Thoughts on Iraq

[DuoMax]

sorrrrrry if i don't get frickin' cable.

[James]

[color=#808080]You still think that oil is a deciding factor, but still, you're providing no evidence to support that claim. I think you know that your oil argument is shaky at best.

As for the "get on or hit the road", well, I somewhat agree. I'm not a blind partisan at all; I can definitely be critical of certain elements of Bush's policy. [/color]

[quote][b]sorrrrrry if i don't get frickin' cable.[/b][/quote]

[color=#808080]Who says you need cable? You are trying to tell me that just because [i]one[/i] local network didn't cover your [i]one[/i] peace march, that somehow [i]all[/i] local media is in the pocket of Government.

I'm sure I don't need to tell you that your logic is a little wrong. ~_^[/color]

[Cora Jane 2]

Well I think we are going to war with Iraq because we fear the, I suppose, militant power and capabilities that they have. I think that the US is afraid of what they have, that we gave them years back to re-establish themselves. I think that they are scared of any lash-back that there could be. I find it intersting also though that the US pays little attention to North Korea. But hey what does the American public know...

[Heaven's Cloud]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ZxFrOgGie13 [/i]
[B]Well I think we are going to war with Iraq because we fear the, I suppose, militant power and capabilities that they have. I think that the US is afraid of what they have, that we gave them years back to re-establish themselves. I think that they are scared of any lash-back that there could be. I find it intersting also though that the US pays little attention to North Korea. But hey what does the American public know... [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]I feel that America and North Korea were just in a big pissing contest and all of a sudden America realized that it had a more urgent problem and began ignoring the game. it is very unlikely that America and Korea will be involved in war. America would not initiate an attack on Korea, it will just place embargos on them, and Korea will not attack the US, because then the US would be forced to retaliate and China would probably assist the US because of our strontg trade alliance and the possible ramifications that a long drawn out war with North Korea would have on the Chinese government and their economy.[/color]

[Juu]

[color=ff00cc] [size=1]Um. o_o; *blinks*

I kinda thought China would side with North Korea... *blinks*

Although, if the U.S. did go to war with North Korea, South Korea would be in a pretty tight spot. >>; We'd have a choice between, one, Killing our family members, in exchange of not getting bombed by the country with the most nuclear bombs in the world. Two, to side with North Korea, and get attacked by the American Army. @_@; Annnd... if they don't pick sides, I get the feeling both of them would get pretty upset...

Anyway, here's a funny thing... Alot of South Koreans are investing their stocks in China now, and taking back their stocks from the U.S. >>;
I read in a newspaper, that they're beginning to think China might end up as a leading nation if the U.S. fails in this war. *runs*

There's been alot of headlines about this in the Chosun Newspapers. = \
It mentions Rome and Babylonia alot. ><

*hides before getting flamed*[/color] [/size]

[Orien_Xel]

Interesting...I agree.

[Kent]

Well I want to address some things said in the past page or so that just exploded with replies in the time I ate dinner.

first off, I want to mention that the "world" or "most of it" is not against this war the way it has been portrayed by someone at the end of the last page.

If that was the case, europe would not be in split that has france and germany on one side and the rest of europe on the other. (the rest of europe are the ones supporting action and not france and germany's attitude of distraction.)

I also want to mention something about what juuthena said...

The largest amount of foriegn investing from america went to china, with a total of approxamatly 22% of the total foreign investing.

No other nation got that much investment out of america, and what that makes me think about is the idea of china being a fascist nation and not a communist nation. Although I could understand some of the people not getting that... hence, communism is state control buisness in a socialist country. Fascism is a system similar to that... it is a socialist system that allows private buisness.(note that both systems are based on a totalitarian government with dictators.)

Hence, china being in the wto and getting 22% of america's gross foriegn investing implies that they are not communist, but fascist.

However, this is a bit off subject...

But I have something else to say. I want to say that I am proud to see so many "independant voices" in this. Many here are just the same as usual, but oddly, in the last 3 pages I have seen a rise in the amount of posting which was based around ideas that were not based on crap like Oil, but instead, ideas that came from educated and well spoken writers utilizing facts, history, logic and reasoning.

Well spoken fellas... you know who you are.

[James]

[color=#808080]Juuthena, I just want to pick up on a point of yours about China.

China isn't going to side with North Korea [i]ever[/i]. Even though China has somewhat propped up NK (in terms of weapons trade and such), China doesn't want a challenge.

China sees itself as the dominant power in Asia. And as such, it considers North Korea to be a threat. A North Korea with nuclear capabilities is something that China [i]definitely[/i] doesn't want.

This is one issue where China will side with the United States, in terms of keeping NK under control.[/color]

[Juu]

[color=ff00cc] [size=1]Yeah... I guess so.
Considering how many Chinese live in the U.S., I guess it really wouldn't make sense. ^_^;

I never really pictured NK as a threat to China though... Since China has such a huge population and all...

But, I have question... Where would Russia side with? o.o[/color] [/size]

[Kent]

To me Russia is a wild card, but china...

I dont think their population is worth the same amount as the number of people, in that, japan took large portions of land during WW2 and has been warring with china for the longest time.

As you know, japan has half the size and hence, half the population. (although japan is amazingly densly populated)

So to me I can see what James said as being very accurate.

I would personally say about Russia that they are going to side where it is best for Russia and not the rest of the world.

They have too much to gain and lose. They have nothing, compared to their former glory, yet they still have an amazing wealth of resources and supplies.

I would say that they are gonna side with the anti-war effort until they see it is futile, then they will jump ship and try to pick up ecomonic efforts with the u.s. as well as the new Iraq.

On a side note, it should be known that russia did sign a 5 year economic plan with Iraq as of about 7 months ago.

So I wouldnt be suprised if they try to protect that deal since they probally havent collected their money yet.

[James]

[color=#808080]Russia is very opportunistic. It will side with whoever is best at the time. In this case, Russia will side with the United States.[/color]

[Celia]

[color=0099FF] [size=1] China may have the greatest population, but they would not defend the country. China doesn't want any wars, U.S. bombed a major building in China and they didn't even do anything about it.

China is actually a weak country underneath. [/color] [/size]

[James]

[color=#808080]Well, that bombing was an accident. There is nothing China [i]could[/i] do.

I hope China's a weak country though...for Taiwan's sake. :worried:[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

[color=teal]Heaven's Cloud has some very good posts there. Enjoyable to read. :)

James I really am shocked, that 1) You don't believe (or haven't indicated) that this has anything to do with oil [I]at all[/I].
After reading what you and some others have put I now believe that it?s less of a factor though I still think it is a secondary reason for the war. There are several things you left out regarding laws, sanctions and benefits to the US.
And 2) If you don't believe that the media would "restrict" some things, by means I don't agree with DuoMax saying all media, then you really have no idea what you are talking about.
It is well documented and is accepted that the media is bias and any thing you do see can and most likely is from "someone?s" point of view. To the point were it is now part of school assignments to find the bias.
So yes, they lie.

*Next page*

Juuthena it is a widely accepted prediction that China will take over America?s super-power position in less or about 50 years... Weird hay.

Gokents 60% of my country is against action against Iraq (40% of that will accept war with UN backing, I am one of those people ? ie, if we [b]have[/b] to go to war, I?d rather it with UN backing for Australia?s safety. I don?t want the war at all but yeah.), this is not just one poll these figures are on nearly ever poll taken so far. Yet our priminister is still backing bush. Now this is interesting, because that means he knows some thing we don't eg he is lying to the Australian public, this is why the upper house passed a no-confidence vote on him. Effectively this means nothing except they formally told him he's doing some thing wrong. He is still continuing?
(Reason I say he's lying, 60% of Australia. Not good for next election, so why would he risk it in less he knows some thing we don't.)

Also China for some odd reason has being bringing up capitalists and adding them to the "Party" to increase the countries wealth, most believe this is part of a long change over from their current system.
So good on them.

James North Korea is America's fault, just like the Cuba missile crisis. America cut NK's power supply and gave them an excuse to start their reactors. Therefore any result of that I don't believe Australia should be involved in and bad luck America, you?re bad.

Personally I believe Russia would go with the Allies, eg Europe America.

I feel sorry for Taiwan, I have a friend from there and its meant to be a lot worse than the snippets that get on the news.

Also on a joking note ? America when you use your secretary of state to address the UN, do not make him try and link al-quada to Iraq when he doesn?t want to, and if you do make sure they aren?t the al-quada groups that have being trying to knock off saddam for the last 20 years?
The was so funny.
(Really al-quada has nothing to do with Iraq and Iraq wants nothing to do with them. Saying they do is just outright lying, and it really cheapened the American argument.)
[/color]

[Kent]

I really dont have the desire to take part in these debates anymore.

It gets old to have to restate everything just because someone comes up and says that everything is a lie, the media is lying, the world is being misrepresented, America is evil and Iraq has absolutly nothing to do with the terrorist of the middle east.

That sort of argument, no matter how well stated, has no wieght anymore simply becuase it is the obvious ranting of someone who will never accept what everyone else takes as facts.

For some people, no amount of evidence will be enough. It seems like there is nothing that cant be written off using one of the many generalized statments I posted in the above paragragh.

With all that in mind, I think it would be a waste of time to sit here and try to convince a person who isnt willing to let themselves be convinced of anything besides what they already take as "the truth."

It just gets old really fast.

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B][color=teal]

There are several things you left out regarding laws, sanctions and benefits to the US.[/color][/b][/quote]

[color=#808080]Such as? Once again, you're not providing specific examples. Tell me why it is more beneficial for the United States to go to war, rather than to drop the sanctions against Iraq.

It's all very well to say "it's about oil". But people who make those arguments are frequently unable to explain [i]why[/i]. Furthermore, those same people often have a great deal of trouble explaining the relevant sanctions and resolutions in relation to Iraq.[/color][quote][b][color=teal]

And 2) If you don't believe that the media would "restrict" some things, by means I don't agree with DuoMax saying all media, then you really have no idea what you are talking about.
It is well documented and is accepted that the media is bias and any thing you do see can and most likely is from "someone?s" point of view. To the point were it is now part of school assignments to find the bias.
So yes, they lie.[/quote][/b][/color]

[color=#808080]Did I say that the media contains no bias? No. Read my comments again, please.

I pointed out to DuoMax that just because one local station didn't cover one local peace march, that doesn't provide [i]any[/i] indication or logic to suggest that the rest of the media in general is pro-Government and is ignoring the peace movement.

If you watch CNN, you will find that the channel is [i]quite[/i] anti-war biased.

In addition, there is a difference between bias and lying. You need to remember that. A bias is not necessarily a lie, it's simply a frame through which information is presented. [/color][quote][b][color=teal]

Gokents 60% of my country is against action against Iraq (40% of that will accept war with UN backing, I am one of those people ? ie, if we [b]have[/b] to go to war, I?d rather it with UN backing for Australia?s safety. I don?t want the war at all but yeah.), this is not just one poll these figures are on nearly ever poll taken so far. [/quote][/b][/color]

[color=#808080]Recent polls indicate that around 60%+ of our citizens would support war if the United Nations authorized it. I myself would be far less supportive of war without United Nations approval. However, the United Nations needs to read its own resolution (1441). The French and Germans are spinning things to the point where they are missing the point of the original resolution that they [i]agreed[/i] to.

Few people who argue about "more time" for inspectors understand 1441. I'm not saying that as a matter of being pro-war (because I'm not necessarily pro-war), I'm saying it as a matter of international law. The politics of the situation are another story, of course.[/color][quote][b][color=teal]

Yet our priminister is still backing bush. Now this is interesting, because that means he knows some thing we don't eg he is lying to the Australian public, this is why the upper house passed a no-confidence vote on him. Effectively this means nothing except they formally told him he's doing some thing wrong. He is still continuing?
(Reason I say he's lying, 60% of Australia. Not good for next election, so why would he risk it in less he knows some thing we don't.)[/quote][/b][/color]

[color=#808080]Of course he's lying. That suits your conspiracy theorist views, doesn't it?

I'm sure that the Prime Minister has probably committed our forces to action in Iraq. But you must also remember that it's quite possible that he doesn't know if he will or won't support action against Iraq.

Remember; you need to have a certain amount of military resources in place well before you strike. It's prudent to position those forces before a second UN resolution, [i]just in case[/i] they are required. If they aren't required, they can return home. If we had not deployed any forces by now, then that would be an undeniable rejection of war under [i]any[/i] circumstance. Due to the time involved with deployment, it's necessary to deploy forces now if we are leaving the option of force open.

So there [i]is[/i] a legitimate reasoning to this. It's unfair to attack the Prime Minister before a UN vote on the subject; if he wants to leave the question of support open (without committing), he [i]does[/i] need to pre-deploy forces to the area. This is a matter of simple logistics. If we don't get the UN vote, then it's quite possible that half or more of our forces will become a part of normal rotation (meaning that many will return). Let's try to keep things in perspective; Labor has absolutely played politics on this issue. I'm very disappointed with Simon Crean -- and I consider him to be the worst Labor leader in years. He's far too partisan on nearly every issue, to the point where his comments are extremely devisive and uncalled for.[/color][quote][b][color=teal]

Also China for some odd reason has being bringing up capitalists and adding them to the "Party" to increase the countries wealth, most believe this is part of a long change over from their current system.
So good on them.[/quote][/b][/color]

[color=#808080]I don't really know how that is relevant...but yes, you're right. China is slowly moving toward democracy all the time. That's definitely a good thing for all involved.[/color][quote][b][color=teal]

James North Korea is America's fault, just like the Cuba missile crisis. America cut NK's power supply and gave them an excuse to start their reactors. Therefore any result of that I don't believe Australia should be involved in and bad luck America, you?re bad.[/quote][/b][/color]

[color=#808080]Ah yes, that's wonderful. A very predictable comment coming from you, Cloricus.

First and foremost, you neglect to mention [i]why[/i] the United States cut North Korea's power supply. The USA cut support [i]after[/i] they discovered that North Korea had been in the process of systematically violating the 1994 international non-proliferation agreements.

I thought you'd ignore that. The USA didn't create this situation; North Korea did. North Korea had [i]agreed[/i] to cease its nuclear development program. This agreement had been reached [i]without war[/i] (which, by your standards, should be absolutely wonderful). And now North Korea has been found to have broken that deal. Gee, imagine if the US had attacked North Korea for that! I'm sure you'd be arguing against that, wouldn't you? And yet, by the same token, you're blaming the United States for North Korea's proliferation. By your standards, even if the United States practices peaceful diplomacy, they can't win. And by your judgement, they'll [i]never[/i] win.

Now, the USA is attempting to avoid war with North Korea and is trying to establish direct talks to ensure that the country gets back on track with its original promises. I suppose you will find fault in this non-violent approach, too? Yep, all America's fault. [/color][quote][b][color=teal]

I feel sorry for Taiwan, I have a friend from there and its meant to be a lot worse than the snippets that get on the news.[/quote][/b][/color]

[color=#808080]I feel sorry for them too. I really hope that China uses its better judgement and sees the benefit in partnering with Taiwan, rather than dominating that island.[/color][quote][b][color=teal]

Also on a joking note ? America when you use your secretary of state to address the UN, do not make him try and link al-quada to Iraq when he doesn?t want to, and if you do make sure they aren?t the al-quada groups that have being trying to knock off saddam for the last 20 years?
The was so funny.
(Really al-quada has nothing to do with Iraq and Iraq wants nothing to do with them. Saying they do is just outright lying, and it really cheapened the American argument.)
[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#808080]I see. And I suppose you're getting your "intelligence" from the Greenpeace website or something?

Come on, Cloricus. You are constantly skeptical of Government in just about every situation.

Where is the evidence that Al-Qaeda has been trying to knock off Saddam? That's news to me.

Furthermore, I'd point out to you that Saddam Hussein has been actively supporting Palestinean terror groups (who unfortunately set back the crucial Palestinean independence movement by years with each bomb attack).

There [i]is[/i] evidence of at least a loose connection between Al-Qaeda individuals and the Iraqi Government. I'm not saying that such links are conclusive, but the presence of links is far more likely than not. When you consider Saddam's provocation of violence in the Middle East via various terror groups, I think that it's a stretch to simply dismiss the Al-Qaeda connection altogether. It's okay to have a healthy skepticism on the matter, but I don't think it's useful to follow the traditional "If America says there's a link, then there can't possibly be" route.[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

[color=gray][quote]Such as? Once again, you're not providing specific examples.[/quote][/color][color=teal]
*Grumble* I knew you'd say that... I was hoping Gokents would rush i and flame it. Oh well. Yes America will benefit, they will also suffer loses in other areas. I don't know these off hand, and I doubt I'd have time to find them (with all my damn assignments this weekend...) quickly. Um you could try looking through sbs's archives for documentaries on America and Iraq. One of them goes through it in great detail.
All I'm saying is that yes oil is one of those benefits, frankly (in my view) America would be stupid not to take advantage of that to help pay for costs.

As for the media, bias, lies and leaving things out is commonplace. First world media does thing like this. Gokents take note.

Conspiracy Theory... Yay... *Goes off to right one*
I'm just stating how it looks to me, it's most likely wrong but it gets people like you to put your own (Conspiracy) theory's up and I can get a greater understanding of it like I just did by reading what you put. Better for an informed opinion, you see.

1994 international non-proliferation agreements - I wasn't aware of that violation.
*Takes back comments*

On the grounds of links with Al-Qaeda scepticism is good. Though you must understand that Iraq?s hate the type of Muslim that are involved with terrorist groups, and to directly quote a guy from one of those groups I talked about "Iraq's are bad Muslims, we are good. We wouldn't not associate with them." That is the same feeling in Iraq.

Ha, Greenpeace. I like most people would take what they say with a pinch of salt. No that was on sbs, and was later echoed on channel ten. Al-Qaeda is an umbrella group. You should know that. Several of the groups in that have being trying, with the curds(sp?) to take out saddam for a long time. Yet America says their working for saddam, yeah right.

As for every thing else, *be's crushed by Jamez argument*

After recent things I've seen I'd say that I'm more favourable of Americas policies.
Though with one small question mark, why is Australia involved. Apparently we were quiet highly admired by Iraq's, why are we recking this?
I truly don't think our army is needed for this, and I don't believe they have been trained to fight well enough in urban situations.
You put one of our SAS sections in the bush or the desert and there is no way on earth you'd want to be their enemy, but urban battle fields are a lot different to the bush.[/color]

[Kent]

Well I like how you try to draw me in, although based on my opinion expressed in my last post, I dont think Im gonna be letting you get the better of me. (start me into flaming or passionate discussion)

I think I only want to point out one thing...

Kurds are recognized by America as being an enemy of Saddam and not an allie.

I believe you are probably confusing the kurds themselves and the Terrorist poison training camps in the kurdish areas of Iraq. (although you dont even accept that evidence as being true)
The American government very much recognizes the kurds to be enemies of Saddam. This is shown by the American led efforts to patrol that little area Im sure you've heard of... the no-fly zone. (but Im sure you know why we do that, so I dont need to remind you... right?)

So I guess thats it, I can sort of rest easy now that other vocal people have raised their voices and pointed out all of the holes in your argument.

But I do love how you try to bring me back in with statements like "gokents take note."
I just want to remind you that I dont waste my time with conspiracy theories.

Although I will give you credit for atleast dropping that issue about korea once you got to learn about the nuclear non-proliferation treaty of 1994. (kinda makes me wonder exactly how much you are willing to talk about without knowing the facts, as seen with this example)

[Harry]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B][color=gray][/color][color=teal]

Though with one small question mark, why is Australia involved. [/color] [/B][/QUOTE]
That's your problem. From the aussies i've heard they think it's because your PM is Bush's lapdog.

[Guest cloricus]

[color=teal]Gokents, I don't want you in this argument. I know you feel every one loves your opinion. And that it needs to be stated over and over, but it doesn't. If you don't think you need to post again.
DON'T.
Simple.

Gokent's, I just "debate" with the facts that I have available to me and that I know. I really like doing this. It's a great way to learning and have fun at the same time.

I'm not confusing the Kurds with any one. I also do know they are against Saddam, wouldn't you be if he killed a part of your population and mutilated a lot of the others?
[/color]

[Kent]

Uh dude, I dont know if that is reverse psycology or your just trying to get me out.

I gotta say, thats just about the first time you've really made me think during these discussions.

I could also say that the same goes for you, but I woulnt bother with the obvious.

I would say though, that you must have done something to confuse yourself because the Americans have been very, very, consistant about considering the kurds enemies of saddam and allies of our own.

My real wonder is... what exactly was the point of your last post?

Were you trying to deal with me and get me to leave the debate? Or were you just trying to restate the obvious about Saddams own actions of killing the kurds during the 8 years war?

I also want to remind you that I never assumed anyone liked my opinions. Infact, based on the fact that I am usually by myself in these threads and out numbered by yourself and several other people who hold your views of anti-Americanism.

That is why I said what I said early about feeling comfortable leaving this alone, it became obvious over the past 4 or 5 pages that I was not alone in feeling it was nessacary to express the other side of this issue. (as well as just about any other political issues you feel the need to opine on.)
I also dont really have the tendancy to repeat myself anymore than what is nessacary to combat your own "interesting" opinions and as you put it "facts you have availible to you."

By the way, I, just as everyone else, have the right to post when and where I want, just as you do. (I dont know if thats good or bad?!)

[Guest cloricus]

What the... Um hmm?
Since you can't seem to leave this alone I will.
Later. :P

[JCBaggee]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gokents [/i]
[B]I find it funny, yes funny, that people are worried about innocents, and for that reason they want Saddam to be left alone.
[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=red]I'm afraid you misunderstand me. For the crimes he has done, I want to feed Saddam his genitals, tear off his ears and staple them to an unmentionable area, and several other things I don't want to think about right now. I do [b]not[/b], however, believe the answer to everything is drop the biggest friggin' bomb I've ever seen on his whole country, risking the lives of people who are stuck there and are accidentally in the way, is the stupidest most pointless thing I could imagine.

BTW, according to my Tech Teacher (who happens to be retired military himself), there are two troops who will be deployed first. Their deployment is a signal that something is about to go down. One of them was deployed yesterday, and he predicts sometime after the first of March, since there is no moon around that time.

--Chris[/color]

[Kent]

Well, like I said before...

The Iraqi citizens must drive T-82 soviet tanks and live in anti-aircraft sites, because those are the objects that American JDAMS will be directed to.

I know exactly what you meant with not killing innocents. I just happen to think about the innocents that Saddam kills everyday and will continue to kill until someone sticks up for those people.

Innocents dont have to be lost, or killed, but saddam must be.

I also gotta say that when you blast an anti-war agenda and then talk about how much you wanna see Saddam have his genitals dealt with in the way you mentioned, it has a very..."odd" effect.

I mean, talking about how bad Saddam is, and how bad he treats his people, and then wanting to let the sucker off with nothing but a slap on the wrist...

I would think that the best way to protect innocents wouldnt be to get rid of Saddam. The innocents of Isreal, Iraq and all surrounding areas should be saved from Saddams wrath.

They shouldnt be kept in the line of fire so that we can feel like we are saving them. Fact is, by leaving them to Saddam, they are in more danger than the possibility of dealing with mis-guided bombs.

I dont want innocents to die... what kind of *** does?

But I know that if we dont deal with Saddam, for any of the multiple reasons which have been presented, there will be more innocents lost to him, than any war ever could do.

Everyone here knows that Saddam is a huge Stalin fan. (right? you guys know that he has a library dedicated to stalin alone) (on a side note, stalin is estimated, by some, to have been responsible for the deaths of 50 million people. Yes, 50 million. That is also one of the higher estimates)

So what would make you think that Saddams secret police would be respectful and loving to the people of Iraq?

Why would we be so ignorant to believe that Saddam is gonna turn around and be a nice guy?

Why should we leave the people of Iraq to be on their own against saddam just so we can feel better about "saving" them.

I think it has nothing to do with them, I think it has to do with personal problems with the current administration.

But either way, we should save the people of Iraq and not leave them to die.

Fact is, if we dont deal with Saddam, more innocents will die from his persecution of resisters to his regime, than the American war against Saddam.

Not to mention the fact that over 10,000 people have "disapeared" in Iraq due to Saddams secret police in the last 10 years. (but thats only if you will accept the evidence presented on the international level to the u.n. security council by Secratary of State Colin Powell)

I guess I just dont buy the whole "dont go to war so we can save the innocents" exscues.

I dont see anything besides a backwards ideology in that.

[Shikaku Kitoku]

Ahem....I didn't read all the replies, but what I believe is that Bush is going to nuke any country that disagrees with America, and then nuke America itself but have it so that only 50,000 people live. Watch the movie Waking Life. Gives you a whole new perpective on things.
Also, I think Bush is just doing what daddy wants him to. Bush, SR. had a plan to nuke mad people but he didnt get a chance to. Now that his son is in office, daddy can get waht daddy wants.