George Bush is a war criminal

[zapper]

I think before you run your mouth and wind up sticking a foot in it, you should look at the available evidence as I have pointed out. Once you've done that, then come back here and make your argument. Otherwise, you're just talking out of yerass.

As I've said elsewhere, you can call me a "conspiracy" theorist, as long as you call yourself a "coincidence" theorist.

I can guarantee you that were it not for a Repub majority in the U.S. Congress and Supreme Court, GWB/Phallus Cheney would be facing treason charges, among many other felonies and international war crimes.

So your evidence is your "personal guarantee"...tell me, how can you do that? Do show some evidence of your "guarantee policy"...or are you doing some of that sassafras talkin you refer to in your post???

 

[Wurm]

You call me whatever the hell you want to. You're a walking talking freakshow.
So when did the taliban start?

Let's be accurate: I didn't call you anything. I said until/unless you've seen the evidence, (which BTW has been gathered by persons other than those connected to the corporate bought-and-paid-for shill media) then you are doing nothing but parroting the neo-con propaganda that has been spoon-fed to you and other sheep since Day 1. Also Known As: talking out of your ass.

I also didn't say "when the Taliban started". But by the factual accounts and documents I've seen, it was sometime not long after the Soviets bailed on A'stan, and again was merely another product of the CIA to gain some control over that country. When Taliban wouldn't acquiesce to the demands on the pipeline, they were given an ultimatum.

Much easier for all concerned for you to check the evidence that has been complied in one place, in one readable format that I have suggested, rather than for me to sit here and type out all of the details in their complexity.

 

[Wurm]

So your evidence is your "personal guarantee"...tell me, how can you do that? Do show some evidence of your "guarantee policy"...or are you doing some of that sassafras talkin you refer to in your post???

If you want to discuss things rationally, that's fine. But if you want to make stupid inferences, sorry, I won't play.

 

[zapper]

If you want to discuss things rationally, that's fine. But if you want to make stupid inferences, sorry, I won't play.

I see...and this is rational what you posted here...?

Originally Posted by Wurm
I think before you run your mouth and wind up sticking a foot in it, you should look at the available evidence as I have pointed out. Once you've done that, then come back here and make your argument. Otherwise, you're just talking out of yerass.

Anyway, I'm askin a rational question...how can you guarantee something that hasn't been proven and is just a theory on your part? Rationally, how can you "guarantee" what would happen if circumstances were different etc... Please elaborate.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Let's be accurate: I didn't call you anything. I said until/unless you've seen the evidence, (which BTW has been gathered by persons other than those connected to the corporate bought-and-paid-for shill media) then you are doing nothing but parroting the neo-con propaganda that has been spoon-fed to you and other sheep since Day 1. Also Known As: talking out of your ass.

I also didn't say "when the Taliban started". But by the factual accounts and documents I've seen, it was sometime not long after the Soviets bailed on A'stan, and again was merely another product of the CIA to gain some control over that country. When Taliban wouldn't acquiesce to the demands on the pipeline, they were given an ultimatum.

Much easier for all concerned for you to check the evidence that has been complied in one place, in one readable format that I have suggested, rather than for me to sit here and type out all of the details in their complexity.

When did they get the ultimatum?

 

[jhuskey]

Carrera -


You, and perhaps Simpson, need to understand the consequences of the coming catastrophe that is known in industry circles as "Peak Oil"; the best predictions have said that this will occur sometime between now and and about 2010. Some say it has already begun. It will be one of the greatest emergencies of human history, and will change forever humanity's way of life as we now know it.


You should do some research on newly capped wells in Michigan and other areas and also shale oil in the west. Although shale oil is expensive to obtain the reserves are massive and untapped.
Oil will be available at some cost.
I don't wish to debate the cost or the politics involved.

 

[Wurm]

Anyway, I'm askin a rational question...how can you guarantee something that hasn't been proven and is just a theory on your part? Rationally, how can you "guarantee" what would happen if circumstances were different etc... Please elaborate.

Well, no more than anyone can "rationally" guarantee that the sun will come up tomorrow, but we pretty much know it will, right? It can be assumed with a fair degree of certainty that had the Congress and/or SC been Dem:

1. the so-called "Patriot" Act as it is composed presently would never have been allowed. It definitely would have been overhauled and made not to conflict with the Constitution - many in Congress are on record supporting that;
2. nor would the extreme and unprecedented secrecy of the Executive Branch been allowed (ie: Cheney's energy task force meeting, among other cases);
3. nor would there have been the whitewash called the 9/11 Commission as it turned out;
4. any violations of the Geneva Conventions (Abu Garaib, Gitmo, other torture cases) would have been dealt with under the law, as it has not been thus far;
5. ad infinitum.

 

[Wurm]

When did they get the ultimatum?

Here is just one place that has your answer: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html

 

[Wurm]

You should do some research on newly capped wells in Michigan and other areas and also shale oil in the west. Although shale oil is expensive to obtain the reserves are massive and untapped.
Oil will be available at some cost.
I don't wish to debate the cost or the politics involved.

I've seen plenty of articles on the other potential areas/methods of where new supplies could be had. The tar sands of Canada that China is now trying to get the rights to, along with what you've mentioned. None of it will be nearly enough in quantity or economically feasible to offset Peak Oil.

Next?

 

[zapper]

Here is just one place that has your answer: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html

hmmm a information from a website made specifically named "whatreallyhappened.com"??? to display this info Paleaase....Wuz the matter firedickcheney.com wasn't accessible to you?,

 

[Wurm]

hmmm a information from a website made specifically named "whatreallyhappened.com"??? to display this info Paleaase....Wuz the matter firedickcheney.com wasn't accessible to you?,

Excuse me? http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html pops up fine on my PC. So quit your lying.

Check here also: http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CK20Ag01.html Here's an excerpt from that article:

"... Central Asia/Russia

US policy on Taliban influenced by oil - authors
By Julio Godoy

PARIS - Under the influence of United States oil companies, the government of President George W Bush initially blocked intelligence agencies' investigations on terrorism while it bargained with the Taliban on the delivery of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid, two French intelligence analysts claim.

In the book Bin Laden, la verite interdite (Bin Laden, the forbidden truth), that was released recently, the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction.

The authors claim that O'Neill told them that "the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it". The two claim that the US government's main objective in Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia.

They affirm that until August, the US government saw the Taliban regime "as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia" from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. Until now, says the book, "the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that."

But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, "this rationale of energy security changed into a military one", the authors claim.

"At one moment during the negotiations, the US representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs,'" Brisard said in an interview in Paris.

According to the book, the Bush administratino began to negotiate with the Taliban immediately after coming into power in February. US and Taliban diplomatic representatives met several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad.

To polish their image in the United States, the Taliban even employed a US expert on public relations, Laila Helms. The authors claim that Helms is also an expert in the works of US intelligence organizations, for her uncle, Richard Helms, is a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

The last meeting between US and Taliban representatives took place in August, five weeks before the attacks on New York and Washington, the analysts maintain. On that occasion, Christina Rocca, in charge of Central Asian affairs for the US government, met the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan in Islamabad...."

 

[jhuskey]

I've seen plenty of articles on the other potential areas/methods of where new supplies could be had. The tar sands of Canada that China is now trying to get the rights to, along with what you've mentioned. None of it will be nearly enough in quantity or economically feasible to offset Peak Oil.

Next?

Well that's your therory, but I disagree shale oil supplies could make Middle East oil look like a trickle. Now the world food supply that is another matter.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Here is just one place that has your answer: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html

Lets see. You said Al-Qaeda was created by the CIA when the Taliban wouldn't allow a pipeline across Afghanistan. Bin Laden formed Al-Qaeda in the mid 1980's. The Taliban didn't take power till 1996. The CIA had formed Al-Qaeda in the 80's to combat a yet to happen occurence of the Taliban taking power in 1996 and refusing to allow a pipeline? I think there is a little problem with your timeline.
Next?

 

[zapper]

Excuse me? http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html pops up fine on my PC. So quit your lying.

Uh...wurm is it? Well, take another read then come back...You got your wires crossed with all that foaming and banging you're doin there....

 

[Wurm]

Sorry guys, but just like your Fearless Leader, Herr Busch, you refuse to deal with the clear facts that are slapping you in the head. Might that be because you now feel embarrassed that you were so duped by these career criminals into voting for them?

In fact, your ilk doesn't dare to admit to any of their wrongdoing, lest the entire house of cards caves in.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Sorry guys, but just like your Fearless Leader, Herr Busch, you refuse to deal with the clear facts that are slapping you in the head. Might that be because you now feel embarrassed that you were so duped by these career criminals into voting for them?

In fact, your ilk doesn't dare to admit to any of their wrongdoing, lest the entire house of cards caves in.

Thanks. Now we know exactly where you're coming from. How's that timeline coming? Any good theorist should be able to explain a discrepancy.

 

[Carrera]

I'm not really persuaded that Bush and co sat down at a table, plotting how they could capture Iraqi oil reserves, just like that. It was probably the case that Bush was approached by scores of pressure groups, Jewish groups, capitalist groups, exiled Iraqi groups and even right wing fundamentalist groups e.t.c. e.t.c. And yes, oil cartels urged Bush that the way to go was to depose Saddam. Add that to Junior's grudge over the attempted murder of Bush Senior plus 9/11 and you have a recipe for war.
I concede oil has been a big factor and certain groups within the U.S.A. do act under such motivation but Bush, in the end, took his decision, right or wrong, according as he was pushed by all the pressure groups. He was getting advice from moderates like Powell at the same time as the hardliners were pushing for invasion.
Had John Kerry been in office similar pressure groups would have been at work too but I believe Kerry wouldn't have rushed to war without allies and solid support elsewhere.

Carrera -

You (and Simpson) may consider it "silly" to think GWB's major motivation for invading Iraq was oil, but that's the unvarnished truth. There may have been ancilliary motivations that 'went along for the ride', but they are ALL subordinate to one thing: O-I-L.

If you believe differently, let me try to disabuse you of your naivete':

You, and perhaps Simpson, need to understand the consequences of the coming catastrophe that is known in industry circles as "Peak Oil"; the best predictions have said that this will occur sometime between now and and about 2010. Some say it has already begun. It will be one of the greatest emergencies of human history, and will change forever humanity's way of life as we now know it.

This is not some fallacious, doomsday, whacko pipe dream - it is simple fact based on known oil reserves and world consumption, and the fact that everything in the industrialized world is based on the exploitation and use of fossil fuels. Since oil and natural gas are not renewable commodities, once the'ye gone - that's it - there won't be any more. There are also no current or future technologies known that will compensate anywhere near the levels of what is needed to replace oil/NG energy use. Moreover, the world's oil industry is not finding new reserves to replace the fields that are already at peak, or in decline. One frightening example is Saudi Arabia's biggest field, Ghawar. It has reached it's peak output, and will now only continue to decline in output until it goes dry. It has been said that if Ghawar has peaked, the world has peaked.

Do you remember a year or so ago, when the Saudi's promised to increase production? Well, their total production never increased, because it cannot. The recent meeting between GWB and the Saudi prince in Crawford netted another promise from the Saudi's to increase production. But no matter what lip service they spew for public consumption, the fact remains that they cannot increase their oil production - because the oil that they once had just isn't in the ground.

So guess what? Don't live by the notion that solar, wind, biofuels, hydrogen, nuclear, etc. is going to bail the world out of this one, because even those technologies can't be produced and operated without oil. Also, tech's like hydrogen are net energy loser's, because it takes more energy to get energy from it than what it produces. Uranium and plutonium are also publicly unpopular, potentially highly dangerous, has disposal problems, and is also a finite commodity.

Cheney has been well aware of this since at least 1999, when he gave a speech on it to a consortium in London. Since then, the speech has been removed from the website where it was posted, but fortunately other's had already made copies.

As I've pointed out to other's here, some of you need to do further study into this if you are truly to understand 21st century geopolitics as they are now unfolding. Yes, it is fairly complicated, but very unlike the reasons/motivations you state for the neo-con's invasion of Iraq.



As an aside: if you think that even in the case of Afghanistan the Bush regime was so nobly looking to rout OBL and Al Qaeda after they got the blame for 9/11, you're mistaken there also. Much generally unknown information exists on this topic as well, for example:

~ Al Qaeda was basically set up by the CIA years ago, when the Taliban wouldn't allow the construction of the proposed Unocal pipeline through A'stan, (BTW - Hamid Kharzi is a former Socal/Unocal hump, "coincidentally" appointed to the A'stan presidency by the Bush regime). In reference to that pipeline, the Taliban was told by the U.S. a couple of years before 9/11 that: "You can have a carpet of gold, or a carpet of bombs." If you now look at a map of the major U.S. military bases in A'stan, and overlay it with a map of the pipeline route, you'll see that those bases follow the pipeline all along its route through the country to P'stan. Coincidence?

~ GWB's ties to the House of Saud and the Bin Laden's is a matter of documented certainty. OBL will not be "caught" by the Bush regime, because they need him as a villain so they can "fight terra", just as much as he needs them to foment hatred of the U.S. in the Muslim world.

~ The U.S. gov't has never proven, or even produced a credible case yet, that Al Qaeda or Bin laden were the actual culprits behind 9/11. They've only said, "It's Al Qaeda! It's OBL!", but with no evidence to back it up. Please don't cite the bogus Congressional 9/11 Commission Report, because I can prove that it is also not worth the paper it was printed on.

~ The 9/11 hijackers were given flight instruction at U.S. flight schools, known and condoned by U.S. intelligence agencies, in Jeb Bush's state of Florida.

Don't believe it? Poke around on this website, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/ and pick up Ruppert's book, "Crossing The Rubicon". He is one of the very few that has done credible, exhaustive, documented research and analysis on the truth behind the geopolitics of the Bush regime and how they're tied to 9/11, A'stan/Iraq, the oil business, and other relevant matters.

For a fairly quick synopsis of the "intelligence failures", etc.: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5920.htm

 

[davidmc]

The idea I'm putting across is that when Saddam initially invaded Kuwait he was indeed a threat to the region. The U.S. could have entered Baghdad, together with the allies with the full endorsement of international law, and even the Moslem world wouldn't have been so stirred up. You either take action against a country when the chips are really down or otherwise you adhere to international norms.
Now, what happened after the first Gulf War was that sanctions were imposed on Iraq and this led to the suffering of Iraqi civilians over many years. Children suffered from malnutrition and the most basic medication was denied hospitals - which disgusted some of the weapons inspectors at the time (and outraged Arabs). Possibly thousand of Iraqis suffered from sanctions.
My belief is that 9/11 was certainly connected to the situation of sanctions in Iraq. I agree with Limerickman that there were other factors but I'm not sure whether you can simply dismiss Iraq/9/11 on the grounds Saddam and Bin Laden hated one another. Iraqis are still Arabs and Bin Laden would have seen the Iraqis as victims of Saddam, as a U.S. imposed dictator, and also victims of the sanctions imposed on the country as a whole.
One of the first demands made by Al Quaida post 9/11 was to pull bases away from Iraq (and out of Arab lands as a whole).
So, this is what I'm stating: I believe that had the U.S. either attacked Baghdad at the end of the first Gulf War or, alternatively, not imposed such prolonged sanctions, 9/11 probably wouldn't have happened.
Maybe Lim misunderstood me on a few points, though. I'm not saying Iraq played any part in 9/11. I'm saying that ongoing sanctions in Iraq angered Bin Laden and co and motivated the declaration of war on the West. Not only Iraq but Chechnya and Palestine as well.
I think that after 9/11 the Bush Administration fully understood that the combination of Iraq and the Palestinian people caused extremist Islamic groups to hate America and declare war. Note that Bin Laden stated his gripe had been that the plight of many Moslems involved suffering, poverty and death, while westerners were well fed and lived in luxury.
So, I figure Bush had 2 options after 9/11:
(1) Pull out of Iraq and lift sanctions, period, but then risk a situation whereby Huseein could attack the Kurds or try to regain WMD.
(2) Overthrow Saddam, impose a more friendly leadership within the country and then retreat. Also there was this idea of making Iraq into a democracy so that democracy would spread to Iran as a knock-on effect.
The situation after 9/11 was complicated to solve but personally I think attacking Baghdad was the wrong path to take and it had all been left too late. But the problem the U.S. had was how to lift sanctions while simulataneously not allowing Saddam to rearm himself.
I think it would be kind of silly to assume the only reason the U.S. moved into Iraq was simply to exploit the oil. I figure this only happened as a consequence of greed after the invasion and that only some individuals were motivated by pure oil. So, I agree with John Simpson who has been visiting Iraq for years and even interviewed Bin Laden at one point. Simpson believes there were many reasons behind the Bush invasion.
Please don't quote me as saying I supported the war as I didn't. I'm just pointing out the entire situation is fairly complex.

Very well put ,taking ALL variables into account.

 

[davidmc]

I'm not really persuaded that Bush and co sat down at a table, plotting how they could capture Iraqi oil reserves, just like that. It was probably the case that Bush was approached by scores of pressure groups, Jewish groups, capitalist groups, exiled Iraqi groups and even right wing fundamentalist groups e.t.c. e.t.c. And yes, oil cartels urged Bush that the way to go was to depose Saddam. Add that to Junior's grudge over the attempted murder of Bush Senior plus 9/11 and you have a recipe for war.
I concede oil has been a big factor and certain groups within the U.S.A. do act under such motivation but Bush, in the end, took his decision, right or wrong, according as he was pushed by all the pressure groups. He was getting advice from moderates like Powell at the same time as the hardliners were pushing for invasion.
Had John Kerry been in office similar pressure groups would have been at work too but I believe Kerry wouldn't have rushed to war without allies and solid support elsewhere.

No, I believe that Bush hence American capitalism wanted free access to petroleum from a land that used to be administered by Britain & it seemed that Iraq had gone to sh*t so Bush decided to see if he could set things right on three accounts 1) Dethrone SH & thus free the people & untie our military from incessant overflights being payed for by me (taxpayer) & create a stable democracy/republic in a traditionally repressive region 2) make petroleum assets from that country available to the world to buy 3) remove a dictator who officially sanctioned suicide bombers in israel (linch-pin to the entire region). There are a few more reasons but these are the ones of primary importance.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Very well put ,taking ALL variables into account.

Carrera has it all wrong. 9/11 happened so we could put a pipeline across Afghanistan. The way I understand it is that the Taliban told Bush no pipeline. So then the CIA created Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda then attacked the World Trade Center. This gave Bush the excuse he needed to invade Afghanistan. The gospel according to Wurm.