• lfbno7 said on Sep 27, 2007....

  Pretty impressive.  But how do you steal their oil without an invasion?  Money talks.

• kelly said on Sep 27, 2007....

  Pretty weird how it has all played out exactly as he said it would. So, what changed that would allow Dick to do a 180? Is it simply that he's a presidential yes-man? Was it the Halliburton profit possibility? Was it Rove telling him he had to play along? What? I wonder if we'll ever know why we went to war in Iraq since nobody believes the administration seriously believed there were WMDs.

• lfbno7 said on Sep 28, 2007....

  Kelly, we already know why we went to war.  The retired Fed director just wrote a book telling us that it was all about the oil.  There's no oil in Somalia.
  
  It's not really all that strange that it played out exactly the way Cheney said it would.  It shows that Cheney has intelligence.  He can Connect The Dots.  He can see what repercussions an action will have.  It was all very obvious from the start anyway.
  
  Cheney is not a yes man.  He did a 180 because he is essentially flawed and corrupt to the core, and money talks.  How do you steal Iraq's oil without an invasion?  Rove isn't his boss.  Cheney is his boss.  And he's a greedy and corrupt man, unfit to serve the people.  But then again, they all are, Republican and Democrat alike.  All we have in Washington are greedy and corrupt men and women unfit to serve the people.
  
  Is Cheney actually making a lot of money off the war?  Maybe yes, maybe no.  But a lot of oil people are.  They are doing windfall profits off Iraqi oil and will continue to do so for as long as we "stay the course" because "the course" is exactly that, to generate windfall profits for the oil industry as long as possible.  Our government is a subsidiary of big business and our people and our treasury are used by big business.  Big business means ultra-rich people.  That's who they are.  And they spit on us and use us.  Cheney is one of them. Rove is one of them.  Bush is one of them.  The Clintons are two of them.  Obama is one of them.  Everybody is rich.  They all are Skull and Bones types.  Kerry is one of them.
  
  I don't believe in much that Karl Marx had to say, but he did get a few things right.  It's all about class war.  The working people of the world don't know they are in a class war because they never heard it declared, but it has been on for a long long time.  The ultra rich have been waging war against us for a long time.  That's what is behind "globalization", to enable the ultra rich to get labor basically for free and fire the American worker because he demands a living wage.  That is the one and only purpose of globalization.  It is ungodly. It is Satanic.  Reducing the American people to have to compete with penniless paupers for jobs.  How can you compete for a job with someone who earns two cents an hour?  That was Clinton who did that.  Our buddy Bill Clinton.  And Bush continues it.
  
  Globalization and the Iraq war are parts of the same war conducted by the ultra rich against America.  They use our tax dollars and our lives to enrich themselves and they lie their asses off to us and say idiotic things like Stay The Course (without defining the course) and We have to fight them over there so we won't have to fight them over here (very convincing to a retard), and We are fighting to defend our way of life (also very convincing to a retard).
  

• lioneljay said on Sep 28, 2007....

  Globalization is the natural extension of capitalism. I don't believe that the ultra rich are waging war on the lower and middle classes so much as simply doing what they must do to maintain and extend their power. If that means shutting a few doors on American workers because WalMart insists on lower prices every year from its suppliers (which it does, btw), then so be it. The Chinese work for pennies. That means that Levi Strauss can get its jeans manufactured for less there and still make a profit when they sell them in vast quantities to WalMart and Sam's Club.
  
  The globalization of oil began under Herbert Hoover. He called in the tycoons of the oil industry and "suggested" that they turn the leaders of various middle eastern tribes away from the British and French influences there and towards American interests. Within 10 years the seven sisters of the oil industry (all but two of which were American companies) controlled all the oil in the middle east.
  
  During the 1970s the oil-rich nations of the middle east began to grow up and they flexed their strength with the formation of OPEC and by extending its control over world-wide oil prices. We've been fighting to keep our influence over the middle east ever since.
  
  The current administration is so deeply mired in the oil business that we might as well have changed our name to the United States of Oil. I'm not happy about it, but the truth of the matter is that current laws do not do much to encourage our nation to move away from its dependence on fossil fuels and so we don't. And we won't until someone does the engineering work to make it feasible to derive useful industrial power from hydrogen, which is in good supply everywhere that there are large bodies of water and not restricted to certain quirky chunks of geography.
  

• bloc said on Sep 28, 2007....

  It's mind blowing to hear cheney make these cogent arguments and see what he has done in Iraq. Even if he felt we need to go (for oil or whatever) what happened to the understanding he layed out in this clip? Why didn't he prepare for it, and why didn't he prepare the American people for it. I don't see any logic in making people believe that it's going to be candy and roses when you know it's not. 

Comment on "Prescient Dick Cheney"

Currently tagged	Cheney iraq politics globalization (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment