Do you believe the President sent troops for his Amusement?

DU'ers do you believe that the President sent troops for his amusement?
I for one, do not believe amusement was his reason. I think distraction, opportunity, profit, misguided nationalism, opportunity to control natural resources which didn't belong to us are way more likely reasons.

I don't believe Bush understands the seriousness of his actions or inactions. He's bored, doing nothing really and the war is his internet, his TV, his divertisement. In that sense, "amusement" would be more of a synonym than the bon mot for the description.

well power and greed but the elite do what they want because they CAN and they know they can get away with it.

said that the decision was made to invade Iraq as a distraction.
Language used was something on the order of Wolfkowitz believed Iraq would be easier than chasing Osama across the insurgent control mountain territories.

It was a big f-ing red herring since they didn't think they could get OBL.

diversion; that which brings pleasure.

Don't know.

side effect of instituting his 'policy'. I believe that he really does think that, in the end, the death destruction he has caused will be born out by history as being 'the right thing to do'. I think he is that stupid. That is what is scary.

Of course, that's probably a basic requirement for neocons and GOP in general.

He's proven incapable of showing human traits like empathy, instead showing traits like callousness, sadism and cruelty.

Bush is NOT human. Don't humanize him.

yes, some of those traits might appear in other species.
But I don't think that they appear to the same degree as they do in our species.

except all the bad press

But for the most part, the whole purpose was to make BushCo and their co-conspirators filthy rich. And for that they can poudly proclaim "Mission Accomplished".

war means profit, war means chaos, war means no-bid contracts, war means reduced oversight.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBIeJ2d87NY



Thats a tough one!

and so-called diplomacy, he/'they' = the chicken-hawks, wanted to demonstrate their ability to waste blood & bodies in support of the neocon agenda much as A-Q was willing to do so up till that point and beyond; ancillary to that is his, "Well, hell!! Let's just roll the bones! We're (he & his no-bid crony war profiteers) all going to make a ton of money in the process, right? (yes mr. president, nice drive btw). So what the hell. We need an excuse any-hoo. Let's take this one." in the words of g.w. bush,

"Money trumps...peace."

so not so much 'ha-ha amusement', as an acknowledgment that, once again, even his most grandiose of what are now worldwide ravings & disasters makes his family money

Never mind just cause, just get me a damned WAR! I'm the WAR PRESIDENT!

Anyone who is like that doesn't take human life in regard and is mentally unstable, so I don't even factor amusement as the initial literal reason.

"Amusement" was merely a figure of speech. There really isn't a compelling reason to stay and if there is, it keeps getting changed almost bi-monthly. How else would you explain it?

Stark should never have apologized AT ALL.

We're not talking about someone with priciples and a sense of duty. We're talking about a pathological narcissist whose EVERY act is driven by a pathological need for feedback - reaction and attention. His socioeconomic position, together with his ehtical posture, obviates any need to act either out of survival or the well-being of others. He's completely and totally driven by what we might regard as "entertainment" ... since, under any objective assessment, he has no other remaining needs.

and struts around like an idiot in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier at taxpayer expense, is starting wars and getting our troops killed for little more than his own amusement. End of story.

First to steal the oil, second blow things up and cause destruction and death.

so, why is everyone so up in arms about the "apology"?

It would seem that we're trying to have it both ways. Either it was an accurate statement and an apology was unwarranted, or it was somewhat hyperbolic and Stark was going to be pressured into an apology.

Am I missing some middle ground option here? He could have clarified his comments, but a "that's not really what I meant" clarification probably wouldn't have been much better than the apology.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that Stark had a point to make and made it quite clearly. The apology doesn't bother me.

for their own amusement.

eom

but I make a point of only giving apologies to fellow human beings.

He's amused by the fact that killing all these people gives him an opportunity to act as though he actually possesses male genitalia. I'd have to say all the posturing, appearing in fake military outfits, and tough cowboy talk is extremely amusing to him.

but keeping them there ABSOLUTELY YES!

I don't deny there's self-interest in keeping them there. But I don't see how AMUSEMENT enters into it.
I'd think its more like when the thief accidentally kills someone and burns down the house to destroy the evidence.
Self-interest yes...amusement, not really.

I doubt that he's "amused," but I do think that he had specific goals in mind when he went into Iraq, and that he didn't really care how many people had to die in order to obtain those goals.

looking for WMD's under the tables . Also the way he giggles with that hidious smirk .

I stand behind Stark , all he did was bring this to light because of the mass of funds spent on this fake war and nothing spent for the children or any citizen in trouble . Stark told the truth and I feel it was the proper setting to do so .

We need more people like Stark and the Dems should have ALL stood behind him .

When you have enough money to survive and pay your cost of living for the rest of your life, the rest is for amusement.

Bush sent the soldiers to Iraq for profit, a form of amusement.

He wants to bring on The Rapture...

The reasons?


1. Oil profits
2. War Profiteering
3. Cheney told him to
4. use the war and fear of terrorism to grab as much power as possible
5. hide behind the war and troops to avoid any criticism and oversight
6. amusement, he likes people getting killed judging from his
record with capital punishment when he was govenor

:thumbsup: :hi: :thumbsup:

For someone who blew up small animals for amusement as a child, who derived obvious pleasure from seeing Karla Faye Tucker executed ("Pleeease don't keel meee"), who finally got his "chance to invade" Iraq that he spoke of in 1999, I think amusement is a large factor but obviously not the only one.

We're talking about an emotionally stunted sociopath and (maybe dry) drunk playing soldier with real people's lives.

Remember how good a year 2001 was for him and Laura?