

Iraq's recoverable research - 115b barrels
Canada - 178b barrels
USA - 20b, with an est. 200b in the Bakken reserve (currently only ~1% extractable)

Iraq accounted for 3.5% of USA's 2007 oil imports and even if production continues to drop, as the oil sands ramp up Canada will be able to pick up the slack, easily. Canada's and the US's remaining reserves are much more expensive to extract than Iraq's of course but current oil prices make that a non-issue. A big oil reserve that costs trillions is no good if the region it is based in is extremely unstable and remains under OPEC control (which Iraq's, conveniently, does). The US has some power in there now, but not nearly enough to justify their cost outlay.

You aren't providing any concrete evidence that the USA was motivated to invade Iraq because of oil. You are putting together something nicely tenuous though - would make a great topic for a two hour long YouTube movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kHhc67GopM) for pothead philosophers and conspiracy theorists. Oh wait, that's where this idea came from in the first place.

[Super_Geo]

b_t, one thing you aren't taking into account is the difficulty of extracting the oil.

The cost to get Iraqi oil out of the ground is peanuts compared to what's required in Fort Mac. They are actually at pretty much the opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of energy and capital invested per barrel of oil returned.



Iraq's Oil Reserves: Untapped Potential
While its proven oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks Iraq second in the work behind Saudi Arabia, EIA estimates that up to 90-percent of the county remains unexplored due to years of wars and sanctions. Unexplored regions of Iraq could yield an additional 100 billion barrels. Iraq's oil production costs are among the lowest in the world. However, only about 2,000 wells have been drilled in Iraq, compared to about 1 million wells in Texas alone.

[b_t]

As oil truly becomes scarce though, the price will increase to a degree that it becomes profitable to extract it again. It'll also help when the processes used are refined and become more efficient.

[Casa]

Originally posted by benyl


:facepalm: :facepalm: :rofl: :rofl:

Continue your ignorance...

show proof otherwise.
we won't know for a long while what the intel was that US, Russian and British sources saw.
remember the UK declared war before the US on Iraq.


Originally posted by Legless_Marine2


They aren't adding up because you've ridiculously oversimplified your "facts", and you don't have the required understanding to do the math in the first place.



You still here?

whenever you're losing an argument you attack the person, not the issue. And that's you. I'm no professed guru or Doctor in Iraq and/or War studies, but I do study it and research it for my degree.

But most importantly, what does this have to do with your opinions of Bush?

[GTS Jeff]

This is OT, but here's what I find really funny.

Casa (aka TNation) after having been banned a million times in a row for being an annoying ass on the forums, is now being an annoying pussy on the forums. The old Tyler would have been screaming and yelling by now, but the new Tyler is just taking it in the ass while everyone owns him. So he's a bit less annoying now (still annoying) but he's a lot funnier to have around. And for that, I rofl.

Anyway, back on topic.

[bwling]

Originally posted by b_t
I'll take a scholarly publication written by guy with a PhD over a book dumb enough to be a #1 best seller :dunno:
Hmmm...what's this? Looks like the author of this "book dumb enough to be a #1 best seller" has a Ph.D. (and more).

http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/AuthorBiography.aspx?AuthorId=372


Daniel Yergin
Chairman, Cambridge Energy Research Associates

Daniel Yergin is Chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), a Pulitzer Prize winner — and a highly respected authority on energy policy and international politics and economics. He is also Executive Vice President of IHS, the parent company of CERA.

He is also a recipient of the United States Energy Award for “lifelong achievements in energy and the promotion of international understanding.”

His most recent book, The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy has been translated into 13 languages — and made into a six-hour PBS/BBC documentary.

Dr. Yergin received the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction for his work The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power. The book became a national bestseller and was made into an eight-hour PBS/BBC series seen by 20 million people in the United States. It has been translated into 12 languages.

Dr. Yergin is also Global Energy Analyst for NBC and CNBC. He is a member of the board of the United States Energy Association and of the U.S.-Russian Business Council.

He is a member of the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board and a member of the National Petroleum Council, as well as of the Committee of Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. He is a Trustee of the Brookings Institution.

Dr. Yergin received his BA from Yale University and his Ph.D. from Cambridge University, where he was a Marshall Scholar. He holds honorary degrees from the University of Houston and the University of Missouri.
Yeah, both you and Casa are right. It definitely sounds like this guy is full of shit :rolleyes:



Originally posted by b_t
Iraq accounted for 3.5% of USA's 2007 oil imports and even if production continues to drop, as the oil sands ramp up Canada will be able to pick up the slack, easily. Canada's and the US's remaining reserves are much more expensive to extract than Iraq's of course but current oil prices make that a non-issue.
As I mentioned in a previous post, the key issue is timing. Back when the decision was made to attack Iraq, if Iraq had decided not to sell any of their oil to the U.S., which country would have the capacity to immediately make up this slack? Do you realize how long it takes to develop and increase production from Alberta's oil sands? The decision to attack Iraq was made in 2003. The average price of oil back then was around $30/bbl (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_a.htm). At that price, many of the projects currently under development today were uneconomical.



Originally posted by b_t
You aren't providing any concrete evidence that the USA was motivated to invade Iraq because of oil.
Yes, you must be right yet again since GWB did not come out and explicitly say that one of the reasons for invading Iraq is because of oil. :rolleyes: Do you think that the international community would have responded favourably and would have let the U.S. go ahead without any opposition if oil was mentioned as a motivating factor?

Would you like to stop now or continue to make an ass out of yourself?

[b_t]

Would Iraq ever stop exporting 175,000,000 barrels of oil per year, just because they don't like the States? No they will not. Saddam threatened to, but he never did.

Another guy made empty threats - Chavez, who also is militantly anti-US, has threatened to shut off exports to the US...... but he hasn't, because he can't afford to. According to one number I found, 46% of his exports go the US. If you cut off their oil, that number will drop to zero and the country would more or less collapse. The same would have happened to Iraq, although Saddam probably wouldn't have cared quite as much. But, had he cut off exports, the war instantly would have been justifiable and there would have been much more widespread support for it because everyone would have panicked.

The US also maintains a strategic oil reserve that would have easily made up the 3-4% of oil imports they would be losing. Since it wouldn't be a complete cutoff of all imports, it would have lasted for some time. Other OPEC countries might have increased production to cultivate goodwill with the US and gain some political currency. The primary concern would have been the economic effect of a sudden drop in supply, but it played out more or less the same way once the war started anyway and that could not have been a surprise.

You should read another book maybe?

So many problems with the invasion-for-oil argument... they installed a democratic government. The people can vote in anyone they want. They resent US control. They will more than likely vote in an anti-US candidate in the next election, and the US will lose even more respect in the Middle East.

They made a decision based on faulty intelligence to remove someone they thought was genuinely very dangerous. They toppled a government, and were obligated to replace it, so why not put in a democracy and attempt to give that Western form of government some traction in a traditionally authoritarian part of the world? Then the country fell victim to insurgents. It would have been cruel to leave Iraq to its fate and have them fall under the sway of a dictatorship again.. which would have been similar to the fate Afghanistan suffered after the Soviets withdrew. Et cetera.

We talking international politics here. You are thinking in incredibly small, narrow terms.. conspiracy theories. You are ignoring the highly dynamic interplay between all the countries in the world. You are just repeating things you have heard somewhere else. You will never (can never!) be proven right, but won't admit you are wrong.

[bwling]

Haha...you still don't get it. IMO, I am not the one with a narrow view here. Please forgive me if I choose not to take the words of the Bush administration as the absolute truth - I'm sure politicians never lie. Since the U.S. never officially listed oil as a factor in their decision to attack Iraq, it cannot be a reason? :dunno: :rolleyes:

Here is the viewpoint of another one of these "pothead philosophers and conspiracy theorists" as reported in the Washington Post.

Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html)

[creeper]

Truly offensive. Bush is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents, and trillions upon trillions of dollars of debt.

Bush will never be looked upon favorably in any history books, but rather as the very worst scar in modern American history.

[Supa Dexta]

If you can't draw a line between the 2 oil men running the USA and iraq, then theres no use arguing. Even the americans have come to accept that iraq was for oil. KBR, Halliburton were right in there, hrmmmm Whats old dicky boy's connection to Halliburton again?

[b_t]

Originally posted by bwling
Haha...you still don't get it. IMO, I am not the one with a narrow view here. Please forgive me if I choose not to take the words of the Bush administration as the absolute truth - I'm sure politicians never lie. Since the U.S. never officially listed oil as a factor in their decision to attack Iraq, it cannot be a reason? :dunno: :rolleyes:

Here is the viewpoint of another one of these "pothead philosophers and conspiracy theorists" as reported in the Washington Post.

Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html)

Nothing concrete, again. The closest you get is the report saying that preventing disruption to world oil supplies is just one "of many" objectives.

Greenspan never heard Bush OR Cheney say "we need to protect world oil supplies," and he determines that securing oil supplies "was not the administration's motive." Greenspan says he suggested that removing Hussein was important for the world economy - that's it!

Why would you even post that? It just makes you look worse :rofl: Did you read the whole article or just the title?

[b_t]

Originally posted by creeper
Truly offensive. Bush is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents, and trillions upon trillions of dollars of debt.

Bush will never be looked upon favorably in any history books, but rather as the very worst scar in modern American history.

Do you think anyone will care about Iraqis after this? How many people do you think died in Vietnam, and how often do you hear about them?


Originally posted by Supa Dexta
If you can't draw a line between the 2 oil men running the USA and iraq, then theres no use arguing. Even the americans have come to accept that iraq was for oil. KBR, Halliburton were right in there, hrmmmm Whats old dicky boy's connection to Halliburton again?

Been through that on the previous page :facepalm: Cheney only received money from deferred compensation. What about these stocks he has? Well, going by what information is available because he is a public servant...

"STOCK OPTIONS: The Vice President has signed an agreement to donate any profits from his stock options to charity, and has pledged not to take any tax deduction for the donations. Should Halliburton's stock price increase over the next few years, the Vice President could exercise his stock options for a substantial profit, benefiting not only his designated charities, but also providing Halliburton with a substantial tax deduction."

That's as close as you get to the Halliburton conspiracy too. The company itself apparently doesn't want the Iraq contract anymore because it is a war zone and the work is not very profitable. The no-bid contract was ridiculous, but they won the original 'emergency services' contract in an open bid process while competing with five other companies. People make it sound like they knew the war was incoming because of Cheney, but maybe it was just a hedge of the sort big companies make all the time? :dunno:

[bwling]

Originally posted by b_t
Did you read the whole article or just the title?

Did you read it? As with your other arguments on here, you seem to pick and choose what you see. Three quotes right from the article:


"Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil." No, they can't because the international community would not have tolerated this and the U.S. would have run into even more opposition.


"a top-secret National Security Presidential Directive, titled "Iraq: Goals, Objectives and Strategy" and signed by Bush in August 2002 -- seven months before the invasion -- listed as one of many objectives "to minimize disruption in international oil markets." Yes, one of many, but it still was an objective.


"If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands," Greenspan said, "our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first. My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day" passing through." No, these words were never publicly/officially recorded as coming from Bush/Cheney's mouth, but one is naive to believe that it wasn't discussed privately.

We can continue to debate this further, but it's clear that your understanding of the "highly dynamic interplay between all the countries in the world" fails to acknowledge the role oil has played and will continue to play in international relations.

[b_t]

You might notice I did mention one of those, but you won't abandon your Fox News-from-the-left viewpoint no matter what, it seems, so fuck it.

The first quote - a nameless "lower level official" who, believe it or not, probably was just voicing his opinion too and for all we know was a secretary gabbing at the lunch table.

The second quote (the one I mentioned!!) says it is one objective, but it is not THE objective as you argue. There you go. Case closed - in my favor.

The third quote - Greenspan's opinion only.

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by b_t

I'll take a scholarly publication written by guy with a PhD over a book dumb enough to be a #1 best seller :dunno:


Of course you would, because you lack the tools to make any meaningful critical evaluation of the respective sources. All other things being equal, I'd be more interested in the book than a handful of articles, as it would be more comprehensive, and have more room to make and substantiate it's case. Academic titles or numbers of pages alone do not prove a sources worth.

Additionally, the fact that your journals are "peer reviewed" carries very little weight in soft and social sciences, due to their subjective nature. Your feeble appeal to authority only underscores your inability to substantiate your case.


Originally posted by b_t

Quit wasting my time and make your point directly, if you have one.

The burden is not on me to make my point, but on you to substantiate yours: "They already had an oil supply. This is another conspiracy theory predicated by some idiot who doesn't understand how the whole situation works. "

Clearly you believe that the Americans had sufficient oil of their own, and that the rest of us "don't understand how the whole situation works".

Given your clearly strong understanding of the situation, I'm waiting for you to enlighten all of us little people "how the whole situation works".


Originally posted by b_t

Iraq's recoverable research - 115b barrels
USA - 20b



According to your figures, the US has almost 6 times less oil than the US, and you feel this constitutes "sufficient oil of their own"?? I must REALLY "Not understand how the whole situation works".

[ Figures redacted to reflect conventional resources - Unconventional resources are not relevant in comparison to much higher-value Iraq conventional. ]



Originally posted by b_t

Iraq accounted for 3.5% of USA's 2007 oil imports and even if production continues to drop, as the oil sands ramp up Canada will be able to pick up the slack, easily. Canada's and the US's remaining reserves are much more expensive to extract than Iraq's of course but current oil prices make that a non-issue. A big oil reserve that costs trillions is no good if the region it is based in is extremely unstable and remains under OPEC control (which Iraq's, conveniently, does). The US has some power in there now, but not nearly enough to justify their cost outlay.


Well, at least you're talking real issues now. I'm not convinced that the US has failed in it's objectives, although they have clearly paid a higher cost than anticipated. In any case, lack of success does not prove lack of intent.


Originally posted by b_t

You aren't providing any concrete evidence that the USA was motivated to invade Iraq because of oil. You are putting together something nicely tenuous though - would make a great topic for a two hour long YouTube movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kHhc67GopM) for pothead philosophers and conspiracy theorists. Oh wait, that's where this idea came from in the first place.
[/B][/QUOTE]

You are confusing me with someone else.