/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Some positive news from Iraq



MTAFFI
01-02-2008, 08:24 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080102/..._new_awakening

US offers Iraqis service jobs By ELENA BECATOROS, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 32 minutes ago

HUDA, Iraq - Children skip across a stream of raw sewage on a side road, trash piles up in a dusty lot and there are few desks — and even fewer chairs — in the village school's dark, cold classrooms.

On the main street, fruits and vegetables are displayed for sale on sacks lying under corrugated metal awnings.

Huda, a Shiite village of about 3,000 southeast of Baghdad, sits on the edge of a region the U.S. military and locals say is dominated by insurgents and al-Qaida in Iraq. Here, many men are out of work, and the village is in desperate need of basic services.

Grinding poverty and disillusionment with the government and U.S.-led coalition can create fertile ground for insurgent or militia recruitment.

But the U.S. military believes it has a way to help residents and the village by providing jobs that also could dim the allure of militancy.

Modeled on a program under which the U.S. pays armed groups who turned against al-Qaida in Iraq, the military has begun recruiting villagers for public service jobs — working to improve sanitation, do repairs and pick up trash.

"Today is a new idea," said Capt. John Horning, the 36-year-old company commander of C Company, 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment stationed in the area. Instead of hiring people to secure their neighborhoods, "we'll have them doing sanitation, cleaning up the area, reconstruction."

"It's a pilot program," said Horning, from Houston, Texas. "We'll see how it works."

The hope is that the jobs will give residents a legitimate way to make a living and prevent them from turning to militia or insurgent groups, many of which are suspected of paying men to carry out attacks.

"Only barely second to security in my neighborhood is employment, and so I've got to find a way to make that bridge," said Lt. Col. Jack Marr, commander of the 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment. Instead of having Iraqis "out there with guns ..., I hand them a shovel and get them digging up trash."

Each person hired will receive a salary of $300 a month, the same amount as members of the mainly Sunni armed groups known as Awakening Councils who now protect their neighborhoods with the help of American and Iraqi forces.

The Awakening Councils — 70,000-strong and growing fast — have contributed to a 60 percent decrease in violence across Iraq since June, along with a six-month cease-fire called in August by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr for his Mahdi Army militia and an extra 30,000 U.S. troops sent into Baghdad.

Horning's region, which covers about 100 square miles and 12 towns, has both Sunni and Shiite Awakening groups.

With less violence — residents say Huda hasn't been attacked by mortars for three months — people can concentrate on rebuilding their lives.

"Here where security is better, we need the return to normalcy," Horning said. "We're putting dollars into the economy, to get people working. People see that there's hope, that there's an alternative."

But with the project funded by the U.S., what happens when American forces leave?

"If we have a strong area and government, then there will be no problem," insists Sheik Zeidan Hussein Ali al-Masoudi. "The Americans are visitors. We must do something for ourselves. We want to live free. All Iraqis need is for the (foreign) forces to leave as soon as the work is done. ... All Iraqis want this."

On the first day of recruiting in Huda last week, three dozen men — some barely out of their teens, others with graying hair — lined up outside the dilapidated schoolhouse, their application forms in bright yellow, blue and pink folders rolled in their fists. Some have been out of work for years.

"The people here need money," Sheik Naheth Ouaidi al-Shameri, one of several sheiks who turned out, told the U.S. officer.

Majid Kerim Ali, a 35-year-old former air force sergeant under Saddam Hussein, has found only odd jobs since the U.S.-led coalition disbanded Iraq's military after the 2003 invasion.

"I am looking for a job — I'm very poor," said Ali, who has 10 children. "This will give us a chance for work, a chance for the people."

Horning said he was looking to recruit about 600 people in his region. Each area would have three groups: one for sanitation, one for building and construction, and a smaller one to provide security. In the past, Shiite militias have threatened Iraqis working on projects funded or run by the U.S. military, so workers will need protection, Horning said.

Like Awakening Council volunteers, all applicants go through biometric screening — fingerprinting, iris scans, photographs — in an attempt to ensure none are known insurgents or criminals.

Apart from boosting the economy, the new civil affairs teams could provide a solution to a pressing problem — what happens to the Awakening Councils after they have restored security.

The fighters have said they want to join the Iraqi army and police. But the Shiite-dominated government has only promised that 20,000 will be absorbed, and has pledged not to allow them to turn into a separate security force. Redirecting the rest toward reconstruction might ease tensions.

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said Sunday that Iraq is matching $155 million the U.S. has set aside to create jobs and provide vocational training for the fighters.

The new project might also help heal the sectarian divide.

In the nearby Shiite village of Wahida, where C Company's projects include a new clinic and refurbishing a school, Sheik Ali Hussein hands Horning a list of candidates for a new civil affairs group. It contains the names of four Sunnis.


It is nice to see things progessing in Iraq finally, if this trend continues the US might emerge from this situation victoriously. In the grand scheme of things, if the fighting continues to slow and hopefully eventually stop, people 100 years from now may look back and say it was a good idea to invade Iraq and overthrow the dictator, but who really knows? Just keep praying for these people that they may experience peace at some point in this life. :thumbs_up
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Zarmina
01-03-2008, 06:43 AM
I guess it is better than nothing considering they illegally invaded their country, stole their oil, destroyed their infrastructure, started an ethnic war, and killed thousands of innocent people.
Reply

ricardo_sousa
01-03-2008, 10:49 AM
the "ethnic war" was not started by the USA... I didn´t see Americans blowing them selfs in markets or roads... Maybe in that point you should ask Iran where the Iraqi terrorists get their guns.
Reply

north_malaysian
01-03-2008, 11:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ricardo_sousa
where the Iraqi terrorists get their guns.
Russia and China?:nervous:
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
The_Prince
01-03-2008, 12:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ricardo_sousa
the "ethnic war" was not started by the USA... I didn´t see Americans blowing them selfs in markets or roads... Maybe in that point you should ask Iran where the Iraqi terrorists get their guns.
actually the ethnic war was started by USA, you just like to act ignorant.....first of all think to yourself, is it a coincidence once america went into iraq all hell broke loose between shiites and sunnis? how come when these same sunnis and shiites leave iraq to syria, jordan etc etc they get along just fine? yet in iraq they cant? very simple, america has created the atmosphere between the two.

offcourse your ignorant and didnt look at what america did in the early stages of the war, they removed all sunnis from power, and then replaced them with shiites, wow now who wouldnt think some sunnis werent going to react in a violent way....there was a power vaccum, because smart america decided to get rid of every politician, police officer, and soldier, basically america turned iraq into a lawless country thanks to their stupidity. go look at new orleans, for a few days only there was no police and all hell broke loose, in iraq for years there was no police and no army, and no goverment because america decided to disband it all......offcourse you want to ignore all of this, but too bad you cant ignore this because these are the direct causes of what led to the ethnic war.......

and secondly, they have caught british soldiers in southern iraq planting bombs in the city, just because you havent seen it doesnt mean it doesnt happen......

and lol its so funny, you say ask iran where iraqi terrorists get their weapons from, america right now is giving weapons to sunni insurgents who used to kill america and iraqi soldiers! and they continue to do so, yet america is giving them weapons!!!!!!!!!!! so you just showed why you should never come and argue politics because your so ignorant and dont know what your saying, by trying to make Iran look bad by infering their giving weapons to shiite militias, you just made USA look just as bad because they give weapons to sunni insurgents! lol nice one man, really.

in fact lets expose you even more, america was and is in bed with the puppet al-maliki, he himself is an ally with the mahdi millitia whom you consider to be terrorists, yet America is backing al-maliki!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so seriously go educate yourself abit on Iraq plz, because you only make yourself look like a fox news clown with the silly comments you make. next thing you will be telling us iran gave saddam the chemical weapons right?
Reply

The_Prince
01-03-2008, 12:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zarmina
I guess it is better than nothing considering they illegally invaded their country, stole their oil, destroyed their infrastructure, started an ethnic war, and killed thousands of innocent people.
don't forget they have poisoned the country as well with their uranium........
Reply

The_Prince
01-03-2008, 12:50 PM
infact a hundred years from now americas dirty legacy in iraq will still be for all to see thanks to the uranium they have dropped in Iraq, so ppl in iraq a hundred years from now will still be suffering from the effects of this war!!!!
Reply

MTAFFI
01-03-2008, 02:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zarmina
I guess it is better than nothing considering they illegally invaded their country, stole their oil, destroyed their infrastructure, started an ethnic war, and killed thousands of innocent people.
so basically something positive is posted and you try and bring on the negative?

In response:
How exactly do you "illegally" invade another country? How exactly is declaring war "illegal"? OBL attacked our country in the name of Islamic Jihad, was that "illegal"?

Show me one single drop of stolen oil... Show me one article (legitimate), one ounce of proof that a single drop hasnt been paid for... yes that is right, you cant because it is a lie that is all to common on this forum, thanks for being a liar.

Destroyed infrastructure? Yes for about 3 days, the militant factions have been doing a real good job of that ever since

Started an ethnic war :? or removed a dictator who created the animosity and conditions for such long before we arrived in the country?????What do you think would have happened when SH died? Do you think the Iraqis would never have revolted? Economic sanctions were ripping that country in two because Saddam wouldnt allow humanitarian aid without military aid

Killing thousands of people, this is sad indeed, the thousands that were killed in the early stages of the war, I am truly sorry for their deaths, I could put them off on Saddam for not turning himself and his programs over but I wont, I know that the US's decision to invade Iraq and execute the operations it did are 100% responsible for those deaths and I am truly saddened by those events and the loss of every innocent life. However if you are attributing the deaths since then all to American troops that would be just as saddening because it would be a typical "blame game" comment rather than allowing the militants and other groups that ALSO invaded Iraq and needless and senselessly took many many many more lives.
Reply

MTAFFI
01-03-2008, 03:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
actually the ethnic war was started by USA, you just like to act ignorant.....
What total junk
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
first of all think to yourself, is it a coincidence once america went into iraq all hell broke loose between shiites and sunnis?
It was perpetuated by the influx of militants from neighboring countries, not the US, do you think it is coincidence that every time an attack happens it is claimed by one Al-qaeda type group or another? Do not act like there hasnt been a sectarian animosity in Iraq and around the world, I have seen comments on this forum saying that Shia are not even Muslim.
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
how come when these same sunnis and shiites leave iraq to syria, jordan etc etc they get along just fine?
How can the be the "same" when the ones causing the violence are still in Iraq and the ones who only want peace are not? That doesnt even make sense, it is ignorant to say that there hasnt been animosity between the differenct factions in Iraq and elsewhere for a very long time. You blaming everything on everyone else will never solve your problems and obviously never has.

format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
yet in iraq they cant? very simple, america has created the atmosphere between the two.
yeah that is why in the posted article it talks of shia and sunni's uniting for a common cause

"The new project might also help heal the sectarian divide.

In the nearby Shiite village of Wahida, where C Company's projects include a new clinic and refurbishing a school, Sheik Ali Hussein hands Horning a list of candidates for a new civil affairs group. It contains the names of four Sunnis."

format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
offcourse your ignorant and didnt look at what america did in the early stages of the war, they removed all sunnis from power, and then replaced them with shiites, wow now who wouldnt think some sunnis werent going to react in a violent way....
That is an outright lie, there were Sunnis in power and there still are today, they didnt get along right away because before it was ONLY sunni's, I guess in the civilized world we for some odd reason think that people can have equal say and rights and not be based on your religious preference.

format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
there was a power vaccum, because smart america decided to get rid of every politician, police officer, and soldier, basically america turned iraq into a lawless country thanks to their stupidity.
In retrospect this was a mistake, but when you attack a country that is ruled as Iraq was, what other options do you have?
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
go look at new orleans, for a few days only there was no police and all hell broke loose, in iraq for years there was no police and no army, and no goverment because america decided to disband it all......offcourse you want to ignore all of this, but too bad you cant ignore this because these are the direct causes of what led to the ethnic war.......
Again I disagree, they are not direct causes of ethnic war, they provided conditions for lawlessness, but did not perpetuate a war based on religion. The militant factions started that

format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
and secondly, they have caught british soldiers in southern iraq planting bombs in the city, just because you havent seen it doesnt mean it doesnt happen......
Prove it, just because you say it doesnt mean it is true

format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
and lol its so funny, you say ask iran where iraqi terrorists get their weapons from, america right now is giving weapons to sunni insurgents who used to kill america and iraqi soldiers!
Wrong again, Iran directly funds terrorist and anti western groups, the stand behind the Mahdi arny and provide weapons to them and the Sunnis. The US is trying to give the land back to the Iraqis so that we can leave, so we are giving weapons to IRAQIS, we are not giving weapons to "sunni insurgents", or at least not deliberately as Iran has done. Some of these people inevitably will come back to bite us, but what are we supposed to do? Without trusting the Iraqis to take care of themselves we will be there forever.

format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
and they continue to do so, yet america is giving them weapons!!!!!!!!!!!
Not all of them see above.
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
so you just showed why you should never come and argue politics because your so ignorant and dont know what your saying, by trying to make Iran look bad by infering their giving weapons to shiite militias, you just made USA look just as bad because they give weapons to sunni insurgents! lol nice one man, really.
Look how ignorant you look now! Iran gives weapons etc. to either militant group, the US gives weapons to those we believe will try to take control of their country... There is a huge difference, although I wouldnt expect a simpleton to realize this all by himself

format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
in fact lets expose you even more, america was and is in bed with the puppet al-maliki, he himself is an ally with the mahdi millitia whom you consider to be terrorists, yet America is backing al-maliki!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so seriously go educate yourself abit on Iraq plz, because you only make yourself look like a fox news clown with the silly comments you make. next thing you will be telling us iran gave saddam the chemical weapons right?
It seems you need the education, the US is backing al-Maliki because he was elected by the Iraqi people, the Iraqi government (al-maliki included) is not particularly well liked by the US government. Take a trip back to just after summer when the Iraqi government at a crucial time decided to take some vacation time while our troops are fighting to stabilize their country. Take a look back at the Iraqi governments decision to do energy business with China despite US protest. There are plenty of examples, if you actually care to look. Have no doubt that the US has interest in who is governing Iraq but also know that the US's main interest right now is how to pull out of Iraq and allow it to be self sustaining, just as my original article shows, maybe if you actually read it rather than trying to create a fight thread you would know that already.
Reply

MTAFFI
01-03-2008, 03:27 PM
Anyways again I will say I was glad to read some positive information coming out of Iraq :)
Reply

caroline
01-03-2008, 08:15 PM
This reminds me of the Christian missionary groups for whom I do orientations before they go spend a couple of weeks living among the poor. They are always so excited about their good doing, never realizing that it was their interference that caused the poverty in the first place and which now allows them to buy someone to cook, clean and wash their dirty underwear for 50 cents a day.

Sigh... What can you say? How can you explain to them the dynamics of a situation that started 50 years ago or more? There is no time and they are not inclined to listen.

Similar situation here. The resource grab now taking place in Iraq started a LONG time ago. Probably around 1018 when Britain declared their main objective to gain control of Mesopotamia and Persia for their oil reserves. Oil being the new coal, they had the foresight to see that whoever controls these two nations controls the world. You can trace the whole history right up to today if you care to do that much reading. There is a short synopsis of these events here http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...vasion_of_iraq but it's still a bit of reading.

Hopefully some of us will care enough to trudge through it.

Peace and I continue to ask Allah to help our ignorance and lead toward wisdom and understanding in these matters. It is important to all of humanity that we educate ourselves.
Reply

caroline
01-03-2008, 08:16 PM
excuse me for the typo... I meant to say 1918!
Reply

Keltoi
01-03-2008, 09:29 PM
It will all fall together eventually if the Iraqi government can win the trust of the people. The average Iraqi clearly seems to desire an end to the violence and an improvement in domestic problems. Let's hope the violence will stay low so the business of infrastructure and the economy can be addressed.
Reply

MTAFFI
01-03-2008, 09:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by caroline
This reminds me of the Christian missionary groups for whom I do orientations before they go spend a couple of weeks living among the poor. They are always so excited about their good doing, never realizing that it was their interference that caused the poverty in the first place and which now allows them to buy someone to cook, clean and wash their dirty underwear for 50 cents a day.

Sigh... What can you say? How can you explain to them the dynamics of a situation that started 50 years ago or more? There is no time and they are not inclined to listen.

Similar situation here. The resource grab now taking place in Iraq started a LONG time ago. Probably around 1018 when Britain declared their main objective to gain control of Mesopotamia and Persia for their oil reserves. Oil being the new coal, they had the foresight to see that whoever controls these two nations controls the world. You can trace the whole history right up to today if you care to do that much reading. There is a short synopsis of these events here http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...vasion_of_iraq but it's still a bit of reading.

Hopefully some of us will care enough to trudge through it.

Peace and I continue to ask Allah to help our ignorance and lead toward wisdom and understanding in these matters. It is important to all of humanity that we educate ourselves.
What mindless babble!! Please tell how missionaries cause poverty, please provide solid evidence, also please tell me how the US is controlling the oil reserves in Iraq, please show any discount on oil that we have recieved, please provide evidence, other than Alan Greenspan who isnt a government representative as far as wars and military objectives go, so his word is worth about as much as yours. Oil is expensive and is running low, however the US and the rest of the world are not recieving breaks either, we are paying the price for it while we cook up other ways to power our lifestyles.

So say what you want, but it is discouraging to see that not one person has yet to comment on this thread that yes the US is making an honest attempt to revitalize this poor country, and they are not there to cause mayhem and steal their precious oil, and it isnt all just a big conspiracy. I guess we wont know for sometime, but if Iraq does become self sustaining and the US is able to leave and the Iraqis can take care of themselves, then Iraq will be a success and in a few decades people will be able to look back and hopefully see this as a victory not only for the US but the Iraqis as well.

It is almost like you and all these other people wish to see Iraq fail just so you can say I told you so to the US, when the fact is one way or another the US is leaving, probably within the next coming years, so while it may make you feel good to demonize the US, it is not going to help the Iraqis with their situation. Get your head on straight people
Reply

Cognescenti
01-03-2008, 10:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by caroline
This reminds me of the Christian missionary groups for whom I do orientations before they go spend a couple of weeks living among the poor. They are always so excited about their good doing, never realizing that it was their interference that caused the poverty in the first place and which now allows them to buy someone to cook, clean and wash their dirty underwear for 50 cents a day.

Sigh... What can you say? How can you explain to them the dynamics of a situation that started 50 years ago or more? There is no time and they are not inclined to listen.

Similar situation here. The resource grab now taking place in Iraq started a LONG time ago. Probably around 1018 when Britain declared their main objective to gain control of Mesopotamia and Persia for their oil reserves. Oil being the new coal, they had the foresight to see that whoever controls these two nations controls the world. You can trace the whole history right up to today if you care to do that much reading. There is a short synopsis of these events here http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...vasion_of_iraq but it's still a bit of reading.

Hopefully some of us will care enough to trudge through it.

Peace and I continue to ask Allah to help our ignorance and lead toward wisdom and understanding in these matters. It is important to all of humanity that we educate ourselves.
The European powers have been contesting each other over "spheres of influence" for 500 years. One doesn't need a website to learn that. I am interested to learn, however, exactly which rapacious Western power is profiting from Iraqi natural resources now? It is also interesting to see that the British were able to see 80 years into the future on that occaision but failed to see the loss of their empire in India or the disastrous and embarassing loss of Singapore to the Japanese. It seems their remarkable powers of clairvoyance are somewhat cicumspect.

I too am a firm believer in the "all problems in the world were caused by European (an American) imperialism" school. I mean, like what other possible explanation could there be?
Reply

MTAFFI
01-03-2008, 11:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
I too am a firm believer in the "all problems in the world were caused by European (an American) imperialism" school. I mean, like what other possible explanation could there be?
duuuuude, totally
Reply

Omar_Mukhtar
01-04-2008, 12:24 AM
The strange and ironic thing about Iraq now, is that those who couldn't give a flying monkeys about the suffering of some desert Arabs; are know desperate for the situation of the security and the division to improve. In other words, the neocons, zionist and the fake pseudo liberal democrats are hoping for Iraq to improve, in order to save their political necks and reputations. So they care not really about Iraq and it's people,as they didn't give a monkeys when looters were ransacking Iraqi historical artefacts or when children were dying as a result of their own imposed sanctions. They encouraged, supported or if not at the very least contributed to the of Iraq essentially turning into a failed state. But all of a sudden they care because their political careers in Washington, Tel Aviv and London depend on it. Iraq has to be presented as a nation that can get it's feet back on the ground, in order for their parties to stay in power in Washington and elsewhere. At the end of the day Iraq is a failed state and the division caused primarily(not all) by the invasion will take years if not decaded to heal. This affair was destined to be a failure well before the first bullet was fired. The British left in the 1920s and they today they left Basra to a bunch of miserable warlords simply because a prolonged stay in that part of the world is just military, economically and politically unsustainble. So much for democracy, freedom and liberation! Of course some will argue that it was and still is neccesary because they came to liberate Iraq from a miserable dictator, who used chemical weapons against his own people, which they gave to him in the first place. They couldn't find weapons of mass destruction, so they found Alqaeda instead, who again they armed themselves and sponsored through proxy wars. This all because they actually care and shed tears in their sleeps of sleeps cry for Arabs and Muslims who suffer. The same Arabs and Muslims who were mercilessly being bombed in Lebanon, only for Bush and Blair to declare that a ceasefire wasn't not neccesary as the bombing would bring the birth of a "new middle east". If they had their way, Tehran, Damascus and Baghdad would have been part of this bombing and "liberation", in order to bring peace, democracy and the peaceful neighbour called Israel to the uncivilized Arabs and Muslims. On the other hand you have people who actually never supported the war, but want the bombs and suffering to continue as waying of getting back at Bush and Blair, ie to declare " we told you so". All in All, history shall write the architects of these awful, barbaric and illegal war as utterely unjustified and a failed mission! No amount of posting pics of American trained Arab mecenaries or meeting with Arab tribal Sheikhs can change this. Because as they say; history can't be rewritten!But it does have a way of repeating itself!
Reply

jd7
01-04-2008, 12:57 AM
MTAFFI, perhaps the program will boost the economies at the local level. Somewhat like the WPA (public works administration) FDR introduced in America during the Great Depression.

Hoping so anyway
Reply

KelleyD
01-04-2008, 05:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Omar_Mukhtar
Because as they say; history can't be rewritten![/B]But it does have a way of repeating itself!
The United States has created many enemies through its policies in the Middle East over the past century and bears a significant amount of responsibility for creating a fertile soil for anti-American hatred. Any American response that does not address this truth is doomed to further the cycle of violence.

Most of what is regurgatated in the US are reports of a shadowy Islamic conspiracy against the U.S. led by Osama bin Laden, whihch have, in turn, have generated a steady stream of cliché's about this new enemy and its hatred of the U.S. Unfortunately, precious little light has been shed on understanding why this is happening and what exactly Muslims believe.

Any explanation of Middle Eastern violence that relies upon the notion that Islam is an inherently violent or inherently anti-Western religion is false and misleading. First, Islam is one of the world's largest and most diverse religions and like Christianity or Judaism there are thousands of views within Islam about the religion and also about violence and the West. Secondly, there are major differences even among explicitly Muslim militants and activists regarding these issues-some insist upon non-violent struggle and others regard violence as a legitimate tool. There is no way one can generalize about Islam or any religion for that matter.

Last week on Meet The Press, Tim Russert was interviewing presidential candidate Ron Paul and when Paul told Tim that we should look at the reasons behind the attacks on the US, Tim became upset and tried to imply that just by look anyone who even loos at these motivations, is somehow unpatriotic and unamerican. Paul stood his ground and had to remind him of our history and involvement in the Middle East. Is that because Russert doesn't know? Of course not, it's because no American wants to admit that we are now experiencing a by-product of what we created years ago. that motivations do not derive from Islam so much as from a common set of experiences and beliefs that resulted from their participation in the U.S. Which was a US backed war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980's. OBL and others were recruited by the CIA, Saudi Arabia and Pakistani intelligence services to fight against the Soviet Union during the 1980's. They came largely from the poor and unemployed classes or militant opposition groups from around the Middle East, including Algeria, Egypt, Palestine and elsewhere in order to wage war on behalf of the Muslim people of Afghanistan against the communist enemy. OBL played an important role in helping these groups recruit volunteers and build extensive networks of bases in Pakistan and Afghanistan after 1984. He was a HERO when he was doing the US's bidding for us.

This is where Americans don't do their homework. Even after the last two videos that OBL put out and detailed all of this, Americans still refuse to listen to what our government has done and what WE are responsible for. OBL and his groups, at that time, also served another purpose for the U.S. and its allies in the region. Not only were they anti-Communist due to their rejection of its atheism, they were also opposed to the brand of Islamic radicalism promoted by the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran Khomeini; largely because it was based on Shiite rather than Sunni Islamic doctrine, a major doctrinal cleavage within Islam. The revolution had had toppled a major ally of the U.S., the Shah of Iran, who played a major role as a pillar of U.S. hegemony in the oil rich Persian Gulf and was threatening key U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other oil rich states. Therefore, the clear aim of U.S. foreign policy therefore was to kill two birds with one stone: turn back the Soviet Union and create a counter-weight to radical Iranian inspired threats to U.S. interests, particularly U.S. backed regimes who controlled the massive oil resources.

Because we wanted to "have our cake and eat it too", our foreign policy in the Middle East has turned into a nightmare for the us and is exactly what led to the attacks in New York and Washington D.C. After the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan in 1989 the "Afghan" network became expendable to the U.S. who no longer needed their services. And as you can see, we have actively turned against these groups after the Gulf War when a number of those groups returned home and moved into the violent opposition against U.S. allied regimes and opposed the U.S. war against Iraq in 1991.

In short, they are particularly opposed to the unprecedented positioning of U.S. ground troops in Saudi Arabia on the land of the Islamic holy sites of Mecca and Medina. If you follow the intelligence agencies at all you will find that in the past decade there has been a vicious war in the region between the CIA and its allies and militant Muslim groups. The U.S. trains Egyptian police torture techniques. Moreover, the CIA has sent snatch squads to abduct wanted militants form Muslim countries and return them to their countries to face almost certain death and imprisonment.

The primary belief of the veterans of the Afghanistan war is that the West, led by the United States, is now waging war against Muslims around the world and now have to defend themselves by any means necessary, including violence and terrorism. They point to a number of cases where Muslims have born the brunt of violence as evidence of this war: the Serbian and Croation genocide against Bosnian Muslims, the Russian war in Chechnya, the Indian occupation of Kashmir, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, the UN sanctions against Iraq and the U.S. backing of dictatorships in Algeria, Egypt or Saudi Arabia, for example. They claim that the US either supported the violence or failed to prevent it. In almost all of these cases, they are correct. It is these beliefs, not to mention the fact that we've been bombing the Middle East for the last ten year and continue to keep adding more military bases over there, that enable them to justify not only targeting U.S. military facilities but also its civilians. And we sit here scratching our heads and wondering why? The "why" is clear for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. There is no question that the one-sided U.S. support for Israel, the U.S. sponsorship of sanctions against Iraq as well as U.S. support for dictatorships across the region have created a fertile ground for some sympathy with such militancy.

Osama bin Laden is not the only mastermind of these attacks as is often claimed in the media; he just facilitates these groups and sentiments with logistics and finances, as do others. He is simply a very visible symbol of this loose network and the U.S. obsession with him most likely works to increase his standing as an icon of resistance to the U.S. A rational person would ask themselves, why he was considered a Hero in the 80's and now considered, by the very government who helped him with training, armaments and finances, the antichrist of the 21st century.

The real problem is that the US refuses to address the root causes of anti-American sentiments in the region. Moreover, the U.S appears to have no long-term strategy to address the sources of grievances that the radical groups share with vast majority of Muslim activists who abhor using violent methods that would include, for starters, a more balanced approach to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, ending the sanctions on Iraq, moving U.S. military bases out of Saudi Arabia, and supporting the legitimate aspirations of regional peoples for democracy and human rights. Legitimate meaning, the majority of the people want is and ask for help; not butting your head into a countries affairs when none is warranted and attempting to install your form of government under the banner of "helping" when all you are really interested in is OIL.

What truly aggrevates me and the Muslim people I know are the US's double standards. The U.S. claims that it must impose economic sanctions on certain countries that violate human rights and/or harbor weapons of mass destruction. Yet the U.S. largely ignores Muslim victims of human rights violations in Palestine, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kashmir and Chechnya. What's more, while the U.S. economy is propped up by weapon sales to countries around the globe and particularly in the Middle East, the U.S. insists on economic sanctions to prevent weapon development in Libya, Sudan, Iran and Iraq. In Iraq, the crippling economic sanctions cost the lives of 5,000 children, under age five, every month. Over one million Iraqis have died as a direct result of over a decade of sanctions. Also, the U.S. pro-Israel policy unfairly puts higher demands on Palestinians to renounce violence than on Israelis to halt new settlements and adhere to U.N. resolutions calling for an Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian lands. Is this fair?

It isn't and that unfairness cannot be extinguished by Tomahawk missiles or military operations. The present U.S. strategy for ending the threat of terrorism through the use of military force will only exacerbate this anger and desperation. When innocent U.S. and Middle Eastern citizens are killed and harmed during this pathetic "war on terror", or used as cannon fodder for suicide hijackings, the U.S. government expects expressions of outrage and grief over brutal terrorism. But when U.S. Cruise missiles kill and maim innocent Sudanese, Afghanis, and Pakistanis, the U.S. calls it "collateral damage". The so-called hunt for Osama bin Laden is futile. It's the actions of a true megalomaniac--Bush who can't stand to lose. But he has lost already because the fertile soil that our involvement keeps us entrenched in simply creates other such figures who will still be around for a long time. Moreover, our continued presence in the Middle East simply serves to inflame passions and create hosts of new volunteers to those ranks.

I hate it that Americans lost their lives in New York and Washington. I was working there and very nearly one of them. But I also hate that innocent women and children have lost their lives in the Middle East due to what America's attacks. These attacks have served no cause; they have likely set back efforts to build popular movements and international solidarity that, in the final analysis, are the best chance of achieving social justice and change in the Middle East and elsewhere. Yet, at this difficult time, Americans should critically examine policies with which Arabs, Muslims and many others have legitimate grievances. Instead, like Russert, our leaders refuse to admit the flaws in their policies and find it easier to demonize those in both the American and Arab world who oppose them as a way of diverting attention from their own mistakes and it's my opinion that more military solutions to the problems in the Middle East and the terrorism that has resulted from these problems is not a policy but a recipe for more violence and bombings.

Is it really so hard to leave people in peace. If America wants democracy there so badly, why don't they start off by taking a vote. All Americans who want us there say aye. All Mulims who want us there, say "aye". Amazing, how silent is has become.
Reply

Zarmina
01-04-2008, 06:13 AM
Iraq is a mess thanks to the United States, and every time you mention it to one of these neocons, they always talk about Osama bin Laden and September 11. Guess what? Saddam was a bad guy, but he did not order his men to crash airplanes into the twin towers. Iraq was planned long ago, waaaay before 9/11. It is sad how these greedy American corporations are cashing in and pretty much looting the Iraqi people. Here's an example: Bridge is blown up. American company gets contract to rebuild. Iraqis pay for the rebuilding by selling their oil at extremely discounted prices. American company gets paid and rebuilds bridge. Now they pay some thugs to blow up some other place. Again, the American company comes in to "rebuild", and it goes on and on. This isn't the only way they are looting. Check out sites like http://www.antiwar.com and counterpunch.org, and you will see the truth.

Don't believe in the neocon propaganda pushed by people like MTAFFI. I wouldn't even be surprised if he was a paid agent here just to spread the lies. Read for yourself, the truth is out there. Even the American people are getting tired of this senseless war. God is saving a special place in hell for the neocons and their supporters, and thank God, the American people are waking up and are becoming more aware of the crimes of these crooks. Inshallah, they are thrown out of power, and a sensible government takes control in America.

Peace. :peace:
Reply

KelleyD
01-04-2008, 07:46 AM
There are several reasons we invaded Iraq. You won't hear these on "faux news". The first was money. Many companies around the world were preparing to do business with Iraq in anticipation of a lifting of sanctions. But the U.S. and the U.K. had been bombing northern and southern Iraq since 1991. So it was very unlikely that they would be in any kind of position to gain significant contracts in any post-sanctions Iraq. And those sanctions were going to be lifted soon, Saddam would still be in place, and they would get no financial benefit.

Another reason was the conversion, the switch Iraq made in the Food for Oil program, from the dollar to the euro. He did this, by the way, long before 9/11--in November 2000 — selling his oil for euros. The oil sales permitted in that program aren’t very much. But when the sanctions would be lifted, the sales from the country with the second largest oil reserves on the planet would have been moving to the euro. The U.S. dollar was in a sensitive period because the we are a debtor nation and our dollar was beginning to fall then. If oil, a very solid commodity, is traded on the euro, that could cause massive, almost glacial, shifts in confidence in trading on the dollar. So one of the first executive orders that Bush signed in May [2003] switched trading on Iraq’s oil back to the dollar. That’s in addition to buying out Iraqi companies at a penny on the dollar and taking over Iraq’s Central Bank!

Another reason has to do with US military-basing posture in the region. US "banksters" had been very dissatisfied with US relations with Saudi Arabia, particularly the restrictions on US basing. And also there was dissatisfaction from the people of Saudi Arabia. So the banksters were looking for alternate strategic locations beyond Kuwait, beyond Qatar, to secure something they had been searching for since the days of Carter — to secure the energy lines of communication in the region. Iraqis were not about to invite the US in and create its 800th base in the world (yes there are close to 800 US bases around the world to ensure that the Banksters get what they want). Thus, the need for the bombing to begin. Here’s a poem I found that summarizes the US government's underlying policy. (The country title is subject to change based upon what your country has that we need to exploit).

Bomb Iraq!

If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's good enough for me
'Cos it's all the proof we need
Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
You've got permission from the UN to
Bomb Iraq.

If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.

Sad poem, but true.:cry:
Reply

ricardo_sousa
01-04-2008, 09:46 AM
It would actually be funny to see what some people said about Saddam, and Iraq, when he started a war against Iran that killed more than 1 million people. If that was also a "crusade"....
Reply

caroline
01-04-2008, 11:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MTAFFI
What mindless babble!!
Oh yes, "mindless babble" from an economic anthropologist, specializing in Third World studies, poverty and grassroots development.

As I said, they are "not inclined to listen."

If you knew anything at all about this issue you would understand that almost all missionaries are totally devoid of any socio-economic knowledge or education and go into their target cultures pouring millions of dollars into to projects that crash the local economy, displace the existing means of subsistence and create crippling dependency which we now see the effects around the globe. This combined with corporate exploitation of indigenous lands and US interference in governance of Third World nations has definitely created much of the poverty on this planet.

And by the way, thank you for your personal attacks. They are such a good display of your ability and willingness to reason and understand. Also a perfect example of why I said that making some people understand just takes too long and they are not inclined to listen. Meaning, they don't want to understand, they don't want to know. Because knowing comes with responsibility and it's easier to follow along feeling like the great white humanitarian.
Reply

Omar_Mukhtar
01-04-2008, 11:45 AM
Maybe you would have to ask the Saudis, Americans, Israelis and British the came the weapons, backing and intelligence to kill 1 million Iranians and also capability and intelligence to slaughter Kurdish people, which wasn't seen as that much of a problem at the time, because they preferred him as leader of Iraq as opposed to one controlled by militias. What about the 1 million killed by sanctions? So yes Iraq is partly a mess thanks to the policy of the U.S administration, which is something that can't be denied or refuted! Of course not all the blame should go to them, but that is how history will probably write it. At least the dictator Saddam Hussein protected historical artifacts!

Kelley, I don't think Alqaeda is largely due to the American foreign policy. They have an ideology which they seek to impose on all Muslims regardless of whether they are under occupation or not. They set of bombs in Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Pakistan and various other places. The group led by Zarqawi was trying to blow up Kurdish secular parties and labeling them as "apostates". But one thing that none of mouthpieces for the war never tell is that the vast majority of Iraqi resistance isn't Alqaeda. Also the majority of Iraqi resistance doesn’t believe in targeting innocent civilians or even security forces. This failure to admit that ordinary Iraqis took up arms on a large scale against the occupation has been one the reasons why the policy has failed, i.e. they the propagators of the war lumped all of the Iraqis as "Alqaeda", which is largely an isolated and unpopular group. They also never mention the vast majority of Iraqis want foreign troops out, but as Gates said they will stay there for years and decades. So Alqaeda is a scare card and boogey man to invade Muslim states and place them in the hands of local colonial governors!
Reply

caroline
01-04-2008, 11:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
I am interested to learn, however, exactly which rapacious Western power is profiting from Iraqi natural resources now? ?
Have you taken a look at Halliburtin stock over the past 7 years? Ever heard of war profiteering? Do you even have the slightest clue how much money the people who started this war are making off it?

God help us... this apathy and ignorance is what is allowing this to go on! And yet the people who close their minds to any kind of information contradicting the neocon agenda don't even realize they are pawns. The ones who lose their jobs to corporate outsourcing to make the super rich super richer are the very ones who will defend them with everything they have!

It's amazing what human beings will tell themselves in order to follow the herd.
Reply

ricardo_sousa
01-04-2008, 11:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Omar_Mukhtar
Maybe you would have to ask the Saudis, Americans, Israelis and British the came the weapons, backing and intelligence to kill 1 million Iranians and also capability and intelligence to slaughter Kurdish people, which wasn't seen as that much of a problem at the time, because they preferred him as leader of Iraq as opposed to one controlled by militias. What about the 1 million killed by sanctions? So yes Iraq is partly a mess thanks to the policy of the U.S administration, which is something that can't be denied or refuted! Of course not all the blame should go to them, but that is how history will probably write it. At least the dictator Saddam Hussein protected historical artifacts!
interesting. And when Saddam invaded Kuwait, killing thousands of people and made disappear "several sons" of the Kuwaitis... that was also backed by the USA, the British, Israel, etc...?
Reply

ricardo_sousa
01-04-2008, 11:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by caroline
If you knew anything at all about this issue you would understand that almost all missionaries are totally devoid of any socio-economic knowledge or education and go into their target cultures pouring millions of dollars into to projects that crash the local economy, displace the existing means of subsistence and create crippling dependency which we now see the effects around the globe. This combined with corporate exploitation of indigenous lands and US interference in governance of Third World nations has definitely created much of the poverty on this planet.
just the USA?? what about the soviets until the 90's? what about China and Sudan, in the present time?
Reply

caroline
01-04-2008, 12:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by KelleyD
Is that because Russert doesn't know? Of course not, it's because no American wants to admit that we are now experiencing a by-product of what we created years ago. .
Thank Allah for an intelligent, educated, strong voice of reason. Please don't let ignorant personal attacks and propaganda filled rebuttals discourage from posting.
Reply

caroline
01-04-2008, 12:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ricardo_sousa
what about the soviets until the 90's? what about China and Sudan, in the present time?
Okay -- what about them? Feel free to expound.
Reply

Keltoi
01-04-2008, 12:16 PM
Its always fun to have Michael Moore liberals around.
Reply

ricardo_sousa
01-04-2008, 12:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by caroline
Okay -- what about them? Feel free to expound.
there are also responsible for lots that are going around the third world countries, not only the USA.
Reply

Keltoi
01-04-2008, 12:30 PM
For some people, blaming the U.S. for everything has become pop culture. If you notice, most of them are filled with self-righteous indignation and delusions of intellectual superiority....I blame the current state of the college campus.

On to Iraq...economic improvement is vital if the people are going to start trusting their new political system. Infrastructure is the first step, which will improve if the violence stays low.

Basically it all hinges on the level of violence. Less violence, more improvement.
Reply

Omar_Mukhtar
01-04-2008, 12:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ricardo_sousa
interesting. And when Saddam invaded Kuwait, killing thousands of people and made disappear "several sons" of the Kuwaitis... that was also backed by the USA, the British, Israel, etc...?
I fail to see the point or widsom behind your question, but the answer is no. But still doesn't change the issue or fact that they armed, helped and effectively turned a blind eye to several of Saddam's massacres. I have clearly stated that American policy is not to blame for all the going ons in that country.Thus, it is not about blaming the U.S.A for everything. Rather, if you set yourself on a such a high pedastil and claim to be the champions of democracy,freedom and democracy in the Muslim world, you have to expect people will highlight your contradictions and inconsistencies. This isn't americanism, but holding politicians to account for what they promise to do and achieve.If Blair and Bush claimed that they bring democracy, peace and justice to Iraq and they miserably fail, then we have to scrutinize them. In the case of Iraq you have the mouthpieces of the war scrambling for many reasons to justify it including, Weapons of mass destrcution, dictators and now Alqaeda in Iraq. So whatever the excuse, be it; Saddam killing kuwaitis or Saddam killing Iranians( which was seen as a healthy thing), it still doesn't change the fact that this war was one big miscalculation and Iraqi is essentially a failed state under the grip of rival militias.
Reply

ricardo_sousa
01-04-2008, 01:01 PM
I am not an "American total supporter", but I admire the country and the achievements of the USA.

From the beginning I believed that the Iraqi war was about the oil. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. And in the "long run", this war will be very profitable to the USA. So this was a oil invasion, with no doubt. The USA wanted to decrease their dependence in Saudi Oil, that uses the money to finance terrorists around the world

But what to do now? The Iraqis should united and stop violence. Because in fact the oil money will be used to rebuild the country, by American companies of course, but they will have a far better country that they would have with Saddam. In the end they could profit a lot from the invasion. But that´s another history... It is very funny to see "you", in a western country, saying that Iraqis should fight to death, but you are having a good life and Iraqis a miserable one.
Reply

MTAFFI
01-04-2008, 03:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by caroline
Oh yes, "mindless babble" from an economic anthropologist, specializing in Third World studies, poverty and grassroots development.

As I said, they are "not inclined to listen."

If you knew anything at all about this issue you would understand that almost all missionaries are totally devoid of any socio-economic knowledge or education and go into their target cultures pouring millions of dollars into to projects that crash the local economy, displace the existing means of subsistence and create crippling dependency which we now see the effects around the globe. This combined with corporate exploitation of indigenous lands and US interference in governance of Third World nations has definitely created much of the poverty on this planet.

And by the way, thank you for your personal attacks. They are such a good display of your ability and willingness to reason and understand. Also a perfect example of why I said that making some people understand just takes too long and they are not inclined to listen. Meaning, they don't want to understand, they don't want to know. Because knowing comes with responsibility and it's easier to follow along feeling like the great white humanitarian.
first off what exactly is a personal attack to you? This is the 2nd time you accuse me of it, yet I fail to see where one was made :? Please highlight it for me, because to me it seems that any disagreement with your "almighty" opinion is a personal attack, which in my opinion isnt an attack at all. I am all up for listening but you are providing no facts, you claim to be an economic anthropologist are we supposed to accept everything you say as fact? Where did you go to school, have you published anything, what makes you reputable?

Aside from all of this I started this thread because I was reading some news and happened by some that I thought would make a pleasant thread on this forum, since it had to do with the people of Iraq seemingly becoming more independent and better off as a whole. I assumed when posting this that Muslims and non-muslims alike would read it and not necessarily congratulate the US because I know that is beyond some people, but at the very least throw out a congrats to the Iraqis for making progress. Again I will say it is sad to see peoples own political agenda block them from being happy about positive progress.

Do you wish for peace in Iraq or would you rather see the US fail at its task to revitalize the country and rid it of terrorists?

The past is what it is, Iraq was a mistake and there is no doubt about it, I would pull the troops out today if I had any authority to do so, because in the long run I feel it is a lost cause, however seeing progress as shown in the aforementioned article does provide me with hope that, perhaps, our original faults and mistakes could be at the very least recognized in the future that the intention was there, maybe not by our political leaders but by the people that live in this country. By that I mean at the beginning of this war I was all for going to Iraq and getting revenge on anyone who threatened our country and way of life, I didnt see then that a power vacuum would be created and that sectarian violence would run rampant and that thousands upon thousands would die, I wanted to see Saddam die to make sure he couldnt hand off his WMD to any terrorist organization, hindsight is 20/20 isnt it? Now seeing what has happened I can only wish the best for the Iraqis and be sorry that there country is torn apart like it is, and I believe that by our country building Iraqs troops, police, government, infrastructure, etc. it shows that we do want to help them and that what is happening was not intended, whether it actually ends up working or not is another story.
Reply

MTAFFI
01-04-2008, 03:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by jd7
MTAFFI, perhaps the program will boost the economies at the local level. Somewhat like the WPA (public works administration) FDR introduced in America during the Great Depression.

Hoping so anyway
I think that is actually the idea, there is no way to just jumpstart the whole country, it is like a ripple effect, hopefully this will work out and neighboring villages will see and want to try as well and eventually over the course of a few years or more Iraq can eventually become self sufficient
Reply

Jayda
01-04-2008, 03:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Its always fun to have Michael Moore liberals around.
what is wrong with michael moore?

i really detest how republicans insist 'lib'ruls' are traitors for not supporting your field trips to the middle east to kill arabs and get more oil. i know all of those concerns about killing people and 'thinking' about what we do before we do it gets in the way of grunting, being manly and 'thinking with your gut' but it would make US policy a little more... sophistocated... if you gave our way a shot once in a while. it might also save some lives (foreign and at home) and money in the process... who knows!
Reply

Jayda
01-04-2008, 03:53 PM
concerning the OP, i think it's wonderful that progress is being made to make their lives safer... i also feel much better now that we have a plan...

i don't feel better about going into iraq on false pretenses, killing lots of people and tearing down their infrastructure and order (such as it was), turning their country into a terrorist magnet all without a plan in the first place like we were cowboys.

this is a simple point... this was wrong, from the beginning. the fact that things are going better now does not erase that.
Reply

Keltoi
01-04-2008, 04:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda
what is wrong with michael moore?

i really detest how republicans insist 'lib'ruls' are traitors for not supporting your field trips to the middle east to kill arabs and get more oil. i know all of those concerns about killing people and 'thinking' about what we do before we do it gets in the way of grunting, being manly and 'thinking with your gut' but it would make US policy a little more... sophistocated... if you gave our way a shot once in a while. it might also save some lives (foreign and at home) and money in the process... who knows!
I didn't call anyone a traitor, don't get so dramatic. As for what is wrong with Michael Moore, I believe his "documentaries" to be nothing more than propoganda pieces for a political point of view. Therefore, a Michael Moore liberal would be a leftist who cares more about his political points of view than objective reality or honest problem solving.
Reply

MTAFFI
01-04-2008, 04:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by KelleyD
The United States has created many enemies through its policies in the Middle East over the past century and bears a significant amount of responsibility for creating a fertile soil for anti-American hatred. Any American response that does not address this truth is doomed to further the cycle of violence.

Most of what is regurgatated in the US are reports of a shadowy Islamic conspiracy against the U.S. led by Osama bin Laden, whihch have, in turn, have generated a steady stream of cliché's about this new enemy and its hatred of the U.S. Unfortunately, precious little light has been shed on understanding why this is happening and what exactly Muslims believe.

Any explanation of Middle Eastern violence that relies upon the notion that Islam is an inherently violent or inherently anti-Western religion is false and misleading. First, Islam is one of the world's largest and most diverse religions and like Christianity or Judaism there are thousands of views within Islam about the religion and also about violence and the West. Secondly, there are major differences even among explicitly Muslim militants and activists regarding these issues-some insist upon non-violent struggle and others regard violence as a legitimate tool. There is no way one can generalize about Islam or any religion for that matter.

Last week on Meet The Press, Tim Russert was interviewing presidential candidate Ron Paul and when Paul told Tim that we should look at the reasons behind the attacks on the US, Tim became upset and tried to imply that just by look anyone who even loos at these motivations, is somehow unpatriotic and unamerican. Paul stood his ground and had to remind him of our history and involvement in the Middle East. Is that because Russert doesn't know? Of course not, it's because no American wants to admit that we are now experiencing a by-product of what we created years ago. that motivations do not derive from Islam so much as from a common set of experiences and beliefs that resulted from their participation in the U.S. Which was a US backed war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980's. OBL and others were recruited by the CIA, Saudi Arabia and Pakistani intelligence services to fight against the Soviet Union during the 1980's. They came largely from the poor and unemployed classes or militant opposition groups from around the Middle East, including Algeria, Egypt, Palestine and elsewhere in order to wage war on behalf of the Muslim people of Afghanistan against the communist enemy. OBL played an important role in helping these groups recruit volunteers and build extensive networks of bases in Pakistan and Afghanistan after 1984. He was a HERO when he was doing the US's bidding for us.

This is where Americans don't do their homework. Even after the last two videos that OBL put out and detailed all of this, Americans still refuse to listen to what our government has done and what WE are responsible for. OBL and his groups, at that time, also served another purpose for the U.S. and its allies in the region. Not only were they anti-Communist due to their rejection of its atheism, they were also opposed to the brand of Islamic radicalism promoted by the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran Khomeini; largely because it was based on Shiite rather than Sunni Islamic doctrine, a major doctrinal cleavage within Islam. The revolution had had toppled a major ally of the U.S., the Shah of Iran, who played a major role as a pillar of U.S. hegemony in the oil rich Persian Gulf and was threatening key U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other oil rich states. Therefore, the clear aim of U.S. foreign policy therefore was to kill two birds with one stone: turn back the Soviet Union and create a counter-weight to radical Iranian inspired threats to U.S. interests, particularly U.S. backed regimes who controlled the massive oil resources.

Because we wanted to "have our cake and eat it too", our foreign policy in the Middle East has turned into a nightmare for the us and is exactly what led to the attacks in New York and Washington D.C. After the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan in 1989 the "Afghan" network became expendable to the U.S. who no longer needed their services. And as you can see, we have actively turned against these groups after the Gulf War when a number of those groups returned home and moved into the violent opposition against U.S. allied regimes and opposed the U.S. war against Iraq in 1991.

In short, they are particularly opposed to the unprecedented positioning of U.S. ground troops in Saudi Arabia on the land of the Islamic holy sites of Mecca and Medina. If you follow the intelligence agencies at all you will find that in the past decade there has been a vicious war in the region between the CIA and its allies and militant Muslim groups. The U.S. trains Egyptian police torture techniques. Moreover, the CIA has sent snatch squads to abduct wanted militants form Muslim countries and return them to their countries to face almost certain death and imprisonment.

The primary belief of the veterans of the Afghanistan war is that the West, led by the United States, is now waging war against Muslims around the world and now have to defend themselves by any means necessary, including violence and terrorism. They point to a number of cases where Muslims have born the brunt of violence as evidence of this war: the Serbian and Croation genocide against Bosnian Muslims, the Russian war in Chechnya, the Indian occupation of Kashmir, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, the UN sanctions against Iraq and the U.S. backing of dictatorships in Algeria, Egypt or Saudi Arabia, for example. They claim that the US either supported the violence or failed to prevent it. In almost all of these cases, they are correct. It is these beliefs, not to mention the fact that we've been bombing the Middle East for the last ten year and continue to keep adding more military bases over there, that enable them to justify not only targeting U.S. military facilities but also its civilians. And we sit here scratching our heads and wondering why? The "why" is clear for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. There is no question that the one-sided U.S. support for Israel, the U.S. sponsorship of sanctions against Iraq as well as U.S. support for dictatorships across the region have created a fertile ground for some sympathy with such militancy.

Osama bin Laden is not the only mastermind of these attacks as is often claimed in the media; he just facilitates these groups and sentiments with logistics and finances, as do others. He is simply a very visible symbol of this loose network and the U.S. obsession with him most likely works to increase his standing as an icon of resistance to the U.S. A rational person would ask themselves, why he was considered a Hero in the 80's and now considered, by the very government who helped him with training, armaments and finances, the antichrist of the 21st century.

The real problem is that the US refuses to address the root causes of anti-American sentiments in the region. Moreover, the U.S appears to have no long-term strategy to address the sources of grievances that the radical groups share with vast majority of Muslim activists who abhor using violent methods that would include, for starters, a more balanced approach to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, ending the sanctions on Iraq, moving U.S. military bases out of Saudi Arabia, and supporting the legitimate aspirations of regional peoples for democracy and human rights. Legitimate meaning, the majority of the people want is and ask for help; not butting your head into a countries affairs when none is warranted and attempting to install your form of government under the banner of "helping" when all you are really interested in is OIL.

What truly aggrevates me and the Muslim people I know are the US's double standards. The U.S. claims that it must impose economic sanctions on certain countries that violate human rights and/or harbor weapons of mass destruction. Yet the U.S. largely ignores Muslim victims of human rights violations in Palestine, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kashmir and Chechnya. What's more, while the U.S. economy is propped up by weapon sales to countries around the globe and particularly in the Middle East, the U.S. insists on economic sanctions to prevent weapon development in Libya, Sudan, Iran and Iraq. In Iraq, the crippling economic sanctions cost the lives of 5,000 children, under age five, every month. Over one million Iraqis have died as a direct result of over a decade of sanctions. Also, the U.S. pro-Israel policy unfairly puts higher demands on Palestinians to renounce violence than on Israelis to halt new settlements and adhere to U.N. resolutions calling for an Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian lands. Is this fair?

It isn't and that unfairness cannot be extinguished by Tomahawk missiles or military operations. The present U.S. strategy for ending the threat of terrorism through the use of military force will only exacerbate this anger and desperation. When innocent U.S. and Middle Eastern citizens are killed and harmed during this pathetic "war on terror", or used as cannon fodder for suicide hijackings, the U.S. government expects expressions of outrage and grief over brutal terrorism. But when U.S. Cruise missiles kill and maim innocent Sudanese, Afghanis, and Pakistanis, the U.S. calls it "collateral damage". The so-called hunt for Osama bin Laden is futile. It's the actions of a true megalomaniac--Bush who can't stand to lose. But he has lost already because the fertile soil that our involvement keeps us entrenched in simply creates other such figures who will still be around for a long time. Moreover, our continued presence in the Middle East simply serves to inflame passions and create hosts of new volunteers to those ranks.

I hate it that Americans lost their lives in New York and Washington. I was working there and very nearly one of them. But I also hate that innocent women and children have lost their lives in the Middle East due to what America's attacks. These attacks have served no cause; they have likely set back efforts to build popular movements and international solidarity that, in the final analysis, are the best chance of achieving social justice and change in the Middle East and elsewhere. Yet, at this difficult time, Americans should critically examine policies with which Arabs, Muslims and many others have legitimate grievances. Instead, like Russert, our leaders refuse to admit the flaws in their policies and find it easier to demonize those in both the American and Arab world who oppose them as a way of diverting attention from their own mistakes and it's my opinion that more military solutions to the problems in the Middle East and the terrorism that has resulted from these problems is not a policy but a recipe for more violence and bombings.

Is it really so hard to leave people in peace. If America wants democracy there so badly, why don't they start off by taking a vote. All Americans who want us there say aye. All Mulims who want us there, say "aye". Amazing, how silent is has become.

You make a lot of good points and to be honest I can sympathize with many of them and then there are others I could provide fine rebuttal to, but I do not wish to derail the topic which is "positive news from Iraq" not the "history of conflict between the US and the middle east"(although I am sure that may be a great thread :D), not trying to be a wise guy just dont want this thread closed just yet. I can say though that obviously there are two sides to each story, the US and any other country group or person in this world is always going to be looking out for its own best interests, it is the way to survival. For every conflict you mentioned there are rights for both Muslims and Americans to be angry (or at least the situations that involve the US) If you would like please PM me, you seem to be a very logical person and I would be glad to discuss any of these conflicts with you, or better yet start a thread with your post! I am sure neither of our views would change much but I am sure it could be some very healthy discussion and who knows we and other may learn something new. :peace:
Reply

MTAFFI
01-04-2008, 04:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zarmina
Iraq is a mess thanks to the United States, and every time you mention it to one of these neocons, they always talk about Osama bin Laden and September 11. Guess what? Saddam was a bad guy, but he did not order his men to crash airplanes into the twin towers. Iraq was planned long ago, waaaay before 9/11. It is sad how these greedy American corporations are cashing in and pretty much looting the Iraqi people. Here's an example: Bridge is blown up. American company gets contract to rebuild. Iraqis pay for the rebuilding by selling their oil at extremely discounted prices. American company gets paid and rebuilds bridge. Now they pay some thugs to blow up some other place. Again, the American company comes in to "rebuild", and it goes on and on. This isn't the only way they are looting. Check out sites like http://www.antiwar.com and counterpunch.org, and you will see the truth.

Don't believe in the neocon propaganda pushed by people like MTAFFI. I wouldn't even be surprised if he was a paid agent here just to spread the lies. Read for yourself, the truth is out there. Even the American people are getting tired of this senseless war. God is saving a special place in hell for the neocons and their supporters, and thank God, the American people are waking up and are becoming more aware of the crimes of these crooks. Inshallah, they are thrown out of power, and a sensible government takes control in America.

Peace. :peace:
Am I a neocon because I am happy about progress in Iraq? How are my posts propaganda? I love Islam, I love Allah, I love his prophet Muhammad (pbuh), but I do not love being judged by the likes of you because we do not share the same political ideas, I do not like brutal dictators, I do not like organizations that attack 2 buildings full of completely innocent people... What is funny about your perception of me is that it is totally incorrect, I dont even like the government that is in place right now, I dont like the president to much and I dont like the congress either. In my opinion it really needs an overhaul so that it can correctly address the needs of the American people rather than its own agendas. Am I still a neocon, or do you have some other word that you learned on your leftist propaganda sites counterpunch or antiwar that you can regurgitate onto this thread?

Side note: Isnt it funny how those who claim media and government propoganda often flock heavily to sites that are outright blatantly spewing propoganda, whether it be manipulated info or not, every day? TWO WORDS: SELF SERVING
Reply

Omar_Mukhtar
01-04-2008, 06:29 PM
Ricardo, i too admire the U.S.A. It is a tremendous country with great people, history and culture. In fact a knowlegeable Muslim was telling me the other day that some scholars saw about 25 years ago saw America as an example on how to treat citizens and secure the rights of people, which is today virtually non existant in the Muslim world all over. But today who needs Saddam when you have Guantanamo, Abu Grain and extraordinary rendition(kidnap)? As for Iraqis fighting to the death, that is a decision that they have to make as it is their own land. Of course if they do they will be called "terrorists", right? The Majority of them want foreign troops out, but who will listen to them eh? They voted in a prime minister who has to get permission from the Americans everytime he wants to move a battalion of troops! Whether or not the Iraqis will benefit from this invasion in the long run will be judged by history. It certainly doesn't look like that in Basra and these divisions will probably continue for a long long time. But of course we'll get plenty of good news feeds and pictures of tea with corrupt Arab Sheikhs until we reach the big one in November 2008!
Reply

MTAFFI
01-04-2008, 06:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Omar_Mukhtar
Ricardo, i too admire the U.S.A. It is a tremendous country with great people, history and culture. In fact a knowlegeable Muslim was telling me the other day that some scholars saw about 25 years ago saw America as an example on how to treat citizens and secure the rights of people, which is today virtually non existant in the Muslim world all over. But today who needs Saddam when you have Guantanamo, Abu Grain and extraordinary rendition(kidnap)? As for Iraqis fighting to the death, that is a decision that they have to make as it is their own land. Of course if they do they will be called "terrorists", right? The Majority of them want foreign troops out, but who will listen to them eh? They voted in a prime minister who has to get permission from the Americans everytime he wants to move a battalion of troops! Whether or not the Iraqis will benefit from this invasion in the long run will be judged by history. It certainly doesn't look like that in Basra and these divisions will probably continue for a long long time. But of course we'll get plenty of good news feeds and pictures of tea with corrupt Arab Sheikhs until we reach the big one in November 2008!
Gitmo and Abu Gharib are not something I think the US prides itself on and in my opinion it is embarrassing.

As for Iraqis fighting US troops, why would they? The US troops are there as a police force, not to harm the average Iraqi, which is probably why the ones who fight are considered terrorists because they are typically out to attack police and government organization and of course the food markets, etc.

Iraq doesnt get permission to move troops, they coordinate with the military force that has a strong presence in their country so they dont have any misconceptions over one another... How many battalions does Iraq have right now anyways?

History will be the judge, let us hope that it is in the favor of the Iraqis trying to rebuild their country today. In the grand scheme, I hope the US can be eventually looked upon as though we had good intentions, but even if the US comes out smelling like the backside of a donkey, who really cares as long as the Iraqis get out of this OK.

I dont think the good news about Iraq is because of the elections, I think it is because there are good things happening there, if it got bad tomorrow you can bet your rear end it would be all over the news, as a matter of fact it is anyway, even if it is only one suicide a day it is still reported. The media is not conservative and do not lean favorably for this war, turn on any US station but Fox and you will notice that...
Reply

Omar_Mukhtar
01-04-2008, 07:18 PM
quote:Gitmo and Abu Gharib are not something I think the US prides itself on and in my opinion it is embarrassing.

agreed

quote:As for Iraqis fighting US troops, why would they?

You would have to ask the thousands and thousands of Iraqis that did and still do so. Perhaps it could be any of the following: humilation, torture, rape, detention, bombing, national pride, religous zeal, opportunism, to get payed; take a pick?

quote:The US troops are there as a police force, not to harm the average Iraqi

So how comes the vast majority of Iraqis want the Americans to leave the country and again the vast majority regard them as occupiers?

quote:which is probably why the ones who fight are considered terrorists because they are typically out to attack police and government organization and of course the food markets, etc.

This is of course the official line given by General Petraus. Do all of the Iraqis that take arms target the "government"? Are there not Iraqi groups that don't target police etc? Are there are not Iraqi resistance groups that oppose both the American intervention and the Alqaeda network? Iraqi groups that are against targeting civilians don't exist right? They are all just lunatic Arab terrorists who refuse to be civilized. You see this is one of the main reasons the war went wrong, people thought that they could read the mind of Iraqis and expected them to all welcome the occupation with flowers and salute the generals. Any that didn't is "typically" an Arab Marzlem radical!
Reply

MTAFFI
01-04-2008, 07:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Omar_Mukhtar
quote:Gitmo and Abu Gharib are not something I think the US prides itself on and in my opinion it is embarrassing.

agreed
I knew it was possible! :D

format_quote Originally Posted by Omar_Mukhtar
quote:As for Iraqis fighting US troops, why would they?

You would have to ask the thousands and thousands of Iraqis that did and still do so. Perhaps it could be any of the following: humilation, torture, rape, detention, bombing, national pride, religous zeal, opportunism, to get payed; take a pick?
I would rather not pick but know the actual fact as to why an Iraqi would want to kill someone who alleviated them from a ruthless brutal dictator and only tries to provide security and help establish infrastructure. If they are rape victims or torture victims I can understand and would agree that their fight is worth while and honorable, however there certainly isnt that many of those in Iraq, while I do not ignore that they indeed exist, the number of suicide bombs and attacks on American troops would be so limited that Iraq could handle itself and the US would leave, would you not agree? Humiliation is no reason to kill, protest sure, but not kill, neither is detention, national pride, religious zeal, opportunism or to get paid, if that is an Iraqis reason to kill then yes I would consider him to be a terrorist.

format_quote Originally Posted by Omar_Mukhtar
quote:The US troops are there as a police force, not to harm the average Iraqi

So how comes the vast majority of Iraqis want the Americans to leave the country and again the vast majority regard them as occupiers?
I think many Iraqis believe if the US presence is not there then the presence of the terrorist networks will also leave, however given the new level of cooperation from the Iraqis, I think they realize that this is not the case and that the US presence will leave much sooner if they help them rid the land of these "opportunists"
format_quote Originally Posted by Omar_Mukhtar
quote:which is probably why the ones who fight are considered terrorists because they are typically out to attack police and government organization and of course the food markets, etc.

This is of course the official line given by General Petraus. Do all of the Iraqis that take arms target the "government"?
I dont think "all" no..
format_quote Originally Posted by Omar_Mukhtar
Are there not Iraqi groups that don't target police etc?
I am sure that there must be, but their numbers must be small given the number of American troops casualites and the duration of this war so far
format_quote Originally Posted by Omar_Mukhtar
Are there are not Iraqi resistance groups that oppose both the American intervention and the Alqaeda network?
Absolutely
format_quote Originally Posted by Omar_Mukhtar
Iraqi groups that are against targeting civilians don't exist right?
Yes there must be, however again given the number of civilian casualties in Iraq compared to US forces and Iraqi police forces I have to say that number doesnt look favorably upon this particular group
format_quote Originally Posted by Omar_Mukhtar
They are all just lunatic Arab terrorists who refuse to be civilized. You see this is one of the main reasons the war went wrong, people thought that they could read the mind of Iraqis and expected them to all welcome the occupation with flowers and salute the generals. Any that didn't is "typically" an Arab Marzlem radical!
I dont believe this at all, I think it was expected that the Iraqis would behave civilized while this jerk was hung up to dry, but they didnt and the fact is, it was a grave miscalculation. One the US will not soon forget, sadly it has taken a much higher toll on the Iraqis and an even high toll on the american reputation.
Reply

Jayda
01-04-2008, 08:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MTAFFI
What would you have me do? Respond without defending what is being done there today? It is a mess and it needs to be cleaned up, if we dont who will? Flower power accomplishes nothing, if we leave the terrorist will regroup and take Iraq for everything it is worth and those poor people will have endured everything from then until present for nothing and our national security will be at an even higher risk.. What is your proposal, short of inventing a time machine to stop it all from happening.. Do you leave the troops for protection or withdrawl them and condemn the Iraqis to an almost certain destruction
so we have to fight the war... because we are fighting the war?

format_quote Originally Posted by MTAFFI
Where did I give the impression I was a Christian? Or a better question might even be when, if it is more than say 30 or so days ago, I wouldnt have been giving the wrong impression. As for being an apostate, in my mind I have been a muslim my whole life I just wasnt given the information until recently... but yes in the general sense I am an apostate of Catholicism
si... that's true (bold). it's better you make these things known though...
Reply

MTAFFI
01-04-2008, 08:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda
so we have to fight the war... because we are fighting the war?
You answer my questions with a question... very clever. In a sense though yes, when we entered Iraq to topple their government we had and have a responsibility to restore the countries better half to at the very least a functioning society. I answered yours now you answer mine from the previous post:

What would you have me do? Respond without defending what is being done there today? It is a mess and it needs to be cleaned up, if we dont who will? Flower power accomplishes nothing, if we leave the terrorist will regroup and take Iraq for everything it is worth and those poor people will have endured everything from then until present for nothing and our national security will be at an even higher risk.. What is your proposal, short of inventing a time machine to stop it all from happening.. Do you leave the troops for protection or withdrawl them and condemn the Iraqis to an almost certain destruction

format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda
si... that's true (bold). it's better you make these things known though...
I agree, although I fear now that because of my political views some of the Muslims on this site will try to condemn me or call me an apostate etc. and in the interest of trying to keep them from a sin I left it undisclosed
Reply

KelleyD
01-05-2008, 02:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Omar_Mukhtar
Kelley, I don't think Alqaeda is largely due to the American foreign policy. !
Really? I was under the impression that we encouraged and enhanced Alqaeda all during the 80's to "be all they could be" so they could push the Russians back. But if they were largely in existence before then, then I stand corrected.

format_quote Originally Posted by Omar_Mukhtar
They have an ideology which they seek to impose on all Muslims regardless of whether they are under occupation or not!
So they were blowing things up before American banksters came in during the 60s and bought out large oil refineries (tricked the Arabs, really, by loaning them huge sums of money and then recalling their loans--taking the refineraries instead of the loan and created EXXon Mobile, Amaco, SOHIO, etc...) and before we came in during the 80's and 90's and set up bases?

format_quote Originally Posted by Omar_Mukhtar
They set off bombs in Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Pakistan and various other places. The group led by Zarqawi was trying to blow up Kurdish secular parties and labeling them as "apostates". !
Yes. But isn't the reason they are doing these things because the royals and the politicians of those countries are in bed with the West and they are afraid the people are going right along with them? Isn't this violence still about American presence in a land where it is not wanted? I know the majority of Muslims are non-violent but don't the majority of Muslims int hat area also want America to pull out and go back home? And if so, then aren't the goals the same for peaceful Muslims and Alqaeda Muslims? The difference is the methodology. Peace versus violence to achieve your goals. And if that is the case, then this is where the Quaran, and governments said to be back by the Quaran play a leading role. Does it advocate peace when you are attacked or does it advocate defending yourself? And if not, how long must you be bombed before allowed to fight back? One year? Ten years? Twenty? While all the innocent are dying, who in the government is fighting for them? Anyone? MiddleEastern countries, like America, seem to both have two classes. The really rich and the really poor. If you don't stand up for yourself, no one is going to do it for you. These are just my thoughts--please feel free to correct me where I may be wrong. I'm not advocating violence. I'm just trying to understand it.

format_quote Originally Posted by Omar_Mukhtar
The propagators of the war lumped all of the Iraqis as "Alqaeda", which is largely an isolated and unpopular group. They also never mention the vast majority of Iraqis want foreign troops out, but as Gates said they will stay there for years and decades. So Alqaeda is a scare card and boogey man to invade Muslim states and place them in the hands of local colonial governors!
Agreed and well said.
Reply

KelleyD
01-05-2008, 02:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by caroline
Thank Allah for an intelligent, educated, strong voice of reason. Please don't let ignorant personal attacks and propaganda filled rebuttals discourage from posting.
Thanks. I appreciate your post. I was afraid I might be getting banned. It's not my intention to incite anyone. I am just speaking the truth as I see it.
Reply

KelleyD
01-05-2008, 02:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
For some people, blaming the U.S. for everything has become pop culture.

Not "blame" so much as "expose".
Reply

KelleyD
01-05-2008, 03:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MTAFFI
You make a lot of good points and to be honest I can sympathize with many of them and then there are others I could provide fine rebuttal to, but I do not wish to derail the topic which is "positive news from Iraq" not the "history of conflict between the US and the middle east"(although I am sure that may be a great thread :D), not trying to be a wise guy just dont want this thread closed just yet. I can say though that obviously there are two sides to each story, the US and any other country group or person in this world is always going to be looking out for its own best interests, it is the way to survival. For every conflict you mentioned there are rights for both Muslims and Americans to be angry (or at least the situations that involve the US) If you would like please PM me, you seem to be a very logical person and I would be glad to discuss any of these conflicts with you, or better yet start a thread with your post! I am sure neither of our views would change much but I am sure it could be some very healthy discussion and who knows we and other may learn something new. :peace:
Well, I did get a bit carried away. I didn't mean to derail the topic. When I think about what good may be coming out of Iraq, I have to also weigh the loss both sides have sustained and ask if it has been worth it....and if it has, for whom? Certainly, Saddam was a bad character, but is Bush much better? I don't know how much of what your report is real national building or propoganda so we can justify to the American people the 11 trillion (as of today's date) that we have spent on this "war of terror" in a country where the majority of the people have nothing to do with Alqueda.

Thanks for your suggestion. I thought as a limited member I couldn't start threads or pm. I'll check it out and if I can I will start a new thread.
Reply

Cognescenti
01-05-2008, 03:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Omar_Mukhtar
But still doesn't change the issue or fact that they armed, helped and effectively turned a blind eye to several of Saddam's massacres.
Look, for once and for all. The US did not arm Iraq. They overwhelmingly had Russian weapons, some Chinese rifles and Scuds, a few North Korean missiles and few few French jets and antiship missiles.

The US did not supply Iraq with chemical weapons. He used 50-80 year old technology. He made them himself with the childhood chemistry kit his parents gave him. To our knowledge he never used biological weapons but he did manufacture them in significant quantities although he was perhaps was not able to weaponize the anthrax spores (or else he would likely have used them on the Iranians). He may have purchased some Anthrax culture from an American company (just like any veterinary school in the world might do) but this was a bacterial culture not a bioweapon.

The US did supply Iraq with intelligence on the Iranians during the Iran Iraq War. They also supplied Iran with intelligence on the Iraqis when it looked like the Iranians were losing. Nasty business that Iran/Iraq War.

format_quote Originally Posted by Omar_Mukhtar
I have clearly stated that American policy is not to blame for all the going ons in that country.Thus, it is not about blaming the U.S.A for everything.
Wow, Omar! Now we are getting somewhere :D

If Blair and Bush claimed that they bring democracy, peace and justice to Iraq and they miserably fail, then we have to scrutinize them.
Let's see, Rumsfeld...gone. Blair...gone...Bush...out in 12 months...there..are you happy?

..Iraqi [sic] is essentially a failed state under the grip of rival militias.
This is largely true with the exception of the Kurds. So, do you want the US to leave abruptly, or not? This is the real world. There is no "redo" button.
Reply

Keltoi
01-05-2008, 05:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by KelleyD
Not "blame" so much as "expose".
Yeah, lots of internet journalists out there too
Reply

Jayda
01-06-2008, 03:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MTAFFI
You answer my questions with a question... very clever. In a sense though yes, when we entered Iraq to topple their government we had and have a responsibility to restore the countries better half to at the very least a functioning society. I answered yours now you answer mine from the previous post:

What would you have me do? Respond without defending what is being done there today? It is a mess and it needs to be cleaned up, if we dont who will? Flower power accomplishes nothing, if we leave the terrorist will regroup and take Iraq for everything it is worth and those poor people will have endured everything from then until present for nothing and our national security will be at an even higher risk.. What is your proposal, short of inventing a time machine to stop it all from happening.. Do you leave the troops for protection or withdrawl them and condemn the Iraqis to an almost certain destruction
si, as time goes by you will learn cleverness is a hallmark of women :) sexual dimorphism promises that we will never be physically stronger than you, ergo we must rely on other strengths. my point was a simple challenge of the logic of colin powell's pottery barn argument, which was at the time considered a defeatest copout and (in a rather bizarre turn of events) is now the single reason we remain in iraq harassing civilians and attracting the attention of every whackjob with an agenda.

i would have you admit that we have failed in iraq, rather than have you celebrate what amounts accomplishing the satisfactory. yay! we have kind of established order in certain regions of iraq!! oh joy! it only took four years of bloodshed you cannot possibly imagine bathing in the blue glow coming from your computer screen in the comfort of your nice, safe, study at home.

i would have you admit that this war was based on a lie, is inherently immoral and that we have failed once again in our pursuit of these morals we pretend to champion. i would politely request you face the reality that this isn't a victory, it's an excuse to justify a failure. and i would have you bow out of the war in a quiet orderly fashion devoid of the hero worship and jingoism, and poised to accept (financially and morally) the responsibilities we must face as a nation that has greviously wronged another nation.

...since you asked...

I agree, although I fear now that because of my political views some of the Muslims on this site will try to condemn me or call me an apostate etc. and in the interest of trying to keep them from a sin I left it undisclosed
allow me to give you some advice... don't care. if you really did convert because you believe then that is between you and God, and nobody, absolutely nobody should change your mind. especially given the lofty ideals to which islam claims to adhere (complete submission to God). if you ever read a bible again, reread the stories of Job and King David. Job lost everything, literally everything, for his believe in God... King David was rejected by his country and forced to fight for the philistines (pagans), laughed at by his wife... who called him an embarassment, and ultimately was forced to send his army out to kill his first and closest son... all because of his belief in God.

these two people are examples of men. created (per genesis) for the purpose of glorifying God... they did not cave, they did not falter, they did not change and they did not care what the teeming masses of failure thought of them. if you are truly convinced you have put God before everything in your life, why do you think i should pity you for 'outing' yourself as a muslim among muslims you have not and will never meet?

men who have 'submitted' to God do not have fears, they have trust.

where exactly is God in your list of priorities?

que Dios te bendiga
Reply

MTAFFI
01-06-2008, 06:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda
si, as time goes by you will learn cleverness is a hallmark of women :) sexual dimorphism promises that we will never be physically stronger than you, ergo we must rely on other strengths.
Yeah, my wife tries that as well

format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda
i would have you admit that we have failed in iraq, rather than have you celebrate what amounts accomplishing the satisfactory. yay! we have kind of established order in certain regions of iraq!! oh joy! it only took four years of bloodshed you cannot possibly imagine bathing in the blue glow coming from your computer screen in the comfort of your nice, safe, study at home.
Iraq is a failure, but some good things have come from it and hopefully in the future more will. As far as 4 years of bloodshed goes, it really is sad it is taking this long, but think of the magnitude of what is being done. This isnt just a weekend fixer upper, we are talking about rebuilding a country from the ground up, with a pesky little infestation of people who like to kill without any discrimination or care about the country.
format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda
i would have you admit that this war was based on a lie, is inherently immoral and that we have failed once again in our pursuit of these morals we pretend to champion. i would politely request you face the reality that this isn't a victory, it's an excuse to justify a failure. and i would have you bow out of the war in a quiet orderly fashion devoid of the hero worship and jingoism, and poised to accept (financially and morally) the responsibilities we must face as a nation that has greviously wronged another nation.
This war was based not so much on a lie, but more on a miscalculation and poor judgment and one mans dream of finishing daddies job. I disagree, however, that it is immoral, particularly since we removed a dictator and havent been just driving around killing people, instead we have been making an attempt at securing the country and rebuilding the things we messed up.

Now as far as financially being responsible what exactly are you suggesting? That we just send them some money like a man who stepped out on his wife and kid and just say here let us pay you off? To me that isnt a good idea, way to simple since money cant solve everything. In fact, I think it would be immoral at this point to "bow out" and just send them a child support check every month. Ever heard the expression "Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he eats for life"? That is kind of how I feel about Iraq, we have to show them and help them to get stability, once they have that they can build from there, but at least they will know how to take care of themselves, remember these people have lived under an oppressive ruthless dictator for over 30 years, this is all brand new to them

format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda
allow me to give you some advice... don't care. if you really did convert because you believe then that is between you and God, and nobody, absolutely nobody should change your mind. especially given the lofty ideals to which islam claims to adhere (complete submission to God). if you ever read a bible again, reread the stories of Job and King David. Job lost everything, literally everything, for his believe in God... King David was rejected by his country and forced to fight for the philistines (pagans), laughed at by his wife... who called him an embarassment, and ultimately was forced to send his army out to kill his first and closest son... all because of his belief in God.

these two people are examples of men. created (per genesis) for the purpose of glorifying God... they did not cave, they did not falter, they did not change and they did not care what the teeming masses of failure thought of them. if you are truly convinced you have put God before everything in your life, why do you think i should pity you for 'outing' yourself as a muslim among muslims you have not and will never meet?

men who have 'submitted' to God do not have fears, they have trust.
Thank you for your advice, and just so you know, I dont really "care", it isnt like it hurts my feelings if someone doesnt like me on this forum, or in person really, I am a big boy I can handle it. I dont need anyones pity, and the only things I fear are spiders, they are grotesque and in my opinion they are a curse on the world.


format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda
where exactly is God in your list of priorities?

que Dios te bendiga
Now you are just getting personal... if you really must know he is 1st on my list, with my family
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: 0
    Last Post: 06-11-2012, 11:22 PM
  2. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 06-13-2008, 07:14 PM
  3. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-16-2007, 11:10 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-18-2006, 03:10 AM
  5. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-24-2005, 04:12 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!