Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: They've cloned the president

Expand Messages
  • Dan Minette
    ... From: Robert J. Chassell To: Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 12:23 PM Subject: Re: They ve cloned the
    Message 1 of 21 , Nov 26, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@...>
      To: <brin-l@...>
      Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 12:23 PM
      Subject: Re: They've cloned the president

      > On 24 Nov 2005, Dan Minette wrote
      > Look at Brin's arguments here. He claims that two generations of
      > Bush's are traitors ... Both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. were tools of
      > Saudi Arabia, and governed the US's foreign policy according to
      > the orders they were given ...
      > This is not what I remember. It may be that we have seen different
      > stories, since Brin said that he was trying to provoke thinking more
      > than anything else.

      In his rambling rants he said a number of things a number of times. One of
      them was what you said...speculation on why Bush II was controlled by the
      Saudis. He also stated, though, that the end of Gulf War I was a result
      of the orders of the Saudi masters...and he said that a number of times.
      He said he wanted us to think, but he also said he thinks there is
      compelling evidence for the Saudis controlling the actions of the POTUS in
      both Gulf Wars. If you want to argue that he didn't worry about the logic
      in his rants, I won't disagree. I just don't see how his over the top
      statements contribute any more to thinking than the allegations that
      Clinton murdered a number of his aids to as part of a massive cover up of
      his evil designs.

      > The question is whether the US government has changed enough so that a
      > conspiracy involving no more than a few people is enough to affect US
      > policy?

      The last time I recall this being done was Iran-Contra. It was done with
      fairly limited scope, relatively few arms were sent to Iran, and the
      Contras got fairly minor funding. In a sense, both Watergate and Deep
      Throat were small conspiracies that affected US government, but only the
      second stayed secret.

      Iran-Contra stayed secret for as long as it did because it was hidden. It
      would be impossible to hide military action against even a rather small
      country like Grenada. So, if one were to betray the US with such a war,
      one would have to do it is such a manner that many would accept the
      legitimacy of the actions for reasons other than the traitorous ones.
      Since Clinton seriously considered such a war in 1998, the Iraq war would
      qualify as one of those rare conditions.

      The far simpler explanation was that Bush, along with a number of others,
      thought that removing Hussein would be good for the US.

      > A second question is whether the Saudi's belief system would lead to
      > the kinds of actions the US has undertaken? On the one hand is the
      > evidence of an increase in petroleum prices. This is especially
      > important if Saudi oil depletion is high -- if they must drill many
      > new wells to keep production rates level or rising. On the other
      > hand, the Saudis would be against a war `fought by the US and won by
      > Iran', which is how some describe the current situation.

      But, most folks expected Iraq oil production to go up after the war, not
      down. Indeed, after the first Gulf war, oil prices slid until they hit
      record lows in 1999.

      > But perhaps the Saudi government did not expect the situation in which
      > the US finds itself? You could presume that the Saudis expected that
      > the US would fight and continue to fight a colonial war without doing
      > anything to upset them. That would not contradict the notion that
      > Bush did what the Saudis sought originally, but not support it either.
      > However, (to use US military concepts) it is easier to presume that
      > Bush and the rest of the US administration focused ahead of time on
      > stage III of the conflict, which ended in the middle of April 2003,
      > not on stage IV, the follow up.
      > Rather than see order, law, electricity, and the like, as critical
      > military issues requiring more US troops, and rather than note that no
      > contemporary country fights a symmetrical war against the US (since
      > its generals know it will lose), but fights a longer, asymmetrical war
      > instead, they foresaw crowds like those in France and Holland
      > welcoming US soldiers in 1944. They did not consider the
      > practicalities of the occupation.

      That's true. This is part of the support that I see for "wishful thinking
      engineering" on the part of the Administration.

      Dan M.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.