Worst President

I'm not a huge fan either but your knowledge of the man is highly skewed. Not surprising when you take into account the mainstream media view.
Influence may have helped him get into an Ivy league school but it didn't do the course work for him.
He didn't execute any prisoners as that isn't one of the duties of the Governor. He was a Governor though in a state that has laws that authorize and actively uses capital punishment.
He became President by getting millions of Americans to vote for him, only a very small percentage of which were evangelicals or corporate executives.
He didn't wage a war to get oil and the oil companies haven't harvested any of it. Iraqi oil is sold on the open market to anyone with the currency to purchase it. The US has , in the past and presently, purchased very little Iraqi oil. The US produces more oil than Iraq and the US has other sources and would do just as well as any other industrialized country if no Iraq oil were being produced.

But don't let a small thing like facts stand in the way of your informed opinions

 

well said,grieg...its amazeing how much hatred there is out there for W bush , you would think he was the white angel of aushwitz...

 

On the topic of oil, which we never seem to leave, here are some interesting facts, although they are too general to be very useful in such a discussion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/g ... 3page1.stm

For me the whole 'oil' angle is just not plausible enough as a motive for the Iraq war. If you want to get all conspiracy theory on it, why not point to something a bit less deniable, like the whole Halliburton thing?

 

It's true enough that the Americans did not go into Iraq with the specific aim of "getting oil". In fact, like Grieg said, the oil produced by the liberated country is being sold on the open market instead of being siphoned off to the US. However, the Bush administration is quite explicit in its intention to stabilize the middle east through creating a strong democratic country there that the other nations in the region will see as an example. Democratization, according to neo-conservative thinkers, equals progress, market economy and stability, all of which are to the advantage of the US when it seeks markets for its own products and desires the resources of other countries. For the specific case of the Middle East, this desired resource is oil.

Therefore the Iraq War was most definitely fought for oil. It's just that this is a perfectly logical and reasonable object for a massive oil consumer like the US to go to war for.

 

It's not about siphoning it, it's about control of oil reserves for the future.
This is not a tactical question (getting the oil at this instant), but strategical question who will have oil in the future ( and who will sell it at what price).
US now controls oil in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE ( i.e. US military is present in all these states). It's military is also present in Afganistan that is bordering on Oil rich ex. Soviet republics and Georgia has US friendly goverment. Up until now they only failed in Venezuela.

Now let's remember Venezuela. This country has largest reserves of heavy crude oil in the world. French TV made remarkable documentray about faild cue and counter cue in that country.Their TV crew was in Venezuela all time and also in presidental palace when both cues happened. It was interesting to see media cowerage (especcialy privatly owned stations) and their extremly crude manipulations. In one interview after the cue couple of high ranking military officers braged about how succesful they were in media manipulation (with their gratious support) and thanked their host (he was also braging about it BTW) for great support they recived by his station pre and during the cue.
Now who exactly did leader of that failed cue visit in Crawford Texas (two weeks before cue)? Which was the only country that recognised the cue goverment (breaking one international treaty that it signed in process) and pissed of entire South America? I was quite sorry for Powell when he had to deny US involment. Guy looked like he just swalloved the frog (that guy realy can't tell a lie).

It was school example of standard CIA style cue.
1. Civil unrest with demonstrations and contra demonstrations with enevitable clash. Some dead blamed on the poeple in power (target of the cue). Possible terrorist acts blamed on the target and his/her followers (operation Ajax, operation Gladio....).
2. Media demonisation of target and his/her followers
3. Army steps in to preserve the peace and remove (or influence like in Italy) democraticaly elected goverment.
4. Removal of poeple in influential positions (high court judges, judges, reporters...) that are suspected of being simphatetic to removed goverment.

All 4 points were brilliantly executed. Problem arose when army (lower ranking officers and grunts and especially presidental guard i.e. guys with red barets) dicovered they were duped. Now most of Venezuelan military (enlisted perssonell and low ranking officers + couple of higher ups) is composed mostly from poeple with poor background. And when they saw they were pulled into a classic style CIA coup d'etat with some generals in forefront and strong possibility of country becoming another Chille or Argentina they were pretty pissed off. Let's just say that film which showed guys with red barets doubling the guard and them runing trough the palace and generals and admirals that started runing to the limos was kind of interesting. It was also interesting to see new cue goverment (minus it's president that was on his way to the airport and Florida) shit scared under guard in the basement of presidential palace and former president of high court (that was illigaly removed by military) preaching them that they will not be shot since Venezuela is country that respects the law and they will be tied for treason (prison time).

 

so ...bush aint a dummy afterall...he,s behind a huge machivellian plan for world domintion,an evil genius, if u will...i feel much better now...thankyou ,tiso

 

Tiso wrote:

We may be getting a substantial amount of oil from the Middle East, but how much longer can Saudi Arabia or any of the region's other oil producers sell this Western evil before their populations get tired of it? Just imagine the region's and the world's outrage if it becomes clear that the US is truly siphoning gas out of Iraq. A monopoly over the Middle East's oil is an impossible task, and not even comparble in difficultly to the democratization of Iraq. Oil in the Middle East, and hell pretty much everywhere else, lacks stability. I would hope US foreign policy makers realize this and take a more rational course, such as installing (or attempting to install) a friendly and pro-Western government. A stable Iraq could translate to a healthy petroleum partner. Winning the hearts and the minds of the people is the key and a seemingly unattainable dream, but one thing is for certain: American assistance (through commodities like food and medicine) is highly preferred over a military occupation.

I also doubt that the US would actually even consider invading and occupying ex-Soviet states. Although the Soviet Union fell, that area is still a Russian sphere of hegemony; like the US and the Caribbean. An invasion of Azerbaijian or Uzbekistan and Kazhakstan would be an insulting and possibly dangerous move. Not only would Russia feel highly insulted by this, the population too would not take this lightly. They have shed one oppressive dictatorship and shall combat another. Protests and marches in these countries during the late 1980s and early 1990s were hallmarks of a desire for democracy, even with their tendencies to erupt in ethnic disputes. Students, farmers and the intelligentsia took to the streets in outcry, often tens and even hundreds of thousands of them amassing in one location. The world underreported the republics' break from Russia's imperialist grip back when it when it was gaining momentum (the Iron Curtain and a lack of understanding when it came to non-Russian peoples and their attitudes towards communism caused this). This time, the entire world will be watching the US absorb another oil-producer and especially the indigenous democratic uprisings that occur thereafter. I guess in summation I find any attempt to usurp the world's supply of oil at the hands of the US a far out and certainly thrown out idea.

 

Ah - their military may be present but that does not mean they control the oil.

 

Well they are just a stick in case...
Well US presence in Saudia Arabia is main beef that Osama had with US since 1991.

 

That's mostly because he just plain does not like the US. Does Osama have any links to the Saudi Oil companies (beyond simply being a member of their Royal house)? Has he ever stepped forward and said 'I am sending people out to attack America because they are trying to control our oil?

I don't actually know - I suspect not, but am happy to be informed.

 

Lol...as soon as Tiso slips on his conspiracy theory tinfoil hat and starts spouting about the CIA and the US plot to control the world I cease to reply. To reply to such nonsense lends it a kind of credibility that it doesn't deserve. Besides, any rational person reading such stuff can see it for what it is IMO.

 

No. He just woke one fine morning and decided: " Today we start to hate US even tough they supplied us with weapons for last 10 years".

Nobody is claiming that he is pissed off becouse of oil. He was pissed off becouse US forces stayed in Saudi Arabia (becouse of oil) after the 1991 (second gulf) war without even formal agreeament with Saudi. He is religious fanatic, for him it is unacceptable that infidel US forces are staying in Saudi Arabia and have watchfull eye on most holy muslim places.

I simpy read and analyse. If 17 years living in communist regime thought me something, it is that nothing is what it seems at the first glance. Living in communism teaches one most of agitprop (agitation & propaganda) techniques. We know how this things work. Perhaps that is the reason that most east Europeans are always sceptical and cynical of what they read or see on TV news.
Media reporting is same in all regimes (democraty, communist, fachism...) since it brings information and commentaries in way that will benefit them (specific media/jurnalist/editor). That meanes in communism & fachism not being closed down and/or thrown in jail, in democraty bringing more interesting info (from goverment sources) and money from big bussines. It's a cynical stance but upon closer examination this seems correct.

Now claiming that USA and specificaly CIA were just spreading democraty all over the world in last 60 years is to me same as claiming that Stalin created worker paradise.
If you don't belive me enter following words into google search:
for starters:
operation ajax (one of the sites is official CIA.gov history site)
operation Gladio
USS Liberty (USS Liberty survivals site:http://www.ussliberty.org/)
operation PBSUCCESS
Operation PBFORTUNE
.
.
.

 

tiso ..it was never the cia,s job to spread democracy..the job for the past 50 years was to thwart soviet or communist expansion..not an easy task.if it werent for reagen an gorby they would be at it still...as for western media...they mostly try to report the news correctly as best they can...pundits and editers can spout opinions...news men mostly have to get the news right or people will get their news elswhere...its the compitition ,free market ,free press thing...pravda and al jazerra dont have pesky competeing news souces and so they can report whatever they please...whos gonna know....

 

By owerthrowing democraticaly elected goverments. Since fall of eastern block and new information it seems that US got basic goals of SSSR block wrong.

Anyone that is not watcing news on only one chenell and that can use at least 10% of his brain.
It is interesting to compare reporting of BBC news, CNN, FOX news. FOX is pounding CNN for bias reporting even tough CNN sometimes glosses over some of administrations mistakes. By far most objective is BBC news. Ever seen Hard Talk? Their intervievers made Rumsfeld, chief of Hezbolah in Lebanon, Wolfowitz...., sqirm on their chairs.
No pre delivered questions here and don't even try to some political garbage. Guys going to interview on this show has to have some serious cohones. Bloody good show.
How i rate FOX i already wrote in one of my prewious posts.
I don't watch Al Jazeera since i don't understand arabic (unfortunaltly). Most have problems with them becouse they are showing dead bodies of civilians (blown up by US, Israeli...), but when western chanells show bodies of those killed by terrorists that is OK. Isn't that a bit double standards?

 

discuss

Linking up with the discussion:

1. The second Gulf War (1991) between Iraqi and Coalition forces was about the control of oil in the Gulf region, because the annexation of Kuwait meant that Hussain controlled a quarter of the world's oil production.

2. The third Gulf War (2003) was NOT about oil. A mere lifting of the embargo against Iraq would make the oil available for the US, but the US opted for an expensive war, which costs could not be covered by possible oil revenues from Iraq and cripples the Bush administration to tackle problems at home (like New Orleans, etc.).

A decade after the second Gulf War Iraq is of minor (oil)interest due to the discovery of huge oilreserves in Nigeria and Central Asia. Besides, the future war for resources will be fought in the Pacific bassin for the control of South-East Asia and the Pacific rim.

According to my opinion the war on Iraq is sincerely waged to secure 'the safety of the US and its allies'. This last addition is of major importance, because the US mainland is of course not under threat of Iraq, nor is Western Europe or Japan/Taiwan. The major ally of the US in the Middle East is Israel, which is the country which most benefited from the war (according to the leading Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld), because its most dangerous adversary in the region has been knocked out.

The only US/Israeli miscalculation is that islamic Iran is bound to fill up the vacuum of Iraq by presenting itself as the champion of the (Shia) Islamic world, which is far more dangerous than the pale Baatist profile of Iraq. Iran is currently gaining rapid popularity among muslim minority by defying US pressure on its nuclear programme and challenging Israel. Palestinian and Libanese are already more Teheran-minded and so is the Shia 'minority' (which will soon by a majority) in Iraq.

 

tiso, here in the usa the media almost never show dead bodies of any kind...as to reporting numbers killed for instance,israelies ..2 soldiers kidnapped,mia.....arabs killed in retaliation ...over 100 so far i belive...if anything the western press loves to portray the idf as the bad guys in these clashes steiner,it would seem that removeing sadam was not such a good call ..the ayahtollas are not going to be a big inprovement...for us in the west

 

Ditto.

 

Do i sense someone losing will to argument?
As i said, read some of the speaches of US politicians and those standing behind them (like neocon think tanks), watch some documentaries on Discovery channel (interviews with retired agents, generals, politicians... from both sides of cold war are particulary interesting), do NOT watch only FOX news and use your own head to analise info gathered. If they serve you with nicely wraped package of who is to blame something is definetly wrong.


Steiner i tend to agree, that one of motives was defence of Israel, but Iraq posed no threat to that country so i don't belive it was the only motive. With it's airforce in ruins, balistic armmament mostly destroyed, no boder with Israel (to cross with tanks) i seriously doubt that even Sadaam would attack regional nuclear power. Even he was not that stupid. On the other hand US will have to keep it's military in the golf country's for next 10+ years.

 

No, but I get tired of trying to reason with a brick wall. When your agruments are reduced to belittling people (most members of this forum do not get their info from FOX news), they are not arguments. Apparently I'm not the only one that feels this way.

I'd rather not take the bait, frankly your anti-US/anti-West rant isn't worth the rise in blood pressure.

Go ahead and monopolize this topic, I really appreciate your insights on the WWII stuff and I'd like to keep it friendly. Believe whatever conspiracy theories fit your world view.

Oh, and don't rely on Al Jazeera for all your news.

 

Well if you read the topic I was pronounced as well known conspiracy theorist wanting to unleash my theories on the world.
:smok: :smok: :smok: :smok: :smok: :smok: :smok:

I don't. I don't know Arabic (but i realy want to know what is pissing everyone in US and UK off). I rely on the net, BBC, CNN, some German chanells (during commercials), local chanells and printed media and i admit i watch FOX news (for comedy intermezzo) from time to time. All in all avarage 1 hour of news daily (yeah i know i'm a news freak ). And i just love documentaries about WW2 and cold war.

Good point.