"And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.) State of the Union Address, 2003 Granted, it wasn't mentioned in the speech enough to consider it a primary justification, but the fact it was mentioned shows that liberating the people of Iraq was not a recent afterthought either.

Now, you know I never said it wasn't in the rhetoric. Of course it was in the rhetoric. But it's not enough to say SH was bad and evil and the devil himself. If that was the case, we'd be reacting a bit more strongly in Darfur and North Korea. No one is wackier the Lil' Kim. There's tons of crazy dictators around the world, who brutalize their people. We used that as a reason, true, but the primary justification for war was that SH was amassing wmd's and was a direct threat to our nation. That, of course, is just not true.

That and Rumsfelds woeful mismanagement of the invasion is why we have the mess we have. Rumsfeld withdrew the need for troops to follow up the mechanised divisions to secure and stabilise the ground taken....hence the looting and damage and growth of the insurgency. He was told 500,000 troops would be required. He went in with a deficit of close on half. 250,000 TROOPS short of the recommended amount. Thank you for your expertise Mr Donald Rumsfeld!

we're not so far off, really. I take a three pronged approach to why I think Bush is incompetent: 1) He f****d up the reasons for going to war (though, perhaps, the war itself is justified) and lied to the American people with lousy and misshaped information, 2) He f'd up the campaign itself (through Rumsfeld and others) and contributed to the very insurgency that we have been facing down and 3) his nation building technique in Iraq has been --below brilliant.

One other thought: For 2000 years turmoil has existed between muslim and secular societies. It'll last another 2000. Invading Iraq will never change that. I suspect leading by example coupled with a policy of containment (read: how we handled the cold war) will do more to invigorate muslim opinion TOWARDS us than invading countries and (as they see it) setting up puppet governments. The only proplem I see with your very patriotic and well written argument is we have to lead by example to win hearts and minds. It's hard to do that in war. And some hearts and minds will never, ever be won because they are nut cases. Again, not that this war was necessarily wrong (I change my mind on that fairly regularly), but we've done a terrible job of explaining ourselves under this administration.
I've never, ever argued I think the invasion of Iraq was wrong: just the primary justifications given for that invasion. It's a fine line, I admit, but important. Why we do something, what our moral compass is that's guiding us, how we explain and justify our actions to the world: that's just as important, in my view, as taking the action itself. Maybe others disagree. Parated, I know you do.

If someone could remove the link in post # 118 that would be special.

I'm sorry, I don't believe in removing any response. Even though some believe UFO's will be the key to solving global warming, I think it's important to let everyone voice their view. Tell me why you think the link should be removed?

Yes, I know you were joking UFO's aren't gonna be the solution, no one will get rich off UFO technology and there's no ticker on wall street listing the going price for their stock. I gotta run. Time to jump into the old 'Prius and head to the gym.

Cause it was offensive. People can spread their message of Hate all they want but get off my lawn.

What link?

This is a Joe User - sourced thread....rules are a little more lenient....probably the only thing that's particularly 'no go' would be racial vilification.

I can't see a link so can't elaborate ....

Edit...

...oh...interpolating I'd say it would have been a white supremacist link...

...that'd be a 'no go' ....

it was

I can't speak for how electricity is generated at your end but locally our electricity comes from hydro power - electricity generated by flowing water which passes through a turbine to spin a generator to produce electricity. Unlike the nonrenewable fuels used to generate electricity, hydro power is clean, there are no waste products, and hydropower does not pollute the water or the air.

The infrastructure technology currently used to transmit electricity over long distances needs to be improved so that this type of power can be used by more people instead of just limiting it's use to people who live near power plants located on water sources that are capable of producing this kind of energy. I know this technology is improving, we not only provide electricity province wide but we are also sell it to our adjacent provinces and also to our US neighbors down south - this wasn't the case many years ago.

It's important to note that only a small percentage of all dams in the United States produce electricity. Most dams are constructed solely to provide irrigation and flood control and no additional funds are allocated for the creation of hydro power plants. More hydro power potential is available, the government needs to invest more money into this clean renewable energy resource.

Another form of clean electricity production is wind power - we are starting to see alot more of this locally with the construction of wind farms & such.


As for my other options, they're all serious alternatives too, especially if you're willing to invest the effort in making them work.

If everyone has the same attitude of they're not good enough, don't bother using them, you'll still maintain this oil-hungry pace which is getting us nowhere quick except for a polluted planet. Do these alternatives fix all the problems... NO. But they are a start in the right direction of reducing dependance on oil and reducing pollution. If you generate enough momentum going in the alternative energy direction, it's quite possible that other alternatives may come up as well. However continuing in the same direction as we're currently going pretty much ensures that none of these alternatives will get a chance at further development so of course they'll continue to be viewed as half-a$$ed solutions and scrutized by people who think we just have no other way of doing things.

Plus doesn't reducing our dependance on oil provide other benefits, reducing pollution and reversing damages to our environment, aren't we in a climate crisis as we speak, isn't it our duty to find a better way for the sake of the planet.

Hydrogen is going to be the fuel of the future.


Pollution, Climate Control, hello!

You're going to see 2 types of hydrogen power vehicles.
Vehicles with electric engines powered directly by hydrogen fuel cells and vehicles with engines that are converted from traditional gasoline powered combustion engines and powered by compressed hydrogen. It's going to happen - in fact it has to happen, if it doesn't, you can pretty much guarantee a planetary catastrophe.

Change is always difficult - I'll agree to that, but it's not impossible.
You can be a pessimist and say that it's too difficult to change and there are just too many obstacles in front of us preventing us from making the change. Or you can be an optimist and see that those obstacles are just challenges we will overcome.

How thick does the smog have to be before you say it's time we do something about this problem?

George Bush is the smartest, most clever person, possibly in the world.

How else can he appear to be an incompetent bumbling idiot of very low intelligence with the barest grasp of the English language (just ask any Democrat/Liberal/Bush Hater ... they will tell you what an idiot he really is) ...

... while simultaneously fooling the entire US voting population into electing him ... not just once but twice, not to mention tricking those same beforementioned Democratic Congresspersons to agree to vote to let him go to war despite their assured knowledge that he was a liar and a moron!

Diabolically clever, I tell you!


* The preceding is tongue and cheek and is not to be taken seriously.   

Bush haters regurgitating hate for Bush. BOORING!

We've heard it all before! Idiots! BOORING!!!!

Complaining is about the easiest thing to do, next to dying! Any damn fool can do it... and most do.

Bush haters regurgitating hate for Bush. BOORING! We've heard it all before! Idiots! BOORING!!!!

Truely insightful.

As for the link, I couldn't see it either. Perhaps the joe user management already got it. If I'd of realized it was a WP link, it would have gone if I could do anything aboutit.

* The preceding is tongue and cheek and is not to be taken seriously.

the sad thing is, you had to tell everyone. Do you think Troy actually read any of this thread? Troy, what is it about GW that you think is great? What makes him a great man, a great leader? Tell us. E N L I G H T E N U S with your wisdom, please.

The whole world has been locked into an irreversible destiny for hundreds of years.

There's no way to change the current course. Not by ranting, raving, blogging, or tying yourself to a tree. This situation is far more complex than we know.

And that's one of the key points. There is much we don't know and quite simply haven't been told.

History tells a grim tale of resource wars since the dawn of civilization. It's not as though Bush is a new development. Thinking the war(s) in the Middle East are Bush's fault is juvenile and asinine. That's like imagining video games are to blame for violence in our society.

Mankind IS violent, has been for thousands of years, and will continue to be.

Resource wars will escalate every year. You should expect it since planet Earth's resources are limited and dwindling.

Did Bush do the right thing? I don't know. Did he do the wrong thing? I don't know. It's really not for me to decide. I'm not in charge of keeping the country from imploding into irreparable depression.

I would assume that securing the free flow of crude oil would give America a cushion against the inevitable crisis.

The more politically astute who frequent this forum understand the significance of oil dollars, and how it affects our economy. If the faith of the American oil dollar is lost, countries will no switch to another currency, our money will be devalued, and widespread poverty & famine will ensue within our borders.

The situation is precarious. If we don't secure the value of oil dollars, then you can kiss your comfortable suburban lifestyle goodbye. No more chicken pot pies and licorice twists. You'll be on the fast track to a diet of pigeons and rats.

Saddam Hussein had plans to convert billions of oil dollars to Euros. American intelligence caught wind of this and decided we needed a reason to stop him. It's quite simple. If he had gone through with this transaction, the landslide of other oil-rich Middle East countries adopting the Euro would cripple our delicate economy.

So, should a president give a false justification for war in order to implement a secret agenda to secure oil dollars? I am not qualified to answer that, nor would it matter if I had an opinion.

It's high time we stop being polarized and see the issues for what they truly are. We must rethink our world view, stop clinging to the romantic notions of right and wrong in world affairs. We live in desperate times, and frankly I believe it is the calm before the storm.

Instead of quibbling over who is right, we should channel our energies to prepare for a somewhat bleak future. We all know "fossil fuels" will run out. How will those big diesel trucks bring Campbell's soup to your local supermarket without first gassing up?

Instead of being politically snobbish, we should strive to be informed. Taking sides is merely bickering and nothing will ever get done.

I don't suppose to have the answers, but I know they cannot be realized by the asinine interchange I see occurring.

FYI: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also had plans make the shift from American Oil Dollars to Euros. Lo, and behold, rumors of WMD's began circulating immediately thereafter.

Let's be a bit more savvy and identify the real issues.

i spent nearly two hours looking for that.


and as i said you do not have to be a member of the jewish faith to be a jew.


hitler was a jew but he wasn't jewish.

my family name is jewish but i am not a jew. actually it is two jewish names put together.

What does this have to do with personal computing?

Incidentally, regardless of WHERE the post originates, the rules are the same.

1. You may not personally attack other people.
2. We do not censor comments or posts simply because people disagree with them.
3. We will not censor posts or comments simply because they are politically incorrect.
4. We reserve the right to move topics if they are deemed off-topic (this one has no business being in personal coputing, it will probably get moved to Politics).

 

this post has nothing to do with personal computing, I will assume it was placed in this forum accidentally - however it has sparked quite a bit of debate and it's been incredibly interesting to follow & participate in.

  

 When it comes to discussing Bush, logic (and reasoned discourse, for that matter) has made like Elvis and left the building.  

Good, it was a snaffu (AMAZINGLY) that put it here to begin with. I originally put it in Politics, and it got posted in Computing. Go figure. Move it, I would if I could.
M

Thanks, and yes, totally accidentally. I wish the stardock guy would move it as I can't.
M

hey cosmic, nice post - at least someone finally brought up the point of oil dollars.

However, you could have done us a bit of a favor and elaborated on the topic, truth be known, I would wager that the majority of people out there aren't aware of this process and what it involves, I did some searching and came up with the cliff notes version on this topic. Here is the "theory" of oil dollars...

Imagine you are deep in debt but every day you write cheques for millions of dollars you don't have, a luxury car, a holiday home at the beach, the world trip of a lifetime, etc. etc.

Your cheques should be worthless but they keep buying stuff because those cheques you write never reach the bank! You have an agreement with the owners of one thing everyone wants, oil/gas, that they will accept only your cheques as payment (Oil is traded primarily in US dollars). This means everyone must hoard your cheques (US dollars) so they can buy oil/gas. Since they have to keep a stock of your cheques, they use them to buy other stuff too. You write a cheque to buy a TV, the TV shop owner swaps your cheque for oil/gas, that seller buys some vegetables at the fruit shop, the fruit shop owner passes it on to buy bread, the baker buys flour with it, and on it goes, round and round - but never back to the bank.

You have a debt on your books (a large one), but so long as your cheque never reaches the bank, you don't have to pay. In effect, you have received your "TV" for free.
This is the position the U.S. has enjoyed for many years (30+) - it has been getting free world trade ride for all that time, receiving a huge subsidy from everyone else in the world. As U.S. debt has been growing, it has printed more money (written more cheques) to keep trading - doing this makes the U.S. an economic powerhouse!

Then one day, an oil/gas seller (ex. Iraq, Iran, Russia, etc.) says he is going to accept another person's "cheques" (Euro's), a couple of others think that might be a good idea. If this spreads, people are going to stop hoarding your cheques (U.S. dollars) and they will come flying home to the bank. Since you don't have enough in the bank to cover all the cheques, a lot of trouble will start to happen.

But the U.S. Government is big & tough & very aggressive.
Although they don't scare the other guy (Europe) who can write his own cheques (Euros) since he's pretty big too, given a legitimate excuse, the U.S. government can beat the stripes off one of the lone oil/gas sellers and scare him and his friends into submission so that they don't accept any one's "cheques" except for yours (U.S. dollars).

If this theory is accurate (albeit several stripped down for ease of understanding) of how Oil dollars are currently handled, then in a nutshell, this is what the USA is doing right now with Iraq. And possibly what they will being with Iran in the future.

How much of a stick of dynamite is this info on the theory of oil dollars for this discussion we're having? Again I don't know enough about the topic to offer a truly informed opinion but I've heard it discussed a few times to know that some of it is true.

Anyone care to argue for or against this point?

On a side note... Boy did the original post turn into an interesting conversation or what?!

Screw oil. The water wars are soon to come.   

Thanks unclerob - you spelled it out nicely.

If only more people would realize the issues.

It all reminds me of the Wizard of Oz. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." Toto had a lot of guts for a small quadraped.

The Euro has sounded the death knell for American Oil Dollars. This has many economists worried, and rightfully so. If we open our eyes slightly, the birds of the air gathering to pick the American carcass clean.

And all the kids on the playground cheer when the bully gets beat up.

The war was legitimate based on Saddams breaking of the ceasefire agreement which is why the UN backed off taking it to an International court. Because Saddam failed to comply unconditionally to his agreement made at the ceasefire at the end of Gulf War one. Hostilities resumed. It is nothing like Vietnam! All are volunteers. The only similarity is once again civilian protests are restricting troop numbers reaching required levels to effectively police the country and therefore are doing much to assist the increased body count of our own men.Like Vietnam the troops are the meat in the sandwich. I immensely disliked the civilian protesters when I served in Vietnam and my dislike continues today. If we commit our troops to battle then give them what they need to get the job done. Don't send them in then ALL whine about the war being wrong and whinge at politicians then pull the mat out from underneath them. The only way civilians will learn to butt out would be to send them into a war and subject them to their own counter productive and lethal behaviour. Civilians protesters need to own their share of the body count. Ahmadinejad says Irans Nuclear programme is peaceful. If so then he should have no problem allowing inspectors to go anywhere in those facilities and to access any information they like. The fact they are not being allowed can only arouse suspicion and confirm the fact it is not for peaceful purposes. There is no doubt Iran has WMD. Ahmadinejad revels in showing it all off in public parades frequently and is always excited to announce to the world his latest big missile capable of hitting a target at whatever range and wiping this and that from the map. No misunderstanding Irans intent and to think otherwise is to place yourselves in the same mindset you accuse Bush of having......stupid!

NT, you hit that one right out of the park, that's another one coming soon as well

Hey Cosmic, thanks for the reply back.
I think the US govt understands their current situation very well, and probably have other plans (aside from what's obvious on the news) to slow or reverse the course of this problem - you seem to be quite versed on this issue, in your opinion what can be done to avoid this type of economic catastrophe? As it stands, the US won't be the only country adversely affected by this, this is a global economic problem.

Saddam did exactly what was mentioned in my previous post.
In 1999, Iraq (2nd largest oil reserves in the world), switched to trading its oil in euros from US dollars. It was first seen as a huge error by alot of economic analysts who thought that Iraq was now heading into an economic downfall but when the euro began rising against the US dollar, Iraq had given itself a huge economic lift by switching to euros, the decision made them alot of money and as a result costing the US govt alot of money.

"Legitimate" reasons for going to Iraq:
- Iraq is a threat because of alleged links to al Qaeda (has this been proven)
- Iraq might supply al Qaeda with weapons (is there a proven link?)
- Iraq's military threat to its neighbours (this is very possible)
- the need to deliver Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's horrendously inhumane rule (this is probably the only real & valid reason in this list)
- lack of compliance with UN weapons inspection (yes but what was the infraction, what was found?)
- WMDs in Iraq (a controversial excuse which has never been proven to be real)

What countries may be next? You hear more & more about Iran in the news lately, and you might see a similar US military involvement in that region - why? Iran is going to do the same thing, begin trading it's oil in euros from US dollars. Another country to keep your eye on... Venezuela - same thing in this situation, they're trying to get off the US dollar track and they're currently implementing a system that allows them to trade oil without US dollars. Don't be surprised about some form of military action with that country too.