George Bush’s most steadfast backer in the March 2003 preventive war invasion and occupation of Iraq has been British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The Bush-Blair Âdynamic duo act is, however, about to end. Blair is soon to resign his post in favor of the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown.
North Korea claims to have tested a nuclear weapon. Iran refuses to halt its uranium enrichment program. The non-proliferation regime teeters on the brink. Washington’s uncompromising tactics with both Tehran and Pyongyang have failed to achieve anything but the most radioactive results.
Challenged in a recent press conference on his strategy to “win” the Iraq War, President Bush defiantly stated, “If I didn’t think it would work, I would change.” Instead of “staying the course” and bad-mouthing critics by comparing them to those who sought to appease the Nazis before World War II, Bush should be seeking new and creative ways to stop the utter destruction of Iraq and the constant loss of our soldiers.
“The oil belongs to the Iraqi people. It’s their asset,” declared President George W. Bush in a press conference on the White House lawn in June. He had just returned from a surprise visit to Baghdad, in which oil had been one of the main subjects of discussion.
As each day is greeted with news of Iraq’s daily death toll, the media debates whether Iraq is embroiled in an all-out civil war. While conventional wisdom holds that the country is being cleaved apart by religious differences, this conflict actually stemmed from the U.S. government’s political miscalculations.
Over the past three and a half years, few members of Congress have challenged President George W. Bush over his “stay the course” mentality in Iraq. Indeed, just over a month ago nearly 300 Representatives endorsed the Bush Iraq policy of remaining in Iraq until a “free and stable Iraq” has been achieved. And while 39 Senators voted to support withdrawal in the same month, only 13 brave Senators supported a deadline of 2007.
Polls show that the American people are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the war in Iraq and want our beloved troops to come home as soon as possible. Nearly 80 communities nationwide have put these sentiments in city and town council resolutions that call for bringing our sons and daughters home from a war that has become a deadly quagmire and an occupation as unpopular in Iraq as in the United States.
The ongoing civil conflict in Iraq is one of the major issues being considered in the debate over future U.S. military and political steps in Iraq. A growing number of analysts argue that U.S. military forces must stay in Iraq to prevent a full-scale sectarian civil war between Sunni and Shia Arabs in Iraq. But evidence exists that the roots of the Iraqi civil conflict is political rather than sectarian, and that the best solution is finding a way to bring the troops home.
In late June, the Commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq, General George Casey, upped the rhetoric against Iran accusing the regime of causing instability in Iraq. There is nothing new in this charge, since U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad made similar charges about three months ago. The current significance of this accusation is its timing, and its linkage with the ongoing nuclear research-related conflict between Washington and Tehran. Iran is presently considering its response to the comprehensive proposal made by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany regarding its uranium enrichment program. Casey’s words are clearly measured to increase pressure upon Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s regime.
Question: How much is an Iraqi life worth? Answer: A lot less than an American or British life, according to the amount of compensation paid to the relatives of victims.