O'Reilly states Bush has failed in Iraq.

Deja Q

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-01-06 06:24 PM
Original message

O'Reilly states Bush has failed in Iraq.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,233598,00.html

If the Bush administration has failed there, here are the consequences for you:

One, Iran will increase its power and begin to dominate the world's oil flow. That means, if Iran tells Gulf Arab nations to charge $100 a barrel, they better do it or risk Iran undermining them with terrorism. And Saudi Arabia will be the No. 1 target. All Americans will be at Iran's mercy then when it comes to oil. Think about that.

No. 2, Al Qaeda would also benefit. It would proclaim a great victory over America and set up shop inside of Iraq, working out a lose agreement with Iran. Al Qaeda terrorists then would have another sanctuary, like Afghanistan before we took out the Taliban.

No. 3, no one could stop Iran from getting nukes because of the oil threat. So they develop doomsday weapons and give them to whomever.

#1 makes sense, though Saudi Arabia claims to be our friend. It is also possible SA will team up with the US to wipe out any terrorists Iran throws up. Mr. O'Reilly must think SA doesn't have troops of its own?

#2 seems odd; Al Quaeda wants to see us dead. If we're out of the region, they will have to come here to fight us. Given the increase of surveillance of people, they'd be caught or Bush will have failed so badly it would redefine "catastrophic idiocy".

#3 makes no sense at all; Iran will do what it wants either way. Asking how "whomever" will bring them to the USA is a far more question; the amount of nukes needed to cause damage is considerable and it's rather easy to find with relevant equipment. Not to mention heavy; who can carry a 70 pound suitcase and make it look like it's only got a few leaflets and a pen inside?

I wonder what Bill thinks of Iran's clout in the region, or why Iran hasn't done so already, or why other factors would get to push for $100/barrel before Iran gets its chance...

But Bush did fail. This isn't about being anti-war or anti-Bush. In not taking enough time to think out the situation in the first place and going to war for the wrong reasons (there was no imminent attack as anybody who had weapons, upon hearing "that person has weapons so let's bring them justice" is going to USE the weapons before the other side gets a chance to bestow said justice! After all, it would make the justice justified and there's the pesky detail known as "revenge" too, Saddam was hardly the nice type to surrender in ernest compassion! As later history lends credibility to, there was no imminent danger of America being attacked, which was the sole justification for the invasion at the time.

It's an all too human failing, not thinking things through.

However, we're in it now and the past cannot be made undone. What's the next best thing? What price will have to be paid and will the people who have to pay try to play "dine and ditch"?

And if it's about oil, is it entirely about the oil company's windfalls (which only prove they do NOT need government subsidy, I wonder what Bill thinks about that corporate welfare going on...) and not about everything oil is used for which is, let's face it, almost everything.

And Bill is incontrovertibly correct about one and only one point in his post:

But if the Iraqi people will not step up and fight for their freedom, there's little the USA can do. We can't stabilize the country without most Iraqis on our side. And right now, they are not on our side.

He's correct. People have to work together for their dignity and their livelihoods at times. That's why unions were invented.

However, has Bill or anybody pondered WHY the Iraqis are not on our side? Seems a fair question... and what must we do to GET them on our side, which seems to be the best thing TO do if what Bill says is true?

I don't want the USA to lose. But we're not heading in the right direction. The fact the Iraqis' situation is not getting any better isn't helping. And people need to have to help themselves as much as anything external factor. But then, with Abu Gharib and other incidents having been spread out by and to the Iraqi people, it's no doubt most of them hate us. (So, Bill, maybe if we all analyzed the peripherary issues will we find the core reasons and do our best, as a country, to fix things. Right now it's obvious there is no plan, no ideas, no nothing. I don't know if the Democrats can do it, but the Republicans have not been able to.)

I'll admit I'm not in the loop on all this. Have the Iraqi gone to the UN or other countries and ask for help? And how do three factions team up and put their beliefs and differences aside?!