Condemn "US occupiers in Iraq"

[WorldWarrior]

T--it seems that you are not accessing my linked sources.


But think what you want. Those of us who pay attention to the news and analysis of the events in the Middle East on a daily basis recognize the administration-speak that is posted instead of actual info on what is happening in the Mddle East BECAUSE of the actions and policies of the Bush administration.


Reading the history of Iraq and the region helps too.

For example--when I say "Bell" those familiar with the history of the Middle East know who I am talking about.


This of course is in contrast to Bush who himself admitted that until AFTER the Iraq invasion he didn't know there were two major factions in Iraq--Shias and Sunnis.

Well he certainly knows it now.

[Acumen]

This of course is in contrast to Bush who himself admitted that until AFTER the Iraq invasion he didn't know there were two major factions in Iraq--Shias and Sunnis.

Where did this happen?

[Faithfulee]

This of course is in contrast to Bush who himself admitted that until AFTER the Iraq invasion he didn't know there were two major factions in Iraq--Shias and Sunnis.

Where did this happen?

That comment tells us more about the writer than the issue. 

[WorldWarrior]

"Where did this happen"?



Bush admitted that he had no knowledge of the two major factions--Shia and Sunni(who have been at loggerheads throughout Islam through most of islam's history)--in Iraq until AFTER he ordered the Invasion and Occupation.

[Thorolf]

WW,

I'm sorry.. I'm not seeing an argument there. Are you claiming that you have posted some link somewhere of President Bush saying that he WANTS to attack Iran?

How about some link that PROVES that President Bush destabilized the entire region - which of course means, logically, that the region was stable beforehand. Seems to me that such a statement is pretty ludicrous on its face, but if you have a link... well!

How about some better response to the Iraqi Kurds asking for our help than claiming that there is some question as to whether they are REAL Iraqis...

I'll wait.

[WorldWarrior]

"How about some link that PROVES that President Bush destabilized the entire region - which of course means, logically, that the region was stable beforehand. Seems to me that such a statement is pretty ludicrous on its face, but if you have a link... well! "



For proof--just look at the Bush adminsitration THREATENING to BOMB IRAN--when they were our allies after 9/11--but before the Invasion of Iraq.

What "reason" is the Bush adminstration giving for "needing" to bomb Iran?

[Faithfulee]

"How about some link that PROVES that President Bush destabilized the entire region - which of course means, logically, that the region was stable beforehand. Seems to me that such a statement is pretty ludicrous on its face, but if you have a link... well! "



For proof--just look at the Bush adminsitration THREATENING to BOMB IRAN--when they were our allies after 9/11--but before the Invasion of Iraq.

What "reason" is the Bush adminstration giving for "needing" to bomb Iran?

President Bush said that "all options are on the table" 

Do you think it would be good policy for us to disavow the use of force against Iran??

Do you really believe that the region was stable in the last 8 years??

[Thorolf]

"How about some link that PROVES that President Bush destabilized the entire region - which of course means, logically, that the region was stable beforehand. Seems to me that such a statement is pretty ludicrous on its face, but if you have a link... well! "



For proof--just look at the Bush adminsitration THREATENING to BOMB IRAN--when they were our allies after 9/11--but before the Invasion of Iraq.

What "reason" is the Bush adminstration giving for "needing" to bomb Iran?

Pathetic attempt. Want to try again?

Feel free to answer some of the other questions in the previous post, too. I noticed that responses to most of the post were conspicuously absent.

Incidentally, Iran was NOT an "ally" after 9/11. Iran has not been an ally of the United States since the Shah was in power. There were some candlelight vigils by the people of Iran, and Iran supposedly cooperated in the effort to get rid of one of their enemies, the Taliban... but that's hardly an alliance by any stretch.

So I'll ask again, in a more '80s-ish style - "Where's the Beef?"

[metis]

You seem to take some delight in  the  fact that it won’t be ‘pro American”,  I suspect that that is due to your feelings about America.

I have to admit that the above comment very much disappoints me.  So you honestly believe I'm anti-American?

Do you think it is a good thing that Christians no longer live in the areas you mentioned??

Why would you draw such a conclusion?  Since Jews have been reeling from persecution for centuries and in various areas of the world, do you honestly believe I would somehow take pride in seeing Christians persecuted as well?  Do you honestly believe I would take some sort of pride in seeing my wife and youngest daughter and her two children persecuted because they're Christian? 

Why would you draw such conclusions?  I can't believe you actually wrote the above.

[Faithfulee]

Metis

Why did you delight in the fact that the new Iraq Democracy won’t be “pro American”?  You obviously don’t like US policy and certainly don’t support the US efforts in Iraq.

I am pleased that you DON’T think it is good that Christians are being driven out of Iraq, and other areas controlled by Muslims.  Mine was a question and it could have been answered   “NO” 

Our calling US troops “occupiers”  adds to the woes of Canon White and all Christians in Iraq.  At least to the remaining Christians, our troops are “liberators:

To ALL

I am sure that PM Brown of the UK believes his troops are liberators.

From a report on yesterdays meeting

"Mr. Brown showed no distance from Mr. Bush on the strategy in Iraq. The prime minister said he wouldn't order an arbitrary withdrawal of the 4,000 remaining British troops until the task is done, even as his government was announcing that it would bolster its forces in Afghanistan to its highest level ever.

[metis]

Why did you delight in the fact that the new Iraq Democracy won’t be “pro American”?  You obviously don’t like US policy and certainly don’t support the US efforts in Iraq.

Where in the world do you get off saying that I "delight in the fact the new Iraq Democracy won't be pro-American"?  Where did you get that from?  I still can't believe you actually post this. 

Our incursion into Iraq was based on faulty information at best, and the consequences, which caught the administration unprepared even by their own accounting, were predictable if one understands the history and culture of the area.  However, since that's water over the dam, what we need to do next is to attempt to do our best to help create peace there for all groups including other countries in the region and us as well.  A quick pull-out simply will not create that peace.  And since this is a regional problem, we need help from the surrounding countries or there simply will not be peace no matter what we do.


   

I am pleased that you DON’T think it is good that Christians are being driven out of Iraq, and other areas controlled by Muslims.  Mine was a question and it could have been answered   “NO” 

The question was pathetic be begin with.  Why would you even ask if I was pleased to see Christians chased out of the area?  That's like asking if I've stopped beating my wife.  So, I have to admit that I'm extremely disappointed in your insinuating that I maybe supposedly anti-American and anti-Christian.  If questioning someones patriotism and fairness is the only way you can supposedly "win" a discussion, then I simply have no desire to discuss this topic with you any longer.     

[Acumen]

"Where did this happen"?



Bush admitted that he had no knowledge of the two major factions--Shia and Sunni(who have been at loggerheads throughout Islam through most of islam's history)--in Iraq until AFTER he ordered the Invasion and Occupation.

I didn't ask for you essentially to repeat yourself.  I asked where Bush admitted his ignorance on these two major factions in Iraq.  Do you have a link?

[WorldWarrior]

FFLee says--" calling brave US troops "Occupiers" is wrong.  I am delighted that only WW is using the term now"



Yep--just me and the General (Sanchez) who used to command them.

[Faithfulee]

FFLee says--" calling brave US troops "Occupiers" is wrong.  I am delighted that only WW is using the term now"



Yep--just me and the General (Sanchez) who used to command them.

WOW two people  call the US Occupiers

We Liberated  Iraq from stuff like this

The following is a passage from a report by the U.S. State Department's Office of International Women's Issues. It was released in March 2003, just before the U.S. and its allies liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein's regime:

The Iraqi Government uses rape and sexual assault of women to achieve the following goals: to extract information and forced confessions from detained family members; to intimidate Iraqi oppositionists by sending videotapes showing the rape of female family members; and to blackmail Iraqi men into future cooperation with the regime. Some Iraqi authorities even carry personnel cards identifying their official "activity" as the "violation of women's honor."

I think every Iraqi women are glad to be liberated from that.

[WorldWarrior]

FFLee says--

"WOW two people  call the US Occupiers"



You don''t find GENERAL SANCHEZ's opinion about the troops HE LED IN IRAQ to be of any value?


That's not very supportive of the US troops in Iraq--is it?

[Faithfulee]

FFLee says--

"WOW two people  call the US Occupiers"



You don''t find GENERAL SANCHEZ's opinion about the troops HE LED IN IRAQ to be of any value?


That's not very supportive of the US troops in Iraq--is it?

The rest of the post is more important, care to comment

U.S. State Department's Office of International Women's Issues. It was released in March 2003, just before the U.S. and its allies liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein's regime:
The Iraqi Government uses rape and sexual assault of women to achieve the following goals: to extract information and forced confessions from detained family members; to intimidate Iraqi oppositionists by sending videotapes showing the rape of female family members; and to blackmail Iraqi men into future cooperation with the regime. Some Iraqi authorities even carry personnel cards identifying their official "activity" as the "violation of women's honor."

[SUPERMAN]

To all,

It's important to keep discussions on point.  And to prevent further unproductive drive by posting, this thread will be locked up.

Thank you,