PDA

View Full Version : The George Bush debate


Ochayethenoo
02-27-2006, 07:08 PM
I created this thread after watching a programme about Bush and how he has cheated in life and how he has treated his country.
It's just terrible to think how many people have suffered in his hands.
It dosen't make sense that he got voted in... TWICE!!
When is it that American presidents get elected?
2, 3 years?
I believe Bush is destroying the US and generally everything.
I'm not american, but even Scotland has been affected by George Bush's actions.
First there's his blackmailing our honorable mr. blair, abd now eveything since then.
He hasn't got long.

DaRkUmBrEoN
02-27-2006, 07:14 PM
A president is chosen every 4 years, though, there are exceptions.
But anyway, we can't make the American people change their opinion.
They chose him, because the majority thought he was the right thing for their country, and not necessarily for sake of the world.

BTW, a friend of mine noted that 1 out of so many republican presidents have been assassinated... Though, dunno if it's true.

Kenny_C.002
02-27-2006, 08:33 PM
That majority being a guy who stirred controversy the first time, and polarized America in the second one? Meh.

Seriously, Bush barely won the second election by the slimmest of margins, and quite frankly I personally thought Bush did something in the Florida voting in the first one, as foretold by Moore.

Ochayethenoo
02-28-2006, 05:19 PM
He got his troops' vote and used his daddy's power to prohibite his opposition's voters.
Apparently though, he can only serve two terms.
So, that's good.

Orange_Flaaffy
02-28-2006, 05:22 PM
*sigh* My first year being old enough to vote for a Pres. and it did not amount to beans :P

Neo Emolga
02-28-2006, 05:25 PM
Actually, don't mind me, but many people over here have a strong feeling that Bush will most likely be assassinated for what he's done. And trust me, a LOT of people who voted for Bush during the last election had turned against him, and his approval rating has dropped to an incredible low.

Meh, it's been a long, long time since we've truly had a good and honest president who thinks more for the people and not just for big businesses...

The End
02-28-2006, 05:52 PM
You mean like Richard Nixon.

Neo Emolga
02-28-2006, 05:57 PM
']You mean like Richard Nixon.

Actually, I'm thinking way back to Franklin Roosevelt...

The End
02-28-2006, 06:02 PM
Nixon did alot to ease Cold War tensions.

Neo Emolga
02-28-2006, 06:03 PM
']Nixon did alot to ease Cold War tensions.

Watergate Scandal.

'Nuff said.

The End
02-28-2006, 06:55 PM
That's like saying John Lennon is bad because he did drugs.

Neo Emolga
02-28-2006, 07:05 PM
']That's like saying John Lennon is bad because he did drugs.

That doesn't make him good either. And I can honestly say I'm not crazy about his music...

Now back to the topic on hand...

The End
02-28-2006, 07:48 PM
You are going to let one incident ruin an otherwise better than average record? Regardless of what you have to say about him, I'd rather have him as president over Bush.

EDIT: It wasn't just John Lennon's music, it was the Beatle's music, share the love man.

Ochayethenoo
03-01-2006, 03:22 PM
I agree with [ PinK BluR ], if i was in america under bush's power, i probably would want Nixon back, but because he's dead i guess it's not going to happen...

Pika57
03-01-2006, 07:49 PM
']You are going to let one incident ruin an otherwise better than average record? Regardless of what you have to say about him, I'd rather have him as president over Bush.

EDIT: It wasn't just John Lennon's music, it was the Beatle's music, share the love man.


What about Clinton? He did one thing wrong, but otherwise was an excellent President.

Tamer San
03-01-2006, 07:56 PM
What about Clinton? He did one thing wrong, but otherwise was an excellent President.

Well not really, at least not to me. Hi agreements with Israel would have made americans and israelies lifes better, but it would have annihalated(sp?) us Palestinians from excistance, I totaly hate Clinton.

Pika57
03-01-2006, 07:58 PM
Well not really, at least not to me. Hi agreements with Israel would have made americans and israelies lifes better, but it would have annihalated(sp?) us Palestinians from excistance, I totaly hate Clinton.


There has to be some obvious solution to a middle east peace process...

Tamer San
03-01-2006, 08:00 PM
And I am sure that solution should include us in Palestine. We have 5,000,000 Palestinian not allowed to go home in Palestine for more than 50 years now. I guess they deserve to go back home, and the only American president I will ever respect would be a president that brings fair peace to the Middle East, which I highly doubt.

Pika57
03-01-2006, 08:04 PM
Maybe we should blow up everything but some third world country that doesn't know industry or corruption.

Tamer San
03-01-2006, 08:07 PM
Maybe we should blow up everything but some third world country that doesn't know industry or corruption.

What are you talking about? :\

Incongruity
03-01-2006, 08:10 PM
Presumably if we nuke every civilized nation in the world, there would be no weapons of war, and we'd be reduced to the stone age. Ideally, this would mean peace.


Although, a book was written on this, and the author apparently thought that even then, humans would fight with fists, sticks, and stones.





Yet, pika's idea isn't bad. If we kill every single jew and every single muslim (and follow with a wide-scale media coverup), there would theoretically be peace in the middle east.

squirtle
03-01-2006, 08:14 PM
isn't this thread supposed to be about bush?

Tamer San
03-01-2006, 08:14 PM
Actually American won't do this, they spend billions on military industry, peace would mean a destruction in the financial balance and strength of the United States of America. All her wars, even the Israelie/Palestinian conflict, USA doesn't want that to stop, they sell Israelies arms, and that profiets Bush and the White house. Peace will never come true unless America has fallen, or changed all her millitary industry into more civilian based industry.

Pika57
03-01-2006, 08:15 PM
Presumably if we nuke every civilized nation in the world, there would be no weapons of war, and we'd be reduced to the stone age. Ideally, this would mean peace.


Although, a book was written on this, and the author apparently thought that even then, humans would fight with fists, sticks, and stones.





Yet, pika's idea isn't bad. If we kill every single jew and every single muslim (and follow with a wide-scale media coverup), there would theoretically be peace in the middle east.

Tamer, run for your life. SSK is an extremist.

but how would we cover it up? Say that a giant Dodo from outerspace attacked them?

The End
03-01-2006, 08:15 PM
Christians are basically fancy Jews so kill them.

squirtle
03-01-2006, 08:16 PM
what happened to the bush debate?

Tamer San
03-01-2006, 08:18 PM
Tamer, run for your life. SSK is an extremist.

He said kill Jews and Muslims, I am niether a jew or a Muslim dude. Living in the Middle East doesn't make you just one of those two religions. :rolleyes:

isn't this thread supposed to be about bush?

Yeah, but talking about Bush means talking about either "Idiots" which is not allowed in Debates board, or "Politics".

Christians are basically fancy Jews so kill them.

Shut up, this is a serious debate...

Pika57
03-01-2006, 08:21 PM
He said kill Jews and Muslims, I am niether a jew or a Muslim dude. Living in the Middle East doesn't make you just one of those two religions. :rolleyes:



Yeah, but talking about Bush means talking about either "Idiots" which is not allowed in Debates board, or "Politics".



Shut up, this is a serious debate...

It so easy to get caught in crossfires these days.

Tamer San
03-01-2006, 08:23 PM
Tell me about it, a bullet in my back and another one killed my friend, and we were barely passing by when suddenly they started shooting :(

Alonso
03-01-2006, 08:33 PM
Presumably if we nuke every civilized nation in the world, there would be no weapons of war, and we'd be reduced to the stone age. Ideally, this would mean peace.

Although, a book was written on this, and the author apparently thought that even then, humans would fight with fists, sticks, and stones.

Yet, pika's idea isn't bad. If we kill every single jew and every single muslim (and follow with a wide-scale media coverup), there would theoretically be peace in the middle east.
Sorry to say this but, are you ******* stupid, killing every single Jew and Muslim out there will only give the Iranians the BEST chance to start another holocaust. That damn Iranian president says the WWII holocaust is a myth. Bullshit. They should hang that guy.
what happened to the bush debate?
Why do you care anyway? Just insert something about and Bush in the thread and it'll come back. And world politics always has to do with Bush.

So what do you people think Bush went to Iraq for. I propose the oil.

Tamer San
03-01-2006, 08:38 PM
Sorry to say this but, are you ******* stupid, killing every single Jew and Muslim out there will only give the Iranians the BEST chance to start another holocaust. That damn Iranian president says the WWII holocaust is a myth. Bullshit. They should hang that guy.

Have you ever heard of sarcasm, SSK was being sarcastic. :rolleyes:

And from what you said, you appear to be a Jewish.

Alonso
03-01-2006, 08:46 PM
Have you ever heard of sarcasm, SSK was being sarcastic. :rolleyes:

And from what you said, you appear to be a Jewish.
Actually I am not Jewish. And I am not Muslim either. I just got pissed off because if somebody did kill all Jews and Muslims then that Iranian president would get the chance to start a new holocaust because the jews and WWII veterans are the only ones to tell the story. Luckily some people actually listen in History class so the Holocaust thing will not be wiped out just by killing the Jews, but it will give him the upper hand. Obviously he is planning for the next Holocaust but who is the target. And all this crap could lead to WWIII and the acceleration of our extinction.

squirtle
03-01-2006, 08:48 PM
Actually I am not Jewish. And I am not Muslim either. I just got pissed off because if somebody did kill all Jews and Muslims then that Iranian president would get the chance to start a new holocaust because the jews and WWII veterans are the only ones to tell the story. Luckily some people actually listen in History class so the Holocaust thing will not be wiped out just by killing the Jews, but it will give him the upper hand. Obviously he is planning for the next Holocaust but who is the target. And all this crap could lead to WWIII and the acceleration of our extinction.
someone needs to take a chill pill.

Alonso
03-01-2006, 08:48 PM
someone needs to take a chill pill.
But the acceleration of our extinction is the truth and we all know it.

Incongruity
03-01-2006, 08:57 PM
Lmfao charizard64. Are you deliberately trying to troll, be stupid, and provoke anger? If so, cool, that's hilarious.

But if you're actually sharing your own views, and you truly believe in them, I'll just stop my post here, as I've found that there is no cure for stupidity.

squirtle
03-01-2006, 09:24 PM
Lmfao charizard64. Are you deliberately trying to troll, be stupid, and provoke anger? If so, cool, that's hilarious.

But if you're actually sharing your own views, and you truly believe in them, I'll just stop my post here, as I've found that there is no cure for stupidity.
i dont think trolling is involved.

Finglonger
03-01-2006, 09:33 PM
Watergate Scandal.

'Nuff said.

ok for one there is very little evidence that nixon had anything to do with the watergate scandal. Nixon had an interesting way of conducting his presidential cabinet, there was a lot of delegation that went on below him on issues deemed unimportant, ergo he only heard of the really important things...at least thats how it was supposed to work. Anyway, The commitee to re-elect the president( CREEP) in reality carried out watergate..the only thing Nixon was guily of was trying to protect his appointees, after the incident had already happened. So lay off Nixon..he was a decent president.

oh yeah and on Bush..he won the first election through a technicality, Gore had the mandate of the people, and should have been the president. The second time around half of the American public was hooked on a Jingoistic tangent, I call it super patriotism..the other half didnt bother voting..so we got Bush again.

And Tamer...no U.S president can bring peace to the middle east....it has to be a collaboration of the countries involved. the other nations have to accept the fact that Israel isnt going anywhere..and Israel needs to realize that other nations have a stake in their land as well.

DaRkUmBrEoN
03-01-2006, 09:36 PM
Or we can do it like the good ol' days.
Each country brings out its strongest fighter, and let them duke it out.
No weapons after 500 AC allowed.

But yeah, good thing Bush has to step down in 3 years... Though what worries me is what the next person will do.

You know what the best solution would be?
Have a black, female muslim with asian, jew parents for president.
All your problems solved.

King Zark
03-01-2006, 10:13 PM
It is kind ironic that before his election his approval rating was down but during his election was up again. Now it back down.

Bush is lazy. He gets more vacations than my dad and gets paid more to bankrupt the country. Myy dad actually works HARD. Also did i mention he only won the first election because of his brother.

Also only the rich supported him or those who owned businesses.

Also if you ever become a president tryu to be inflavor of the businessman/woman.

One thing i don't get is that Bin laden attacks US on 9/11, and he is from afganistan and we are in iraq

Finglonger
03-01-2006, 10:22 PM
Osama Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia..foo

also we already went into afghanistan..he feld to pakistan most likely..or hes already dead....either way.

Anyway, Osama Bin Laden isn't the issue anymore...the issue is a worldwide attack on terrorism...well maybe we shouldn't call it worldwide..oh well, thing is Osama is out of the picture for the time being.

Now on to the flaming. I love how you just ooze ignorance...its funny. I think you'll find Bush had his biggest supporters in the south, among working class, religious conservatives. He appealed to them, because he appaears to be one of them. Big business supports bush sure, but big business doesn't win elections. It can give money for campaigns, but that is highly regulated through political action commitees, and the fed budget allows to a certain extent matching funds for the other major presidential candidate.

Also you have no idea how stressful being president is so kindly shut the hell up....I'm sure your dad works hard cleaning toilets somewhere or doing souless work for some conglomoration, but he doesn't have the responsibility of running the most powerful nation in the world. Not that I particularly care for Bush, but I have a certain degree of acknowledgement that his job is a difficult one.

Also I find it funny that you think the governor of a state can in any way influence a federal election, the outcome was ultimately decided in the supreme court when Al Gore conceded defeat.

Incongruity
03-01-2006, 10:24 PM
Fing, don't bother trying. Do what I'm doing and use this thread for some good laughs.

King Zark
03-01-2006, 10:36 PM
We went to Iraq under false pretenses. Weapons of Mass destruction what a mahcine guns Ak-47's? We have those all over the world. What about the the country in the middle east that started the their Nuclear Program?
I bet you 500$ that it was about the oil. We spent i think 5bil on the war where we could of spent on Hurricane Katerina victims, or enable Stem Cell research (we are falling behind in the medicial world or medcine is less effective and more expensive) we need stem cell research for those who were paralised, who had a fatal Heart attakc and more.

couldn't we saved more live if we stayed out of Iraq? and been less chaotic?
Do our troops need More suicide bombers?
I support the troops but not the army/govt.


plus i want bush to fix it all.

Finglonger
03-01-2006, 10:58 PM
You're an idiot...

who the hell brought up stem cell research? There are very few times that you will see me get religious..but on the issue of stem cell research I do..but I will spare you all my rhetoric, cause I know nobody wants to hear it.

anyways, I cannot understand what you are trying to argue...because frankly I cannot understand what you are typing...not something I usually bring up, but gah...its bad. and dont give me any bullshit "I have a learning disability garbage" cause so do I, but the difference is that I try to write properly.

on to the points that I can almost make out. We went to Iraq becuase we had what we thought was reasonable evidence of WPM with intent to us them. While we did not find what we were looking fro guess what we found zark? We find biological weapons! Giess what else we found? We found that good ol saddam had used them against the Kurds...why yes we did.

Do you know how awful some of these weapons are my dense friend? Much worse than a bomb outright blowing you up. these weapons eat away your skin, make you die a slow and terrible death. Each day becomes a living death...if thats not a reason to go to war..I dont know what else is. thing is this time we didn't wait for the annihilation of an entire group of people. we didnt allow another Khmer Rogue..we didnt allow another Armenian Genocide, we didnt allow another somali, another Belliorussia. You're like every other idiot I know who aputs out the obvious slogans that we all hear on the mainstream media, like a bloody puppet. You have no opinions of your own, you have no thoughts in your head that were formed by fact. You can only mimic what you hear from others, because you are unable to think for yourself. People like you are the reason the world hates us.

Did we go there for oil? Yeah, most nations have a personal stake in a conflict before they commit themselves.

Is war awful? Yes, worst thing in the world, but sometimes its neccesary.
I dont personally support a full out wart, frnakly I believe in the least amount of involvement in world affairs, howveer, I realize the proper justifications.

And you want Bush to fix it all..? well thats too bad, cause he aint. he doesnt have the capability, hes a weak leader...

Alonso
03-02-2006, 01:12 AM
Lmfao charizard64. Are you deliberately trying to troll, be stupid, and provoke anger? If so, cool, that's hilarious.

But if you're actually sharing your own views, and you truly believe in them, I'll just stop my post here, as I've found that there is no cure for stupidity.
Yes and unfortunately you have been diagnosed with it:wall:.

And the guy who brought up stem cell research is wrong. Stem cell research kills more lives than saving them. You do know this requires unborn babies. But then that has to do with abortion and all the crap in the Supreme Court right and it's big of deal and I don't want to cover because it doesn't have to do much with Bush and/or it is very long.
I bet you 500$ that it was about the oil.
And yes that is true. Bush went to war in Iraq for oil but only got in by claiming they had WMDs. People believed him. Now you see that Saddam is on trial for the killing of some people in 1982 but not the falsely claimed WMDs.
I think you'll find Bush had his biggest supporters in the south
Yeah those Cubans...all because Kennedy had to screw up.
And by the way, Bush didn't win the election against Gore. Just that no one bothered check the count and just followed Fox when they said "Bush Won".

Ochayethenoo
03-02-2006, 06:35 PM
Yeah those Cubans...all because Kennedy had to screw up.

Cuba... 1960...
I don't get what America have against Communists.
And by the way, Bush didn't win the election against Gore. Just that no one bothered check the count and just followed Fox when they said "Bush Won".
:neutral: I don't believe that, I think that bush corrupted the election, but Fox just backed him up.

Incongruity
03-02-2006, 06:36 PM
Hm ok. Instead of spewing out provincial banter, let's all take a moment to use our brain.


Let's make the assumption that Bush went to Iraq purely because of the oil there, and treat it as a given.

Now, let's take a look at what exactly oil/petroleum is. Well, it's obviously a natural resource, but what do we use it for? Just cars? Wrong. Oil is by far the most commonly used fuel in internal combustion engines, yes, and that's undeniable. But, oil is also burned to create electricity. It's also used to create fertilizers, pesticides, and plastics. Notably, petroleum is a major source for all of these.

Yet all of you still whine about "OMFG BUSH WENT TO WAR FOR OIL!!@L!45j1kl3"

If you're going to truly whine, stop using petroleum. Buy an extremely inconvenient and expensive solar power car (Not biodiesel, as agricultural products need fertilizers and pesticides, and a significant percentage of both are made with petroleum. Not electric-power either, since wehre do you think that electricity's coming from? Largely from burned oil). Oh, by the way, make sure that car has no plastics in it, seeing as how plastics are petroleum products. Oh, and make sure the factory that created your solar power car was powered by a non-petroleum source. Oh, and make sure that the people who work at that factory drove there using solar power cars. Oh, and make sure that the steel used to make your car was also made in a non-petroleum powered factory. Oh, and make sure that the iron used to make that steel was mined without any petroleum-powered tools or vehicles.

Speaking of which, you should also stop eating most foods. After all, most crops need fertilizers and pesticides, and most livestock are fed with those crops. And seeing as how the entire farming process/selling process is so mechanized and powered by petroleum, I guess it would be best for you to not eat any food at all. So yeah, stop eating food.


Oh, and by the way, get off the internet. Chances are the electricity you're using comes from burned petroleum.




The point? Either stfu or don't use petroleum... at all.

Kenny_C.002
03-02-2006, 07:26 PM
sk, you have to understand that the fact is Bush went into an illegal war dubbed by the United Nations. Quite frankly, I still think he went for oil, if only to establish a reliable source of oil other than from us Canadians. Recall that the use of oil in America is ridiculously large, so any large good source of oil is important, as it is becoming scarce. e.g. Saudi Arabia seems to have plateaued in oil production recently according to a number of economic serveys, and American oil consuption has only been rising, along with China and India rising even more quickly. How else are you going to get more oil, and more importantly, cheap? MAKE THEM EXCLUSIVE TO YOURSELF. Simply said, going to Iraq, take control of it by setting up a secondary government that would sell oil to you at a good rate and selling a majority of its production to you, is not such a farfetched idea. This situation is similar to China basically just asking Russia to put a pipe between them and continuously pump that oil in. In this case, this can't be done, and you need to use political power instead of just profits.

What really is needed to be thought of is that while going there for oil is a plausible idea, the amount of investment into the military could have been used to significantly boost the economy in forms of tax cuts (The Kennedy Johnson tax cut was largely successful in boosting the economy out of a dip), or investments to education, infrastructure, etc. that would also help boost the economy in a longer run. Not only that, this theoretical boost in the economy can help with the development of new, more efficient technology that can potentially make you need less oil.

The point I'm trying to make is that Bush had other more plausible options that he did not take that's all.

Alonso
03-02-2006, 07:36 PM
After Bush's term is over do you think Cheney will run?

Neo Emolga
03-02-2006, 07:40 PM
After Bush's term is over do you think Cheney will run?

I don't think he'll last that long... :P

Alonso
03-02-2006, 09:20 PM
I don't think he'll last that long... :P
But do you think Cheney will run after the shooting incident?

DaRkUmBrEoN
03-02-2006, 09:21 PM
They've got enough ambitious Republicans down the hall, just waiting for their chance to be the big kahuna.

Incongruity
03-02-2006, 10:00 PM
Kenny, I dislike Bush as much as the next guy, but "OMG! HE WENT TO IRAQ FOR OIL" is not a good argument against him (Mainly because modern civilization as we know it runs on oil). I prefer to criticize him for his general inadequacy.


But if I had to choose between doing something internationally illegal or facing really high prices in every market, screw that dude, I'll invade another nation.




If the republicans turn pansy now, and choose not to leech all of Iraq's oil, then the war will have been a true failure. At least if we set up oppressive trade measures there, we'll have enough oil to last us until we find & institute a decent substitute. Personally, I'd prefer to set up dozens of nuclear plants in the Bible Belt, and store all of that nuclear energy in an efficient way. Theoretically, this nuclear power could replace every energy-related use of petroleum. In addition, if we place the nuclear plants in the red states, it wouldn't be that much of a loss if the plants were to say... explode.

Neo Emolga
03-03-2006, 01:33 PM
If the republicans turn pansy now, and choose not to leech all of Iraq's oil, then the war will have been a true failure. At least if we set up oppressive trade measures there, we'll have enough oil to last us until we find & institute a decent substitute. Personally, I'd prefer to set up dozens of nuclear plants in the Bible Belt, and store all of that nuclear energy in an efficient way. Theoretically, this nuclear power could replace every energy-related use of petroleum. In addition, if we place the nuclear plants in the red states, it wouldn't be that much of a loss if the plants were to say... explode.

It sounds cold, but in fact, it probably would be better to store those kinds of valuable but risky resources in an area that's mostly barren, useless, and too arid to actually grow anything useful, in case something serious does happen.

But, don't mind me saying, it seems really strange to go from trying to clear out assumptions of weapons of mass destrution, removing Saddam Hussain, then go to rebuilding Iraq when the whole intention in the beginning was just to remove the possibility of nuclear weapons, so this reasoning doesn't make sense. I don't think anyone would have been thinking we'd be spending billions of dollars of our own hard earned money to help a country that doesn't want our help and definitely doesn't intend on returning the favor in the future when the whole intention of going there was something completely different. My point being, Bush could have been honest about this. He could have stressed how badly we need the oil and to minimize our foreign dependence of it. He could have stated that we need to liberate Iraq to be able to get this resource. And maybe it wouldn't have looked so bad on him if he was at least honest about this anyway, knowing everyone was probably going to find out the truth sooner or later.

These people haven't known order for the longest of time, and now that they're being force-fed this kind of soceity, which of course they don't like. If you're going to change stuff like that, at least made it gradual over time so people don't go nuts over it.

My point being, you're right, wire it up and make it actually productive rather than be a load on our backs. Nothing about their society is going to change any time soon, so I really feel we're just wasting our time trying to change it.

Ochayethenoo
03-04-2006, 12:58 PM
So you mean you're not going to do anything about it?

Alonso
03-06-2006, 02:14 AM
It sounds cold, but in fact, it probably would be better to store those kinds of valuable but risky resources in an area that's mostly barren, useless, and too arid to actually grow anything useful, in case something serious does happen.

But, don't mind me saying, it seems really strange to go from trying to clear out assumptions of weapons of mass destrution, removing Saddam Hussain, then go to rebuilding Iraq when the whole intention in the beginning was just to remove the possibility of nuclear weapons, so this reasoning doesn't make sense. I don't think anyone would have been thinking we'd be spending billions of dollars of our own hard earned money to help a country that doesn't want our help and definitely doesn't intend on returning the favor in the future when the whole intention of going there was something completely different. My point being, Bush could have been honest about this. He could have stressed how badly we need the oil and to minimize our foreign dependence of it. He could have stated that we need to liberate Iraq to be able to get this resource. And maybe it wouldn't have looked so bad on him if he was at least honest about this anyway, knowing everyone was probably going to find out the truth sooner or later.

These people haven't known order for the longest of time, and now that they're being force-fed this kind of soceity, which of course they don't like. If you're going to change stuff like that, at least made it gradual over time so people don't go nuts over it.

My point being, you're right, wire it up and make it actually productive rather than be a load on our backs. Nothing about their society is going to change any time soon, so I really feel we're just wasting our time trying to change it.
If Bush did say all that stuff about we need the oil then most other nations in the UN would have never backed the US in this war. Besides the US' policy is isolationism. In WWI and WWII the US went to war BECAUSE somebody ATTACKED the US(Some US commercial liner sunk by German U-Boats and Pearl Harbor). Nobody attaked the US when we went to Iraq so Bush has broken the policy.

Hm ok. Instead of spewing out provincial banter, let's all take a moment to use our brain.
Let's make the assumption that Bush went to Iraq purely because of the oil there, and treat it as a given.
Now, let's take a look at what exactly oil/petroleum is. Well, it's obviously a natural resource, but what do we use it for? Just cars? Wrong. Oil is by far the most commonly used fuel in internal combustion engines, yes, and that's undeniable. But, oil is also burned to create electricity. It's also used to create fertilizers, pesticides, and plastics. Notably, petroleum is a major source for all of these.
Yet all of you still whine about "OMFG BUSH WENT TO WAR FOR OIL!!@L!45j1kl3"
If you're going to truly whine, stop using petroleum. Buy an extremely inconvenient and expensive solar power car (Not biodiesel, as agricultural products need fertilizers and pesticides, and a significant percentage of both are made with petroleum. Not electric-power either, since wehre do you think that electricity's coming from? Largely from burned oil). Oh, by the way, make sure that car has no plastics in it, seeing as how plastics are petroleum products. Oh, and make sure the factory that created your solar power car was powered by a non-petroleum source. Oh, and make sure that the people who work at that factory drove there using solar power cars. Oh, and make sure that the steel used to make your car was also made in a non-petroleum powered factory. Oh, and make sure that the iron used to make that steel was mined without any petroleum-powered tools or vehicles.
Speaking of which, you should also stop eating most foods. After all, most crops need fertilizers and pesticides, and most livestock are fed with those crops. And seeing as how the entire farming process/selling process is so mechanized and powered by petroleum, I guess it would be best for you to not eat any food at all. So yeah, stop eating food.
Oh, and by the way, get off the internet. Chances are the electricity you're using comes from burned petroleum.
The point? Either stfu or don't use petroleum... at all.

Iraq ISN'T the only nation with oil. We buy from Venezuela (and if Chavez does some radical thing to hurt the US, he's dead and we got free oil) and we buy from some other Middle East countries. So there might not be a need for Iraq. And this war in Iraq was started by Dad Bush because he's the retard who put Saddam in power for a chance of cheap oil, BUT Saddam said "screw you". And there goes the oil.

EDIT: Ok, most of my arguments are invalid because in reality, the US foreign policy is based on the Truman Doctrine or was during the Cold War. And though it is still in effect today, the base of the US foreign policy is that it isn't isolationist. The Truman Doctrine was the 1st step.

Alakazam
03-06-2006, 09:09 PM
But do you think Cheney will run after the shooting incident?

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Anyway, no, I don't think he'll run.


As for the US's oil needs: If we cut back our military spending even by a little bit and put that money towards energy R&D (esp. nuclear fusion), we'd be in a MUCH better situation than we are now. Getting involving militarily in the middle east is as inefficient a method for dealing with the US's energy problems as it gets.

Alonso
03-06-2006, 09:31 PM
What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Anyway, no, I don't think he'll run.


As for the US's oil needs: If we cut back our military spending even by a little bit and put that money towards energy R&D (esp. nuclear fusion), we'd be in a MUCH better situation than we are now. Getting involving militarily in the middle east is as inefficient a method for dealing with the US's energy problems as it gets.
Cheney has to do with this because, if when Bush's term is over and we are still in Iraq and Cheney wins then we will stay in Iraq.

Alakazam
03-07-2006, 01:59 AM
Cheney has to do with this because, if when Bush's term is over and we are still in Iraq and Cheney wins then we will stay in Iraq.

No, no, you missed my point. It's not Cheney that I'm saying is irrelevent, just his hunting accident.

Alonso
03-09-2006, 12:44 AM
No, no, you missed my point. It's not Cheney that I'm saying is irrelevent, just his hunting accident.
Well maybe not. The hunting incident could be used against him a lot of ways including running for president.
Off Topic:George Bush has had 6 DUIs in his life.

Lord Mullet
03-10-2006, 06:00 AM
The point? Either stfu or don't use petroleum... at all.

Ah...I understand. So it's perfectly okay to do something illegal if the end result is something that you can use?

You see, when people say "Bush invaded Iraq for oil" they're not saying that he shouldn't have done it because oil is bad...they're saying it because that's a bad reason to invade a country. See the difference?

Incongruity
03-10-2006, 07:33 PM
Ah...I understand. So it's perfectly okay to do something illegal if the end result is something that you can use?

You see, when people say "Bush invaded Iraq for oil" they're not saying that he shouldn't have done it because oil is bad...they're saying it because that's a bad reason to invade a country. See the difference?
I believe the means justify the end. Personally, I love petroleum.

And what exactly are "good" reasons to invade a country? If it's being evil? If it's going against values?

Well, my values include an intense sexual passion for petroleum.

squirtle
03-10-2006, 07:37 PM
\Well, my values include an intense sexual passion for petroleum.
that's hot, id pay to see that.

Lord Mullet
03-11-2006, 08:25 AM
I believe the means justify the end.

You mean, "ends justify the means". What you said was equivalent to, "Yeah, so we managed to depose a dictator and US companies got oil contracts, so I'm a little disappointed - but on the other hand, we had to go through a war to get them, so that's okay."

Just to clarify, though, you would, if you knew you could get away with it, murder people with your own hands for personal gain? Would you murder someone if it brought down the price of petroleum-based products?

Incongruity
03-11-2006, 05:02 PM
You mean, "ends justify the means". What you said was equivalent to, "Yeah, so we managed to depose a dictator and US companies got oil contracts, so I'm a little disappointed - but on the other hand, we had to go through a war to get them, so that's okay."

Just to clarify, though, you would, if you knew you could get away with it, murder people with your own hands for personal gain? Would you murder someone if it brought down the price of petroleum-based products?
Well, if I knew I could get away with it, and it instead of murdering someone with my own hands, I would turn the other cheek when a massive army overpowered another nation... Sure, I don't want to pay more for oil, food, plastic, heat, electricity, basically my entire life. I'm poor enough already.



Yeah >< you caught me on the means ends thing. I'm tired. I lose.

Alonso
03-21-2006, 10:31 PM
I'm supposing that "ssk1911" is in favor of Bush.

Bush has just revealed that the US will remain in Iraq for the remainder of his term. That is until 2008 and it will be up to a future president to pull them out, that is if that person isn't a friend of Bush. This concludes that Bush doesn't give a **** about Iraq and its democracy. He just wants something...most people would say oil. I just hope Bush doesn't go to far and make Iraq the next world power.

Crystal Walrein
03-28-2006, 11:50 PM
I'm supposing that "ssk1911" is in favor of Bush.

Bush has just revealed that the US will remain in Iraq for the remainder of his term. That is until 2008 and it will be up to a future president to pull them out, that is if that person isn't a friend of Bush. This concludes that Bush doesn't give a **** about Iraq and its democracy. He just wants something...most people would say oil. I just hope Bush doesn't go to far and make Iraq the next world power.
If he wanted oil, gas prices wouldn't be as ridiculously high because he would have burned the embargo on OPEC oil there. He's basically there to foment dissension against Saddam, that's it.

AntonioBIO
03-29-2006, 12:35 AM
I'm supposing that "ssk1911" is in favor of Bush.

Bush has just revealed that the US will remain in Iraq for the remainder of his term. That is until 2008 and it will be up to a future president to pull them out, that is if that person isn't a friend of Bush. This concludes that Bush doesn't give a **** about Iraq and its democracy. He just wants something...most people would say oil. I just hope Bush doesn't go to far and make Iraq the next world power.
I agree. Many people are saying Bush wants the oil, or else why would the troops be there? I think it is ridiculous how Bush let around 2000 American Soldiers die for oil. <--Maybe, or maybe not. I just want Bush to get the troops the heck out of Iraq.

Alonso
03-29-2006, 01:25 AM
If he wanted oil, gas prices wouldn't be as ridiculously high because he would have burned the embargo on OPEC oil there. He's basically there to foment dissension against Saddam, that's it.
What OPEC embargo? Explain please.
I agree. Many people are saying Bush wants the oil, or else why would the troops be there? I think it is ridiculous how Bush let around 2000 American Soldiers die for oil. <--Maybe, or maybe not. I just want Bush to get the troops the heck out of Iraq.

Do you really think Bush cares about the soldiers? You don't know as much about Bush as you think you do. Look everybody, to answer the questions I think people should just watch Farenheight 9/11.

Crystal Walrein
03-30-2006, 09:44 PM
What I mean to say is that if Bush wanted oil, he'd have set aside the distaste he has for Hugo Chavez and allowed him to pour in oil. But because he considered him a leftist totalitarian, the Citgo gas stations have disappeared and Chavez has to bring in cheap oil for those in poor regions of the US and try to avoid scrutiny by the government in doing so.

Alonso
03-31-2006, 04:08 PM
What I mean to say is that if Bush wanted oil, he'd have set aside the distaste he has for Hugo Chavez and allowed him to pour in oil. But because he considered him a leftist totalitarian, the Citgo gas stations have disappeared and Chavez has to bring in cheap oil for those in poor regions of the US and try to avoid scrutiny by the government in doing so.
What are you talking about. WE DO BUY FROM CHAVEZ NO MATTER HOW MUCH CRAP HE TALKS. The Americans are just anxiously waiting for Chavez to hurt the US economy so they can ram his ass into the wall.

Kenny_C.002
04-11-2006, 01:47 AM
Meh. I still think Bush should just devote all that money into alternative energy research, so America doesn't have to rely on oil. That's just me, wanting to be cost effective here, though.

Alonso
04-11-2006, 09:55 PM
Meh. I still think Bush should just devote all that money into alternative energy research, so America doesn't have to rely on oil. That's just me, wanting to be cost effective here, though.
Bush won't do it. The US is addicted to oil.
1. because its cheaper than other forms of enery
2. Efficient
3. Faster reload than electric cars
4. Major Industry
5. The economy would fall and a LOT of money would be used up and the US can't all just get a hybrid car overnight. How many people have cars only in the US, and then there is the rest of the world.

Kenny_C.002
04-12-2006, 01:07 AM
Bush won't do it. The US is addicted to oil.
1. because its cheaper than other forms of enery
2. Efficient
3. Faster reload than electric cars
4. Major Industry
5. The economy would fall and a LOT of money would be used up and the US can't all just get a hybrid car overnight. How many people have cars only in the US, and then there is the rest of the world.
And thus the lack of innovation in the energy industry is partially causing the economic slowdown that we've been having in the past years. The IT industry helped bring things back up a bit, but it's still nowhere near the 50's in terms of growing strength. We NEED a good alternative source of energy, and we NEED innovation at least to increase efficiency on oil consumption. Bush isn't putting the money in where it NEEDS to be in.