President Bush - about bush

clark · 2002-12-10 15:50:39

That is all nations though.

There can be numerous reasons why a country with WMD's might see it in their interests to provide assistance to certain terroisists- the US has a loooong history of doing exactly that when our interests meshed with theirs.

The Sandinistas.
Afghanistan Mujahdeen.
Osama Bin Laden.
Columbia.
Noreaga.
And too many more to go into.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-10 15:50:57

Um, former President Clinton said it best, that Saddam isn't insane, he's not crazy enough to put all of his people in danger. He just spouts bluffs as long as it's viable. He didn't want inspectors in, what happened? They came back in. A few days after they came back in, the VP was criticizing them. A day later, Saddam said that all Iraqi's ought to support the investigators.

This is hardly indicitive of someone who really wants to get themselves in deep shit. Saddam's first attack on Kuwait was initally supported by the fucking US, for those of you who forget history or simply don't know it. Saddam is, for all intents and purposes, harmless.

The real question, however, is whether or not attacking Saddam is going to incite more terrorism by other people. Real terrorists who use attacks (justified or not) on the Muslim / Arabic world to build terrorist cells and spread anti-American propaganda. Remember, a lot of the world fucking hates the US. This is a hard fact most people can't realize. The only solution is diplomacy.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-10 15:53:55

iran, iraq, pakistan, china, north korea, should i keep going?

IRAN is, I hope, our next move to erradicate terrorist strongholds. They have been proved to have hosted al Qaida camps in the past, and probably now.

IRAQ is the topic of this discussion. Your point is not valid.

PAKISTAN is a good friend in the middle east right now. Musharif likes us.

CHINA doesn't have a madman leader that would sell nuclear weapons to terrorists (oh, and Chinese secret operatives. Sounds like a bad dream about a James Bond movie based in Chinatown.)

NORTH KOREA is another nation I have advocated striking to destroy its nuclear capability. Right now, however, it is in close proximity to China, and we think it already has a weapon. That would pose a threat to our trading partners in South Korea and Japan, and our troops in the DMZ.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-10 15:55:17

the US has a loooong history of doing exactly that when our interests meshed with theirs.

Actually, I disagree. American plutocrats (or ideologues) have [provided assistance to certain terrorists] when their interests meshed with those of the terrorists, not the whole of the US.

The totality of US interests never mesh appropriately (or positively) with terrorists. Don't ever, ever, forget that.

clark · 2002-12-10 15:56:17

Cal, you would have us wage war on the world?

Josh- point taken, and I agree.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-10 15:57:33

Oh! And for those of you who like to bend your history to support your views, remember that the US launched a counterstrike to protect Iraq from advancing into Saudi Arabia (something the Muslims in Mecca would like Americans to forget.)

supported by the fucking US

fucking hates the US

Let's keep our potty-mouths to ourselves and keep this reasonable to look at.

clark · 2002-12-10 16:04:05

Cal,

I remember when we did Gulf War I, do you? Josh, I am certain, was living during it too. There were a number of reasons, based on self interest, to protect Saudi Arabia.

Do not portray it as a selfless act.

soph · 2002-12-10 16:04:24

PAKISTAN is a good friend in the middle east right now. Musharif likes us.
CHINA doesn't have a madman leader that would sell nuclear weapons to terrorists (oh, and Chinese secret operatives. Sounds like a bad dream about a James Bond movie based in Chinatown.)

Oh sure, Musharif might like us, but his people hate us, and thats all that counts. Are you telling me that the communist hard-liners in China wouldnt be happy to slip a nuke into the hands of anti-us terrorists. obviously, it wouldnt be in chinas best interest-theyd lose their best source of money, but not everybody cares about money

then you have india and pakistan ready to blow up the entire middle east to kill each other. and who knows what slipped out of the post-soviet cracks and into places like chechnya or uzbekistan?

you cant launch a war against the least threatening non-european (at least, non-western) european country, and ignore the rest. the best idea is to establish a universal agreement on nuclear weapons regulation, one that most nations of the world would find reasonable. then nobody could blame "US" bias.

and its not true that we supported saddam's war with kuwait. we warned him not to invade kuwait. we supported his war with iran, however.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-10 16:21:55

obviously, it wouldnt be in chinas best interest-theyd lose their best source of money, but not everybody cares about money

What's their best source of money? I would imagine that a nation with their per capita income sitting at the western world's ankle level would do a lot of things for cash.

and its not true that we supported saddam's war with kuwait. we warned him not to invade kuwait. we supported his war with iran, however.

See, I was pretty sure that the US didn't support the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

Oh sure, Musharif might like us, but his people hate us, and thats all that counts.

Sure, the people could be terrorists, but then they let persecute the people who kill (ie Daniel Pearle).

soph · 2002-12-10 16:24:28

i dont think you understand. it means nothing if one or two people get caught. the pakistani government can't, and won't get every terrorist.

and we are china's best source of income, thats what i was getting at. and i wouldnt write china's economic power off just yet--the totalitarian system of government allows them to direct money far more efficiently than us, and their government has been city and tech building for quite some time.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-10 17:36:36

Oops, I made an error, as soph pointed out, I meant that the US supported Saddam's invasion into Iran (I always confuse the two for some reason), giving him arms to later advance into Kuwait. But there's still plenty of evidence to suggest that the US (CIA) actually did support (during the actual invasion- and not with weapons beforehand; that's indisputable) Saddam's invasion into Kuwait, since it led to Kuwait expanding its borders into Iraq, securing more fields, doubling Kuwait's pre-war oil output (of course, benefiting American oil barons- Standard Oil- the most).

Most of this stuff we won't know about until 50 years from now until it's declassified, but since we know previous CIA behavior, it's not like it's a stretch to make these assumptions.

Also, Russia declassified pictures only a few months ago about this supposed ?Saudi Arabia invasion? and pretty much concluded that no such thing even occured, or was even about to occur. The US has failed to refute these claims (probably because it's true), so I'm willing to bet that Saudi Arabia was never in any danger of being invaded.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-12-10 20:00:16

Could I just interrupt this discussion briefly to ask a couple of questions?
Josh, how much territory did Kuwait annex from Iraq after the Gulf War? Was it actually theft of the land, or were they recovering areas which had been taken over illegally by Saddam in the years prior to the conflict?
I'm also interested to understand, Josh, your idea that most of the world's evils are perpetrated by an American oil cartel - most of them best buddies with, or related to, George W. Bush.
You maintain that Kuwait's oil production doubled after the war. So Kuwait puts more oil onto the market, keeping prices low. How do lower prices benefit Standard Oil ... doesn't their profitability decline with lower prices?
Are oil companies now so powerful that the government of the U.S.A. is helpless before them? Does Congress routinely rubber stamp proposals for war purely on the basis that Standard Oil might gain from it? (Even though it seems that the lower price of oil works against them, not for them? )

I might just add some thoughts of my own, too. America serves its own interests to a large extent. Few people know this as well as Australian farmers, who receive no subsidies for their produce and yet have to compete with American produce which can be dumped onto the world markets, sometimes for less than it costs our farmers to produce it! The reason being, of course, the ludicrous subsidies propping up American farmers. So much for the competition ethic in the greatest capitalist country on Earth.
But, having said that, America's economy is very large. If it goes into recession, it adversely affects economies everywhere. In a sense, any action taken by America to encourage economic growth, even if it's essentially selfish, eventually benefits most of the world. The American economic system is largely the world's economic system. That's just a fact. You can hate it if you want to ... but it's not going to go away because you disapprove of it. You have to deal with it.

I am getting a strong feeling here that both Josh and AltToWar have very definite left-wing leanings. I feel able to make that judgment, not just on what they've said here, but because when I was a teenager, I was much the same way! And there's nothing wrong with having a sincere belief that left-wing politics are good and wholesome politics - in its purest form, socialism is hard to criticise. (Although, as I've said elsewhere, all my experience says it just doesn't work ... and leads to economic stagnation and poverty for all.)

What concerns me is how inflexibly you two advance your arguments. I'm concerned that the world picture is larger and far more complex than you are giving it credit for, and that you are arguing more from political passion than from a cool evaluation of the facts.
First of all, the high standards of political morality, which form the criteria of your judgment, don't exist in reality. And they never have existed. Your ideals will never be put into practice - and past attempts to do so make me glad we've given up trying (at least for now! ). Socialism + human greed + human laziness = economic chaos.

You really should look at history to see how various political systems have fared and how military power has been used.
I'm here to tell you: YOUR OWN COUNTRY IS NOT SO BAD!!
Is it perfect? Nowhere near perfect!
Should we try to improve it? Hell yes!

But don't throw the baby out with the bath-water! America is still a very fine country in very many ways and I wonder whether you are blinded to that by too much leftist dogma(? )

Josh, even left-wingers like you, so vehemently derisive of conspiracy theories about NASA, are apparently vulnerable to gullibilty over conspiracy theories about oil cartels!
I say this, not as an insult, but to alert you to the dangers of where you're argument is leading. I assume you can see the parallels?
A group of faceless people, hiding behind the respectable facade of a government department, using government money to further an agenda of their own making in an atmosphere of secrecy. Hang on! Is this NASA or Standard Oil we're talking about?!!

P.S. Sorry to have digressed a bit there! Looking forward to
the answers to my questions.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-10 22:07:08

and we are china's best source of income, thats what i was getting at. and i wouldnt write china's economic power off just yet--the totalitarian system of government allows them to direct money far more efficiently than us, and their government has been city and tech building for quite some time.

WHAT? Are you trying to compare the greatest capitalist system to thrive on this planet (the US), to the Socialist hell-hole we call China? Totalitarian governments can direct currency more efficiently, but capitalist governments have incentives to be bigger and better.

I would like you to note that Hong Kong, a former Brittish possession, is the only "city and tech" center in the whole country. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, Boston, Denver... the list goes on... have become truly great "city and tech" centers through the American capitalist system.

Socialism + human greed + human laziness = economic chaos.

Thank you, Shawn. I have tried to think of a long way to summarize socialism for a long time now. That equation hit the nail on the head.

Oops, I made an error, as soph pointed out, I meant that the US supported Saddam's invasion into Iran

Yes, the US has been widely known to have supported Hussein during the 1980's to fight Iran.

Who could have known what would have happened? At the time, Iran looked like the greater of two evils. After all, they had the Ietolla (sp?) in power, they were a possible nuclear power, and let's not forget those American embassy hostages they took...

Also, Russia declassified pictures only a few months ago about this supposed ?Saudi Arabia invasion? and pretty much concluded that no such thing even occured, or was even about to occur. The US has failed to refute these claims (probably because it's true), so I'm willing to bet that Saudi Arabia was never in any danger of being invaded.

Who will ever really know what Saddam was prepared to do. If he was thirsty enough for oil (yes, yes, he based his invasion partly on the fact that Kuwait was overproducing oil beyond the OPEC limits at the time. However, a quick hit-and-run on the Kuwaiti oil fields would have accomplished that goal. I think (no, I know) the Iraqis were onto something bigger) who knows what he would have done to access the Saudi oil fields? And on your point, what do the Russians know? This all happened just a few months before the collapse of the Soviet Union (May 1991?), or maybe a few months before... anyway, the point is Russia was in the middle of HUGE political and economic change. I'm sure the Russian Intelligence officials were not at their peak performance at the time. :0

soph · 2002-12-10 22:37:44

caltech, read. i said that we are their main source of income. and i wouldnt write them off as an economic power. where do you see a comparison to america there?

from everyone i know whos been to china, theres a huge amount of advancement there. just because they dont do it democratically there doesnt mean it isnt happening. like clark, i believe, said, why do they have to value the same things? obviously some of their practices are repulsive to us, but they are mired in milenia of tradition. im sure many of them view us the same way.

and youre wrong. communism in its pure form is conducive to laziness and greed. socialism is a different animal. patriotism and government forcing can result in a, shall we say, reversal, of laziness. look at nazi germany. how did a 90 million people take over all of western europe, save 1 island? the soviet union, with a widely scattered and diverse population base, and huge territory, lasted 80 years, many of them in direct competition with the world's greatest economic power. china has its own ways of forcing labor.

i agree, capitalism is the best economic model. it works best, imho. however, it is a fact that all systems have benefits and drawbacks. no system is perfect, and very few systems have absolutely no merit. please look at the forest, and not the trees.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-10 22:45:56

Communism is, in its purest form, utopia. But humans aren't perfect, and communism requires selfless, unpossesive humans. We are selfless, possesive people.

In communism, how do you get specialized workers? Why should a doctor, or a lawyer, or a scientist, go to school for 4 years, so that they can have the same house, same clothes, and same pay as a plumber or a dockworker? THERE IS NO INCENTIVE TO IMPROVE YOUR PERSONAL STANDING!

from everyone i know whos been to china, theres a huge amount of advancement there. just because they dont do it democratically there doesnt mean it isnt happening

Yeah... uh.. I kind of know a guy, who knows a guy, who's mom and dad went to China... uh... for their 40th anniversary.. yeah. They went on a cruise down the coast... they said it was nice... the chinese people were very hospitable.

Have you taken time to study your current events and world politics lately instead of looking at your neighbor's slide show from vacation.

Oh, and would you be happier knowing that your hard studies resulted in your wealth (ie capitalism) or that you were "forced" into labor (ie china). I rest my case.

Anyway, how did our conversation drift so far off topic? We were talking about China's threat to the US before this, so I think we should get back to US foreign policy, if it so pleases the court.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-11 03:02:53

I don't really want to get into this discussion guys (it's really going way off subject, to be quite honest). I'm just replying to Shaun shortly.

Shaun, Iraq and Kuwait shared the Rumaila oil field. Their border effectively went through it (though I believe Iraq had land rights over most of it). As you know, Kuwait was drilling for oil, trying to ?siphon off? Iraq's store, and this caused, and justified, the invasion. Now, it's quite obvious to anyone who knows the CIA's history, that the US probably did have something to do with this on some level. Iraq and Kuwait could have easily settled this without any issues. However, the US probably wanted the Rumaila oil field all to itself. What better way than to get Iraq to invade Kuwait, then beat the shit out of Iraq, annexing the whole oil field, and effectively controlling all of it. You make more money off of something if you control all of it, not if you have to share it, so the Standard Oil argument you make doesn't quite make sense to me. The oil is going into the market either way.

I'm not suggesting that all US foreign policy is dictated by oil barons or whatever, however, I think a large part of it is; especially regarding the middle east. And I don't think this is so much a conspiracy theory, as it is common sense. If you want, I can get sources... but it's late here.

And BTW, I honest to goodness have no idea how socialism even came up here. And I'm not about to jump into another argument about it. I just think that generally speaking, the US is the most terroristic nation on the planet; this is not a criticism of capitalism, but rather unjust foreign policy coupled with idealogues who have way too much unchecked power.

Perhaps we can get in to this further, if you want, but it would take me time to get sources.

soph · 2002-12-11 05:33:36

Yeah... uh.. I kind of know a guy, who knows a guy, who's mom and dad went to China... uh... for their 40th anniversary.. yeah. They went on a cruise down the coast... they said it was nice... the chinese people were very hospitable.

i happen to refer to them as my father, uncle(s), and my aunt(s). one of which is chinese.

perhaps i should have been specific in referring to marxist communism. and like i said we're talking socialism, not communism. learn the difference, its huge.

maybe you should address what i said, and not nit-pick at the sentences that you have an answer for.

clark · 2002-12-11 12:55:02

My understanding of events was that the US supplied arms to both Iraq and Iran to ensure a stalemate. Stalemate ensued, and a truce was declared. Iraq was then saddled with a rather large war debt. Enter a pretext for invading Kuawit in order to access more resources to pay down the war debt incurred from the war with Iran in which we supplied both sides.

machavelli would be proud.

Cal, eyewitness accounts are as valid, if not more so, than reports. We've touched on how media can be biased. Not saying that it shouldn't be addressed, but allowing for as many sources is the best solution.

After all, a journalist is nothing more than a professional tourist.

I also don't think it is oil cartels per se that place the greatest emphasis on control of oil. It is big business in general.

the western economy is based on the availability of cheap energy, which is derived from cheap oil and coal.

Back in the 70's, OPEC turned off the spigot, and it brought the US to an economic halt. Without a prospering economy, we would not have fruits we enjoy now, and we would probably have more social chaos as a result- all these people need something to do- either work, or riot.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-11 15:09:51

What is socialism, but a step in the direction of communism?

All of this talk of socialism got started because we were talking about China and their threat to the US. The point is, the Chinese army couldn't keep up with the US war machine. The only threat they pose is their ICBM's (which, if we had an SDI in place wouldn't even be an issue).

And what's your point clark? Yes, we played a big role in the Iran-Iraq conflict in the 1980's. We did it to stop Iran's power, as stated before. Tell me something new.

And as for eye-witness accounts, I said that Russian intelligence would not have been at its maximum efficiency at that time, and reports would not have been entirely accurate.

soph · 2002-12-11 15:25:19

wrong. learn your facts about systems of government and economy. socialism is totalitarian. communism has no inequality whatsoever. therefore, socialism is a step away from communism.

china has nuclear weapons. if it was as simple as an SDI, after decades and billions of dollars of work, wouldnt we have one by now? please consider that other people far more experienced in their fields than either of us have spent a good deal of thought and time on nuclear defense, yet we dont have a nuclear defense yet. what does that tell you? any nation with nuclear weapons is a threat. thats where MAD comes from.

china has almost 2 billion people, theyre willing to expend millions, trust me. like i said before, on a strategic basis, we'd win. we have capabilities they dont. but i dont doubt that china would resort to nuclear weapons if they were losing. they dont share the same western value of life.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-11 15:36:45

Do you think that if the US government developed a system of SDI defense, they would just come out and tell everyone they did it? Do you think that they would declassify the SDI system, the most advanced defense system IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, to the prying eyes of the world? If we had an impenetrable shield, wouldn't announcing its presence just TEMPT some nation to try it out?

And socialism is defined as:

theory or system of social organization by which teh major means of production and distribution are owned, managed, and controlled by the government, by associations of workers, or by the community as a whole.

communism is defined as:

an economic and social system based on the ownership of land, factories, and other means of production by the community as a whole, or the state.

Maybe I am hallucinating from a tab of LSD, but Big Bird, I notice a definite similarity in the two definitions!

Face it. Socialism is the current application of communism, and a step in the communist direction.

clark · 2002-12-11 15:42:14

Right- look, they have armor, lets go hit them and find out if it's any good....

We don't have any practical SDI system. Any SDI system for protection of our nation would be known about.

Unless of course you subscribe to particle lasers being kept a secret as they orbit the earth...

Cobra Commander · 2002-12-11 15:42:23

learn your facts about systems of government and economy. socialism is totalitarian. communism has no inequality whatsoever. therefore, socialism is a step away from communism.

True communism, as oppossed to the economic system of so-called "communist" countries, is a theoretical construct. In the real world it is irrelevant because people just don't work that way. All political theories have a gap between their ideals and the reality of their implementation, communism simply has an unusually wide gap. True communism does not, has not, and can not exist.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-11 15:44:18

learn your facts about systems of government and economy. socialism is totalitarian. communism has no inequality whatsoever. therefore, socialism is a step away from communism.
True communism, as oppossed to the economic system of so-called "communist" countries, is a theoretical construct. In the real world it is irrelevant because people just don't work that way. All political theories have a gap between their ideals and the reality of their implementation, communism simply has an unusually wide gap. True communism does not, has not, and can not exist.

CalTech2010: See. I told you so. Hey Big Bird! Didn't I say the same thing just a little while ago?

Big Bird: Yeah! God bless that Cobra Commander!

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-11 15:44:59

clark, sure, Iraq had a war debt to pay off, but Kuwait was trying to drill in to their side of the oil field. Iraq wanted to make a deal with Kuwait (ie, you know that thing we call diplomacy?) but Kuwait refused (due to the fact that the US was backing them, no doubt). Saddam thought he was justified in attacking (and he arguably was- they could have easily shared the field), and probably had it in his head that he would or could actually win (not only the actual war, but also the approval of the international community).

The real question is, why in the hell didn't the UN or other nations in the region tell Kuwait and Iraq to share the oil production of the fields proportionate to the land area they had above them? I think it's obvious... the US wanted control over it all.

But not because of necessity.

I would argue that the US could prosper economically regardless of our energy sources. I see no reason why we couldn't get in to renewable energies and still function the way we have been. So these ?Oh, all the oil wars have been good for the US because people need oil!? arguments are quite silly to me.

And soph, no where in any reasonable definition of socialism do I read anything about ?totalitarianism.? Socialism is more of an economic definition whereas totalitarianism is more of a structurual definition. You could have totalitarian capitalism (I would even argue that unregulated capitalism isn't far from that).

I don't even know how China has come in to this discussion, really. China is a non-issue. China is just glad the world community is off distracted with Iraq and Bush and company, etc. China wants to be left alone so they can do what they want. In a few years the world community is going to look at China, and realize they gained first world status without anyone even noticing.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2002-12-10 15:50:39

Re: President Bush - about bush

#152 2002-12-10 15:50:57

Re: President Bush - about bush

#153 2002-12-10 15:53:55

Re: President Bush - about bush

#154 2002-12-10 15:55:17

Re: President Bush - about bush

#155 2002-12-10 15:56:17

Re: President Bush - about bush

#156 2002-12-10 15:57:33

Re: President Bush - about bush

#157 2002-12-10 16:04:05

Re: President Bush - about bush

#158 2002-12-10 16:04:24

Re: President Bush - about bush

#159 2002-12-10 16:21:55

Re: President Bush - about bush

#160 2002-12-10 16:24:28

Re: President Bush - about bush

#161 2002-12-10 17:36:36

Re: President Bush - about bush

#162 2002-12-10 20:00:16

Re: President Bush - about bush

#163 2002-12-10 22:07:08

Re: President Bush - about bush

#164 2002-12-10 22:37:44

Re: President Bush - about bush

#165 2002-12-10 22:45:56

Re: President Bush - about bush

#166 2002-12-11 03:02:53

Re: President Bush - about bush

#167 2002-12-11 05:33:36

Re: President Bush - about bush

#168 2002-12-11 12:55:02

Re: President Bush - about bush

#169 2002-12-11 15:09:51

Re: President Bush - about bush

#170 2002-12-11 15:25:19

Re: President Bush - about bush

#171 2002-12-11 15:36:45

Re: President Bush - about bush

#172 2002-12-11 15:42:14

Re: President Bush - about bush

#173 2002-12-11 15:42:23

Re: President Bush - about bush

#174 2002-12-11 15:44:18

Re: President Bush - about bush

#175 2002-12-11 15:44:59

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer