IMHO, if the people, and specially the American administration wants to see peace, less bloodshed, less anti-Americanism around the world, they should immediately withdraw all forces from the Arab countries. Stop supporting the Isrealis blindly, and adopt a balanced approach towards both the Muslims and the Jews. They should also stop supporting the different despotic Arab regimes( Sabah family of Kuwait, Al-Saud family of KSA etc. ). I also believe that the Europeans have done a more decent job at having a balanced approach towards the Muslims, and that the Americans can learn from their European counterparts...
Now in case of Iraq, as I forementioned, the Yankees should go back, as the Iraqi public desires, and the Control of Iraq should be given to the Gulf co-operatioon council(GCC), the Arab League, or the Organisation of Islamic countries(OIC). To show the gratitude to the American iniative and services of getting rid of Saddam, the Americans should be given the black gold on subsidized rates for next five years. I dont think the American mainstream should have any problem with this approach, since they did not go inside Iraq because of the oil...;)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ZulfiOKC: *
IMHO, if the people, and specially the American administration wants to see peace, less bloodshed, less anti-Americanism around the world, they should immediately withdraw all forces from the Arab countries. Stop supporting the Isrealis blindly, and adopt a balanced approach towards both the Muslims and the Jews. They should also stop supporting the different despotic Arab regimes( Sabah family of Kuwait, Al-Saud family of KSA etc. ). I also believe that the Europeans have done a more decent job at having a balanced approach towards the Muslims, and that the Americans can learn from their European counterparts...
Now in case of Iraq, as I forementioned, the Yankees should go back, as the Iraqi public desires, and the Control of Iraq should be given to the Gulf co-operatioon council(GCC), the Arab League, or the Organisation of Islamic countries(OIC). To show the gratitude to the American iniative and services of getting rid of Saddam, the Americans should be given the black gold on subsidized rates for next five years. I dont think the American mainstream should have any problem with this approach, since they did not go inside Iraq because of the oil...;)
[/QUOTE]
Just a little question before considering your proposal too deeply. You think the US should stop supporting "different despotic Arab regimes." You then say Iraq ought to be put in the control of the GCC, OIC or Arab League. Are not each of these organizations controlled by the very "despotic Arab regimes" you think we ought not support? How could organizations controlled by "despotic Arab regimes" possibly help the Iraqi people in establishing a free, self-determining, democratic form of government?
Cooperation. Muslims should be involved in Iraq, the fact is they should be eager to help rebuild Iraq. Muslim countries that help with securing Iraq would be helping the Iraqis but at the same time it would be helping America, now seen by many as Islam’s enemy. So they are faced with this catch 22. A trust between Islam and the United States and the western world in general, needs to be formed. Those that believe Democracy and Islam can co-exist need their voices to be elevated and heard.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by underthedome: *
**Muslim countries that help with securing Iraq would be helping the Iraqis but at the same time it would be helping America, now seen by many as Islam’s enemy.*
[/QUOTE]
hm. Did i read above another possible argument in favour of removing US/British forces from Iraq? Would make it far easier, diplomatically and otherwise, for countries like Pakistan to participate in the 're re-building' of Iraq.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
hm. Did i read above another possible argument in favour of removing US/British forces from Iraq? Would make it far easier, diplomatically and otherwise, for countries like Pakistan to participate in the 're re-building' of Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
Ahhh, no.
why is it one or the other? why can;t muslim countries work with the Americans or others. They are first in line with the begging bowl and then high handed when it comes to taking care of their own.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by underthedome: *
**Ahhh, no.
[/QUOTE]
*
Why not?
Many reasons ranging from security to the message that would said.
**
So it’s better to continue undertaking a wrong action, rather than acknowledge that one made a judgement in error and try to rectify past mistakes? Their prolonged presence in the country and the numerous unstable events of the past several weeks, doesn’t send a very constructive message either to the rest of the world.
Anyways i do not mean to be arguing with you in particular. We will disagree re: this and that’s perfectly fine with me. 
No, I do think it's time to enlist help of the UN while maintaining a presence in Iraq. Hopefully the resolution being worked on now will do just that.
No Arguing, just trying to understand one another, no harm in that, just the opposite.
My voice, the reply I posted earlier is a step by step procedure. I feel the moment the American administration stops supporting the despotic regimes in the Arab world, these regimes would be instantly overthrown by the Muslim radical groups, who by the way, do enjoy the mass support among not only Arabs, but also among Muslims in general, specially after the 9-11(The Americans would love this part, since they will be helping, in bringing true democracy in the region);). The Americans, by this point now, don’t need to worry about the Muslim radicals taking control over KSA, Kuwait, and some other places, because remember, the Americans have already left the region, and have already adopted a balanced approach towards the Muslims and the Jews, hence no more anti-Americanism.
Now assuming that all this have already happened in the Gulf region, in my opinion, it should not take more then two weeks for the Muslim radicals to accomplish the over throwing of the despotic governments in their respective countries, OIC, Arab league, and the GCC have been cleansed of the Al-Sabah family, Al-Saud family and the other ruler families. All these three organs, and specially the Arab league and the GCC, will be represented by their own people. Also, if you don’t like my approach of handing over Iraq to the GCC or the Arab league because you don’t like to see the al-Sabah family and al-Saud family over thrown for Lord knows whatever reason, then the next best possible solution is to hand over the Arab country of Iraq to the OIC, which is run by progressive and moderate states like Pakistan, Malaysia, Turkey and few more states.
More about the Bush Adminstration’s lies and deception!
Analyst: White House lied on Iraq](http://www.democratandchronicle.com/news/10209624DCB_cia20_news.shtml) Democrat & Chronicle
**(October 20, 2003) — The Bush administration lied to Congress to pave the way for war with Iraq, alleged a former CIA analyst who visited Rochester on Sunday. Ray McGovern, 64, who was a CIA analyst from 1964 to 1990, was guest speaker at Metro Justice’s annual dinner. The Bush administration’s deception of the American people began a year ago, according to McGovern.
It was then that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson made a trip to Africa to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking uranium to build nuclear weapons. Wilson reported to the Bush administration that the allegations were false.** But the Bush administration reported to Congress that intelligence indicated Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.
President Bush also gave “many” speeches linking Iraq to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, McGovern said. “Never have I seen such a cynically orchestrated campaign over a year and a half,’’ he said. “Only a few weeks ago did Bush admit that Iraq was not involved in any way with 9/11.” Suzy DeFrancis, a White House spokeswoman, said Sunday that President Bush was “very satisfied” with the intelligence he received and with “the unanimity of the intelligence community on Iraq.’’
“Other countries agreed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and had not accounted for them,’’ DeFrancis said. “The president has already stated he was satisfied with the quality of the intelligence he received and made his decision based on that. He believes it was absolutely the right decision.” To those who want to know why Saddam did not both say and show to weapons inspectors that he had no weapons of mass destruction, McGovern said simply that it was a matter of self-defense. “With ambiguity comes a measure of deterrence,” he said, referring to potential aggression on the part of Israel.
**If the Bush administration doesn’t let the United Nations take over administration of Iraq, McGovern said, he worries that the situation will turn into another Vietnam. **“Unless we change our policies, we’ll suffer more and more casualties,” McGovern said. “In the early stages of Vietnam, people were saying the same things — ‘You can’t cut and run. You have to see this thing through.’ That just compounds the error.”
*Ratcheting up his criticism of the war in Iraq, Senator Edward M. Kennedy accuses the Bush administration of telling “lie after lie after lie” to defend its policy in a fiery speech prepared for delivery today on the Senate floor. “The trumped up reasons for going to war have collapsed,” Kennedy says in a speech that underscores his opposition to President Bush’s request for $87 billion to fund military operations and rebuilding in Iraq and Afghanistan. *
Kennedy: Bu$h Iraq Policy ‘Lie After Lie After Lie’,
‘Trumped-Up Reasons Have Collapsed’](http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/10/273453.shtml) Portand Independant Media 17 Oct 03
WASHINGTON – Ratcheting up his criticism of the war in Iraq, Senator Edward M. Kennedy accuses the Bush administration of telling “lie after lie after lie” to defend its policy in a fiery speech prepared for delivery today on the Senate floor. “The trumped up reasons for going to war have collapsed,” Kennedy says in a speech that underscores his opposition to President Bush’s request for $87 billion to fund military operations and rebuilding in Iraq and Afghanistan. An advance copy of the speech was obtained by the Globe.
“The administration still refuses to face the truth or tell the truth,” Kennedy says, accusing the White House of misleading the public about every aspect of the war, from the financial costs to the motivation and the aftermath. “Instead the White House responds by covering up its failures and trying to sell its rosy version of events by repeating it with maximum frequency and volume, and minimum regard for realities on the ground.” Asked about the senator’s planned remarks, White House spokesman Trent Duffy said, “The United States and the world are safer today because of the actions that were taken in Iraq, because Sept. 11 taught us that we need to confront new threats before they reach our shores.”
Kennedy’s last broadside about the war – he described it in September as a fraud “made up in Texas” as part of political strategy – drew a scolding phone call from White House chief of staff Andrew H. Card. Advisers in both parties say the speech planned for today is further evidence that the personal relationship between the Massachusetts Democrat and the president has greatly deteriorated.
“Our men and women in uniform fought bravely and brilliantly, but the president’s war has been revealed as mindless, needless, senseless, and reckless,” Kennedy says, according to the text of his speech. “We should never have gone to war in Iraq when we did, in the way we did, for the false reasons we were given.” After the similar, but relatively mild, remarks from Kennedy in September, Bush blasted the senator for being “uncivil,” and Card privately complained to the senator for what he considered a personal attack on the president’s credibility, according to officials in both parties. Republicans on Capitol Hill were incensed, and House majority leader Tom DeLay called the remarks a “new low.”
At the same time, Kennedy’s criticism – coming after a July 15 speech at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, in which the senator said “ideological pride” prevented the administration from seeking international help – seemed to energize Democratic critics of the administration’s Iraq policy. Public opinion polls indicated the president’s approval ratings slipped as the criticism grew sharper.
The address prepared for delivery today shows that the reaction from the White House and Card, a Massachusetts native who has known Kennedy for many years, had little effect on Kennedy – further evidence, advisers said, that Kennedy and Bush have abandoned the kinship they shared at the start of the administration. “They blew it,” one Democratic official said of the White House’s handling of its relationship with Kennedy. “They came into office and they started to work together on a number of issues, and then they completely dissed him.”
Well here you have it from the horse’s mouth. Note “…they’ve misinformed and misled the American people.” Rumsfeld here is refering to himself (and other Bush regime members!)
"NOW & THEN
Rumsfeld in His Own Words
NOW: “Every time someone has answered those questions [about troop deployments and time commitments], they’ve been wrong. They’ve been embarrassingly wrong. I’ll use another word. They have misinformed. By believing they knew the answers to those questions, they’ve misinformed and misled the American people.”
- Sec of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/2/03 [Source]
http://www.msnbc.com/news/969743.asp?cp1=1
THEN: “What is, I think, reasonably certain is the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far from the mark.”
- Sec of Defense Rumsfeld, 2/27/03 [Source]
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/t02272003_t0227ap.html
" The war “could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
- Sec of Defense Rumsfeld, 2/7/03 [Source]"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-31-then-and-now-usat_x.htm
Iraq is Not America’s to Sell
International law is Unequivocal - Paul Bremer’s Economic Reforms are Illegal](http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1107-09.htm) Guardian 07 Nov 03 (Excerpt)
**Any movement serious about Iraqi self-determination must call not only for an end to Iraq’s military occupation, but to its economic colonization as well. That means reversing the shock therapy reforms that US occupation chief Paul Bremer has fraudulently passed off as “reconstruction”, and canceling all privatization contracts that are flowing from these reforms.
How can such an ambitious goal be achieved? Easy: by showing that Bremer’s reforms were illegal to begin with. They clearly violate the international convention governing the behavior of occupying forces, the Hague regulations of 1907 (the companion to the 1949 Geneva conventions, both ratified by the United States), as well as the US army’s own code of war. **
The Hague regulations state that an occupying power must respect “unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country”. The coalition provisional authority has shredded that simple rule with gleeful defiance. Iraq’s constitution outlaws the privatization of key state assets, and it bars foreigners from owning Iraqi firms. No plausible argument can be made that the CPA was “absolutely prevented” from respecting those laws, and yet two months ago, the CPA overturned them unilaterally.
Some examples of the US adminstration lying to the world.. the Gulf of Tonkin Hoax](http://www.fair.org/media-beat/940727.html) which led to the Vietnam war, the Iraq Incubator Hoax](Alternet.org) propogated by the Bush Sr Administration which led to Gulf war 1 and now theIraq WMD Hoax](http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3003iraq_inspex.html) masterminded by President Bush and his advisors which has led to a devastating war and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Whatevers next !
Where is Jessica Lynch Hoax?
Yes and theres also the **lynching **the truth](http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/2096/) Hoax.
“The North American palace press is all too willing to parrot government propaganda, especially when it concerns Arabs.”
**She was taken to the Military Hospital a few hundred yards away where Dr. Jamal al-Saeidi, gave her intravenous fluid and blood, and stitched her head wound. A few hours later she was transferred to the Saddam Hospital in Nasiriyah where doctors treated her other injuries.
Lynch told ABC’s Diane Sawyer that she was never mistreated and that a nurse even sang to her. Two days before the “rescue” Dr. Harith a-Houssona arranged for an ambulance to return Lynch to the Americans, but the army opened fire forcing it to return to the hospital, so Lynch could be “rescued.” To her credit, Lynch refused to have anything to do with the movie, and has denounced the military for staging her rescue to manufacture support for the war in Iraq. **
Its called democraZy and freedom of speech Jew York Times style. 
People,
The U.S. administration is caught in catch 22 if they withdraw from Iraq.
A withdrawl is an open invitation for Saddam.
My thinking is that an immediate withdrawal sends the message that a renegade government can do whatever pleases themselves for or against their own population as well as toward the world without ANY fear of retribution.
That imoh is an invitation for anarchy and possible Worldwide War.
It leaves the undesireable possibility possible.
And thats serious danger to all peoples.
What is needed is a Muslim/American/Arab/Mideast/European/Asian/African/Irish multitude of people to say:
Ask not what you can do for your own....... but what you can do for the whole of mankind.