The Shi'ite finally hits the fan..

[Wilse]

I don't start many threads these days but since no one else has mentioned it, what do you all make of the latest development from Al-Sadr followers?

622 US troops dead now.

I have to say I was laughing out loud at tragi-comedy quotes, especially the unintentionally ironic quotes from Bush and Bremer.

Bush, re. Al-Sadr:
"This is one person who's deciding that rather than allow democracy to flourish, he's going to exercise force,"

:lol: Yeah, that de-mockery was really flourishing, eh?
And of course Bush would never dream of using force instead, would he? :roflmao:

Then comes Al-Sadr himself:
"I direct my words to the great evil, Bush, and I ask who is against democracy? Is it the one who is advocating peaceful resistance or the one who is bombing the nation and shedding blood?"

:lol: Nice to see Bush referred to as 'evil' for a change.
Helps frame the absurdity of his constant references to 'evildoers'. :lol: I wonder if Al-sadr tells his followers that Bush is the evildoer who hates their freedoms? :lol:
I guess from their perspective he is.

And last but by no means least comes the voice of reason, Mr. Bremer, again re Al-Sadr:
"He believes that in the new Iraq, like in the old Iraq, power should be to the guy with guns,"

:roflmao: Hate to break it to you Gerry but power in Iraq *does* go to the guy with the guns.

:lol:

Who we gonna bomb to democracy next?

These guys are too funny....

[Glaucus]

Actually, the real joke is that it's really a battle between hardline concervatives. Al Sadr is as concervative as Bush is, and as are the followers of both leaders. Not only that, both have been instructed by God to make war on "evil doers". And if it were just these idiotic concervatives and their followers that were being blown up I wouldn't mind so much, but it's the otherwise peaceful moderates on either side that are the ones who are truly suffering from all this madness!

- Mike

[Wilse]

@Mike:

True but I wouldn't be that surprised if some
elements of the more moderate shia population
become emboldened by these events.

[KennyR]

http://www.womenforpeace.org/gifs/Cartoons/030404LaneFactions.gif

[MAD]

Hoya!

@Wilse

LOL@title!

Indeed, it is funny to see that religious fanatics, no matter their "religion", do share in fact the very same views...
"If you are not on MY side, you are EVIL and thus, MUST... DIE!!!"

Let us quickly conquer Mars and set up some crappy religion there as well!!! :-D

Be funky

M A D

[blobrana]

@MAD

Very true...

And when they rolled over the border...
Who really was stupid enough to believe that the war would be over in a few months?

Not helped by israel warlords stirring it up in palestine...or the Hamas leaders reacting to it.

And i hear that they`ve cleared it to allow the buying/sell of weapons to Iraq...Er?...

[Who is in charge of this farce?]

[Karlos]

blobrana wrote:
Who really was stupid enough to believe that the war would be over in a few months?


How about all those who believed the present administrations' total lies over Iraq's so called immediate danger to world security in the first place?

[that_punk_guy]

. . . :-( . . .

[Wilse]

@MAD:

LOL@title!

It's funnier if you imagine a Geordie saying it. :-)

[Karlos]

Wilse wrote:
@MAD:

LOL@title!

It's funnier if you imagine a Geordie saying it. :-)

Hadaway an' sh!te man! Ah divvent' knaa wha' ya taakin aboot!

[Wolfe]

Karlos wrote:

blobrana wrote:
Who really was stupid enough to believe that the war would be over in a few months?


How about all those who believed the present administrations' total lies over Iraq's so called immediate danger to world security in the first place?

Present Administration? Try all most all of the western world plus, and previous administrations, UN . . . etc. The list goes on like the energizer bunny.

[Wolfe]

A good question is "who will replace Al Sadr after he is dead"?

[Wolfe]

Wilse wrote:
Who we gonna bomb to democracy next?

These guys are too funny....



Easy answer. The Fan that has "Shi'ite" stuck on it. :lol:

[Karlos]

I rest my case :lol:

But seriously, do you really believe the case made for the Iraq campaign was valid?

Virtually everything said in the build up has been exposed as either untrue or to sugar coat it "intelligence we *thought* was accurate but are now not so sure.." etc.

As for the "whole western world" believing in the case for war, I dunno. I didn't the free world lining up to condone it. The UN wanted more time to complete it's inspections but the threat was just too real and imminent to listen to them, etc.

This whole mess is going to get a lot worse, for all concerned, before it get's better IMHO :-(

[Wolfe]

Karlos wrote:
I rest my case :lol:
------------------------------------------------------------
"" But seriously, do you really believe the case made for the Iraq campaign was valid?

Virtually everything said in the build up has been exposed as either untrue or to sugar coat it "intelligence we *thought* was accurate but are now not so sure.." etc. ""
-------------------------------------------------------------

A mistake in intelligence - yes. The search for WMD's is not yet over. WMD's before war now missing at war's end - gone where?

My question is: Do you think the war was started on purpose. A lie, Conspiracy etc. I don't.

I believe the Administration did what they thought needed to be done based on what the knew or thought they knew. Many were wrong. But Sadam still had to go.

------------------------------------------------------------
"" As for the "whole western world" believing in the case for war, I dunno. I didn't the free world lining up to condone it. ""
------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't say "believing in the case for war", I was talking about the intelligence. The world for the most part "was wrong".

-------------------------------------------------------------
"" The UN wanted more time to complete it's inspections but the threat was just too real and imminent to listen to them, etc. ""
------------------------------------------------------------

Imminent or not, Saddam had his chance and blew it. His removal was just. Under the agreement made after the first conflict that he purposely refused to live up to, what some call Gulf War 1. Actually the war never ended. It was put on hold. A hold that Sadam failed to live up to and to much time was wasted babysitting his arse. All those years of wasted money, needless deaths etc. Good Ridden's.

------------------------------------------------------------
"" This whole mess is going to get a lot worse, for all concerned, before it get's better IMHO ""
------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with that. It's gonna get fugly.

My thoughts:
I believe Saddam had to go.
The war on terror is not just about Osama's band of thugs.
The world was wrong about the intel prior to the war.
WMD's - the search isn't over yet - but so far looks feable.

[iamaboringperson]

@Wilse
:roflmao::roflmao:

[Glaucus]

I believe the Administration did what they thought needed to be done based on what the knew or thought they knew.Really? Btw, I got some great land for sale in Florida I'd be willing to sell to you for a bargain of a price! Just send Cash! You know you can trust me Wolfe!

- Mike

[MAD]

Hoya!

@Wilse

Hehehe... I MUST go to Scotland one day or another! It is a beautiful country, full of photographic opportunities ;-P

And BTW, your avatar ROOOXXXXX :-D

Be funky

M A D

[FluffyMcDeath]

I didn't say "believing in the case for war", I was talking about the intelligence. The world for the most part "was wrong".



The current US administration is not "the world".

The coallition of the willing was pathetically small, and most of them were bullied or bribed. The "world", for the most part, disagreed with the US. The only major ally the US had was Britain, and even most of the intel community in the UK thought that Blairs info was a load of crap.

Even the CIA thought that Saddam, though they felt it likely that he harboured some gas weapons, was not an immediate threat to the US or even any of his neighbours.

[Glaucus]

The coallition of the willing was pathetically small, and most of them were bullied or bribed.And I know at least two nations that have since publicly regretted it: Spain and Poland. And this initial support that Wolfe speaks of is really only on the government level. If we talk about the views of the general populations then it's even more one-sided against the Iraq invasion.

- Mike

[Wilse]

@Wolfe:

A mistake in intelligence - yes.

Indeed but not in the way you mean. ;-)

The search for WMD's is not yet over. WMD's before war now missing at war's end - gone where?

Oh puhlease! Scott Ritter was right - there are none of any significance left.

Condasleazy & Colon both said so themselves, a coupla years back, then suddenly 'flip-flopped', as you guys seem to call it.

My question is: Do you think the war was started on purpose.

Think? try 'know'.

A lie, Conspiracy etc. I don't.

Then you haven't been paying close enough attention.

I assume you've heard of PNAC?
Go read their bumph. Practically everyone in the current US regime has been planning to invade Iraq for *years*.

This is no secret - all the evidence is there.
O'Neill and Clarke's allegations only reinforce what most of the people in this thread already knew - 9/11 was used as an EXCUSE to invade Iraq.

this is an absolute FACT.

But Sadam still had to go.

Why? Because he broke UN reslotions? - Israel, your buddies.

Because he was an 'evil' dictator? - The Saudis, Pakistan, Uzbekhistan, etc, etc, all your buddies.

Surely you can see the hypocricy?

The world for the most part "was wrong".

No, the leaders of the countries of the 'coalition', were wrong.

The rest of us were right.

Imminent or not, Saddam had his chance and blew it. His removal was just.

And what about the estimated 50,000 dead civilians? Were there deaths necessary to remove this one man?

I'm f*cking sick of hearing people bleating "But he was killing his own people.."

Now we're doing that for him, except we do it indiscriminately now. Have you seen the pictures of the babies US troops have killed in Falluja over the last two days?

And all we hear is "evil doers who hate freedom". Is anyone really that f*cking nai¡ve to believe that anyone hates freedom?

Nonsense.

The war was, is and will be WRONG.

I'm afraid that even you will eventually have to accept this. You can't see it yet but you will.

[MAD]

Hoya!

Well, from a "civilised" point of view, democracy is better than dictatorship and I think everyone agrees.
Thus, Saddam HAD to go...
BUT! WHO put him in power?
WHO put Osama in power?
The best way to get rid of madness is NOT creating it in the first place!

And honestly, thinking Saddam would have attacked the USA is just plain ludicrous!
He just had enough soldiers and gear to star in a Steven Seagall film!...
Moreover, he was a SECULAR DICTATOR, not a FANATICAL TERRORIST...
Too bad for him he threatened oil fields...


As for the war on terror...

Well, America reacted because of 9/11 it seems.
But terrorism has been going on around for years.
France, for instance, has been targeted in 1995 and some islamic b*stards planned to hijack a plane to crash it into the good ol' Eiffel Tower! :-o
OK, the number of casualities would not have been as big as WTC's, sure, but I think the message would have been the same, wouldn't it?

So, instead of wearing blindfolds and using brute force, totally useless against terrorism, let's all gather together and start... Thinking.

Be funky

M A D

[Glaucus]

Well, from a "civilised" point of view, democracy is better than dictatorship and I think everyone agrees.Is it? Depends what kind of democracy we're talking about! If you define a democracy simply by setting up a bunch of ballot boxes, then I would argue that this is hardly any better - it's what happened in the Soviet days and what goes on in my 3rd world democracies. A real democracy is also about liberty and freedom, and those are pretty rare to find in a poor, 3rd world style democracy. But most importantly, a real democracy and constitution must be by the people for the people. As it is, democracy us mainly a Western ideal that is currently in vogue (see: Was Democracy Just A Moment? (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97dec/democ.htm)). What's right for us doesn't not mean it's right for everyone. The West, lead by the US, is in fact impossing democracy on Iraq, weather Iraqis like it or not. Well, it turns out many of them don't.

The best way to get rid of madness is NOT creating it in the first place!Agreed. One of the chief reasons I was opposed to this war in the first place is because I didn't see how they could replace Saddam! It now turns out that the war was the easy part (as I also understood it would be) but the post-war clean up is turning out to be very counter productive (ie, messy).

France, for instance, has been targeted in 1995 and some islamic b*stards planned to hijack a plane to crash it into the good ol' Eiffel Tower!That's correct! And in fact, French intelligence and security forces were able to act quickly and decisively enough to PREVENT the attack (the plane stopped to refuel with hostages on board and French commandos took the opportunity to storm the plane, killing all of the Algerian hostage takers). It seems the Americans have a thing or two to learn from their French counter-parts!

- Mike

[Wilse]

What's right for us doesn't not mean it's right for everyone. The West, lead by the US, is in fact impossing democracy on Iraq, weather Iraqis like it or not. Well, it turns out many of them don't.

That is very true but another point is that, even for the Iraqis who *do* want democracy:

a) They don't look any closer to achieving it now than they did a year ago;

b) You can't expect people to embrace a form of government that has been imposed upon them, even if they know it would be an improvement.

[smerf]

Hi,

@Wilse,

Well I sort of leave for a while and the same group still talking about how America fruitcaked up.

Well

This time I sort of agree, America is really fruitcaking up. We are trying to impose freedom on a bunch of Islamic peace freaks. I mean big bad America walked in there killing every one so that we could impose peace on a Islamic peaceful country. Now the Islamic peaceful people are throwing us a party to show us how much they appreciate it. Just remember that this is Islam the peaceful religion, there religious leaders over there wouldn't think of hurting a fly, while on the other hand big bad America is attacking their mosques and killing people. Oh BS, BS, BS, BS. the whole situation is BS. :pissed:

I think the American Marines should visit every Islamic mosque in the world, after all they deserve to practice this peaceful religion too and they are very, very good at it. :-)

smerf

by the way I will bring a smile to your face, Kerry leads George by about a 50% margin in the polls on who would you vote for today held by MSN.

[Karlos]

smerf wrote:

I think the American Marines should visit every Islamic mosque in the world, after all they deserve to practice this peaceful religion too and they are very, very good at it. :-)



So smurf, just the Islamic mosques, eh? :dumbass:

[Wolfe]

Well, my original intention was to spark a fire and intensify the debate. I love being the devils advocate. But the fire only flamed opinions but no serious sollutions seem to be in sight. Just bickering. Pointing the finger puts forth blame but does not help fix things.

So, I must assume that like with Isreal and Palastine, there is no solution.

@wilse - dude - take a chill pill. I didn't mean to raise your blood preasure to a boil. Besides its just a conversation.

Have a :pint: on me!

[T_Bone]

Wilse wrote:

b) You can't expect people to embrace a form of government that has been imposed upon them, even if they know it would be an improvement.

Oh, I don't agree with that. All government is imposed on you, no matter where you live and no matter how well you are represented by that government, it's imposed on you.

My government was no less imposed on me than the one they'll get, or the one you have.

The value of the government is what the people make of it, not how it came to be. it's a struggle right now, but they'll have the ability to make something of it, that they didn't have before.

Hell, even the ongoing war is a good sign in a certain light. people are representing themselves!! it happens that some of this representation is aggressive and aimed AT US, but it's a start :lol:

[Wilse]

@T_Bone:

My government was no less imposed on me than the one they'll get, or the one you have.

So if the US was taken over by Islamic fundamentalists and Sharia type government installed at the cost of tens of thousands of your countrymen/women's lives, you just accept it, as it's no more imposed on you than what you already had?

I know I wouldn't. I'd consider it my duty to rise up against it.

[T_Bone]

Wilse wrote:
@T_Bone:

My government was no less imposed on me than the one they'll get, or the one you have.

So if the US was taken over by Islamic fundamentalists and Sharia type government installed at the cost of tens of thousands of your countrymen/women's lives, you just accept it, as it's no more imposed on you than what you already had?

I know I wouldn't. I'd consider it my duty to rise up against it.

You would? Even if you had no representation in that government?

Not many Iraqi's feel that way. Most of them are rising up on behalf of what they want the new government to become, not to defend the old one. Hell, not many defended the old one anyway, that was the easy part.

Anyways, my country was taken over by Yankees (in the American sense of the word, Yankees = Northerners) not too long ago, we lived. :lol:
(And we're talking HUNDREDS of thousands killed)

[Wilse]

@smerf:

America is really fruitcaking up.

It isn't just America, it's my country too and it shames me.

We are trying to impose freedom

Yes, we are and there in lies part of the problem:

"Well, we did blow up your house and kill your son, daughter and wife, and we did leave an ugly, gaping wound where your bollox used to be, and we know you'd love to give it a little caress but you can't because we blew both your arms off too but FFS man, this was for your own good! Show a little appreciation, you ungreatful A-rab fµck!"

I'm afraid that approach can never work but it's not like most of the world didn't already know this and point it out before we went charging in there for our own selfish reasons, claiming to acting on behalf of Iraqis. Pathetic, Absurd and Tragic. :cry:

[Wilse]

@Wolfe:

my original intention was to spark a fire and intensify the debate.

Nothing wrong with that - I do it all the time. (Well, I used to..)

But the fire only flamed opinions but no serious sollutions seem to be in sight. Just bickering. Pointing the finger puts forth blame but does not help fix things.

No one here claims to have a solution although I'll tell you the way I'd like to see things go.

1. The 'coalition' immediately hands operational command over to the UN.
2. The UN bring in troops from Arab league countries and all other outsiders leave immediately the Arab League troops arrive.
3. Every Iraqi contract handed out by the US/Coalition is immediately cancelled and given to the UN to be handed out on a tender basis
4. Control of Iraqi oil fields handed over to the UN until elections can be held.

The US, UK and all the other lying governments who supported this charade admit at the very least that they made a mistake (I'd prefer 'lied' but that'll never happen) aqbout WMDs, imminent threats and all the other BS we were told to justify the invasion.

If we do this, there might be hope that the Iraqis will forget how much they hate us and remember that we got rid of Saddam then left without slaughtering the entire population.

If the whole place descends into civil war, anarchy and chaos, so f*ck? It will sort itself out eventually.

The alternative? Send in another 200,000 troops, impose marshall law and rule the place with an iron fist, showing no mercy (a la Saddam), which will bring stability but will also guarantee that we (the 'coalition') will be hated by every Iraqi until our great grand children are dead.

[Wilse]

@Wolfe:

@wilse - dude - take a chill pill. I didn't mean to raise your blood preasure to a boil.

You didn't - pictures of dead babies killed by coalition troops in retalition for the mutilation of four mercenaries did.
And the sealing off and bombing of an entire city;
refusing to let males 'of fighting age' leave;
Shutting down newspapers, while shouting 'democracy';
Invading a country on false pretences;
Murdering tens of thousands of Iraqis by my gov't and your's;
Murdering of 700-odd 'coalition' soldiers by my gov't and your's.

These are just some of things that get to me. You don't.

Besides its just a conversation.

For us it is but not for the soldiers having their legs blown off, or the mother of the six month old boy with the top half of his head taken of by US machine gun fire.

It cannot be reinforced strongly enough that war should *always* be a last resort. Bush *chose* this war for his own selfish reasons(again, see PNAC) and my crawly=-bum-lick PM went along with it. It was unneccessary and if anything good is coming out of the current carnage, it's that some people are waking up to the horrors of it all.

have a :pint: on me!

Likewise! :pint:

After I shift one washing machine down to my garage and a replacement back up (heavy beasts) I'll be doing just that.

*Lot's* of beer tonight. ;-)

All the best,

[Wilse]

@T_Bone:

You didn't answer the question so i'll ask it again:

So if the US was taken over by Islamic fundamentalists and Sharia type government installed at the cost of tens of thousands of your countrymen/women's lives, you'd just accept it?

Well? :-)

[T_Bone]

Wilse wrote:
@T_Bone:

You didn't answer the question so i'll ask it again:

So if the US was taken over by Islamic fundamentalists and Sharia type government installed at the cost of tens of thousands of your countrymen/women's lives, you'd just accept it?

Well? :-)

If I had no representation in the old government, and I did in the new one, probably.

In fact many a Black man who had already been free'd but had no vote found himself doing just that, and even fighting for the invader. :-)

Hell, sure I'm loyal to my government, but the very moment I feel it doesn't represent me, I'd drop it like a bad habit, and like the song say's "Pledge aliegance to the flag, whatever flag they give you [and teach your kids silently bla bla whatever the words were]" (especially if I happen to be doing taxes at the time) :lol:

[Karlos]

Wilse wrote:

No one here claims to have a solution although I'll tell you the way I'd like to see things go.

1. The 'coalition' immediately hands operational command over to the UN.
2. The UN bring in troops from Arab league countries and all other outsiders leave immediately the Arab League troops arrive.
3. Every Iraqi contract handed out by the US/Coalition is immediately cancelled and given to the UN to be handed out on a tender basis
4. Control of Iraqi oil fields handed over to the UN until elections can be held.



Thats roughly what I was thinking, although I would prefer to see a bit more of a mixture of UN troops. However, I agree that more of an arab peacekeeper presence would likely reduce tension. Just about any non-arab presence has already earned contempt and mistrust thanks to the excellent way the coalition has handled things so far.

A thick frost will adorn satan's driveway before any of that happens though.

[Wilse]

@T-Bone:

If I had no representation in the old government, and I did in the new one, probably.

That isn't what I asked. You already have representation.

If *your* current country was invaded by, say Iran and Sharia-type government imposed upon you, would you accept it?

[Glaucus]

Oh, I don't agree with that. All government is imposed on you, no matter where you live and no matter how well you are represented by that government, it's imposed on you.Yes, but there's an important distinction here T_Bone. Your government was imposed on you by your own countrymen - people you know and trust. When a foreign government imposes an alien form of government on you, there is a deep rooted mistrust.

When the US liberated France (without occupying it afterwards like they did Iraq), the French simply reverted back to their original form of government before the invasion. Note that they did not continue the German standards and procedures which were working fine in France for 4 years.

When the US tried to defend democracy in South Vietnam their tactics were so harsh and barbaric that they completely lost the hearts and minds of the ordinary Vietnamese citizen. The end result was that those who would have otherwise been happy with democracy were alienated and driven away, eventually turning against their American "friends".

- Mike

[Glaucus]

But the fire only flamed opinions but no serious sollutions seem to be in sight. Just bickering. Pointing the finger puts forth blame but does not help fix things.Hmmm... Well that all depends on your end-goals, doesn't it Wolfe? If you just want peace, there's a fairly simple solution for that (see Wilse's post). If you want to impose a new government and use it to launch political and/or military campaigns throughout the region and exploit the oil fields then there simply is no solution at all to the bloodshed. The old cliche is correct: you can't have your cake and eat it too!

- Mike

[T_Bone]

Wilse wrote:
@T-Bone:

If I had no representation in the old government, and I did in the new one, probably.

That isn't what I asked. You already have representation.

But the Iraqi's didn't, and arn't they the target of the analogy?


If *your* current country was invaded by, say Iran and Sharia-type government imposed upon you, would you accept it?


If I had no representation, yes, just like those in my country before me who had no representation accepted it, when the Yanks invaded.

If the Iraqi's had had representation, there would have been no invasion, as Saddam was a minority leader.

I know what you're trying to get at, you're trying to make a point that people will naturally defend against outsiders/imposed government, but that's not why the fighting in Iraq is happening, they are fighting for political control over other groups. That has nothing to DO with us being there, if we wern't there, it would be a civil war against groups.

[FluffyMcDeath]

Wolfe wrote:
[...] But the fire only flamed opinions but no serious sollutions seem to be in sight.

The situation has no solution in the same way that a homicide has no solutions. There is nothing that can be done that will undo the homicide. Just as you can't pull the bullet out of the corpse and hope for it to come back to life, you can't just pull the US forces out of Iraq and hope for everything to be OK.

However, there are remedies which can be imployed that, while they don't bring anyone back to life, do help the healing of society and act to deter this behaviour in the future and that is the application and enforcement of law.

In the case of Iraq, that would require that the current US administration be hauled off to the world court, be convicted and sent to prison, that the US forces in Iraq be sent packing and be replaced by an international authority, that the US be forced to pay reparations to Iraq for damage caused during the war but not from seized Iraqi funds which should be returned to Iraq without obligation. All illegal contracts signed by the occupying power and their puppet government would be nullified and retendered to local groups and an apology for all past wrongs would be made.

The problem here is that:

a) Nobody is ever going to round up the US administration and prosecute them because they wield too much power (and whatever comes up in the trial would embarrass too many people).
b) The UN can hardly claim to be neutral after their role in supporting the embargo and first gulf war which are the principle causes of the current degradation of the Iraqi infrastructure.
c) The big contractors are making out like bandits (are bandits!) and will grease which-ever wheels are necessary to continue doing so.

So the only real-life solution is the Vietnam solution (or Russian Afghanistan solution) whereby you just let the occupying power suffer the consequences and spend their treasure until they are sufficiently bled that they come back into line. Doubtless Iran will is helping out with the uprising and there may be other powers helping out too. It would be in China's interest to trap the US in the middle east for a protracted time since they cannot yet disengage themselves from US currency as the US owes them a huge amount of money, but they also don't need America's military being a realistic threat to them.

By making these grabs in Afghanistan and Iraq the US has become vulnerable to its enemies.

[Glaucus]

It would be in China's interest to trap the US in the middle east for a protracted time since they cannot yet disengage themselves from US currency as the US owes them a huge amount of money, but they also don't need America's military being a realistic threat to them.Not to mention that the US military, tied down in Mesopotamia, makes it rather difficult to come to the quick aid of Taiwan. Btw, anyone here notice that China is mobilizing for an invasion?

- Mike

[Wolfe]

@Wilse

"" 1. The 'coalition' immediately hands operational command over to the UN. ""

I would prefer a different body than the UN but I could agree. If certain members are fired (coff i a non and cronnies) UN is too tainted ATM.

"" 2. The UN bring in troops from Arab league countries and all other outsiders leave immediately the Arab League troops arrive. ""

Yes . . . . . But immediately would take time - can't leave until Arab troops arrive.

"" 3. Every Iraqi contract handed out by the US/Coalition is immediately cancelled and given to the UN to be handed out on a tender basis ""

Only if the UN is paying the bill. Some control yes - all no.

4. Control of Iraqi oil fields handed over to the UN until elections can be held.

Sure.

"" The US, UK and all the other lying governments who supported this charade admit at the very least that they made a mistake (I'd prefer 'lied' but that'll never happen) aqbout WMDs, imminent threats and all the other BS we were told to justify the invasion. ""

If you are dreaming why not dream big. Never happen even in a dream.

"" If we do this, there might be hope that the Iraqis will forget how much they hate us and remember that we got rid of Saddam then left without slaughtering the entire population. ""

Doubtful, but maybe they will forget sooner or later.

"" If the whole place descends into civil war, anarchy and chaos, so f*ck? It will sort itself out eventually. ""

:lol: And we can blame the UN for screwing it up. :lol:

"" The alternative? Send in another 200,000 troops, impose marshall law and rule the place with an iron fist, showing no mercy (a la Saddam), which will bring stability but will also guarantee that we (the 'coalition') will be hated by every Iraqi until our great grand children are dead. ""

No - drop in small pox and end the stand off. (I had to be a little mean) :lol:

[Glaucus]

And we can blame the UN for screwing it up.Don't worry Wolfe, the Arabs know who to blame. Just keep checking your carry-on's and keep pretending all is good.

- Mike

[Wolfe]

Glaucus wrote:
And we can blame the UN for screwing it up.Don't worry Wolfe, the Arabs know who to blame. Just keep checking your carry-on's and keep pretending all is good.

- Mike

Yah, Canada . . . . :-o

[Wolfe]

Hey,

This thread is getting pretty ripe and rotten.

Would someone closest to Iraq please go clean The Shi'ite off the fan. :lol:

[Glaucus]

Wolfe wrote:

Yah, Canada . . . . :-o Yeah, that's it!

Btw, please change your avatar Wolfe, it's making me enjoy your posts and I'm not quite comfortable with that! ;-)

Btw, check this out: www.monicabellucci.it (http://www.monicabellucci.it/)

- Mike

[Fade]

@ Wolfe
Yah, Canada
--------------

Actually you can trace a lot of Iraq's aggression in a time-line all the way back to Canada and a company named Canadian Armament Research and Development Establishment (CARDE) now known as Defence R&D Canada (DRDC) (http://www.drdc-rddc.dnd.ca/home_e.asp).

In the 50's a Canadian named Gerald Bull (http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-74-626/people/gerald_bull/) the owner of CARDE started working on a gun as a means to shoot objects to study supersonic aerodynamics. By the 60's he had contracts with the Canadian and US governments for the (HARP) High Altitude Research Program to launch scientific and military payloads on sub-orbital altitudes over 110 miles.

By 1980 he was in jail on illegal arms dealing charges but by 81 he was out and working for Saddam Hussein building the Babylon Supergun. This thing was kind of stupid in that it was so large, it couldn't be re-aimed and couldn't be hidden, but its range was going to be able to reach Israel. It's only purpose was a one time launch of a Nuke or biological weapon at Israel.

Israel seeing the handwriting on the wall, took the easy way out and sent planes to Iraq and destroyed the nuclear plant that France and Italy had built for Saddam. This really pissed off the UN and other Jew haters, but it did remove, at least temporarily, the threat of a nuclear attack on Israel.

Meanwhile Gerald Bull continued to work on the Babylon gun (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/babongun.htm), until Israel had had enough and assassinated him in March 1990. This finally took the Canada connection out of the equation but Iraq continued to work on the big gun until it was destroyed after the 1st gulf war.

[kokigami]

well

Glaucus wrote:
... Your government was imposed on you by your own countrymen - people you know and trust. When a foreign government imposes an alien form of government on you, there is a deep rooted mistrust.

When the US liberated France (without occupying it afterwards like they did Iraq), the French simply reverted back to their original form of government before the invasion. Note that they did not continue the German standards and procedures which were working fine in France for 4 years.
...

- Mike

There are some fundamental biological principles at work. The difficulty in changing hearts and minds is, in part, the challenge of changing synaptic networks. The fact is, Iraqis don't think like americans and what we represent is alien and threatening, even if they agree with some principles. They must be allowed to form their own government. The only caveat is that we should encourage the formation of a maleable, constitution, with protections for individual rights. I think we should ask Iran for help.

[Wolfe]

Glaucus wrote:

Btw, please change your avatar Wolfe, it's making me enjoy your posts and I'm not quite comfortable with that! ;-)

Btw, check this out: www.monicabellucci.it (http://www.monicabellucci.it/)

- Mike

Thanks for the URL. Drooled so much I had to replace my keyboard. I need a water proof one. Many of the pics are of a higher quality than some places. 8-)

Oh, the avatar, well you will just have to suffer as it rotates to more Monica. :-D