Balloon guy said:
Maipulation of government for financial gains isn't difficult, for focused purposes. That's the point.The war is subcontracted...SO WHAT?Because we have streamlined and subcontract most things makes what difference? Laundry, chow and transportation is subcontracted in the military. In times of war and peace.Halliburton being one of the few companies in existance that can rebuild Iraq in timeframe doesn't make them part of some plan. Even if Cheney used to work there. This is also the first time we rebuilt a nation after defeating it in this short of a time frame. Japan and Germany took a little longer then 3 years to rebuild.
Working backwards, Halliburton is not the only company that can do the various jobs they have contracts for, but that's not my point in any case. There's such a blend between the Pentagon and it's various contractors that all of those companies have connections.Regarding being part of some sort of plan, I don't see how it could be any other way, unless you are suggesting that the administration started a war with no plans. Make up your mind, either they knew what they were doing or they didn't.So what if the war is subcontracted? That opens a Pandora's Box. You increase the likelihood and various means that corporations can defraud you of your tax dollars, and risk American lives. Don't you care about our soldiers? Because we've seen enough of corporate greed and fraud to be unsurprised if it turns out that say, inadequate body armor was intentional so they could sell twice as many vests (not saying that happened, saying it's a possibility).Any corporation has an obligation to its share holders to increase its profits. How big of a leap is it to think that they may want an administration to start hostilities every 10-15 years or so? Say like, WWII to Korea to Vietnam to Persian Gulf to Iraq: Part Deux...Or that they will build Humvees designed to fall apart every 3 years so the government has to keep buying new ones - the strategy of automotive makers in this country up until the 1990's?
Clinton reference was based on inferance that Cheney Rumsfeld etc. were putting plans to have this war 20 years ago. Which would mean they needed a disaster like WTC, which was first tried under Clinton. If their plan was to topple WTC to set their plans in motion, then they first tried it under CLinton. Did you read the post I was responding to? It wasn't that hard to follow.
You misunderstood. I pointed out that the idea of an inadequate President with an increasingly powerful VP was an idea thought up by the people who now have exactly that. At the time they came up with the idea, the plan was to attempt to create a market as free as possible. However, these same guys later wanted to continue Desert Storm but couldn't, and once again now they have exactly that.
Your quote "Nothing is what it appears to be" Means that you get to read anything you want to into anything that happens? That's the point of the Freud quote. Sometimes you read too much into things and miss the fact that it could actully just be what it is.
We'll just have to disagree on that. In politics, nothing is actually just what it is. After all the case studies and reviews that I've done about Desert Storm, I would bet that if I presented all the information I've learned to GH Bush, he'd laugh at how little I knew.
UN got manipulated? You mean like in GW1 when the woman came in and told them about the babies being thrown out of their incubators in hospital, which proved to be lies, she wasn't even in Iraq. So sometimes the war gets 'sold' to the American people? Happened then, happened now.Will happen again. Funny how you don't have a problem with the bribes being taken by UN officials in Food for Oil, doesn't come into you anti war people's thoughts at all bout UN's involvement in Iraq war.
You lost me. Where did I say anything about bribes, food or oil? Where did I say the UN was manipulated? That's not manipulation, that was just a description of the disparity between what goes on and what most people know. That's just how it works.
Poli Sci majors are the most narrow minded people I've ever met. as a rule. You think because you live in DC and have a PS degree you get to read Bush's actions with more accuracy then me? Because? Here's a surprise, I voted for Bush both times and I still support him. You didn't vote for Bush either time and don't support him. Wow, who would have thought?
I didn't say I had a Poli Sci degree. I said I was
a Poli Sci major for part of my college years
. You can call me narrow minded if you want though.I can understand why you don't think living in DC is any qualification for knowledge. Living in DC is hard to describe to someone who hasn't. The entire metropolitan area lives on politics. I've just recently moved to Ohio, and half the stuff I thought everybody knew, people seem surprised when I talk about it.
And why does Bush's 'Agenda' have to be selfish, financial and evil motives?
If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...
Is it impossible that like his Father, he is trying to do the right thing no matter what others think. 9-11 changed the way we have to look at the world. It would be wonderful to go back to 1980 when we only had to worry about taxes, but we don't get to.
I wouldn't put what his father did re: Desert Storm that way, but yes it is impossible he is doing what hi dad did. Back in 1980, all these guys were on our payroll: Saddam, Osama, etc., etc..
4 years of no attacks on America but that was because the terrorist couldn't use their frequent flyer miles to get cheap enough seats, so they are saving up and then they will attack again.
You need to listen to your administration. They have said another attack is inevitable.
So if he taps phones to stop terrorist attaks, he's evil and wants to create a facsist state. and if he doesn't stop terrorist attacks, then he's evil and wants to start a war. You guys have a nice racket going, no matter what, Bush is evil and only the Democrats can save us.
When Americans trade the very freedoms that made this country for a little extra security, we all lose, and the terrorists win. They win because we start comprising beliefs in exchange for them not hurting us. It is wrong to compromise our ideals.Terrorists are the new commies. There always has to be a Big Bad out there to manipulate the herd. In the '80's there was a popular song questioning whether Russians love their children, like they are some kind of demon. How such extreme concepts of our enemies make it into general public acceptance is unnerving to see.BTW, I don't know where you get the idea that I'm a Democrat. IMO, Bush is the Republican Clinton. There, I just p*ssed off both sides with one sentence. Just because we have a two party system doesn't mean I have to pick one of them. It's unfortunate, but you're going to have to find another way to dismiss me instead of, 'Oh yeah, well you're a Democrat.'
And for a poly sci major you are dense if you think the SC ruling was a choosing of a president. They upheld the Florida SC ruling, which ruled that the Florida Constitution OVERRULED the democrats desire to recount until they got the correct number of votes for Algore. Very cut and dried.
I'm not dense, it's exactly what happened. Vote counting was in dispute. If it had been reversed and Al Gore's count was higher, then I'd say Al Gore was appointed president. It is not the Supreme Court's purview to rule on what counts as a vote, plain and simple.The only solution that would make sense would be to have a re vote in the state of Florida. That way, every single citizen who sat on his butt, D or R, would vote along with every citizen who did. Why, that's perfect
American 'democracy' in action. Everybody votes.Republicans didn't get over Clinton winning. They attacked him relentlessly for 8 years.