George Bush is a war criminal
- Thread starter ryan_velo.
- Start date
Gracias Senor se lo agradezco (thanks, I appreciate it).
Do you also share the view we tend to "misunderestimate" Bush? After seing him during the debate with John Kerry I concluded Bush was by no means as dumb as we all assume. He's an ignoramous on foreign policy but very clued-up on general economics and statecraft.
Bush sees himself genuinely as a champion of democracy, somehow destined by God to defend western civilization, freedom and democratic values, especially in less advanced countries. Rather than writing him off as a greedy-oil-grubbing clown, we should bear in mind Bush is very motivated by religion, western, militant democracy and idealism. Any thoughts?
Do you also share the view we tend to "misunderestimate" Bush? After seing him during the debate with John Kerry I concluded Bush was by no means as dumb as we all assume. He's an ignoramous on foreign policy but very clued-up on general economics and statecraft.
Bush sees himself genuinely as a champion of democracy, somehow destined by God to defend western civilization, freedom and democratic values, especially in less advanced countries. Rather than writing him off as a greedy-oil-grubbing clown, we should bear in mind Bush is very motivated by religion, western, militant democracy and idealism. Any thoughts?
davidmc said:Very well put,taking ALL variables into account.
Colorado Ryder said:
Please bear in mind that "Al Queda" didn't actually *exist* until a guy coined the phrase under *extreme* duress (ie: under threat of his life). The Neo-Cons and their apologists will claim that this is an indication of the dedication of their followers, the experienced (and jaundiced) observer of suggestive interrogation techinque will remark that it's a natural consequence of beating the **** out of a guy for over 12 months.
darkboong said:No and Yes.
Suggest you reasses the reality of the situation in the light of the guys who eat their own ****. Specifically the neo-con admin and their position on Usable Nukes and Nuclear Energy.
No and yes? Does that mean you agree it exists but doubt that it will be tapped.
jhuskey said:
I doubt that it will make any significant contribution, Western civilisation is entirely dependant on massively underpriced oil (primarily as an energy source). Shale oil is not a suitable replacement simply because the extraction cost is too high. As for the amount of shale oil available, I really haven't seen the figures so I can't make a meaningful comparison with common or garden black stuff.
Decision makers with more accurate (and detailed-hopefully unspun) information are pushing nuclear energy and nuclear weapons very aggressively. That suggests to me that they are anticipating the imminent demise of oil as an energy source, and they are expecting to fight over what is left. US foreign policy has been dominated by oil pipelines and oil reserves over the last 30 years, but over the last ten the focus on oil has intensified significantly.
We we have 2 options available here. Either Bush simply spouts religious jargon in the way a stage trickster would do or he believes in his own theology. I'm not quite sure which is true. The Germans infuriated the White House by comparing Bush with Augustus Caesar since, I guess, Augustus was very conservative but had imperialistic ambitions.
The question is does Bush believe he's somehow God's chosen missionary, appointed to reshape the world, christianise and supposedly enlighten the Arab world and spread democracy and freedom (while accessing oil in the process)?
The question is does Bush believe he's somehow God's chosen missionary, appointed to reshape the world, christianise and supposedly enlighten the Arab world and spread democracy and freedom (while accessing oil in the process)?
davidmc said:No, he's a sham
jhuskey said:
It may well always be the "Energy source of the Future".
The fundamental problem is that Consumer Culture is incompatible with the *finite* nature of the real world. The other problem is that the people who make the biggest noise about Capitalism and Free Markets have a vested interest in keeping that whole voodoo economics roadshow going.
Being practical about it there is a hell of a lot that can be done to reduce our dependance on oil and reduce Energy consumption. I was able to reduce my household energy consumption to 18% of it's former value simply by being more careful about the products I used and how I used them. I didn't do anything particularly fancy or expensive either and I didn't notice any significant impact on my quality of life either. The basic trick is to KISS, don't use an Electric Drill when a hand tool will suffice for example. Walk more, Bike more. Pay careful attention to the way you use equipment like stoves, water boilers, radiators etc, try to re-use that wasted heat if at all possible...
I should point out that my own lifestyle was *not* particularly extravagent in the first place, so I figure more average lifestyles can probably achieve a better improvement.
An 80% reduction in household energy consumption alone would be a great step forward. The problem is that folks have to pay attention to what they are doing, I suspect that the *only* way that will ever be achieved is if Energy is priced appropriately, say 5x as much as it is now.
Once you get people's minds focussed on energy cost I figure that it may enable you to get most of household and industrial energy from renewable sources such as wind/wave/solar/geothermal. It's a long-road though, and I suspect that what will actually happen is that the oil supply will crash violently because people would rather believe Voodoo Economists giving them cheerfull "Capitalism Good" messages rather than face up to the stark reality.The good old "Shoot the Messenger" trick... Tried, tested and consistently moronic.
Colorado Ryder said:
You haven't provided *one* single shred of evidence, a source or a reference to back up anything you have claimed so far. When you do that your bleatings might actaully carry a bit of weight.
There is a little more to that than unsubstantiated opinion. IIRC the phrase first came to light with the trial of "Abdul Rahman Yasin" and that was related to the 1993 WTC bombing.
Thank you for proving my point. Al-Qaeda was in existance before the Taliban controlled Afghanistan. Hence the pipeline story is crapola. By the way just what is your proof that Al-Qaeda name was born during a trial?darkboong said:You haven't provided *one* single shred of evidence, a source or a reference to back up anything you have claimed so far. You have zero credibility.
There is a little more to that than unsubstantiated opinion. IIRC the phrase first came to light with the trial of "Abdul Rahman Yasin" and that was related to the 1993 WTC bombing.
For the record, Colorado Ryder you haven't bothered to provide a single source to support your unsubstantiated opinions yet, so shut up or put up.
No credibility with you? Do you think I give a ****?
Colorado Ryder said:
You did not have a point in the first place.
Colorado Ryder said:
The Rebel/Terrorist organisations were there for sure, but there was pretty minimal evidence that a global terror network called Al-Queda bound them together *before* the trial of Yasin. The "evidence" presented to support the existance of Al-Queda was based on the testimony (extracted under duress) of that one defendant who comprised of a "One man cell". Hell, even McVeigh could be classified as a "One man cell"...
That ain't to say that such an organisation does not exist. The fact is terrorism has been a global business for donkeys years. The IRA have collaborated with ETA for example, there is suspicion that they have collaborated with FARC too.
I don't have a problem accepting that terrorists cross borders and co-operate across borders too. There is plenty of good evidence to support that. What I do have a problem with is that the picture of Al Queda is considerably less clear, and it appears to have been made to fit policy decisions.
This is important for two reasons :
1) You need an objective view in order to catch these people, spin simply doesn't cut it in criminal investigation.
2) The "evidence" presented to the public about Al Queda has been used to justify attacks that have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civillians.
Colorado Ryder said:
There was a series of documentaries that provided a good run down of that stuff : "Birth of Nightmares".
"By the way just what is your proof that Al-Qaeda existed before 1993 ?"
Colorado Ryder said:
Don't worry about it, I don't expect Clowns to care about credibility.
No my friend - those are some of the basic facts according to the evidence that has been diligently and honestly uncovered. But of course, like most neo-con sheep, you prefer not to look at it and would rather dismiss out of hand anything that doesn't agree with your world view.Colorado Ryder said:
As they say: "Ignorance is bliss."
Similar threads
