/* */

PDA

View Full Version : We came, we saw, we ruined Iraq – to stay will wound it more



Far7an
09-09-2005, 10:55 AM
Sunday Times September 04, 2005

We came, we saw, we ruined Iraq – to stay will wound it more
Simon Jenkins

Two great cities, New Orleans and Baghdad, were last week plunged in horror. They both cried out for sympathy. One will get it, the other will not. The thousands who have died in Louisiana and the 1,000 more who died during the Baghdad stampede show how even modern cities hover on the brink of disaster. People have always congregated in them for security. The levees of 19th-century New Orleans and the oil-rich oases of the Tigris invited people’s labour and offered protection in return. But protection requires order. Remove order and the old Muslim saying holds true. An hour of anarchy is worse than 100 years of tyranny.


It is ironic that both cities at their moment of crisis relied on federal Washington for support. New Orleans was bought from the French in 1803 and depends for its survival on the US Army Corps of Engineers. Last week’s inundation from Hurricane Katrina was beyond realistic prevention, although it was not beyond prediction. If looters and reporters could roam the streets at will it was a mystery that law officers and relief supplies could not.

Seeing looters filmed on the streets of New Orleans reminded me of an American official outside Baghdad’s National Museum 18 months ago. He explained that its looting was nothing to do with the Americans since “it was the Iraqis who did the looting”. I pointed out that all authority in the city had collapsed as a direct result of American policy. He shrugged.

I sensed the same shrug in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It is odd that America, a land so proud of its cities, should be unable to understand them or cope with their distress.

Baghdad is a different matter. Here security has been usurped and then guaranteed for more than two years by the Pentagon. The disaster on al-Aima bridge was an accident but one that arose from a collapse of civic order. That a million Shi’ites should so crave normality as to converge on the al-Kadhimiya shrine was impressive. Yet dissidents were able casually to lob mortars among them and terrorise them with threats of bombs. Normality in Baghdad is a hair’s breadth from chaos.

The way forward for New Orleans is clear. Once the shock is over, it will recover its bravura and confidence. There will be massive aid for its rebuilding. It merits our sympathy but it will survive.

For Baghdad the way forward is only gloom and fear. I have not been to the city for 18 months, but talking to friends and reading reports tells me that its yearning for order is even more desperate.

Any city, however abused by an occupying power, needs security. Nothing is more important. Citizens may go to market, walk by the river, read newspapers and even visit an art gallery. But Baghdad’s streets are barricaded, armed and patrolled by vigilantes. Women must wear veils for their security and do not venture out at night. Kidnap-prone doctors and academics flee to Jordan. Everyone says it “must” get better, there “must” be hope, but Iraqis are always optimists. Others owe it to them to be realists.

More than two years of chaos, killing and fraud have seen the American reconstruction of Baghdad hardly begin. It is too unsafe. The city has yet to recover from the unbelievable mistake of the Americans and British bombing all the government infrastructure so as to cause “shock and awe”, and then disbanding the police and the army and stopping their pensions.

It must have been the first time since the Middle Ages that instilling anarchy has been the deliberate policy of an occupying power. Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, and **** Cheney, the US vice-president, were told by the neocons that freedom would blossom spontaneously from the ashes. They were fooled. Baghdad is a memorial to this idiocy.

I have not read a single coherent account of the current strategy for Iraq that is founded on anything but wishful thinking. Those on the ground know the truth, occasionally breaking surface with a leaked army report or evidence to Congress. This paper’s Review section today reports Andrew Krepinevich’s plan of action for Iraq in response to two years of Pentagon boasts, reassurances and promises.



Every one has been wrong. Optimism is a noble quality in war, but wanting something does not make it so. In Iraq, President George W Bush sees democracy as he once saw weapons of mass destruction: as a mirage.

What of Britain in this? Kenneth Clarke rightly reminded his spineless Conservative party on Thursday that Britain is party to this cruel war. Its justification was that the world might be better if a particular ruler were not running Iraq, other things being equal.

They never are equal. The war was sold to the British public by one of the most grotesque deceptions in modern government: Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell’s dodgy dossiers. People were deceived, but it is hard to believe that Downing Street deceived itself. All warnings, from the Foreign Office, Arab countries, the US State Department, even US army chiefs, warned Bush and Blair that Saddam Hussein’s secular, centralist regime was all that held Iraq together, and then only just. Topple it and strong authority must instantly replace it. Even then, the autonomy granted by the West to the Kurds would probably see a bid for autonomy from the oil-rich Shi’ite south. That for sure would mean a Sunni revolt.



All this was disregarded by the small group in the Pentagon who, as Bob Woodward and others have reported, waged this campaign from the start. They did so with Blair’s compliance. He and the Americans handed power to anyone filling the vacuum they had created: sheikhs, warlords and the Iran-backed private militias, now rich on filched American aid. It is hard to see how this was an ideal test bed for a new democracy.

I never saw Iraq as an American colony, although the Pentagon certainly hoped for a military ally. But how the government’s post- invasion strategy tallied with any sensible objective is a mystery. January’s much-lauded election, dominated by admittedly brave expatriates, was a foretaste of last week’s constitutional fiasco. Its collapse was as sad as it was inevitable. It ended with the absurdity of frantic American officials pleading with Sunnis to accept sharia clauses in the constitution so as to close a deal with the Shi’ite clerics. Whatever else the Pentagon wants in Baghdad it is not female emancipation.

Baghdad now faces a ghastly choice. It is between the continued anarchy of the American-British presence and the anarchy that would follow its withdrawal, as Sunnis and Muslim militias carve up central Iraq in a de facto partition. This would be no more separatist than what the Americans have already conceded to the Kurds in the north. Since the second option is likely to happen anyway, the only grim virtue lies in getting it over with.

Security within 100 miles of Baghdad is getting worse, not better. “Staying the course” is not working. It is a catchphrase, not a policy. It simply involves killing people and getting them killed in return. A planned and co-ordinated coalition withdrawal is now simply the least worst option.

America can at least show reasons for attacking Iraq, an extension of its retaliatory rage after 9/11. Britain had none. Blair’s support for Bush was unnecessary and his failure to exert any leverage over his policy is baffling, even to his aides. He is where no general should ever be: in a fight whose conduct, course and outcome he cannot control. His soldiers must stand by and watch as American-induced lawlessness spreads south into British-controlled territory.

Blair hopes soon to withdraw troops from Basra under cover of deploying them to Afghanistan, for reasons that are obscure. He cannot do so if he also thinks, in line with Washington, that “the corner is about to turn in Iraq”. Were that true, extra troops should surely be sent to boost security. The fact is that Blair is in a political Guantanamo. In the wrong place at the wrong time, he finds himself a prisoner without trial at the Pentagon’s whim.

Since 1815 and the battle of New Orleans, Louisiana has not been Britain’s concern. Baghdad is. We are party to the destruction of a city and the dismembering of its country amid growing insecurity. The greatest arrogance of all is that we can somehow do more good than harm by staying.

Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
imaad_udeen
09-09-2005, 03:47 PM
:sl:

In my opinion, Iraq was ruined long before the Americans invaded.

Saddam ruined Iraq, IMO.

:w:
Reply

Far7an
09-09-2005, 03:55 PM
Assalamu alaikum

So you are using that as justification for the actions of the Americans?

"Iraq was ruined long before the Americans invaded."

I find that very sad.
Reply

Ummu Amatullah
09-10-2005, 01:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
:sl:

In my opinion, Iraq was ruined long before the Americans invaded.

Saddam ruined Iraq, IMO.

:w:
Asallama Alaikum Akhi.Compare when Saddam was in power to this very day.Surprisingly I could honestly say Iraq was in a better state before then now.Jazak'Allah brother Farhan.The saddest thing is how the two cities(New Orleans & Baghdad)solely rely on the U.S.Can I ask what has that lead to?None other then hardship and turmoil. :mad: :mad:
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
☆ღUmm Uthmanღ☆
09-22-2005, 06:50 PM
salaamu alaikum...tht's true!!
Reply

imaad_udeen
09-22-2005, 07:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Far7an
Assalamu alaikum

So you are using that as justification for the actions of the Americans?

"Iraq was ruined long before the Americans invaded."

I find that very sad.
So I guess mass graves, rapes by the son of the head of state, political murder and no civil or personal liberties are signs of a 'healthy' country?
Reply

imaad_udeen
09-22-2005, 07:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Shukri
Asallama Alaikum Akhi.Compare when Saddam was in power to this very day.Surprisingly I could honestly say Iraq was in a better state before then now.Jazak'Allah brother Farhan.The saddest thing is how the two cities(New Orleans & Baghdad)solely rely on the U.S.Can I ask what has that lead to?None other then hardship and turmoil. :mad: :mad:
Imagine how you can possibly live in such as terrible country as the United States?
Reply

Ummu Amatullah
09-23-2005, 01:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
Imagine how you can possibly live in such as terrible country as the United States?
Yeah just imagine hummmmmmmm
Reply

Halima
09-23-2005, 03:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
Imagine how you can possibly live in such as terrible country as the United States?

I see that you yourself is living in the United States. Now the question bounces back on you. How can you possibly live in such a terrible country as the U.S?
Reply

Halima
09-23-2005, 03:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Far7an
Assalamu alaikum

So you are using that as justification for the actions of the Americans?

"Iraq was ruined long before the Americans invaded."

I find that very sad.
Let me refresh you on the history. Remember exactly 1 decade ago when there was genocide..and killings of innocent women and children...remember that? Who was the leader then? Well that's why imaad_udeen is not letting us forget about the past horror in Iraq. So that's what he means about the "ruins".
Reply

Ra`eesah
09-23-2005, 07:41 AM
Assalamu'Alaykum

Ya ukhtee, what me and you say in this matter, or any member on this board, holds no weight. It is easy for us to sit at our computers safe and sound at home, and write about those suffering thosands of miles away. Let us look at what the Iraqi's think, do they approve of the occupation?

At first, yes they did, they welcome the "allied" forces with open arms thinking they will be liberated. But that was 2 years ago, let us look at the condition now.when we see the Dissapointment of the iraqis on the media, that is minor in comparison the the injustices our brothers and SISTERS have gone through in the prisons of the Americans and BritishYou may or not be aware, last ramadhan, the Americans had captured several Sisters which they said were "suspected terrorists". These sisters were raped and tortured, a letter was sent out by one of the sisters as a cry of help...she also said in that letter, that many of the sisters are carrying babies now..now if this does not make your heart bleed for your fellow brethren, and you still chose to side with the Americans, may Allah guide us.

~ameen
Reply

Ummu Amatullah
09-23-2005, 11:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by 3washey
Assalamu'Alaykum

Ya ukhtee, what me and you say in this matter, or any member on this board, holds no weight. It is easy for us to sit at our computers safe and sound at home, and write about those suffering thosands of miles away. Let us look at what the Iraqi's think, do they approve of the occupation?

At first, yes they did, they welcome the "allied" forces with open arms thinking they will be liberated. But that was 2 years ago, let us look at the condition now.when we see the Dissapointment of the iraqis on the media, that is minor in comparison the the injustices our brothers and SISTERS have gone through in the prisons of the Americans and BritishYou may or not be aware, last ramadhan, the Americans had captured several Sisters which they said were "suspected terrorists". These sisters were raped and tortured, a letter was sent out by one of the sisters as a cry of help...she also said in that letter, that many of the sisters are carrying babies now..now if this does not make your heart bleed for your fellow brethren, and you still chose to side with the Americans, may Allah guide us.

~ameen
Ameen Jazak'Allah 3washey now would you mind making the writing a little bit bigger.Ukhti Halima sister let me refresh your memory who decided on invading Iraq with no justification at all to why he did it?What did that result to?
Reply

abdullahi
09-23-2005, 02:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Halima
Let me refresh you on the history. Remember exactly 1 decade ago when there was genocide..and killings of innocent women and children...remember that? Who was the leader then? Well that's why imaad_udeen is not letting us forget about the past horror in Iraq. So that's what he means about the "ruins".
:sl:
lead me refresh your memory sis. remember in the early 80's when Sadam and Rumsfield and other US leaders were pals. and the US gave sadam $1.6 millions worth of pesticides and other chemical and biological weapons to use on the kurds and the iranians and other minority groups in Iraq who opposed the iron fist of sadam. and lets not forget who put the big bad wolf in power.
lesson to learn: the US starts a mess and then 20 years later attempts to clean it up but they end up making it into an even bigger mess. may Allah guide us all.
:w:
Reply

imaad_udeen
09-23-2005, 04:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by abdullahi
:sl:
lead me refresh your memory sis. remember in the early 80's when Sadam and Rumsfield and other US leaders were pals. and the US gave sadam $1.6 millions worth of pesticides and other chemical and biological weapons to use on the kurds and the iranians and other minority groups in Iraq who opposed the iron fist of sadam. and lets not forget who put the big bad wolf in power.
lesson to learn: the US starts a mess and then 20 years later attempts to clean it up but they end up making it into an even bigger mess. may Allah guide us all.
:w:
:sl:

Prove it.

:w:
Reply

imaad_udeen
09-23-2005, 04:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Halima
I see that you yourself is living in the United States. Now the question bounces back on you. How can you possibly live in such a terrible country as the U.S?
:sl:

Dont find ti terrible.

Born here, raised here. Have many dear friends here.

:w:
Reply

abdullahi
09-23-2005, 08:07 PM
:sl:
insh'Allah i will give sufficient proof soon. i have to go to college now.
:w:
Reply

Halima
09-23-2005, 08:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Shukri
Ameen Jazak'Allah 3washey now would you mind making the writing a little bit bigger.Ukhti Halima sister let me refresh your memory who decided on invading Iraq with no justification at all to why he did it?What did that result to?

Ukhti let me ask you.. was there any justification when Saddaam let innocent civilians kill innocent civilians? Was there any justification for Sadaam to torture women? Was there any justification for his sons to have a torture chamber? What in God's name gave him the right to do those kinds of things?
Reply

Far7an
09-23-2005, 08:28 PM
Assalamu alaikum
format_quote Originally Posted by Halima
Ukhti let me ask you.. was there any justification when Saddaam let innocent civilians kill innocent civilians? Was there any justification for Sadaam to torture women? Was there any justification for his sons to have a torture chamber? What in God's name gave him the right to do those kinds of things?
I don't think anyone thinks Saddam was a good leader, but the Americans are no saints in comparison.
Reply

Ummu Amatullah
09-23-2005, 09:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Far7an
Assalamu alaikum

I don't think anyone thinks Saddam was a good leader, but the Americans are no saints in comparison.
Yeah Jazak'Allah brother.Sis what gave Bush the justification to do what he has already done?Sis no one ever said Saddam was a perfect just ruler okay he was one of the puppets of the kufaar so were his sons. :D
Reply

abdullahi
09-24-2005, 12:00 AM
:sl:
i urge everyone to read the following articles on the Saddam-America connection:

Saddam Connection Confirmed!!
FLASHBACK: THE REAGAN-SADDAM CONNECTION
U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
obviously this article is going to biased, but it also confirms the american involvement in the gassing of kurds, iranians, and others
U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s

although this is has nothing to do with the topic, i just wanted to point out how much taller sadam is than rumsfield. i remember when they captured sadam, every news channel described him as being a short, chubby guy. he certainly doesn't look short or chubby in this photos, nor in any of his other photos or videos that i've seen. and if i can recall correctly, sadam had about a dozen doubles. interesting, ain't it?

:w:
Reply

abdullahi
09-24-2005, 04:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hashim
:sl:

Allaah Hu Alaam, trust nothing what these zionist western biased news channels say. Who knows about this, Allaah most mighty most majestic knows best!

:w:
:sl:
you're right bro. every major news channel is owned by jews:
Who Rules America?
U.S. Media and U.S. Government - Traitors Of Humanity and the American People
Near Total Zionist Jewish Control Of The British Media
:w:
Reply

Ummu Amatullah
09-25-2005, 03:14 AM
Asallama Alaikum yeah I doubt if there's even a product not owned by the jews.
Reply

imaad_udeen
09-26-2005, 05:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hashim
:sl:

Allaah Hu Alaam, if you do not wish to belive this ,then dont, but this is this the truth and history 'proves' this. Did you prove that muslims were behind 9/11 when we asked you for this proof, no, Allaah knows best.

:w:
Don't talk to me, you claiming to know history is among the funniest things I have ever read.
Reply

imaad_udeen
09-26-2005, 05:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Far7an
Assalamu alaikum

I don't think anyone thinks Saddam was a good leader, but the Americans are no saints in comparison.
Ok, so no one thinks Saddam was "a good leader" and the Americans "are no Saints in comparison?"

I'm confused. I think you are belittling the crimes of Saddam Hussein and making the Americans out to be far worse than they are.
It's the flavor of the week, so to say, in some people seeming to forget just how terrible Saddam Husseins regime was. Everyone is so interested in giving America a black eye that all of a sudden they are 'no saints in comparison (to Saddam Hussein).'
Reply

imaad_udeen
09-26-2005, 05:38 AM
Is this thread oing to get racist as well?
Reply

Far7an
09-26-2005, 07:52 AM
Assalamu alaikum

I'm confused. I think you are belittling the crimes of Saddam Hussein and making the Americans out to be far worse than they are.
You got all that, from that one sentence of mine? hehe, I was not belittling his crimes at all.

some people seeming to forget just how terrible Saddam Husseins regime was.
Again, you are putting words into my mouth, I did not say this or even make this assumption.

Is this thread oing to get racist as well?
Alhamdulillah, I do not think any of my comments have been racist. If so, I apologise, and I assure you that was not my intention.

Now brother, do you believe the war in Iraq was legal war? lets not think about what they achieved (removing saddam). When the press asked TonyBblair whether the war was justifiable based on the reason given when they first invaded the country, he said "The world is a better place without Saddam". He failed to answer the question, this shows even Tony Blair had doubts of whether the war was legal.

wasalamu alaikum.
Reply

YamahaR1
09-26-2005, 11:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hashim
Ya Ikhwaani Iraq was in a better state before the kuffaar invaded, and dont forget it was the british/americans who put saddam in power in the first place. He was a agent of west, and then he became a disobediant agent, he was evil and the infidels who invaded are evil.
As another poster has said in this thread..... prove it!

Saddam rose through the ranks of the Baath Party. The UK and the US did not put Saddam in power. He took hold of the power and the people of Iraq allowed it.

One other thought....exactly what miracle did you guys expect in Iraq? It took America decades to progress to where it is today. It, too, had its own internal struggles with racism, inequality, religious differences, etc. There was civil war and many other times of despair before moving forward. Did everyone here expect that Iraq would be perfect in a couple of years? Not very realistic. It takes time to rebuild infrastructure...from my understanding, not only to rebuild those areas damaged by war but the water infrastructure, schools, hospitals, etc. were in bad need of updates due to Saddam's negligence prior to the war. It takes time to train police, military personnel, etc. These things do not happen over night.

And, regarding the lawlessness in New Orleans and Baghdad, in both cases what you saw was looting by the poor. America has its share and they live on Welfare. These are people who refuse to get an education, refuse to get a job, and keep having children that they can't afford. And, New Orleans was inundated with these people. In Iraq, those people had been oppressed by Saddam for so long, they took what they could during the period of disorder as well. The difference between the two is the Americans, if oppressed, it is by their own doing and choices. The Iraqis were oppressed because of a cruel dictator that was more interested in building a beautiful palace than taking care of the people he was responsible for leading.

And, I'm curious....have any of you seen the recent message sent out by President Jalal Talabani of Iraq? And, the last time I checked, this was the leader selected by Iraqis in their election.

In case you haven't, here you go.....

BAGHDAD--There is no more important international issue today than the need to defeat the curse of terrorism. And as the first democratically elected president of Iraq, I have a responsibility to ensure that the world's youngest democracy survives the inherently difficult transition from totalitarianism to pluralism. A transformation of the Iraqi state and Iraqi society is impossible without a sustained commitment of soldiers from the United States and other democracies.

To understand why, let us recall how we reached this juncture in history. How is it that Iraq today has a democratically elected head of state, government and Parliament? How it is that members of the most repressed ethnic groups now hold the highest offices of state? All these welcome developments are a result of the courage and vision of President Bush and his allies, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Australian Prime Minister John Howard, leaders whose commitment of troops to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions liberated Iraq.





Without foreign intervention, the transition in Iraq would have been from Saddam's bloodstained hands to his psychopathic offspring. Instead, thanks to American leadership, Iraqis have been given an opportunity of peaceful, participatory politics. Contrary to the new conventional wisdom, Iraq and the history of 20th-century Europe demonstrate that force of arms can implant democracy in the most arid soil.
The rapidity of the democratization and reform of Iraq is staggering. There was no German state for four years after the Second World War. By contrast, Iraq has moved from a centralized, one-man dictatorship to a decentralized, federal republic in half that time.

Inevitably, there have been stresses and strains. In Iraq these have been amplified by the terrorism of the remnants of the fascist Baathist dictatorship and our interfering neighbors. To contain these tensions, and to defend our young democracy, requires the support of American and other troops. Foreign forces are needed to train and equip the new Iraqi armed forces and to give Iraq its own counterterrorism capability. Only the United States and its closest allies are able to provide such assistance.

Creating these Iraqi forces has not been easy, but Iraqis have been undaunted by the difficulties. Every terrorist attack on Iraqi forces leads to a surge in military recruitment--the opposite of the appeasers' myth that resisting terrorism causes more terrorism. For all the short-term problems, the soundness of the long-term strategy of building up Iraqi forces was demonstrated in recent days when Iraqis took over sole control of security in the holy city of Najaf.

As Iraqi forces gain in confidence and capability, so the need for foreign troops will diminish. The number of foreign troops will be determined in consultations between the Iraqi government and its foreign allies on the basis of operational requirements.

American forces are in Iraq at the invitation of the democratically elected government of Iraq, and with the backing of a United Nations Security Council resolution. Your soldiers are in my country because of your commitment to democracy. Moreover, during my visit to Washington, Mr. Bush reaffirmed the United States' complete support for the Iraqi political process toward sustainable democracy, and for the fight to defeat fascist and jihadist terrorism in Iraq.

That commitment to liberty has shaped our opposition to any timetable for withdrawal. There are also two practical, policy reasons to avoid such a scheduled reduction in foreign troop numbers. First, a timetable will aid the terrorists and tell them that all they have to do is wait. Second, military plans must be flexible. We should have the suppleness to respond to the often-changing level of terrorist threat. Indeed, we will require ongoing security assistance in many forms for many years to come.

If we keep progressing at the present rate, Iraqis may be able to take over many security functions from foreign forces by the end of 2006. That is not a deadline, but it is reasonable aspiration. During my visit to the United States, I was fortunate to meet relatives of some of the brave troops serving in Iraq. They were staunch, and I want their loved ones to have to serve in Iraq not a moment longer than is necessary.

Americans should be proud of what its soldiers have achieved. The presence of foreign forces has prevented a renewed civil war in Iraq--renewed because there has already been a civil war in Iraq. For 35 years, Saddam and his Baath Party made war on the Iraqi people. The liberation of Iraq ended that civil war.
Above all, American forces provide Iraq with a much-needed deterrence capability. In the past, Iraq sought an illusory security through the follies of aggression, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Today, our external security comes from our alliance with the United States. Our neighbors can thereby be assured that we will settle all of our differences with them peacefully.

Sadly, some of our neighbors have chosen not to understand this. They seem either unwilling or unable to shut off the pipeline of terrorists crossing into Iraq. And in addition to what is at least passive support for the terrorists, some of them are providing financial and material support to them, too. They must desist from this behavior now.

While the problem of some of our neighbors supporting terrorism is bad enough, we can only imagine what our neighbors might have done if American troops had not been present. Most likely, Iraq would have been transformed into a regional battlefield with disastrous consequences for Middle Eastern and global security.

Without American forces, the vision of American leadership and the quiet fortitude of the American people, Iraqis would be almost alone in the world. With its allies, the United States has provided Iraqis with an unprecedented opportunity. Iraqis have responded by enthusiastically embracing democracy and volunteering to fight for their country. By giving us the tools, your troops help us to defend Iraqi democracy and to finish the job of uprooting Baathist fascism.

Mr. Talabani is president of Iraq.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110007289
Reply

Malaikah
09-26-2005, 11:50 AM
this whole situation is unfortunate, during saddams regime and after (i.e. the present) we can only pray that Allah swt lets good come out of this and awards those who have suffered at the hands of saddam and this war.
Reply

imaad_udeen
09-26-2005, 06:02 PM
:sl:

format_quote Originally Posted by Far7an
Assalamu alaikum

You got all that, from that one sentence of mine? hehe, I was not belittling his crimes at all.
Fair enough. Just seems like you were being light on Saddam when you said he "was not the best ruler." That is the understatement of the century.

Again, you are putting words into my mouth, I did not say this or even make this assumption.
I believe I said some people, not you in particular. Sorry for the mix up, if you are not one of those people, then that's great.

Alhamdulillah, I do not think any of my comments have been racist. If so, I apologise, and I assure you that was not my intention.
That was intended for those who started bringing up the Jews, I don't think you mentioned them at all.

Now brother, do you believe the war in Iraq was legal war? lets not think about what they achieved (removing saddam). When the press asked TonyBblair whether the war was justifiable based on the reason given when they first invaded the country, he said "The world is a better place without Saddam". He failed to answer the question, this shows even Tony Blair had doubts of whether the war was legal.

wasalamu alaikum.
Of course the war was legal. The United States signed a cease fire with Saddam Hussein's government ending the last gulf war, it was the United States who had the sole right to decide when Iraq was in violation of the cease fire. Going to the United Nations was more an act of good will than it was an act of neccessity.

The United Nations does not decide when the US will or will not be allowed to protect its interests. The US interests in this case was to disarm Iraq from it's potential threats.

This entire war would not have happened had Saddam Hussein abided by the cease-fire terms he accepted on the battlefield in 1991.

:w:
Reply

imaad_udeen
09-26-2005, 06:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by cheese
this whole situation is unfortunate, during saddams regime and after (i.e. the present) we can only pray that Allah swt lets good come out of this and awards those who have suffered at the hands of saddam and this war.
Ameen.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-09-2008, 05:27 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-22-2007, 09:15 PM
  3. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-13-2006, 09:26 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-15-2006, 12:54 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!