portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

imperialism & war

Why we are really going to war with Iraq!

the real scoop for those of you who think you can handle the truth.
Here is the scoop on Iraq.

We aren't going to war because Hussein is being a bastard, or because Bush's foreign policy staff wants to fix what they left undone in 1991. We are going to war for two basic reasons.

Reason one. The Mossad's intelligence arm has told Sharon that Iraq will become a nuclear player sometime in the next few months. Sharon has told Bush in a nutshell, "Either you go in and take Hussein out, or we will, and we won't stop with Baghdad"

Not unlike Michele Corleone in the Godfather, Sharon will take care of all "Family Business" in one strike. Nuking Damascus, Tehran, and Riyadh are not at all out of the question once the missiles start flying.
This would no doubt completely destabilize the entire region. Knowing this, Bush has decided it is better for an outsider (the US) to go knock off Hussein, rather than inflaming a blood feud between two groups of people who absolutely hate each other.

If you are scratching your heads as to why congressional democrats are going along with this, you need look no further than the biggest Political Action Committee in
Washington. The Israeli Lobby.
Now, before you think I'm some neo-nazi, I'm not. I have nothing against Jews, or Israel. They are a small country, whose people have endured more than their share of tragedy. Israel is only doing what it believes it has to do to survive. They are taking advantage of a big, stupid, greedy, corrupt American political system to get what they want or need, and our political system is like this because we as Americans are stupid, greedy, and corrupt ourselves, so it should be no surprise that our government is representative of its citizens.

The second reason we are going to war, is basically icing on the cake. Iraq is sitting on perhaps as much oil as Saudi Arabia has. After Hussein is gone, when Iraq begins pumping millions of barrels of oil into the world oil market, the price of oil will drop dramatically. Most of the nations that produce oil have borrowed money based on the current oil price as collateral. If that price is cut in half, then their interest rates will shoot way up, and it will really hit their economy's hard.
Because of this, these countries are opposed to removing Hussein. Not to mention that most of these counties themselves are headed by corrupt dictators who seized power in coup, or as part of a royal succession. Either way, they are not democracies, and currently they can always point to Iraq and say, "there is a real bad dictator". If Hussein is replaced with a real democracy, then there own people may ask why can't we get rid of our dictators?

So you ask, what gives the United States Government the right to unilaterally go and take something that doesn't belong to it just because it has value and it has the power to get away with it? I feel the same way every time I pay my income taxes.

The little dirty secret here is that the people who want to get rid of Hussein the most are the Iraqis themselves. However the can't voice this because the run the risk of having the Iraq's secret police nail their testicles to floor of their own houses, while they are still attached to them. (yes, its hard to imagine that there are places like this in the world.).

Like it or not, our economy (the world economy) runs on oil. Plain and simple. It may not be clean, it may not be sustainable, or good, but that's the reality of the situation.

Before you start squealing about the wonders solar power, or why we should all be burning the methane from our own poop to power our cars, I want you to ask yourself a question. Why don't you go get P.H. D. in engineering and re-invent that secret power source that you claim the corporations are hiding from the rest of us because of greed? If all you are doing with your life is getting tear gassed by the police at a I.M.F. protest rally you are wasting your time.

So basically the reason we are going to war is because you are too lazy or stupid to invent Cold Fusion in a bottle!
The REAL REAL reason 12.Oct.2002 22:27

awake

Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas the nation of Iraq has substantial oil and gas reserves,

Whereas over the past decade certain executives in the oil and gas industry have donated generously to various political campaigns of President George W. Bush, and many were in fact "Bush Pioneers" in the 2000 presidential campaign,

Whereas the return of weapons inspectors and the subsequent destruction of any weapons programs would allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power, where Saddam Hussein would be able to complete various agreements with nations such as France and Russia designed to exploit Iraq's oil and gas resources without the participation of Bush Pioneers,

Whereas Bush Pioneers would be therefore be financially harmed if Saddam Hussein were allowed to remain in power, even if Saddam were completely disarmed, as a result of these agreements,

Therefore, the United States Congress hereby authorizes the President to use of United States Armed Forces to commence an unprovoked attack against Iraq, regardless of whether Iraq agrees to allow weapons inspectors to return or to otherwise disarm, with or without the participation of the UN or any other nation, and in direct violation of all established conventions of international law, for the express purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from power, thereby advancing the interests of Bush Pioneers.

In making this authorization, the Congress hereby further recognizes that the following observations shall be considered unpatriotic:

Throughout the nineteen eighties, the United States government provided substantial military assistance to Saddam Hussein,

As a result of that assistance, the government of Iraq was able to establish a substantial chemical weapons program that was subsequently used first against Iran, with the United State's passive acquiescence, and then against Iraq's own Kurdish minority, after the United States had overtly encouraged them to rebel against Hussein, and then abandoned them when they did,

Substantially all of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and weapons programs, Iraq's oil and gas industry which financed these programs, and Iraq's economy, were destroyed by the Gulf War of 1991, by UN weapons inspectors in the aftermath of the conflict, and by economic sanctions imposed at the conclusion of the Gulf War,

It was only as a result of then chief executive officer and current vice president Dick Cheney, that the Brown and Root subsidiary of the Halliburton Corporation rebuilt much of the oil and gas extraction infrastructure that had been destroyed in Iraq during the Gulf war, thereby providing Iraq with the financial means to again rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.


ok, but... 12.Oct.2002 22:29

sacred chao

Regarding reason one:

Source, please?

mu

OLD ARGUMENT 12.Oct.2002 22:50

atomic frog

EARTH is more than 2/3 covered in salt water. run a low voltage through it and seperates into hydrogen and oxygen. hydrogen has 3-4 times the "kick" as gasoline and the only exhaust is water vapor. 2 filthy greedy rich bastards decided for us. they ran the steam cars off too some how. steam produces full torque at all speeds and lots of it. needed no tranny, or ignition, had every speed record there was. because the fuel burned at 1 atmosphere(no compresson) it was much less polluting. the downside was no jump in and go. dgov shined on bgates and helped him slow everyone else down. how 1 guy gets that rich that quick makes 3 things obvious. windoze costs too much, he didn't spend enough on r and d or pay his help enough. i saw a shaft driven bicycle made in the 1800's it still worked. it will be a sad day when 1 corporation rules the world. mac world sad

BIG OIL BIG BUSH, doesn't explain it. 12.Oct.2002 23:21

Fat-White-Republican(one of millions)

This Dick Cheney/G.W./Big Oil conspiracy theory only has one large hole in it making it look more like a doughnut than a reason. Why did Daschle, Gephardt not only vote for war, but encouraged their democratic colleagues to vote in favor of it too? Why did half of the democrats vote along with bush? I'm sure it wasn't to make the Pres and VP rich with Iraqi oil. Answer that and you will have achieved enlightenment...

As far as the source for the first reason go to www.janes.com and read read read...
They won't come out and say it as bluntly as I did, but basically the information is there.

However, one point that you are correct about. Bush and Cheney know oil. They understand just how much our economy depends on it. Everything you eat, sell, buy, turn on, drive, fly, read, hear, see, screw, etc. happened because oil either directly or indirectly brought it to you.

The power to run the light in the room you are in, the computer you are reading this on, the factory that build the computer, the plastic in the computer, the people who assembled it were fed with food being delivered by trucks and rail powered by oil, the ship that swam the mighty ocean to bring you this computer, The $120K a year longshoreman that unloaded the computer at the port and put it on the delivery truck to Best Buy. The electricity in best buy, that ran the cash register when you bought it, the plastic in the cash register, etc. etc. .
Yes even your girlfriend telling you she loves you wouldn't be there if it wasn't for oil. She couldn't have made to you, with out oil, even if it was to make the tires on her bicycle, or the tennis shoes she used to walk to your pad.

Not to mention she would have starved long ago if she wasn't fed well by food grown, harvested, processed, and delivered from the fields to her mouth by oil.

That is really the World Wide Web, not the internet, but Oil, A Universal Wide Web of industry and life itself on this planet powered by Petroleum. There is no real substitute.

YACC, (Yet another commie conspiracy ) 12.Oct.2002 23:38

Fat-White-Republican

Yes, we would be on Alpha-Centuri by now if it wasn't for bill gates squashing Apple..

Even an older myth about Hydrogen. It takes more power to create than it produces. If it were cost effective the North Koreans or someone who hasn't been tainted by Evil Corporations would have long ago been using this as a source of power. Or are you going to argue that Kim Jun Il is also a Bush Stooge?

Yes, the worker's paradise would be just that, a paradise if it wasn't for bill gates. Now instead of the North Koreans using Sea water to power their cities, and use iMacs,they are forced to eat grass and tree bark for lunch because of George Bush and Bill Gates..

Put down the Bong, and go learn something...

Questions for fat white republican. 13.Oct.2002 02:16

clamydia clamydia@mail.com

You said:
"The Mossad's intelligence arm has told Sharon that Iraq will become a nuclear player sometime in the next few months. Sharon has told Bush in a nutshell, "Either you go in and take Hussein out, or we will, and we won't stop with Baghdad""

You didn't cite any sources. Is it simply your OPINION that this exchange took place, or did you actually read this somewhere? If so, then who printed it?

You also said:
"Not unlike Michele Corleone in the Godfather, Sharon will take care of all "Family Business" in one strike. Nuking Damascus, Tehran, and Riyadh are not at all out of the question once the missiles start flying.
This would no doubt completely destabilize the entire region..."

What leads you to believe that this would happen? Not one single nuclear warhead has been launched against any country in the world since World War II, yet you speak as if the policies of middle eastern countries are to launch them all the time. Since when did you become a such a close personal acquaintance of Sharon that you know what he will do and when he will do it and exactly how everyone will react to that etc etc...?

"...Knowing this, Bush has decided it is better for an outsider (the US) to go knock off Hussein, rather than inflaming a blood feud between two groups of people who absolutely hate each other."

Bush does not seem to have any intention of "knocking off" Hussein, as all that would take would be an executive order to have the man killed. It's perfectly doable. I don't think most people in the US would object to it (not even most left-minded people--they've got worse things to worry about). His goal is twofold:
1. Obtain the power to declare war on whomever he wishes, whenever he wishes, and to sustain war on that country or countries for as long as he wishes.
2. War with Iraq long enough to help establish a new regime that will be friendly to United States oil interests. Bush will not care if the regime is democratic. He will not care if women are treated nicely. He will not care if ballot boxes disappear or if peasants are slaughtered. He will simply care about a friendly political climate for our oil companies (I'm using the word "our" VERY, VERY loosely).

In response to your use of the word "inflaming": How can inaction be inflammatory to any situation? Inflame is a verb, and therefore to inflame something is to act. It seems to me that the only sure-fire way to avoid inflaming something is to leave it. "Leave it what?" you might ask. The answer is "The fuck alone."

You said:
"I have nothing against Jews, or Israel. They are a small country, whose people have endured more than their share of tragedy. Israel is only doing what it believes it has to do to survive. They are taking advantage of a big, stupid, greedy, corrupt American political system to get what they want or need, and our political system is like this because we as Americans are stupid, greedy, and corrupt ourselves..."

That entire statement would be fine if you took out the word "survive" and replace it with "dominate the area at the expense of the weaker and already existing and therefore sovereign Palestinian state". I mean really; if Canada started sending troops into parts of Washington because they were upset about how Canadians were being treated in our country, we would have a fucking fit. If they started bulldozing American houses, we wouldn't stand for it. If their wayward troops began firing live rounds at angry children HERE IN OUR COUNTRY, we would kill their asses. Israel can survive just fine without oppressing the Palestine people, so let's see them do it. (And notice I say "Israel" and not "the Jews". I'm not a neo-Nazi either, but when the people of a place called "Israel" do things that I find atrocious, I will voice my opinion. That doesn't mean that I hate them. It just means I hate their actions.)

"Not to mention that most of these counties themselves are headed by corrupt dictators who seized power in coup, or as part of a royal succession. "

Which ones? Who?

"Like it or not, our economy (the world economy) runs on oil. Plain and simple. It may not be clean, it may not be sustainable, or good, but that's the reality of the situation.

Before you start squealing about the wonders solar power, or why we should all be burning the methane from our own poop to power our cars, I want you to ask yourself a question. Why don't you go get P.H. D. in engineering and re-invent that secret power source that you claim the corporations are hiding from the rest of us because of greed? If all you are doing with your life is getting tear gassed by the police at a I.M.F. protest rally you are wasting your time."

You're right. Our world economy is way too dependant on oil. The problem with your argument is that you imply the assumption that there are no alternatives, when there are plenty. The problem is that it costs money to start switching things over to more environmentally friendly fuel sources (i.e. solar power, wind power, hydrogen power, hydrogen fuel cell power, natural gas power...). Corporations don't like to spend tons of money on new paradigms like fuel sources, because they like playing the game they are playing right now, and completely changing the game in midstream might see the ones on top at the bottom, and vice versa. It's too unknown, it's too risky, and the market hates uncertainty. Herein is the problem of capitalism, or at least, "why capitalism doesn't work in the best interests of humankind": because under capitalism, money is a stronger motive than "the best interests of all concerned", and when one can't have both, one is liable to choose money.

Marx is twisting in his grave (and I love it) 13.Oct.2002 08:06

Fat-white-Republican(one of millions)

Ok, I sited my source in the second note above. Go find it.

Second, just because "Nukes haven't went flying" in 60 years, doesn't mean they won't. It just means that some of the players haven't had them to throw at each other. People who believe they either have god on their side, and only have to account for their actions to god at the end of the day, don't always follow what we may consider a logical, rational path in life.

Knocking off Hussein is not as easy as it seems. He has body doubles everywhere, even when you see him at a distance on TV, this has been claimed not to be him, but a body double. (Source:National Public Radio, All Things Considered)
The main point is, that nobody (with the exception of a few idiots), are going to fall on their swords for this guy. Basically, the word will be given, step out of the way we only are after one guy, if you get in our way you die.

As far as the Israelis go and their policy to the Palestinians, I thought I had made the point, it was irrelevant what they do, but just how we react to them. The Palestinians would be doing the same thing to Israel or worse, but they don't have the political clout, or means to do it. (Source: their past, and currently leadership has said so on many occasions).
I believe the US Government should be more even handed in its foreign policy, but it's the reasons I citied above that prevents us from doing that. Not because of Evil Corporate campaign contributions. All the money in the world can't stop you from voting if you are truly committed to something. The reason we are not more even handed is because the American public is too lazy, stupid, and corrupt to care.

Now I know there is this myth that the longer it is preached, the more credible it becomes, but where on this planet is there a government that has adopted using Solar, Hydrogen, Wind power, or any of these so-called alternate fuel sources? Where? Just name one?

If the only thing standing between reliable alternate fuel sources was a Corporation, then the North Koreans wouldn't be trading cold hard cash (of which they are in desperately short supply of) to middle eastern countries in exchange for Petroleum.

Capitalism works great for Humans. Communism is what doesn't work. And the reasons are obvious. Communism is a wonderful institution if you are a honey bee, or an army ant, but for any critter with spirit, it is a complete failure, with one exception, It works in the concept of a kibbutz, where participation is 100 percent voluntary, and you can leave anytime you want or get voted out of the Kibbutz.
Communism fails because it fails to take into account human nature, actually at its best it ignores it, and at its worst, it suppresses it. Communism forces pigs to learn to sing, this wastes your time, and annoys the pig.
Capitalism is based on what you produce, Communism is based on what you need. Needs always loose out to those who produce. If all you do is sit around and wine about what you need, you are basically not producing what you need.



We can sit around and banter back and forth because we live in a very rich country (its rich for a reason). We don't have to look at our children who have hunger in their eyes, and tell them there is no food in the house because we have no means to buy it or grow it.
It's a major sign of success when a country suffers from such a severe case of Affluen-uenza, in that it can worry about such silly things as if there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere or not. (yet another long hard fought myth).

Yes, that's right. Go back to a 1950's grade school text book and find the percentages of what constitutes the atmosphere. The gases in the atmosphere are 100 percent of something. Everything is 100 percent of something. Correct? So in 1950 if there was 78% Carbon Dioxide, 21% Oxygen, and 1% other trace gases (methane, argon, etc.) What is the percentage today???
Don't site some stupid hemp-head web site, go find a 1950's textbook at a used book store and look it up.
If CO2 is increasing as a percentage, then something else has to be decreasing, or don't mathematical laws apply when it's a belief and not a fact?

Basically, I'm tired of arguing these points, you people have turned this environmental debate into a religion, You worship solar, wind, hydrogen energy sources, while tree, and bunny hugging is the new testament. Ralph Nader is the prophet, Capitalism, and Corporations are Satan, and I am the infidel who is telling you there is no god.

The Ostrich's approch to war. 13.Oct.2002 08:23

Fat-White-Republican(and proud of it)

As far as sitting back and taking the ostrich approach, history is filled with Neville Chamberlains who thing that wishing something hard enough will make it come true.

As far as who I was referring to as countries who are against us ousting Hussein, Find World Map, Look at World Map, Find Middle East, Read Read Read.
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Oman, U.A.E, Syria, Jordan, this list goes on and on. Which of these countries governments has had a free, fair, and open election for its leaders? Name one? Oh some have "elections" but with either opposition suppressed or exiled, it is just a show piece for idiots.

Just for the sake of argument 13.Oct.2002 08:52

Relatively Exact

Mr. "Fat-White-Republican" says:

<<< where on this planet is there a government that has adopted using Solar, Hydrogen, Wind power, or any of these so-called alternate fuel sources? Where? Just name one?

If the only thing standing between reliable alternate fuel sources was a Corporation, then the North Koreans wouldn't be trading cold hard cash (of which they are in desperately short supply of) to middle eastern countries in exchange for Petroleum.>>>

Well, just for the sake of being a devil's advocate, let me suggest this:

The reason there are no governments that have adopted using solar, hydrogen, wind power, etc., including "corporate-free" North Korea (which really isn't, because the whole country is like one, giant corporation owned and run by the "Dear Leader"), is that there are no governments that have adopted using solar, hydrogen, wind power, etc.. Classic bandwagonism. The technology for alternative power sources is still largely in the developmental stage, whereas fossil-fuel-based power has been around for ages and is universally widespread.

It's just like Betamax, OS/2, and the F-22 Tigershark. Even if a product is superior in many ways, people will still shun it in favor of what everyone else is using simply because it's a lot easier to do so. And even not even North Korea can afford to try to go it completely alone.

You could also say that switching to alternative power would be too much of a radical change. Think about it. All those cars, factories, and power plants would have to be replaced. It's not something that could happen overnight. It would have to take place bit by bit, and in fact that seems to be taking place in the form of development of so-called "hybrid cars" and so on.

Once again I'm the Infidel. 13.Oct.2002 09:34

Fat-white-Replublican (one of millions)

Once again, I play the infidel to the new environmental religion. Ok, I will concede two points, One, North Korea is one very badly run corporation, that makes Enron look like heaven. Where there is no quitting, questioning upper management means prison, the 401K plan is tree bark soup, or the corpses of those who have already starved, and being fired, involves a firing squad.
Point Two, the best products don't always win out. However, this doesn't explain why it hasn't happened on at least a small scale (I don't mean a micro scale, like someone's house) . Anyway, you are free to believe whatever you want. So I wish you luck playing the useful idiot in furthering someone else's agenda. Just don't suck your own tailpipe too much, it tends to cloud reasoned thought.

Get real re Saddam 13.Oct.2002 09:43

BA

Oct. 13, 2002
Iraqi leader is 'afraid all the time'
Experts: Saddam ruthless, not mad
Los Angeles Times

The Iraqi president spends ever more time in the many bunkers beneath his ornate palaces. He rarely sleeps more than one night in the same place. He receives visitors only after they have been thoroughly searched and had their hands disinfected in as many as three liquids. He uses food tasters, and special teams test everything the president might touch: bed linens, toiletries, clothes, ink.

Each day, meals are prepared for him at palaces around Iraq, so no one can know where he will dine. He gives televised speeches from more than a dozen identical conference rooms, so no one can know where he is. He even employs surgically enhanced presidential doubles, so no one can know who he is.

"He's afraid all the time," said Ahmed Samarrai, a former lieutenant colonel in Saddam's security force. "He likes to escape. He likes to hide. He likes to be underground, in bunkers. He only sleeps two or three hours, and he is always armed."

This portrait, painted by Iraqi defectors, weapons inspectors, scholars, current and former U.S. intelligence officials and other experts in the United States, Europe and Israel, makes Saddam sound like a madman. Yet the experts place him in the ranks of sane but ruthless dictators who have ruled by terror, political cunning and personality cults.

Some defectors and political observers say Saddam is the consummate survivor who would do anything to stay in power, including giving up weapons of mass destruction. These people insist that he is not suicidal and will back off, at least temporarily, if he can do so without humiliation or displays of weakness that would leave him prey to internal enemies.

Most analysts predict Saddam will resort to massive violence to defeat the Bush administration's efforts to bring about a "regime change" in Baghdad, the Iraqi capital. Saddam is most dangerous when he is cornered, they say. If "regime change" means a bullet to the brain, the Iraqi president is not likely to go quietly.

"He would like to try to survive, but I believe he knows that if we come back this time, we're not going to let him off the way we did" in previous confrontations, said former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, a hard-liner on Iraq.

Yet, Saddam is dangerously isolated and apt to make catastrophic mistakes in foreign affairs. His invasion of Kuwait in 1990 resulted from a fundamental misreading of signals from the United States and the West, experts say.

"No one in his inner circle really understands the workings of the outside world," said Remy Leveau, a former French envoy in the Middle East and professor at the Institute for Political Studies in Paris. "The few who might understand the world are afraid to tell him the truth. He is the classic primitive dictator."

The Iraqi leader's isolation has increased since the Persian Gulf War, as he has suffered betrayals from his most trusted circles: his family, his clan and his army.

In 1995, after a shootout with Saddam's eldest son, Uday, two of Saddam's sons-in-law defected to Jordan and spilled secrets about Iraqi weapons programs. They were persuaded to return -- and immediately were killed.

Altogether, Saddam has had 53 of his relatives killed, according to Mustafa Alani, an Iraq expert at the Royal United Services Institutes think tank in London.

Saddam moves every night with a security force of about 3,600 guards, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft personnel and a field hospital, according to Iraqi defectors. He even has three identical trucks equipped with bedrooms, former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter said.

Senior Iraqi officials have told foreign diplomats that Saddam will never allow unfettered access to his palaces because he believes the weapons inspectors will send his coordinates to U.S. missile launchers or even plant special devices to kill him slowly with radioactive rays.

But not everyone who knows Iraq well thinks Saddam will fight to the death; they predict he would relinquish his weapons if he were faced with annihilation.

In another gambit aimed at Muslims at home and abroad, Saddam has burnished his Islamic credentials. Although his Baathist ideology is socialist and secular, Saddam has built gargantuan mosques and has put up billboards around Baghdad showing himself kneeling on a prayer mat.

The West has interpreted Saddam's moves to mean that if the United Nations does not lift its economic embargo against Iraq, Saddam might push the secular nation into the Muslim fundamentalist camp.

According to defectors, Saddam believes Arabs will rise up in solidarity with him against the West. Years of playing cat and mouse with weapons inspectors and fending off the effects of sanctions and punitive bombing raids have won Saddam some Arab admirers, but perhaps not as many as he believes.

Saddam ordered the failed assassination attempt on former President Bush in 1993 and arranged the killings of his sons-in-law in 1996 to punish them for their defection. If thwarted this time, the most likely targets of his wrath are believed to be some of those who have suffered before: his own people, and Israel.

"Why expect Saddam to go gently when he has nothing left to lose?" says Richard K. Betts, director of the Institute of War and Peace at Columbia University.

"We have given Saddam all the warning time he needs to concoct retaliation, since the Bush administration has made a coming war the most telegraphed punch in military history."

yeah yeah, uh huh.. 13.Oct.2002 09:45

Fat-White-Republican(drill earth first)

Whatever....

stupid and lazy? 13.Oct.2002 10:11

Ronald Regan

great article, thanks.

"too lazy or stupid to invent Cold Fusion in a bottle!"

AHhahaha! well, I am not sure that one is stupid OR lazy just because they can't invent a cold fusion or energy over unity device but it is in some ways true.

If I may add a point using some of your terms:

"So basically the reason we are going to war is because you are too lazy or stupid to invent Cold Fusion in a bottle and not tricky enough to do it without getting bought off or MURDERED"

as a matter of fact a free energy device has just been patented. Where is it now and why havn't we heard of this? thats a VERY good question.

trying to find a link to the article...

I never said Hussein was nuts... 13.Oct.2002 10:14

Fat-White-Republican(dredge earth first)

I never said he was nuts, and he will be a complete vindictive and utter bastard when he is cornered. It's expected. But this shouldn't concern us. The generals have accounted for this. In the final analysis, we are going to get rid of Hussein and replace him with someone more in line with the US government's way of thinking. We are going to this, while dragging along the French, Russian, and the Phish-listening bong-brained, Nader crowd, kicking and screaming, whining and squealing the whole way.

It's a done deal, its bought and paid for, deal with it...

Just having fun.. 13.Oct.2002 10:23

Fat -White-Republican (breeding more of me)

The too stupid or lazy reference was just a little humor thrown in at the end. Not to be taken seriously, but the concept of spending your life hitch-hiking from one protest rally to another is not a really productive way to solve the worlds problems. I suppose it is the sole recourse of people who haven't the creativity or drive to invent their way out of the worlds problems, its just easier to whine about it. But I'm glad you enjoyed my rant..

we need regime change 13.Oct.2002 12:15

.

we need regime change
we need regime change

what the fuck is wrong with you 13.Oct.2002 16:00

clamydia clamydia@mail.com

Fat-white-republican, can you even make one argument or rebuttal without creating straw-men or putting your opponents in boxes? Can you refrain from sarcastic refrences to what you percieve as the character of whomever you happen to be debating? I'm not ordering you to do this, I'm honestly wondering if it's possible for someone as prejudiced as you appear to be.
"Basically, I'm tired of arguing these points, you people have turned this environmental debate into a religion, You worship solar, wind, hydrogen energy sources, while tree, and bunny hugging is the new testament. Ralph Nader is the prophet, Capitalism, and Corporations are Satan, and I am the infidel who is telling you there is no god."
Bullshit. We are simply not agreeing with you, and arguing against what you say. We're not "preaching" anything. If your concept of "religion" is "anything that someone else thinks is true that I do not think is true", then perhaps you should study up on the subject. As far as your request that we go find a 1950's textbook: Yeah right. A textbook written 52 years ago is going to have information that even comes near the levels of accuracy that we have today. Sure. Also, I have three heads. And they can rotate freely, and independent of one another. No really...
I suppose I shouldn't even bother arguing with you, since you purport to have all the answers, but here goes. You contradict not only reality but your own supportive "facts" when you say that "basically the reason we are going to war is because you are too lazy or stupid to invent Cold Fusion in a bottle!" you contradict the truth which is (in your own words) "because we as Americans are stupid, greedy, and corrupt ourselves, so it should be no surprise that our government is representative of its citizens" truer words are seldom spoken by liberals, anarchists, or conservatives.
The simple fact of the matter is that if you enjoy the thought of tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of "innocent" (a relative term that can only be used accurately and objectively on an individual by individual basis) civilians meeting their untimely deaths as a direct or indirect (starvation, disease brought on by deccimation of their country's economy and industry...wait a minute, we already accomplished that! Anyone ever heard of "overkill", pun intended?) result of yet another bombing campaign supplimented by a bloody ground war (and it WILL be bloody--Iraq may not have much in the way of long-range ballistics, but their ground forces can KICK ASS and aren't going to just roll over and die. We're not talking about cave dwellers in pickup trucks, we're talking about tanks, troops, and plenty of ammo. I think they may have SAMs by now as well, which will make a second bombing campaign pretty interesting, but I may be mistaken about that.), then by all means; war is the answer you've been looking for. If you relish the thought of perhaps thousands of US troops dying in a ground conflict (because a war cannot be completely fought from the skies. The reason we beat Iraq so "easily" the first time because
  • They were about to pull out anyway, and
  • They were off in Kuwait, and it was relatively easy to cut off their supply routes
So we will have to actually walk in and invade by ground if we want to wage war on Iraq.), then send them off with your blessing. But if you value human life, and if you seriously want to help deter terrorism not only at home but abroad as well, then you will resist this war, and help educate your fellow citizens as to what it really means to go to war. A war is not a fist fight where Joe, in his righteousness, kicks Sam's ass because Sam stole Joe's tires, and then Joe gets his tires back and nobody dies or is hurt permanently, and Sam learns his lesson, and Joe learns his, and everyone lives happily ever after. A war is a situation where two or more large groups of people kill large amounts of living people on all sides. Nobody who starts a war comes out happier as a result. One would think we might have learned this by now, in the year 2002, when everyone was supposed to be flying around in hoover-cars and communicating telepathically and all that cool shit.
As far as alternative power goes, we could be using any of the above mentioned sources of power. Your assertion that hydrogen takes more power to procure than it produces is misleading. It doesn't matter if hydrogen needs more power for its manufacture than it provides in its output, because the point of using hydrogen is as a portable fuel source. Cars, trucks, ships, airplanes, etc would be users of hydrogen as a fuel source. Solar power, wind power, geothermal power, ocean tide power, and bioenergy (plant matter, methane from animal feces--and before you sneer at using poop as a fuel source, check out this article. Here is the text:
Tyson Foods, a U.S. poultry producer will be working with Renewable > Energy Corporation of Australia to build a $12 million processing plant > to convert 80-85,000 tons of chicken litter each year, as well as sludge > from Tyson?s production facilities, into energy in the form of steam. > The Renewable process is to gasify the waste into a synthesis gas made > up of mostly methane and use it as fuel for combustion. The facility > will be built in the Delmarva Region of the mid-Atlantic U.S. Chicken > litter will come from Tyson operated farms in the area. Steam will be > used by Tyson in its protein conversion plant. > Though methane reduction is not the purpose of the new facility, it > is one positive result. The purpose of the facility is actually to > reduce runoff of nutrients into rivers in the region that adjoin > farmland. Chicken litter is now either stored or spread as fertilizer. > Left to decay, chicken litter will release methane and carbon dioxide. > Putting the methane to work will displace fuel oil now used by Tyson to > make steam. > New Zealand is working to reduce its contribution of greenhouse > gases by reducing belching and flatulence from cattle and sheep. Methane > from the ruminants accounts for 44 percent of the nation?s greenhouse > gas emissions. One company, Wrightson Ltd in Wellington, is developing > new types of grasses used for feed which will digest with less methane > formation. Visit Renewable Energy at http://www.renrg.com/ and Wrightson > at http://www.wrightsons.co.nz/ .

It is obvious that the possibilities exist for these alternatives to be implemented. The technology has already been invented. As to your challenge to find proof of atmospheric percentage changes over the years, I will point you to a site that is not a 1950's classroom textbook, but neither is it a hemp-loveing stupid hippie site, or whatever you like to call liberals nowadays. It is a page on which someone has posted an article from the National Geographic Society. Here is the site. Here is a crude graph.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2554/nggw6.jpg


Thank you Field Marshal Clamydia. 13.Oct.2002 18:26

Fat White Republican (millions of us)

Thank you Field Marshal Clamydia.

Yes, in 1991 this Crack "KICK ASS" Iraqi Army you are so proud of was tripping over itself to get north of the Euphrates river before we crushed them. I don't blame them, that moron Hussein left them in Kuwait like a tethered goat waiting to be slaughtered.

In one case VII Corps, at what is know as the battle of medina ridge, blew through an Iraqi Republican Guard Tank Division that decided to stand its ground like they were made out of butter. As I remember VII Corp killed over 120 Iraqi tanks in less than 2 minutes, with only 2 American tanks down, and I believe either we shot our own guys or it they were down because of mechanical reasons and got listed as dead. Either way, The Iraqi Army now knows the fastest way to commit suicide is to stand their ground against the US Army...

The only reason we didn't go to Baghdad the first time is because of that Idiotic Coalition. As a result Hussein has used the sanctions to starve his own people.

But not to worry, it will becoming to an end soon...

FWR: Got Big Solar? 13.Oct.2002 21:59

Bongless

There is a big solar farm that at least qualifies as "medium scale." It's in that backward, unable-to-think-for-itself-because-it-doesn't-embrace-phony-democratic-forms-and-christianity country, SAUDI ARABIA. That's right, the biggest solar farm in the world is in Saudi Arabia. Makes sense if you think about it: lots of desolate land, lots of sun.

for heat.....burn fat republicans 13.Oct.2002 22:37

atomic frog

the fellow who holds many of the patents on hydrogen power, is a farmer in n.dak. a wind generator augments a more traditional generator. he has run his entire operation on H for many many years.

It wont work because it makes perfect sense??