Whats Your theory

cartman

whats your theory of the sh*thead george Wanker bush?

dont know if this has been posted before but if it has sorry

my theory is that::

Bush kills Iraqis for Oil
Takes oil
America have already captured Osama Bin Laden
keeping it quite because he knows after the war hes not gonna get elected again
a week before election time he releases new That they have Captured Osama
All americans love Bush
He gets elected again
Rules the world like hes the Globes Policeman
He kills millions of other people probably starts a war with france or somit:)

THE WORLD THEN IS FU*KED
UN is gonna die and America will eventually probably start a WW3

anyways there my views,
any1 else got a good theory??

cart

DadaKopf

There was a tongue-in-cheek dicumentary on Channel 4 the other night exposing the close links between the Bush and bin Laden families so Osama is most likely off playing gator golf with Georgie-pie.

Éomer of Rohan

Theory (or hope?)

After America win the war in Iraq (which seems inevitable), they think they are god's gift (ok, so nothing changed there) and decide to intervene in other countries. Osama or some other nutcase decides 'I know what we'll do' and nukes Washington DC with George W and co all there - everyont lives happily ever after, THE END.

Unlikely, but better than many other endings.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Éomer of Rohan

Oh lighten up - I am taking the piss.

It is much less worrying than the seriously postulated theory that if the Americans win quickly in Iraq, they may be pressured into a war against North Korea - which means that North Korea is obliterated in a nuclear holocaust as is the western US. Not to mention the following fall out.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Éomer of Rohan

I hope for the sake of North Korea that they can reach - itn is the one thing that may actually deter US Imperialism from making moves to reunite Korea under a Southern based regime.

Lemming

My theory (the very short version):

This entire episode isn't about Oil per-se, nor necessarily oil-currency changes by OPEC countries, but about OPEC itself and the price of oil.

Iraq cannot supply all of the US' energy needs, but what it can do is flood the world with cheap crude, thus breaking OPEC and lowering the price of a barrel of oil by nearly 50%

Consider this .... a report from last year (?? - maybe late the year before) from within the US (I can't recall where or by whom) stated that the US would need an additional 6/10 million barrels of oil per whatever the time period was by the year 2010/15 (again I can't recollect the exact year). Now which is better? An extra 10m barrels of oil at $28 dollars a pop? Or the same at $10/15 a pop? Plus with OPEC broken the US would be in a far stronger position to negotiate.

There are other issues involved, such as Bush trying to distract the US population from the dire state of their economy and preventing OPEC countries from changing their oil trading currency - which would badly affect the US economy even further, since this is about the only thing sustaining the US' rather bloated deficit.

OfflerCrocGod

Could you imagine if the evil Americans were to turn North Korea into the same mess that South Korea is, the humanity!!!.

Another rich, well-off, westernised, united and peaceful country; God Forbid.Thankfully the North Koreans seem to be able to nuke Japan and the West coast if that were to happen could you imagine the positive results for us all!.

Go North Koreans!!,

<mod edit> No personal insults please. If it happens again you'll face a week long ban </mod edit>

Éomer of Rohan

In truth, I do not envision the PRK to be any sort of Utopia but Offler, you seem in need of some accurate information on South Korea which is not rich, not peaceful and not united precisely because it is westernised.

The recent 'democracy' installed in the ROK is an excellent banner under which the politicians and multi national corporations are attacking trade union rights, decreasing pay and saftey conditions and lengthening working hours. American popular culture is eroding the orientalism of the ROK and supplanting it with the blandness that consumes America and which America consumes.

There have been several violent confrontations between Human Rights activists, Trade Unionists and the Government security forces - some which is over the issue of removing all US influence from Korea.

Some links you may find interesting;
http://homepage.iprolink.ch/~fitbb/TRADE_UNION_RIGHTS/IFBWW_Actions_1997-1999.html
Human Rights Watch South Korea
Amnesty International

PHB

I had a bit of a crackpot theory a while ago actually.

Basically, the EU was getting a bit too united for Bush's liking, with Britain getting fairly damm close to joining the Euro.
Eventually there would have been a unified foreign policy, but now thats gona take a hell of a lot of time a a change in governemnt and attitude by the British, since Labour was relativly pro Europe.

Anyway the war on Iraq was in increase divisions in Europe so as to stop it from becoming a power to chalange the US.


p.s I was bored in history class when I thought of this

Éomer of Rohan

Divide and conquer makes perfect sense and it is no secret that George Gush and his Project for a New American Century are anti- all the influence Europe would acquire as a unitary trade block / military power; maybe not as much as the US but had that happened, it would only be a matter of time before the EU forces became as integrated as the US forces - plus population dynamics would switch to the side of the EU - with the enlarged EU standing somewhere about 100 million people ahead of the population of America. And people are a good deal more friendly to Europe than to the US for excellent reason IMO and a Europe that was detached from NATO and American influence, or at least willing to ignore the US, would become a highly sought friend.

The Clown Man

The whole reason I am against this war is because I don't know why Bush is taking Iraq.

His lame excuses about how Iraq should be disarmed based on virtual or fictional evidence presented by Powell in the Defence Council just don't amount to a need to take Iraq by force. If indeed Bush wanted to disarm Iraq and neutralise any threat posed by him, the weapons inspectors, given a few months, would have reduced Saddam's array to near zero. They are professionals and were disarming Iraq at a far faster rate than after the Gulf War.

And if Bush cannot even produce substantial evidence as to why he is taking Iraq but still shows an incredible amount of haste, then what therefore is his real reason to have to go in so quickly?

In the process of his hasty declaration of war he has near torn the UN (the force to prevent aggressive nations from domineering lesser states), pissed off almost the entire Arab population of the world (more), France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, China (more), and a vast percentage of the western world otherwise, whether their governments agree or not.

What exactly is worth all this? Certainly not the safety of the American people, which was indirectly proven by the severe lack of evidence shown by his own intelligence agencies.

The safety of the Iraqi people? Why after 12 years is it absolutely vital that something is done that cannot wait 2 months for weapons inspectors? And that will have the above mentioned effect on the credibility of the USA and George W Bush and Council of Cohorts?

Oil? I don't believe that oil is the reason. The oil will still be controlled by the Iraqis and although there may be huge concessions, the resulting detriments of their own actions will cost them far more dearly.

Terrorism? I find it ironic that America should strike out against terrorists so suddenly with a vow to destroy all terrorism in the world when half of the terrorists at large are financed by the USA. I have no proof of this but history indicates strongly that terrorist groups (sorry, freedom fighters) have very often had US backing. The mujahadin, the uprising recently in Venezuela against Chavez, Vietnamese terrorists before the Americans invaded and Osama Bin Laden himself to name but a few.

Dictatorship and the Regime itself? This makes me laugh coming from a president who was illegally elected and who's home and foreign policies are against the will of possibly 75% of those living in his own country. (Only 50% of the populace can legally vote and only 50% of these actually do.) Also, there are far worse scenarios than Iraq in many of the African countries but have these gotten any recognition never-mind military backing? There have been efforts in Somalia etc to stop them but where was the "shock and awe" when the Americans were pulled out of Somalia?

All that has happened in the last few months indicates to me that there is something else looming behind this seemingly ignorant display of brutality. Although George W Bush may have the intelligence of a particularly dull stone, I would never presume to think that the administration behind him is anything but extremely intelligent (and what also seems to be extremely sinister.)

So where is the glorious U.S.A. going now? All that I've seen indicates to me that this conquest is not over and if the ulterior motives that seem to be evident are not suitable for public display, then this may only be the beginning of a target the Bush administration have yet to achieve.