Bush Administration: Criminals?

Overheal

Im not sure. But then, I havent been keeping a record written in my own blood or anything either.

The big Left-wing opinion is "they only went there for oil" when its been proven by time that we certainly have in no way profited from the war. So I consider that argument moot. Though possibly some privateers quietly profited, but the country saw none of it. I am more ready to think that Rumsfeld and Cheney and Bush Senior had all been thinking about working on overthrowing Sadaam before Clinton even got out of office, and just used the tragedy of 9/11 as leverage to get it done faster.

Though I think Bush doesnt get enough credit, for while his war was very misguided, it did bring Sadaam down ultimately, and that guy was a sick bastard, let it be said. Though, admittedly, that opinion comes out of a Nat Geo documentary I saw recently that showed off a lot of the video footage taken in the 90s of people being taken out and shot, or being blown up in pits with grenades. And Sadaam's son, who was a right psychopath.

What I will agree with though is what happened at Gitmo just wasnt right. Borrowed from the lolocaust:



This treatment just cant be justified. Eye for an Eye is bollocks: we just shouldnt be doing it. We're supposed to be better than that. And they do need to pay for those crimes: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Bush. Because they let it happen, and let DC dance around the whole waterboard issue until everyone grew tired of it.

I dunno what else to say. This was a response to Mysterious

mysterious wrote: »

Bush administration i.e getting away with all the crimes 10 fold of [Blagojevich] and gettting a way with a few illegal wars, and on top of this getting away with over a million murders.

You make out Bush to be a mass murderer, but fail to recall the mass murderer thats now executed because of one of those wars. Roosevelt oversaw Pearl Harbor, WWII and the D-Day landings but is not remembered today for the blood on his hands.

Nick_oliveri

Overheal wrote:

You make out Bush to be a mass murderer, but fail to recall the mass murderer thats now executed because of one of those wars.

Overheal wrote: »

Eye for an Eye is bollocks

In this case, an uncounted amount of civilian eyes and a known amount of soldiers, who were fighting for.... Democracy? Are Hama's a democratically elected Government?

He is a mass murdererer. His decisions sent many people to die and countless civilians for nothing, the trial and brutal slaying of one brutal bastard. If there is a hell, lets hope they (Bush and Saddam) burn in it.

Roosevelt oversaw Pearl Harbor

Al-Queda aren't a country, if the hiijackers were to be labeled collectively to be from a particular one, it would have been Saudi Arabia.

Despite the wave of anger that swept across the U.S. in the wake of Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt decided from the start that the defeat of Nazi Germany had to take priority. On December 11, 1941, this strategic decision was made easier to implement when Germany and Italy declared war on the United States. link

Truman, on the other hand.

mickeydevine

Overheal wrote: »

I am more ready to think that Rumsfeld and Cheney and Bush Senior had all been thinking about working on overthrowing Sadaam before Clinton even got out of office, and just used the tragedy of 9/11 as leverage to get it done faster.

Some might argue that this should be in Conspiracy Theories Forum. Not me though, I like people to have the freedom to express what they think and not feel victimised for it. You have a good day sir.

Nodin

Overheal wrote: »

Im not sure. But then, I havent been keeping a record written in my own blood or anything either.

The big Left-wing opinion is "they only went there for oil" when its been proven by time that we certainly have in no way profited from the war..

They went there to secure a strageic foothold in the Gulf, threaten Iran, and have access to Iraqi oil reserves, amongst other reasons. 'Getting the oil' does not mean free oil for the US, or US soldiers shipping home with barrells of the stuff as loot however. That would be 'uncivilised'.
Having the majority of it under foriegn control would suffice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_oil_law_(2007)

Indeed, there were were a number of chains of thought on oil alone....

The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

Theres also the whole question of the economic model imposed on Iraq by the Bremmer run CPA - effectively dismantling the state sector and instituting chaos.

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

The big Left-wing opinion is "they only went there for oil" when its been proven by time that we certainly have in no way profited from the war.

From the below chart of the big 5 oil corporations, annual profits fell and hit bottom in 2002.

http://www.oilwatchdog.org/resources/OilProfitYearly-Big5.pdf

The Iraq War (also known as the Second Gulf War) began early 2003. Annual oil profits for the big 5 grew dramatically from that point onward. I'm sure that former oilman GW Bush smiled at the coincidence.

mysterious

Overheal wrote: »

The big Left-wing opinion is "they only went there for oil" when its been proven by time that we certainly have in no way profited from the war.

War is about profits. Why would they start an illegal war that was no threat to America. You obviously don't see the real picture.

War, is what controls that masses, and manipulate the masses into following by their leaders. I.e "War on terrorism"

So I consider that argument moot.

So your quite simply wrong.

Though possibly some privateers quietly profited, but the country saw none of it.

Yes that's called greed.

I am more ready to think that Rumsfeld and Cheney and Bush Senior had all been thinking about working on overthrowing Sadaam before Clinton even got out of office, and just used the tragedy of 9/11 as leverage to get it done faster.

Saddam was a puppet. Given weapons and power by the CIA pre gulf war. Turned him into a maniac. Heck you don't beleive that. George Bush senior gave him weapons openly in exchange of oil and other vital assets in basing in Iraq pre gulf war. There were ally's. The proof is they shook hands.

Though I think Bush doesnt get enough credit, for while his war was very misguided, it did bring Sadaam down ultimately, and that guy was a sick bastard, let it be said.

LMFAO. bahhahahaha sits and eat's grass.

Though, admittedly, that opinion comes out of a Nat Geo documentary I saw recently that showed off a lot of the video footage taken in the 90s of people being taken out and shot, or being blown up in pits with grenades. And Sadaam's son, who was a right psychopath.

Where did they get the weapon's.
What country makes the biggest profits on selling weapons. Which country sells arms to every dictator in Africa.

I dunno what else to say. This was a response to Mysterious

What do you want me to say? The Bush admin were only just doing it for the good. Killing, invading and the whole war agenda, that was based on lies and deceit. 9/11 used as an excuse to go into Iraq. On and on. The only real result is a mass million murders. It's now more dangerous there than it was years ago. Soldiers are coming back with post vietnam snydrome. They are just killing everything they see. There is no target. There was no terrorists. Not only that but thousands of American's soldiers die for this war. For what. It's about greed of the scum that controls America.

You make out Bush to be a mass murderer, but fail to recall the mass murderer thats now executed because of one of those wars. Roosevelt oversaw Pearl Harbor, WWII and the D-Day landings but is not remembered today for the blood on his hands.

That was plain retarded. Yet you have the cheek to say that as an excuse but Saddam didnt have blood on his hands either. The sheeple fought for him, just like the soldiers fought for bush's war.

mysterious

He is a mass murdererer. His decisions sent many people to die and countless civilians for nothing, the trial and brutal slaying of one brutal bastard. If there is a hell, lets hope they (Bush and Saddam) burn in it.

Applaud my man.
See how a man can blindly see evil in one man Saddam and not in Bush.
That's just retarded. I'm afraid. But you pointed it out well though. I like people who can discern the obvious fact. Like the whole picture. Many American's seem to focus on small nonsense detail's. Forget the beginnning and the process of how their country goes into a war in the first place.

It's like a cartoon to alot of American's think's it's black and white. Bush = Prime. Saddam = Megatron. Thats' the way the see the world. America is alway's right even committing mass sucicide. But if Saddam regime killed 3. It's evil. Only in America, Only in America. If they need anymore nonsense, all they have to do is listen to cable T.V for more fantasy on the world.

Al-Queda aren't a country, if the hiijackers were to be labeled collectively to be from a particular one, it would have been Saudi Arabia.

Muslim hijacker's is conspiracy. Nothing more. We still don't have the proof who was behind it. I say that with a smile.

Nodin

mysterious wrote: »

. George Bush senior gave him weapons openly in exchange of oil and other vital assets in basing in Iraq pre gulf war. There were ally's. .

Source?

mysterious wrote: »

.
The proof is they shook hands. .

Source? And since when is a hand shake proof of anything?

mysterious wrote: »

.
Where did they get the weapon's.
What country makes the biggest profits on selling weapons. Which country sells arms to every dictator in Africa. .

Russia sells the most to Africa.

Overheal

Nodin wrote: »

Source?

The United States needed a force to stand up to the Iranians and keep them from taking over the whole region. Sadaam was seen as it. But then he took out a big war debt with Kuwait, and rather than pay the money back he invaded Kuwait when they refused to write it off. Kuwaiti footage made it out to the international community and the rest is history.

Blue Lagoon wrote:

From the below chart of the big 5 oil corporations, annual profits fell and hit bottom in 2002.

Gah! PDF! Its like Brain Freeze for Firefox.

Thats well and good but what about the Pre-2k profits? 2001 saw a big maket upset, naturally. I'm not disagreeing but I'm trying to look at all angles with a bit of skepticism.

Nodin wrote:

Indeed, there were were a number of chains of thought on oil alone....

"The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ht/4354269.stm

Thats an interesting article.
If the original plan was to de-stabilise OPECs oligopoly of oil production - I'm not sure I'm against that.

Mysterious wrote:

LMFAO. bahhahahaha sits and eat's grass.

kthxbye.

Given weapons and power by the CIA pre gulf war. Turned him into a maniac.

Holding a gun doesnt turn you into a maniac. You either are a maniac or you aren't. The weapon is circumstantial.

Soldiers are coming back with post vietnam traumatic stress/Gulf War snydrome. They are just killing everything they see. There is no target.

I somehow doubt that the boots are blithely offing everything in their path. Construct an argument using reality, please.

That was plain retarded. Yet you have the cheek to say that as an excuse but Saddam didnt have blood on his hands either. The sheeple fought for him, just like the soldiers fought for bush's war.

Except we didnt cut our soldier's ears off for speaking ill of the Iraq Military. Neither did FDR, which is again why everyone remembers Adolf and not Frank.

mickeydevine

Overheal wrote: »

Except we didnt cut our soldier's ears off for speaking ill of the Iraq Military. Neither did FDR, which is again why everyone remembers Adolf and not Frank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman

Yeah sure America would never kill anyone who spoke out against its military. Gimme a break.

Overheal

mickeydevine wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman

Yeah sure America would never kill anyone who spoke out against its military. Gimme a break.

While Tillman's death was tragic, wtf does it have to do with speaking out against the military?

There is nothing there to suggest he was teamkilled for dissent. Give me a break

mickeydevine

Overheal wrote: »

While Tillman's death was tragic, wtf does it have to do with speaking out against the military?

There is nothing there to suggest he was teamkilled for dissent. Give me a break

Tillman's parents have sharply criticized the Army's handling of the incident; Tillman's father charges that the Army "purposely interfered in the investigation" because of the effect it could have on their recruiting efforts while Tillman's mother charges that "this lie was to cover their image".[

Tillman's diary was never returned to his family, and its whereabouts are not publicly known.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/columnists/holt/2009/01/28/the-tragic-demise-of-pat-tillman-is-the-star-spangled-tragedy-of-the-super-bowl-115875-21076920/

"Rumours began to circulate that Tillman had been murdered by the US military because he had contacted anti-war activists in the States and was preparing to speak out against the war."

No please, gimme a freaking break. Can you read between the lines or not. If the American government told you the sky was red would you walk around wearing crimson tinted glasses. I'm amazed by peoples willingness to follow the word of consistant liars when faced with evidence.

Overheal

It isnt evidence though, its rumour. If there was some kind of express testimony from one of his squad mates that the reason Tillman was killed is because he was expressing anti-war opinions, that would be evidence.

I simply dont see the rationale here: if he disagrees with the war, then discharge him. Why would you need to kill him?

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

The United States needed a force to stand up to the Iranians and keep them from taking over the whole region.

What's the old political saying, "Today's friends are tomorrow's enemies?" (and visa versa)

• Anyone remember the Iran-Contra Scandal of 1986 when President Ronald Reagan and Oliver North were buddies with Iran?
• Didn't General George Patton use former Nazi's to run Germany after they were defeated in WWII?
• When the Soviets were at war in Afghanistan, didn't the USA train and supply Osama bin Laden to fight the USSR occupation?
• Who is one of the largest trading partners of America today? The People's Republic of China, one of those formally evil (now friendly) communist nations?

If I don't listen to the news for awhile, I might lose track as to who's the good guys, and who's the bad guys of the hour from an American perspective.

Sand

And why would his squadmates kill him? Because hed annoy some guys in Washington they dont give two ****s about theyd murder one of their friends?

Seriously?

mickeydevine

Overheal wrote: »

It isnt evidence though, its rumour. If there was some kind of express testimony from one of his squad mates that the reason Tillman was killed is because he was expressing anti-war opinions, that would be evidence.

I simply dont see the rationale here: if he disagrees with the war, then discharge him. Why would you need to kill him?

I'll throw it back at ya. Why cover it up/lie?

mickeydevine

Sand wrote: »

And why would his squadmates kill him? Because hed annoy some guys in Washington they dont give two ****s about theyd murder one of their friends?

Seriously?

Soldiers are trained to kill and follow orders without question. Especially when their countrys 'honour' is at stake. Again why lie, why the attempted cover up?. Three close range shots to the head, preferred method of assasination of professionals. You also assume he had friends in the military. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Why the lies?.

Sand

Soldiers are trained to kill and follow orders without question. Especially when their countrys 'honour' is at stake. Again why lie, why the attempted cover up?. Three close range shots to the head, preferred method of assasination of professionals. You also assume he had friends in the military. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Why the lies?.

Just.......just wow. Thanks for setting the standard.

deadhead13

Whatever about the jusification for invading Iraq, not having enough troops on the ground led to a vacuum. As in all societies were such a vacuum exists it was quickly filled with violence.

Bush apologists point to the surge - "look we are winning the war". Ignoring the fact, that if they had deployed that many troops in the first place 100,000's of innocent people would not now be dead.

Bush and Rumsfeld are ultimately responsibe for creating the conditions for the insurgents to thrive. Due to their incompetant military planning and ignorance of the ethnic divisions in Iraq.

mickeydevine

Sand wrote: »

Just.......just wow. Thanks for setting the standard.

Typical sheep. Don't question why governments lie, its what they do after all and to question a governments ethics is just plain crazy isn't it? Not sure why I'm bothering cause you obviously don't care. Stick you head back in the sand, everythings fine. lalala. Troll on my friend.

oscarBravo

Don't accuse people of trolling: read the charter. If I could infract the same post twice, you'd be getting another one for calling people sheep.

Overheal

mickeydevine wrote: »

I'll throw it back at ya. Why cover it up/lie?

Thats the only part that makes sense here: turning it into a high profile case (turning anything involving enlistee deaths/illnesses/suicides into high profile cases) will have a very real impact on enlistment. It doesnt pay to say "Army of One. May be shot." The Armed Forces have enough problems as it is trying to recruit, for a hundred and one reasons, at the front of the list being the chance of death and the unpopularity of the politics at the time.

It doesnt mean they murdered him.

Three close range shots to the head, preferred method of assasination of professionals.

Assassins (or anybody trained to kill) will go for the Central Body Mass. This isn't Counterstrike. Weapons are not as easy to wield as your Logitech Mx5 Laser Mouse would have you believe. Also without the case report we can speculate from here till sunday. You can say he was shot in the middle of the street on a clear summers day while he was sunbathing. Whereas someone else could speculate he was shot in combat where dust was being kicked up everywhere (like from an IED going off...) and shots were being fired and echoed from all directions - its hard to account for fog of war from our keyboards. Anyway, this line of debate has dragged us off topic.

mickeydevine

oscarBravo wrote: »

Don't accuse people of trolling: read the charter. If I could infract the same post twice, you'd be getting another one for calling people sheep.

In a different thread I was accused of being a member of "the foil hat brigade", derogatory yet not an infraction.? One rule for regular posters, another for non. Quite selective modin. Politics indeed.

mickeydevine

Overheal wrote: »

Thats the only part that makes sense here: turning it into a high profile case (turning anything involving enlistee deaths/illnesses/suicides into high profile cases) will have a very real impact on enlistment. It doesnt pay to say "Army of One. May be shot." The Armed Forces have enough problems as it is trying to recruit, for a hundred and one reasons, at the front of the list being the chance of death and the unpopularity of the politics at the time.

It doesnt mean they murdered him.

Oh, makes it alright then. Turn a blind eye for the hundreth time. I'm outta here.

Nodin

Overheal wrote: »

The United States needed a force to stand up to the Iranians and keep them from taking over the whole region. .

Indeed, but it did it through third parties, only selling 'dual use' equipment directly, to allow for plausible deniability. Thus no big barges of US equipment arrived for Saddam, as some seem to believe.

Overheal

source?

mickeydevine

"His close friend Army Spec. Russell Baer remembered, "I can see it like a movie screen. We were outside of [an Iraqi city] watching as bombs were dropping on the town.... We were talking. And Pat said, ''You know, this war is so f***ing illegal.'' And we all said, ''Yeah.'' That''s who he was. He totally was against Bush." With these revelations, Pat Tillman the PR icon joins WMD and Al Qaeda connections on the heap of lies used to sell the Iraq War."

"Mary Tillman says a private meeting was planned between [Noam Chomsky] and Pat after Pat''s return--a meeting that never took place, of course. Chomsky confirms this scenario. This was the real Pat Tillman: someone who, like the majority of this country, was doubting the rationale for war, distrusting his Commander in Chief and looking for answers."

FULL ARTICLE FROM THE NATION
Pat Tillman, Our Hero
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051024/zirin

Dont bother though, there's no confessions.

Overheal

FULL ARTICLE FROM THE NATION
Pat Tillman, Our Hero
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051
024/zirin

your link is broken.

Nodin

mickeydevine wrote: »

"(.......)War."

None of which proves assasination.

overheal wrote:

source?

Various.

Chemical and Biological....
http://usiraq.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=894

General......

In 1982, Iraq was removed from the U.S. Department of State list of terrorist-supporting nations to ease the transfer of dual-use technology to that country. According to investigative journalist and award-winning author Alan Friedman, Secretary of State Alexander Haig was "upset at the fact that the decision had been made at the White House, even though the State Department was responsible for the list."[9] "I was not consulted," Haig is said to have complained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war

Direct aid was in the form of satellite intel and communication intercepts.