Where is thy evidence against Bush???

Supposedly, Saddam was never going to trade with the US again, even if we dropped the sanctions against Iraq. Again, I can't say I blame him. Iraq was using the US dollar for their world trade. Since Iraq was never going to trade with the US again, Saddam had decided to switch to the Euro. Of course, this just wouldn't do for America. First, we'd lose our control over the sanctions we'd been imposing. Second, it would really hurt the US dollar. Third, America would be cut out of the Iraq oil trade permanently. That would be a real problem, since Iraq just happens to have most of the oil left on the planet, and America just happens to use more oil than anyone on the planet. Is the big picture coming into focus yet?

Originally posted by truthseeka
BTW, I like your sig!

It's funny, but it's sad; you can rest assured that the people in control already assumed that about us.

Here you go. Get one to put on your car.

www.bumpertalk.com...

[edit on 3-5-2005 by Moe Foe]

as posted by Moe Foe
That would be a real problem, since Iraq just happens to have most of the oil left on the planet, and America just happens to use more oil than anyone on the planet. Is the big picture coming into focus yet?

Seen where your "big picture" is dropping the price of gas in the US or anywhere else in the world, for that matter?

Being that Iraq itself is experiencing their own gas crisis, that Iraq oil is where and doing what?




seekerof

Good question seekerof!! When is Halliburton going to put measurement valves on their pumps?! I guess that wasn't covered in their contract... Nor was having at least 2 employees handle the billions in transfer money to the CPA.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Seen where your "big picture" is dropping the price of gas in the US or anywhere else in the world, for that matter?

Being that Iraq itself is experiencing their own gas crisis, that Iraq oil is where and doing what?

It ain't doing sh*t right now, is it? I suppose it would have been, if it weren't for the sanctions, and maybe bombing Iraq back to the stone ages once again. None of what's going on now has much to do with what prompted the attack though, so it would seem. You're comparing the reasons to the results? I am very surprised that we don't have tankers bringing oil here by the ship load, though. Maybe it's been kept quiet? Or maybe it just hasn't started yet? I can't imagine the US deciding not to take some oil for their efforts. I mean, they earned it, right? For liberating Iraq?

[edit on 3-5-2005 by Moe Foe]

Global disorder, your assertion is wrong at all points. Sanctions were not working. Saddam managed to get around financially which led to the massive clusterf**k that became the UN Oil-for-Food program scandal. You have consistently ignored very relevant facts surrounding the WMD issues PRIOR to the run-up to the Iraqi war in 2003.

Article 51 do give any chartered nation-state that opportunity to take action in self-defense when circumstances arise. The United Nations consistently failed to prevent that circumstances from arising when other nations were invaded by other nations since the end of World War II and did nothing but offered empty consternation.

So go cry me a river with your empty consternation. The past's the past. Moving along.

Masked Avatar: The inspections were not working as it has been so since 1991, on and off. If Saddam didn't have the WMD all along, why did he continued to give them the consistent merry-go-arounds since 1991? I think that most UN inspectors did lousy jobs of not being effective enough and allowed themselves be manipulated by political whims and obvious deceptions. Don't try to spin it out with some anti-Bush nonsenses with me. War-profiteering is nothing new in this current global civilization.

FACT: You are offering nothing but slanted conjectures about the Bush administration.

[edit on 5/3/2005 by the_oleneo]

[edit on 5/3/2005 by the_oleneo]

Changed cheap insult to "United Nations"

[edit on 3-5-2005 by TheBandit795]

Originally posted by the_oleneo

Masked Avatar: The inspections were not working as it was on-going since 1991, on and off. If Saddam didn't have the WMD all along, why did he continued to give them the consistent merry-go-arounds since 1991? I think that the most UN inspectors did lousy jobs of not being effective enough and allowed themselves be manipulated by political whims and obvious deceptions. Don't try to spin it out with some anti-Bush nonsenses with me. War-profiteering is nothing new in this current global civilization.

At least this appears as some honesty, that the plundering and price gouging and crony capitalism/corruption and criminal behavor of the Bush administration is "nothing new" in war. But that does not justify it, far from it.

Bush officials and foreign representatives pinpointed the precise known location of WMDs that were not there. The Bush administration used false and fabricated intelligence, and presented with a confidence interval of NO MARGIN OF ERROR, that created the picture that the US was under immediate threat of deployable WMDs, and that these were stored in KNOWN LOCATIONS, even though years of UN inspections had proved otherwise.

There is no excuse whatsoever for lying to start a war killing hundreds of thousands of people, and there is no excuse whatsoever for profiting from it. But that is what the incumbent "president" has orchestrated.

Straight up, no slant.

Originally posted by dgtempe
The propondrance of the evidence rests on the Bush fans.

Where is the evidence that he's not evil?

Looking forward to your answers.

You should know better than post something like this. Everyone knows (or should know by now) that it is almost impossible to prove the negative - which is why you liberals keep trying to get someone to do it.

Still stumped? OK. Let's turn it around and have you try it. I'll give you 3 to try your best on.

Please prove for us all that Clinton didn't have sexual relations with all those women that claim he did, or you can prove for us that Hillary Clinton was not hiding all the Whitewater legal documents that somehow turned up later in the White House living area, or you can prove that the Clintons did not have Vince Foster killed because he was going to implicate them.

Looking forward to your answers.


[edit on 5/3/2005 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by centurion1211

You should know better than post something like this. Everyone knows (or should know by now) that it is almost impossible to prove the negative - which is why you liberals keep trying to get someone to do it.

[edit on 5/3/2005 by centurion1211]

Just out of curiosity, why do you think all "liberals" support Clinton? Couldn't a person have different political ideas, while being a member of a certain party, not totally agree with all aspects of that party?

Or is everything black an white in your world? Is everyone who is registered democrat a "liberal" and everyone who is registered a republican a "conservative"? Is it easier for you to understand when you feel threatened by throwing people into easy identifiable groups? Is it a knee-jerk reaction to vilify people who do not think like you, because you are not sure of what you think yourself? So you cling to a group, a clique, that will sooth you and tell you that everything is ok, everyone else is wrong?

Do you really think there is a large group of "liberals" who just sit around and
plot for the US's destruction? While a large group of "conservatives" sit around deciding how to spread democracy throughout the world?

I dont know about the rest of you but I could care less about Clinton. Whether or not he had sexual relations or is a criminal is irrelevant to me. I wouldnt lose much sleep either way. He's not my hero so your not striking a nerve when you bring him up.

Originally posted by Moe Foe
I am very surprised that we don't have tankers bringing oil here by the ship load, though. Maybe it's been kept quiet? Or maybe it just hasn't started yet? I can't imagine the US deciding not to take some oil for their efforts. I mean, they earned it, right? For liberating Iraq?

It doesn't work like that. The country must first hit their reserves. Yes, we will be bringing their oil here - more than likely through a foreign name though. The U.S. will be BUYING the oil. They already have the contracts of course. According to eia:

"Iraq is estimated to hold 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, and possibly much more undiscovered oil in unexplored areas of the country. Iraq also is estimated to contain at least 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The country is a focal point for regional and international security issues."



"The northern Kirkuk field, first discovered in 1927, forms the basis for northern Iraqi oil production. Kirkuk, with an estimated 8.7 billion barrels of remaining reserves, normally produces 35o API, 1.97% sulfur crude.According to Tariq Shafiq, a founding Vice President of INOC, Iraq's oil development and production costs are among the lowest in the world, ranging from as low as $750 million for each additional million bbl/d day in Kirkuk, to $1.6 billion per million bbl/d near Rumaila, and as high as $3 billion per million bbl/d for smaller fields in the northwestern part of the country."

Here is the kicker - if you speak money, "Overall, only about 2,300 wells reportedly have been drilled in Iraq (of which about 1,600 are actually producing oil), compared to around 1 million wells in Texas, for instance."

Bottomline, Iraq is the new Beverly Hillbillies. They don't call it Texas Tea for nothin'...

This is straight from whitehouse website, it is Bush's speech about war. Notice he addresses the Iraqie people and he says, do not destroy oil wells, what he says is in the paragraph below and the whole speech is in the link provided. The very fact that he even mentions oil wells says it all very clearly.

www.whitehouse.gov...
And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."

Originally posted by goose
This is straight from whitehouse website, it is Bush's speech about war. Notice he addresses the Iraqie people and he says, do not destroy oil wells, what he says is in the paragraph below and the whole speech is in the link provided. The very fact that he even mentions oil wells says it all very clearly.

www.whitehouse.gov...
And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."

Good find, Goose!

This little snippet has funny stuff all over it...

1) The very fact that he mentions oil first, instead of the "reason" for the invasion, WMD, is pretty fishy.
2) Bush tells another fat lie, but what else is new? The war crimes committed in Iraq are not being prosecuted, as he claims. All that's being done is the select focus of attention on lower level people who do these things, and not all of them are punished.
3) The last thing he says is very familiar to me. I can't place it, but I've heard it somewhere. Damn, it's on the tip of my tongue, er, fingertips...ah well, it will come to me later.

[edit on 4-5-2005 by truthseeka]

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Bush officials and foreign representatives pinpointed the precise known location of WMDs that were not there. The Bush administration used false and fabricated intelligence, and presented with a confidence interval of NO MARGIN OF ERROR, that created the picture that the US was under immediate threat of deployable WMDs, and that these were stored in KNOWN LOCATIONS, even though years of UN inspections had proved otherwise.

The first real key problem is the weakness of accurate intel in Iraq throughout 1990s. The inspectors were relying on intel from different and foreign sources, including the CIA, MI-6, UN, etc. to give the UN inspection regimes some background knowledges on the entire WMD program Saddam had.

The second real key problem is the reliability of intel from different sources. One intel said that Saddam have this kind of WMD material while the other intel stated that Saddam doesn't have that kind of WMD material, putting contradictory to the whole issue. Many UN inspectors have troubles with contradicting intel sources.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
There is no excuse whatsoever for lying to start a war killing hundreds of thousands of people, and there is no excuse whatsoever for profiting from it. But that is what the incumbent "president" has orchestrated.

There is absolutely no excuse for Saddam to consistently mislead, deceive and stall the UN inspection regimes for 12 years. End. Of. Story.

Saddam have brought too much troubles and pains to his own people and his country in the first place. HIS FAULTS. Not Bush's. Get it?

Post-hoc rationalizations of the criminal acts of the Bush administration are to be expected. It is an extreme form of cognitive dissonance.

Patriotic nationalistic people cannot face that their "elected" "president" is a corrupt, criminal puppet any more than terrorized Iraqis could muster the courage to speak up against the regime of their US-assisted-and-dumped dictator.

Originally posted by boogyman
I dont know about the rest of you but I could care less about Clinton. Whether or not he had sexual relations or is a criminal is irrelevant to me. I wouldnt lose much sleep either way. He's not my hero so your not striking a nerve when you bring him up.

You missed the point of my post entirely. I just used Clinton as a perfect example of why you shouldn't ask someone to attempt to prove a negative. I could have used any such example, but I thought using Clinton would make people pay attention to what I was saying.

Sorry if using Clinton's past issues really touched a nerve with you.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Post-hoc rationalizations of the criminal acts of the Bush administration are to be expected. It is an extreme form of cognitive dissonance.

Ad-hoc hypocrisy, slanted conjectures and delusional "rationalizations" of the Left, normally associated with people like you are to be expected. It is an extreme form of cognitive dissociation with reality.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Patriotic nationalistic people cannot face that their "elected" "president" is a corrupt, criminal puppet any more than terrorized Iraqis could muster the courage to speak up against the regime of their US-assisted-and-dumped dictator.

Hmm, the only difference is that here you could freely say anything like you and expected a counterpoint from someone whereas any Iraqi or Kurd couldn't say anything bad against Saddam without risking a visit from his henchmen or a visit to the execution pits. Why the United States dealt with Saddam was a Cold War matter and Iran, being the new enmity of the US, was the primary motive of a reluctant US assistance.

I would suggest to keep yourself informed in this website: LGF. They usually do fine jobs of exposing and pointing out such hypocrisies and slanted conjectures that have no basis in reality, such as yours.

Thanks, but no thanks, to that link.

Cognitive dissonance is not "cognitive dissociation from reality". Learn the difference. It's all here at ATS.

There are too many posters with dichotomous views of "left" and "right", "Republicans" and "Republicans", "us" and "them". It stands in the way of reasoned argument. There are not two sides to every story. There are not sides. Things are multi-faceted.

Unless, of course, you subscribe to the low-level mentality of "you're either with us or against us" which is the philosophy that most breeds "slanted conjecture" and "dissocation from reality".

For those sucked in by George W Bush's immortal words, continue to defend the daily lies and criminality of his administration and all his actions sycophantically, if it provides your life with purpose.

Believe that this makes you a patriot, if you will. But don't expect anyone who was not sucked in by the lies to be sucked in by them years later. The tide has turned against the believers of bullsh*t or Bush*t.




"The contemporary proliferation of bullsh*t also has deeper sources, in various forms of skepticism which deny that we can have any reliable access to an objective reality, and which therefore reject the possibility of knowing how things truly are. These "antirealist" doctrines undermine confidence in the value of disinterested efforts to determine what is true and what is false, and even in the intelligibility of the notion of objective inquiry.... Rather than seeking primarily to arrive at accurate representations of a common world, the individual turns toward trying to provide honest representations of himself. Convinced that reality has no inherent nature, which he might hope to identify as the truth about things, he devotes himself to being true to his own nature. It is as though he decides that it makes no sense to try to be true to the facts, he must instead try to be true to himself." On Bullsh*t, Harry G. Frankfurt, Professor Emeritus (Princeton).





[edit on 4-5-2005 by MaskedAvatar]

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
[edit on 4-5-2005 by MaskedAvatar]

Maskie, anything you say here is a slanted conjecture. I'm not going to put up with your hypocritical nonsense.

Boo you.

[edit on 5/5/2005 by the_oleneo]

Well after reading 1/4 of this thread so-far how can most support anything governmental? Mr Bush doesn't make mistakes - yes?, and his war mongering is not true - yes?, and he's just a salesperson to the American people and reporting to the secret government - yes?
You may as well sum up the NWO and Draco to www.geocities.com...

The late Thomas Castello..

Dallas

Originally posted by the_oleneo


Maskie, anything you say is a slanted conjecture and anything you can say contradictorily to hard facts is a hypocrite calling the shots. You ain't alone in that as there are plenty of like-minded individuals just monkeying around with something they don't comprehend except to screech like monkeys and pretend to look smart.

Aren't monkeys like you soooooo cute?!!

ATS members can take note of the above as an example of how not to post in a discussion forum intended for courteous debate. Such contributions often mark the commencement of the one way door to alternative pursuits when the member is seen to abandon topics in favor of attempting to insult more capable, considerate and worldly members with whom they cannot match fact-based argument.



Insults aside, perhaps it is timely to put the cute monkeys back where they belong:


external image


If you are not vermin or louse, then at least be careful to groom yourself for vermin and louse when you are done playing with Bush.



edit to resize image

[edit on 6-5-2005 by SkepticOverlord]