|
 Zahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 19 years, 6 months
|
 Bush's conquest for world oil 
#1400278 - 03/22/03 08:51 AM (21 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
The United States government allowed the September 11th attacks to occur. As you remember earlier last year, the Bush administration was almost caught red-handed when Eleanor Hill spoke out against the U.S. government's intelligence regarding the September 11th attacks on New York and Washington. The administration responded to one comment made that the White House knew beforehand that a major attack on U.S. soil was being planned by Osama bin Laden as 'totally Outrageous and un-patiortic.'.
Why would they want such an attack to occur? The motive is oil. Only an attack such as 9-11 would give Bush and his mongers the room to push for a war against desired 'rogue states' who have an abundance of oil. Right now, this has included the war in Afghanistan (which was easy to win support for) and now, Iraq.
As for those who deny there is an oil connection; North Korea recently admitted that it did in fact have nuclear weapons (meanwhile, U.N. inspectors are finding nothing in Iraq) - the U.S. decides to persue this matter through 'diplomacy'. Why? North Korea has no oil. Nothing.
George Walker Bush is a modern day Hitler. The only difference between Bush and Hitler is that Bush is alot more sutle in his conquests - after all, 9-11 occured. And this tyrant is going to milk it for all it's worth.
--------------------
|
Murex
Reality Hacker
Registered: 07/28/02
Posts: 3,599
Loc: Traped in a shell.
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
 Re: Bush's conquest for world oil [Re: Zahid]
#1400288 - 03/22/03 08:56 AM (21 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
George Walker Bush is a modern day Hitler. The only difference between Bush and Hitler is that Bush is alot more sutle in his conquests - after all, 9-11 occured. And this tyrant is going to milk it for all it's worth.
I would like to hear what Silversoul7 has to say on this one.  
--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Bush's conquest for world oil [Re: Zahid]
#1400307 - 03/22/03 09:06 AM (21 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Zahid writes:
The United States government allowed the September 11th attacks to occur.
Bullshit.
the U.S. decides to persue this matter through 'diplomacy'. Why?
Well, if they gave Iraq 12 years of diplomatic blathering that accomplished exactly nothing (and if it were up to the French there would be 12 more) how about they give at least 12 weeks to North Korea?
pinky
--------------------
|
Zahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 19 years, 6 months
|
Re: Bush's conquest for world oil [Re: Phred]
#1400332 - 03/22/03 09:22 AM (21 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Bullshit
Fantasies are not realities. Do you think Bush would ever admit to this motive? Of course not.
Well, if they gave Iraq 12 years of diplomatic blathering that accomplished exactly nothing (and if it were up to the French there would be 12 more) how about they give at least 12 weeks to North Korea?
Prove to everyone here Saddam Hussein has these 'weapons of mass destruction', alleged weapons that are incapable of even reaching the United States (and while you're at it, prove to everyone there is a link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein). Let's see, North Korea has admitted it has nuclear weapons, while it is still unproven whether Saddam has them or not. Read more carefully.
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Bush's conquest for world oil [Re: Zahid]
#1400363 - 03/22/03 09:38 AM (21 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Zahid writes:
Fantasies are not realities.
Exactly. Your fantasy is that the US government knew in advance the attack would occur and deliberately allowed it to take place. You provide us no proof or even evidence to support this. Was it revealed to you in a vision?
Prove to everyone here Saddam Hussein has these 'weapons of mass destruction'
I don't need to. He had them, admitted to having them, but claims with no supporting evidence that they have all been destroyed. The surrender agreement does not require inspectors to find where he hid them, it requires him to provide credible proof that he destroyed them. Credible proof is more than just saying "I destroyed them, honest I did".
pinky
--------------------
|
 Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Bush's conquest for world oil [Re: Phred]
#1400374 - 03/22/03 09:45 AM (21 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
He had them, admitted to having them
He didn't need to "admit" to anything. US corporations sold him the fucking things in the first place. All Bush had to do was look at the receipt.
The point we could ask ourselves is why was it ok for Reagan and Bush to sell him chemical weapons when he was using them in the 80's and now we need a war to "disarm" him of them when he hasn't used them in a decade.
Credible proof is more than just saying "I destroyed them, honest I did".
I agree. It's UN weapons inspectors working for 7 years and concluding Iraq has been disarmed to the 90-95% level and that the remaining 5-10% doesn't necessarily exist. That's the proof to rely on.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
Edited by Alex123 (03/22/03 09:46 AM)
|
Murex
Reality Hacker
Registered: 07/28/02
Posts: 3,599
Loc: Traped in a shell.
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bush's conquest for world oil [Re: Xlea321]
#1400381 - 03/22/03 09:50 AM (21 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
The weapon inspectors are escorted around, so you see, there is no way they would be stupid enough to let them find WMD.
--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Bush's conquest for world oil [Re: Xlea321]
#1400409 - 03/22/03 10:07 AM (21 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
He didn't need to "admit" to anything. US corporations sold him the fucking things in the first place. All Bush had to do was look at the receipt.
So did England, France, Germany, and many other countries, including that notorious warmongering nation, Sweden.
It's UN weapons inspectors working for 7 years and concluding Iraq has been disarmed to the 90-95% level and that the remaining 5-10% doesn't necessarily exist. That's the proof to rely on.
There was one HELL of a lot of stuff there, Alex. Literally hundreds of tons of it. Five to 10% of hundreds of tons is still a lot of stuff. Also, that 90-95% estimate is five years old. The current inspectors found no new evidence of further destruction.
And of course, it is impossible to even estimate how much more was manufactured in the four plus years the country was entirely free of inspectors.
That's the proof to rely on.
If that's your concept of "proof", I'd love to have you prosecuting me in a criminal trial. The judge wouldn't even send it to the jury.
pinky
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Bush's conquest for world oil [Re: Murex]
#1400411 - 03/22/03 10:07 AM (21 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Nah, that's Bush bullshit.
Read up on what the inspectors actually did and their conclusions. Start with the work of Scott Ritter.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
angryshroom
Stranger
Registered: 12/18/01
Posts: 7,264
|
 Re: Bush's conquest for world oil [Re: Murex]
#1400415 - 03/22/03 10:09 AM (21 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Ahhh.... I wish debating was easier
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Bush's conquest for world oil [Re: Phred]
#1400420 - 03/22/03 10:13 AM (21 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
So did England, France, Germany, and many other countries, including that notorious warmongering nation, Sweden.
So?
Literally hundreds of tons of it.
Ritter says the UN inspectors burned tons and tons of stuff.
Also, that 90-95% estimate is five years old.
You can't rebuild these factories overnight. Ritter says the idea they've managed to start new weapons programs is a non-starter.
Five to 10% of hundreds of tons is still a lot of stuff
That's the "theoretical" 5-10%. Ritter says that, if it exists, it's mostly just odds and ends.
And of course, it is impossible to even estimate how much more was manufactured in the four plus years the country was entirely free of inspectors.
Ritter says it's very possible to estimate quite accurately how much they could have manufactured. You cannot set up weapons programmes overnight.
The current inspectors found no new evidence of further destruction.
It's not like they had an awful lot of time is it?
If that's your concept of "proof", I'd love to have you prosecuting me in a criminal trial.
So you don't believe the UN weapons inspectors but you believe Bush. Ok.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Bush's conquest for world oil [Re: Xlea321]
#1400433 - 03/22/03 10:25 AM (21 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
Ritter says the UN inspectors burned tons and tons of stuff.
Ritter says the idea they've managed to start new weapons programs is a non-starter.
Ritter says that, if it exists, it's mostly just odds and ends.
Ritter says it's very possible to estimate quite accurately how much they could have manufactured.
Ritter this, Ritter that. Interesting how you never quote Butler, who was actually the head of the inspection team -- the one who decided to pull the team out in 1998 because it was apparent the Iraqis were doing everything they could to prevent the inspectors from doing their jobs. Butler's evaluation of the situation differs substantially from Ritter's.
Could it be that it's because Butler's position contradicts Ritter's? Nah... you're much too even-handed and unbiased to do that, aren't you, Al?
pinky
--------------------
|
GabbaDj
BTH
Registered: 04/08/01
Posts: 19,682
Loc: By The Lake
|
Re: Bush's conquest for world oil [Re: Zahid]
#1400497 - 03/22/03 11:10 AM (21 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Any one of us could kill tens of thousands of people with one liter of Anthrax, one drum of radiological waste or a few gallons of nerve gas.
What we got to remember is that Sadam is allowed a pretty large amount of all these things, things that I could turn into a devastating WMD with spare parts found in my garage and one trip to Home Depot.
Look at the big picture people... Sadam may not have any interest in doing any harm to the US main land BUT, he is willing to sell excess Anthrax and other highly dangerous shit for cheep to anyone willing to use it... This I guarantee.
As for US companies selling him the stuff in the first place, all this was legal, every shipment of gas or biological agents were recorded and watched... I doubt that any American corporation sold Sadam any amount of WMD material above and beyond the amount he is currently allowed to poses under UN rules.
I will say that its our own damn fault for making Iraq our enemy in the first place.. It was for sure our own government that screwed up peace between the two of us long ago and now in this day we still must suffer for their ignorance/arrogance.
Fact remains. Weve made Iraq our enemy and now its a country in the middle of an area with LOTS and LOTS of people who wish to do harm to the US. They have WMD materials and its too easy for any fool to buy them and use them against us. With that said, we must stop things before they begin.
--------------------
GabbaDj
FAMM.ORG
Edited by GabbaDj (03/22/03 11:12 AM)
|
shoe
In Death'sEmbrace
Registered: 03/20/03
Posts: 26
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 21 years, 11 days
|
 Re: Bush's conquest for world oil [Re: GabbaDj]
#1402201 - 03/23/03 04:46 AM (21 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
pinksharkmark wrote:
Bullshit
Ok.
The goverment most certainly did have pre-knowledge of 9-11, and allowed them to occur.
Consider these things.
1. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown had received a warning not to fly on 9-11, and Ashcroft had changed from commercial to much more expensive charter planes in July 2001.
2. Morning of 9-11. George Bush is in a classroom with a group of schoolchildren, reading a book about goats. -->
Bush stated (December 4th 2001)"I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."
Bush stated: (January 5th 2002) "Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack."
Footage of Bush being alerted by Andy Card can be seen here http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushbook.rm.
Problems here?
-The first footage of the plane hitting the first tower was not aired UNTIL WELL AFTER THE SECOND PLANE HIT. In fact a day later. Draw your own conclusions
-Andy Card steps in, tells bush, then steps back without waiting for a reply.
-Bush knew the country was under attack. He stayed in some classroom reading some books about goats for a full *20 minutes* before leaving to do his duty.
3. 8:35am morning of 9/11. Plane crashes into first tower.
9.03am, plane crashes into second tower.
9:43am, plane crashes into Pentagon.
We were informed that standard procedures fully in effect on the morning
of September 11 were absolutely followed to a "T" by U.S. Air Traffic
Control personnel; that via established channels and according to
established guidelines, U.S. Air National Guard and Air Force units --
which are ALWAYS on alert to be scrambled for intercepts of either
distressed OR suspicious and possibly hostile aircraft 365/24/7 in these
United States -- WERE DEFINITELY contacted by FAA/ATC on 9.11 IMMEDIATELY after Air Traffic Control had become aware of the developing situation with the jets.
Problem?
4 jets were hijacked SIMULTANEOUSLY. Already this is the US's biggest hijacking ever. That should have set several alarm bells ringing, but no... air support is not sent in until long after the first three planes have crashed. THIS IS ALMOST AN HOUR AND 15 MINUTES.
4. The Air Force spokesman confirmed that after alerts and requests for intercepts of the aircraft were received from FAA/ATC, orders from the HIGHEST LEVEL of the federal government demanded that the Air Force stand down and NOT follow through with established scramble/ intercept procedures until further notice!
Cheney, while being interviewed by Tim Russert on NBC TV's 'MEET THE
PRESS on September 16th, claimed that the military needed authorization
from the president before scrambling fighter jets to intercept American
Airlines Flight 77.
This is a lie, plain and simple.
For example: remember two years ago, when golf pro Payne Stewart's small
PRIVATE Lear jet went off-course and out of communication just after
takeoff in Florida?
Within MINUTES, on an immediate alert from the FAA, U.S. Air Force and
Air Guard jets were scrambled to intercept Stewart's jet and see what
the heck was up (not that it helped much in that case...): "Several Air
Force and Air National Guard fighter jets, plus an AWACS radar control
plane, helped the Federal Aviation Administration track the runaway
Learjet and estimate when it would run out of fuel." --CNN, 10.26.99
Interceptors were in direct proximity to Stewart's seriously messed-up
aircraft within about TEN MINUTES of him having taken off. NOBODY had to
go pull Clinton away from Vice-president Monica Lewinsky and get him to
AUTHORIZE the INTERCEPT of Payne Stewart's jet that day.
Air Traffic Controllers request military intercepts of private and
commercial planes REGULARLY. Sometimes it's because communications have
broken off; sometimes it's to inform a pilot that his plane has gone off
course; other times it's to observe the situation directly - for
instance, to see who's actually flying the plane and things like that.
None of this requires presidential approval.
But there's more to how Cheney twisted the truth here regarding what is
PROVABLY one of the biggest holes in the FedGov's 9/11 tapestry of lies;
since someone of even the most minimal intelligence would realise that
such intercepts are VERY common, do NOT require any "presidential
authorization" and SHOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE on September 11.
Yet Flight 11 and three more passenger jets were sequentially permitted to go missing and run amok for at least one hour and 20 minutes (80 minutes -- the Pentagon was hit at 9.40 am) without NORAD getting its jets in position to intercept the runaway craft.
The procedure for escorting hijacked aircraft can be found on the NORAD/FAA official site here: http://www.faa.gov/Atpubs/MIL/Ch7/chp7.htm
Think about it. NORAD's job is to protect us from enemy bombers and missiles sent over our skies by foreign powers. Would those foreign powers be considerate enough to put transponders on their bombers and missiles so NORAD could locate them and shoot them down? Of course not. NORAD is expected to find unidentified flying objects without transponders.
This will do.. I hope this information is new to you. There is a lot more evidence to support this idea but it is currently 1.50am. As a side note, not all of this information was written by me.. it has been compiled in order to make a point.
--------------------
The above writings are fictional. It is being used to collect information to write a book about someone growing mushrooms.
And remember I will always love you,
As I claw your fucking throat away.
It can end no other way.
Edited by shoe (03/23/03 04:53 AM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Bush's conquest for world oil [Re: shoe]
#1402578 - 03/23/03 06:55 AM (21 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
^^^^^^^
*SNORT*
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
hongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 19 years, 11 months
|
Re: Bush's conquest for world oil [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#1402675 - 03/23/03 07:41 AM (21 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Very interesting and well-presented arguement, shoe.
Of course, luv's rebuttal just ABSOLUTELY BLEW YOU OUT OF THE WATER.
Luv, let me guess--you were captain of the debate team, right?
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: Bush's conquest for world oil [Re: Phred]
#1402738 - 03/23/03 08:10 AM (21 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
12 years of bombing. 12 years of disarming.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: Bush's conquest for world oil [Re: Phred]
#1402752 - 03/23/03 08:21 AM (21 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
There was one HELL of a lot of stuff there, Alex. Literally hundreds of tons of it. Five to 10% of hundreds of tons is still a lot of stuff. Also, that 90-95% estimate is five years old. The current inspectors found no new evidence of further destruction.
Apparently, some of these substances have a shelf life of 5 years only and the others degrade considerably after this time rendering them almost useless. There is no proof of mass production of the chemicals since 1998 so this 5-10% that he still posesses would most likely pose little threat to anyone.
These weapons can be produced "dry" which gives them a longer shelf life. There is no evidence Iraq has the facility to do this.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Bush's conquest for world oil [Re: hongomon]
#1403485 - 03/23/03 01:10 PM (21 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
No more than you.
That was the most polite response I could dredge up.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bush's conquest for world oil [Re: Zahid]
#1403940 - 03/23/03 04:07 PM (21 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
alleged weapons that are incapable of even reaching the United States
What 9-11 proves is that it does not take high tech. delivery systems and long rang missles to attack the US at home. A sigle person infected with small pox (not saying Saddam has small pox), or a drone launched from a boat just off shore could do the job plenty good.
--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder 
Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale 
Red Vein Kratom
Edit 
Reply 
daussaulit
1 2 all )
mjshroomer
Edame
ekomstop
carbonhoots
Learyfan
Rono
GabbaDj