» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society

Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.

If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.

Custom Search



Subject: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: ChuckyG on 09/03/05 at 8:53 am

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/31/bush_gives_new_reason_for_iraq_war/


Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: GoodRedShirt on 09/03/05 at 8:58 am

So THAT'S what the war was about???  :o :o :o :o :o

I could've told you that back in 2003.  ::)

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: Harmonica on 09/03/05 at 11:41 am

I think Pride might have been an issue here as well.  Hussain got the best of George Bush Senior, and junior may have had an issue about that as well.

maybe.

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: EthanM on 09/03/05 at 12:38 pm

so you're admitting that this may have been primarily an act of revenge? 

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: Tanya1976 on 09/03/05 at 1:01 pm


so you're admitting that this may have been primarily an act of revenge?   


Basically.

Lives have been destroyed over oil.

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: Harmonica on 09/03/05 at 2:38 pm


so you're admitting that this may have been primarily an act of revenge?   


Admitting as if I always have thought that yes.  Admitting as I tried to lie about it before, no.

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: Don Carlos on 09/03/05 at 2:45 pm

So what was Saddam going to do with Iraq's oil, drink it?  Of course it was about oil, and still is, but Iraq's oil was safe from international Islamic terrorists under Saddam, and ours - at a price.  On all levels (except that Saddam was a bad guy) this has been a fiasco, and bad for our national interests.  Had George I helped in the overthrow of Saddam, which he encouraged, things would now be very different.

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: EthanM on 09/03/05 at 2:46 pm

by as do you mean that? I can't really respond until I'm clear about what you mean.

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: Harmonica on 09/03/05 at 3:16 pm

I still get a kick out of how killing the entire city of Miami or New York, would somehow be better loss of casualties than the war is.

Which sooner or later would have happened.

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: EthanM on 09/03/05 at 3:32 pm

You really are hopelessly brainwashed, aren't you?

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: Harmonica on 09/03/05 at 4:18 pm


You really are hopelessly brainwashed, aren't you?


lol brainwashed by what?  The liberals had it there way, we wouldn't have done anything, nothing at all about Hussain or about terrorism.  9/11 wouldn't have any signifigance because it'd be one of many, not a few.

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: EthanM on 09/03/05 at 4:33 pm

First off, if a certain ex-dictator is so important to you maybe you should learn to spell his name. Second of all, major terrorist attacks are not easy to pull off. The fact that you think going to war with people who for the most part were the enemy of our enemy keeps us safe shows me that you have been brainwashed by the non-liberal media.

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: Harmonica on 09/03/05 at 4:57 pm


First off, if a certain ex-dictator is so important to you maybe you should learn to spell his name. Second of all, major terrorist attacks are not easy to pull off. The fact that you think going to war with people who for the most part were the enemy of our enemy keeps us safe shows me that you have been brainwashed by the non-liberal media.


2% of the media? Not easy to pull off...so don't worry about them? Act like everything is A-Ok! Perfect Idea!  Enemy of our enemy!  They were enemies of everyone, most importantly themselves.

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: EthanM on 09/03/05 at 6:54 pm

Everything you say proves my point. If you want to convince anyone stop spouting rhetoric and put together a coherent argument.

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 09/03/05 at 7:08 pm


You really are hopelessly brainwashed, aren't you?

He even got a free buff and wax with that brainwash!

Bush seems to be saying he didn't want Zarqawi and Osama to get the Iraq's oil.  If they got Iraq's oil, they'd found terrorism with it.  There's no evidence either Zarqawi or Osama was in Saddam's favor, quite the contrary actually.  Exactly how Zarqawi would gain control of Iraq's oil fields all beats me, and the Bin Laden family has plenty of oil to call their own already...
Whatever, at least Bush saved Iraq's oil fields for the Iraqis

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: Powerslave on 09/03/05 at 7:16 pm



Whatever, at least Bush saved Iraq's oil fields for the Iraqis


;D

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: zcrito on 09/03/05 at 7:20 pm

Did anyone read the article?

"President Bush answered growing antiwar protests yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists."

And finally in the last paragraph, Bush's reason for continuing to fight in Iraq:

''If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks," Bush said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition."

Also Included near the top of the article is a worthless negative quote from Democratic Party chairman, Howard Dean. So you know the writer is a fan of George Bush.  ::)

I wonder if this is a typical article on the war in Iraq from boston.com  (The Boston Globe) ??

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 09/03/05 at 7:22 pm


Did anyone read the article?

"President Bush answered growing antiwar protests yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists."

And finally in the last paragraph, Bush's reason for continuing to fight in Iraq:

''If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks," Bush said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition."

Also Included near the top of the article is a worthless negative quote from Democratic Party chairman, Howard Dean. So you know the writer is a fan of George Bush.  ::)

I wonder if this is a typical article on the war in Iraq from boston.com  (The Boston Globe) ??


George Bush saying he wants to "protect the Iraqi oil fields" is like a child molester applying for a job as a crossing guard!
::)

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: Harmonica on 09/03/05 at 7:45 pm


Everything you say proves my point. If you want to convince anyone stop spouting rhetoric and put together a coherent argument.


My agreements on Terrorism: At this moment in time Terrorism and Osama Bin Ladin should be our prime objective, not Iraq.

My arguments on Terrorism:  Terrorism will not fix itself. Terroist will not automatically magically dissapear.  Terrorist aren't going to say, "hey, let's stop doing this" out of the blue someday.  Terrorist have to be stopped by force. 

My agreements on the war: What was initially to be accomplished has been accomplished, get our men and women out of Iraq and bring them home.  Pride is less important than lives of troops.  Quit pissing off the refineries.

My arguments on the war: Saddam sooner or later was going to make his move on us or on one of our allies.  It is not a sin to care about Iraqies and give them there freedom from fear and extremely harsh cruel treatments.  People of a huge city dying but the 100's of thousands to perhaps the millions isn't any less of a loss than loosing thousands of troops in the war.

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: ChuckyG on 09/03/05 at 8:08 pm


Did anyone read the article?

"President Bush answered growing antiwar protests yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists."

And finally in the last paragraph, Bush's reason for continuing to fight in Iraq:

''If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks," Bush said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition."

Also Included near the top of the article is a worthless negative quote from Democratic Party chairman, Howard Dean. So you know the writer is a fan of George Bush.  ::)

I wonder if this is a typical article on the war in Iraq from boston.com  (The Boston Globe) ??



yeah, I read the article, it's why I posted it.  You have to understand that when Bush and his neocon buddies talk about terrorists or Bin Laden, it's not based on any kind of evidence or reality.  The terrorists have no means to take over oil fields.  They wouldn't know what to do with them even if they did.  This is just another scare tatic but the administration.

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: EthanM on 09/03/05 at 8:32 pm

Thanks for providing an explanation of your position, Harmonica. Some of it I agree with. Other points, not so much.

I agree with you that Osama's network is more of a threat to America than Iraq at the moment. But I think the priority right now should be within our own borders. You know, the hurricane.

Terrorism won't just go away, true. But it can't be defeated by force like a traditional war, either. All that can be done, in my opinion, is keep it to a minimum through efficient national security operations and compromise when possible. If it is clear that we are being reasonable and our adversaries are not, then we should have a lot more cooperation from the international community.

I think that the troops have to come home too, but I thought they never should have been there in the first place. But how does one piss off a refinery?

The last point is where i feel you've truly beeen brainwashed. There is no evidence that Saddam ever planned to attack the United States. It would have been incredibly idiotic on his part, and you don't maintain a dictatorship for thirty years without being overthrown by being an idiot. The only way someone could possibly get away with a direct attack on the United States is if they're constantly on the run, and heads of state can't be doing that.

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: Powerslave on 09/03/05 at 8:55 pm


The terrorists have no means to take over oil fields.  They wouldn't know what to do with them even if they did.  This is just another scare tatic but the administration.


Exactly so. It's the same scare tactic used to perpetuate the legend that terrorists can develop nuclear weapons with a handful of plutonium and an Internet connection. Building, delivering and detonating a nuke isn't like putting a pipe bomb in a box on the subway and setting it off. The whole idea of a "War on Terror" is just a tool to control the masses through fear. It takes the tangibility of an enemy entity away and replaces it with a bogeyman. No longer does the enemy wear battleship gray, or speak Japanese, or Korean. No longer are they "over there". Suddenly, no one knows who the enemy is. They could be anyone. It could be the guy on the plane next to you. Did that woman leave that box on the subway station because she's merely forgetful, or is it a bomb? There's an Arab-looking guy on the bus who's always looking out the window, at his watch, shifting in his seat. Is he nervous because he's new in town, doesn't speak the language and wants to make sure he doesn't miss his stop, or is he agitated because he's a suicide bomber? This is the sort of paranoia and fear that declaring "war" on an intangible concept like "terror" creates. And the war never ends, because if you stamp out one kind of terror, something else will spring up that you can call "terror" to replace it, and keep control over the masses forever. It's exactly what Orwell predicted, but it's come to pass twenty years later than he envisaged. There is no War on Terror. It's merely a war, and don't expect it to end anytime soon.

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: ChuckyG on 09/03/05 at 10:08 pm


Exactly so. It's the same scare tactic used to perpetuate the legend that terrorists can develop nuclear weapons with a handful of plutonium and an Internet connection. Building, delivering and detonating a nuke isn't like putting a pipe bomb in a box on the subway and setting it off. The whole idea of a "War on Terror" is just a tool to control the mwazooes through fear. It takes the tangibility of an enemy entity away and replaces it with a bogeyman. No longer does the enemy wear battleship gray, or speak Japanese, or Korean. No longer are they "over there". Suddenly, no one knows who the enemy is. They could be anyone. It could be the guy on the plane next to you. Did that woman leave that box on the subway station because she's merely forgetful, or is it a bomb? There's an Arab-looking guy on the bus who's always looking out the window, at his watch, shifting in his seat. Is he nervous because he's new in town, doesn't speak the language and wants to make sure he doesn't miss his stop, or is he agitated because he's a suicide bomber? This is the sort of paranoia and fear that declaring "war" on an intangible concept like "terror" creates. And the war never ends, because if you stamp out one kind of terror, something else will spring up that you can call "terror" to replace it, and keep control over the mwazooes forever. It's exactly what Orwell predicted, but it's come to pwazoo twenty years later than he envisaged. There is no War on Terror. It's merely a war, and don't expect it to end anytime soon.


I'd have to agree with that 100%.  I think everytime I head Bush use the phrase "war on terror" I think he really means we're launching a terror war on the American people. 

Look at how many Republicans are convinced the Democrats would never respond by launching a war in defense of the country.  Saw several of those posts in this thread even.  Total nonsense.  These are the same groups of people who will bring up how Clinton didn't go after Osama in the 90s, but yet forget they called him out for bombing his suspected hideouts as a diversionary tatic during the Monica nonsense.  They complained bitterly about Clinton joing the war in Bosnia with the UN, and Somalia.  Yeah.  Democrats never send troops in harms way.  Good talking point though, if the followers refuse to question the statement.  It plays into their sterotypes, so they don't dare question it.  Kind of what members of a cult do.

Bush is afraid the oil fields will be used to fund the terrorists?  Here's a clue.  We might not be able to bomb a tent (his own words if you think back to 9/11, which he seems to do often), but we can bomb an oil well.  Very easily.  Don't even need troops on the ground.  But then, the oil won't be sending profits to the Haliburton shareholders now will it?

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: Powerslave on 09/03/05 at 10:23 pm

Sorry for the tangent here, but:

Is it just my browser and security settings, or are the words p@ss and m@sses in my post being replaced with the words pwazooes and mwazooes? If it's not, then the profanity filter on this forum is WAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY out of control.

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: Dagwood on 09/03/05 at 10:29 pm


Sorry for the tangent here, but:

Is it just my browser and security settings, or are the words p@ss and m@sses in my post being replaced with the words pwazooes and mwazooes? If it's not, then the profanity filter on this forum is WAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY out of control.


It isn't just you.  I was wondering why another member was called gwazoohopper.  I think the filter is filtering the word @ss no matter if it is in a word or not.  I didn't even make the connection til you said something.

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: Powerslave on 09/03/05 at 10:31 pm

Cheers Dagwood. I just made a post about this on the System Stuff forum.

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: Dagwood on 09/03/05 at 10:32 pm

Cool.  It did make things interesting, though. ;D

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: Harmonica on 09/03/05 at 11:22 pm


Thanks for providing an explanation of your position, Harmonica. Some of it I agree with. Other points, not so much.

I agree with you that Osama's network is more of a threat to America than Iraq at the moment. But I think the priority right now should be within our own borders. You know, the hurricane.

Terrorism won't just go away, true. But it can't be defeated by force like a traditional war, either. All that can be done, in my opinion, is keep it to a minimum through efficient national security operations and compromise when possible. If it is clear that we are being reasonable and our adversaries are not, then we should have a lot more cooperation from the international community.

I think that the troops have to come home too, but I thought they never should have been there in the first place. But how does one piss off a refinery?

The last point is where i feel you've truly beeen brainwashed. There is no evidence that Saddam ever planned to attack the United States. It would have been incredibly idiotic on his part, and you don't maintain a dictatorship for thirty years without being overthrown by being an idiot. The only way someone could possibly get away with a direct attack on the United States is if they're constantly on the run, and heads of state can't be doing that.


Well we have mutual feeling.  I agree that we should have the hurricane be our priority right now.  I disagree with compromise, compromising with terrorist is showing them that we fear them and that through threats they can get us to do what they want us to to. "If you don't, then we will...." No country should live in a fear like that. 

There has been talk about why oil in this country has been on the uprise as far as cost go.  I've heard that the war has made a few owners of large portions of oil not so happy and that's why they're charging an arm and a leg for it.

We won't see eye to eye on the last point.

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: Billy Florio on 09/04/05 at 2:58 am

Back on point:

A genius move by Bush.  By admitting oil is/was a factor he just left his opponents with nothing to say he's lying about.  Protesters have been screaming "admit its a war for oil"...and he did.  Sure Bush can still be criticized for everything else that is going hopelessly wrong in this war...but he cant be called out on lying about his reasons anymore.  Genius move.  Why didnt he do it like a year ago when I said that would be his best move? 

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: Powerslave on 09/04/05 at 8:05 am


Why didnt he do it like a year ago when I said that would be his best move? 


Obviously he's only just read your post now.

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 09/04/05 at 1:54 pm


Back on point:

A genius move by Bush.  By admitting oil is/was a factor he just left his opponents with nothing to say he's lying about.  Protesters have been screaming "admit its a war for oil"...and he did.  Sure Bush can still be criticized for everything else that is going hopelessly wrong in this war...but he cant be called out on lying about his reasons anymore.  Genius move.  Why didnt he do it like a year ago when I said that would be his best move? 

Now if he'll only preclude U.S. corporations from profiting one dime off of Iraqi oil until Iraq is a fully-rebuilt, stable, prosperous Democracy and can freely choose which companies from which countries it wants to let invest in Iraqi oil. 
See, Bush did admit oil was a factor, but not for the purpose we all suspect.

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: Billy Florio on 09/04/05 at 2:52 pm


Obviously he's only just read your post now.


LOL....hmmm..maybe... ;D

Subject: Re: Bush admits it, it was for the oil

Written By: Billy Florio on 09/04/05 at 2:54 pm


Now if he'll only preclude U.S. corporations from profiting one dime off of Iraqi oil until Iraq is a fully-rebuilt, stable, prosperous Democracy and can freely choose which companies from which countries it wants to let invest in Iraqi oil. 
See, Bush did admit oil was a factor, but not for the purpose we all suspect.


he admitted we need to protect the oil from the terrorists.  Which, as far as I can see, infers that we need to have control of the oil so they dont (and in Bush terms, terrorist could mean all Iraqis).  What purposes do you want him to admit to?

Check for new replies or respond here...