Bush and his Faith

[gtbro1]

Yes, protecting wealth for Iraqi people, how vile.  Perhaps we should allow terrorists or neighbouring countries to move in and take it?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA wHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT IRAQI PEOPLE? NOT ME. If we are going to be so "helpfull" with our tax dollars DO IT AT HOME. Why should my brother(or anyone's family member) die to protect the wealth of the Iraqi people?They didn't sign up for that. They signed up to protect America,NOT IRAQ.

[240 is Back]

Now you're catching on.  Please tell me more about how we have improved the lives of Afghanis in recent times.

Afghanistan? We've been at war there for 64 months.

Almost 2000 days of the most advanced military in the world, fighting dudes with AKs.  We've had an unlimited war and manpower budget.  We've had the full support of NATO and the Afghan govt.  And it's still a tie, and the drug export is more than ever.  

Dude, we're not trying to win.  We're stalling while we put in the oil pipeline.  once we win, there is no reason to be there.  Once we win, the world asks us to leave.  We have worked for that pipeline for 7 years BEFORE 9/11.  You think we're suddenly going to turn it over out of the goodness of our hearts?

That viewpoint is naive.  I will waste no more time arguing it.  We fought for that pipeline politically since 1995.  No way we give it away now.  And if you think the pipeline will go to iraq's border THEN STOP, well, um....

[BRUCE]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA wHO GIVES A FLYING f**k ABOUT IRAQI PEOPLE? NOT ME. If we are going to be so "helpfull" with our tax dollars DO IT AT HOME. Why should my brother(or anyone's family member) die to protect the wealth of the Iraqi people?They didn't sign up for that. They signed up to protect America,NOT IRAQ.

Good on you.  Notice I didn't say this was the soul purpose of our involvement in this region, try doing less shouting and more thinking.

You attempt trivialise your brother's brave participation with your illogical posts.

[240 is Back]

Rob! I agree with you! Calm down!

North Korea scares me more than your conspiracies ever could, but we're not going to solve the problem with them by talking.  We've told them, it's very simple really:

'Build nuclear arms, and there will be no further discussions, we will make life hard for you'

Is that ambiguous?  Is anything unclear?  Are they listening?

I'm all for disarming these crazies, but we need the participation of countries like China, Japan and South Korea.  The world would be a better place with one less nuclear armed socialist state.

Why isn't Bush even talking about North Korea?  They have outright said they will destroy america.  They have missiles!!  They HAVE nukes!  I mean shit, they could send 10 rowboats to Mexico with nukes and walk them over the border.  They are WAY more of a threat than iran.   iran's program is brand new.  

The White House RUNS from the NK issue.  Why?

[BRUCE]

Afghanistan? We've been at war there for 64 months.

Almost 2000 days of the most advanced military in the world, fighting dudes with AKs.  We've had an unlimited war and manpower budget.  We've had the full support of NATO and the Afghan govt.  And it's still a tie, and the drug export is more than ever.  

Dude, we're not trying to win.  We're stalling while we put in the oil pipeline.  once we win, there is no reason to be there.  Once we win, the world asks us to leave.  We have worked for that pipeline for 7 years BEFORE 9/11.  You think we're suddenly going to turn it over out of the goodness of our hearts?

That viewpoint is naive.  I will waste no more time arguing it.  We fought for that pipeline politically since 1995.  No way we give it away now.  And if you think the pipeline will go to iraq's border THEN STOP, well, um....

Okay, so your point of view is that Afghanistan hasn't improved as a nation since the allied forces arrived there?  Hmm, you do quite enjoy a touch of socialism, don't you.  And we're not still at war in Afghanistan, in case you haven't noticed, it takes a little time to establish a democracy after tyrants have been dethroned.  Give it a little effort and watch the flower grow.

Clearly we're always going to disagree on the oil issue - you think we want to take it all and rob (pun not intended) these nations, I think we're better than that.  Time will tell, of course, so i tend to agree with your point of view that we are somewhat wasting our time arguing about it.

[BRUCE]

Why isn't Bush even talking about North Korea?  They have outright said they will destroy america.  They have missiles!!  They HAVE nukes!  I mean shit, they could send 10 rowboats to Mexico with nukes and walk them over the border.  They are WAY more of a threat than iran.   iran's program is brand new.  

The White House RUNS from the NK issue.  Why?

Not totally sure they're more of a threat than Iran, and I disagree the White House is running from the issue.  The US is committing itself well and truly to making the world a better place in areas it does not necessarily have to.  That's what I call bravery.

How about we call on some of the other nations to do so as well?  Where is the international community's pressure on China to do something?

Notwithstanding this, I do agree with you that the US should do everything in its power to ensure the world isn't held to ransom by such rogue nations. 

[240 is Back]

Of course it has improved.
But there were near-zero drug export in late 2001 - the taleban shut it down completely.  I find it a little hard to believe that the US, with all our satellites and men on teh ground, cannot locate and destroy poppy fields which fund terror.  I find it incredibly hard to believe that Afghans can carry out tons of opium and we don't see it.  I mean, the shit grows in fields.  It takes months.   How did the taleban, with their pickup trucks, stop what our sat intel cannot?  (Answer is that this drug money floats the US economy, but that's a diff subject).

here's where we are clashing - we are not stealing their oil.  bad word, sorry if I used it.  What we are doing is forcing the nations to sell it to only us, at a price we set, at a time of our choosing.  They get *some* money for it, but not what they'd get selling it on the open market.  

It lets us keep our adversaries from getting it.  And I support it.  We put the govt in, we make the rules, we take advantage, but they don't starve.  I just get irritated when people say we're there for democracy, saddam, the goodness of our hearts... shit, it's about resources, plain and simple.  We want to control them, and now we do.

[gtbro1]

, it takes a little time to establish a democracy after tyrants have been dethroned.  

 I agree 100%

 
 The first couple of years will be tough for our next President.

[240 is Back]

Not totally sure they're more of a threat than Iran, and I disagree the White House is running from the issue.

They have detonated nukes and fired ICBMs, Iran has not.  You really don't see them as MORE of a threat?   And the White house denied the nuke, then downplayed the magnatude, then downplayed the radiation, then deflected to the int'l comunity.  If iran had fired missiles or detonated a nuke, what do you think they would have done?

The US is committing itself well and truly to making the world a better place in areas it does not necessarily have to.  That's what I call bravery.

I call it resource procurement.

How about we call on some of the other nations to do so as well?  Where is the international community's pressure on China to do something?

China is shooting missiles at satellites.  They're gonna be a threat in 10-20 years.  Hell, they might use N Korean men to fight by proxy.  They're not doing anything.  And NK has no beef with them.  Just us.

[BRUCE]

Of course it has improved.
But there were near-zero drug export in late 2001 - the taleban shut it down completely.  I find it a little hard to believe that the US, with all our satellites and men on teh ground, cannot locate and destroy poppy fields which fund terror.  I find it incredibly hard to believe that Afghans can carry out tons of opium and we don't see it.  I mean, the shit grows in fields.  It takes months.   How did the taleban, with their pickup trucks, stop what our sat intel cannot?  (Answer is that this drug money floats the US economy, but that's a diff subject).

here's where we are clashing - we are not stealing their oil.  bad word, sorry if I used it.  What we are doing is forcing the nations to sell it to only us, at a price we set, at a time of our choosing.  They get *some* money for it, but not what they'd get selling it on the open market.  

It lets us keep our adversaries from getting it.  And I support it.  We put the govt in, we make the rules, we take advantage, but they don't starve.  I just get irritated when people say we're there for democracy, saddam, the goodness of our hearts... shit, it's about resources, plain and simple.  We want to control them, and now we do.

Much better post, I think you have moderated it far better than previously.  Perhaps the US will benefit from the oil in these nations, but I still disagree that our presence in these areas is motivated by oil.  Surely 9/11 was a slightly more relevant choice.

Either way, the world is better without the Taliban, without Saddam, and with democracies beginning to grow in these areas.  Our purpose there is just and good.

[BRUCE]

They have detonated nukes and fired ICBMs, Iran has not.  You really don't see them as MORE of a threat?   And the White house denied the nuke, then downplayed the magnatude, then downplayed the radiation, then deflected to the int'l comunity.  If iran had fired missiles or detonated a nuke, what do you think they would have done?

I call it resource procurement.

China is shooting missiles at satellites.  They're gonna be a threat in 10-20 years.  Hell, they might use N Korean men to fight by proxy.  They're not doing anything.  And NK has no beef with them.  Just us.

The White House didn't deny there was a nuclear weapon, Rob, and you know that.  They waited for clarification like the rest of us.

Iran is next door to Iraq, NK isn't.  Keep in mind Israel is in the picture too, and notice that Iran isn't too far behind NK in weapons development.

China shouldn't get off scot-free on this issue, either.  I hope you can at least agree with that.

[Mr. Intenseone]

Saddam is dead.

We're still paying haliburton to build the pipeline.  We're still building 14+ permanent US bases right along that pipeline. 

if thats the, then alot of the Dems are making a shitload as well because they also invested in Haliburton!

[240 is Back]

if thats the, then alot of the Dems are making a shitload as well because they also invested in Haliburton!

i never said there weren't a bunch of dem crooks too.  there are!

And I don't care that we're stealing managing Iraq's oil.  I just like to argue when people say we're over there cause we're good people.  We are over there because if we don't get that oil, they will.

I don't even care that we're going to invade Iran, I just want people to be honest about it.  Don't say "they're sooo scary and they say mean things and they're waaaay more dangerous than N Korea".  I just want people to say "Yes, we're raping the mofo's for their oil.  Kiss our ass if you don't like it".

[Mr. Intenseone]

i never said there weren't a bunch of dem crooks too.  there are!

And I don't care that we're stealing managing Iraq's oil.  I just like to argue when people say we're over there cause we're good people.  We are over there because if we don't get that oil, they will.

I don't even care that we're going to invade Iran, I just want people to be honest about it.  Don't say "they're sooo scary and they say mean things and they're waaaay more dangerous than N Korea".  I just want people to say "Yes, we're raping the mofo's for their oil.  Kiss our ass if you don't like it".

If we're stealing oil, then where is it ??

[BRUCE]

i never said there weren't a bunch of dem crooks too.  there are!

And I don't care that we're stealing managing Iraq's oil.  I just like to argue when people say we're over there cause we're good people.  We are over there because if we don't get that oil, they will.

I don't even care that we're going to invade Iran, I just want people to be honest about it.  Don't say "they're sooo scary and they say mean things and they're waaaay more dangerous than N Korea".  I just want people to say "Yes, we're raping the mofo's for their oil.  Kiss our ass if you don't like it".

Wow, have you considered a career in politics?

[240 is Back]

If we're stealing oil, then where is it ??

In hyperfavorable contracts ensuring that every drop that ever leaves that sand enters haliburton hands for processing, mgmt and distribution.

i'm not against it - i'm just against when people say 'we do it cause we're nice guys'. 

[Dos Equis]

A recent post by Beach made me think of especially a phrase in Matthew(Whoa!! )...

GWB claims he is an active Christian, also that he's feeling the Lord, he also claims he reads the Bible a lot. Assuming he's telling the truth, this makes for some interesting take on Bush's War On Terror, and his general foreign policy.

Try for a moment to forget whether or not you are a Christian, or if you support Bush or not.

Here are words from the scripture that Bush reads.

You have heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say to you, That you resist not evil: but whosoever shall hit you on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew)

You have heard that it has been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate your enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. (Matthew)

An Atheist, or a Jew eg, wouldn't have words like this to live by.

But Bush, claiming he is an active Christian, does.

So my question is, how can Bush claim to be an active Christian, if he doesn't try to follow the words of the scripture?

I mean, where is the love for the terrorists? The love for the "enemies" of USA, that he's repeatedly spoken of?

I'm not saying he should show love for terrorists.

But then, he shouldn't claim to be a Christian, or that he leads a Christian life.

Be consequent.

-Hedge

Hedge I don't think a reasonable interpretation of those scriptures is that we lay down our arms.  That's essentially what you're saying.  If turning the other cheek applies to our military, then we could not have taken out Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after 911.  And Bush may or may not be wrong, when all is said and done, about his decision to invade Iraq, but that was a decision he made as Commander in Chief in what he thought was in the long-term best interests of the country.  There is nothing anti-Christian about that at all.       

[240 is Back]

but that was a decision he made as Commander in Chief in what he thought was in the long-term best interests of the country.  There is nothing anti-Christian about that at all.      

Right, and wrong.

He invaded Iraq because it is probably in the best interests of the country.  We lose 4k-5k men, and we gain control over iraqi oil.  They only sell to us and the price we set.  We gain strategic advantage over world.  That's an easy one.

Was invading Iraq the Christian thing to do?
This is a tougher one.  Mathematically, more people have died inside the country's borders in the last 4 years under OUR control, than per 4-year rate under saddam.  Acquiring oil interests was what the US wanted.  but would any of us want to stand before St Peter and say "Yes, the war was the right and holy thing to do".  I wouldn't want that job. 

ANy peace or democracy which comes is a byproduct of our main goal.  To believe we flew past Darfur to save less lives in Iraq is kinda weird...

[tu_holmes]

Hedge I don't think a reasonable interpretation of those scriptures is that we lay down our arms.  That's essentially what you're saying.  If turning the other cheek applies to our military, then we could not have taken out Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after 911.  And Bush may or may not be wrong, when all is said and done, about his decision to invade Iraq, but that was a decision he made as Commander in Chief in what he thought was in the long-term best interests of the country.  There is nothing anti-Christian about that at all.       

I still don't understand the Iraq thing... Why are we there again? They changed the answer so many times, that I don't remember which answer we're on.

As far as Bush being a Christian, I'm sure he tries... I do believe that... I do not for one second believe that he's being two-faced.

The bible also says if you beat your enemy, you beat them into the ground... He's trying really hard to get this one done.

Now, he is Commander-In-Chief... and a terrible one at that... just horrible, mostly for not listening to his really intelligent people (Colon Powell) and just going with what he "knows to be true".

All that being said, he's a Christian, but as with an Christian, he has flaws... Plenty of them.

He's actually one of the least hypocritical politicians... he's just one of the moronic ones.

Oh, and btw... I'm not a fan of Religion... more wars have been fought, and more people have been killed in the name of religion than any other reason on earth.

How about we do the right thing just because it's "the right thing to do".

[Dos Equis]

Right, and wrong.

He invaded Iraq because it is probably in the best interests of the country.  We lose 4k-5k men, and we gain control over iraqi oil.  They only sell to us and the price we set.  We gain strategic advantage over world.  That's an easy one.

Was invading Iraq the Christian thing to do?
This is a tougher one.  Mathematically, more people have died inside the country's borders in the last 4 years under OUR control, than per 4-year rate under saddam.  Acquiring oil interests was what the US wanted.  but would any of us want to stand before St Peter and say "Yes, the war was the right and holy thing to do".  I wouldn't want that job. 

ANy peace or democracy which comes is a byproduct of our main goal.  To believe we flew past Darfur to save less lives in Iraq is kinda weird...

I don't buy the war for oil argument.  No proof.  And if we went to war for their oil, we failed miserably, because we don't own it, control it, etc.

There is war throughout the Bible.  We actually wage war in a much more humane way than some battles described in the Old Testament, where women and children were intentionally wiped out.  

[Dos Equis]

How about we do the right thing just because it's "the right thing to do".

I agree.

[240 is Back]

I don't buy the war for oil argument.  No proof.  And if we went to war for their oil, we failed miserably, because we don't own it, control it, etc.

Proof?  US firms are managing the oil flow.  I don't know what more proof you need.  We control every drop coming out of the ground, and we're contractually there for a very long time.  Those 14 bases built along the pipeline.

Seriously, I don't understand you saying "we don't control it".  Our companies drill, pump, edit, output and sell it, and write them a medium check.

I don't know what more proof I can give you.  Sorry I cannot provide the contract between  malaki and haliburton, those aren't public.  but in every other situation like this, the firm accepts a bid based upon future oil revenues.  And the US does benefit, so i'm not against it.

But seriously people, "we lost 3000 men and killed 150k civilians and countless fighters because we want to share freedom" is such a crock of shit.  it's about global control.

[tu_holmes]

Proof?  US firms are managing the oil flow.  I don't know what more proof you need.  We control every drop coming out of the ground, and we're contractually there for a very long time.  Those 14 bases built along the pipeline.

Seriously, I don't understand you saying "we don't control it".  Our companies drill, pump, edit, output and sell it, and write them a medium check.

I don't know what more proof I can give you.  Sorry I cannot provide the contract between  malaki and haliburton, those aren't public.  but in every other situation like this, the firm accepts a bid based upon future oil revenues.  And the US does benefit, so i'm not against it.

But seriously people, "we lost 3000 men and killed 150k civilians and countless fighters because we want to share freedom" is such a crock of shit.  it's about global control.

I have to admit, if it's NOT about oil... why the fuck are we still there? They do NOT want us there... I'm far more pissed that my gas isn't 99 cents a gallon right now... They better bring that oil under control... Fucking Exxon-Mobil better get shit straight.

Hey "W", if you're out there.. "FUCK YOU", and lower my damn gas prices.... ass.

[240 is Back]

I have to admit, if it's NOT about oil... why the f**k are we still there?

majority of Americans want out.
majority of congress want out.
iraqis want us out.
saddam is dead.
they held elections - democracy is alive.
they've had 2 years to train police.

why are we still there again, planning  a 48k men increased in 2007 and 92k over the following 5 years?

[Dos Equis]

Proof?  US firms are managing the oil flow.  I don't know what more proof you need.  We control every drop coming out of the ground, and we're contractually there for a very long time.  Those 14 bases built along the pipeline.

Seriously, I don't understand you saying "we don't control it".  Our companies drill, pump, edit, output and sell it, and write them a medium check.

I don't know what more proof I can give you.  Sorry I cannot provide the contract between  malaki and haliburton, those aren't public.  but in every other situation like this, the firm accepts a bid based upon future oil revenues.  And the US does benefit, so i'm not against it.

But seriously people, "we lost 3000 men and killed 150k civilians and countless fighters because we want to share freedom" is such a crock of shit.  it's about global control.

1.  Private companies are working in Iraq.  It's not the government.  

2.  Neither one of us has seen any contracts, so how can you say "we're contractually there for a very long time"?

3.  Because neither one of us has seen any contracts, debating the substance of those contracts is pointless.

4.  There is no evidence whatsoever that Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq so a handful of private U.S. companies could make some money.  

So, when I say there is no proof, there really isn't.  There is conjecture.