well i just want to raise this issue to the people who have supported this blunder called iraqi invasion .
the supporters of democracy must realise what they have done?
iraq was ruled by a secular leader who was despised by islamists
iraq today is set to be ruled by religious shias who despise usa
today in iraq its the writh of the shia clerics like sitiani which is ruling and the americans cannot antigonise they clerics
today iraq is a lawless society very much like afghanistan after russian invasion.
so has this moronic usa adminstration made iraq and americans safer ? or have they set the clock back?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by kabir: *
well i just want to raise this issue to the people who have supported this blunder called iraqi invasion .
the supporters of democracy must realise what they have done?
1. iraq was ruled by a secular leader who was despised by islamists
2. iraq today is set to be ruled by religious shias who despise usa
3. today in iraq its the writh of the shia clerics like sitiani which is ruling and the americans cannot antigonise they clerics
4. today iraq is a lawless society very much like afghanistan after russian invasion.
so has this moronic usa adminstration made iraq and americans safer ? or have they set the clock back?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, quite correct. The best thing for the United States to do is to hand over all political power to the Iraqi's, and full overall military command to the United Nations. Then a truly sovereign/free Iraq can be established, supported by a truly international peace keeping/stabilisation force. I think Arab and Muslim countries (incl. Pakistan) should play an active and leading role in that.
June 30th. That doesn't mean America is leaving Iraq though. The U.S. has committed troops and money into Iraq and it will not allow a regime that despises America to rule the country. They can run their own country but there is a tradeoff. Setting up a government the people loath is something that is counter to the objectives that America has but America is committed to assuring that Iraq is not a haven to terrorists who want to destroy it.
any iraqi politician, if he trule love his country, will despise amerika.
but, I believe my friends to be true... if they put it under control of the iraqis, the kurds will be under constant attack. That is why I agree with malik - the muslim countries should work together to stabilise iraq; the arabs seem to be too hostile to do it alone.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by DarkLiquor85: *
any iraqi politician, if he trule love his country, will despise amerika.
but, I believe my friends to be true... if they put it under control of the iraqis, the kurds will be under constant attack. That is why I agree with malik - the muslim countries should work together to stabilise iraq; the arabs seem to be too hostile to do it alone.
[/QUOTE]
I predict that a few more military humiliations for America in Iraq, and it will go running to the United Nations again, an organisation that was derided by the Bush regime not too long ago.
i wrote this post few days ago and look whats happening in iraq today? this clash between shias and americans.
i feel sorry for the innocent iraqs and the young american soldiers who are dying for a foolish war intiated by a foolish president
[QUOTE] Originally posted by underthedome: *
*[The US] will not allow a regime that despises America to rule the country.**
[/QUOTE]
Sorry but - HUH ? What does this mean ? What's more important, democracy or a regime that sucks upto the US ?
i thought the US admin was in there to install democracy, remember - freedom, liberty and all that jazz. If the people democratically elect a government that happens to despise the US, um - that's their democratic right. What happened to - we will liberate the country and give them democracy? Is it qualified democracy ? Partial democracy? You-kiss-upto-us-and-only-then-can-you-have-democracy?
Take an opinion poll of the world's peoples and i guarantee there was not much happiness when George W. Bush was elected - that doesn't mean other countries have the right to interfere in the domestic political system of the US simply because they don't like the current American government in power.
Iraq's fate should be determined by Iraqis for the ten gazillionth time. What we are now currently witnessing in Iraq is classical guerrilla resistance at the grassroots level. Saw it in the Latin American region and we are witnessing it again in the Middle East. So much for making the world more stable and less dangerous.
Iraqi's can have their freedom and have a government that dose not despise the U.S. In order for Iraq to rebuild they will need to a government that has a friendly relationship with the U.S. this demand does not threaten Iraqis freedom what-so-ever. Not having such a government assures instability of the country and likely future military engagements with the U.S. You don't go to war with a country, win, and then allow someone who hates you to take over. .
[QUOTE] Originally posted by underthedome: *
Iraqi's can have their freedom **and have a government that dose not despise the U.S.*
[/quote]
The latter is a point that should be left upto the people of Iraq to determine. When Americans go to the polls this November, they will not be choosing a government that other countries approve of.
[quote] In order for Iraq to rebuild they will need to a government that has a friendly relationship with the U.S.
[/quote]
Again, i think there is a tendency to perceive this issue from the perspective of the US. What works for the US? What doesn't work for the US? Let's come to agreement on one basic underlying foundation first - the rebuilding of Iraq should rightly be in the hands of the Iraqi people. No one is doing them any favours or courtesies by 'assisting' them to rebuild. Wrecking someone's country then staking the terms of the reconstruction process, is kindof hypcritical in my opinion and that's putting it very softly.
[quote] Not having such a government assures instability of the country and likely future military engagements with the U.S.
[/quote]
The way it is going right now, having a puppet government isn't guaranteeing stability either.
[quote]
You don't go to war with a country, win, and then allow someone who hates you to take over. .
[/QUOTE]
The diverse sets of bloody and disturbing circumstances in the past several weeks, and months, proves that the accuracy of the word above ("win") is highly debatable. The US has won the battle with its sophisticated weaponry. The long-term war to win the hearts and minds of the colonized, has yet to manifest itself.
In order to allow the people of Iraq to determine what they want you need security and the U.S. will eliminate those who are stopping this from occurring. Giving Iraq freedom does not mean you allow Iraqis who hate the U.S. the option to use it’s media to call for violence against U.S. soldiers nor does freedom mean you submit to violence. Freedom does not allow terrorists like Sadr to dictate the rules. He does not represent Iraqis what he represents is a small, small minority of the 26 million people, most who live in fear. The fact is anyone in Iraq who shows support for what America is doing in Iraq gets gunned down, is that freedom? You have those here claming America is oppressing the Iraqi’s, how so? By training the Iraqi army? By training an Iraqi police force that will protect all sects in Iraq? By creating a constitution that protects everyone in Iraq. Is this oppression? Those who attack U.S. soldiers are attacking Iraq’s future. Without security there is no freedom.
And we'll be all damned if we listen to those who stomp and dance on dead bodies with their children and allow them to tell us what Iraq wants.