English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

It seems like this is a criteria. Any guesses which country we'll be having it out with next with the new president? Better yet, name one president who wasn't involved in a conflict or war.

2007-08-20 13:57:46 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Government

4 answers

Wars between nations isn't any different than fights on a schoolyard playground; they just fight with better weapons.
Most wars begin over emotional disagreements, religious conflicts, or international boundaries.
To the best of my thinking, George W. Bush is the only U.S. President who had an agenda from his first day in the White House to attack another country.
The Bush family had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein since the days of Desert Storm when George H.W. Bush was criticized and ridiculed for not 'finishing the job" and ousting Hussein at that time. Hussein humiliated Bush, Sr. - and the "powers that be" in the Bilderberg Conference selected George W. Bush to become President and 'settle the score'. Preposterous?? Think again; bigger wars have been fought over smaller discords.
Besides, Dick Cheney coveted all that OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sands so he and his Exxon-Mobil buddies could get richer and richer and richer feeding America's addiction to cheap, easily-accessible foreign OIL;
Finally, the giant U.S. military-industrial complex (which Eisenhower warned us about) realized how profitable 'war' could be ever since World War II. So, all the politicians were bought up, price lobbyists were hired, and special interest groups were formed to promote and encourage more 'wars'. That's why the U.S. began engaged in the Korean Conflict; the Cuban Missile Crisis; the Cold War; Vietnam and Desert Storm - so that corporations like McDonnell-Douglass, Lockheed-Martin and Sikorsky could boost their sagging profits from so many years of 'peace' time. Not to mention, two 'newcomers' bellied up the federal government's 'war trough': the Carlyle Group and Halliburton both have made BILLIONS off this insane 'war', and BOTH have direct ties to the Bush-Cheney White House!! Coincidence?? Yeah.....sure!
Most other Presidents entangled our nation in 'war' only after they were installed as President. From Day One, it was the absolute intention of George W. Bush to attack Iraq - at any cost, and for whatever reason.
9-11 gave him the reason (was that part of the plan?). All his handlers had to do was come up with a plausible lie with which to con Congress, the American people, and our dedicated troops. With emotions running high from the 'terrorist attack' on the Twin Towers, Bush convinced otherwise-intelligent citizens that 'weapons of mass destruction' were being stockpiled in Iraq. And, while an arrogant, incompetent, cowardly, corrupt Republican-led Congress stood around with their thumbs up their a*s, Bush ran rip shod over our Constitution and illegally, unjustifiably, immorally attacked another sovereign nation that in no way threatened, provoked or attacked the United States.
Many still believe we're fighting in Iraq to establish peace in the Middle East. Some think we're there to defend our country from "terrorists" hiding in some "evil empire". Others assume we're killing 675,000 Iraqis to bring democracy to that war-weary country. The fact is we've killed 3,700 U.S. soldiers so that a handful of wealthy elitists, industrialists and power brokers can become wealthier and more powerful than they already are; this stupid 'war' is all about OIL and WAR PROFITEERING.
-RKO- 08/20/07

P.S. Next 'war' will be with IRAN, and for the very same reasons: OIL and WAR PROFITEERING. But the Bush administration won't wait for the next President; as soon as they can come up with a practical excuse, the Bushites will invade IRAN. Watch and see!

2007-08-20 14:57:19 · answer #1 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 1 0

No. The Pentagon does that and has since WWII.

To much time to research the "no conflict" clause but I will guess J. Q. Adams if there is one.

2007-08-20 21:13:03 · answer #2 · answered by Stand-up philosopher. It's good to be the King 7 · 0 0

Its great for the economy. They draw the name of the country out of a hat

2007-08-20 21:05:59 · answer #3 · answered by Ferret 5 · 0 1

Unfortunately I think it will start to happen more and more. We seem to be living in a mind your neighbors business time in history.

2007-08-20 21:12:31 · answer #4 · answered by TyranusXX 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers