BBC says that upwards of 10,000 Iraqis marched. Given that past marches have resulted in shootouts, the fact that this many people felt strongly enough to march says more than it otherwise would.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3040047.stm


Thousands of Shia and Sunni Muslims have marched through Baghdad protesting against the US occupation, and demanding a say in the new Iraqi Government.

Up to 10,000 people gathered in front of a Sunni Muslim mosque in northern Baghdad, then marched across a bridge over the Tigris to the Kadhamiya quarter, home to one of Iraq's holiest Shia shrines.

...although he is not ready to confirm it, the signs are the transition will be slower than originally planned, our analyst says.
He reportedly said the Americans and the British would have to govern the country for an "indefinite period" - and declined to commit himself to a timetable for handing over power to an interim Iraqi authority.
It seems the predictions of the anti-war crowd are coming true. Don't know how many times I've been told to "just wait and see, we're going to install a democracy over there in no time" Looks like thats not the case.

It seems to me that unlike in Afghanistan, which really isn't vital to US interests as long as it can get its oil line run through there, Iraq's stability is vital, and therefore the situation will likely be the reverse of Afghanistans. Rather than quickly installing a powerless puppet dictator, the US will rule Iraq directly as a colony for as long as it can hold onto it.

Thousands of Shia and Sunni Muslims have marched through Baghdad protesting against the US occupation, and demanding a say in the new Iraqi Government.

Up to 10,000 people gathered in front of a Sunni Muslim mosque in northern Baghdad, then marched across a bridge over the Tigris to the Kadhamiya quarter, home to one of Iraq's holiest Shia shrines.


If only this attitude can be mass realized and held up high ............
Why should an Islamic state be Shiaa only ? And why should it be fundamental ?


It seems the predictions of the anti-war crowd are coming true. Don't know how many times I've been told to "just wait and see, we're going to install a democracy over there in no time" Looks like thats not the case.


Wasnt it clear a democracy could not be installed by the definitian of the Shiaa vote for an Islamic state ? Israel does not remove one power to create oneother , especially with Iran in the background .


Rather than quickly installing a powerless puppet dictator, the US will rule Iraq directly as a colony for as long as it can hold onto it.


Untill people start revolting , and they are entitled to revolt against an unwanted undemocratic occupier according to International law . Then we will see how the democratic USA filled with freedom reacts . Are they letting go or slaughtering ? I susepct even they will try to pull of a "Saddam returned" scenario ..........

We will be out in a couple years. Right now it would be a crime to leave because we still have a thousand things we need to fix. We have to rebuild a delapadated city infrastructure, reinstall hospitals and schools, set up a stable democratic government, and dig out the remanants of the old regiem. Once thats over we will be out.

A doctor cant release a patient from a hospital when he is still dripping blood. At least let us give Iraq some stiches and a tetnis shot.

while you are at it, wanna fix my plumbing? i for one, pay my taxes unlike those damn iraqis!

:mad:

Originally posted by Allahs_Mathematics

Untill people start revolting , and they are entitled to revolt against an unwanted undemocratic occupier according to International law . Then we will see how the democratic USA filled with freedom reacts . Are they letting go or slaughtering ? I susepct even they will try to pull of a "Saddam returned" scenario ..........
Slaughtering.
Iran's Islamic revolution against the US puppet will not be allowed to recur.
It will be easy to spin any Iraqi rebellion as Islamic fundementalists being stirred up by Iranian agents. They're already characterizing all Iraqi resistane that way. In this case the rebels will be fighting US troops not troops of a US puppet and that will make all the difference.

Clockwood,
We will be out in a couple years.
That's a change in policy. What happened to "we're not staying for a long time, we'll be out in a few months"?

Right now it would be a crime to leave because we still have a thousand things we need to fix.
*splutter*
Gee, I wonder why the bloody things are broken in the first place???? :mad: :mad: :mad:

We have to rebuild a delapadated city infrastructure, reinstall hospitals and schools, set up a stable democratic government,
How are you planning on that then? You can't even manage to do those things in florida for pete's sake!

and dig out the remanants of the old regiem.
You mean the ones that are being hired to run the country?

Once thats over we will be out.
So after the country is rebuilt at a cost of billions (by US companies, paid for by Iraqi oil revenues, fixing damage from US weapons), you'll leave?
Whoop.

A doctor cant release a patient from a hospital when he is still dripping blood. At least let us give Iraq some stiches and a tetnis shot.
Doctors don't injure people to create patients.

If you could do so at a push of a button would you put Saddam's old regiem back into power?

Originally posted by Clockwood
We will be out in a couple years. Right now it would be a crime to leave because we still have a thousand things we need to fix. We have to rebuild a delapadated city infrastructure, reinstall hospitals and schools, set up a stable democratic government, and dig out the remanants of the old regiem. Once thats over we will be out.

A doctor cant release a patient from a hospital when he is still dripping blood. At least let us give Iraq some stiches and a tetnis shot.

On what do you base these assertions? They US government has never said they're going to rebuild hospitals and schools.

Historically, temporary governments that say they will relinquish power after an "indefinite" period of time have left only when they were forced to.

The fact that they're not willing to give any timeframe, even to say that they'll be out within ten years seems to indicate that this will be the case in Iraq as well.

That's an asinine question clockwood, the only person here that would consider installing Hussein or defending his reinstallation would be you, given that you're an avid supporter of the same class of foreign policies that put him in power and supported him there!

Actually no. I am a firm believer in the policies of "kill all the dictators" and "If its not democratic hit the reset button". I wouldnt support the installation of any dictator.

Of course I wasnt exactly in a position to vote at the time.

Anyway answer. Do you support us getting him out or would you perfer he come back and play the game like he used to?

Originally posted by jps
Historically, temporary governments that say they will relinquish power after an "indefinite" period of time have left only when they were forced to.

Not when they were American. After all, the president can only stay for 8 maximum years. The next president would also want to keep forces there.

Originally posted by jps
The fact that they're not willing to give any timeframe, even to say that they'll be out within ten years seems to indicate that this will be the case in Iraq as well.

They don't know how long it will take probably. They can't just enter a city look around and be like it will take a couple months. Its been 30 years of tyranny and has been bombed by 3 diffrent presidents its own dictator and even more countries.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
How are you planning on that then? You can't even manage to do those things in florida for pete's sake!

I just voted a while ago and saw all the democrat lawyers at the polls. It¡¯s pretty stable.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
Doctors don't injure people to create patients.

Actually I think cutting somebody with a scalpel is sort of an injury.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
That's an asinine question clockwood, the only person here that would consider installing Hussein or defending his reinstallation would be you, given that you're an avid supporter of the same class of foreign policies that put him in power and supported him there

That¡¯s because baath party was nicer then the soviets in the United State's eyes.

Clockwood, are you aware that approximately 60% of the Iraqi population want a theocratic government? So how are you planning on a democratic solution to that?

And as to "I am a firm believer in the policies of "kill all the dictators" ", I have to ask what you think of US foreign policies that installed dictators like Pinochet.

As you your "answer the question" demand, the answer is obviously no.

are you aware that approximately 60% of the Iraqi population want a theocratic government? So how are you planning on a democratic solution to that?

Let them have it at the local level.

Not when they were American. After all the president can only stay for 8 maximum years. The next president would also want to keep forces there. Those statements contradict each other...
They don't know how long it will take probably. They can't just enter a city look around and be like it will take a couple months. Its been 30 years of tyranny and has been bombed by 3 diffrent presidents its own dictator and even more countries. That's a pretty poor argument. Civil engineers aren't incompetent. They can easily have estimates prepared by now for rebuilding, and I'll be shocked if rebuilding cannot proceed without US troops present in Iraq, but not if it's a bunch of big US corporations that do the work, for obvious reasons.
I just voted a while ago and saw all the democrat lawyers at the polls. Its pretty stable.
Oh it's stable - but it's fairly corrupt as well.
Actually I think cuting somebody with a scalpel is a sort of an injury. To say that you have to completely and deliberately misunderstand my statement.
Thats because baath party was nicer then the soviets in the United State's eyes.
Really? So they were happy to sell the Iraqis into the hands of the ba'ath party to avoid having some of the most religiously devout peoples in the world giving up a constitutional monarchy to join an atheist stalinist government?

Actually Salty, that makes some sense. After all, any national theocracy would end up oppressing those not of the same faith. A nonreligious government might be able to keep local theocracies from doing any public stonings or holy wars.

Salty and Clockwood,
Let them have it at the local level.
That's just laughable. It's a theocracy, not a PTA meeting! It doesn't allow for the state to overrule the decisions of the religious leaders - and they sure as hell won't accept less than total control when they know they'll get 60% or more of the vote in any election or referendum on the matter.

The thing is though so many want a theocracy they dont want the SAME theocracy. We are talking about a country made of numerous little factions who are far from friends. Any individual group would not have enough power to upset the country as a whole and they distrust each other too much to band together for any extended period.

Clockwood,
The thing is though so many want a theocracy they dont want the SAME theocracy. We are talking about a country made of numerous little factions who are far from friends. Any individual group would not have enough power to upset the country as a whole and they distrust each other too much to band together for any extended period.
That's not true. For a start, the majority of Iraqi citizens have never lived under a theocracy, since they've been in an aethist state since Hussein came to power. These "numerous little factions" contain three main factions that make up around 95% of the population - and 60% of the population (approximately) supports an islamic theocracy.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
Salty and Clockwood,

That's just laughable. It's a theocracy, not a PTA meeting! It doesn't allow for the state to overrule the decisions of the religious leaders - and they sure as hell won't accept less than total control when they know they'll get 60% or more of the vote in any election or referendum on the matter.

It worked in America. Some states don't allow poligamy so guess what people did? They got together and started Utah. Just because its at the local level dosent mean that it can't have much power.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
Really? So they were happy to sell the Iraqis into the hands of the ba'ath party to avoid having some of the most religiously devout peoples in the world giving up a constitutional monarchy to join an atheist stalinist government?

Baghdad was a long term soviet ally. We sold them weapons to try and buy them to our side. We lost Iran, we don't want to loose Iraq. Saddam killed about 2 million people but thats nothing compared to Stalin who had the largest army in the world.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
To say that you have to completely and deliberately misunderstand my statement.

Because if you don't understand a statement, it must be wrong right? You said Docotors don't injure thier patients. Well would you rather have Saddam in power who has killed millions even if some have to die to remove him? A doctor has to cut to save the person.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
Clockwood,

That's not true. For a start, the majority of Iraqi citizens have never lived under a theocracy, since they've been in an aethist state since Hussein came to power. These "numerous little factions" contain three main factions that make up around 95% of the population - and 60% of the population (approximately) supports an islamic theocracy.

There is more then 1 type of Islam. They don't usually agree on things either.

Clock

set up a stable democratic government,


dont you understand this can never happen ?

JPS

Slaughtering.
Iran's Islamic revolution against the US puppet will not be allowed to recur.
It will be easy to spin any Iraqi rebellion as Islamic fundementalists being stirred up by Iranian agents. They're already characterizing all Iraqi resistane that way. In this case the rebels will be fighting US troops not troops of a US puppet and that will make all the difference.


Indeed the Iran fundamnetalist scenario is much more probable , slaughtering wont be accepted by the Arab world thats Jihad , interests collide .

Sparks

That's a change in policy. What happened to "we're not staying for a long time, we'll be out in a few months"?


policy depends on priorities and interests


You mean the ones that are being hired to run the country?


This is being considered as one of the most disgusting things , it wasnt Saddam and Aziz performing horrific autrocities and reflecting the brutal authority , it was these peoples who are being reinstalled . This conduct shows the lack of interest in democracy or people .


So after the country is rebuilt at a cost of billions (by US companies


I forgot what it was , either an American-Jewish or Israeli construction company got reconstructing Baghdad.......

Clock

If you could do so at a push of a button would you put Saddam's old regiem back into power?


What dumb questions are you asking Clock ? With a rewind surely Id push , because there's is no chance of victory over USA .

Ofocurse not with what u already have done

JPS

They US government has never said they're going to rebuild hospitals and schools.


Only if there would be financial gains from doing so ........


The fact that they're not willing to give any timeframe, even to say that they'll be out within ten years seems to indicate that this will be the case in Iraq as well.


I doubt such would be accepted by the people
They are legally entitled to revolt and they will . Especially the Shiaa , after 30 years of Saddam there is no option .

Salty

They don't know how long it will take probably. They can't just enter a city look around and be like it will take a couple months. Its been 30 years of tyranny and has been bombed by 3 diffrent presidents its own dictator and even more countries.


Their knowledge is irellevant to the acceptable period of their stay . 10 years isnt acceptable , 5 years isnt acceptible , them not knowing between 5 and 10 is irellevant .


That¡¯s because baath party was nicer then the soviets in the United State's eyes.


WHAT ???????
They would have had installed Adolf Hitler himself if that was there to oppose USSR . Are you calling the installing of the Ba'ath a moral consideration ?

Salty

Let them have it at the local level.


Why ? So that they cant damage USA's national plan for Iraq ? So that they cant become a danger to Israel ? I dont think it would be up to the USA to decide weither the people of Iraq have a national or local theocracy in the land of Iraq . This is pure colonialism and enforcing of foreign priorities .

Originally posted by Salty
It worked in America. Some states don't allow poligamy so guess what people did? They got together and started Utah. Just because its at the local level dosent mean that it can't have much power.
As it seems to have escaped your attention, let me remind you - THIS IS NOT AMERICA WE'RE TALKING ABOUT! You're talking about a different culture, different history, different psychology, different problems and different solutions. What worked in Utah (if in fact you have a theocracy in Utah, which I seriously doubt), will, in all likelihood, NOT work in Iraq!

Baghdad was a long term soviet ally. We sold them weapons to try and buy them to our side. We lost Iran, we don't want to loose Iraq. Saddam killed about 2 million people but thats nothing compared to Stalin who had the largest army in the world.
First off, don't use a euphamism. Baghdad was not an ally - Saddam Hussein, a man first met by the US in 1959 as a street thug trained to be an assassin, was the ally.
Secondly, if you're happy to ally with a man who killed 2 million against one that killed 20, why not ally with Hitler or Pol Pot or Pinochet or Norieaga?
Ooops! :rolleyes:

Because if you don't understand a statement, it must be wrong right? You said Docotors don't injure thier patients.
And you said using a scalpel was an injury. Well, it isn't, unless you mean stabbing someone with a scalpel. It's not an injury when a doctor uses a scalpel, we call it surgery instead to differentiate between the two. In other words, you deliberately misinterpreted what I said.

Well would you rather have Saddam in power who has killed millions even if some have to die to remove him? A doctor has to cut to save the person.
First, better not to put him in there knowing what he is, and better not to support him, seeing him kill thousands.
Second, how many have to die to eliminate him?
Third, it's now patently obvious that this was never about hussein. Otherwise, the contract to Haliburton to run the Iraqi oilfields wouldn't have been signed in NOVEMBER!

There is more then 1 type of Islam. They don't usually agree on things either.
Really? More than one type of Islam? So I take it there are more than one Koran?
And the 60% are all of the same group, btw...

Clock
The thing is though so many want a theocracy they dont want the SAME theocracy. We are talking about a country made of numerous little factions who are far from friends. Any individual group would not have enough power to upset the country as a whole and they distrust each other too much to band together for any extended period.

What if the muslims would figure out a theocracy suitable for all ?

Clock

Actually Salty, that makes some sense. After all, any national theocracy would end up oppressing those not of the same faith. A nonreligious government might be able to keep local theocracies from doing any public stonings or holy wars.


I have a feeling holy wars have a higher priority than stoning

Sparks

since they've been in an aethist state since Hussein came to power.


and before that under western colonization

Salty

Baghdad was a long term soviet ally. We sold them weapons to try and buy them to our side.


Are you just making up stories ? Ba'ath was created as an anti-revolution product opposing communism . Saddams coup was a CIA coup


We lost Iran, we don't want to loose Iraq.


Do you hear yourself talking ? It isnt your land , you lost it to the PEOPLE of Iran and you will loose it to the PEOPLE of Iraq .


Saddam killed about 2 million people but thats nothing compared to Stalin who had the largest army in the world.


Yet USA holds #1 and #2 records for most killings per hour/day


There is more then 1 type of Islam. They don't usually agree on things either.


What if we would ?

Originally posted by Clockwood
We will be out in a couple years. Right now it would be a crime to leave because we still have a thousand things we need to fix. We have to rebuild a delapadated city infrastructure, reinstall hospitals and schools, set up a stable democratic government, and dig out the remanants of the old regiem. Once thats over we will be out.

A doctor can't release a patient from a hospital when he is still dripping blood. At least let us give Iraq some stiches and a tetnis shot.

Abdulla: VERY INTERESTING, we need to "Fix" Iraq before we leave, huh CLOCKWOOD?

Sort of like we "fixed" Iran by installing the Shah in the 1980's, and most recently "fixed" Afghanistan by installing tin horn dicator Masharraf the "mayor" of Kabul, huh CLOCKWOOD? ( I say "mayor" because his power in Afghanistan extends "barely" to the outer city limits of Kabul :) ).

Currently the US is "snarling" at the Iranian's and asking them to BACK OFF in getting involved the internal problems of Iraq. ( Translation: "Let us setup our puppet government in Iraq unmolested--or else! ).

Iraq is such a joke under US imperialism--no WMD's, no civil order, no water 1/2 of the time, electricity sporatic, ( But the oil wells are 100% safe, right Bushie? ).

More and more Iraqi's from the Sunni's to the Shia's are asking the US to GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW(!) but all their messages are falling on deaf coalition ears for the moment.

Meanwhile, the US is trying to setup a convicted bank embezzler as "Our man in Iraq," but the Iraqi populace won't buy it. :(

Interesting how the US works. They destroy a nation with their sanctions and politically covert repression--and then they say: "LOOK, see what Saddam did to his people?!

People seem to forget that in the 1980's Iraq was one of the most progessive nations in the Middle East with free medical sevices to its people--free educational benefits, interest free loans to the entrepreneur; their women had more rights than any woman in any Arab country ( and no Burka's! )--women could drive cars and attend state run universities---but then came the US with its mean spirited sanctions and political sabotage ( Thanks Ambassador, Ms. Guillespe--you, "rhymes with witch," who helped destroy the country by giving Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait only to have the US then sucker punch Iraq--and the rest is history)--so that later the US could say: "See what Saddam did to his people!"

Hey CLOCKWOOD, I think the US has given Iraq all the "stitches" it will need into the next millennium!

AbdullaTheBomber....

PS: Oh, I forgot to mention the over 45,000 children ( UN Human Right Commission report to the high commissioner, 05-15-2001 ) in Iraq have contacted some of the most malignant forms of malanoma (malignant tumors) type of cancers ( pancriatic, colon, lung and brain tumorous cancers ); attributed by UN doctors to the US' use of depleted uranium munitions in the Gulf I war. One supposes that Papa Saddam is also to blame for this, right CLOCKWOOD?

If the government had been as effective in eradicating religion from public life as George W. Bush likes to insist it has, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) would not have been able to turn public park benches into church pews. But that's pretty much what happened in 1998, when LDS leaders secretly persuaded then-Salt Lake City Mayor Deedee Corradini to sell a block of Main Street to the church for $8.1 million. The church had been coveting the downtown land for years, as it slowly snatched up all the real estate surrounding the Mormon Temple, its religious capital.

fascinating read (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0104.mencimer.html)

Utah isn't a literal theocracy, which is rule by a divinity through prophets on Earth.

It hasn't been since President James Buchanan in 1857 declared the territory of Utah in open rebellion against the United States and replaced the Mormon church's prophet and president Brigham Young with the first of a series of interim territorial governors.

But because vestiges and tendencies remain, ``tension still exists. It leads to a cultural divide,'' said historian David Bigler, author of the 1996 book ``Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West''.

With 70 percent of Utah residents at least nominally Mormon, that is, on church rolls but not necessarily active, church influence on politics and society are a matter of demographics, Olsen said.

State and local government officeholders are overwhelmingly Mormon. The state Legislature is 90 percent Mormon. The governor is Mormon, as are all five members of the state's congressional delegation. Four of the state Supreme Court's justices are Mormon, including the chief justice. All seven of the Salt Lake City Council members are Mormon or have Mormon backgrounds.

Such overwhelming Mormon influence, critics say, means the state operates as a de facto or quasi-theocracy, with such results:

In autumn of 1974, the daily Deseret News, owned by the church, reported that a poll of Utah residents showed 65 percent supported the proposed Equal Rights Amendment. But two days before the January 1975 opening of the Legislature, an unsigned editorial in the newspaper's weekly insert, Church News, argued the ERA ``was not the way'' because God had created gender differences for good reason. Lawmakers didn't ratify the proposed amendment and the church mounted a nationwide campaign against it, calling it a ``moral issue''.

During debate on an anti-abortion resolution, legislators in 2002 recited on the House floor the church's position on the procedure from the official Church Handbook.

Utah's theocratic past colors church-state perceptions (http://kutv.com/utah/UT--UtahsDilemma-en/resources_news_html)

Questions senator orrin Hatch Won't Answer Throughout the month of November.
Here are the questions Hatch refused to answer for City Weekly:

1. How do you justify taxpayers' dollars covering Medicaid and Medicare costs for "religious non-medical care" such as the Christian Scientist sanatoria?
2. What do you say to critics who claim this will put children in danger and elevates parents' religious beliefs over the medical needs of children?
3. When your Religious Freedom Restoration Act was struck down, you said religious liberty was being sacrificed for zoning laws. Why don't you believe zoning laws are important?
4. Critics charge that your Religious Freedom Restoration and Religious Liberty Protection acts are harmful not only to zoning laws, but also to child welfare laws, domestic violence laws, child welfare laws and anti-discrimination laws. What do you say to such allegations?
5. The U.S. Constitution guarantees that religious freedom allows us to believe what we wish, but that we cannot practice everything we want if that practice is in violation of an established and valid law. Don't your religious liberties bills seek to negate that distinction?
6. Wouldn't such bills invite government intervention into religion by forcing the courts to decide what is a valid religious practice and what is not?
7. What do you say to critics who claim your religious liberties bills allow the religious believer to subjugate the interests of other citizens, thereby violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment?

Sen. Orrin Hatch strong-arms religious protection bills into law again and again - the Constitution be damned. (http://208.56.115.213/atheists/smoke.html)

I mean, the Mormans build their majestic temples and make their estupendous real estate investments with hard earned Morman dollars--not money stolen from the victims of the Holocaust and/or the US taxpayer, then rechanneled by AIPAC/ZOA to Jewish terrorist support organizations--like the JDL, UJA, etc, etc.

Not like our Jewish pals that use "Rape-A-Nations," err, err, I mean, REPARATIONS and WILL WORK FOR FOOD donations to expand their Jewish kingdom here in America--and elsewhere!

How many US supplied (real cheap) Morman tanks, F-16's and helicopter gunships are currently murdering anyone for any reason in Utah, SPOOKZ? :eek:

AbdullaTheBomber....

it only been a few days since i been aware of you and you are already starting to annoy. do not yell at me again. punk!