The REAL Truth in Iraq

[michael_ital]

MAC
No, not in so many words, but that's what they actually feel. They just use more colourful rhetoric.

[Ceelgabo]

[quote="MAD MAC"]Mick
Muslims weren't saying that. Muslims were just being reactionary anti-American. Most have wanted to see Iraq descend into anarchy just so they can say America lost. That's all they care about. Otherwise they would be hoping we succeed.[/quote]


Muslims warned you about invading Iraq to bring your version of democracy, but America as usual never listened. Know that America succeeded in bringing civil war to Iraq you wanna lay the blame at the muslims not wanting America to succeeded..how typical.

[Grant]

[quote="michael_ital"]" And i'm STILL not convinced that the US is/was doing it out of concern for Iraq.[/quote]

Concern for Iraq? Whose propaganda are you reading?


Even Bushy admits he is fighting in Iraq so he doesn't have to fight the war on terror on US soil. I think the law of unintended consequences just caught him with his pants down. Democracy and no Saddam? Mikey, you are far too kind.

[Galol]

Michael and others

The attack on Iraq was completely unjustified and based on falsehoods and what appears to be manipulation by pro-israeli groups of intellectually ..struggling US president.

But look carefully at the detail and if one is objective one might discover a seam of American idealism; something long abandoned by petty, cynical, small-minded patronising Europe and never developed by many other parts of the world.

If the Neocons were acting out of pure self-interest then every cool, calm pragmatic calculation would have screamed an unmistakable message: Saddam is an asset in the war against Islamism and the spread of religious madness in the ME and beyond. Lets bring him onside; lift the sanctions and he will do a great deal of dirty work for us as he did in the past. Saddam's self-confident swagger before the invasion and genuine shocked expression on his capture confirms he made his calculations along this basis too. He kept on asking his captors "Why America? Why?"

Why indeed. The answer is simple: They actually believed they could remove an evil SOB which Saddam was; replace him with all singing all dancing plural democracy which will then spread across the middle east preventing more wars and mayhem and bigotry and hatred which now typify the area.

That is idealism and as is often the case with dreamy ideals it got smashed against the cold, bigotted, backward, savage realities of Iraq's ancient hatreds and clans and sects and bitterness.

Iraqis, like most Asian cultures;, wallow in melancholy and hold a grudge in almost genetic inevitabilities.

But lets get down to nitty gritty for a second and look at the reality of what is happening instead of just screeching at America like so much petulant kids who witnessed an adult commit a howling mistake.

The killing is being done overwhelmingly by Iraqis on Iraqis. The most evil of it is done by Sunni nihilists with sometimes no other strategy except to cause death for its own sake because they believe in the nothingness of human life as long as mayhem rules. More calculating groups also exist: from justifiable patriots fighting what is foreign occupation to straight sectarian death squads seeking revenge to disgruntled petty traditionalists disgusted by American GIs leering at their womenfolk. Crass though it may sound never underestimate the power of the `Sharaf' concept in Iraq.

Is the situation worse that it was under Saddam Hussein? Security wise probably yes but that is seen from our cold, grey indifferent eyes from over the oceans accustomed to our daily freedoms and taking them for granted.

The violence under Saddam was largely the preserve of the State and it used liberally. I think a telling point is this: How many Iraqis prefer Saddam rule to current lawlessness?

Every poll by every anti-American Arab paper(and most are almost naturally) still show they would rather have what they have now than go back to the terror rule of Saddam.

Who are we to argue with that?

[Gedo_Boy]

[quote="MAD MAC"]Mick
Muslims weren't saying that. Muslims were just being reactionary anti-American. Most have wanted to see Iraq descend into anarchy just so they can say America lost. That's all they care about. Otherwise they would be hoping we succeed.[/quote]


Well, you have to ask yourself what would happen if the US was perfectly succesful.....they would take the spreading of lies & attacking countries as a national doctrine & you would see deja-vu in Iran, Venezuela, North Korea & every other country that doesn't follow US dictates. This is just natural check & balance, one of the Sunnas of Allah on Earth:



"Had not Allah checked one set of people by means of another there would surely have been pulled-down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid His (cause); for verily, Allah is Full of Strength, Exalted in Might, able to enforce His Will" (Al Hajj, 40).

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Gedo
Well then blame Allah for all the dead Iraqis.

[Gedo_Boy]

MAD MAC,

With all this talk of "nuking Iran if it gets out of line" , you can see why having nuclear weapons is a matter of national survival for Iran.

The day Iran gets nuclear weapons is the day ceeb Cheney loses all cards.

And this talk of "Iranian hegemony" is really overblown...they may be a little more assertive, but they would not yet be a 1st rate power militarily, economically, or politically, so it's just to scare people to death....how come nobody talks about "Israeli hegemony" in the same negative context.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"With all this talk of "nuking Iran if it gets out of line" , you can see why having nuclear weapons is a matter of national survival for Iran.

The day Iran gets nuclear weapons is the day **** Cheney loses all cards. "

If Iran wasn't trying to get nukes, then there would be no talk of nuking Tehran.

The US remains top dog, and there ain't nothing Iran can do about it.

"And this talk of "Iranian hegemony" is really overblown...they may be a little more assertive, but they would not yet be a 1st rate power militarily, economically, or politically, so it's just to scare people to death....how come nobody talks about "Israeli hegemony" in the same negative context."

They are a regional hegemon if we leave. As long as we are around, the Iranians are in check.

[Gedo_Boy]

MAD MAC,

Since the 1st dagger, weapons were made to proliferate.......Nuclear non-proliferation seems like a reasonable concept, but it will never work.

Who on Earth determines who has nukes or not?

The Israelis have nukes, they have more UN resolutions (vetoed by US) against them than Iran.......

Iran hasn't attacked a country in recent history......

I'm not necessarily against the US/Israel denying Iran the right to weapons, because that's what you're supposed to do: deny the enemy the advantage or equalizers.

What I am against is the US trying to convince the world that Iran is an apocalyptic danger with nuclear weapons. They can't just outright say: "We will not accept Iran having nukes because they are our enemy"

I am against convincing the whole world that their security is in danger by Iran having nukes....... I don't buy into that.

As far as I'm concerned, Iran would be a stabilizing force in the region.......the strategic advantage is something Israel is desperately hoping not to relinquish.

But, weapons are made to proliferate.....natural checks/balances tend to sort things out, albeit after much bloodshed.

[Gedo_Boy]

[quote="MAD MAC"]Gedo
Well then blame Allah for all the dead Iraqis.[/quote]


You're missing the point. I'm saying checks/balances are a reality.

If I have to blame someone, I would blame everyone who knew Iraq wasn't an imminent threat, yet prosecuted the war.

That is a war crime. Not all war criminals are tried on this Earth, but none escape ultimate retribution.

The Day of Judgement is the ultimate settling of accounts......innocent victims will be compensated generously & criminals/evil-doers will be punished miserably:


"Even if the wrong-doers had all that there is on earth, and as much more, (in vain) would they offer it for ransom from the pain of the Chastisement on the Day of Judgment: but something will confront them from Allah, which they could never have counted upon!

For the evils of their Deeds will confront them, and they will be (completely) encircled by that which they used to mock at! "

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"What I am against is the US trying to convince the world that Iran is an apocalyptic danger with nuclear weapons. They can't just outright say: "We will not accept Iran having nukes because they are our enemy" "

Iran is our enemy. Any means to deny them capability - any means - is legitimate.

Gedo, I'm not communicating clearly. In this war of ideas and economics, we will not give an inch. No matter how many we have to kill. Not one inch. Not anymore.

[Gedo_Boy]

Now you can see why I think things will sort themselves out in the MidEast through all-out warfare & bloodshed.

Sometimes I think this is how it must have felt to be living in antebellum periods of warfare...ofcourse now it's amplified b/c of the media & real-time news....all the ratcheting up, it's all there the only thing missing is the trigger.

[avowedly-agnostic]

Galol

" They (Neocons) actually believed they could remove an evil SOB which Saddam was; replace him with all singing all dancing plural democracy which will then spread across the middle east preventing more wars and mayhem and bigotry and hatred which now typify the area. "

Not true. America didn't want to hold elections in Iraq, they were practically dragged into holding it kicking and screaming. It was due to the insistence of grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani and after many demonstrations that the US finally caved in and called for election.

Their aim was nothing short of installing a client government, setting up permanent bases (which are still on the cards) and controlling the flow of oil.

If as you imply the invasion was for benign reasons i.e to liberate the downtrodden Iraqis, then why does the US prop up the Saudi regime, which is arguably more totalitarian and repressive than Saddam was? Why if the neo-cons are interested in democracy building do they provide diplomatic cover (as well as financial and military assistance) to the house of Saud? (If my memory serves me correctly, Saudi Arabia is the second biggest recipient of US aid after Israel).

Further, why would the US finance and support a failed coup to remove President Hugo Chavez- who is democratically elected if it truly is interested in promoting democracy?

There are countless other examples of US interventions in Latin America. It's too many to list here, but I'll touch upon just a few where the US has undermined democracy in favour of protecting US economic or geopolitical interests:

1954, the US orchestrated the overthrow of democratically elected government of Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala because he nationalised the country's resources; 1965, US troops were sent to the Dominican Republic after a popular uprising against the country's military regime; 1973, a US backed coup overthrows the elected government of Salvador ushering in the regime of General Pinochet; and 1990, the US intervened in Nicaraguan elections by massively funding the opposition-something that is illegal in US law.

Is this the action of a US interested in spreading democracy, or is it more plausibly a case of empire building?

[Gedo_Boy]

Avowedly,

Any news on our ill 'comrade'?

[avowedly-agnostic]

News from the parliament speaker of Cuba is Comrade Fidel is recuperating well and will be back to work in just a few weeks though with a less workload.

President Chavez says he visited him and Castro was moving from in and out of bed "as well as talking a lot which he shouldn't do, but he talks a lot anyhow"