http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2003/04/19/wbagh19.jpeg

To chants of "No to America, we want an Islamic state", Hundred of thousands of demonstrators flooded the streets of Baghdad yesterday, demanding the immediate withdrawal of US forces.

The protests began after Friday prayers and were the largest demonstrations since Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled 10 days ago.

The protests came as Kurdish forces in the north handed over to US forces a senior Ba'athist, Samir al-Aziz al-Najim, the fourth of the top 55 most wanted leaders of Saddam's regime to be captured.

Islamic clerics are making no secret of their belief that the Iraq that emerges from Saddam's shadow should be an Islamic state.

Ahmed al-Kubaisi, a Muslim preacher, told worshippers yesterday that America had invaded Iraq to serve the interests of Israel.

His followers streamed out of his mosque carrying banners reading "No to America" and "No to Secular State. Yes to Islamic State". Another banner was addressed directly to American forces: "Leave our country, we want peace".

the demonstrations showed that hatred for Saddam does not necessarily translate into support for America's presence in Iraq. Moreover, the Shia clergy are making increasingly determined moves to fill the country's power vacuum.

Yes i read about this too and i remember i also said before that something like this will happen. :m:

Poetic justice.:)

Meanwhile, occupation forces and their masters search frantically for justification for, and spoils of, the invasion, before the welcome really runs out. Hurry! Hurry! ("wait, we weren't trained for this") Yella-yella!

US Presidential Election Countdown! (http://www.geocities.com/tabby4prez/countdown.html)

I'd just like to point this out to anyone who wants to giggle.
Get the picture of the cheering Iraqis with the 5-10 people in a close up shot at a time pictures, then the wide angle 20,000 protesting iraqis and tell me which seems to be the more popular sentiment ^_^.
Looks like the propoganda war is running out of steam and lies pretty quick now.

Don't worry, America will move on to the next villain-source-of-all-our-problems soon, and will continue this inane process until the US economy runs utterly out of steam.

You forgot the other 10 milion or whatever that didn't protest.

...and the 150 pro-american Achmed Chalid militia who cheered and demonstrated when the statue of saddam was brought down... Surely they could be mobilized to launch a "massive" counter demonstration to show the will of the iraqi people on foxnews?

How many times does President Bush have to say that the Iraqi people will be running their own Government, before you people understand?

The fact that these people now have the right to protest against american forces, is incredible. Where as if you protest against Saddam you get killed. And don't give me that "The troops shoot at them though!" crap. The troops (Who are people, regular people) would not kill innocent men, women, and children. Unless they were being shot at first.

Oh and yeah, when american forces do pull out (Because thats what they want) they can go right back to bitching about how much looting is going on.

Your right, Katavan. That statement that you made was sooo true. I believe that Bush can change water to wine. And that what he says is the law.

Hahaha. Bush just said that your post meant absolutely nothing! And was just a sad attempt at humor! He also called your mom dumb, and told her to go back to working those corners. I believe that!

No, in all seriousness. I do believe Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Powell/Rice/Jesus/The Jews/Israeli Jews/Jaws (Not Jews)/The Jews that Hitler Killed/Barney because he's a jew.

Okay, lady's and gentlemen, Katavan can't tell a joke from an elephant's ass.

Actually, I backed Clinton in the 96 election. But in the 2000 election, I voted constitution party (Basically I threw away my vote because neither candidate was a good choice). But that's besides the point!

I don't blindly follow the President. I hate his environmental policies (He has none). The fact is this: Bush says that there will not be an American presence in Iraq after reconstruction is finished. We are there to help the Iraqi people right now. The fact that some of them protest, shows that they are open to do whatever they want.

Oh, and your Mom, she gives good ***

2 million shiites are going on pilgrims to celebrate their freedom, thanks to Mr. Bush.

CounslerCoffee,

Bush says that there will not be an American presence in Iraq after reconstruction is finished.

Let's all believe Bush!! He wouldn't lie, right??

Seriously, how long is this "reconstruction" supposed to last?? Five, ten, or twenty years?? Or maybe it will only last until all of the oil contracts are signed between US oil companies and the US occupational regime in Iraq. I wonder if Iraq will have to honor those contracts after the US occupation ends?? Would any experts in international law care to answer that question?

You forgot the other 10 milion or whatever that didn't protest.In Oregon, during the 1990s, a Libertarian movement (not associated with the party, as I recall) tried to pass a bill that would count all registered voters who did not vote in any given election as votes "against" spending; if the ballot question was "Should the state raise this tax to this point?" the non-voters would be counted as "no", but if the question was, "Should the state rescind this tax?" the non-voters would be counted as "yes". Quite obviously, they needed those non-voters to be counted as "yes" votes in order to get the law passed, but what of the millions of Americans who did no protesting at all during this war? Will you count them as "for America" or "against America"?

I just don't understand why some people, in the name of the People, will ignore the People.

We should not have promised the Iraqi people liberation; it would appear that at least 200,000 are smart enough to not expect true liberation.

Remember the joyous Iraqis dancing in the street as Saddam's statue fell? All 150 of them? What about the other 20,000,000?

In the future, can we please stick to points of functional value? I would like to hear what the war supporters have to say about what should be done. The Iraqi debacle is, after all, their show. And what a show it is: staged joy, hidden dissent, the noble Iraqi people looting hospitals and raping mental patients, the living history of Iraq--it's artistic and cultural treasures--stolen and looted in symbolic acts of "superiority"?

We have entered a new era of the "let them eat cake" idea: Bloody revolt is wrong unless it's an alternative to bloody invasion, but in the end, change can't come unless everyone agrees, unless of course the invading country is doing it for money, and then you just say that you're doing it for the right reasons and never really pay attention to anyone else. Look--nobody can stop the US right now because of our strength. Yet we wonder why Bin Laden nailed us? What's going to happen when someone who can do severe damage to the US has had enough? Will we be as stupidly surprised as we were by 9/11? Will we be as inanely perturbed as we are by the French? Will we be as idiotically complacent with dishonesty as we have been under Shepherd Bush the Savior of the New American Century? Let them all eat fucking cake, say the war-dogs. They can't stop us unless they sacrifice all their principles of humanity and become as soulless and bloodthirsty as our warring cabal!

It's win-win for the petty, and lose-lose for everyone else. Strange how the exploitative and self-righteous is the preferred way; it just leads to more self-righteous exploitation.

Someday, you might actually hear me say that the Iraqi Bush War was worth it, but I sincerely doubt it. By the time "success" is achieved, the death toll may be as high as if we'd left Saddam to rot in his own miserable noplace, just like we've tried doing to North Korea except for their dogged determination to make Bush look foolish. I tell them, they're trying too hard; just ask the guy to speak about anything--that'll do it.

Good luck to the Iraqi people; they'll need it with the Corporate Raiders in the neighborhood.

Remember, though, those who support this exercise in post-colonial imperialism: the miseries, as well as the glories, are your inheritance. With Hussein no longer around to hold accountable, it will be your bloodthirsty asses I hold responsible.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Do you have any proof other wise?

Seriously, how long is this "reconstruction" supposed to last?? Five, ten, or twenty years?? Or maybe it will only last until all of the oil contracts are signed between US oil companies and the US occupational regime in Iraq. I wonder if Iraq will have to honor those contracts after the US occupation ends?? Would any experts in international law care to answer that question?

Reconstruction is probably going to last 5-10 years. You can't expect things to pop up over night. And I'll say this again; it's French oil companies that are after that oil.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030305-2203800.htm

Also, please bitch about how the reconstruction is actually "Occupation." But if America left Iraq, without reconstructing it first, then we would be bitched at. Either way, you'll find a way to bitch about America. Frell you.

Bitch about the looting in Iraq, and then bitch about how we put soldiers on the streets to stop it. Don't bitch about the fact that the museum artifacts are being RETURNED!

Originally posted by Jerrek
You forgot the other 10 milion or whatever that didn't protest.

If you're implying that non-protestors do not share the protestors’ sentiment then that's a bad assumption. A statistically better gauge of sentiment is to compare the number of pro-American cheerleaders to anti-American protestors.

In your face you republican leader bass terds! Hahaha!

Also, please bitch about how the reconstruction is actually "Occupation." But if America left Iraq, without reconstructing it first, then we would be bitched at. Either way, you'll find a way to bitch about America. Frell you.These things must be considered before going to war. They obviously were not given serious consideration, else the issues would have been handled better.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
These things must be considered before going to war. They obviously were not given serious consideration, else the issues would have been handled better.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

So I guess we should do like the former goverment and just shoot a cloud of muster gas into the protestors :eek:

Nah, we'll just use bullets. It's quicker.

Two words: Coke & Levi's. Regardless of your perception, the basis of all human decision making comes down to self-gratification. We didn't beat the communists, we bribed them. Given the option of bread lines or McDonalds, the choice was obvious. Breaking a cultures concepts inevitably changes its views. This could cross many paths over time; but it will, in the end, buffer the views of even the most extreme prejudices. There are more muslims in westernized societies, living westernized lives than in Iraq. Given time and freedom, all societies choose the path that best satisfies the primal needs of its people...Greed. Gotta love it.

That might be true never looked at an elephant's ass before. Honestly, watch better TV. I've seen elephant precum before, on PBS.

Now then ... more relevant to the topic at hand ...

Salty, its hardly that, but all contingencies must be planned for to a certain extent.

Questions exist at present of what to do about various problems. For instance, despite the Geneva Conventions prescribing the necessity of law and order to the invading army, I, too, see a serious and functional PR problem (as opposed to a superficial PR problem) if ten armed American soldiers enter a mosque with force. It's a huge problem. But it's one we should have considered before the invasion.

I've found, in my quest for world peace, that the supporters of the war won't accept a non-invasive, non-violent solution unless it is plotted out to the last detail with a 100% guarantee of success. In other words, it seems that people will accept for the justification of killing what they will not accept for the prevention of killing. I find this a disappointing assessment of my "noble" American neighbors, of whom I now have a fundamental problem with approximately three quarters. (Seriously--I wouldn't let a modern war-dog babysit my child any more than I would let an evangelical Christian or a confessed or convicted child molester.)

What to do about it is an interesting question, and I don't have a perfect answer. However, a reasonable answer would have been a good thing for the frothing war-hounds to have considered before the invasion. After all, the war proper should, theoretically, end at some point. It's well enough to claim the will to reconstruct, but given the exploitative basis of the American ethic, the methods of maintenance and reconstruction should have been given far deeper consideration than they apparently have received.

It's like a peace plan: I keep running into a sovereignty barrier no matter what I do. But nobody feels like exploring such issues, so it's not like I'm getting any help from my fellow posters or any of my immediate intellectual associations. Other than that small hitch, it seems that a better way to conduct the last twelve years is easily envisioned. The problem of course is that I'm a one-world person who wishes very much to still be alive the day the national barriers come crashing down and the human species becomes one functional unit. So issues of sovereignty are a little like ... well, there's not much like them. It seems to me that the smarter an individual gets, the less reason there is in theory for national divisions. Anyone recognizing the immediate practicality of national divisions should also bear in mind the futility of them; so long as there is an "Us" and a "Them" and a world full of undereducated people, there will always be a reason to fight on a national scale.

I mean, think about it: I'm a college dropout, for Christ's sake. I'm a goddamned stoner extraordinaire. I'm a conditioned dissident. And even I can figure out that the only reason things are the way they are is because we all choose that they should be.

So excuse the fuck out of me if I think all the "smart" ( :rolleyes: ) people should be able to understand.

It's a matter of priorities. For instance, we can raise the human condition in general, or we can suck elephant balls. Either way, it's up to you. But my life gets better when the condition of those around me gets better. My life gets more difficult as those around me slip into decay and decline.

Now, I can blame them for being human, or I can figure out how to make things better. The only fault of mine that people won't seek a better way is my sad and apparently evil inability to convince every human being on the planet simultaneously that there is a better way to do things.

On that count, forgive me, please, if I don't lose sleep.

I'm perfectly happy to lose sleep on more important and attainable goals.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
Salty, its hardly that, but all contingencies must be planned for to a certain extent.

Im pretty sure they new they would have problems in Sunni populated cities. They were the more privalaged under saddam's regime so they will fear retalitaion from other groups.

Originally posted by tiassa
Questions exist at present of what to do about various problems. For instance, despite the Geneva Conventions prescribing the necessity of law and order to the invading army, I, too, see a serious and functional PR problem (as opposed to a superficial PR problem) if ten armed American soldiers enter a mosque with force. It's a huge problem. But it's one we should have considered before the invasion.

Im sure they did. This dosent mean there is not reason to enter a mosque if there is a sniper in one I hope they go get the guy.

Originally posted by tiassa
I've found, in my quest for world peace, that the supporters of the war won't accept a non-invasive, non-violent solution unless it is plotted out to the last detail with a 100% guarantee of success. In other words, it seems that people will accept for the justification of killing what they will not accept for the prevention of killing. I find this a disappointing assessment of my "noble" American neighbors, of whom I now have a fundamental problem with approximately three quarters. (Seriously--I wouldn't let a modern war-dog babysit my child any more than I would let an evangelical Christian or a confessed or convicted child molester.)

We dont support a non-invasive, non-violent solution because there is 0% guarantee of success. Are you saying we shouldn't have invaded in the first place and let the bones pile up? or that we should have let looting and lawlessness continue around the country by staying out of the cities? i havent heard of any way to solve the problem without using force.

Originally posted by tiassa
What to do about it is an interesting question, and I don't have a perfect answer. However, a reasonable answer would have been a good thing for the frothing war-hounds to have considered before the invasion. After all, the war proper should, theoretically, end at some point. It's well enough to claim the will to reconstruct, but given the exploitative basis of the American ethic, the methods of maintenance and reconstruction should have been given far deeper consideration than they apparently have received.

So we should have thought more? Just delayed the invetable? I think we handled this pretty well actually. If we let the Iraqies rebuild it will just be baath party again.

Originally posted by tiassa
It's like a peace plan: I keep running into a sovereignty barrier no matter what I do. But nobody feels like exploring such issues, so it's not like I'm getting any help from my fellow posters or any of my immediate intellectual associations. Other than that small hitch, it seems that a better way to conduct the last twelve years is easily envisioned. The problem of course is that I'm a one-world person who wishes very much to still be alive the day the national barriers come crashing down and the human species becomes one functional unit. So issues of sovereignty are a little like ... well, there's not much like them. It seems to me that the smarter an individual gets, the less reason there is in theory for national divisions. Anyone recognizing the immediate practicality of national divisions should also bear in mind the futility of them; so long as there is an "Us" and a "Them" and a world full of undereducated people, there will always be a reason to fight on a national scale.

I like being in a diffrent nation. Why? because people can have thier unitary socialist goverment. I can have my federal capatalist goverment. The only thing needed to keep the peace is for a strong international trade. That way if there is a war both would be extremly hurt finacially. If my state is primaly argraian state and yours is industrial. My state dosent get any cool cars and yours starves.

Originally posted by tiassa
I mean, think about it: I'm a college dropout, for Christ's sake. I'm a goddamned stoner extraordinaire. I'm a conditioned dissident. And even I can figure out that the only reason things are the way they are is because we all choose that they should be.

I think things are the way they are is because nobody that comes to power will ever give it up.

We could shoot every protester in iraq as soon as they pick up a sign and we STILL would be doing no worse than saddam was. Even the worst case scenario would keep the status quo and that is as likely to happen as it is for my keyboard to turn into an avacato.

You can either support the US in making Iraq the best darn place on earth or you can wish saddam (or somebody equally nasty) was back in office. Those are the only options that I can see.

The future looks brighter with saddam dead than with him alive.

Im pretty sure they new they would have problems in Sunni populated cities. They were the more privalaged under saddam's regime so they will fear retalitaion from other groups. And yet ... what coherent strategy for response to the problem?Im sure they did. This dosent mean there is not reason to enter a mosque if there is a sniper in one I hope they go get the guy.While the media is grossly incompetent, one of the benefits of keeping up is that you know something has happened. Reading between the lines is something Americans aren't very good at, but there's one issue that is not in question: Two Shi'ite clerics were murdered in a mosque while US troops stood by and did nothing. The clerics apparently weren't merely stabbed, but hacked to death.

Oooh, let's go after the snipers that endanger the soldiers who signed on to kill and die on command, but not protect the people we allege to be invading in order to protect.

I get your point, Salty, but it doesn't change the fact that the US should have figured out these issues beforehand.We dont support a non-invasive, non-violent solution because there is 0% guarantee of success. Well, if you never try, I can see how you arrive at that silly presumption.

That's what we call a "no-brainer", Salty.Are you saying we shouldn't have invaded in the first place and let the bones pile up? or that we should have let looting and lawlessness continue around the country by staying out of the cities? This situation is not twelve years old. It is at least forty, if we count the American assistance of the Ba'ath ascendancy and even older if we count British involvement. At no time has it been handled properly or even well. By restricting considerations of the current war to the last twelve years of dubiously-labeled "peace" we pretty much admit a lack of vision and understanding.

At some point, a line must be drawn in the sand, and those who have (e.g. Americans) must give something genuine to those from whom they have taken (e.g. third-world pawns).

Think of it this way: The British will never apologize for what they visited on the Irish for centuries. Listening to Affirmative Action debates in the US, one gets the impression that minorities are expected to apologize for being so rude as to suffer the effects of discrimination. The US will never apologize to the Iranians for toppling their popularly-elected Prime Minister, will never apologize to the Iranians for supporting the Shah, will never apologize to the Iraqis for abetting and perpetuating Saddam Hussein in a desperate effort to "fix" the problem we'd abetted in Iran.

The "invade or do nothing" dualism is an intellectual limitation of those who see warfare as a solution to a problem. At any time, the US could have stopped fucking with the Arab world. At any time, the US could have condemned the dictator it chose to support. At any time, the US could have said, "No, we cannot normalize relations with the Iraqis until the WMD and crimes-against-humanity issues are resolved." At any time before the invasion of Kuwait, the US could have done something other than say, "We won't interfere if you invade Kuwait."

Since Desert Storm, the United States has focused not on raising the Iraqi people, but on punishing Saddam Hussein. Why speak of the human disasters in Iraq when (A) we fostered them, and (B) we're happy to tolerate them, as a nation, elsewhere in the world? Why not take on North Korea? Is it too hard of a war for Americans to win without being honest with the people about what's happening over there? Is it too dangerous to someone other than the targets of our warring ambitions to invade North Korea?

It takes two to tango, and that means that the Americans, as well as their "evil" opponents, must decide that the bloody way is the only acceptable way.i havent heard of any way to solve the problem without using force.It's kind of like Americans and politicians. It's too hard for them to consider voting off the party tickets.

Objectively, what has war solved? It has not, by any means, brought us peace. Sure, we might have one less dictatorial regime to deal with, but there's fighting from the Americas to Africa to Asia and, in the last ten years, Europe.

Seriously: You haven't heard of a way to solve the problem without using force? Who the fuck cares? It's not like force has solved the problem. It's not like force ever solves the problem.

Oh, goody. The old Soviet Union is gone, and we chased them out by playing "brinkmanship". Of course, the warring way did not work then because, as we can see, the end of the Cold War did not bring peace.

Poor you, afraid to try peace without a handbook, yet you're willing to support a war with no coherent strategy, no definitive end, and a post-colonial mire that will play out for decades while those who organized the foray into Iraq didn't give much of a shit about what comes next. It makes absolutely no sense unless the produce of war is what one craves.So we should have thought more? Just delayed the invetable? I think we handled this pretty well actually. If we let the Iraqies rebuild it will just be baath party again.I'm trying not to read that, "Self-determination will produce a result unsatisfactory to the Empire" part. But success doesn't come for quite a while, by the look of it. The whole thing should have been played differently, for at least the last forty years, but since that's impossible, I would have expected a little more integrity from the "leaders of the free world", and also a little more foresight.I like being in a diffrent nation. Why? because people can have thier unitary socialist goverment. I can have my federal capatalist goverment. The only thing needed to keep the peace is for a strong international trade. That way if there is a war both would be extremly hurt finacially. If my state is primaly argraian state and yours is industrial. My state dosent get any cool cars and yours starves.Seems to make the point for me, eh? Rely on a competitive system instead of a cooperative, and you get competition. How important are the stakes? Obviously, important enough to kill for.

If it's what you choose, I can't hold you responsible for that. Oh, wait. I can.I think things are the way they are is because nobody that comes to power will ever give it up.The result of intellectual limitations. As long as people are expected to put the knife in, so it shall be.If you didn't care what happened to me,
And I didn't care for you
We would zig zag our way through the boredom and pain
Occasionally glancing up through the rain
Wondering which of the buggers to blame
And watching for pigs on the wing.

(Pink Floyd, "Pigs on the Wing, Part One")

And when you lose control, you'll reap the harvest that you've sown
And as the fear grows, the bad blood slows and turns to stone
And it's too late to lose the weight you used to need to throw around
So have a good drown, as you go down, alone
Dragged down by the stone.

(Pink Floyd, "Dogs"):m:,
Tiassa :cool:

The U.S. should return full control of the country to the Iraqi people immediately. After all, with the minor exception on Saddam Iraq has had an excellent history of self-governance. There is every reason to believe that if the U.S. pulled out today a stable, egalitarian government would emerge. :rolleyes:

I just read your post and so far I don't see anything how peace will solve this. You did not say one way we can solve this by not using force.

Originally posted by tiassa
And yet ... what coherent strategy for response to the problem?While the media is grossly incompetent, one of the benefits of keeping up is that you know something has happened. Reading between the lines is something Americans aren't very good at, but there's one issue that is not in question: Two Shi'ite clerics were murdered in a mosque while US troops stood by and did nothing. The clerics apparently weren't merely stabbed, but hacked to death.

Oooh, let's go after the snipers that endanger the soldiers who signed on to kill and die on command, but not protect the people we allege to be invading in order to protect.

So are you saying these people would have not died if US troops were not there?

Originally posted by tiassa
I get your point, Salty, but it doesn't change the fact that the US should have figured out these issues beforehand.

there are so many variables in war you can't predict everything I think we did an amazing job as it is. If we could predict everything we wouldnt need tanks.

Originally posted by tiassa
Well, if you never try, I can see how you arrive at that silly presumption.

What is this non-confrontational plan? What is this "cheap way to bring down the statue?" There isint one so thier is a 0% chance of it working. You can pray for peace all day but Saddam would still kill his own people.

Originally posted by tiassa
This situation is not twelve years old. It is at least forty, if we count the American assistance of the Ba'ath ascendancy and even older if we count British involvement. At no time has it been handled properly or even well. By restricting considerations of the current war to the last twelve years of dubiously-labeled "peace" we pretty much admit a lack of vision and understanding.

At some point, a line must be drawn in the sand, and those who have (e.g. Americans) must give something genuine to those from whom they have taken (e.g. third-world pawns).

So we should just let the USSR's Iranian allies just take over Iraq then. Stalin makes Saddam look like a kitten.

When Americans were pumping Iraqs oil they were one of the most prosperous arab nations sense we stoped though :( U.S. never colonized though.

TOriginally posted by tiassa
hink of it this way: The British will never apologize for what they visited on the Irish for centuries. Listening to Affirmative Action debates in the US, one gets the impression that minorities are expected to apologize for being so rude as to suffer the effects of discrimination. The US will never apologize to the Iranians for toppling their popularly-elected Prime Minister, will never apologize to the Iranians for supporting the Shah, will never apologize to the Iraqis for abetting and perpetuating Saddam Hussein in a desperate effort to "fix" the problem we'd abetted in Iran.


None of those people are still in power what would be the point of apologizing? Bush never did it.

Originally posted by tiassa
The "invade or do nothing" dualism is an intellectual limitation of those who see warfare as a solution to a problem. At any time, the US could have stopped fucking with the Arab world. At any time, the US could have condemned the dictator it chose to support. At any time, the US could have said, "No, we cannot normalize relations with the Iraqis until the WMD and crimes-against-humanity issues are resolved." At any time before the invasion of Kuwait, the US could have done something other than say, "We won't interfere if you invade Kuwait. "

How would we take Saddam out of power without invading? simple question if there is a peaceful alternativie.

Are you talking about before or after the fall of the USSR? Because when the most powerful army at the time is not friends with you, you will get support from any asshole in the world.

Originally posted by tiassa
Since Desert Storm, the United States has focused not on raising the Iraqi people, but on punishing Saddam Hussein. Why speak of the human disasters in Iraq when (A) we fostered them, and (B) we're happy to tolerate them, as a nation, elsewhere in the world? Why not take on North Korea? Is it too hard of a war for Americans to win without being honest with the people about what's happening over there? Is it too dangerous to someone other than the targets of our warring ambitions to invade North Korea?

Because North Korea is bad we can't liberate Iraq? We shouldnt have gotten involved in WWII then because other atrocities were happening over the world. We also are trying to negotiated a peacful way with North Korea isint that what you want?

Originally posted by tiassa
It takes two to tango, and that means that the Americans, as well as their "evil" opponents, must decide that the bloody way is the only acceptable way.It's kind of like Americans and politicians. It's too hard for them to consider voting off the party tickets.

What is this other way you keep talking about? Is there another way to get ride of Saddam without force?

Originally posted by tiassa
Objectively, what has war solved? It has not, by any means, brought us peace. Sure, we might have one less dictatorial regime to deal with, but there's fighting from the Americas to Africa to Asia and, in the last ten years, Europe.

What has war solved? Communism, Faschism, colnialism, nazism and slavery.

Originally posted by tiassa
Seriously: You haven't heard of a way to solve the problem without using force? Who the fuck cares? It's not like force has solved the problem. It's not like force ever solves the problem.

Oh, goody. The old Soviet Union is gone, and we chased them out by playing "brinkmanship". Of course, the warring way did not work then because, as we can see, the end of the Cold War did not bring peace.

Force got rid of most of the baath party it looks like to me. You are considering this little thing in Iraq to what could have happened if the Cold War went hot??? Well we wouldnt be able to type for one thing. USSR cant have anymore artificial famines anymore. We dont have to play cat and mouse anymore. There are no more nuclear blast drills where you hide under your desk.

Originally posted by tiassa
Poor you, afraid to try peace without a handbook, yet you're willing to support a war with no coherent strategy, no definitive end, and a post-colonial mire that will play out for decades while those who organized the foray into Iraq didn't give much of a shit about what comes next. It makes absolutely no sense unless the produce of war is what one craves.I'm trying not to read that, "Self-determination will produce a result unsatisfactory to the Empire" part. But success doesn't come for quite a while, by the look of it. The whole thing should have been played differently, for at least the last forty years, but since that's impossible, I would have expected a little more integrity from the "leaders of the free world", and also a little more foresight.Seems to make the point for me, eh? Rely on a competitive system instead of a cooperative, and you get competition. How important are the stakes? Obviously, important enough to kill for.

I would rather have success take a while then never happen.
You think Saddam and sons would just be one "this has been a fun run but I think im bored of being a dictator." When in the history of the world has a dictator like that ever done that!

Look you want to pay for an enificient bureacracy controling everything. Or some kind of tyrant streamlining the goverment good for you. You can live in that world. Ill live in my free one where I can choose to get a good job and make some money or I can be poor and just take it easy.

Originally posted by tiassa
The result of intellectual limitations. As long as people are expected to put the knife in, so it shall be.:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

You call it that, I call it simple human nature.

I have a suggestion. Why don't we turn this discussion the other way so that pro-war will have to prove anti-war that war is a good thing.

Salty can start and prove us all anti-war people, of course supported by facts, that war is a good solution and that war brings nothing but success on long-term.

SaltyI just read your post and so far I don't see anything how peace will solve this. You did not say one way we can solve this by not using force.Thank you for proving my point. In the meantime, I request fifteen years' time before providing you that plan, as I must first complete a doctorate in international affairs and then spend several years using newly-acquired techniques and contacts to collect information before going through the phases of constructing a coherent peace plan. Now then, as I noted before: I've found, in my quest for world peace, that the supporters of the war won't accept a non-invasive, non-violent solution unless it is plotted out to the last detail with a 100% guarantee of success. In other words, it seems that people will accept for the justification of killing what they will not accept for the prevention of killing.

So thank you again for proving the point.So are you saying these people would have not died if US troops were not there? Well, at least one of them would still have been in London, plotting his revenge against Hussein. The other probably would have died under similar circumstances, waiting for Hussein to fall to make his stand while his opponents waited for Hussein to fall to make theirs.

You seem to be having some trouble grasping the central point, though: Whether it is these two clerics specifically or the rest of the chaos in general, what to do about it should have been resolved in accord with the Geneva Conventions before the invasion took place.there are so many variables in war you can't predict everything I think we did an amazing job as it is. If we could predict everything we wouldnt need tanksSo because it's too tough to be responsible we should jut forego responsibility?

I could easily predict general violence and chaos at the fall of a regime. The responsibility of maintaining law and order is the responsibility of the invading army. Despite the PR damage brought about by, say, US troops entering a mosque guns blazing, the failures by the US and UK to maintain law and order in the days surrounding their invasion are criminal counts to be leveled against the commander of the forces, at least, and also the commanders-in-chief. This is a sticky problem, I admit. But I reiterate: they should have given it better thought before the invasion.What is this non-confrontational plan? What is this "cheap way to bring down the statue?" There isint one so thier is a 0% chance of it working. You can pray for peace all day but Saddam would still kill his own people.In the name of the Dubya, the Cheney, and the Holy Rummy .... I realize that it is difficult for people to think outside a popular track of thought, but like I've said for a while--this situation is not merely twelve years old. In deciding what to do about it, the modern history--at least the twentieth century--should be taken into account. The longer, and even ancient histories are also important; what, for instance, is the relevance of Kapuscinski's tale of the Shia in Iran, included in Shah of Shahs? It is important to bear in mind that even before their Islamic days, the people who became the Shia lived under tyrants. They are used to tyrants. What does "freedom" mean to them? Will Iraqi liberty include the right of the Shia majority to perssecute? In our minds, of course, it shouldn't, but are you going to explain that to the clerics who call for fatwas and so forth?

Different UN resolutions could have been applied, perhaps some that focused on raising the Iraqi people instead of obsessing on punishment for the regime. Like I've said before, there are issues of sovereignty to consider, but it's quite obvious that the only soveriegnty the war dogs care about is the sovereign right to kick someone's ass for profit. But in the end, it could have been done, and if you haven't been paying attention this far into the situation, I'm not about to go delving back weeks to hand you the post you didn't care to pay attention to the first time around.

You're welcome to be a dullard all you want. But stop with your religious devotion to the necessity of human cruelty. Your own narrow mind is the only reason you're simply not capable of envisioning peace. Tell me, is the peace offered Iraqis good enough for you? Why don't you shoot yourself in the head and then let me know?So we should just let the USSR's Iranian allies just take over Iraq then. Stalin makes Saddam look like a kitten.Do you know the name, "Mossadegh"? Leave Iran out of it unless you're going to consider the modern history at least.None of those people are still in power what would be the point of apologizing? Bush never did it. True, Bush has enough of his own sins to apologize for, but beyond that, I'm wondering if you have any understanding of history? Do you realize that in many world conflicts, the conflict won't end until the oppressed apologize for (A) being oppressed, (B) not liking oppression, and (C) existing in the first place. Ask the Irish in 1972. Ask the Palestinians. Ask indigenous American tribes.

In the meantime, I think Rumsfeld owes a huge apology to the people of Iraq. He, in fact, is responsible in part for Hussein's atrocities.How would we take Saddam out of power without invading? simple question if there is a peaceful alternativie.Even by my version of it, which you've utterly ignored in weeks past, you probably still get to murder a bunch of people. But here's the critical difference: you get to do it honestly in the sense that you've tried a legitimate peaceful solution, and it failed. Even for how awful and indecent a person you are, I couldn't just walk up to you on the street and give you the thrashing you deserve; it would be illegal. However, if I played my cards right, I could get you to commit to the fight and then be perfectly justified in defending myself against a legitimate and imminent threat.

Look, dude ... I don't forgive stupidity because it doesn't require forgiveness. However, willful stupidity is a different question.

Do the right thing, and get back to me on the peace that's good enough for the Iraqis.Because North Korea is bad we can't liberate Iraq? We shouldnt have gotten involved in WWII then because other atrocities were happening over the world. We also are trying to negotiated a peacful way with North Korea isint that what you want? The NK situation demonstrates clearly the dishonesty of the Iraqi invasion. There is a human disaster, an evil regime, and a much more immediate and severe threat to our security. But two facts speak against an invasion of North Korea: a lack of oil, and the prospect of a difficult war.

I'm happy to liberate Iraq, but I'm not about to pretend that a greed and cowardice equal liberation.

The warring way is what led the US to support people like Shah Reza, Saddam Hussein, and even Sese Seko, among others. You speak of zero percent chance, but what about a zero percent result? Why ignore the objective results of the warring way to speculate about what you're unwilling to or incapable of understanding, much less trying?

In the name of the Bullet, the Missile, and the Holy Petrol ....What has war solved? Communism, Faschism, colnialism, nazism and slavery.In other words, war has addressed some but not all of the negative consequences it has brought to the world. Seems like a negative balance so far, Salty. But you just keep worrying about the things you're afraid to try and reminding us all of how you know they won't work ....Force got rid of most of the baath party it looks like to me. One of the symptoms of force. Force also brought the Ba'ath to power, and in Iraq it was with American assistance.You are considering this little thing in Iraq to what could have happened if the Cold War went hot??? Hardly. Is that really the best you can come up with? I'm merely pointing out that the warring way didn't bring peace.There are no more nuclear blast drills where you hide under your desk.True. But why not worry first about the nuclear power that's getting ready to rumble and that, it appears, can, indeed, strike our sovereign territory? It's a matter of priorities. Dominion first, money second, pride third, and people apparently don't appear anywhere on the list.I would rather have success take a while then never happen.Which is all the more reason to rush blindly into war ...?You think Saddam and sons would just be one "this has been a fun run but I think im bored of being a dictator." When in the history of the world has a dictator like that ever done that!Try using question marks occasionally. Otherwise, it appears you're trying to think for me. And given that you can't even think coherently for yourself, I seriously recommend that you do not undertake the enterprise of thinking for me.

Too bad you weren't paying attention the first time. I mean, forcing the situation so that a war was justified by the rhetoric of immediate threat was not the hardest thing in the world to do. But it was far too inconvenient for the bloodthirsty war pigs just itching for a chance to slaughter Iraqis. Apparently the indirect method of supporting Saddam Hussein wasn't enough for the war pigs.Look you want to pay for an enificient bureacracy controling everything. Or some kind of tyrant streamlining the goverment good for you. You can live in that world. Ill live in my free one where I can choose to get a good job and make some money or I can be poor and just take it easy. I'm an American. My tax money already supports an inefficient bureaucracy that is trying to control everything down to the thoughts in my head and the words I speak or write. In the meantime, once you find your utopia, send us a postcard.You call it that, I call it simple human nature.Yes, but I'm not the type to believe that human nature is either wholly known or utterly fixed (non-transitional). The evidence is not there to support the assertion of a known and non-transitive human nature. This is, in part, because "human nature" is a fiction. "Human nature" is merely a translation of the living nature of organisms into a human template. We don't know entirely what that template is or looks like, else we would understand the "meaning" or "purpose" of life.

However, I refuse to excuse dangerous idiocy and willful stupidity just because it's "human nature".

If you're anxious to kill, do the right thing and kill the one person you have a right to kill. If you can live with that, let us know how it goes, and we'll all give you objective credibility to speak about the rightness of killing.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Very interesting! Can you please provide the link to that article or tell whick news organization that came from? (the 200,000 demonstrators)

- Thanks!

According to some anti war, pro saddamist in here recently, there are approx 5 million living in Baghdad - some of whom are bound to be Saddamists!! Now, take this thread a stage further and decide whether the source is reliable or Syrian (sic) - then decide for yourself on the numbers!!!

Qeustion is: Do we really trust the iraqis enough to really choose their own government or de we need some kind of puppet there?

It might as well be that fundamentalist muslims (like the FIS in Algeria) or even baath party wins truely free elections... Are we willing to take that change (that is if we claim to uphold values as democracy and freedom to choose etc.) ???

And, How much are these values worth, if they can't be applied outside your own country ?

Originally posted by Proud_Syrian
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2003/04/19/wbagh19.jpeg

To chants of "No to America, we want an Islamic state", Hundred of thousands of demonstrators flooded the streets of Baghdad yesterday, demanding the immediate withdrawal of US forces.

The protests began after Friday prayers and were the largest demonstrations since Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled 10 days ago.

The protests came as Kurdish forces in the north handed over to US forces a senior Ba'athist, Samir al-Aziz al-Najim, the fourth of the top 55 most wanted leaders of Saddam's regime to be captured.

Islamic clerics are making no secret of their belief that the Iraq that emerges from Saddam's shadow should be an Islamic state.

Ahmed al-Kubaisi, a Muslim preacher, told worshippers yesterday that America had invaded Iraq to serve the interests of Israel.

His followers streamed out of his mosque carrying banners reading "No to America" and "No to Secular State. Yes to Islamic State". Another banner was addressed directly to American forces: "Leave our country, we want peace".

the demonstrations showed that hatred for Saddam does not necessarily translate into support for America's presence in Iraq. Moreover, the Shia clergy are making increasingly determined moves to fill the country's power vacuum.

Having just seen this "demonstration" on tv I wonder who is telling the truth? According to the tv it was a religious celebration with plenty of shouting and arm waving and NOT shouting America Out! or anything like that - hmmmmmmmm!

I'm sure Foxnews translates it for you guys