U.S. and Iranian envoys spoke directly to each other about how to end Iraq's violence, meeting at an international conference in Baghdad and opening limited but potentially significant contacts that could ease their nearly 28-year diplomatic freeze. It's amazing President Bush allows this due to Bush saying the USA will never talk with Iran "BUT" the Insurgents are hurting the USA day in and day out so Bush got tired of the beating the USA troops were getting everyday so the USA now allows the meetings. First on the list? How to stop the beatings the USA troops are getting.
2007-03-10 07:27:28 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
This guy still around?
Figured he get tired of sounding pretty stupid.
2007-03-10 08:23:36 · answer #1 · answered by Q-burt 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The only rational way to explain why the top politicians from both parties lie with such regularity is through an analysis of class warfare. The wealthy elite, whom both major parties represent, have diametrically different desires and needs than do the rest of society.
If one watches the Sunday morning talk shows, they quickly notice that the words Iraq and oil are never mentioned together in a sentence -- not by the hosts or any of the guests. In spite of the fact that 80% of the public understand oil to be a key ingredient of the war in the MIddle East, there is a gentlemans agreement among all key members of the ruling elite to never encroach upon that subject.
The wealthy elite make their wealth at the expense of the public. Tax money goes to fund the war machine, which in turn becomes profits for investors. The Defense Industry Index has tripled since the beginning of the war in Iraq. But the real jewel is the global hegemony that will bring continued riches to America's wealthy elite if they can claim control of the Middle Easts oil reserves.
But they have a problem. Imperialism isn't quite that easy. They were counting on a quick easy war in Iraq and then on to Syria, Lebanon, Lybia and Iran. They had intended to totally remake the Middle East within 5 years, yet they find themselves stalled in Iran. They knew that the pretext for the Iraq war was thin, but they believed that a quick victory would make that pretext a moot point. Of course, things didn't go as they planned and they now find themselves having wasted any credibility they may have had while still in need of more war in the Middle East.
Iraq had no WMDs and Iran has no nuclear warheads; but the war isn't about what they don't have. It's about what they do have. They have lots and lots of oil in a world where oil dictates everything and the U.S. ruling elite are more than willing to waste our money and our children's lives to acquire that prize. Such a program of class warfare can only move forward on a foundation of lies.
2007-03-10 07:51:44 · answer #2 · answered by AZ123 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A 30-1 kill ratio is hardly what I would call taking a beating unless of course you are an insurgent. I suppose its natural to not want anyone on our side to die or be injured but I think that just shows you are slightly ot of touch with reality. It is impossible to have a war without getting your nose bloodied occasionally. Thats why they call it war. If we never got hurt, they would call it slaughter and war would become a hobby, like a video game. And as far as Bush "allowing" a meeting between these groups, I think you are giving far too much credit to our government for being able to stop this type of diplomacy. I'm sure that they are thinking that if something good comes out of it, all the better. It any case the U.S. is not bound by anything since they did not participate so there is really nothing to lose. I suppose Bush lied about the same things Clinton did for the last 14 years so I guess we can expect them to be buddies, right??
2007-03-10 08:10:53 · answer #3 · answered by Rich S 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He lied in telling the inhabitants that the wars are for the protection of the U. S.. in truth they have higher the threat to mainland US and had no longer something to do with protection, so that you'll askif the wars are truly constitutional. He easily dodn't inform you that they were going to fee trillions of greenbacks (how a lot is the deficit again) or that you've been in an unwinnable conflict
2016-12-01 19:19:52 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is losing support for the war in Iraq, this is b/c of no positive effects of being there, inorder to gain more support Bush is turning to put the blame on another country inorder to make it look like his plan would have worked if not for the other countries(Iran) supporting the insurgents.
2007-03-10 08:11:23 · answer #5 · answered by armyboysmith 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Bush lied to the American people because he is a true American seeing the people as little more than collateral to make himself richer and more powerful - that's the American Dream right? Get rich by climbing on the shoulders of your fellow man and grinding them down. Of course it could be his handlers doing it as well as him.
Why is he talking to the Iranians? Because the US is getting it's rear kicked in Iraq and that means they won't be able to stay there long enough to steal all of the oil!!! Oh no, imagine how much money he and his gang of thieves and murderers could lose!
2007-03-10 07:44:59 · answer #6 · answered by airmonkey1001 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Why do YOU lie? George Bush has never "lied" to the American people. He has been been forced by circumstances to change his approach on several issues, but the President is STILL trying to do his job for the best interest of the nation. Not trying to gain partisan advantage on the backs of our service men and women on the ground in Iraq!
The seditious Democrat Congressmen and women would be happy for all the military personnel of the USA to die if it got them elected one more time. Scum is what they are.
2007-03-10 07:50:50 · answer #7 · answered by plezurgui 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Why hasn't the media been contacted concerning these things? If you know that your above question supports indisputable facts, then you should go to the media with them. The media( television, radio and newspaper ) has many ways of digging out hidden truths, much better than an individual can.
2007-03-10 07:35:14 · answer #8 · answered by cjam 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
i dont think you care what bush says, your goning to be against all of it. why is it a bad thing to you that were talking to iran? your making it sound like a step back when it's really a step forward. i think your just out of your mind.
2007-03-10 08:13:27 · answer #9 · answered by _ 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To ensure that the oil in Iraq, flowed West not East.
2007-03-10 07:34:32 · answer #10 · answered by niddlie diddle 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Bush clarifies it that he will never meet one on one with Iran, but if they are at a conference with others present he will talk to anyone.
2007-03-10 07:31:19 · answer #11 · answered by psycmikev 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋