Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rock_nj who wrote (299431)	9/23/2002 6:27:00 PM
From: SeachRE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

You make valid points of US's ulterior motives prior to the Kuwait invasion. Over the past few years we've come to learn how the Shrubs work. So has the world. They fool me no more. The foreigners out there are waking up to this reality as well. Troubling...

To: Rock_nj who wrote (299431)	9/23/2002 6:52:41 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 769670

<< Why didn't we sternly warn Saddam that an invasion of Kuwait would result in a bloody war? >> The bloody war was part of the long term plan that is working. Bush 41 bribed the US Supreme Court to make sure his son would win in 2000. Since 1990 the Carlyle group has been buying up oil leases that are not in the ME. Since they are selling WMDs to both sides they have the money to do this. Those they can't buy, they execute the top brass and take the oil over. Now Bush 43 will take over and make sure all ME production is shut down. That means the Carlyle group will have control over every drop of oil sold in the world. Plus 43 will issue an EX Order giving the Carlyle group drilling rights to anywhere in the US. Tey will be able to tear down buildings in LA and Miami and set up drills at no cost to them. Now since Bush 41 and 43 OWN the Carlyle group they will be making billions of $ per day. It won't take long until they have all the money in the world and will be taking homes, farms, cars, children as slaves, to give you a drop of oil or gasoline. Next their own private army will look for posters like you to be snatched in the middle of the night, drug out and buried alive.

To: Rock_nj who wrote (299431)	9/24/2002 9:41:15 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

I think we were still under the impression that Saddam was using intimidation to acquire limited territorial concessions from Kuwait. In any case, we were not in a position to warn of anything. As it was, Bush had to jump through hoops to get Congressional and UN support for Desert Storm. Had he overthreatened early on, we would have lost credibility. There is no such "big picture". Most corporate executives want peace and prosperity throughout the world, because that enables them to make secure investments and develop new markets. Trade is a relatively peaceful pursuit. Lenin's tale of the greedy capitalists using government to promote imperialist exploitation doesn't quite capture what happened in the 18th and 19th century. For the most part, the imperial powers were trying to supply a lack in the territories they conquered or annexed. Although there were purely exploitative ventures, such as the Belgian Congo, for the most part the civil administration, infrastructure, and investment brought by the imperialists were superior to the local authorities and the searing poverty of the natives. They also brought medical relief, schools, such necessary features for participation in the world economy as currency and banks, and helped ease the transition into the modern world. Finally, most colonies barely paid for themselves, and were more a matter of national prestige than of enrichment. The post- colonial world has been more chaotic, known more despotism, and become poorer. At the same time that the imperial powers were largely divesting themselves of colonies, most of which became dictatorships with burgeoning economic and social problems, we were involved in a strategic competition with the Soviet Union. Not only had the Soviets dishonored their commitments at Yalta, and subverted elections in the territories under their control in Eastern Europe, in order to install their own regimes, but they did not adequately demobilize, and developed an offensive posture in the center of Europe, which is why NATO was developed. Most of this strategic competition played out in the chaotic regimes of the Third World. In that context, yes, we sometimes toppled governments (often dictators) because of our perceived strategic interests, and even to ensure access to strategically important commodities. More usually, though, we dealt with the existing regimes, trying to keep them friendly, as the Soviets also tried to win their trust. War was never a normal way of doing business, nor was it merely for profit.