Astrocloud

I got this (somewhat obvious) idea from an older conservative that I met at a coffee bar. We had a nice little chat and he believed in all sorts of paranoid stuff.

The basic theory is that Cheney/Bush don't want to win the war because as long as it lasts -they can funnel money to their political pals.

There seems to be some merit there. I mean they've messed up the war from day one -throwing away war plans which were developed for 10 years in favor of their own "Stragery". Oh and the war profiteers are lining up...Like this one:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...0_million.html

And does anyone remembered where Bush arrogantly announced "Mission Accomplished". Perhaps the administration was scared that they really did win the war -so they thought that we could extend it by rubbing it Iraq's face.

I guess this belongs in tilted paranoia because we will never know the true motivations of this Administration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...0731-2001Oct31

They pretty much guaranteed that.

Willravel

That's not paranoia. It's the last 50 years of US military history. "Military Industrial Complex"

DaveOrion

Agreed, Bush is just the latest in a long line since WW2....As Eisenhower said in his farewell address "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex."

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

ratbastid

It all makes sense. Why else would they develop a strategy for victory that goes "It will work because it has to"?

ASU2003

If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made in prolonging the problem.

That is the number one rule of consulting and why I have a job. Thanks Bush!

mx5me

I agree, there's a lot of money to be made for a select and connected few.

I think this administration wants to tread water and dump the unpleasantness of pulling the troops out into the next administration's lap.

The most paranoid suggestion I've heard (from Jesus Camp, the movie) is that G.W. Bush, being a member of the evangelical right, welcomes the "end times" and is not adverse to pushing us towards it. This may seem pretty wacky, but it did make me say "whoa". There are a lot of things to consider about the role of religion in the current administration.

1oldman3

Totally false. Winning the war would be good for the political party in charge. Neither the Pres or VP makes anything off a war. Their holdings are in a blind trust and they do not know what investments are in the trust.

This war is different from the one I fought in and the one my father fought in. We are fighting an enemy that does not wear identifying uniforms. We are trying to keep the world safe.

What is not being told by the liberal media but is being perputated by those that will not seek the correct information is we have made some startling discoveries about what was planned and still being planned for terrorist activity in the US.

Do we want another 09/11 on our soil or do we want to take on the enemy on their own soil? The US was accused of knowing what was planned for 09/11 prior to the actual attack. Now we know much worse was planned. We know Saddam was seeking nuclear warheads. We know both China and North Korea negotiated with him for such. We know both France and Germany were about to sell him some fast aircraft capable of firing warheads.

It would take a fool to stop this war.

Astrocloud

False.

Both Bush's family and Cheney's Former company have been reaping millions off of war profiteering. The profiteers overcharge taxpayers billions of dollars to "rebuild" Iraq.

Here's a little graphic if you don't understand:

DaveOrion

How very true Astrocloud...its all there to see...the conflict of interest in the current admin is mind boggling....to bad we didnt spend all that cash on alternate energy sources....but that wouldnt line the oil co's pockets now would it???

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

1oldman3

You may want to see how many years and under how many Presidents that Haliburton has prospered. They were doing large government work in unfriendly areas long before the VP.

Haliburton has been investigated many times over various charges and not one has been found to be correct.

I can see that some here avoid the facts and lean toward reporting what a liberal media spouts. Do some research. Check the Bush family net worth and their investments. Nothing would profit from a war in any country.

Past that, look at what happened to the politcal parties that stopped wars. When Nixon got us out of VN, the Republican party gained and the economy stalled. When Reagan assumed the Presidency, a lot of strife stopped and the economy boomed. War benefits defense contractors and they are mainly Democratic owned. Oil companies, energy corps and such are also democratic controlled. The stink with ENRON appeared to stain Bush but was dropped when it was learned ENRON gave more to the Demos than to Republicans. EXXON is headed by a group of Dems and the CEO is a Democrat. The profits made by EXXON was defended on the Senate floor by Democrats, not republicans. Bush has encouraged alternative fuels and has been met with resistance by Dems. Hilary now is saying the US needs to forget ethyenol and grain fuels. Both would benefit farmers but would hurt oil profits.

shakran

This does not belong in Tilted Paranoia. We need a Tilted Bleeding Obvious forum for this thread.

ASU2003

Actually it would. Since the big oil companies are buying out any small alt energy company, the oil companies are becoming energy companies. They are kind of hedging their bets just in case alternative energy does take off, but they also aren't really pushing it or making innovations.

opus123

>>>Neither the Pres or VP makes anything off a war. Their holdings are in a blind trust and they do not know what investments are in the trust.>>>

LOL, that's pretty funny. (^: Thanks for the chuckle.

Jonathan

__________________
"We are sure to be losers when we quarrel with
ourselves. It is a civil war, and in all such
contentions, triumphs are defeats." Mr Colton
==================================

Astrocloud

When I replied, I replied with FACTS. Many of your statements are unfounded because they can be disproven by looking at FACTS.

Example 1 above:




This is chart represents Halliburton's public performance upto 2000 when Cheney was selected. Notice that Halliburton does not do very well compared to the Standard and Poors 500. Their performance starts at the same point-this is called a comparison chart.

So post election (and post war) we'll put Halliburton and the good ole SnP against one another again.



Do you notice anything? Halliburton is doing much better with Cheney in power and war in progress.

---------------

As far as your other unfounded "stuff" about democrats really being in charge and all that "liberal media" blah blah blah... It really doesn't address the central issue -THAT THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE ARE NOT TRYING TO WIN THE WAR IN IRAQ.

In the very least, you are poorly presenting yourself. If you want to sound off I suggest you look up some facts and then see how they relate to the question at hand.


(I couldn't resist dropping this here: It's all about Cheney and Halliburton http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../040216fa_fact)

mx5me

1oldman3, could you give some sources for this info? I did some looking around, and I'd be interested to see some info on these things. From what I have read of the Bush family investments, their hands are deep in the oil and defense money pots. I don't doubt that Dems and Repubs both have members benefiting from defense contractors and oil companies, but the information I've received doesn't indicate that these companies are mainly Democratic owned.

Finally, I'm interested to know why you think Bush has been pro-alternative fuels and has met Democratic resistance. It seems to me that beyond his recent State of the Union, there has been very little support for alternative fuels, with the major complaint being "too little too late."

Ourcrazymodern?

GOOD LORD! (not you, W)

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

fastom

So exactly how could the war be won anyways?

All i see is a senseless waste of artillery with no real aim. The enemy is what... terror? The insurgents are fighting because "we" are fighting them.

But hey, if it makes Bush a little nest egg to fund his retirement we should all be for that.

ScottKuma

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

I just read 1984 again, and I find those words SO apropos to today's situation. I just hope to HELL that I'm not one of the Proles.

__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have.

GoogleMap Me

Astrocloud

What a great question. In order to win this war -the hearts and minds of the people must be won over. Presently, there has been NO EFFORT whatsoever to do this (unless you count killing random innocents).

One of the most effective ways to win people over is to get them jobs.

Presently, Iraqis are not included in their own reconstruction. This "reconstruction" is a shell game with massive amounts of money going to Bush/Cheney connected contractors -not to mention the outright looting of Iraq's national resources. The Iraqis can see this

One question we should ask is - "Is it too late?" If you read the international opinion polls -our present "course" is creating terrorists for years to come. Somehow, America should at least look like we're making nice.

mx5me

This reminded me of a funny article that said wars have historically been fought against proper nouns, like Germany. They're typically more successful than wars against common nouns, because the proper nouns can give up and promise to never do it again.

I have thought the same thing as your second statement above. Bush talks a lot of rhetoric about the imminent danger to us on USA turf if we don't win over there. This doesn't sit completely well with me, mostly based on gut feelings so I'm not sure I can articulate why. I guess, except for 9/11, which I don't want to get into my gut instinct there, I haven't seen them flooding our borders to wage war on us here. Maybe the threat is worse now that the decision makers have destabilized their country, and I'm just not in tune with it. Maybe my discomfort has something to do with that statement of Bush's seeming a little like a threat and coercion to continue his agenda. I'd like to hear someone else's take on those statements of his.

Baraka_Guru

It has been occurring to me lately that it is quite possible this is something that the U.S. cannot win. I think being remembered in the history books as an administration that lost two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) weighs more heavily than the prospect of making more money (I understand both Bush and Cheney already have fortunes). This is not to say that they aren't susceptible to greed; I'm sure they are. Although they will likely be out of office when (and if, I suppose) America admits defeat, they will certainly be the ones to blame for it. (Notwithstanding my overconfidence in the short-term memory of the American mind.) But what real direct influence can either of these men really have out there in the field? You have thousands of American troops, millions of dollars of military hardware, and the American superiority complex to boot.

I'm quite certain there are many servicemen and -women who are working very hard at their jobs--many commanding officers trying to win these wars. Do you think that they don't have any real resources to do their jobs? Are Bush and/or Cheney sabotaging their efforts?

Remember, no one has won a war in Afghanistan. Ask the Russians about their hard lesson. Iraq is hardened by years of war with Iran. Both of these places have harsh environments and geography. When was the last time America lost a war? Can they afford such a loss?

Here's my paranoid mindset: America is desperately trying to seize what control it can in the world, knowing full well that their influence may soon wane. Looking to China alone, America is freaking out at the idea that they may soon no longer be #1.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

ScottKuma

Never Mind....apparently this duped my earlier post.

__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have.

GoogleMap Me

opus123

Well, for starters the US should leave Iraq and Saudi Arabia very slowly. Saudi Arabia contains Mecca, which is a holy site and actually the whole country is considered a holy site. One way to recruit suicide bombers is to get them to realize that the US has permanent military bases near holy sites and in holy countries. I mean if I was Catholic and the USSR had put a huge military base near The Vatican, I would be pissed and might join the Catholic Jihad to get the USSR out of there.

Then I would do agrarian reform in Afghanistan so farmers don't go back to growing poppies. Which is what should have been done back when the Afghans and the US got the USSR out of there. The Taliban came into there because the US stopped helping the Afghans too suddenly.

History has a long past (ironically) and Bush doesn't really want to win the war on terrorism, he just wants it to go on forever.

Jonathan

__________________
"We are sure to be losers when we quarrel with
ourselves. It is a civil war, and in all such
contentions, triumphs are defeats." Mr Colton
==================================

fastom

Bush is threatening you along with everybody else in the world. Most leaders don't publicly say what they really think about his leadership. I sort of relate that to the Seinfeld "Ugly baby" episode.

The US presence the Middle East is obviously a sore point with those people, it's even an issue in Japan more than 60 years later, check some of the soldiers comments on any of the military base websites from Okinawa or Japan. They are resented.

Astrocloud

This statement relies heavily on the assumption that Bush and Cheney are moralistic and concerned with how history views them. As pointed out in the links starting this thread -Bush and Cheney have made every attempt to hide what they do from history. Bush has amassed a "fortune" which was basically given to him by the Saudi royal family. So what if Bush and Cheney don't personally make money from the war. (Cheney still holds stock options in Halliburton and has "promised" to donate the money to charity).

These facts have been well documented. I suggest you look them up.



So perhaps America losing a war in Iraq benefits the Saudis. I don't know perhaps someone should fire back with some evidence contrary.