Why Did Bush Want War ??????
- Thread starter dyhawk
- Start date
To make the world safe for democracy.
Bush wanted war to control resources and keep America's dominance over the oil market. With fear of countries switching over to Euros, the American dollar would have been shattered and its value plummet. Not only does this war secure billions of dollars in oil, it also secures the future of the American dollar. These wars also open up the precedent to illegally attack soverign nations in the name of security and democracy. Using those as fronts, now there is a blue print to wage illegal, immoral wars fought for bankers and securing the fortunes of wealthy families.
Has the reason for war actually materlized ??? We've invaded Iraq but we don't control the oil. Countries are still free to switch to the Euro or Iran's Bourse. (see, The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse http://64.255.174.200/board/showthread.php?t=91176&highlight=iran.oneofmany said:
So, does your theory really stand true, still in the making, ... or what ?
QueEx
QueEx said:
I read an article in the past about American needing a "Pearl Harbor type of event" to stir them into action and get behind the wars in the Middle East. Right on cue, one year after that article was made, 9/11 rolls up (perhaps not by coincidence either). I've always felt America attacked the Middle East out of self-interest. 9/11 was probably a self-inflicted wound, giving America an excuse to go to war. From what I've heard, the opium production in Afghanistan has increased since the invasion, which makes it seem like controlling the drug game was a cause for invading them and obviously since the American dollar is dependent on oil, I've always suspected that as the motivation for invading Iraq. Oil and opium, both of which several politicans have strong ties to (the Bush family in particular). Your article is a great one, thanks for posting that. One I read in the past suggested that if America has 5 more years in a row like last's year, this country will become a 3rd world country from an economic standpoint. The economist who wrote the article suggested that America is truly is desperation mode here because they are falling apart. I'll try to find the article.
<font face="verdana" size=”4” color=”#333333”>
If at this late date [March 2006],
You are still "STUPID" as to why the bush junta has done what it has in IRAQ,
And what they hope to do in IRAN, and
The shredding of the US Constitution , and
The criminalization of dissent , and
The 24/7 <a target="_blank" href="http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html"><u>Joseph Goebbels Style Propaganda </u></a>
If you want to understand it all.
If you are still "STUPID"
<h3>Read-</h3>
Thomas P.M. Barnett's book: <font color="#0000FF"> The Pentagon's New Map- Blueprint for Action</font>
The book basically says that America should tell most of the world,<h3> FUCK YOU.</h3>
The book says America should use it's military power <h3>TO TAKE OVER</h3> the parts of the world <h2>(NON-WHITE Skinned People only)</h2> that America needs. <h3>FUCK THEM.</h3>
This is the blueprint Cheney-Rumsfeld and their spaniel, baby bush are utilizing.
Below is a review of the book which tells you what you need to know
</font>
<hr noshade color=”#0000FF” size=”14”></hr>
<img src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0399153128.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg" width="250" height="377">
<font face="arial black" size="6" color="#D90000">
Empire Made Easy</font>
<font face=" trebuchet ms, arial Unicode ms, Microsoft sans serif, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>
By Phyllis Eckhaus
November 4, 2005 </b>
Banish those nasty guilt twinges over America's ambitions to empire. Getting a jump on the holidays, Thomas P.M. Barnett is marketing a feel-good guide to conquest and capitalism, a sequel to his bestseller, The Pentagon's New Map. In Blueprint for Action, the Esquire editor and former Defense Department strategist declares that we're doing the world a favor by bombing our way to global free enterprise.
Brash and breezy, Barnett's plan for world conquest comes complete with its own video game vocabulary: The industrialized West is the Core. The Third World is the Gap. The aim of the game is to "shrink the Gap" by deploying the Leviathan, America's "high-speed, high-lethality and high-precision" warfighting capacity, "a force for global good that ... has no equal."
Through conquest, occupation and occasional diplomacy, America will cure the world's ills. This transformation will be achieved through the miracle of globalization, or "connectivity," Barnett's code for capitalism, which magically produces universal affluence, pluralism and democracy.
By contrast, Barnett believes, "disconnectedness defines danger," a mantra he repeats with the confidence of someone who confuses alliteration with meaning. He simultaneously asserts that his plan for world domination will eliminate terrorism-because ultimately, everyone will have a cell phone and laptop and live happily ever after-and acknowledges that in the short run, "regime change doesn't exactly reduce your terrorist pool."
No matter. Against all evidence to the contrary, Barnett insists that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a wonderful thing because it somehow flushed out terrorists by immiserating the masses: "In the end, it was almost impossible for the Iraq occupation to go too badly, because the worse it became, the more it transformed the region." The reality that Iraq never threatened us, that it was a secular state-and a relatively globalized one at that-pales next to the glory of Shock and Awe, the first strike in grand global conflagration: "The Big Bang in the Middle East was ... about speeding the killing to its logical conclusion," that "logical conclusion" being lasting world peace and prosperity.
Unfortunately, he's not kidding. And he's got plenty of fans across the political spectrum. Barnett's recipe for war-to-end-all-wars is a sort of stone soup, chock full of ingredients to whet liberal appetites. Good-guy Barnett hints that he opposes the Patriot Act and regrets abuses at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. He advocates for "transparency" (when he's not drooling over covert operations). He gives lip service to internationalism and urges greater use of the International Criminal Court (though not for the United States-he seems to suggest we deserve permanent exemption from prosecution because we're pure of heart). Moreover, he lays claim to a passionate desire to better the world, asserting that since 9/11, America understands that "there is a world of pain beyond the expanding global economy. I think we see one-third of humanity with noses pressed against the glass, wondering what it will take for them to come inside and enjoy the same sense of security and economic opportunity."
Keep your eyes on the prize, Barnett exhorts. By killing the few, the many will get iPods and maybe a chance to host the Olympics. American power and privilege are intrinsically beneficent. Heck, it would be "misguided in the extreme" for Americans to give up our gas guzzling because reducing our dependence on foreign oil would diminish our influence on the Middle East, to that region's great detriment.
Though he pretends otherwise, in Barnett's cosmos, democracy doesn't count for much. He cheerfully suggests that America forge a strategic alliance by giving Iran the Bomb, cites Venezuela as a "rogue state" ripe for American invasion, and anticipates hooking up with China, India and Russia, "military partners who won't run at the sight of blood, argue incessantly over the rights of 'enemy combatants,' or see their governments collapse every time the terrorists land a lucky strike back home." He carefully refrains from characterizing terrorists as implacable foes-someday we'll want to negotiate peace with them.
There's only one group that earns Barnett's enduring enmity: antiwar protestors. By obstructing American empire, they're deemed "most guilty of denying the Gap positive integration with the Core." Antiwar activists condemn the Gap to instability, Barnett claims, thus impeding economic development and imposing "death and destruction, as well as ... both disease and distressed refugees." Funny, I thought war did that. Alas, all of Barnett's Orwellian doublespeak cannot be dismissed as too stupid to do damage. After all, look who's president.
</font>
If at this late date [March 2006],
You are still "STUPID" as to why the bush junta has done what it has in IRAQ,
And what they hope to do in IRAN, and
The shredding of the US Constitution , and
The criminalization of dissent , and
The 24/7 <a target="_blank" href="http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html"><u>Joseph Goebbels Style Propaganda </u></a>
If you want to understand it all.
If you are still "STUPID"
<h3>Read-</h3>
Thomas P.M. Barnett's book: <font color="#0000FF"> The Pentagon's New Map- Blueprint for Action</font>
The book basically says that America should tell most of the world,<h3> FUCK YOU.</h3>
The book says America should use it's military power <h3>TO TAKE OVER</h3> the parts of the world <h2>(NON-WHITE Skinned People only)</h2> that America needs. <h3>FUCK THEM.</h3>
This is the blueprint Cheney-Rumsfeld and their spaniel, baby bush are utilizing.
Below is a review of the book which tells you what you need to know
</font>
<hr noshade color=”#0000FF” size=”14”></hr>
<img src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0399153128.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg" width="250" height="377">
<font face="arial black" size="6" color="#D90000">
Empire Made Easy</font>
<font face=" trebuchet ms, arial Unicode ms, Microsoft sans serif, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>
By Phyllis Eckhaus
November 4, 2005 </b>
Banish those nasty guilt twinges over America's ambitions to empire. Getting a jump on the holidays, Thomas P.M. Barnett is marketing a feel-good guide to conquest and capitalism, a sequel to his bestseller, The Pentagon's New Map. In Blueprint for Action, the Esquire editor and former Defense Department strategist declares that we're doing the world a favor by bombing our way to global free enterprise.
Brash and breezy, Barnett's plan for world conquest comes complete with its own video game vocabulary: The industrialized West is the Core. The Third World is the Gap. The aim of the game is to "shrink the Gap" by deploying the Leviathan, America's "high-speed, high-lethality and high-precision" warfighting capacity, "a force for global good that ... has no equal."
Through conquest, occupation and occasional diplomacy, America will cure the world's ills. This transformation will be achieved through the miracle of globalization, or "connectivity," Barnett's code for capitalism, which magically produces universal affluence, pluralism and democracy.
By contrast, Barnett believes, "disconnectedness defines danger," a mantra he repeats with the confidence of someone who confuses alliteration with meaning. He simultaneously asserts that his plan for world domination will eliminate terrorism-because ultimately, everyone will have a cell phone and laptop and live happily ever after-and acknowledges that in the short run, "regime change doesn't exactly reduce your terrorist pool."
No matter. Against all evidence to the contrary, Barnett insists that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a wonderful thing because it somehow flushed out terrorists by immiserating the masses: "In the end, it was almost impossible for the Iraq occupation to go too badly, because the worse it became, the more it transformed the region." The reality that Iraq never threatened us, that it was a secular state-and a relatively globalized one at that-pales next to the glory of Shock and Awe, the first strike in grand global conflagration: "The Big Bang in the Middle East was ... about speeding the killing to its logical conclusion," that "logical conclusion" being lasting world peace and prosperity.
Unfortunately, he's not kidding. And he's got plenty of fans across the political spectrum. Barnett's recipe for war-to-end-all-wars is a sort of stone soup, chock full of ingredients to whet liberal appetites. Good-guy Barnett hints that he opposes the Patriot Act and regrets abuses at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. He advocates for "transparency" (when he's not drooling over covert operations). He gives lip service to internationalism and urges greater use of the International Criminal Court (though not for the United States-he seems to suggest we deserve permanent exemption from prosecution because we're pure of heart). Moreover, he lays claim to a passionate desire to better the world, asserting that since 9/11, America understands that "there is a world of pain beyond the expanding global economy. I think we see one-third of humanity with noses pressed against the glass, wondering what it will take for them to come inside and enjoy the same sense of security and economic opportunity."
Keep your eyes on the prize, Barnett exhorts. By killing the few, the many will get iPods and maybe a chance to host the Olympics. American power and privilege are intrinsically beneficent. Heck, it would be "misguided in the extreme" for Americans to give up our gas guzzling because reducing our dependence on foreign oil would diminish our influence on the Middle East, to that region's great detriment.
Though he pretends otherwise, in Barnett's cosmos, democracy doesn't count for much. He cheerfully suggests that America forge a strategic alliance by giving Iran the Bomb, cites Venezuela as a "rogue state" ripe for American invasion, and anticipates hooking up with China, India and Russia, "military partners who won't run at the sight of blood, argue incessantly over the rights of 'enemy combatants,' or see their governments collapse every time the terrorists land a lucky strike back home." He carefully refrains from characterizing terrorists as implacable foes-someday we'll want to negotiate peace with them.
There's only one group that earns Barnett's enduring enmity: antiwar protestors. By obstructing American empire, they're deemed "most guilty of denying the Gap positive integration with the Core." Antiwar activists condemn the Gap to instability, Barnett claims, thus impeding economic development and imposing "death and destruction, as well as ... both disease and distressed refugees." Funny, I thought war did that. Alas, all of Barnett's Orwellian doublespeak cannot be dismissed as too stupid to do damage. After all, look who's president.
</font>
Trust me, there is an article out there somewhere that will support every future event -- that being so, for every event that takes place tomorrow, you can find an article that says ... I told ya so. Its going to rain tomorrow, some poor soul is going to slip up, break his ass and see the nicest pink-panty covered pussy you've ever seen. Its going to happen, but so what? Was that really a prediction ?oneofmany said:
Its not unusual at all for some one to say America needs a war. Its been long thought that the American economy benefits from war. Thats been said and written a zillion times. But such "vague" articles, without analysis relating to a particular event, i.e., an invasion of Iraq, aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Try to read critically and don't get hoodwinked by some overbroad article lacking rudimentary specifics, otherwise, you'll fall for damn near anything.
EVERY COUNTRY acts in what its leaders perceive as its best interest -- A/K/A - self-interest. You act in your self interest and so do I. I don't believe there is true altruism -- that is, even when you do something really great for someone else, you're still doing it, if for no other reason, because it satisfied your own personal desire to know that you've done something good. The middle east doesn't provide us with oil as a damn gift, it does so out of its self-interest to get paid for it. If not, then please advise King Shiek Oily Man to send me my mofo'n gas money back!
Seriously, can YOU point to any objective evidence that even tends to prove that, even tangentialy ??? Its okay to speculate, but know thats what it is, idle speculation. Most smart people don't bet the farm that the sun won't rise tomorrow or walkout in front of speediing locomotives .... speculating.
Its possible 9-11 was self inflicted, but, given what most "credible" sources have said (Charlie Sheen has no credibility on this subject because he has given us a shred of evidence), would you bet your <s>life</s> car on it ???
Bruh, if 9-11 was all about importing opium or heroin, the powerful Americans that contrived plane crashes into the WTC could have just as easily paid a few heads to turn away as boat loads of the shit was unloaded at any harbor in America. It would have been a heck of a lot easier, cleaner and profitable -- because, isn't thats what been happening anyway?
I'm not a Bush supporter, in fact, I can't wait for someone with some fucking brains take over the reins. While Bush's boys have benefitted from the war in Iraq, don't just attribute every-damn-thing to that phenomena. It just ain't true. It may be the easy thing to do and you will be sure to have mofo's giving you a the high5 in agreement -- the harder thing, however, is trying to understand or figure out what is and what isn't bullshit. Don't buy wild ass so-called truths that have no basis in fact. On the other hand, don't believe all the shit that main-stream says is fact. Try to pick them both apart and try to weed-out "mere opinion" from the facts. Lastly, keep reading -- the theory will refine itself everyday as we get closer to the truth.
QueEx
QueEx said:
Various sources had quotes of leaders hoping for a tragic event to create fear, increase patriotism/nationalism and be the vehicle for action. I trust sources when people say it themselves, hence there is no conspiracy if the people themselves said it.
The American economy itself is not benefitting overall from this rather, rather the bankers, elites, military/industrial complex and certain politicians themselves. As an economy, Americans are in some of the worst circumstances in their entire existence as a country (least amount of money saved by civilians since the great depression, job creation rate some of the slowest in decades, etc.). An economy can benefit from war if the war is carried out properly. This war, however, is not helping you and me.
Self-interest should be the second motivation behind the first and most important motivation: to serve the people. Bush is more selfish than many leaders I have seen in that regardless of what polls or public sentiment may be, he continues to use his spin, talking points and repetition to force his unchanging and uncompromising views on the public. This leads me to believe the situation is beyond satisfying occasional self-interest but rather making self-interest the head of one's reign.
Charlie Sheen is not the first person to question 9/11 nor the person who shaped my opinion. After watching various 9/11 documents (I watch all I can find) and reading scientific critiques on 9/11, that is where my conclusion comes from. Being a scientist myself in real life, I never believed the official explanations of 9/11 from the start. Having talked to friends of mine in NY during the collapse of the towers, I find inconsistencies from what people I personally know where saying and what the news sources said. At the very least, I find the official explanations intellectually dishonest and the disinformation as a means of sending people through a wild goose hunt.
Invading Afghanistan was a matter of controlling the poppy fields directly and hands-on, which is currently under way. Illegal imports are still entering this country but by actually having the fields under direct control, the smuggling process becomes more efficient because you have the complete verticle chain of control. Instead of having semi-verticle control of the business where a few links in the chains are outsiders or foreigners who take a cut in the pay and could potentially be a problem (the elimination of the middle man). While I find this to be immoral, from a pure business standpoint, that is excellent strategy.
I believe in corruption not as in the complex argument but as the simple temptation: you do something because you can. George Bush is not different than many other presidents but his stance is more aggressive, he is a worse liar than previous leaders and he tends to be stubborn and one-tracked. I bashed all the previous presidents with the same zeal that I currently Bush with.
[FRAME]http://youtube.com/watch?v=DRrNAcosF-c&search=%20bay%20area%20burnouts[/FRAME]
One Hella Many
One Hella Many
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
