POLL: Is Bush a Moron?

Remove all ads!

Oh shralp i know. Tony Blair may not be dumb but he sure as hell is annoying. Those big ears and teeth and way he talks in that high, posh accent really get to me.

[ August 20, 2002, 16:13: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

 

Ragusa,

It's G. W. Bush (as in George). Not J. W. Bush.

Are you sure you're talking about the same person as the rest of us?

 

Ragusa asked why start a war in Iraq if America can't transport the oil? The answer is US can transport the oil via Yumurtalik pipeline (Turkey) which was closed by Turkey in accordance with the sanctions against Iraq. That really had a huge negative impact on Turkish economy. So by transporting the oil through Yumurtalik pipeline, US has the solution to both problems: transfer of oil and keeping a solid ally hapy.
The second question is why not try and develop alternative energy sources. My question is who are the biggest supporters of the Republicans? Oil companies, tobacco companies, etc. you get the idea...
I ask all who say the Europeans don't understand the American involvement in Iraq, do YOU know those reasons? Why do Americans want to send troops (mortals, against what you might believe) to Iraq? Do you know the impact of a $10 increase in oil price to the American economy? Let me tell you the answer of that one at least: about 70 billion dollars....

 

Once again: we get a very, very small percentage of our oil from Iraq. Something under 1% now. Oil is not the reason for attacking Iraq. Self-defense is the reason for attacking Iraq.

 

I completely support an attack on Iraq. What will we all do when Saddam has the power to destroy every decent nation on the planet, he dosn't care that even if he dies, as long as he can kill others, i say go get the mother****er.

[ August 21, 2002, 10:51: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

 

Shralp, lighten up and take a look at the Bushisms. ALL of them. As I said before, I won't comment on his presidency, but the guy IS a moron when it comes to public speeches. This list illustrates that point *quite* clearly.

http://politics.slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=76886

[ August 21, 2002, 04:54: Message edited by: SlimShogun ]

 

I think oil has a part in the US desire to confront iraq. While it's true that, at the momet, the US does not rely on Iraq for oil, that's more a result of sanctions and a preparation for war.. making sure to find the oil elsewhere, in case there is a need to attack saddam. But the political situation in the middle east is, to say the least, shaky at the moment. the US sees that former oil suppliers, such as Saudi Arabia, might not provide that oil much longer, and so the US seeks to control the oil.

The american empire is different from the roman empire in that it is not expansive. Because the USA does not NEED to expand, it control through complete trade dominance. In this case, the US does not want to take over, it simply wants control over the oil, and a safe supply. Saddam threatens that safe supply, first of all with his aggression against the US, but also against other, oil-providing neighbors. It's also risky to have Saddam in the area if a US hostile ruler would show up in, once again for example Saudi Arabia, since that would mean that the two hostile countries could cooperate.

It might seem strange that the US would need this control, but it really isn't when you realize just how dependent the US is on oil. Much more so than most european countries, since public transportation isn't as common.

And then, for other motivation, take a lot of what the President's father did. Bush senior was very, very close to bringing Saddam down when he had to pull back for diplomatic reasons. Bush junior probably wouldn't mind finishing the job.

It also so happens that the President's popularity isn't what it was just after Sept. 11. Bush senior found himself in the exact same situation before starting a war on Iraq, which brought his ratings up to great levels (I've heard 90%). There is nothing that pleases the home opinion in the US as much as a war, as long as there are no serious casualties... and just like the previous war in the Gulf, this one would mean very little risk for american troops. We will probably see another bomb war, where american planes drop their bombs from such a high altitude so Iraqi air defence units can't reach them.

However, I'm not gonna join the radicals who say that these are the ONLY reasons for a US attack. Sept. 11 made the White House realize that the USA is indeed vulnerable, and that no matter how far the enemy is geographically, they have an uncanny ability to strike when you least expect it. Saddam has been rumoured to support the Al-Quaida, even though that would be paradoxal, since his Baath party is in fact not religious, unlike for example the regime in Iran. However, those rumours have yet to be confirmed, the main concert is that Saddam might get inspired by the wtc attacks, and might want to try something similar himself.

It's obvious that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the US, but the question is if he would actually try something unprovoked. He is not stupid, and making an obvious attack on the US would be suicide. Another issue is that if Saddam has built all these chemical, biological and perhaps nuclear weapons that there is talk about, then he would definitely use them when attacked by the US. However, he might not use them unprovoked...

And there is a time factor in this. Saddam Hussein is getting old. He has no clear successor. He has not shown any real aggression since the Gulf War, except in words. Personally, I say: wait him out.

 

Shralp, there is a glaring problem with the statement made about Japan and the US. The time period that we've had this alliance is stated at 150 years. In that time, we fought a rather large war. Hell, we nuked Japan twice.

Plus we threatened them with war another time, when we first forcibly opened their islands to the West using our Navy.

That is why I cannot understand the President of the United States making such a statement.

 

Believe it or not but nuking Japan saved thousand of people's lives. Japan would have fought to last man-woman-child. It was costing the USA HALF it's invasion force for each island, they had to show Japan that they could destroy all of it.

 

saracman, so now they are bringing the oil out over turkey once saddam is dead. Brilliant plan. And so easy too. Ever heared of the kurds? The pipeline passess their territory and unless turkey starts to completely change it's politic against them (just like Iraq and Iran - no one seriously wants their independence - they'd have nothing to live from anyway) there I see a problem emerging for our splendid plan and the security of the pipeline. After finishing off saddam for the sake of oil you would have to finish off the kurds for the sake of oil. Or maybe a two-in-one war - both at the same time. Or rather a buy-one-get-one-free war ... the excitement never stops!
I mean: Why not attacking Iran next: Excellent candidate - they have oil, they are evil too - and by accident your troops are around already - what more can you want?

That's the thing I'm just wondering about. You cheerfully say that the US do the Iraq war for the oil and you don't find anything bad about it? I mean, the US do their way of life and the only way to satisfy the daily needs of the population is to import oil - and when they don't get it that means war for those who don't want to deliver to US conditions? Is that right?
Isn't that pretty much like going to your neighbour and forcing him at gunpoint to give you the gasoline for your joyride? Taking it further, where is then the difference between Hitler's Lebensraum, the japanese expansion in south-asia (to get *oil*) and a war against Iraq to gain control over the oil there?
Not that the US is doing politics that way, I don't at all think that, but what really strikes me is that you seem to accept that as normal saracman Seriously, you must be nuts if you think so!

And besides I agree with Shralp at least in one point: I really doubt it's the oil that makes G.W. Bush attack Iraq.

[ August 21, 2002, 13:10: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Yes but a war is stupid to kill one man. assassination would work better

 

I shall not pollute this topic with my conspiracy theory, you can read it at another topic:

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=002203

Ara
(Mad scientists are quite less dangerous than completely sane ones...)

 

Arabwel i see no theory...

[ August 21, 2002, 12:50: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

 

Tal, if you base it on facial expressions, I was thinking more on the lines of "Is Bush a Super-Intelligent Chimp?"

 

SlimShogun - http://www.bushorchimp.com

 

I don't know... Bush's tiny atomic brain realm reminds me of Kresselack's tomb, full of dead ideas

 

AHAHAHAHHAH - MY DREAMS HAVE COME TRUE!