Proof of Bush's Lies - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-28-2006, 10:29 AM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
doctorwho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My TARDIS - currently located in San Leandro, CA
Posts: 6,340
Local Time: 01:12 PM
If the importation of oil is that closely tied to the Euro and, subsequently, the U.S. economy - then it is just a matter of time before this happens anyway. At some point, we must break free of oil. Besides, how much oil do we actually get from Iraq? And would OPEC really allow their "biggest customer" to become upset?

I do agree with your earlier statement. It seems from Day 1, Republicans were after Clinton, trying their best to get him out of office. Yet all they could find was some possible weak trading scandal (White Water), which fizzled and then this sexual lie. That's it. Given that Cheney has direct ties to Bin Laden and given Bush's own involvement with oil, one wonders just how dirty these men are? Clinton was a relative Jimmy Carter - and it seems the Republicans couldn't wait to boot Carter from office too!

While I don't think Democrats are innocent, it's pretty obvious who the real evil empire is.
__________________

__________________
http://u2.interference.com/attachments/forums/signaturepics/sigpic11661_2.gifI always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific.
doctorwho is offline  
Old 03-28-2006, 11:25 AM   #17
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by doctorwho
If the importation of oil is that closely tied to the Euro and, subsequently, the U.S. economy - then it is just a matter of time before this happens anyway.
That true. So you have to ask yourself how much of a fight you are willing to put up to maintain your position for as long as possible or whether you want to concede power to develop win-win trade and economic relationships.

Btw, when the EU becomes the dominant economic power over the US, Russia effectively wins the Cold War.

Quote:
Originally posted by doctorwho

At some point, we must break free of oil.
Yes for a number of reasons. But on the financial front, a break between the dollar and oil anytime soon effectively means the US domestic economy would collapse under the trade deficit and debt load (at the public and personal levels) it's currently carrying. That would end up leading to a global economic crisis.

Quote:
Originally posted by doctorwho

Besides, how much oil do we actually get from Iraq? And would OPEC really allow their "biggest customer" to become upset?
OPEC already allowed Iraq to sell oil in Euros and ok'd the Iranian oil bourse. They are encouraging a gradual transition from the dollar to the euro that would minimize the effect on the dollar and US economy. But at the end of the day for the US, it still plays into a broader power struggle with Russia, China and India.

Republicans, Democrats and the media don't talk about this because the economy is too fragile to withstand the potential drop in investor/consumer confidance and spending.

I've come to believe this is why the dems have been mute and unable to present a vision for getting out of the mess in a way that people would understand and support.
__________________

__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 03-28-2006, 12:06 PM   #18
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 09:12 PM
doctorwho, is the main problem that Bush lied or that U.S. went to war based on lies, or that there's a war at all? What do you think of Bush Administration's philosophy of pre-emptively taking care of threats to America?

Do you think the war would have been more palatable (to the American public, never mind the rest of the world) if the administration hadn't gone through this whole "Wag the Dog" invention of a WMD threat? If Bush Co. had just said "Look, Saddam is a U.S. problem. We helped create him...propped him up so he could counter the Iranians during Khomeini's reign. But now he's a threat to us and our interests (economic and geo-political). As the world's main superpower, it's our responsibility to take care of our messes, so we're taking him out."...would that have been better?
__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 03-28-2006, 12:27 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
YBORCITY's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: FLA
Posts: 5,139
Local Time: 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Judah
doctorwho, is the main problem that Bush lied or that U.S. went to war based on lies, or that there's a war at all? What do you think of Bush Administration's philosophy of pre-emptively taking care of threats to America?

Do you think the war would have been more palatable (to the American public, never mind the rest of the world) if the administration hadn't gone through this whole "Wag the Dog" invention of a WMD threat? If Bush Co. had just said "Look, Saddam is a U.S. problem. We helped create him...propped him up so he could counter the Iranians during Khomeini's reign. But now he's a threat to us and our interests (economic and geo-political). As the world's main superpower, it's our responsibility to take care of our messes, so we're taking him out."...would that have been better?
Judah,
if your saying it was right to go after Saddam becauase we "pre-emptively" hit a Dictator who was a threat to America - where does Bin Laden fall in your 'List of Pre-Emptive" strikes. Is he after Saddam or after Iran or N. Korea. The perpatrator of the worst terrorist act to come to our shores is still living and breathing is just apalling to me.

Your answer to the earlier post was to suggest we "pre-emptively" hit Saddam who DIDN'T have WMD's and had no connection to Al Qeada. Wouldn't have been better to hit N. Korea or Iran who actually we know has nuclear capabilities AND are still rattling thier swords at everyone?
__________________
YBORCITY is offline  
Old 03-28-2006, 12:41 PM   #20
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by YBORCITYOBL


Judah,
if your saying it was right to go after Saddam becauase we "pre-emptively" hit a Dictator who was a threat to America - where does Bin Laden fall in your 'List of Pre-Emptive" strikes. Is he after Saddam or after Iran or N. Korea. The perpatrator of the worst terrorist act to come to our shores is still living and breathing is just apalling to me.

Your answer to the earlier post was to suggest we "pre-emptively" hit Saddam who DIDN'T have WMD's and had no connection to Al Qeada. Wouldn't have been better to hit N. Korea or Iran who actually we know has nuclear capabilities AND are still rattling thier swords at everyone?
Yeah, no, i wasn't really suggesting anything. For the record, i have always been against the war.

I was just asking doctorwho the questions. It seems to me Bush was bent on taking Iraq out no matter what. The Administration was going to do it...the point was how to sell it. My questions are only about that: would the Administration's goals be more palatable to the American public if they'd been just very upfront about it. "We feel Saddam is a problem we created and we're going to get rid of him. End of story."

And, yes, I agree that, if someone were to follow the "pre-emptive" philosophy, there are other threats that are way more serious. As you said, Bin Laden, and Iran (though, they're probably 10 years away from becoming a serious nuke threat), and for sure Pakistan.
__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 03-28-2006, 12:46 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
YBORCITY's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: FLA
Posts: 5,139
Local Time: 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Judah


Yeah, no, i wasn't really suggesting anything. For the record, i have always been against the war.

I was just asking doctorwho the questions. It seems to me Bush was bent on taking Iraq out no matter what. The Administration was going to do it...the point was how to sell it. My questions are only about that: would the Administration's goals be more palatable to the American public if they'd been just very upfront about it. "We feel Saddam is a problem we created and we're going to get rid of him. End of story."

And, yes, I agree that, if someone were to follow the "pre-emptive" philosophy, there are other threats that are way more serious. As you said, Bin Laden, and Iran (though, they're probably 10 years away from becoming a serious nuke threat), and for sure Pakistan.
Well Said
__________________
YBORCITY is offline  
Old 03-28-2006, 12:47 PM   #22
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Judah
But now he's a threat to us and our interests (economic and geo-political). As the world's main superpower, it's our responsibility to take care of our messes, so we're taking him out."...would that have been better?
I suppose that depends on whether you think people would truly understand the consequences of going to war or diplomatically taking steps to protect the economy while conceding to be one of many superpowers as opposed to top dog. Remember, the easiest way for a politician to lose an election is to talk plainly about economic issues and outcomes.


Quote:
Why of course the people don't want war. . . . That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament or a communist dictatorship . . . the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. . . . All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.
--Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshal and Luftwaffe chief
at Nuremberg trials, 1945
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 03-28-2006, 02:13 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


who got badgered into sex?
Don't treat me like I do not know what I am talking about. You and I know they were trying to demonstrate a pattern of him usuing his position for sex. Or were the women that came forward lying.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-28-2006, 02:25 PM   #24
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Don't treat me like I do not know what I am talking about. You and I know they were trying to demonstrate a pattern of him usuing his position for sex. Or were the women that came forward lying.
So which is worse then, Clinton using his position of power for sex or Bush using his position of power to propogate American imperialism to the point of national self-destruction?
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 03-28-2006, 03:25 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

Or were the women that came forward lying.
I found Juanita Broadderick to be a very credible person and she is what turned me against Clinton.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 03-28-2006, 03:35 PM   #26
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 09:12 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Proof of Bush's Lies

Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy


You know it's funny...there was an absolutely rabid witch hunt for Clinton's head on a platter and all they could come up with was some sexual indiscretions and inconclusive evidence on Whitewater. That's about as squeaky clean as a politician can get.



Again you have to weigh the consequences of the lie. Would you have been willing to let the US invade Iraq if you knew the alternative was the potential for a complete economic meltdown that would lead to the end of America's global superpower position?

When neo-conservatives were calling for an invasion of Iraq in 1998, that was the year the European Central Bank was established and developed the Euro. The EU is as wealthy as the US and is the world's biggest trading area. The writing was on the wall that unless action was taken to continue to dominate the oil trade, the US would eventually slip from the top.
For the countries that actually use the Euro, their combined GDP is 9 Trillion dollars, while USA GDP is currently 12.8 trillion dollars. Most EU members do not use the Euro currently and many of those countries are still considered to be developing countries by many people.

In addition the United States and European economies have been interdependent for decades and a fall in one area would mean a fall in the other economy as well. China is dependent on the United States as market for its exports which bring in Billion of dollars every year for China and constitute a much higher percentage of its annual GDP than do the level of American goods sold to china relative to American GDP. The point here is that any slip in the American economy has a negative impact on both Europe and East Asia.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 03-28-2006, 03:58 PM   #27
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 09:12 PM
Re: Proof of Bush's Lies

Quote:
Originally posted by doctorwho
I just read this article.

The key points are that:
  1. Bush and Blair knew there were no WOMD and they had yet to find any in IRAQ;
  2. Bush was going to war with Iraq no matter what - he even "penciled in" a date, as if it was a lunch meeting;
  3. Bush was willing to incite a reason for war, such as faking a U.N. plane (to provoke an attack) or even suggesting the assassination of Saddam!

This appeared in the NY Times.

For the last few years, I've asked why Clinton was impeached for lying about an affair, while Bush was not. Republicans have stated that it's because Bush didn't "lie" - they went with the knowledge they had at the time. I think this document shows that Bush was lying through and through. This document proves that Bush should be impeached and removed from office. He created a war, when he had no reason to do so. He has cost the lives of thousands. Clinton's affair hurt no one. Tell me how Bush deserves to be in power.
1. I don't see where it says Bush and Blair knew there were no WMD in Iraq. Every intelligence agency around the world had information that there was WMD in Iraq, regardless of the fact that Inspectors had yet to find any in the months before the war or after.

2. Considering all the things that Saddam was still in violation of, thats probably true, unless Saddam solved those problems and or left the country. But everyone knew this at the time.

3. The planes are already on a UN mission and its illegal for Saddam to fire at the planes. I don't see how painting the planes with UN markers makes any difference.



Is the Memo considered to be an actual transcript of what was said or is it just a general summery?
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 03-28-2006, 04:08 PM   #28
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 09:12 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Proof of Bush's Lies

Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht

In addition the United States and European economies have been interdependent for decades and a fall in one area would mean a fall in the other economy as well. China is dependent on the United States as market for its exports which bring in Billion of dollars every year for China and constitute a much higher percentage of its annual GDP than do the level of American goods sold to china relative to American GDP. The point here is that any slip in the American economy has a negative impact on both Europe and East Asia.
That's correct...and all the more reason to to build multilateral treaties on global monetary policy and energy reform. I think Bush has made it clear that his administration will do no such thing and would prefer to create conditions that could instigate WWIII rather than foresake the empire.

What would you be willing to give up in your current standard of living to avoid WWIII?
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 03-28-2006, 04:56 PM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:12 PM
I don't want WWIII, but I don't think Bush even cares if it happens because of his religious views. The whole scenario scares me.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-28-2006, 05:06 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl


I found Juanita Broadderick to be a very credible person and she is what turned me against Clinton.
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com