What if…
- Global Warming is not only real, but is worse that most people think – and well beyond our ability to correct.
- The predictable scale of the disaster and societal disruption is far greater than is generally thought (which is being borne out almost daily).
- Bush and the gov’t has always known this.
- Bush’s job is to protect what he perceives as the foundation of our nation (Capital) against this predictable disruption and ensure its survival even in the worst case of worst cases.
So let’s say that there is a 90% chance that global warming’s effects essentially cause the total disruption of global governments and social control structures. Let’s say even the best case scenarios regarding a move to renewable energies bring us waaay past the horizon for the start of this catastrophic era. People are going to go nuts all over. “Wouldn’t it be nice if OUR guys were sitting on the oil patches?” decides Bush and the Generals.
It would then be justifiable in the minds of the decision makers to A: Not tell the world, in order to limit the immediate disruptive effects of the news (hence the ‘Global Warming doesn’t exist’ meme), and B: to Commence the actions that would be necessary if all the world WAS aware of the impending doom scenario, hence the resource wars. It would also make sense to facilitate US oil and energy company dominance by manipulating markets for their immense profit to better advance their ability to access energy in a chaotic world.
Not trying to change any minds here, but rather to point out a possible rationale beside total moral corruption and greed for the actions of this administration. It’s also one that does feed from the rhetoric of the Administration that History will prove them right and that spreading American hegemony to the middle East is worth almost any cost. If all hell really literally breaks lose, US Capital have a leg up.
I would suggest as well that the emphasis on contractor armies is a backstop for our elite in case even our society breaks down significantly. Like a virus in a cyst, American wealth has built itself an ark in hopes of re-seeding whatever is left after a global environment-triggered cataclysm.
What other non-insanity/greed-based scenarios can YOU think of that could justify all this war making? I know there is a repugnance to this excercise, but who ignores a thing because it displeases them is primed for greater displeasures..
.. if only from the POV that this type of reason may be the Repugs only way out of this and back into History’s good graces.
Personally I have come to the view that Bush wanted Saddam dead and that he really didn’t put a whole lot of thought into it. He gave the order and the government scrambled to plan for and justify it.
Yes, a whole lot of people wanted Saddam dead, or wanted his oil, or wanted to break Iraq as a military power/threat. But Bush? He just wanted to take him out.
http://www.pushhamburger.com/
Far less worried about global warming than I am about the “relocation” camps.
*Oil* is a dead-end resource, *burning* (whether it be oil, coal or nuclear) is a dead-end means of generating energy. The planet can tolerate only so many fires. Think of the CO2 dumped into the atmosphere every day as being the result of x number of forest fires & volcanic explosions & you’ll see what I mean.
History *will not* prove Bush right. He & his administration *are* mendaciously evil.
These things are true, & I think you know it deep down even as you seek for some other explanation. What is the famous quote? “All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to sit back & do nothing.”
That is what has been happening for the last seven-going-on-eight years.
I’m not seeking an explanation, just pointing out a possible reality. If you get too focused on your presumptions about the world, you tend to eventually get off track with your decision making. Just keeping an open mind and seeing if anyone else had any interesting ‘alternative realities’…
Buring stuff bad, yes.
I think this is an unlikely scenerio. You pretty much have to assume several things to believe this.
I don’t see any of those things as likely. Like Holmes said, the simplest solution is usually the one that is true.
Bush wanted Saddam gone because he thought he could go one better than daddy, Chaney used that childish attitude to create an imperial presidency while ‘helping’ Isreal, with increased oil profits for his/their friends as a bonus.
IMO the over riding motivation of the Bush/Chaney presidency is the imperial presidency, everything flows from that. No other motivations are needed.
nalbar