[greg447]

Well between the bashings in the "My new whip" forum and school i have benn thinking about the Art of War and hoe George Bush has never applied it to his time in the office. "The ends justify the means" is probably something good ol' George should have paid closer attention to. The war wasn’t worth going in for and its has zero pay of thus far. Personally I think George is a neo conservative, wrapping himself in God and using God to justify his actions. He also gives me the impression he believes in divine right, and that’s why he can do whatever he wants, and that whatever he does is the right thing. Bottom line for me is that everything he has done so far is the opposite of what Machiavelli (probably the greatest political mind ever) would have done or suggested.

Does anyone else think that?

 

[sanjuro]

I bet you just saw V for Vendetta...

Tell me more about the difference between The Prince and The Art of War, and how this relates to Bush's political style.

 

[Slugman]

Maybe you are just not seeing the 'means' for which the war is an 'ends' to.

The typical war protester (just using the stereotype to make a point) will never understand the war because they do not think the way the current administration does.

What do I mean? - Pre-war there were protesters who were upset that we were going to go to war for cheap oil. But what actually happened, the price of oil went up - which I think was the real intent of this administrations (think of Cheney's meeting with oil executives).

So - do you know enough about the administrations plans to honestly say that the 'ends doesn't justify the means', or are you just viewing it from what you would expect the 'ends' to be...

 

[ohio]

So - do you know enough about the administrations plans to honestly say that the 'ends doesn't justify the means', or are you just viewing it from what you would expect the 'ends' to be...

In this case the ends don't even justify themselves. If the war were free and not a single soldier died, we're STILL worse off than we started.

 

[Silver]

In this case the ends don't even justify themselves. If the war were free and not a single soldier died, we're STILL worse off than we started.

We killed a bunch of brown skinned people. That's got to count for something, no?

Making the world whiter, one cluster bomb at a time...

 

[manimal]

Maybe you are just not seeing the 'means' for which the war is an 'ends' to.

The typical war protester (just using the stereotype to make a point) will never understand the war because they do not think the way the current administration does.

What do I mean? - Pre-war there were protesters who were upset that we were going to go to war for cheap oil. But what actually happened, the price of oil went up - which I think was the real intent of this administrations (think of Cheney's meeting with oil executives).

So - do you know enough about the administrations plans to honestly say that the 'ends doesn't justify the means', or are you just viewing it from what you would expect the 'ends' to be...

This is what i have been trying to get through to my extended family. they see the blood for oil protesters and think that they are idiots because the gas is so high. but i am shunned when i try to show them that we've been duped. exxon has surpassed wal-mart in worth and made the largest profit EVER last year, yet we're supposedly in a gas crisis. bush/cheney are both oil gurus. the plot wasn't for cheap oil, that doesn't earn them money.
i was a major hater of the "war for cheap oil" screamers but now i hate bush myself after i admit to myself that i've been tricked. it's so hard to get through to some traditional neo-cons.....i'm the outsider now

 

[kinghami3]

This is what i have been trying to get through to my extended family. they see the blood for oil protesters and think that they are idiots because the gas is so high. but i am shunned when i try to show them that we've been duped. exxon has surpassed wal-mart in worth and made the largest profit EVER last year, yet we're supposedly in a gas crisis. bush/cheney are both oil gurus. the plot wasn't for cheap oil, that doesn't earn them money.
i was a major hater of the "war for cheap oil" screamers but now i hate bush myself after i admit to myself that i've been tricked. it's so hard to get through to some traditional neo-cons.....i'm the outsider now

In other words, it's worse than we all could have ever possibly imagined.

I think greg is right, in that Machiavelli was very focused on the end, and Bush not so much. While I still believe Machiavelli was a worse human being (from the little I know about him), Bush seems to have missed some major steps in the art of war, making him look like a doofus in charge of nuclear weapons, which I believe makes him more dangerous than Machiavelli could have ever been.

 

[manimal]

In other words, it's worse than we all could have ever possibly imagined.

yes....to even biblical proportions. :redhot: :bomb:

 

[BurlyShirley]

LMAO! So this is the argument all you "This war is for oil" retards have adopted. An even BIGGER conspiracy

 

[sanjuro]

Did you know the estimates for total oil reserve is about 30 years? I wonder in 20 years how important it is that we control Iraq's oil.

Not that it justifies the war...

 

[BurlyShirley]

Did you know the estimates for total oil reserve is about 30 years? I wonder in 20 years how important it is that we control Iraq's oil.

Not that it justifies the war...

SOURCE?
Ive heard it at more than 100 years, recently.

 

[manimal]

LMAO! So this is the argument all you "This war is for oil" retards have adopted. An even BIGGER conspiracy

i don't believe this is the reason for the war, just an opportunity on the side; something to put in the "pro" section when they made their Pro/Con list for going to war....but you know as well as i do BS how military planning goes

 

[sanjuro]

SOURCE?
Ive heard it at more than 100 years, recently.

When I heard this number first, it was from a National Geographic article published in the mid 90's (which had it at 42 years).

I did a quick search and this guy has it about 2050...

http://oilcrisis.com/summary.htm

 

[BurlyShirley]

i don't believe this is the reason for the war, just an opportunity on the side; something to put in the "pro" section when they made their Pro/Con list for going to war....but you know as well as i do BS how military planning goes

Im not saying that money wont be made by someone somewhere, but to connect Bush/Cheney to exxon's profits is a bit of a stretch for me. I mean, if people are trying to burn Bush for wiretapping which may or may not be legal, you can bet your ass that they'd be all over him for what you're insinuating.
And how exactly is it that controlling Iraqs oil (which we dont do actually) will be better for us when we still have to PURCHASE it at OPEC's prices? I agree that oil was a major factor in the war, but IMO, it was only to free it from someone who couldnt be trusted with the responsibility of properly controlling it. Not to steal it.

 

[valve bouncer]

Im not saying that money wont be made by someone somewhere, but to connect Bush/Cheney to exxon's profits is a bit of a stretch for me. I mean, if people are trying to burn Bush for wiretapping which may or may not be legal, you can bet your ass that they'd be all over him for what you're insinuating.
And how exactly is it that controlling Iraqs oil (which we dont do actually) will be better for us when we still have to PURCHASE it at OPEC's prices? I agree that oil was a major factor in the war, but IMO, it was only to free it from someone who couldnt be trusted with the responsibility of properly controlling it. Not to steal it.

So Bush was freeing the oil? That might be the funniest thing you've ever said.

 

[manimal]

Im not saying that money wont be made by someone somewhere, but to connect Bush/Cheney to exxon's profits is a bit of a stretch for me. I mean, if people are trying to burn Bush for wiretapping which may or may not be legal, you can bet your ass that they'd be all over him for what you're insinuating.
And how exactly is it that controlling Iraqs oil (which we dont do actually) will be better for us when we still have to PURCHASE it at OPEC's prices? I agree that oil was a major factor in the war, but IMO, it was only to free it from someone who couldnt be trusted with the responsibility of properly controlling it. Not to steal it.

the point i'm making is that neither side was correct on the oil issues. the greenies said it was for cheap oil, the conservs said it was for democracy. the situation now is pointing toward short term oil profits setting up for possible long term gains. i'm no conspiracy theorist but i would not be thinking critically if i didn't take the many links between the oil industry and the government as more than simple coincidence. only time will tell the truth and our rantings here will mean absolutely nothing to the fortunates of this affair. i just hate being lied to.

 

[chicodude]

I agree that oil was a major factor in the war, but IMO, it was only to free it from someone who couldnt be trusted with the responsibility of properly controlling it. Not to steal it.

Or perhaps free it from being sold in Euros and Dollars instead of just Dollars?

You have absolutely no economic/political/world vision at all...please go back to your sheltered corner of Apathyworld.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

hey, a few things.

firstable, the "gas is expensive, thus the war wasnt for cheap oil" argument doesnt hold.
gas could have been more expensive if there hasnt been a war (not that i really think that, but am talking from a logical nitpicking at the argument).

secondable. controlling an oil supplier. whether today (even if you make no inmediate profit), or in 10 years has a value. the availabily of the option "tap it" has a value, even if not used.
just that alone, may justify a war for the hawkish.

 

[BurlyShirley]

the point i'm making is that neither side was correct on the oil issues. the greenies said it was for cheap oil, the conservs said it was for democracy. the situation now is pointing toward short term oil profits setting up for possible long term gains. i'm no conspiracy theorist but i would not be thinking critically if i didn't take the many links between the oil industry and the government as more than simple coincidence. only time will tell the truth and our rantings here will mean absolutely nothing to the fortunates of this affair. i just hate being lied to.

Do you mean Oil tied to "governmnet" or tied to "Bush-Cheney?" Thats not quite the same thing. If you mean to tell me that the entirety of our govt. is lying, I would find that hard to believe at best. If you mean Bush, I'll go back to what I said about the polarization of the govt. right now. There simply is NO WAY he could get away with anything. No way, no how.

 

[BurlyShirley]

hey, a few things.

firstable, the "gas is expensive, thus the war wasnt for cheap oil" argument doesnt hold.
gas could have been more expensive if there hasnt been a war (not that i really think that, but am talking from a logical nitpicking at the argument).

secondable. controlling an oil supplier. whether today (even if you make no inmediate profit), or in 10 years has a value. the availabily of the option "tap it" has a value, even if not used.
just that alone, may justify a war for the hawkish.

Fair enough, but I dont think we're going to be controlling much...

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Fair enough, but I dont think we're going to be controlling much...

i think you underestimate the powers of the mighty usa.
and for the matter, or lobbyists.

imagine how much the us controls the royal saudi family... now imagine how much they could control someone backed by them from the begining, and for whom (indirectly by setting up democracy.) they openned the road to power.