It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dubya finally get's it -- "It's bad in Iraq"

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 02:34 AM
link   

WASHINGTON - President Bush, admitting that "it's bad in Iraq," acknowledged Thursday that the United States needs a new approach in the unpopular war and promised to unveil details in an upcoming speech.


I think this goes a long way in showing that Bush is just a puppet. He can't think for himself. He can't make decisions on his own. He can't act on his own. He's told what to do and what to say.

We've been fed this crap about how we're winning in Iraq, and, "Mission Accomplished", and, it's such a necessary war to 'keep the peace' here at home.

The democrats take the Senate and House, and this Iraq Study Group says changes need to be done, then all of a sudden "It's bad in Iraq" and


"I do know that we have not succeeded as fast as we wanted to succeed," Bush said


What a load of crap. This should just about prove to everybody that he is not in control of our government.

If our "elected" President isn't in control of our government, and we know Cheney is an evil bastard, and we know there are private groups with power in our government that only think about what they want, *cough*PNAC*cough*, then what does that say about the future of this country?




Wow, ok, sorry about that long rant. Seeing things like this remind me of some truly ignorant people who believe in our government and think everything is just peachy.

Besides all of that though, it was pretty funny imagining Bush making these statements because I'm sure he felt smart saying it despite the fact that what he said is pretty much common sense to 97% of America by now.


Yahoo News




posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 02:47 AM
link   
When was it he said mission accomplished, about 3-4 years ago?

What an effing joke of a president.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 02:57 AM
link   
3 Years, 7 Months, and 6 Days


ABOARD USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CNN) -- President Bush made a landing aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln Thursday, arriving in the co-pilot's seat of a Navy S-3B Viking after making two fly-bys of the carrier.

Moments after the landing, the president, wearing a green flight suit and holding a white helmet, got off the plane, saluted those on the flight deck and shook hands with them. Above him, the tower was adorned with a big sign that read, "Mission Accomplished."


Mission Accomplished....sure..


Ex

posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   
I am still in the dark about what The Mission really was!

Was it to save millions of Muslims in Iraq from themselves
and institute Democray before the general Presidental election?

Was it to save them from Sadamm?

Was it to fight the terrorists AWAY from the USA??

None of these seem even valid to me!

Now what does ring true in my ears is......

Iraq has 2/3 rds of the worlds UNTAPPED oil

I don't even think GW was legally elected
Diebold delivered Ohio through an exectutable file
in the memory cards that count the votes!

HACKING DEMOCRACY
www.hbo.com...


"It's Bad In Iraq"...this is all that
The Leader of the Free World can say......
OMG!!!!!



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Don't you know? It was because of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction..

Wait..

I mean..it was to free the Iraqi people..

No..wait..

It was because they were a state sponsor of terror..

Umm..

Hmm..

Hell I don't know anymore.

Oh wait!!

Ahh, yes, Ex..

OIL!!!

It all makes sense now..








posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
How bad is it really? Of the nineteen provinces in Iraq,how many do you think there is actually trouble in? Try three...
Yeah, there are people getting hurt and killed over there,but it's not spread all over Iraq like the liberal based news media would have you believe.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
SpeakerofTruth,

Even if that is true (not denying you, just never heard that before), that really doesn't mean anything. The overall point is, Bush claimed "Mission Accomplished" over 3 and a half years ago. If it was truly a mission accomplished, why are we still there? This war has not turned out how it should have. It should have ended with us running over the Iraqi military and over-throwing Saddam Hussein like we did in about a month or whatever it was, then we should have left. No occupation. No insurgency. No civil war.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Here is my point of view on Iraq...

From the moment that the U.S declared "War on Terrorism" I knew that somewhere down the line that would involve taking Hussein out of his crow's nest. My real question was and is, why did we do it when we done it? I mean, it would have seemed more conducive to reason to have finished in Afghanistan and then focused on Syria and Iran,but,no,we rushed into Iraq. Why?

Now that we are there...it seems to me that the current administration set some pretty lofty goals for Iraq. However, it's increasingly becoming apparent, at least to me, that the U.S is going to have to settle. What I mean is that we are going to have to accept the fact that there is only going to be so much that we can do... Iraqis are going to have to "cowboy up" and do the rest..

Now, we can sit all day long and discuss this,that and the other about Iraq,however, until Iraq finally stands on their own two feet..there is nothing we can do. I mean, we cannot continuously stand behind them holding them up as if we were trying to hold up a drunkard..

I personally think it is time for us to start pulling out. I think another year is a reasonible expectation... There is not much more that we can do in a nation that we shouldn't be in as of now anyway..

[edit on 8-12-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I agree that there isn't much more we can do. It'd be nice if our government saw it that way. They see it as an oil rich nation, which explains our occupation. That's their goals for the country, to steal oil.

I think we need to pull out of Iraq, and engage in wars with Syria and Iran but FROM THE AIR! Absolutely NO U.S. soldier sets foot in either of those countries. We launch a pre-emptive air assault on military installations, and nuclear facilities in Iran, dismantle their militaries and set them back 10-15 years, then we go home.

After that, we need to find a way to deal with North Korea. If they don't co-operate, we launch a similar attack on their military and nuclear facilities. No occupation. No ground war. We set them back 10-15 years.

Then, all is well. No attacks on civilian areas. No threat of insurgency. Just easy, month long wars to, at the very least, make it so it's a good 10 years of somewhat calm, somewhat stable situation there in the Middle East.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheyAreWatching


I think we need to pull out of Iraq, and engage in wars with Syria and Iran but FROM THE AIR!
Air wars rarely, never as far as I am aware, work...



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Air wars rarely, never as far as I am aware, work...


Well, I just see it as, the air war would give us the advantage, obviously, and it would allow us to destroy their facilities, which would do great damage to their militaries and set them back years. But what the air war also does is make it safer for civilians and our military. I mean, sure, there is the possibility of our planes getting shot down, and that's unfortunate, but it's nowhere near as bad as our 3,000 deaths in Iraq. Really, the only deaths would be coming from the enemy military, and that's necessary in war.

If we could choose, I'm sure we'd choose no war at all, but, that's simply not the case when dealing with these countries. They have to be dealt with. Diplomatic efforts have failed. We can't sit around while Iran develops a nuclear weapon to use on Israel. We have to start a small scale war now to prevent a large scale war later.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Even if the primary goal in Iraq is to secure oil, so what? We need oil.

I have also heard some speculate that we are attempting to secure the oil fields to prepare for a larger conflict in the future. Against China, perhaps? Not really any evidence for this, aside from China's military build-up which has not been in the media too much.

There may be reasons for being in Iraq that we don't even know about. Obviously we can't do anythign about it so it's best to keep an eye on the situation, but not waste breath arguing about things that we are powerless to change.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by southern_cross3
Even if the primary goal in Iraq is to secure oil, so what? We need oil.

I have also heard some speculate that we are attempting to secure the oil fields to prepare for a larger conflict in the future. Against China, perhaps? Not really any evidence for this, aside from China's military build-up which has not been in the media too much.

There may be reasons for being in Iraq that we don't even know about. Obviously we can't do anythign about it so it's best to keep an eye on the situation, but not waste breath arguing about things that we are powerless to change.


So what what your saying is our need for oil is more important than peoples lives, give me a break.


Ex

posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
So,
The way I see the opinions going on this thread.....
It is either
Overwhelming Force
or Total Withdrawal

With overwhelming force......
we will sour any relationship that even exists
between us and Iran or Syria.
and the entire Muslim world for that matter

as well as leave a country in total ruin

Well except for the oil which we would then confiscate and sold
to pay for this stinkin situation

With Total Withdrawal

We leave a country in the middle of a civil war

and no oil

I say civil war...let them fight it out.
may the best guy win
and then we talk!



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by southern_cross3
Even if the primary goal in Iraq is to secure oil, so what? We need oil.


No.

We need to stop stealing from countries. That is THEIR natural resource. THEY are entitled to it. I don't know who the hell died and put our government in charge of over-seeing everybody's natural resources, but if it's within their borders, we have no right to just barge in whenever we damn well please and take what we need. That is a criminal offense. If this is now a legal and reasonable thing to do, then why the hell is theft an arrestable offense in the United States? With your view point, I can go to a bank right now and steal all their money. So what, right? I need money.

We need to focus on our domestic issues. Health care, education, police/fire fighters, social security, issues such as abortion, our legal system, our government and it's laws, focusing more on our constitution, poverty, cities/states going bankrupt, poor national economy, un-employment, and tons more problems that this ridiculous 350+ billion dollars that has been poored into Iraq could have helped out with in fixing.

And, probably most important of all, we need to stop ripping our men and women in uniform from their families for un-necessary wars. This war was based solely on the intention of theft and greed and that was the inspiration behind intentionally creating false intelligence to justify war. Now, as a result, 3,000+ families have lost everything, and hundreds of thousands more go day by day wondering if today is going to be the day their son, daughter, father, mother, brother, or sister get's blown up by a suicide bomber. I want you to imagine the emotional pain and stress that you'd go through if somebody close to you was in that situation. These people's lives, and many Iraqi's lives, who had little to begin with, are now ripped apart because our government only saw money and didn't show the slightest bit of remorse when sending these innocent Americans into a situation that they themselves didn't and never would have the balls to go into themselves.

You should be ashamed of yourself that you are so close minded and ignorant that you can't imagine yourself in that situation and all you have the capability of doing is looking at the situation with the same mindset as our corrupt, criminally "elected" government.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   
We need to develop our own alternative fuel sources and let all these other countries have their God forsaken, air polluting fossil fuels. That's what we need to do.

[edit on 8-12-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Speaker, we don't often agree, but on that post we're 100% in-line.

I wonder how much futher along the US would be in their alternate energy development if they had used the money from the War on Terror to finance research?

Hell, how many nuclear power plants could that money have built?

I saw a figure someplace that showed that we could have sent a manned mission to Mars with that money... twice! (can't find the link, sorry)

Our Western priorities seem to be a little... ah... what's the word?
Oh yeah, "SCREWED"!



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Here is why we steal from other countries:

We can.

As the only remaining superpower, the United States can indeed do as it pleases. If the U.N. decides we're in the wrong, what are they going to do? Attack us with soldiers from France?

Yes, I believe it is worth killing Islamofascists to obtain oil. It is more important for me to be able to pay less than $2.50 a gallon for gasoline than it is to preserve the life of an America-hating rat in a dirty nightshirt who has way too many kids who he sends off to suicide-bombing camp every day.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   
How deceiving can be blind patriotism.

The Iraqi oil will never benefit us the consumer, the only people that will benefit from that oil are the profiteers of war and the oil barons that will be making . . . yet another wealthy investment on untaped oil resources.

BTW did you know that the only way Iraq can received money for their oil fields is. . . if they give away all their rights to their own oil? To US oil companies.

Yes . . . Iraqis are fighting and they will fight for that oil as long as they live and the oil in Iraq will keep burning just like is burning right now every time a major pipe is blown away.

Because they know. . .



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by southern_cross3
It is more important for me to be able to pay less than $2.50 a gallon for gasoline


How long have we been in Iraq? Yet, gas prices continue to go up. That's interesting. How are you benefitting?

Also, how would you feel if a war mongering, criminal country was killing you and your family for a resource that belongs to your country?

You're truly ignorant, my friend. It's pathetic. "Because we can". You represent the very part of this country that I despise.

You feel pretty bad ass saying the things you're saying, yet you're probably too afraid to get off your ass and go fight for what you apparently feel is right.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join