Dems have gone Mad - Why?

rolmops · Dec 17, 2003

Re: Dems have gone Mad - Why?

Hello. Ok let's get real here. A country like America has no friends.It has interests,for such is the fate of the powerful. Big business had an immense interest in selling whatever to whomever,including Irak and at the same time Iran under the Ayatolla(Bush senior Irangate) If US corporations would not have done the selling,French or Russian companies would have. The real thing happening in Irak right now are the first skirmishes over a fast depleting energy supply source. Whoever voted for Bush and did his homework,knew that he voted for the representative of multinationals and oil companies.The war in Irak is a direct result of the policies of big oil. 9-11 was Ben Laden and the war in Afganistan, not Saddam and Irak,this according to vice president Cheny. The war in Irak is about who controls the price of oil.130000 american soldiers are engaged in making sure that big oil is in control.Not that it will make our gas any cheaper mind you. We may declare victory in Irak, we may clean it up, whatever. Until we find an alternative to oil we will be fighting the wars for big oil, because we are held hostage by them. By the way, this little war has cost us all a pretty penny already ,roughly a hundred billion dollars so far.Vice President Cheny's company -Bechtel- made some billions already and just the other day was caught red handed overcharging the US army 61 million dollars of your and my tax money.This makes you wonder what kind of a guy stands a heart beat away from the presidency. Ever wonder if a hundred billion dollars could speed up the development of an alternative energy source?Do you think it could have helped us by subsidizing healthcare?? Do you really think that Bush preplanned Irak? Or could it be the powers that spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get him elected so they could realise their agenda?? You see I am not very smart so I ask questions hoping to improve my skills.

JB · Dec 17, 2003

Re: Dems have gone Mad - Why?

Gotta make a comment about security of intelligence. I was never assigned to be a spook, but stumbled into a bit of information I thought my country needed. Eisenhower never revealed that he had it or where he got it. If he had my life wouldn't have been worth a plugged Kopek, nor would that of the people to whom I passed it. I think it was unnecessary to reveal what was in the Intelligence Estimate, but I would really object to revealing how it was collected or who did it.

snapperbait · Dec 17, 2003

Re: Dems have gone Mad - Why?

"Facts" and "The truth" Many here seem to quote things as being "facts" or "truths"... Where are we getting our information?... Thats all I want to know... Did you all spend a day at the National Archives digging up real documented facts, or are you just blowing smoke and passing off "facts" and "the truth" you read on some liberal or conservative web site or from what you read in the paper?... Please... Enlighten me...

Ralph 123 · Dec 17, 2003

Re: Dems have gone Mad - Why?

I was wondering how long it would take for the "The big business / oil company" conspiracy theory to be postulated. Look, here is simple economics. We could have lifted the sanctions on Saddam. Kissed his butt a little, had him flood the market with oil and bought it a lot cheaper than the cost of the war in money and certainly in lives. Take it from a person who has spent a good part of his proffesional career in Fortune 500 boardrooms - they aren't that smart or that devious. They can't even cook their own books without people finding out. All they care about is making this quarters numbers, where they are going to have dinner, and alike. To think they could get involved with a conspiracy to start a war in Iraq in order to get access to oil is just plain laughable. Now thinking strategically, I would not doubt that one small factor that went into the go/no go analysis was decreasing our dependency on the Saudis who have proven to play both sides of the coin and can no longer be considered friends after 911. Part of the war on terror requires us to get very tough with the Saudis which is difficult to do when we are so dependent on them. You can already see that changing and see the Saudis change. SB - If you are an informed person - somebody who reads newspapers, magazines, books, watches the news stations, etc it is easy to tell the difference. "Truth" and "facts" do not only reside in the National Archives. Everybody who has an interest in these things should be a varacious consumer of information from all sources, think critically and triangulate to arrive at a point of view

SpinnerBait_Nut · Dec 17, 2003

Re: Dems have gone Mad - Why?

Don't know, but gas is cheaper now.

Dropped 10 cents since Monday here.

Boomyal · Dec 17, 2003

Re: Dems have gone Mad - Why?

Ya know, some people think it makes them look smarter when they criticize the country. Do you know anyone like that? It's more than just healthy questioning. I think it is a self esteem issue. It's what I like to call the Barbara Striesand Sydrome.

snapperbait · Dec 17, 2003

Re: Dems have gone Mad - Why?

Thank you Ralph.. Thats all I wanted to know.. P.S. Ralph, glad to hear your feeling better.. Good to see you back in action..

Ralph 123 · Dec 17, 2003

Re: Dems have gone Mad - Why?

Boomyal - Interesting point. I often think it is sort of like kids from well-to-do families who have every advantage, parents who love them and only want what is best for them and the kids hate them for it. You know what I mean? Thanks SB!

12Footer · Dec 17, 2003

Re: Dems have gone Mad - Why?

Boomyal and Ralph, If you look at what motivates them, it's allways controversy and conspiracy theories. They are largely driven also, by a desire to "make a difference". They see themselves as "individuals", not swayed by anything "the masses say". You've heard it from them, inbedded in thier posts,in the newspaper commentaries and such. But these are the things that drive them. They're not interested in truth, if a majority of the population believe those truths to be self-evidant. They get thier support from media,which is driven by profit margins, which are produced by "dirty laundry". Papers like the Globe, New York Times, National Enquirer are extremes in this group, but even your local newspaper, wherever you are, is to some degree, made interesting by the train-wreck stories. But the "individuals", who express thier beliefs, are often laughed at, and shrugged-off as kooks. The problem comes in when the different "sects" of these minorities come together. Put the Bush-Haters, anti-war folks, Anti-American folks, UFO chasers, anti-christians and others in the same group, allong with a "cause", and you got thier beliefs honed. And thier power comes from the majority they have becomne by combining. Thier champions are the poor, opressed, homeless of our society, wanting to make thier life better, by dragging the rest of civilization down if need-be. They want to feed them cake, but when it comes to teaching them how to bake, they fall-short. It deminishes the number of those who champion them, leaving them without votes. A viscious circle, with no way out. Plywoody, you are a good person, I know. And I'll wager that most who read your posts can see your compassion and concern. Your desire to help the less-fortunate is above noble, and I respect and admire you for it. But try directing that compassion thru the church of your choice, one that you know has helped those less-fortunate in ways you agree with. Try supporting a government who wants to grow properity for all who will werk for it. The results will ammaze you, especially with the assistance of your drive, added to that of the rest of your countrymen. Ralph, this is a very imporatnat issue you raised with this thread. It gets to the real heart of things, that being core beliefs behind the different directions we all take towards making the world a better place. It's not just an American phenomenon, but is global, fitting-into every human society on Earth. I find myself logging on at werk (something a do not have time for usually), just to read what's new in this thread. I'm intrigued by everyone's response. (Yes, even yours, Plywoody). Speakin of werk, gotta fly....30-mile trip to werk every day, but the rewards make it worth the getting-up early, the challenges of the job, and the racking-up of miles on my poor vehicle.

SCO · Dec 18, 2003

Re: Dems have gone Mad - Why?

This is a great thread. Well said all.

plywoody · Dec 18, 2003

Re: Dems have gone Mad - Why?

It is not a conspiracy. No question about it. Again, a conspiracy requires secrecy. We have gone thru the oil thing before, Ralph, and it is but one reason for the war. Not the only reason for it, for sure, and maybe not the biggest, but it is one. **** Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and others have published a 125 page treatise on the reasons why this war is necessary--among other things, and they did this long before 9-11.---even before they took office in 2000 It is available online, in PDF Format. I can post the website, if you wish. Like I say, it is no conspiracy. But this war was predictable long before it happened, and for different reasons that were used to sell to the American people, and the rest of the world, as the reason for war--and they are still trying to sell to the American people. All I ask is they be honest and straightforward--if the war was necessary for the reasons they had before 9-11, fine. I don't think so, but that is just my opinion.

NOSLEEP · Dec 18, 2003

Re: Dems have gone Mad - Why?

You dont need to be a political scientist to see the advancement of the middle east conflict over the years. Its confrontation has been predictable for many years. To say that the war with Iraq was preplanned and unnecessary is naive. Of course any progressive government would have a contingency plan for such an event, should it become necessary.

mellowyellow · Dec 18, 2003

Re: Dems have gone Mad - Why?

ditto NOSLEEP, of course they had a plan to attack prior to 9/11... they have a whole group of people at the DOD that do nothing but this. bet we got plans for canada too, doesn't mean we're eventually gonna invade them though....

NOSLEEP · Dec 18, 2003

Re: Dems have gone Mad - Why?

You can come and save us from ourselves.

SCO · Dec 18, 2003

Re: Dems have gone Mad - Why?

The set of rules seems to be: 1)You can't plan on attacking anyone, because if for some reason you have to attack, then the pre attack planing proves that a profit motive is the bonafide reason for the attack. To believe this you also have to believe that GW is simply using 911 as a pretext for his meniacial schemes or is a patsy for Cheny and the like. Is it not also at least feasible that the pre 911 planing was designed to address the known escallation of the mid east security threat to the USA in the post cold war era? Should our President be handcuffed into inaction by the pre 911 planing, or should a President simply avoid any contingency planing/studies so as not to be handicapped by them? What?????. My favorite logical puzzle..."if the President had contingency plans to attack an enemy, and 911 occurred, would the President's reaction therefore be the execution of that contingency plan because that is what he wanted to do all along?". With that logic, any widow that collects insurance wanted to collect that insurance, was motivated by the insurance money and glad to see the dearly departed depart so as to get on with the lavish spending in ernest. 2) Once you are allied with an entity or Nation, you can never attack them, regardless of what they do in the future. France and Germany obviously adhere to this principle now wrt Iraq. Is their motive profit? They have been supporting Iraq all the while. Their politics are "all about oil", yet those that apply these accusations to the USA are furious because we didn't build a "coalition". Just as those that sided with the axis powers in WWII ended up in dire straights, it will serve Germany and France right if that happens to them. Can't form a coalition w enemies...by definition.

Ralph 123 · Dec 18, 2003

Re: Dems have gone Mad - Why?

Great post SCO - NOSLEEP LOL! Anyway, looks like the mainstream media reads this board

: By James G. Lakely THE WASHINGTON TIMES Conspiracy theories continued to sprout among Democrats yesterday in the wake of the capture of Saddam Hussein. Some Democrats expressed alarm that the party was drifting out of the "mainstream." Madeleine Albright, the secretary of state in the Clinton administration, in a conversation with Morton Kondracke, executive editor of Roll Call and a Fox News Channel political analyst, suggested that Osama bin Laden has been captured by U.S. forces and will soon be produced to the public. "Do you suppose," she asked, "that the Bush administration has Osama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?" Mrs. Albright said last night she was kidding. "She was not smiling when she said this," Mr. Kondracke said. The disclosure of Mrs. Albright's remark followed by a day the charge by Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington that the Bush administration could have captured Saddam "long ago if they wanted," but held off until Mr. Bush could use it as a boost in his approval ratings. "There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing," he said. Earlier, Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, the presumed leader of the Democratic presidential candidates, spoke of "a theory," which he later said he didn't believe, that President Bush had prior knowledge of the September 11 attacks and did not take steps to prevent them. Mrs. Albright tried late yesterday to dampen the controversy over her remarks. "Last night, in the makeup room at Fox News," she said, "I made a tongue-in-cheek comment to Mort Kondracke concerning Osama bin Laden. "To my amazement, Mr. Kondracke immediately went on the air to repeat this comment, which was made to a person I thought was a friend and smart enough to know the difference between a serious statement and one that was not," she said. "My only regret is that the powder puffs were on Mort's face and not in his ears," she said. Mr. Kondracke said yesterday there were others in the room "and they didn't think it was a joke. But if Ms. Albright said she was joking, then I take her at her word." Joe Cerell, a Democratic campaign consultant who has worked in every presidential campaign since 1956, said the comments even if in jest do not help the party. "You'd better know what you're talking about, you'd better have some evidence, or it's counterproductive," Mr. Cerell said. "The more outrageous the comments are, the greater the chance that it's going to turn into a headline." Henry Kissinger, who was secretary of state for Presidents Nixon and Ford, called Mrs. Albright's comment "absolutely ridiculous" and said it exposes a kind of "paranoia" that has engulfed the Democratic Party. "I am very fond of Madeleine, but there's something about President Bush that blows the Democrats' minds," Mr. Kissinger said on "Fox and Friends" yesterday. "They get so rabid in their dislike that they say things which are absurd. If we could find Osama bin Laden on the same day that we could find Saddam, we would do it. It's just not possible that these captures are timed to embarrass the Democrats. It's a sort of paranoia. I think she got carried away." Donna Brazile, who ran Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000, said the comments of Mrs. Albright and Mr. Dean and Mr. McDermott have "no place in our dialogue on this very serious issue. I think most Americans have some lingering doubts about what happened on September 11, but until the commission and Congress completes its investigation, I think it best if people hold these views to themselves. But because we don't yet have a nominee, it's all out in the open." One Democratic consultant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said his e-mail box is "filled daily with conspiracy theories" about supposed Bush administration plots. "There's no way to get away from it. To say the CIA knew where the world's No. 1 terrorist is right now and won't bring him forward, that's immoral." Mr. Dean, in a Dec. 1 interview on National Public Radio, was asked about claims that Mr. Bush is suppressing information that he was warned about September 11. "The most interesting theory that I have heard so far," Mr. Dean said, "is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis." Asked if he had reconsidered the remark six days later on "Fox News Sunday," Mr. Dean said that "we don't know" whether the theory is true or not. Other Democrats have questioned the Bush administration's motives in going to war in Iraq. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts said in September that the war was "made up in Texas." The Bush administration "announced it in January to the Republican leadership that the war was going to take place and was going to be good politically," Mr. Kennedy said. "The whole thing was a fraud." Rep. Robert T. Matsui, California Democrat and member of the House Armed Services Committee, said the war was waged "to an extent to take attention from the economy." Scott Reed, a Republican consultant, predicted that such comments will not be forgotten as the 2004 presidential election grows near especially if Mr. Dean is the Democratic nominee. "Dean, McDermott and Albright sound like the Democratic foreign-policy dream team," Mr. Reed said. "I also heard a rumor that aliens were coming down to Earth to occupy the bodies of three prominent Democrats, and it looks like it came true."

grampa's toy · Dec 18, 2003

Re: Dems have gone Mad - Why?

my daughter lost a classmate in the war, one of the first to die. with a graduating class of 54 people they were all close. the fueneral was something flags everywhere cars lined up and down the street with strangers waveing flags hundreds in attendance,tho it was a sad day there wasn't anyone there who didn't believe in our cause. my daughter who never followed the news or read anything in the paper other than sports does now. she believes if your gonna open a can of whup a*s make it a big one,LOL I do too! but she asked me if the dems. are for us little guys, why are they spending all their time attacking the pres. a not telling us what they are doing to make life better? I don't 100% trust any of them but I agree they're not that smart to plan this all in advance.

plywoody · Dec 19, 2003

Re: Dems have gone Mad - Why?

I just don't understand. If the stated reason for the war was the imminent threat of Saddam, the WMD's, the ties to Alqaida, the nuclear program--and we find later that three of the four of these reasons were known to be untrue, and the fourth proved to be untrue--How could you not question what the real reason for this war was? Especially when listening to the bellicose nature of all the prewar talk coming from the administration--making it pretty clear to all that no matter what Saddam did, war was virtually inevitable. As far as the oil argument, Ralph, I am surprised if you are a frequent visitor of fortune 500 boardrooms, you would not have a better understanding of how this works. Simply removing the sanctions against Saddam could not have possibly solved the problem with OPEC. OPEC tries to control prices by controlling production. Iraq was operating at virtual capacity as it was. Iraq has lots of reserves, but no way to access them. If the US goal would be to render OPEC irrelevant, then it would have to gain operation control over the oil fields, and you have need massive infrastructure improvements in the oil fields themselves, and that investment would not come from inside Iraq. You could not possibly do that with Saddam in power. In order to achieve the goal of making OPEC irrelevant, you need to counter any move they might make to reduce production by making other production available. It is common knowledge that most OPEC countries rely on the oil revenue, and there is no way in any case they could go to zero production. You could potentially counter OPEC by making say 10 million barrels a day available from Iraq--and Iraq is the only country with the reserves to pull this off. Iraq can only produce say a million barrels a day or so now, so a massive infrastructure improvement would be necessary to get to the 10 million a day level. You don't need to pump it--you just need the ability to pump it to gain complete control of oil pricing-- And the only way that could happen is to get Saddam out, and get a preferred leader (like Cheney's favorite Chalabi) in. It could never remotely have happened by simply eliminating the sanctions. Now I am not sure exactly what the reason for this war was--oil could certainly be part of it-though probably not all of it--All I know for sure is it isn't what they said it was, and never was. Which leads to speculation about what the reason really was for it--some of which may or may not be accurate.

mellowyellow · Dec 19, 2003

Re: Dems have gone Mad - Why?

sorry p-woody, but the reason for this war is Sadaams refusal to adhere to the unconditional surrender treaty he "personally signed". the UN and his "niehbor" states backed these reslotions for Iraq to comply in full... he refused! the USA and the UK called his hand. he lost. can u deny he had ample chance to comply? UN voting was unanimous until the ? of war came up... (war=BIG$, & we can't afford) france and germany had loaned Iraq quite a bit $... better they're not overthrown and the economy goes poof. good luck collecting boys

it took many years for this to come to a head, but eventually u gotta make countries accountable or what's the point?

SCO · Dec 19, 2003

Re: Dems have gone Mad - Why?

Plywoody, you state" If the stated reason for the war was the imminent threat of Saddam, the WMD's, the ties to Alqaida, the nuclear program--and we find later that three of the four of these reasons were known to be untrue, and the fourth proved to be untrue" How can you conclude they are untrue reasons? Are you saying there is no Anthrax buried by Saddam anywhere in Iraq or in some other location of his choosing? Was Mohammud Atta trained by Nidal? Was Nidal's 4 head bullet suicide Saddams way of silencing Nidal? If Saddam was in effect training Atta, then I'd call him an imminent threat. I don't know if this will prove to be true or not, and I don't know if any anthrakx will ever be found, but what is the point of fooling around with the likes of Saddam (ref MellowYellow). It is strategically important for us to be there or we wouldn't be there. It was important for us to take him out or we would not have. A difference between Dems and Repubs is in the way we intrepret GW's war declaration against terror. Dems/French/Germans/Alqueda/and some parts of Canada see 911 as an excuse to advance evil schemes, and repubs see 911 as the straw that broke the reluctant camel's back. We are going to do what we have to for our national security. If that includes being unfair to Saddam(not my opinion, but would be ok by me) ,capturing the oil fields and spreading freedom in an inverse domino theory, then so be it.

Dems have gone Mad - Why?

Vice Admiral

Honorary Moderator Emeritus

Vice Admiral

Captain

Honorary Moderator Emeritus

Supreme Mariner

Vice Admiral

Captain

Fleet Admiral

Lieutenant

Senior Chief Petty Officer

Commander

Vice Admiral

Commander

Lieutenant

Captain

Seaman

Senior Chief Petty Officer

Vice Admiral

Lieutenant