Bush's success in Iraq.

[medicinal]

Is this success in Iraq that Bush talks about? ERMELI, Iraq (AFP) - The darkness of grief gripped the Iraqi village of Ermeli on Sunday as black mourning banners, armbands, bloodstains and soot bore grim testament to a truck bomb attack that left 140 dead.

The rural community was the latest victim of a week of intense violence and political intrigue in an Iraq mired in bloody civil conflict, and one day after the attack the population was divided between shock and bitter anger.

Policemen guarding the entrance to the town wore black armbands and stony expressions, determined to face down the extremists behind the attack, in which a truck packed with four tonnes of explosives detonated in a crowded market.

"I lost my uncle and his son in the explosion," policeman Imad Abdul Hussein told an AFP reporter, adding that the village was without running water after the suicide bomb destroyed pipes and brought down electricity cables.

"I am at work today to retaliate against the criminals, and to send them a message that we are alive and we are on our homeland and we will fight Al-Qaeda until the last drop of our blood," he said.

"We will either kill them or they will annihilate us," he added, before launching into a slogan that underlined how the violence of Al-Qaeda's Sunni extremists has driven a wedge between Iraq's rival communities.

"Triumph to Ali's Shiites!" he shouted, referring to the first revered imam of the Shiite Muslim tradition and the hero of Iraq's majority community.

The mayor of nearby Tuz Khurmato said Al-Qaeda had struck because Ermeli had been a peaceful village of Sunnis and Shiites from Iraq's Turkman minority surrounded by smaller hamlets of Sunni Arabs.

"Al-Qaeda hit Emerli because it is a safe and stable town. They target safe places to paralyse and confuse the government," said Mayor Mohammed Rashed, saying the truck was a 10-tonne Hino which came from the Sunni west.

"They want to send a message to the world that they are capable of targeting anything, to show by their explosions that the police are failing," he said.

"But they contribute, by these explosions, to build our awareness and unity in fighting the terrorists," he insisted.

Police chief Lieutenant Colonel Khalfa al-Bayati, rattled off a litany of destruction. "Almost every household in Emerli has lost a loved one," he said.

"We have around 1,200 mud-brick houses in the town. Fifty houses are totally demolished, 20 houses are partially demolished and 45 shops and more than 35 cars were wrecked," he said.

"We have registered a total number of 140 killed but there are also 20 missing and 270 injured," he added, accusing Al-Qaeda of carrying out the attack in revenge for recent successes against the group by his men.

The Emerli bomb blast came after a bloody and dangerous week even by the standards of Iraq's four-year descent into civil war.

Over the course of the week, US military confirmed the deaths of 22 soldiers and marines, and the British army in Basra lost two troops during what was described as one of its biggest operations of the war so far.

Shiite militias clashed with Iraqi security forces in the southern town of Diwaniyah, and suspected Sunni insurgents detonated bombs in Baghdad: six more civilians were killed in a double car bombing on Sunday.

Against this backdrop, political support for US President George W. Bush and his Iraqi ally and counterpart Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was slipping.

Bush saw two more US senators from his Republican Party speaking out against the open-ended use of American forces to prop up Maliki's government, despite calls from US commanders for more time to build on recent successes.

Maliki, meanwhile, engaged in a war of words with his former supporters in Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's movement, calling on it to lay down its weapons after its Mahdi Army militia clashed with police and US-led troops.

Sadr's aides in turn accused Maliki of pandering to the US "occupier" and warned that he might not last much longer in office, amid reports that some Sunni and Shiite MPs might unite to force a confidence vote in parliament.

In Emerli, however, the mourners had no stomach to think of politics. Many refused to even greet a government delegation sent to inspect the rescue

[higher4hockey]

what would you do med if you were in charge? ( im curious, i dont mean that in a hostile way)

[medicinal]

what would you do med if you were in charge? ( im curious, i dont mean that in a hostile way)

If you are referring to Iraq, I would get all the transportation I could find and gather up all the Americans and head for Kuwait to await transport back to the world and fuck the crazy Iraqis and their infernal sectarian war. when they sort it out, then we can Begin to negotiate for the oil reserves. We both know this is about the oil, so let them get their war over with first, the oil will remain in the ground just waiting for our Oil Barrons to show up and secure it. as far as the damage we've done to Iraq, when the oil begins to flow, they will be the richest nation on earth. Every man woman and child will be well off. The oil sharing laws are designed to share the wealth. The US and Briton are trying to write themselves into the laws and that is what is causing the governmental turmoil in Iraq. When we leave, there will be a much higher chance of making the government work. there will be some disturbances and I'd bet a new president and a few other members of parliment or whatever they call their government, but we are the main problem. So my first priority would be to get the fuck out.

[khronik]

This isn't about oil. All the oil in Iraq isn't worth the money we paid for this war.

[Krogith]

This isn't about oil. All the oil in Iraq isn't worth the money we paid for this war.

The U.S.A. has spent $$ your right but..... where is the $$ going? who pockets? This war is not ment to make America Rich, just Share Holders of all the Companys that America is shoveling $$ to.



This War not only will give the "Right" companys contorl of what ever project they want (Oil, bombs, armor, Tanks, bullets, chem labs, roads, bridges, plumbing, Steel..... I think I could keep going) Look at Boeing! All this Money has to come from somewhere..... O yeah U.S.A. banks borrow $$ from the F.R. on loan! ROFL

This War is makeing so many tycoons rich. And most of them happen to be Good Friends :wtf:

[afghooey]

This isn't about oil. All the oil in Iraq isn't worth the money we paid for this war.

The US borrowed the money to fund the war from the (private) Federal Reserve Bank (at interest). The American people will be paying off that interest with our income taxes for years to come. Someone is profiting off of this war for sure... it ain't the American people, and it certainly ain't the Iraqis.


US SPENDING IN IRAQ

Spent & Approved War-Spending - Over $600 billion of US taxpayers' funds. President Bush is expected to request another $140 billion for 2008, which would bring the cumulative total to close to $750 billion.

Lost & Unaccounted for in Iraq - $9 billion of US taxpayers' money and $549.7 milion in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors

Mismanaged & Wasted in Iraq - $10 billion, per Feb 2007 Congressional hearings

Halliburton Overcharges Classified by the Pentagon as Unreasonable and Unsupported - $1.4 billion

And that's not even taking into account all the lives that have been lost, troops and Iraqi civilians alike....

edit: got those stats from here:
http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm

[Psycho4Bud]

But isn't it a bit ironic on how some of the people in here are all about sending our troops into Darfur?

Like it or not, just packing bags and leaving Iraq isn't in the game plan for either the Democrats or the Republicans....the only difference in their plans is troop strength.

Have a good one!:s4:

[medicinal]

This isn't about oil. All the oil in Iraq isn't worth the money we paid for this war.

You don't get it! We, the taxpayers, are funding the war so the elites, captains of industry, and the oil barrons can reap the rewards. You and I will never see a nickle of the profits made on this war, but we and our great grandkids will be paying for it for a long while.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

But isn't it a bit ironic on how some of the people in here are all about sending our troops into Darfur?
those same people would undoubtedly be singing the cut and run tune a few years down the road, once they realized we had gotten ourselves into another untenable situation.

[medicinal]

those same people would undoubtedly be singing the cut and run tune a few years down the road, once they realized we had gotten ourselves into another untenable situation.

I'm curious, outside of cut and run or stay the course, what is your esteemed solution?

[delusionsofNORMALity]

I'm curious, outside of cut and run or stay the course, what is your esteemed solution?

while the hawks are drooling over the prospect of the annihilation of the enemy and the doves are screaming for us to pull out at any cost, most folks just want to see a rational and honorable end to our iraqi debacle. a gradual reduction in force coupled with a strengthening of the iraqi forces would seem to be the logical conclusion and this is what the current administration claims to be their goal.

anyone who believes that this war can be won by an indefinite occupation is a fool and those that advocate immediate withdrawal are heartless. the former is a sure fire recipe for decades of pointless bloodshed with our occupation as the rallying point for terrorist organizations around the world. the latter course would only serve to embolden the enemies of the west and further destroy our already tarnished reputation. to abruptly pull our troops out of the area would be to abandon our few friends in the middle east to a bloodbath such as we saw on our departure from vietnam and to add cowardice to the long list of american sins.

though our sojourn in iraq was both ill advised and poorly planned, we bear the responsibility to complete the mission to the best of our ability. even those of us who opposed this fiasco from the beginning are responsible for the actions of the government we created. in short, there is no simple answer. we should have burned down this monstrous bureaucracy long ago and taken back control of our own destiny, but we didn't and fools like baby bush and his crusade are the price we now have to pay for our self-centered apathy.

[medicinal]

while the hawks are drooling over the prospect of the annihilation of the enemy and the doves are screaming for us to pull out at any cost, most folks just want to see a rational and honorable end to our iraqi debacle. a gradual reduction in force coupled with a strengthening of the iraqi forces would seem to be the logical conclusion and this is what the current administration claims to be their goal.

anyone who believes that this war can be won by an indefinite occupation is a fool and those that advocate immediate withdrawal are heartless. the former is a sure fire recipe for decades of pointless bloodshed with our occupation as the rallying point for terrorist organizations around the world. the latter course would only serve to embolden the enemies of the west and further destroy our already tarnished reputation. to abruptly pull our troops out of the area would be to abandon our few friends in the middle east to a bloodbath such as we saw on our departure from vietnam and to add cowardice to the long list of american sins.

though our sojourn in iraq was both ill advised and poorly planned, we bear the responsibility to complete the mission to the best of our ability. even those of us who opposed this fiasco from the beginning are responsible for the actions of the government we created. in short, there is no simple answer. we should have burned down this monstrous bureaucracy long ago and taken back control of our own destiny, but we didn't and fools like baby bush and his crusade are the price we now have to pay for our self-centered apathy.

So in other words, you have no solution, Just hang out and let more Americans get killed while the Iraqis fiddlefuck around and have no political validity. The Iraqis are not going to sanction those oil laws drawn up in washington by Standard oil and Condi rice and the gang, so there is a Mexican (Iraqi) standoff where Americans are dying in the hundreds monthly, Brilliant.

[D.Boone]

You don't get it! We, the taxpayers, are funding the war so the elites, captains of industry, and the oil barrons can reap the rewards. You and I will never see a nickle of the profits made on this war, but we and our great grandkids will be paying for it for a long while.

thats for sure. thats the sole reason i will never join the military, im not about to put my life on the line for federal reserve dollars.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

So in other words, you have no solution, Just hang out and let more Americans get killed while the Iraqis fiddlefuck around ....
i guess i just wasn't obvious enough for you. how about replacing "strengthening of iraqi forces" with "force the iraqis to take control of their own defense through a series of time lines and decreases in american forces". did you expect there to be a solution without further bloodshed? fat freakin' chance, we're gonna be stuck in that damn sand box for years to come. in case you have forgotten them, i will reiterate two basic truths of the grand bureaucratic farce. first, governments start wars (this is one of the few things they are good at and you should always play to your strengths). second, children die in wars (i have nothing even close to witty to say about this depressing fact).

this tendency that so many have to harp on the half-truth that this is a war for oil is just about as useless as balls on a priest and about as honest as the entire "bringing democracy to the middle-east" myth. this was always a war about protecting american interests. financial, political, philosophical, societal etc. etc. etc. for decades it has all been about the westernization of the globe and the expansion of the "american way of life". so it really doesn't matter that there are a number of "solutions" when none of them serve the underlying agenda.

i find myself reminded of the reason i dropped out so long ago and why i insist on playing these silly games of devil's advocate here. there is nothing more asinine than politics and politics seems to make the world go 'round. well, have fun and good luck.



i seem to be feeling particularly apathetic today or maybe i just need to get laid. perhaps i should just over-medicate and hope things look better when i come to, if i come to.

[PharmaCan]

If you are referring to Iraq, I would get all the transportation I could find and gather up all the Americans and head for Kuwait to await transport back to the world and fuck the crazy Iraqis and their infernal sectarian war. when they sort it out, then we can Begin to negotiate for the oil reserves. We both know this is about the oil, so let them get their war over with first, the oil will remain in the ground just waiting for our Oil Barrons to show up and secure it. as far as the damage we've done to Iraq, when the oil begins to flow, they will be the richest nation on earth. Every man woman and child will be well off. The oil sharing laws are designed to share the wealth. The US and Briton are trying to write themselves into the laws and that is what is causing the governmental turmoil in Iraq. When we leave, there will be a much higher chance of making the government work. there will be some disturbances and I'd bet a new president and a few other members of parliment or whatever they call their government, but we are the main problem. So my first priority would be to get the fuck out.

This war was started to keep Iraqi oil in the ground. Saddam's biggest crime was not WMDs - it was developing Iraqi oil fields.

This was never about getting Iraqi oil. Their fields/oil rights were divided in the 1920's, with the intent to keep the oil in the ground to keep supplies down.

PC:pimp:

[medicinal]

This war was started to keep Iraqi oil in the ground. Saddam's biggest crime was not WMDs - it was developing Iraqi oil fields.

This was never about getting Iraqi oil. Their fields/oil rights were divided in the 1920's, with the intent to keep the oil in the ground to keep supplies down.

PC:pimp:

Maybe that is the deal they had worked out with Sadam, or his predecessors, But this is now and the oil Barons are lunging at the gates. With 3.00++ a gallon gas, you better believe this is about oil. With the oil contracts the US has forced on the Iraqi government, the Iraqis only get 15% of all the new reserves, the largest in the world, maybe 2nd largest, but huge. So if you are trying to convince me that they want to leave this oil in the ground when they will make 10 times the profit on it than say the Saudi oil, get real. All they have to do is extract the oil, it's like drilling for water, it's everywhere, then transport it to the docks, and Viola, instant profit.

[MajMike]

medicinal, et al

While most folks want an 'active' solution to the war (i.e. major change), some sort of slow changeover as described by delusions is really the only way it can realistically be done given the current level of conflict.

Our national leadership from both parties endorses this solution, their only real (hyped to the max) differences are in troop levels to authorize and the timeline for completion [even if we don't call it a 'timeline'].

Also, as you pointed out, Big Oil has a vested interest to protect no matter who's in the White House or in control of Congress. There's more to the Iraq war than oil, but you can be assured it underlies ever aspect of our policies.

Lastly, I am as unhappy as are most about this 'war', from the lies told us to start it to the quagmire we find ourselves in now. But, I have seen firsthand the horrors of genocide in Bosnia and Africa, and cannot condone a sudden departure from Iraq without some hope of stability for it's people.

Peace.

[PharmaCan]

Maybe that is the deal they had worked out with Sadam, or his predecessors, But this is now and the oil Barons are lunging at the gates. With 3.00++ a gallon gas, you better believe this is about oil. With the oil contracts the US has forced on the Iraqi government, the Iraqis only get 15% of all the new reserves, the largest in the world, maybe 2nd largest, but huge. So if you are trying to convince me that they want to leave this oil in the ground when they will make 10 times the profit on it than say the Saudi oil, get real. All they have to do is extract the oil, it's like drilling for water, it's everywhere, then transport it to the docks, and Viola, instant profit.

And, under your scenario, oil prices plummet. Meaning more oil has to be pumped and sold to make the same profits as now.

Google "Royal dutch shell, mr. 5% and Iraq" together. Then do your research. Then you will have a much better picture of the "why" about Iraq.

PC :pimp:

[cannabis=freedom]

Ah, "Bush's Success in Iraq...", one of the shortest books ever written.

It's up there with "Victories of the War on Drugs", "Catholic Tolerance", "The Sahara-a Tourism Guide", etc.

[medicinal]

And, under your scenario, oil prices plummet. Meaning more oil has to be pumped and sold to make the same profits as now.

Google "Royal dutch shell, mr. 5% and Iraq" together. Then do your research. Then you will have a much better picture of the "why" about Iraq.

PC :pimp:

I read that crap, that was when oil was 5 bucks a barrel. The Oil companies would get as much out of the ground as they could and bring it here and put it back in the ground. Have you heard of storing oil in our depleted oil fields, a real safe way to ensure they have plenty to sell when it hits 5-10 bucks a gallon. They aren't going to be paying more that 10 bucks a barrel + transport and extraction costs if that much, and don't you think they will even be trying to screw the Iraqis out of as much of that as they can

[Anubis10012007]

IMO, the whole war is one big joke.

1. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11
2. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
3. Close to 1 million Iraqi CIVILIANS have been killed since the invasion
4. Almost 4000 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq

At least in Darfur, there would be a REASON to be there. But instead of going to Darfur, we should handle our own problems here. Use an international peace keeping force for that and teach there people to quit being stupid.

We never should have invaded Iraq in the first place. Every government is oppressive in certain aspects, but that does not give you the right to make it worse. If Bush was so concerned about the Iraqi's freedom, which is complete bullshit and everyone knows it, than he should have invaded China or North Korea. America just cannot police the world.

[fishman3811]

Not too many people know this but before the war happened Saddam started selling his oil in Euros not American dollars and many economists believe thats why he was invaded.So Iran has also stated that its going to start selling its oil in Euros,so i wonder if thats the end of Iran