Bartizek

I think it's a bit ignorant to say that the war has absolutely no connection with oil, sure it wasnt a reason to start, but it was definately a plus..."Hey we get to take care of terrorist threats, AND we get to take over some oil". But i don't think there was a significant "threat" from saddam. Osama, certainly, he proved that he was a threat. I just think it was rediculous how Bush's administration claimed to KNOW that there was WMD's but failed to find ANY.

Believe me, im not a fan of bush for the least bit, but He isnt the real problem, it's the entire government at the moment.

I mean come on the guy can't even speak english! Plus the whole waiting 8 minutes or whatever at a storytime before he reacted to 9-11? That is just stupid.

cornercarve98

Ok, to clear up, hughes, I was commenting off your last post. I should have qouted you so you'd know I was referencing you. Looks like someone else posted right before I did, so I'm not responding to them in case you were confused.

I hope that response wasn't geared toward me, because I agree with you. I wasn't going to label sides, even if it was obvious, but alas you did. I'm in it for finding out the truth, I don't want to make enemies here, I just want to discuss.

As far as oil in the US is concerned, I know we have a bunch in tar sands and off shore. I'm sick of sources spinning things just to promote their agenda. I wish I could get some plain old striaght facts with history leading up to it because I like to make objective decisions regarding important issues. And no I don't have enough time to devote to knowing all that is politcal, or even on a specific subject like this, so maybe I don't have a right to type on this. And maybe I don't care enough to devote more time, but I want to be involved in this discussion, so ya. Let's keep this rolling.

macdaddyslomo

INVADE AFGHANISTAN ? YES !

INVADE IRAQ ? NO !

BUSH EVIL ? YES !

BUSH DUMB ? YES !

BUSH THE PROBLEM ? HELL YES !

Bartizek

basically.

hughes412

At what point have we taken over the oil fields? At what point has our prices gown down? How is Bush tied into the oil? Show us where our people in our government has gained from this war.

Like I said. IF there was anything showing that anyone in the current administration was making a profit it would be on every news station in ever paper and they most likely would be shot.

Ignorance is believing in the whole conspiracy theory! Like I said, don’t listen to what’s on the TV, Do your own research and you would find out the truth.

hughes412

My post was a general statement. But in response to your post. To even think we ignored the threat of an attack is foolish. No president would ever do that. That would leave to many chances of him getting caught not doing his job and would be kicked out of office and charged with say involuntary manslaughter at the least. Kind of like if you kill some one while driving drunk. With all of the leaks that Washington has today don’t you think if something like that really happened there would be some kind of evidence to prove it?

There are a lot of reasons why we are there, the main reason is we SHOULD have already been there!

Bartizek

I'm not saying i believe the conspiracys but its common sense that US oil companies are making money off the war. The oil trade between the US and parts of the middle East has most likely slowed down a good bit, meaning that more US oil is being used in the US. So who's getting more money? the US oil companies!

I don't need a news station to tell me that If their are multiple sources of a product, and one of the sources ceases, that the others will make a bigger profit, it's the whole "piece-of-the-pie" theory.

I'm not saying the war is about oil, it's not, it's about this crazy idea that the US has that we have to be the police in the world, which at this point, we do becuase we already got ourselves into it, and to back out now would make the world pissed that we did a half assed job and then left.

BTW, im not looking to get into a heated arguement, I'm just trying to clear up what i believe in. btw im only 16 anyways, what do i know?

mazdabel

Hmmm. Apparently my seeing something for the first time and deciding to start a thread about it has caused a pretty good amount of feedback. Hughes brings up several good points but my opinion is not the one of someone gullible or even insecure. Of course the originators of the whole conspiracy issue are more than likely Bush-haters, and sure, some of them are liberal as well. I of course am not either of those. I just found it interesting and it just so happened that the subject of chem-trails came to my attention roughly at the same time.

I strongly believe in all types of gov't cover-ups to protect our great nation's security. But you have to ask yourself: to what extent do they decide what we are to know and what is in our best interests not to know. That's the point I wanted to get across. Like I've said before, what the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public.

cornercarve98

Hughes 412:

"My post was a general statement. But in response to your post. To even think we ignored the threat of an attack is foolish. No president would ever do that. That would leave to many chances of him getting caught not doing his job and would be kicked out of office and charged with say involuntary manslaughter at the least. Kind of like if you kill some one while driving drunk. With all of the leaks that Washington has today don’t you think if something like that really happened there would be some kind of evidence to prove it?

There are a lot of reasons why we are there, the main reason is we SHOULD have already been there!"

Understood. Thank you. I definitely say that if we ignore a threat, that is our government/whoever should be handling that stuff, we're/they're not doing their job. I was more getting at (orignally) the denial aspect of some people who don't want something (a problem, threat, issue) to be there, even if they know it exists or will exist.

And yes to answer your question, there would be evidence somehow. People talk...or they get recorded and the gig is pretty much up.

In other response, I don't think that the US has it hard core to forcably police everybody in the world. I believe it's a label as a result of the fact that we have immense resources to help other countries potentially improve their situation, whatever it may be; and thus feel a responsibility to do what we can to help with what we have to offer. I think it's better than keeping the wealth and opportunity to ourselves (even though there's nothing inherently bad about it).

Now, to what degree we help/aid/defend and to how many countries is a tough balance. There are obviously our interests involved in a lot of cases (which I think is the reason why people yell "oil" for the War on Terror, even though it isn't). We have our people to defend...even if they are overseas and get attacked. Foreign policy is not black and white all the time, unfortunately, and I think that's where a lot of people get hung up on whether or not to go ahead/continue in a particular course of action. Either they don't see the long term result or they get tied up in manipulated facts and reports bent on an agenda. Again, it's a tough balance between not doing anything at all (letting those involved handle and potentially destroy more than necessary) and trying to make peace or resolution somehow (and how much effort do we put into it).

Bush doesn't want to do a half-baked job. Pulling out now would be a waste of our (and coalition) military efforts and of the lives lost in this war. No, we will never be able to get rid of terrorism 100%, but we can lessen it a whole lot. It's like just because there are police there isn't crime. Crime exists, just on a much much lower level. I think we should be there because that's following our (President's) commitment to fighting terrorism (and really in essence saving innocent lives) as well as keeping the government's role in protecting us from our enemies. Bush did something about the attacks. Pretty quick. And there is progress, there is success, in this campaign. It's not microwave quick, but it's there. Anyways, thanks for reading.

meGrimlock

well good news for anybody anti-bush, he'll be out of the oval office come jan 2009. rather than fixating on what he did, future leaders should focus on "fixing" his mixups. i think that would get more accomplished. and if i ever believed that any of the conspiracy theories had even an ounce of plausibility, i'd be living in canada already. i dont think bush is all that great, but damned if i was gonna let leiberman or edwards into office.

macdaddyslomo

Unfortunately by then it may be too late....he has already strengthened the executive office so much, it's more like a dictatorship than 3 equal branches of government. And it's getting worse.

Bush has even joked " This country would be easier to run if it were a dictatorship, as long as I'm the dictator "

cornercarve98

That's a funny joke.

meGrimlock

reagan also said, "My fellow Americans. I'm pleased to announce that I've signed legislation outlawing the Soviet Union. We begin bombing in five minutes." (a little off topic, sorry)

macdaddyslomo

bwahahahaha!!

the 80's rocked !

DEm

Are you 100% positive sure that this guy its out jan 2009?, its there a limit to the times you can be re-elected?? I mean, the first administration period was enough to realize that electing that *** was a mistake, but, oh surprise, he came back for second servings... who voted for bush anyway??? I dont know a single person who voted for him... ammm oh yeah... diferent country... hehehe

anyway, I leave you guys with a video that invites the viewer to Reflection.
Bush!