Re: White Phosphorus in Fallujah

On 17 Nov 2005 21:33:38 -0500, Brock Hannibal <hamilcar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>Though it was determined that Saddam was not involved in 9/11 it has
>been shown quite clearly that he aided and abetted a number of terrorist
>organizations both financially and by allowing safe haven.

The United States leadership deliberately lied about this issue, when
gearing this country up for an unecessary war. Poll after poll still
shows the majority of the US population was so successfully lied to
they still believe 9/11 and Iraq are linked.
>
>This "power vacuum you" speak of, do you mean the fact that one of the
>most bloodthirsty dictators the world has known is no longer in power?
>And that the current elected government has not been able to quell the
>terrorists yet?

If *bloodthirsty* were the test, the US would be liberating Zimbabwe,
and others. It isn't the test. The power vacuum is clear, when the US
have to launch (still) major military operations to attempt to gain
control of large parts of the country. The country is unable to
sustain a cohesive government without military support, and don't look
like being able to do so for a long time to come.
>
>>
>> They are indeed responsible for much of the violence. OTOH, a US
>> senior officer recently pointed out that everyone in Iraq was now
>> shooting at Americans. Well that's united the Shia and Sunnis in a way
>> no one else managed.
>
>No. The Shias are very much in control of the elected government. The
>terrorists continue to attack civilian Iraqis, though. The elected
>government is still asking for our help in security matters.

The Shias may have the tacit agreement of the West, that their
Government has some legitimacy. So did Saddam, for a generation.
However, much of the population currently in Iraq appears not to
agree. The Shias have shown little sign of accomodating either the
Kurds or the Sunnis, so how can peace be expected. It doesn't actually
make much difference, if you are Kurdish, who is subjugating you.
>
>>>> In fact, the irony here is extreme. It is generally accepted that Al
>>>> Quaeda, and Osama Bin Laden were behind the horrific attacks in New
>>>> York and Washington ...... yet Bin Laden and Saddam Hussien were
>>>> sworn enemies, the one being a Moslem fundamentalist and the other a
>>>> secular dictator sponsored and supported by the West.
>>>
>>>Yes, spot the irony, Al Qaeda in Iraq is bombing and killing innocent
>>>Iraqis as we speak. Or do you think this violence in Iraq is a ground
>>>swell of "freedom fighters" ?

Well I didn't deny this. We let them in. They will seek to establish
another Muslim state, and they may well succeed. Then what will we do?
Iran, Iraq, Syria, an unstable Jordan and wobbling Saudi Arabia. What
are we gonna do then? Israel must have a nervous trigger finger right
now.
>>
>> No. What is happening in Iraq is civil war. You know about them, the
>> Yanks had one.
>
>No. It's not a civil war. It's a terrorist sect of fundamentalist
>Muslims trying to terrorize and thus get the majority of non
>-fundamentalist muslims to submit to their will. There are not two
>formal governments with armies and fighting for territorial control.
>It's not at all like the US civil war.

The population of Iraq is split into 3 ethnic groups. Sunni, Shia and
Kurd. They are all currently fighting Americans and Brits, in between
killing each other. The government does not have control. It is civil
war. You speak of a *sect of terrorist fundamentalists* as if they are
simply to be brushed aside. But fighting is happening all over the
country, and no one has control. It is major, open your eyes and count
the body bags.
>
>>>
>>>> It is worth noting that the ill-advised excursion into Iraq has cost
>>>> almost as many allied lives as 9/11.
>>>
>>>It is also worth noting that even the Sunni Kurds support the
>>>liberation of Iraq by the US and its allies--the liberation of
>>>24,000,000 people so that they will have basic human rights and the
>>>right to democratic self government.
>>
>> So where is it then? More Iraquis are dying at the hands of other
>> Iraquis than ever before. Where will the democracy come from? The
>> recent election was totally dominated by one side, and as we speak,
>
>Isn't that the definition of democracy? The majority rules. But if you'd
>bother to actually read the draft constitution that the majority of
>Iraqis supported you'd find it quite enlightening. You'd discover the
>protections for religious freedom and individual liberties are quite
>extensive.

The majority of Iraqis didn't do anything of the sort. Many parts of
the country couln't vote, and wouldn't ever support a Government
comprised mostly of their religious and political opponents.

You have to remember that Iraq was never a democracy. It wasn't even a
country until the British created it. They drew lines in the sand, and
they drew them in the wrong place. As a consequence, the only
stability possible has bappened under a ruthless dictator WE put
there. It's not that Iraq isn't ready for democracy. It's simply that
the factions withing Iraq will not accept a democracy imposed from
without, esp. one imposed by the United States.

Whatever is written is the document means jack ***, unless the people
genuinely give consent to it's adoption, and we are a long way from
that.
>
>> Govt. sponsored (or tolerated) death squads are removing opposition.
>
>So the soldiers and police fighting for the elected Iraqi government are
>now "death squads" while the terrorists are merely opposition soldiers?
>
>Nice spin, but I'm not buying it.

Unfortunately, it's not spin. And I wasn't referring to soldiers. I
was referring to the roaming bands of militia sponsored by the
factions and terrifying even the elected officials.
>
>> Good job George and Tony!
>
>So after the upcoming elections when it will be clear that a majority of
>Iraqis support a democratically elected government what will you say?

I will say we were wrong. Yet again we meddled in another country and
got it wrong. We got it wrong when we put Saddam there, we got it
wrong when we removed him.

By the way. Don't think for one moment that I believe any other than
Saddam is a monster who ought to have been removed. But not by us.

steveb

.

Quantcast