Again total agreement. But if we stay more will die. If we leave more will die. I have a hard time trying to figure out which is the least bad.
The sanctions were applied for good reason, humanitarian aid, etc was not barred from the country (oil for food turned out to be a fluke because of Saddams side deals), it was SH who wouldnt allow it to reach the people, he did that to his own people that was not the fault of the US, IMOGreetings and peace be with you MTAFFI;
I can’t imagine what Bush and Blair were thinking, they apply economic sanctions against Iraq for years
In retrospect it is easy to see this was a mistake, but at the time you have to remember it didnt seem illogical, SH threatened repeatedly that he had the means to "destroy the US". What if we didnt invade and Saddam did have these weapons? What if an attack was carried out under the umbrella of a terrorist organization, supplied by Saddam with such a weapon? I believe the president thought that the risk was too high and something had to be done. Now knowing the evidence he was given he was probably in a 50/50 situation on whether or not the WMD were actually there, unfortunately they were not and the situation is what it is nowthey bomb the country into submission looking for fictitious WMD.
It is an absolute shame and I feel terrible for these families and people, nothing in the world could compensate them for what they have lost, hopefully in the end God will reward them for their troubles as long as they continued to live righteous despite their problems.In the meantime thousands of Iraqi have lost a mum, dad, brother, sister, son or daughter, huge amounts of infrastructure have been destroyed, and there are around two million Iraqi refugees living in fear and squalor.
They were happy at the first, try and remember when we first invaded, there was practically no resistance, these people no doubt wanted SH and his people out, it was only after he was caught that Al-Qaeda and other groups came in to cause the majority of the damage you are speaking ofIraq did not ask to be invaded, they did not ask the American and British to depose Saddam. why should we expect the Iraqi people to accept an invading army with an apparent unjust cause to invade their country
They will no doubtAt some time both Bush and Blair will have to stand before God and try and justify their actions.
So if an Iraqi man has had his home destroyed, his son killed, he has lost his job due to unfair economic sanctions and he has been made redundant because his employers have gone bust.
Which court will he get justice through, were will he get compensation from, will the criminals be brought to justice?
Sadly it seems our Iraqi brother in humanity is going to get nothing in return for all the injustice done against him.
What should he do, buy a gun and a bomb or should he learn to forgive?
Greetings and peace be with you MTAFFI;
I believe that success in Iraq is dependent on Iraqis finding justice. America is spending billions on an American agenda in Iraq. If there was a commitment to spend this money bringing about some kind of justice then I feel this would be the solution. You did not answer the last part of my previous post which I feel is the real problem.
Who is directly responsible for his home and son? In most cases I am sure that it would be an insurgent, not the US. As far as economic sanctions, I believe that it would be because of SH that he lost his job, not the sanctions.So if an Iraqi man has had his home destroyed, his son killed, he has lost his job due to unfair economic sanctions and he has been made redundant because his employers have gone bust.
Sadly this must come from the government, but from the shape they are in, it may seem as though justice will never get served. Who are the criminals? I think you can find that many times if a US soldiers is accused of a criminal act they are very often brought to light and justice.Which court will he get justice through, were will he get compensation from, will the criminals be brought to justice?
That is up to the Iraqi, if he feels the US has done him wrong or taken from him, then he should pick up a gun and fight the occupation forces, but the second he blows up a market or commits suicide in traffic is when he will become a terrorist. Also he probably shouldnt expect to recieve compensation after all is said and done.Sadly it seems our Iraqi brother in humanity is going to get nothing in return for all the injustice done against him.
What should he do, buy a gun and a bomb or should he learn to forgive?
A relentless attack from the air against Iraq and Afghanistan has been going on for years, with the United States conducting an average of 75 to 100 airstrikes in the 2 countries every day. The death toll from these attacks is unknown, but a reasonable estimate is in the range of 100,000 to 150,000 in Iraq, with the number in Afghanistan as yet unexplored. Yet the story of these air wars is almost unknown in the United States.
British medical journal the Lancet, remains the best estimate of the number of people who have died in Iraq—violently and otherwise—as a result of the U.S. invasion and occupation.
As Nick Turse tells us in “Bombs Over Baghdad,” the Lancet report “estimated 655,000 ‘excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war.’ The study...found that from March 2003 to June 2006, 13 percent of violent deaths in Iraq were caused by coalition air strikes. If the 655,000 figure, including over 601,000 violent deaths, is anywhere close to accurate—and the study offered a possible range of civilian deaths that ran from 392,979 to 942,636—this would equal approximately 78,133 Iraqis killed by bombs, missiles, rockets, or cannon rounds from coalition aircraft between March 2003, when the invasion of Iraq began, and last June when the study concluded.” Turse adds that, “According to statistics provided to TomDispatch by the Lancet study’s authors, 50 percent of all violent deaths of Iraqi children under 15 years of age, between March 2003 and June 2006, were due to coalition air strikes.”
Here, then, are the final rough numbers: Every day, between 50 and 100 Iraqis die as a result of “coalition” airstrikes. Every airstrike kills, on average, one Iraqi, and wounds three more. Updating the numbers from the Lancet study, we discover that overall, since the U.S. invaded Iraq, somewhere between 102,180 and 147,051 Iraqis have been killed by U.S. airstrikes alone. Between 306,540 and 441,153 have been wounded.
Greetings and peace be with you MTAFFI
I received this email today from the ‘Fellowship of Reconciliation’ a peace organisation that operates in many parts of the world.
The full story is here, http://zmagsite.zmag.org/June2007/nygaard0607.html
The full story is worth reading but I have posted their conclusion,
In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth
Eric
I dont find zmag or the lancet study to be credible
because they contradict the lies of your gov't?
because they contradict the lies of your gov't?
Voting in a democratic fashion, under occupation, is completely contradictory.They voted in a democratic fashion.
The "elected" representatives didn't vote for sharia, but instead voted for the oil laws that were written by US oil giants, and were passed by the "democratically elected" representatives of American oil giants/occupation, not the Iraqi people...Their elected representatives could pass laws making Shaira the law of the land but that doesn't solve the problem that the Al Quaeda boys regard the Shia with derision.
because they contradict the lies of your gov't?
Voting in a democratic fashion, under occupation, is completely contradictory.
The "elected" representatives didn't vote for sharia, but instead voted for the oil laws that were written by US oil giants, and were passed by the "elected" representatives of American oil giants/occupation, not the Iraqi people...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.