Middle East News
As fourth year in Iraq ends, Bush says Iraq success will take time
Mar 19, 2007, 17:11 GMT
Washington - Four years after the war in Iraq began, US President George W Bush urged Americans on Monday to be patient and said abandoning the fight could be 'devastating' for US security.
The fight 'is difficult, but it can be won,' Bush said, though he warned Americans there would still be 'bad days' ahead.
Success with the new US-led security plan for Baghdad 'will take months, not days or weeks,' but military commanders already see 'some hopeful signs,' he said.
Sticking to his guns, Bush rejected calls by opposition Democrats and other critics to start withdrawing US troops. He urged Democrats in the US Congress to drop anti-war provisions from a defence spending bill pending in the House of Representatives.
'That may be satisfying in the short run, but I believe the consequences for American security would be devastating,' he said in a televised statement from the White House.
A 'contagion of violence' could spread across the region and Iraq could turn into a haven for al-Qaeda, he said.
'For the safety of the American people, we cannot allow this to happen,' Bush said.
Bush in January ordered an extra 21,500 troops to Iraq, mainly to Baghdad, to help stop sectarian killings by Shiite and Sunni militias.
'The new strategy will need more time to take effect, and there will be good days and there will be bad days ahead as the security plan unfolds,' he said.
Bush, who received an update from Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al- Maliki earlier Monday, urged Iraqis to press ahead with political reconciliation and economic rebuilding.
'There has been good progress. There's a lot more work to be done, and Iraq's leaders must continue to work to meet the benchmarks they have set forward,' he said.
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-AgenturCOMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in Middle East
- 1. Jerusalem prelate tells Arab Spring youth to have confidence
- 2. More than 100 killed in Syria ahead of ceasefire deadline
- 3. At least 43 killed in Syria, despite UN criticism
- 4. 19 killed in Syria as ceasefire deadline approaches
- 5. Pilgrims flock to Jerusalem for Easter, Passover
Older Talkback
page: 1
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!
'global masters' ... 'global capitalist masters' ... 'Brit and American puppets' ... 'masters of petroleum'
Why not say it, you know 'It's a grand conspiracy that has been thousands of years in the making and finally the dreams of global domination are beginning to come true!'
I'll be using foil tonight, but it'll be for broiling chicken not funny hats.
Over an out y'all, this is too funky for me.
Well, duh, like dreams of global domination are something new?
It's just the current crop of the rich and powerful. Since when did they ever act for the benefits of the peasants? The little people are just there to feed them, fight for them, and die for them.
And we got a real stupid figurehead in there now . . .
Heartless, you sound like all the other idiots supporting the war. Like the Republicans in Congress that don't offer anything useful beyond 'stay the course', yet play political games with soldiers' lives in order to make the Democrats look bad. No one is advocating pulling out tomorrow; war opponents have been discussing a gradual exit. But it's just so much easier for the lemmings to quote Bush talking points and Fox News rather than listen to what others are saying or think for yourselves.
What's next?
Black royalty, Illuminati, Order of Skull and Bones Society, Masons, Weather Control, Thule Society, Rosicrucians, Knights of Malta, Knights Templar, 'Thousand Points of Light'...
I don't buy it.
I have never supported the war, however I believe that currently the consequences of pulling out outweigh the consequences of staying. The real problem is the same thing as Vietnam - the war is being faught by politicians who use it as leverage to insert riders into funding, to churn up emotions and to ultimately get elected.
Meanwhile people die. It is sick! The war is winnable if the damn Congress lets the military do their job! Instead they posture and pretend to care when it is all just a tool to get their agenda done. The longer it drags the more emotion they can stir up and the more pet projects they can fund.
Both parties are doing this and it makes me want to puke.
I just want to see our soldiers be able to do their job without being hamstringed by political correctness so they can get it done and come home.
If this war were 'winnable' why hasn't it be won by now? It's not like the Repubican-controlled Congress for the last 4 years (until early 2007) has lifted a finger to stop the Bushits from doing whatever they want in Iraq. No whining about 'can't mine Haiphong harbor' here! No, Bushit, Rummie and most of all Cheney have had the leeway to do any damn thing they wanted in Iraq.
The bottom line is that even the 'world's most powerful military' cannot indefinitely occupy a country where they are not wanted.
It's hard to see how letting the Iraqi factions have their scuffle now would be any worse than it was after Gulf War 1 when Bushit Senior urged the Shiites and Kurds to arise and throw out Saddam (then spinelessly stood by as Saddam smashed them).
You obviously didn't read my last post. I said BOTH parties are politicising the war. It would be winnable if anyone wanted to win, but they apparently don't. It is more financially and politically profitable for BOTH parties to keep it going. Meanwhile the total number of Americans killed yearly by illegal aliens is more than soldiers in Iraq to date yet there's talk of amnesty from BOTH parties?
The issue is not 'pulling out' or 'staying the course'. The issue is that politicans from BOTH parties are using the war for political benifit while not allowing the soldiers to fight effectively.
Could our guys have won WWII with all the restrictions on their actions that they have now? I think not!
Can't put all the blame on the Republicans. If you'd quit letting emotion cloud your liberal eyes you might see that.
See why I'm a Libertarian? BOTH PARTIES SUCK!
Heartless. Let's keep it simple, let's dumb it down. Exactly how do you 'win' a war without defining victory? What's victory? An end to civil war? Everybody playing nice? Cheap gas? Wake up, we are in a lose-lose situation, the only thing up for debate is the timing, we have overstayed our welcome.
I have read Guerrilla warfare manuals written over 50 years ago that mirror exactly what is happening now in Iraq, what happened in Vietnam, what happened to the Russians in Afghanistan, what happened to the Japanese in China, and what has happened to every occupying power ever faced with an insurgency. This last year the US Army released their anti-insurgency manual. Think there's anything new in there? Nope. Occupations fail 98% of the time. End of story.
Mao had it right in 'on guerrilla warfare', 'the guerrilla fighter must move through the population like a fish in water', problem is, we can't swim.
Good point.
At this point I really don't care. We never should have gone in there in the first place.
My understanding of 'winning' was to help put their oil capabilities back together so the so called representative government we help to protect can use that oil to pay for reconstruction and for an army with which it can protect itself.
Turns out that new government is so corrupt it makes our own politicans blush, their oil pipelines don't even have meters so they don't know how much is coming out, nobody seems to know where the oil is going, we're paying for reconstruction that doesn't seem to happen and their army only shows up for work when the soldiers feel like it.
FUBAR.
Certainly the Democrats made the same stupid mistakes in Vietnam that the Republicans are making now. However the present war was promoted, pushed, advertised and executed by Republicans in the administration and in the Congress. They sold it, and it's their war this time, although some mindless Democrats like Joe Lieberman have surely gone along. There's plenty of stupidity to go around, but Bushit and his neocons must manfully shoulder some 95% of the blame on this one.
Libertarianism looks nice on paper, and has some appealing aspects, but somehow 'do you own thing' doesn't seem like it has a big chance of catching on as a major political party.
Libertarianism will never work in society as it is because the core is personal responsability. In a society where people blame their upbringing, video games or some other influence on the choices that they make such a system will not work. It is however how I choose to live, I reap the benifits and pay the price of my actions. I have nothing an nobody to blame but myself. Hense my chosen name here, because I see sympathy as nothing but a word between shit and syphillis.
At least my conscience is clean.
Dennis you said
'We had no choice but to go in when a homicidal lunatic decided to stockpile chemical weapons'
WHERE DID SADDAM GET HIS CHEMICAL WEAPONS?.
October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act.
November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians.
Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan's Envoy- provided Iraq with
chemical & biological weapons
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and further supplies of materials,chemicals and support.
July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.
March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons.
May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.
May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq.
Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq.
February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the 'Anfal' campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages.
April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals to Saddam used in manufacture of mustard gas.
August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva Accord.
August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire.
August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds.
September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq.
February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome.
This chronology of the United States' sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.
'No one is advocating pulling out tomorrow; war opponents have been discussing a gradual exit.'
90 days is hardly a gradual exit. Democrats have made the equation that if the war is going badly Bush looks bad. They truly are emboldening our enemy:
'Insurgencies are based on Mao Tse-tung's fundamental precept that superior political will can defeat greater economic and military power. Because insurgents organize to ensure political rather than military success, military force alone will not beat them.
'Any study of modern insurgency has to start with Mao. He not only succeeded as an insurgent but also wrote about how he won. On Guerrilla Warfare is a guide for insurgents quoted by every insurgent strategist since, including al-Qaida's.
'No American discussion of insurgency could ignore Vietnam. Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap's People's War, People's Army is still the basic reference on the North Vietnamese view of the war and an illustration of how warfare continually changes. Ho Chi Minh and Giap expanded on Mao's concept by using the media and peace activists to convince the American people that we couldn't win the war. They won not by defeating our armed forces but by breaking our political will.'
In other words Al Queda and the Iranian revolutionary guard are slaughtering civilians, the police and the coalition troops in Baghdad in the hope that the media will latch on to this narrative (they have)ignoring the consequences of withdrawal for the USA and Iraqis (they have) and convince the American public that Iraq should be turned over to to the very people who have turned it into a slaughterhouse. The idea that the savagery, murder and chaos that they have created is somehow that is the fault of the coalition is absurd. They are doing this to seize power away from the democratically elected government. Yet that is the EXACT narrative that many have embraced.
RE: Not a war now, a counterinsurgency
Good point ,but what were talking about here is in fact a CIVIL WAR .
The US refused to heed advice from the UK that they needed a post-war cohesive strategy.There was none ,Rumsfeld messed up.
Now all is that left, is one huge indescribable mess of lawless anarchy, caused primarly by the illegal invasion of Iraq, which has disgraced the US in the eyes of the World.
Bush is in denial and the death toll continues to rise.
I can't give you a solution....but banging your head into a brick wall, isn't one of them.
'Good point ,but what were talking about here is in fact a CIVIL WAR '
Who says? Not the Iraqis according to a poll released yesterday.
'The US refused to heed advice from the UK that they needed a post-war cohesive strategy.'
Really? Where did you hear that? Whos advice? The British were given charge of Basra and the south, what substantive difference was there between their strategy and ours?
'Now all is that left, is one huge indescribable mess of lawless anarchy, caused primarly by the illegal invasion of Iraq, which has disgraced the US in the eyes of the World. '
Maybe, you, could, find, a, way, to, add, more, random, commas, to, that, sentence,.
'Now all is that left, is one huge indescribable mess of lawless anarchy, '
More Iraqis are optimistic about their future now then before the invasion. If they do not like 'lawless anarchy' perhaps they should stop killing each other.
'caused primarly by the illegal invasion'
Where do you get this 'illegal' stuff? Who says it was illegal?
'which has disgraced the US in the eyes of the World. '
I am more disgraced by the semi-literate, terrorist apologists who take to the internet with their half baked commentary and who claim to be American then removing Saddam Hussein from power.
'Bush is in denial and the death toll continues to rise. '
You just frame everything through your hate for that man, don't you?
'I can't give you a solution....'
Obviously.
'.but banging your head into a brick wall, isn't one of them.'
There goes plan A.
,,,,,,heres some more free comma's. Seriously
Does anyone out there believe what the occupied Iraq 'vichy' government say?, or are told to say??
They've got about as much teeth as my cat and she's twenty years old.
It didn't get a UN MANDATE but Bush decided to go ahead anyway.This was illegal and broke the UN agreement which the US had signed..
Bush claimed Saddam had a hidden arsenal of WMD's .
This was later dismissed by a US Senate Comittee as a pack of lies.
Bush has since publicly admitted this was 'false intelligence',but knew this BEFORE Iraq was illegally invaded..
The US ignoring UK advice in post-op Iraq? was widely quoted.I can recll some particular snide remarks by Rumsfeld.
A little homework would help.
',,,,,heres some more free comma's. Seriously'
Fine, sound like a fool if you wish.
'Does anyone out there believe what the occupied Iraq 'vichy' government say?, '
I guess you only believe what you want to believe, you must be a leftist then.
'It didn't get a UN MANDATE'
And?.... So what? The Genocides in Sudan and Rwanda, are they 'legal'? It is the UN that has prevented action in Sudan, does that make the killing of hundreds of thousands 'legal'? Kosovo was done despite UN objections, did that make it illegal?
'This was illegal and broke the UN agreement which the US had signed..'
I would really love it if you were to show me where the USA signed something that gives the UN a veto over where we can use military action. As a matter of fact, if you can not produce a credible reference to the 'UN gets to decide where the USA can use its military' document that we supposedly signed you should probably just shut up before you embarrass yourself further.
'Bush has since publicly admitted this was 'false intelligence',but knew this BEFORE Iraq was illegally invaded..'
And you know this because... How? You read his mind? You are George Bush?
'The US ignoring UK advice in post-op Iraq? was widely quoted.'
Where?
'A little homework would help.'
Have at it then. Come back with some references to your various claims or shut your hippie hole.
Not only good at twisting words, but with bad manners as well.
WHAT US GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT do you work in.?
It was reported some months ago that Bush was appointing a department to counteract chat on the Net ...so I guess your it?
Still I can't see how you can stifle free speech on the WWW?
'WHAT US GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT do you work in.?'
They couldn't afford me. Paranoid much?
'It was reported some months ago that Bush was appointing a department to counteract chat on the Net ...so I guess your it?'
Where was this reported, in your mind?
'Still I can't see how you can stifle free speech on the WWW?'
There goes plan A.
Jesus said in the Gospel of St. Luke, 'Wisdom is justified of all her children.'
Not a war's comment about Mao's writings and guerrilla tactics were dead on.
Since we are still led by an administration that believes a military victory is possible, is it also possible that in this day and age we have still not learned how a low intensity conflict works? *(That is exactly what Iraq is) Could it be that all the military and intelligence minds at our disposal cannot devise an effective counterinsurgency program? Sad but true.
All the troops in the world can't make a man forget when his door was kicked in and wife humiliated, brother or children killed, or house destroyed. What we have created is a terrorist factory, and now we are faced with 7 times as many militant islamist and nationalist fighters then before this adventure started.
While we squabble over the details, piles of money 'lost' in Iraq is being distributed by the US to Sunni militant groups in Lebanon and other places, to 'counterbalance' Hezbollah and Iranian influence. These groups won't be our friends 5 minutes from now. 92 percent of attacks on US forces in Iraq are carried out by Sunni militants, many groups funded by our 'ally', Saudi Arabia. John Negroponte resigned as Director of National Intelligence because he saw the writing on the wall and 'echoes of Iran/Contra'. Iraq is the grand DISTRACTION. Now these guys are eyeballing Iran and talking about preventing the formation of a 'Shia crescent'
Can anybody think of another Sunni militant the US funded as a proxy in the 80's? Osama Bin Laden. How did that all turn out in the end?.. I guess we don't know yet since we stopped looking for him. Ironically, conservatives love to quote Bin Laden about how we will 'lose our will to fight' when attacking democrats, but never quoted him when he predicted that the US would invade and occupy an oil-rich middle eastern country, and establish permanent bases there... And he said that well before 9/11. How many followers do you think we generated for him by following his prediction to the letter?
It never has been a 'war', its always been an occupation by a facist foreign governments storm troopers.
page: 1
GaryMar 19th, 2007 - 17:45:54
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.
Report this comment