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: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (308545)	10/15/2002 12:39:14 PM
From: MSI	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

This piece doesn't claim direct economic benefit to Bush or associates. The value of the piece is that it details government policy in truer terms than the boogeyman rhetoric created by propagandists. But in ref to your question, it's hard to believe you are serious. Considering Nixon, Bush/Reagan, Bush/Quayle and Bush/Cheney have been in the thick of it since the '70s, and with any casual look at the resumes and business dealings of their associates and partners, one would conclude an enormous flow of influence, deals, and dollars. Perhaps you are one who believes the canon that "Bush is only a millionaire, not like those super-rich guys", but after listening to various scraps of the last 30 years from the Nixon tapes on, I'm dubious. Not that it matters. The policies that benefit rich and super-rich are fine with me, I'm happy with that, and even happier if they are Americans, who might benefit other Americans in general. However, considering the lies that are told, I don't trust the predatory nature of these business and political operators who have zero concern for the country which they manipulate and benefit from, and the lives of those they cheerfully send to their deaths for their own profit. As much as I think he's a world-class criminal, at least Bush Senior flew a jet in the war. The rest of these money-grubbing chickenhawks lie to get the public to die for them. And after all, it's the public's money going into these adventures, and creating the chickenhawk's political and economic benefit. That is the subtext of the article, when you combine facts with confused and stumbling Washington rhetoric chanting about "war", when the chant should clearly be "oil". The public should be given the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and make collective decisions on going to war for these purposes.

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (308545)	10/15/2002 1:10:29 PM
From: Cola Can	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Did Bush Sr. benefit from the first war with Iraq? I'm still wanting to know America's (Clinton's) benefit with the attack on Serbia. It had to be more than just Monica. The whole attack on Serbia and Afghanistan is puzzling because of the comments made by US News and World Report. It stated long before the USA and UN attack Serbia that the KLA was a bunch of thugs and drug runners. Who did the USA go to protect? The KLA. Where were a lot of the narcatics coming from? Afghanistan. Why did the USA go to Pananma? Because Noriega was operating drug traffic? If you put together bits of information, it appears the drug traffic is very important to the G7 nations. So it isn't just a Democrat or republican agenda. It seems hard to believe that a nation would make an unprovoked attack on another nation, without something important at stake. And the idea of Milosevic being the next Hitler was comical, yet sad because the public believed it. So why isn't Saddam and a few other dictators viewed in the same light? Why isn't the same case made? There are a lot of humanitarian cases to address, around the world, than just Serbia. What is the drug traffic used for? Theres a lot of money to be made. For what? One thing comes to mind is Area 51. Old and new satelitte photos show new buildings and a new runway have been built. Where did that money come from since it isn't submitted to congress for approval? A place that doesn't exists can not have a paper trail. And wasn't it the CIA who setup the drug trade in South America to begin with? Is this who war business, including Serbia a war to control the drug trade? He who controls the drug trade, controls the world. A lot can be accomplished with that money, the governments in the G7 wouldn't approve. The profits from the drug trade bypasses those governments and doesn't leave a paper trail....or one that has yet to be found. And that is my conspiracy for today.