The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
another WAR 2003 Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 29th March 2003
  #421
Gear Head
 

Brian:

Before you get too self righteous on me, try this:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/Business/story_47096.asp

Does it bother me that the vp received a 15 million dollar severance package from a company that gets awarded govt. contracts without a bidding process?

**** yes.

Does it bother me that the Bush admin moves to limit companies' liability in asbestos lawsuits when said payers of 15 million are burdened with asbestos lawsuits? (by the way, IIRC "brilliant businessman" Cheney was the one who acquired the co. with all the asbestos problems.)

Umm, **** yes.

Does it bother me that the warmongers in chief are GW "my deddy's gonna get me in the Guard!" Bush and Richard "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service" Cheney? (the Cheney thing is a direct quote, by the way.)

Well, yeah.

Back to oil: I've coined a new descriptor for the Bush crew: petrocentric. There are so many people in that crew from the oil industry that their entire world view is colored by what's good for the oil industry. I don't know if they're even capable of seeing that what is good for the oil industry may not be good for the nation or for the world.

Gut New Source Review? Open Alaska to drilling? Pollution trading credits?
These are all great things to the petrocentric. CAFE? Kyoto accords? Anathema!
Old 29th March 2003
  #422
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally posted by hodad
Brian:

Before you get too self righteous on me, try this:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/Business/story_47096.asp

Does it bother me that the vp received a 15 million dollar severance package from a company that gets awarded govt. contracts without a bidding process?

**** yes.

Does it bother me that the Bush admin moves to limit companies' liability in asbestos lawsuits when said payers of 15 million are burdened with asbestos lawsuits? (by the way, IIRC "brilliant businessman" Cheney was the one who acquired the co. with all the asbestos problems.)

Umm, **** yes.

Does it bother me that the warmongers in chief are GW "my deddy's gonna get me in the Guard!" Bush and Richard "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service" Cheney? (the Cheney thing is a direct quote, by the way.)

Well, yeah.

Back to oil: I've coined a new descriptor for the Bush crew: petrocentric. There are so many people in that crew from the oil industry that their entire world view is colored by what's good for the oil industry. I don't know if they're even capable of seeing that what is good for the oil industry may not be good for the nation or for the world.

Gut New Source Review? Open Alaska to drilling? Pollution trading credits?
These are all great things to the petrocentric. CAFE? Kyoto accords? Anathema!

It seems like lots of stuff bothers you. I suppose everyone needs a hobby, though.

How about: Send $15 billion to Aids relief in Africa? Fund technology development for hydrogen power in automobiles, etc? (petrocentric?) Refrain from knee jerk reaction towards Afgahnistan when many Americans wanted to "bomb it back to the stone age" immediately after 9/11?

Or is it only the negative, both real and imagined, that is noticed?

Regards,
Brian T
Old 29th March 2003
  #423
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally posted by BrianT

How about: Send $15 billion to Aids relief in Africa?
I'll give you that one. Even more amazing is that Jesse Helms was pushing that one.

Quote:
[B} Fund technology development for hydrogen power in automobiles, etc? (petrocentric?)
[/B]

At the expense of all other R&D funding for more fuel efficient vehicles. Also--know what the most practical source for hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles is? Gas. Petrocentric indeed. (Also, fuel cell technology is a ways off from being practical--why not fund it as well as more practical and immediate research efforts? And why no CAFE?)

QUOTE
Refrain from knee jerk reaction towards Afgahnistan when many Americans wanted to "bomb it back to the stone age" immediately after 9/11?
[/QUOTE]
I would have expected nothing less from any president.

Quote:
It seems like lots of stuff bothers you.
1. Did you ever listen to talk radio during the Clinton years?
Talk about stuff bothering people.

2. If the Bushies didn't do so much bad **** I wouldn't be so damn bothered.

3. Is that the only defense you've got for Bush's crappy policies--"hey, he did a couple of good things too."
Old 29th March 2003
  #424
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally posted by hodad

3. Is that the only defense you've got for Bush's crappy policies--"hey, he did a couple of good things too."
Have you considered that crap, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder?


Regards,
Brian T
Old 30th March 2003
  #425
Lives for gear
 
5down1up's Avatar
 

well well well

russia asked the u.s what will happen to their existing oil contracts made with iraq . the u.s answered , this needs to be discussed when weve conquered the country . fuuck
all the allies will get a piece of the cake rebuilding iraq again .
the u.s decides who is getting the gig . of course most of the stuff will be done by the u.s industry as well . fuuck
hearing bush and blair talking about their own people dying in iraq is a joke ... " well thats part of the game , but everythings going the way we want it to " ... haha
" total victory " sounds to me , no matter how many soldiers we lose , we stay there anyway , cause we are so concerned about the iraqi people ... haha

NO WAR , P E A C E ...

and jon , this is what we call democracy , i dont stand behind a ****FACE like bush and say ,
"well now hes started it , i am with him"
arresting peace demonstrators shows even more that those guys are dangerous . the whole scenario how he became the president is obviously "cheating" . there are only three points why they started this war

" MONEYMONEYMONEY "
Old 30th March 2003
  #426
Lives for gear
 
5down1up's Avatar
 

and if we lose this battle , the mother****er screwed up the whole world . so there are more people concerned than just the u.s & u.k goverment .

Old 30th March 2003
  #427
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 

I agree with 5down1up.


The main fact is that the support of population is not at all a reality.
Thoses people are pissed with Saddam, but even more pissed with US.
That guy bombing himself with 4 GIs, that girl showed on TV, totaly burned after an allied bombing, mmh, does it remind you something ?

I'm reading a book about Bush Family the wars and I really feel that there is great manipulations in this gvt.

The trick is that stoping the war now is unconceivable now (maybe it is a point were I could argue with 5down1up here). The result would be such a mess that it would give me the creeps.

So basicaly this is a total mess to me, and that is comferting me in the idea that it was a verystupid thing to do, and that GWBush and his war falcons are a bunch of dangerous psychos ...

Peace

malice
Old 30th March 2003
  #428
Lives for gear
 
Midlandmorgan's Avatar
 

I'm happy to see that the REAL reason there is such an anti-war movement is finally starting to emerge...it has nothing to do with the war, what's right or wrong...it has to do with the hatred and despise many people have against President Bush...

A quick review: The war is invalid because Bush was not elected by the popular vote (7th grade government class teaches the basic difference between popular and electoral election processes...) War is invalid because this Bush is carrying on a family vendetta (utter horse****...if this were true, it would be a whole lot easier and cheaper to buy a couple of Iraqi generals and have them off Hussein...) War is invalid because we kill so many civilians (again-mule muffins...the Iraqi government states we have killed 4000 civilians since the war began. If we chose to, we could kill 4000 a minute until the war was over.) Bush is protecting the assets of his oil cronies (again...if this war was about oil, we would bomb Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela) There is no conspiracy...it takes too many people to pull off the things being suggested here, but no one is talking; remember, they couldn't even keep Clinton's oval office blowjobs out of the media-do you really think they could keep this massive conspiracy to rule the planet a secret?

If you want to hate the President, be my guest. At least be honest about it, and stop hiding behind a certain interpretation of actions...And please remember that 'critical thinking and analysis' is not limited to the left wing perspective.
Old 30th March 2003
  #429
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 

It's funny how the anti-Bush folks don't seem at all bothered by Saddam....who has killed more people in the region than anyone except perhaps Hitler and Mussolini combined.

The best way to have more people die in Iraq is to help Saddam & family retain their grip on power. That and handicapping the current war effort so that more soldiers die, too.

Malice, you may want to read about some of the 221 people close to or known to Bill Clinton who all died in mysterious circumstances over the course of his 8 year administration. That guy makes Bush and even Chirac look almost clean.

Whatever you may think of his political positions, Bush is probably the most principled President the US has had in a long time. One couldn't say the same for Clinton, or for Gore.
Old 30th March 2003
  #430
Gear Addict
 

Wow quite a thread, couldn't read it all so I apologise if this has been covered.
There is only one reality here, and that is that we live in a world that has allowed elites to control most of the wealth and all of the information, and they have developed a kind of uber capitalism to control business all over the world. everything is considered as a business opportunity and so it is with this war.
The 74 billion for waging the war and the 100 billion for the rebuilding of Iraq is the main reason this conflict is going on. I believe it is now definite that these contracts are going to american companies closely allied to the elite that currently control american politics. The oil is just a secondary issue, a small bonus.
Saddam, Bin Laden, Nortega, the Saudis,the former Shah of Iran, the Taliban all owe their existence to the fact that american elites felt they had to have a strong man in place to look after american interests. It is no secret, at least in the rest of the world that the chemicals that are suspected to be in Iraq and used as chemical weapons were in fact purchased from american companies closely allied to the current American elite, and were used with tacit american approval when Saddam was still "there guy".
I don't mean to simply single out the Americans here, the same behaviour can be seen all over Africa and eastern Europe where British and Russian elites have pulled the same kind of stuff.
The point is that these uber capitalists instead of living by the competition credo that they expouse publicly are infact involved in a global move to elminiate competition and control states and insure that they can do business the way they want. They all get elected with the business is good , government is bad, and we need to decrease government spending, credo then they proceed to rob the treasurey and triple the deficet of ther respective states. It happened with Thatcher, Regan, Bush Mulroney and Bush JR is about to do the same again. Him and his friends will steal Billions from the duped american tax payer, with the excuse that they are saving the world from a vicious dictator. The fact that he was their vicious dictator will be convieniently glossed over.
If you need millions of dollars to even run for office in the electoral system of your country it does not resemble anything that I can identify as democracy. Simply stated this war is a shuck and jive by an immoral and deadly group of morons so far removed reality, that we need to fear for the continued existence of the race.
Grass roots politics working toward a state that does not exclude anyone from particapating is the answer. Build those kind of states in North america and Europe and the rest of the world will recogonise the example and come along. especially if we quit setting up tyrants to keep them in line so we can have a free hand to do business the way we like, in their countries. The chickens are coming home to roost and we have only ourselves to blame for letting the liars and morons and arms dealers and the seriously mentally ill have control of our countries. Here's hoping we learn our lesson before they befoul the whole planet. take care Logan
Old 30th March 2003
  #431
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 

Logan,

Business is not confined to what you refer to as uber-capitalists, it's global....and in the "less" capitalist countries of which France, China and Russa would be tip-of-the-iceberg examples, along with much of Africa, the former Soviet Union, the Middle East and the Far East, business is generally far more opaque, corrupt and dominated by the ruling elite than in the US and the UK.

I agree that business is a central reason behind many of the political positions we see right now, and the French and Russian positions are at least as motivated by money as the US and UK ones.

The country that sold the most to Iraq last year in official figures was France, not including illegal sales of arms and other items not allowed by UN sanctions.

Russia is owed at least $9 billion by Saddam's regime...and Russian oil firms have contracts with Saddam's family and Baath party for over 20 billion barrels of brute oil. This is a huge amount of money for a country like Russia and it will certainly be lost if Saddam & family are removed from power in Iraq.

Just a few, over-simplified examples...
Old 30th March 2003
  #432
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Schnert
Qoute from article:

"Halliburton was one of five large U.S. companies that the Bush administration asked in mid-February to bid on the 21-month contract, which involves the reconstruction of Iraq’s critical infrastructure, including roads, bridges and hospitals, after the war."

In mid February? Good planning.....
Just curious about your post... when do you suggest would have been an opportune time to take this step?
Old 30th March 2003
  #433
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 

War is invalid because it has been decided without a UN resolution.

War is stupid because

1- It could have been avoided by

a) Not selling WMD to Saddam (as US did in 8O')
b) Not helping Saddam from the begining, and close your eyes on his crimes (that goes for France too)
c) Not making a martyr out of him since the embargo to the eyes of his people (as you continue to do with this war)
d) Letting the UN inspectors doing their jobs as inspections destroyed more weapons after Gulf war 2 than during both gulf wars

2- It should have been avoided because

a) Iraqi won't rally to US cause, they won't feel liberate until you leave Iraq soil, they feel more invaded than liberated. They were suffering so much from the wars that you caused and the embargo that the majority of them will fight you to the end of their life.

b) You won't therefore impose stability to the region, as the street of arab countries such as Syria, Jordans, Palestine, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc ... are clearly suportive to Iraqi people and even more clearly against you.
Even if history showed that arab countries street opinion has not much weight in the politics, the wind might as well turn for several reasons as the interesting fact that the slogans are more and more politics than religious.
In other words, the arab peoples don't gather as muslims revealing their old religious disdain for each other, but they gather in a new political consciousness of getting rid of your country, and that is rather new.
The most interesting detail is there is no BinLaden portrait in demonstrations, and sometimes, as in Iran, no pro Saddam position too: only anti american



War should at least have been thoroughfuly prepared as obviously, you misjudge the local situation as well as the strategy. The risk of a long painfull war is slowly emerging.
If that is the case, here is some of what can turn this war into a nightmare

1- Suicide bombing increase makes you fire at inocent people more often, creating a population movement against you as you might want to bomb cities like Basra until no building stands up

2- the war last until summer when the temperature will complicate allies life in a dramatic way ...

3- terorism increase in Israel causing the gvt to close the border and impose more sanctions to palestinians in a very difficult time. That might cause a dramatic increasing of arab countries support to Saddam for the reasons I explain above.

4- You would lose your public opinion in the long term. When I say lose, I would rather say like 85% opposition to war: it took place during Vietnam, remember ...



I won't mention catastrophies that the utilisation of MDW could cause, even if there is a reasonable chance that they would be use in last resort.
I can't see in all this explaination that sums up my vision and opinion any relation with my dislike of your president. I only consider the fact that GW Bush is actualy defending this policy and realise it with an obscene amount of the money your country should use to better cause as your schools, social supports etc ...
May I add that I was shocked that Clinton had so many problems because of a blow job ! That also is frightening for a democracy such as USA...

I can't be more honest than that, my dislike of your president is a side effect of what his policy is causing

best

malice
Old 30th March 2003
  #434
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by jon

Malice, you may want to read about some of the 221 people close to or known to Bill Clinton who all died in mysterious circumstances over the course of his 8 year administration. That guy makes Bush and even Chirac look almost clean.

I'm not a udge Clinton fan either, but that info is realy disturbing, if you have links, I'm curious Jon ...

best regards

malice
Old 30th March 2003
  #435
Gear Maniac
 
ultima's Avatar
 

the" For us or against us" mentality is reaching the street level here.

Why ?
because we have been conditioned to think the whole fu***in world revolves around these two individuals.

For me its the bottom line ...


its the state of the world in general that scares me and i simply would have thought that the american government would have been more cunning about the whole thing.

Its very simple ...they are blowing it !
The american government is dividing the world !

Its very hard to rationalise the killings of hundreds even tens of thousands of innocent people to get to one person.

The bottom line is that America could have handled it better im sure, its the fact that they are making a big mess here thats scary.

It doesnt really convey intelligence, diplomacy,freedom,human rights at all.....

to tell you the truth i have actually admired this nation until now.
Old 30th March 2003
  #436
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 

Malice,

Good post. Just a couple of comments:

1. Do you think the UN inspectors would have been able to re-enter Iraq after 4 years of absence without the US initiative and its deployment of armed forces in the region?

2. In the absence of credible polls & facts, no one really knows how the Iraqi people feel in aggregate. All we see are the news reports and clips the journalists send to the media, which are by definition never objective -- even when they support our opinion on the subject.

3. One thing we DON'T see in the news are massive anti-war demonstrations in Iraq anywhere near their (sometimes sponsored) equivalents in Cairo, Jakarta, Teheran, Paris, Berlin, etc. If there WERE mass demonstrations against the coalition in Iraq, I'm certain Bagdad would make sure we see it by tranmitting it to Al-Jazeera, etc. For this reason, I am far from convinced that the Iraqi people's hearts are universally behind Saddam.

4. Remember that Saddam and his family represent the most minority, least-representative regime not only of Iraq, but of probably the entire Middle East.

I deleted my links to that Clinton info, but I'll ask around and send it to you if/when I find it. I don't know how reliable the source is, but it's verifiable information and pretty damn scary stuff.
Old 30th March 2003
  #437
Lives for gear
 
bassmac's Avatar
 

To those who argue Bush didn't win the election... and shouldn't be president.

Fifteen candidates (three of them twice) have become president of the United States with a popular vote less than 50% of the total cast.

The “minority” presidents listed below became president via the Electoral College vote - just as Bush did.

Are they all invalid too?

Year / President / Electoral percent / Popular percent

1824 John Q. Adams 31.8% / 29.8%
1844 James K. Polk (D) 61.8 / 49.3
1848 Zachary Taylor (W) 56.2 / 47.3
1856 James Buchanan (D) 58.7 / 45.3
1860 Abraham Lincoln (R) 59.4 / 39.9
1876 Rutherford B. Hayes (R) 50.1 / 47.9
1880 James A. Garfield (R) 57.9 / 48.3
1884 Grover Cleveland (D) 54.6 / 48.8
1888 Benjamin Harrison (R) 58.1 / 47.8
1892 Grover Cleveland (D) 62.4% / 46.0%
1912 Woodrow Wilson (D) 81.9 / 41.8
1916 Woodrow Wilson (D) 52.1 / 49.3
1948 Harry S. Truman (D) 57.1 / 49.5
1960 John F. Kennedy (D) 56.4 / 49.7
1968 Richard M. Nixon (R) 56.1 / 43.4
1992 William J. Clinton (D) 68.8 / 43.0
1996 William J. Clinton (D) 70.4 / 49.0
2000 George W. Bush (R) 50.3 / 47.8

Any questions?


Old 30th March 2003
  #438
Gear Maniac
 
ultima's Avatar
 

Interesting link

Timline of CIA atrocities
Old 30th March 2003
  #439
Lives for gear
 
5down1up's Avatar
 

a lot of those arguments are sounding like :

" it was always messed up , so lets stay in this lane "

i dont know how old yall are , but the thing i know , nobody of you will be able to celebrate his/her 588s birthday . we are running out of time , sooner or later , so lets change that old fashioned BULL**** ... N O W N O W N O W N O W

greetings to all , have a nice sunday
Old 30th March 2003
  #440
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by ultima
Its very hard to rationalise the killings of hundreds even tens of thousands of innocent people to get to one person.
It's not too hard to rationalize when that person has already killed millions of innocents and nothing in his behavior suggests that he won't continue.
Old 30th March 2003
  #441
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by jon
Malice,

Good post. Just a couple of comments:
thanx Jon, I'll take your points instead of quoting



1. On that I would totaly agree with you Jon. But as the process was re-started, I thought it would have been interesting to give it a chance ...


2. I agree too, it is difficult to see the truth from the medias in this war. I'm rather chocked by the lack of ojectivity in this conflict that I'm sure, will be also remembered as the war of life broadcast propaganda ...
I based my convictions on the analysis of infos from all parties, but also from historical and cultural events. I started a kind of poll in this thread were I was asking everyone to put by order of importance from the most sacred to the least: god, your freedom, your land (country). Nobody answered, but my point was that in arab cultures, god is as important and sacred as the land : freedom comes far behind: real democracies are somehow difficult to find in their history, and even in the present times. Both the land and god are linked together and that explain the position of Iran with the bombings of some of the most sacred cities of the chiites community in Irak. Even if they hate Saddam guts, they took position against US for those sacred reasons. May I remind you that during the 2nd Gulf War, some guy name Bin Laden did not support US on the sacred land of Saudi Arabia, with the consequences we all know.
My conclusions are that although Saddam is not loved by all his people (even the majority), he will gain popularity as he is standing against an invader such as USA. Everyday US is standing on Iraq land gives more power to Saddam among his people, IMO.



3. You might have a point. But you gotta admit that this people is not use to demonstrate with this regime. Although any demonstration are difficult during bombings. Note that I'm not saying people were not against Saddam : I'm concerned by the instrumentation of the war by Saddam in order to reverse his people opinion toward him. If we make a martyr out of him, that would decide his people to fight US troops in Bagdahd in his name...

4. Yes that is true, but as I said in my post, I sense the raising of an arab political consciousness replacing the religious consciousness that would have put Saddam in minority. I'm amaze to see support from countries that hated Saddam in the first place such as Iran for example. That is because they can gather around a new emerging idea that would be getting rid of US domination (as well as any other country domination)


As you see, I agree with your points Jon, I'm just trying to see clear in the future implications. Of course it is only my opinion, and I could as well be wrong

malice

PS: thanx for looking for that Clinton stuff, this would be udge
Old 30th March 2003
  #442
Lives for gear
 

"Year / President / Electoral percent / Popular percent

1824 John Q. Adams 31.8% / 29.8%
1844 James K. Polk (D) 61.8 / 49.3
1848 Zachary Taylor (W) 56.2 / 47.3
1856 James Buchanan (D) 58.7 / 45.3
1860 Abraham Lincoln (R) 59.4 / 39.9
1876 Rutherford B. Hayes (R) 50.1 / 47.9
1880 James A. Garfield (R) 57.9 / 48.3
1884 Grover Cleveland (D) 54.6 / 48.8
1888 Benjamin Harrison (R) 58.1 / 47.8
1892 Grover Cleveland (D) 62.4% / 46.0%
1912 Woodrow Wilson (D) 81.9 / 41.8
1916 Woodrow Wilson (D) 52.1 / 49.3
1948 Harry S. Truman (D) 57.1 / 49.5
1960 John F. Kennedy (D) 56.4 / 49.7
1968 Richard M. Nixon (R) 56.1 / 43.4
1992 William J. Clinton (D) 68.8 / 43.0
1996 William J. Clinton (D) 70.4 / 49.0
2000 George W. Bush (R) 50.3 / 47.8

Any questions?"

This is horse ****. Do you know anything about plurality elections? Imagine the following scenario:

John Smith, a moderate candidate with conventionally sensible ideas runs for office and gets 60% of the vote.

Marvin Passicutter, a much more radical candidate gets 40%.

It makes sense that Smith wins. But when you add in Smits and Smythe, both also pretty moderate candidates, it stands to reason that Smith, Smits, and Smythe may each get 20%, making the radical candidate a winner with only 40% of the popular vote. And judging by the numbers on your chart, damn near all of them had damn near close to 50% of the popular vote! So 18 presidential elections being won by someone with a (slim) minority is not at all unbelievable.

When both candidates are commanding nearly the same amount of popular vote, and the real hold up happens in the state where one candidate's BROTHER is the Governor, and obvious measures are taken to make the voting process difficult you just GOTTA wonder. Especially when elderly Jews are somehow magically voting for Pat Buchanan =P

The American public should agree to work with what they have no matter how he was elected, but using this horsehit as means of lending legitimacy to his presidency is rediculous.
Old 30th March 2003
  #443
Lives for gear
 

We aren't really going to relive the 2000 US presidential election again, are we? Last I checked, it's 2003 and the term is over half done.

Pleeeeeeeeeease, no, don't go there again.


Regards,
Brian T


Note to self: Must avoid this thread. Must get a life.
Old 30th March 2003
  #444
Lives for gear
 
Midlandmorgan's Avatar
 

Bush is President of the United States...duly sworn by the Supreme Court...no other justification is necessary...

Deal with it. Stop trying to blame your displeasure with the war on the Florida governor - that line of thinking will inevitably lead to lets all sue Barbara Bush for having children...better yet, lets sue Adam and Eve - this is obviously all THEIR fault...or if you prefer, lets sue the apes, since humans are evolutionary descendants...

Tongue in cheeck? Gawd yes...but we'd all be better served in understanding the now, as opposed to over-analyzing (correctly or otherwise) the importance of events as they pertain to the topic at hand.
Old 30th March 2003
  #445
Gear Addict
 

Jon
I completely agree, with your examples and do not exempt any of the states you mentioned from blame in this fiasco. But the kernel of truth is that Elites have coopted states as a way to do business. In Russia and China they seized power in North America and Europe they bought power, in Africa they inherited power from the colonial elites whom set them up in the first place. In Africa the stradegy was to take the minority tribe, in any given region, set them up as the oversear of the colonial powers assets and give them the means to beat the crap out of anyone who doesn't tow the line. The Russians played the same game with the Serbs. After a century or so of having the crap beat out of you by the oversear, you have developed a hatred of that minority tribe and instead of the issue being I don't like this guy because he is controlling all the business opportunity, the issue has mutated to I don't like this guy because he is hootoo or tootse or Serb or ****e. And that's the way the elites like it because the control of business and resources never gets questioned, it becomes a race or religion issue and the elites continue to do business in the same old way. All the while the poor whites and the blacks and the protestants and the catholics and the muslims and the jews, and irish and english and the serbs and the croats, continue to beat the crap out of each other, instead of the guy who set up the system that plays them off against one another in the first place. That guy continues to live, in relative peace and quiet, in his big house up on the hill and counts his money. Then his newspapers print stories and TV stations run footage about the ignorant and obviously crazy twits down in the valley who just can't get along
Surely you do not dispute that this conflict is about Dubya and his cronies contolling their turf and ripping off a gullible and uninformed American public for billions of dollars, which they are handing to themselves, while grinning like **** eating dogs and calling themselves the saviours of democracy and freedom. This is not to say Saddam and his ilk are not scum, clearly they are. There is, however, a fair amount of empirical evidence to suggest that the Saddams of this world would not be there in the first place without significant American collusion. The immorality of this, in my albeit, people oriented view, makes Dubya and his ilk even greater murderous scum. The American people, whom although generous and caring and as moral as the rest of us, might however be a little less inclined to support/ignore this type of behaviour in their elite, if the jack boot had ever been applied to their throats in the way it is constantly to the folks of Latin America, Africa and Asia, by the oversears they put in charge. I know they suffered 9/11 and I do not support any such actions, but again I say 9/11 was a direct result of the way they pit people against against people in order to have a friendly business climate around the world.
The Americans are simply the latest, the colonial powers of the last century bear every bit as much blame, but anyone who thinks that these adventures by Bush and Co. have anything to do with democracy or is any different from giving smallpox infested blankets to the aboriginals of the area you want to steal, is being niave. And I fear that these guys are so sick and so immoral, and so ****ing stupid, that, if unopposed, they may take the whole ball of wax down with them. Take care Logan
Old 30th March 2003
  #446
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 

Interesting post, Logan. I do not know to what extent the processes you described might be main or secondary motives behind what we're seeing on the world stage right now....I'm not sure we'll ever really know if it's the main motive or not...nor if its the system itself which encourages that or if its a conscious decision by a few elite individuals in each case.

I didn't vote for GWB in 2000 (couldn't reconcile myself to either him or Gore), but I tend to believe that at this time in his life GWB is more principled than that...friends of family back home know him, and what I hear makes him out as a straight, praying, earnest, early-to-bed, early-to-rise, Ben Franklin type going through a very difficult, painful period where he feels the weight of the world on his shoulders....he is def not a good ol' boy snake charmer and manipulative sex n' showbiz party dude like Clinton...but I don't know the man personally, so it is hearsay.

Thanks again for a thought-provoking post.

Jon
Old 30th March 2003
  #447
Schnert
Guest
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Schnert
Qoute from article:

"Halliburton was one of five large U.S. companies that the Bush administration asked in mid-February to bid on the 21-month contract, which involves the reconstruction of Iraq’s critical infrastructure, including roads, bridges and hospitals, after the war."

In mid February? Good planning.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally posted by tonedaddy
Just curious about your post... when do you suggest would have been an opportune time to take this step?
It just seems cynical to me; a month before this war, a country asks five companies to bid on a contract to rebuild what it is going to destroy. Maybe hospitals should start bidding on organs.

Old 30th March 2003
  #448
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Schnert
It just seems cynical to me; a month before this war, a country asks five companies to bid on a contract to rebuild what it is going to destroy. Maybe hospitals should start bidding on organs.

Ok, I understand your point now, and I can understand your cynicism.

I guess the flip side is that if war was imminent, and essential to the U.S. argument is that with certainty if Iraq's compliance failed they are going in until the Hussein regime is gone, and certainly there would be infrastructure needs if war occurred. Government contracts like this take months for the contractors to bid on, then months for the government to evaluate and grant.

So if war were averted, nothing lost, nothing gained. If the war were to end soon now (as I hope we could all hope for), and extraordinary delays are incurred for getting the rebuilding started, wouldn't there be as much criticism for not anticipating the need for rebuilding and starting early?

Agree with the U.S. government or not, doing it then was consistent with their position perhaps?
Old 30th March 2003
  #449
Gear Head
 

here's a query for the pro war folk:
What do you expect to happen in Iraq apres Saddam?

Freely elected govt.? What if the people want elected officials who are anti-US? Is that gonna fly?
And what about the Kurds? Their troubles started decades before Saddam came to power. Do you think the new leadership will accept them with open arms and loving grace? Or a new Kurdish state? How do you think that would be received?
And what of the Iraqi people in general? Do you think their standard of living will be better than it was pre-sanctions?
Old 31st March 2003
  #450
Lives for gear
 
bassmac's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by tonedaddy
So if war were averted, nothing lost, nothing gained. If the war were to end soon now (as I hope we could all hope for), and extraordinary delays are incurred for getting the rebuilding started, wouldn't there be as much criticism for not anticipating the need for rebuilding and starting early?

Exactly!

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
mastermix / Mastering forum
5
Nick A. / So much gear, so little time
9
Nu-tra / So much gear, so little time
40

Forum Jump
Forum Jump