87 BILLION DOLLARS?

[Lefty]

Yeah, he wants to spend 87 billion more dollars on Iraq, he said so in a speech yesterday. We've actually spent more on Iraq than the education budget for last year.

[Legends]

I heard about this aswell Lefty, he is also sending in over 1000 troups into Iraqi.

I found this very amusing, Bush was on a people carrier a few weeks ago with a banner that said "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" and even then it was far from that, it seems to be as though bush jumps the gun every time.

[Sabocat]

Hmmm....Bechtel stands to make a lot of money eh? Georgie says it's to rebuild the infrastructure. I guess it wouldn't have cost so much to rebuild if they hadn't bombed the ever loving shit out of it.

It's a good scheme....get the tax payers to fund all the bombs that destroy the infrastructure, and then get them to pay for the damage done by them...Good racket.

[YKTMX]

If the fucking democrats could (god forbid) grow a spine, then maybe they would see that they could at least CHALLENGE the amount. Heavens above if they ever voted against the President. God Save The U.S.A.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 05:15 AM
Hmmm....Bechtel stands to make a lot of money eh? Georgie says it's to rebuild the infrastructure. I guess it wouldn't have cost so much to rebuild if they hadn't bombed the ever loving shit out of it.

It's a good scheme....get the tax payers to fund all the bombs that destroy the infrastructure, and then get them to pay for the damage done by them...Good racket.
Exactly, Comrade Disgustapated...

We have a recession going on and many in the working class are suffering even more than usual. When Bush is not busy cutting taxes for the people who already have more than they should (thus reducing funds for social services to help people who do need it), he is starting massive wars that will hurt the working class and further enrich his buddies at Halliburton and Bechtel. The U.S. has a military budget that is roughly equal to that of the rest of the world combined. On top of that, we have to pay further to destroy Iraq and rebuild it at an artificially inflated price to make profits for GOP whores. Grrrrr....

[CompadreGuerrillera]

Hmmmm, this goes with Bush's most stupid action lists. The major one that caught my attention, was when Bush asked for UN support to REBUILD Irak, WHILE JUST LIKE 2 WHEN THE WAR STARTED, HE DIDNT WAIT FOR THE FUCKING UN.
What an idiot and a hypocrite, really WHY do we have such a stupid president??

OMFG. Aint that attrocious?

[Babylon5 Crusade]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 01:13 AM
Hmmmm, this goes with Bush's most stupid action lists. The major one that caught my attention, was when Bush asked for UN support to REBUILD Irak, WHILE JUST LIKE 2 WHEN THE WAR STARTED, HE DIDNT WAIT FOR THE FUCKING UN.
What an idiot and a hypocrite, really WHY do we have such a stupid president??

OMFG. Aint that attrocious?
Stupid? You probaly believe every Neo-Conservative is a idot. Lets see we tried the UN route. But the Germans and Frogs didnt want that. Resolution 1441, was his last chance, and Saddam screwed it. See Bush didn't want this war. Thats why 1441 was pass so Saddam can prove himself. It wasnt Bush who screwed him self it was Saddam.

[CompadreGuerrillera]

Two, things you wont last long here, secondly Bush DID want this war. Theres proof, this war was soley for oil, not tearing down a RIGHTIST dictator, it was purely for oil. Saddam was a puppet that we took out, because he thought for himself for a change.

Saddam is a sneeky peice of shit, you idiots still havent caught the bastard. Of course he didnt prove himself, but Bush DIDNT wait for the UN, the UN WOULDVE agreed, stupid. Just look at the processes, one month more of waiting, and Bush couldve went ahead as a coalition. Instead his testerone was too high to listen to reason, he went in without the UN's Support.

Finally, why is this pathetic asshole BEGGING for the UN's support in REBUILDING Irak, when Bush turned his OWN BACK AT THEM???

What kind of idiot, like yourself, believes in this bullshit.

Get real Nazi.

[mEds]

why has no one banned babylon5 yet? Im tired of his anti marxist opinions.

[CompadreGuerrillera]

dont ban him yet, i want his response to my reply.

[Babylon5 Crusade]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 04:51 AM
Two, things you wont last long here, secondly Bush DID want this war. Theres proof, this war was soley for oil, not tearing down a RIGHTIST dictator, it was purely for oil. Saddam was a puppet that we took out, because he thought for himself for a change.

Saddam is a sneeky peice of shit, you idiots still havent caught the bastard. Of course he didnt prove himself, but Bush DIDNT wait for the UN, the UN WOULDVE agreed, stupid. Just look at the processes, one month more of waiting, and Bush couldve went ahead as a coalition. Instead his testerone was too high to listen to reason, he went in without the UN's Support.

Finally, why is this pathetic asshole BEGGING for the UN's support in REBUILDING Irak, when Bush turned his OWN BACK AT THEM???

What kind of idiot, like yourself, believes in this bullshit.

Get real Nazi.
Banned me? I was invided by some one who goes here. commie kg also called red_power_supreme:
http://www.golemlabs.com/forums/showthread...=&threadid=8340 (http://www.golemlabs.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8340)

You'll know France would never voted for any resolution. You know Oil is not the reason. Since most of the oil is being used for the rebuilding of the nation of Iraq. Since under international law states that Money from a conqured nation must be used for rebuilding propuses. So the war is not being payed by Iraqi oil.

[the-isz]

Someone from another forum was recruiting ppl to come to this site to give a different point of view rather than simple 'me to-ism'.

So here I am.

After looking at the very first post, I can see the idea of a political 'forum' for discussion of ideas is lost in here.
Drink the Kool-aid, or else....

"why has no one banned babylon5 yet? Im tired of his anti marxist opinions."

That's quite amusing. Obviously, this is merely group masterbation. So onward and upward.

ps... if you're thwarting all attempts for the opposition to speak, how does that reflect on your chosen belief system?

Enjoy.

[suffianr]

ps... if you're thwarting all attempts for the opposition to speak, how does that reflect on your chosen belief system?

Who's "thwarting" anyone?

I see you're quite the sensationalist. And on your first post, too. Any other constructive comments, or are you just getting off on criticizing people? :)

[CompadreGuerrillera]

Originally posted by Babylon5 Crusade+Sep 10 2003, 05:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Babylon5 Crusade @ Sep 10 2003, 05:14 AM)
[email protected] 10 2003, 04:51 AM
Two, things you wont last long here, secondly Bush DID want this war. Theres proof, this war was soley for oil, not tearing down a RIGHTIST dictator, it was purely for oil. Saddam was a puppet that we took out, because he thought for himself for a change.

Saddam is a sneeky peice of shit, you idiots still havent caught the bastard. Of course he didnt prove himself, but Bush DIDNT wait for the UN, the UN WOULDVE agreed, stupid. Just look at the processes, one month more of waiting, and Bush couldve went ahead as a coalition. Instead his testerone was too high to listen to reason, he went in without the UN&#39;s Support.

Finally, why is this pathetic asshole BEGGING for the UN&#39;s support in REBUILDING Irak, when Bush turned his OWN BACK AT THEM???

What kind of idiot, like yourself, believes in this bullshit.

Get real Nazi.
Banned me? I was invided by some one who goes here. commie kg also called red_power_supreme:
http://www.golemlabs.com/forums/showthread...=&threadid=8340 (http://www.golemlabs.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8340)

You&#39;ll know France would never voted for any resolution. You know Oil is not the reason. Since most of the oil is being used for the rebuilding of the nation of Iraq. Since under international law states that Money from a conqured nation must be used for rebuilding propuses. So the war is not being payed by Iraqi oil. [/b]
NO, get it through your brainwashed head, the was FOR OIL, parts of it ARE used to rebuild an Irak that WE destroyed, but MOST of it is being pumped for the U.S. and its binge for economic control. You KNOW that, don&#39;t you, please dont let me argue with an ignorant person. Wake Up Man&#33; The war WAS FOR OIL, If Saddam did&#39;nt have oil below him, we wouldnt care about it, thats why Bush wants a diplomatic end to the Korean conflict. Its because Kim Jung IL isnt sitting on any valuable resource.

Also, Iraq is a complete mess, more soldiers die there AFTER the "end to hostilities" then during the war. And there is COLD, HARD, PROOF of that.

And i DONT want to ban you, but others like to ban ppl that arent commie, aint my desicion&#33;

PLUS we dindnt find any "weapons of mass destruction", or Sadam, but we ARE working hard at pumping that rich oil&#33;

[Babylon5 Crusade]

Give me proof that its was all for oil? Show me the eviedence&#33; Not propaganda from Anti-war "Hug a terrorist&#33;" hippies.

[El jefecito]

Babylon, if the oil is paying for reconstruction why does bu&#036;h ask for more money for that very reason. If they state that the money will go to put out oil fires, wouldn&#39;t they be out by now. The salvaging of the assets (WHICH IS OIL) would come first rather than salvaging their own soldiers (2 US deaths per day). Whoever lead the bull&#036;hit invasion didn&#39;t know the difference between a hole in the ground and a hole in their ass.
I remember something bu&#036;h once said about sadaam, " ....he tried to kill ma daddy...." I guess bu&#036;h had other motives to murder foreign people and our own ( 2 US deaths per day).

[Babylon5 Crusade]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 10 2003, 05:43 AM
Babylon, if the oil is paying for reconstruction why does bu&#036;h ask for more money for that very reason. If they state that the money will go to put out oil fires, wouldn&#39;t they be out by now. The salvaging of the assets (WHICH IS OIL) would come first rather than salvaging their own soldiers (2 US deaths per day). Whoever lead the bull&#036;hit invasion didn&#39;t know the difference between a hole in the ground and a hole in their ass.
I remember something bu&#036;h once said about sadaam, " ....he tried to kill ma daddy...." I guess bu&#036;h had other motives to murder foreign people and our own ( 2 US deaths per day).
Oil cant pay 100% but some. If you read History, that it cost more to rebuild Europe than to rebuild Iraq.

[the-isz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 05:32 AM

ps... if you&#39;re thwarting all attempts for the opposition to speak, how does that reflect on your chosen belief system?

Who&#39;s "thwarting" anyone?

I see you&#39;re quite the sensationalist. And on your first post, too. Any other constructive comments, or are you just getting off on criticizing people? :)
LOL. Ok, I just couldn&#39;t help but check in one last time...

Perhaps I need to define &#39;Thwarte", but I think I explained well enough in my earlier post.

I&#39;m merely stating that threatening to ban someone for having an opposing view is something I find quite humorous/ironic...particularily in this forum. Goes along with that old saying "Power corrupts...ultimate power, ultimately corrupts." That crosses all political beliefs, btw. And despite the lofty beliefs tossed around in here, it seems that truism remains. Which ties into my earlier quote you so quickly jumped on...and as quickly, missed the point.

Lastly, I don&#39;t &#39;get off&#39; on critizing ppl. I was critizing this forum as it was billed to me as a place of political debate - which is far from the truth.

So enjoy the Kool-Aid folks&#33;

[suffianr]

I&#39;m merely stating that threatening to ban someone for having an opposing view is something I find quite humorous/ironic...particularily in this forum.

Yawn. I suppose you were referring to this:


why has no one banned babylon5 yet? Im tired of his anti marxist opinions.

The above is an example of irrational behaviour, and doesn&#39;t represent the majority of the people&#39;s opinions here. Furthermore, the threat of banning came from a Newbie, not a Mod or an Admin, and the subject of banning people is not taken lightly, anyway. I don&#39;t know where Dominant got the idea that anti-marxists should all be banned from this site, nor would I trust the logic of people who make such spontaneous statements, either. I myself don&#39;t agree with a few people on this site, but I don&#39;t ask anyone to ban them because they&#39;re smarter than me or whatever. My guess is that Dominant was just being a little trigger-happy.

My conclusion here is that there is some sort of deception here. Either Dominant is a) a little hotheaded, b) here to antagonize or purposely disturb the "peace" or c) you are here for no other reason than to intimidate people with your holier-than-thou attitude on what constitutes a good message board.

Besides, no one&#39;s pointing a gun to your head and forcing you to stay. I&#39;m sure there are &#39;better&#39; messageboards out there for &#39;better&#39; people like you.

So spare the Kool-Aid, buddy.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Thank you, Comrade suffianr.

Cappie Babylon,
"Oil cant pay 100% but some."

If you keep up with news or even bothered to read the first part of this thread, Bush is also using billions of American taxpayer dollars to line the pockets of corporations closely linked to the GOP such as Bechtel. Bechtel and Halliburton, the latter having close ties to Dick Cheney, received no-bid contracts to rebuild Iraq at the expense of the American taxpayer and Iraq&#39;s oil. I am not sure if Iraq&#39;s oil, the second largest reserves in the world, would pay for reconstruction all by itself or not. That is irrelevant now, as the Bush administration has decided that the high price Bechtel demands for its reconstruction services can be paid for by the U.S. taxpayers.

I would also point out to Dominant that there are leftists on this board who are not Marxists, and I consider many of them intelligent and rational comrades of mine (though you have to look no further than my screenname to know that I do identify personally as a Marxist).

[CompadreGuerrillera]

Babylon, you never explained my analogy to Korea&#33;

Explain that&#33; Were not antagonizing N.Korea, simply because Kim Jung FuckFace aint sitting on oil. IF he had any valuable resource under him, We would be at his throats, also, WHY was the US even INVOLVED in Iraq the first place? If we really did care about freedom(which we dont), AND weapons of mass destruction(we didnt find) we wouldve already been arguing about going to war, its just a convinient time to do these things. Do you think the next prez would&#39;ve attack Iraq? prolly not.

Secondly, the Oil there makes up for about 30 percent of the world&#39;s oil, rebuiliding what we destroyed, will only cost a small fraction of that, so in the sceme of things, Bush will get more oil under his monopoly. The ONLY reason the cappie European gov&#39;ts were against this war, is because it wouldnt profit them.

Its all about the money, and the profit.
NOW ANSWER ALL MY QUESTIONS PLZ. i dont want to repeat myself 20x.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

CompadreGuerrillera,
First of all, Babylon cannot respond to you on this thread. He has been restricted to OI.

Your point about Bush not being anxious to invade North Korea because they are not sitting on billions of dollars worth of oil is valid. Also, I sense opportunism among the militarists of the Bush administration. Iraq was a convenient target because, as Noam Chomsky points out, Iraq was practically defenseless by the time the U.S. invaded. Kuwait even had a military budget several times higher than Iraq did.

North Korea, on the other hand, has a fairly intimidating military. The U.S. could probably crush them without too much hassle, as no one on Earth has an answer to American air superiority. Tanks and other armor are devastating weapons, but they are quite helpless against stealth jets with bombs guided by 21st Century technology. However, North Korea&#39;s artillery could kill a lot of South Koreans, and (more importantly, to many Americans) probably the better part of the 37,000 U.S. soldiers stationed on the border.

The biggest lesson U.S. imperialists pulled from the war on Vietnam is that the American people will watch the news and believe your bullshit about the war. They will support the murder of thousands and even millions of people on the other side of the planet for no sure reason. As long as the U.S. is winning, such war will be tolerated for several years.

But... BUT... If coffins start coming home with "Old Glory" draped over them by the thousands, than the American people start to question whether the fighting is worth it. The elder George Bush understood this, as he picked on easy targets like Panama and Iraq. American casualties number in the dozens, and the combat ends with decisive American victory within months. Such neo-blitzkriegs seem to stoke the adrenaline, and reinforce the jingoism of many American citizens. Bill Clinton also understood this, as his choices for lightning war were the weak targets of Yugoslavia and Iraq.

I do not know if George W. Bush will follow the good example of intelligent imperialists like his dad and Clinton. Domestically, he seems to be pretty arrogant about flaunting his allegiance to anti-working class interests. Most capitalist politicians are much more careful about that. He filled his cabinet with unpopular choices like John Ashcroft, recognized by 2001 in even centrist circles as a right wing extremist. He has rammed through two huge tax cuts for the rich, and has tried to stack the courts with racist, religious right judges. He seems to be spitting in the face of the Democratic Party, which could threaten a bipartisan consensus which has fleeced the working class royally over the last 30 years. It would almost seem that he is so blinded by his far-right ideology that he cannot see to act rationally to protect the longevity of U.S. imperialism.

His foreign policy seems to carry the same belligerent arrogance. He did not even bother to look like he was building a coalition against Iraq like his dad did. Of course, the coalition in 1991 was very much a "coalition of the bribed and coerced", but the liberals did not recognize it then like they recognize it now. His lack of diplomacy and politicking leave an unmistakeable picture of naked imperialist ambition.

Because of the attitude Bush has shown, and the fact that Donald Rumsfeld has so much sway over him, I would not actually be terribly surprised if the U.S. did decide to attack North Korea. I do not think it would be a good move for the sake of U.S. imperialism, as North Korea does not possess natural resources sufficient to be worth the risk of invasion. But with the blind idealogues in so many high places in this government, I think they are capable of making such a huge blunder.

[mEds]

Those serbians DID deserve US repercussions. Innocent slaughter of bosnians (done by---&#62;)Yugoslavian serbs then serbs get pummeled by (----&#62;)suffering and torment of capitalist scum.( Thus US kills innocent bosnians but also kills serbs.) SO logic = Kill bosnians-----&#62;US nail you in the ass.

[cubist]

oh well

Bush spent more on iraq than the education system thats actually a good thing, less indoctrinated children


babylon i will give you proof

firstlyhere (http://www.punkvoter.com)
if that doesn&#39;t forfill you dreams try propergandhis web page

http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/propagandhi/

or Michael mores webpage i know hes a self hating white person but he speaks alot of truth,

i am not an anti war hippie i was happy for the war to go ahead if it was UN supported and for the right reasons.

George W bush doesn&#39;t run america Exlon and the other billion dollar companies do, they can withdraw financial support for his parties presidential campaign.

[komon]

just know one thing.they will never put this much of money to fight poverty and finance equality