Bush ready to start WWIII

[rudedog40]

Looks like Bush is 'd@man the torpedos" and wanting to leave WWIII as his finally legacy before we get him out of office. Was reading the paper this morning, and apparently his final statement during his Mid-East trip, is he wants to sell the Saudis the capability of allowing standard weapons to be converted into precision-guided 'smart' bombs. His logic is that it will limit Iran's clout in the Gulf. He's wanting to give very dangerous technology to a country that's never been cooperative with the US. Bush says he wants to give them this technology so "Saudi Arabia can support the peacemaking efforts between the Israelis and Palestinians". He also doesn't want to limit the sales to the Saudis. The deal could potentially transfer some $30 billion worth of military hardware to six Persian Gulf nations (Saudi, Egypt, Israel, and three others). All this in an effort to isolate Iran. No it's called, "Let's give the opposing forces to Iran high technology weapons, so they can start blowing Iran to pieces." Of course Iran will retaliate, and the fight will begin. Naturally the U.S. will have to go into the fracus for "peacekeeping measures". That's what Bush has been pushing for the last six months. He can't get Congress to approve any type of involvement or attack against Iran, so he does the next best thing. Give Iran's enemies the weapons to start a war for him, then sit back and wait for the cry for help. The U.S. of couse will have to get involved. One of these nations will obviously have WMD's or have terroristic ties...

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
Looks like Bush is 'd@man the torpedos" and wanting to leave WWIII as his finally legacy before we get him out of office. Was reading the paper this morning, and apparently his final statement during his Mid-East trip, is he wants to sell the Saudis the capability of allowing standard weapons to be converted into precision-guided 'smart' bombs. His logic is that it will limit Iran's clout in the Gulf. He's wanting to give very dangerous technology to a country that's never been cooperative with the US. Bush says he wants to give them this technology so "Saudi Arabia can support the peacemaking efforts between the Israelis and Palestinians". He also doesn't want to limit the sales to the Saudis. The deal could potentially transfer some $30 billion worth of military hardware to six Persian Gulf nations (Saudi, Egypt, Israel, and three others). All this in an effort to isolate Iran. No it's called, "Let's give the opposing forces to Iran high technology weapons, so they can start blowing Iran to pieces." Of course Iran will retaliate, and the fight will begin. Naturally the U.S. will have to go into the fracus for "peacekeeping measures". That's what Bush has been pushing for the last six months. He can't get Congress to approve any type of involvement or attack against Iran, so he does the next best thing. Give Iran's enemies the weapons to start a war for him, then sit back and wait for the cry for help. The U.S. of couse will have to get involved. One of these nations will obviously have WMD's or have terroristic ties...
How do you think he got them to agree to producing and releasing more oil into the world market?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
...Of course Iran will retaliate, ...
Like threatening to eradicate a neighboring country, arming an insurgency and working at building nuclear weapons? Oh wait....
If you follow the news closely you will see Russia has quietly been re-emerging as a military power. Many of the hardliners in the Red Square are drooling over the thought of global dominance once again. Russia has been quietly (and not so quietly) arming Iran for years now. A quick look at a map shows why; With Afghanistan and Iraq out of the picture the best land route for the Soviets into the oil fields of the Middle East lies through Iran.
The cold war is not over. We arm our allies while Russia arms their's.

 

[renogaw]

nuke em all, give us our ice age that should be here!

 

[sigmachris]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
He's wanting to give very dangerous technology to a country that's never been cooperative with the US.
Ummm, isn't Saudi Arabia one of our biggest Allies in the Middle East? They allow us to use their ports for our war ships and I believe we even have bases over there. Yes Bin Laden is a Saudi, but some bad citizens don't make the whole country bad. I do think Bush is a war monger but this statement is inaccurate in my eyes.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
We arm our allies while Russia arms their's.
Iraq was our ally... Then a few years later they were using our own weapons against us. Saudi produces more terrorists than any other nation. You think these weapons will not be used against Americans someday.
Bush favors Saudi, not because they are a wonderful ally, but because the Saudi royal family was huge investors in the Bush family's (then) failing oil fields. Imagine that... Saudi money in Texas oil. What do you think they were really buying?

 

[sigmachris]

Originally Posted by crimzy
Iraq was our ally...
There are a lot of countries that were allies or enemies at one point. Russia was a huge ally in WWII to us then they became enemies. Japan, Italy, and Germany were enemies and now they are allies.
Saudi Arabia is not producing terrorists nor are they harboring. Are some terrorists Saudi's yes, and there are also Iraqi, Pakistan, Palestein, and Iranian terrrorists too. I don't think nationality is as important as their religious beliefs. I think the common thread for terrorists is that their radical religous beliefs.
That is the problem we are over there to build states (right or wrong) and to secure oil supplies for our nation. They are fighting a religous war.

 

[groupergenius]

Same thing has been going on throughout history.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

 

[ophiura]

There is not a single new thing here, as mentioned, this has been going on throughout history. And if anyone thinks any president will be different...they will be a problem, IMO, in their own way. Because this strategy is how international relations fundamentally works, IMO. You can disagree on the war in Iraq, and you can promote a strategy of isolationism, and hope for a "feel good" president who will shy away from any risky interaction. But in the end, this cycle will continue...in the foreground, in the background, in the pocket books of all of them. Maybe some day there will be this futuristic utopia without the almighty dollar/euro/currency of your choice. But it isn't now, and anyone who has that motivation will likely be steamrolled somewhere (a la Nazi Germany - lots of "non aggression" treaties were signed and Oh gosh, golly darn gee!).
And oh my gosh, there is international money in oilfields around the world. Enough with the Bush/Saudi story! That is the way of that industry...it is actually fairly borderless. It requires huge investments of capital to get anywhere.
JMO, of course.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by crimzy
Iraq was our ally...
How far back do you want to go with this thinking? We once waged war against Britain... Iran was once our ally (thank you Pres. Carter for that mess. We didn't support/lead them in Democratic reforms and look what that got us.)
As for the Saudi connection to the Bush family (take notes conspiracy theorists everywhere), the 20 billion weapons deal is going to 6 countries in the Middle East. Were they all investors in Texas oil?...
Lastly, the Bush/Saud relationship actually has been beneficial in regards to our political interests in the Middle East. While there is a large segment of Saudis and radicals against America, the fact that their royal family is on friendly terms with us is a good thing.
Now, want to talk about the Chinese ties to the Democratic party?
Again, to keep to my original point; Russia is looking south at the Middle East. They will have to be countered.

 

[rudedog40]

The whole point I was trying to make is Bush has been frothing at the mouth the last few months to get into a scuffle with Iran. Congress isn't biting this time, allowing him to go play commando again and kick up another war with another Mid-East country. So he's finding a clever way to 'kick up the dirt' and get Iran to become more agressive than they already are. If Congress lets this arms deal go through, I'll bet you we'll have troops in Iran by the end of the year.

 

[moneyman]

Originally Posted by renogaw
nuke em all, give us our ice age that should be here!
Nooo -- all the corals, fishes, must they go tooo... my precious'es...
"'I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Einstein

 

[natemd]

I recommend for anyone on this thread to go to the library and pick up a book called "Blood and oil". It documents our dependence on oil and the middle east since the first World War. It goes back and explains all of our ties to countries that we are now at odds with and why the situation over in the middle east will always be troubled. on a side note, the book is written with a slight bias but overall has great information.

 

[mfp1016]

Originally Posted by natemd
I recommend for anyone on this thread to go to the library and pick up a book called "Blood and oil". It documents our dependence on oil and the middle east since the first World War. It goes back and explains all of our ties to countries that we are now at odds with and why the situation over in the middle east will always be troubled. on a side note, the book is written with a slight bias but overall has great information.
To play off of Journeyman's speel from another thread, I don't need some 21st century scholar with a limited scope and terrible world view to tell me what the problems with the middle east are. If you want to know whats the root of the problem, you need to read the Bible and the Koran; not Halliburton or Bush's tax return.
I agree with you Journeyman in that Russia has subtly raised itself to become a military power again; but I think its no longer the Reagan-esque cold war it was. We now need to be concerned with China and wherever its interests lie.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
The whole point I was trying to make ....
We know your point; You hate President Bush.
You're certainly free to post that here, but don't expect people to not challenge your arguments.
The Middle East is of vital national interest. A crazy leader threatening nuclear war and the extermination of Israel while arming insurgents (killing American soldiers in the process) isn't the President's creation.
We can choose to address the threat or ignore it. personally, I'd like us to learn lessons from the past hundred years and forget appeasement.
I love the term "more aggressive than they already are", btw. They are indirectly responsible for the deaths of American soldiers and countless civilians in Iraq. They deny the holocaust, are building up their military (thanks to Russia) in a bid to wipe out Israel (their words) and just last week provoked a situation with our navy in the persian Gulf (international waters).

 

[m0nk]

Personally, I was/am a rather liberal person. I never supported the war in Iraq, and still don't, nor do I think highly of Dubya. However, here's my take on all of it...
First off, we should have nuked Baghdad on day 1. I said it in the beginning, and I'm still saying it now, we shouldn't have gone in there with conventional troups/weapons/tactics. It didn't work, it would never have worked, you can't go into any middle east country with the same ol' idea that we can make things better. We should have dropped a big nuke. This would have served two important purposes:
1. Saddam would have died instantly and the war would have ended, without the continual deaths of our troops, without insurgency, without al Queda having training grounds, etc. The civilian casualties may have even been lower than the eventual number that will be sustained after the long and drawn out conventional war. Since Iraq had no nuclear (NUC-LEAR) allies there would have been no retaliation, just cleanup.
2. Iran/North Korea/Russia would have realized we have the balls to do it and they would either fall in line, or only keep arming up with the knowledge that we'd probably bomb them too.
Either way the international community dislikes us, but the advantage of my solution is that in the end, we would have likely had better results overall. JMO, but we're not winning any wars or friends right now.
Second, the region has always been wrought with war, and will always continue to be. There has been this looming threat of WWIII, so if it comes down to it, then so be it, lets get it over with. No one will win, we'll all be losers, but the population will be thinned out, likely helping ease Global Climate Change.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
How far back do you want to go with this thinking? We once waged war against Britain... Iran was once our ally (thank you Pres. Carter for that mess. We didn't support/lead them in Democratic reforms and look what that got us.)
As for the Saudi connection to the Bush family (take notes conspiracy theorists everywhere), the 20 billion weapons deal is going to 6 countries in the Middle East. Were they all investors in Texas oil?...
Lastly, the Bush/Saud relationship actually has been beneficial in regards to our political interests in the Middle East. While there is a large segment of Saudis and radicals against America, the fact that their royal family is on friendly terms with us is a good thing.
Now, want to talk about the Chinese ties to the Democratic party?
Again, to keep to my original point; Russia is looking south at the Middle East. They will have to be countered.
Lets not forget the FACT that the saudi's "donated" millions of dollars for the Clinton library aka clinton's evidence locker and massage parlor in little rock.

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
We know your point; You hate President Bush.
You're certainly free to post that here, but don't expect people to not challenge your arguments.
The Middle East is of vital national interest. A crazy leader threatening nuclear war and the extermination of Israel while arming insurgents (killing American soldiers in the process) isn't the President's creation.
We can choose to address the threat or ignore it. personally, I'd like us to learn lessons from the past hundred years and forget appeasement.
I love the term "more aggressive than they already are", btw. They are indirectly responsible for the deaths of American soldiers and countless civilians in Iraq. They deny the holocaust, are building up their military (thanks to Russia) in a bid to wipe out Israel (their words) and just last week provoked a situation with our navy in the persian Gulf (international waters).

And you haven't packed your bags and headed to Iraq/Iran because....? Yes journey, I know you're pro-war and probably have your bomb shelter ready for when the Iraquis invade our borders like they did in that movie Red Dawn. We are spending billions of dollars that could be used here in the good ole US of A, and killing thousands of American soldiers to support yours and Dubya's 'war on terror'. So hey, why stop at Iraq and Afghanistan? Let's just get it over with and invade the entire Middle East. That's our job in this world. Protect mankind from the threat of terror. Seems though that the only nation that is worried about this is ours. I'm all for m0nk's suggestion and just go ahead and nuke the whole region. Especially because as you (or some other pro-war/Bush backer) has stated numerous times "We're over there fighting the threat of terror. It has nothing to do with the oil." Think of it as following the sage advise of Spock -- "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the one..."

 

[mfp1016]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
Let's just get it over with and invade the entire Middle East. That's our job in "
I'm pretty sure that the only time the middle east has been relatively peaceful was under British, Dutch, and French Imperialism. Just saying.
I'll let Journeyman argue with you about the rest; that is, if he cares to do so.

 

[m0nk]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
Lets not forget the FACT that the saudi's "donated" millions of dollars for the Clinton library aka clinton's evidence locker and massage parlor in little rock.
I was about to say "Bill's idea of a massage parlor would certainly entice me to go to the library more", but then I remembered what Monica looked like...