As fourth year in Iraq ends, Bush says Iraq success will take time
Middle East News
Mar 19, 2007, 17:11 GMT
Older Talkback
This yahoo won't give up on his war. Maybe if he had gone to at least ONE Military Funeral of the over 3200 Soldiers he is responsible for dying, he might have ended this diaster years ago. That's why I'm all for the Draft again so his two alcoholic daughters and all the Congressional reps children can go fight the war their parents support. Watch how fast we end it then.
Success = successfully stealing OIL and killing Iraqi Civilians (800,000 so far)
It will take time to steal all the oil!
Yahoo? The vapidity reigns supreme anytime the anti-Bush libsterados get their diapers in a bind.
Truly, the mindless drivel these liberals shovel by the truckload isn't even fit for fertilizer.
When is the last time a female has registered for the selective service, idiot?
Americana? You are a dupe. Certainly the Internet empowers even the most feckless twits, providing outrageous factoids that you can use at-will. The 800,000 number is definitely a doosy. Have you checked your facts before you stuff your smelly, athlete's foot-infected size 17s into your piehole?
Is Lewis Carrol writing his speeches? Isn't this where we all came in, and where is the little boy who is willing to shout out that this Emperor is naked? We really need that kid now.
I listen to that speech and just marvel at the stubborness and narrow minded resolve of this President.
Who said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?
Aren't the liberals compassionate? They always complain about inequities and fairness but when it comes to hurling invectives and namecalling (alcoholics) their mendacity lays bear the true ugliness of liberalism.
I wonder what his excuse will be when more soldiers in Iraq are killed than the number of civilians that died on September 11th.
It's pretty easy to just toss out that word 'liberal' like it's some sort of expletive. I'm sorry, but using a stereotype to get your point across makes you a bigot. If you want to take issue with something that's been sa
Americana and the other moonbats-
Are you saying that the US military has killed 800,000 people?
Last I checked Iraqis are killing each other by the truckload with explosive vests and car bombs. That's Bush's fault too right?
Saddam ran an athoritarian police state to not allow the civil war that is happening right now. We just opened Pandora's box.
If you really want to lay some blame put it on the snotty Brits who divided the Ottoman Empire, Kurdistan, Persia and other areas into the map we see right now. In their arrogance and complete lack of respect they divied up the land to their royal friends with complete disregard for who lived there.
That is why there are Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds all killing each other in Iraq.
I'm sure you can find a way to blame that on Bush as well.
So, that's a pretty explicit admission that the Iraq war has exposed America to more risk, not less, and that there's now a genuine danger of losing Iraq to fundamentalism, instead of a fabricated one. Is there anyone left who can't see they were lied to?
President Bushit and his sycophants have no credibility. Zero. From 'piece of cake' to 'mission accomplished' they have been wrong time and again.
So for all your Bushit-kissing neocons, what makes you think there is anything beyond pure lies in the current Bushit assessment?
Its clear that cowardly second lieutenants do not make good presidents.
And, Heartless, it was the Anglo-American Oil company that benefited from the Brit partition. It was the same Anglo-American stupidity that put the Shah back on the throne of Iran. And now it's the Anglo-American oil companies who benefit from the new 'hydrocarbon law' that the puppet government of Iraq has made law, allowing once again 'foreign (i.e., Anglo-American) investment' in Iraq's considerable oil reserves. Plus Blair was there like a good little terrier for his master. And the Bushes are pretty Anglo themselves, once one thinks of it. Prescott, Walker, Herbert, George--Anglos all.
This is a case of everybody watching the birdie. The 'surge' plan, is only the latest slight of hand. Underlying all of this is the fact that we have yet to get the oil flowing in any real way, and have yet to get the exclusive oil deals for the US and UK oil companies passed by the Iraqi govt. That deal is well on it's way to passage however, and after that, we'll have to stay for another reason.
That reason is to protect oil installations. (That's what the Brits are doing in the south). If we leave before securing these oil assets, the true mission will have failed. Everything else is just a highly effective, time consuming smoke-screen. While we all wring our hands and worry about the consequences of withdrawal, while we listen to the president as if his words have a micron of merit, their corporate backers reap billions of taxpayer dollars in an accountability vacuum.
Oh yeah, and people keep dying. Small price to pay for free oil, er, I mean 'freedom'.
lol, knew someone would blame what happened close to hundred years ago on Bush!
Hey moonbats, what kind of solution is pulling out anyway? Would it be better to let the civil war there spread to neighboring countries? To leave Iraq ready for an Iranian invasion? To let organized Muslim fundamentalists to gain control of the government and oil wealth and give aid to those who would nuke NYC?
I did not agree with the Iraq invasion, but now that we are there the consequences of pulling out to me seem worse than if we stay.
And what happens if the situation over there does improve? What if the violence does get under control? What if things can be rebuilt faster than the car bombers can blow them up? What if (God forbid) the US military and Bush accomplish something positive over there?
Wouldn't that piss you guys off!
Does anyone have any non conspiracy theory (i.e. real) facts on where the Iraq oil is going?
I'm seriously curious, I thought they were supposed to pay for their own reconstruction with that oil but instead it's our tax dollars. That ticks me off.
Where is that oil going?
We had no choice but to go in when a homicidal lunatic decided to stockpile chemical weapons, and go for the nuke. Having almost bankrupted his country he invades another country so he can get more income to finish the job. When it became obvious that the nuke reaserch material and equipment were not in Iraq i couldn't help but think of Irans sudden interest and advances in nuclear fusion.
Bush is just a figurehead for powerful forces in the US and Europe. It's not like the man is capable of independent thought or action! And those are the same forces that screwed things up in the 20th century. The partition of the Ottoman Empire happened after WW1, quite a bit less than 100 years ago! And the Bush family has been their hand in glove with the global masters they run with, the same folks who put the Shah on the throne because Mossadegh was going to nationalize Iranian oil. In fact any time a people decides to through the global capitalist masters out on their ear, we can count in their Brit and American puppets to use national assets to protect the assets of the masters of petroleum.
Sure Bush's plan might 'work,' just like angels might send baskets of gold down from heaven to feed the starving. No chance anyone will have to choose on that score!
Similar articles
- Defense Secretary Gates: US withdrawal still on schedule
- California Governor Schwarzenegger visits US troops in Iraq
- Two US pilots killed in helicopter crash in Iraq
- US soldiers kill Iraqi man in raid near Syrian border
- Obama urges al-Maliki to hold elections on time
Latest Headlines in Middle East
- 1. Iran's Revolutionary Guards to hold military manoeuvres
- 2. Former Iran vice-president sentenced to prison for protests
- 3. Israeli jets attack Gaza Strip targets
- 4. Iraq parliament postpones vote on election law veto
- 5. Lebanese mother confesses to wiping out family
News from Other Sites
Your Talkback on this Story