The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, oil, oil, oil > Comments

Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, oil, oil, oil : Comments

By David Chibo, published 3/4/2009

Iraq: it is important to understand how the US maintains its superpower status and controls the world's economy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Hi all,

Was reading an interesting book some months ago 'All the Shah's men' by Stephen Kinzer.

It documents the historical events from the British down to the present US policy on the Middle East.

Well worth the effort.
Posted by Ninja, Saturday, 4 April 2009 2:20:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc would have us not discuss the legacy of the Bush administration simply because he was removed from office two and a half months ago.

In fact the evil, destructive legacy of the rule of Bush, and the PNAC for which he was the public face, will endure for years, or decades, unless President Barack Obama were to decide to break decisively with that legacy. So far he hasn't.

Obama has largely continued with Bush's policy of throwing public money to prop up the parasitic finance sector instead of focusing on building the real economy.

Most critically, Obama has not made any moves to conduct a proper investigation into the 9/11 attacks.

Vice President Joe Biden continues to utter the Big Lie of the Bush years that Islamic extremists in Afghanistan orchestrated the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and uses that to justify the escalation of the war in Afghanistan and its extension into Pakistan.

For more information, see http://911oz.com, http://911blogger.com, http://911truth.org, "9/11 Truth" forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=82 etc.
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 4 April 2009 10:55:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Democracy is an ugly business, but it's the best anyone has come up with. If Ralph Nader hadn't siphoned votes away from the democrats in Florida in 2000, President Gore would've been the one responding to September 11, and Dick Cheney would be an obscure millionaire. Of course, even as we continue to wring our hands about the American invasion of Iraq, Iraqis are increasingly happy about their Saddam-free country (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=7058272&page=1).

So yes, there's no question that with Bush and Cheney running the show, it was all about oil and dollars and economic hegemony. The US (and its allies like Australia) have never shown much interest invading countries run by murderous dictators who don't control vast reserves of lucrative commodities. But as long as OzAndy and the rest of us want oil, our governments and the rapacious corporate interests that we allow to influence them will continue to do economically sensible, morally reprehensible things. President Nader and Prime Minister Milne would shake things up. But we better change the way political parties (and therefore democratic elections) are funded.

See you at the bowser, Andy.
Posted by WebVox, Sunday, 5 April 2009 9:36:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WebVox's post is a dishonest attempt to shift moral culpability for the crimes of Bush and his allies onto the shoulders of ordinary people.

He is implying that by invading Iraq, in order to seize its oil, Bush and Howard were doing no more ordinary folks like you, me and Ozandy secretly deep down wanted them to do.

I would suggest to WebVox that he speak for himself. He may find it morally acceptably for countries like the US and Australia, whose rulers allowed their own oil wealth to be squandered, to seize the oil of other people, but I certainly don't, and I very much doubt that Ozandy does either.

I think any claims of support by Iraqis themselves for the invasion coming from that article linked to by WebVOx should be taken with a grain of salt.

First, ask yourself: If the war actually was fought fought for oil as even WebVox acknowledges in his peculiar twisted amoral way, then how many ordinary Iraqis are likely to find that acceptable?

According to credible sources perhaps over 1,000,000 Iraqis may have died as a result of the 2003 invasion and 5 million are internal refugees. It may cost US taxpayers $3.2trillion (see http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2008/2185813.htm)

Does anyone seriously maintain that Bush really squandered that much money, caused so many deaths and so much destruction for the benefit of Iraqis, or even US citizens?

Whatever veneer of democratic consent appears to have been erected, how many believe that democracy can be guaranteed by an occupation force that has resorted to staging 'false flag' terrorist attacks on Iraqi citizens made to look like sectarian attacks (as the British SAS were caught red-handed trying to do in Basra in September 2005)?

BTW, If Bush and PNAC had not stolen the 2000 elections from the rightful victor Al Gore (even in spite of Ralph Nader standing) the September 11 terrorist attacks simply would not have occurred. I suggest you make yourself familiar with the case, backed up by overwhelming evidence, of the 9/11 Truth Movement, links to some of which I have provided above.
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 5 April 2009 11:08:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Daggett, Bush was re-elected.

Are U.S. voters not responsible for this?

Of course, if you're a believer in the 9/11 Truth Movement, you believe that governments are unbelievably sophisticated organisations able to plan and implement massive byzantine conspiracies for nefarious goals.

In my experience, most government leaders are a bunch of posturing dumbfuc*s primarily concerned with keeping their jobs.
Posted by WebVox, Monday, 6 April 2009 10:27:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I note that WebVox has avoided answering much of the substance of my previous post and instead focused on what the hopes will be the Achilles heel of my case, that is that I hold that 9/11 was a 'false flag' terrorist attack orchestrated by elements within the Bush administration and therefore can be dismissed as a 'conspiracy theorist'.

---

WebVox wrote, "Bush was re-elected."

No he wasn't.

Why don't you check these broadcasts to find out how the Diebold electronic voting machines can be and were rigged to change the vote. See:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/145.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/465.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/466.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/467.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/271.html

Also, those who still voted for Bush were lied to relentlessly, particularly by Rupert Murdoch's Fox News.

Ask yourself this question:

What voter, in his/her right mind would vote for a leader, who, as America faced its most serious terrorist attack, behaved like this:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm

Why weren't the American people reminded by Fox News, when Bush faced re-election in 2004?, of the fact that Bush sat in front of a class for seven minutes reading children a book after he had learnt that the second tower had been hit?

---

Webvox wrote, "In my experience, most government leaders are a bunch of posturing dumbfuc*s ..."

This is the time-worn incompetence theory.

Ask yourself: if you were one of those leaders, would you rather be viewed as incompetent or criminal?

In any case, the above example showed that even when incontrovertible evidence that a leader (i.e. Bush) had to be either grossly incompetent or criminal, that that evidence can easily be buried by the corporate newmedia the time that leader faces re-election.

This happened again and again and again with John Howard in Australia.

In Australia, according to this incompetence theory, we were led by leaders, who just didn't realise that AU$296 million was being paid in bribes to the regime of Saddam Hussein that months later we were to learn was a mortal threat to mortal peace.
Posted by daggett, Monday, 6 April 2009 11:49:09 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy