You see now? The real cost of oil is never factored in at the pump.
I'd say all these companies making the $30 billion profits each year ought to be the ones paying for all the U.S. military support to keep the oil flowing.
You see now? The real cost of oil is never factored in at the pump.
I'd say all these companies making the $30 billion profits each year ought to be the ones paying for all the U.S. military support to keep the oil flowing.
It would be a mistake even worse than the Iraq mistake to invade or attack Iran.
Only Bush would be so capable of such a blunder worse than the one already in Iraq.
It's highly debateable that they could invade Iran even if they wanted to (which they probably do).Originally Posted by surasak
They're over-stretched and under-resourced in Afghanistan and Iraq as it is, where would they get the troops from for a start.
Makes a bit of a mockery about the Wolfwitz/Rumsfield statement on '3 fronts capability' or whatever it was.
If I were part of the leadership in China I would be elated at seeing the United States falter and unable to take on mere insurgents.
Imagine the true disaster this would have been if it happened during the Cold War? The USSR would have had a blank check to walk all over the West because of the impotence of the U.S.
Anyway, so apart from "the surge", has the Bush regime pursued any political solutions?
Apparently not:
Reactions to Iraq Study Group Report: US Won't Talk to Iran and Syria, Rice Says - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - NewsUS Won't Talk to Iran and Syria, Rice Says
One key recommendation of the Iraq Study Group's report was that the US look to Syria and Iran to help quell the violence in Iraq. However, Condoleezza Rice has rejected the proposal, saying the price that these regimes may want in return could be too high.
Further:
Interview with Syria's Deputy Prime Minister: "It Takes Two to Tango" - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - NewsIn an exclusive interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, Syrian Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah al-Dardari explains why the US wants to use Syria as an excuse for its failure in Iraq and why peace in Iraq is impossible without the involvement of Damascus.
...
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Syrian President Bashar Assad recently said that Syria should take on a much larger role in helping to find a peaceful solution for Iraq. He said that Syria has a large influence in Iraq and therefore has to be the more important negotiating partner for the West. What kind of reaction did the government in Damascus get to this offer?
Dardari: Unfortunately the official statements from Washington were not positive. The only thing I can say is the following: If any foreign power wants to play a constructive role in the Middle East, is has to do so via Damascus. Anyone who ignores Damascus cannot make a constructive contribution to the Middle East. Syria has good relations with all parties in Iraq. This is a unique situation: We are the only country which has very good relations to all Iraqi groups. We have credibility with everyone. And for that reason, everyone who wants to bring peace to Iraq has to work closely together with Syria.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: The US claims that not only weapons but also fighters are being smuggled into Iraq over the Syria-Iraq border, and that the regime in Damascus is tolerating this. What do you say to these accusations?
Dardari: We have naturally no interest whatsoever in Iraq sinking further into chaos. We want a stable, independent Iraq. We have a 600-kilometer-long (380-mile-long) border with Iraq -- in the desert. We have stationed 12,000 Syrian soldiers on the border. If you look on the other side, there is not a single Iraqi or American soldier there to secure the border. It doesn't work like that -- it takes two to tango. We have asked the Americans and the Iraqis to work together with us to secure the border, but they turned down our request. Maybe they want a scapegoat to explain their failure in Iraq. The Americans cannot manage to secure their border with Mexico, but they expect us to secure 600 kilometers of desert by ourselves.
The story about the American soldiers raping a 14 year old girl whilst at the same time murdering her family is, to me, the singular most revolting act in the this whole sorry war. If there was ever a reason for the Americans to be reviled by the rest of the world, this is it.
"During the time me and Barker were raping Abeer, I heard five or six gunshots that came from the bedroom. After Barker was done, Green came out of the bedroom and said that he had killed them all, that all of them were dead. Green then placed himself between Abeer's legs to rape her. When Green was finished, he stood up and shot Abeer in the head two or three times."
The entire crime took about five minutes and the girl knew her parents and sister had been shot while she was being raped.
The truth is out there, but then I'm stuck in here.
Hopefully the yanks will not shoot down any civilian airliners this time.....
BBC ON THIS DAY | 3 | 1988: US warship shoots down Iranian airliner
and what's worse is that most americans have no idea that it happened.Originally Posted by Wallace
...mostly due to ignorant Americans worrying more about who is the real father of ANS's daughter and which rehab Britney will enter next.
good point.
i've been really disappointed to see how much attention these 'stories' have been receiving.
^ yeah, someone invading your country with psychos and murderers is a fact of life, shit happens.
...and you condemn pacifists?Originally Posted by Boon Mee
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)