Printable View
:sl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hashim
you're right bro. every major news channel is owned by jews:
Who Rules America?
U.S. Media and U.S. Government - Traitors Of Humanity and the American People
Near Total Zionist Jewish Control Of The British Media
:w:
Asallama Alaikum yeah I doubt if there's even a product not owned by the jews.
Don't talk to me, you claiming to know history is among the funniest things I have ever read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hashim
Ok, so no one thinks Saddam was "a good leader" and the Americans "are no Saints in comparison?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Far7an
I'm confused. I think you are belittling the crimes of Saddam Hussein and making the Americans out to be far worse than they are.
It's the flavor of the week, so to say, in some people seeming to forget just how terrible Saddam Husseins regime was. Everyone is so interested in giving America a black eye that all of a sudden they are 'no saints in comparison (to Saddam Hussein).'
Is this thread oing to get racist as well?
Assalamu alaikum
You got all that, from that one sentence of mine? hehe, I was not belittling his crimes at all.Quote:
I'm confused. I think you are belittling the crimes of Saddam Hussein and making the Americans out to be far worse than they are.
Again, you are putting words into my mouth, I did not say this or even make this assumption.Quote:
some people seeming to forget just how terrible Saddam Husseins regime was.
Alhamdulillah, I do not think any of my comments have been racist. If so, I apologise, and I assure you that was not my intention.Quote:
Is this thread oing to get racist as well?
Now brother, do you believe the war in Iraq was legal war? lets not think about what they achieved (removing saddam). When the press asked TonyBblair whether the war was justifiable based on the reason given when they first invaded the country, he said "The world is a better place without Saddam". He failed to answer the question, this shows even Tony Blair had doubts of whether the war was legal.
wasalamu alaikum.
As another poster has said in this thread..... prove it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hashim
Saddam rose through the ranks of the Baath Party. The UK and the US did not put Saddam in power. He took hold of the power and the people of Iraq allowed it.
One other thought....exactly what miracle did you guys expect in Iraq? It took America decades to progress to where it is today. It, too, had its own internal struggles with racism, inequality, religious differences, etc. There was civil war and many other times of despair before moving forward. Did everyone here expect that Iraq would be perfect in a couple of years? Not very realistic. It takes time to rebuild infrastructure...from my understanding, not only to rebuild those areas damaged by war but the water infrastructure, schools, hospitals, etc. were in bad need of updates due to Saddam's negligence prior to the war. It takes time to train police, military personnel, etc. These things do not happen over night.
And, regarding the lawlessness in New Orleans and Baghdad, in both cases what you saw was looting by the poor. America has its share and they live on Welfare. These are people who refuse to get an education, refuse to get a job, and keep having children that they can't afford. And, New Orleans was inundated with these people. In Iraq, those people had been oppressed by Saddam for so long, they took what they could during the period of disorder as well. The difference between the two is the Americans, if oppressed, it is by their own doing and choices. The Iraqis were oppressed because of a cruel dictator that was more interested in building a beautiful palace than taking care of the people he was responsible for leading.
And, I'm curious....have any of you seen the recent message sent out by President Jalal Talabani of Iraq? And, the last time I checked, this was the leader selected by Iraqis in their election.
In case you haven't, here you go.....
Quote:
BAGHDAD--There is no more important international issue today than the need to defeat the curse of terrorism. And as the first democratically elected president of Iraq, I have a responsibility to ensure that the world's youngest democracy survives the inherently difficult transition from totalitarianism to pluralism. A transformation of the Iraqi state and Iraqi society is impossible without a sustained commitment of soldiers from the United States and other democracies.
To understand why, let us recall how we reached this juncture in history. How is it that Iraq today has a democratically elected head of state, government and Parliament? How it is that members of the most repressed ethnic groups now hold the highest offices of state? All these welcome developments are a result of the courage and vision of President Bush and his allies, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Australian Prime Minister John Howard, leaders whose commitment of troops to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions liberated Iraq.
Without foreign intervention, the transition in Iraq would have been from Saddam's bloodstained hands to his psychopathic offspring. Instead, thanks to American leadership, Iraqis have been given an opportunity of peaceful, participatory politics. Contrary to the new conventional wisdom, Iraq and the history of 20th-century Europe demonstrate that force of arms can implant democracy in the most arid soil.
The rapidity of the democratization and reform of Iraq is staggering. There was no German state for four years after the Second World War. By contrast, Iraq has moved from a centralized, one-man dictatorship to a decentralized, federal republic in half that time.
Inevitably, there have been stresses and strains. In Iraq these have been amplified by the terrorism of the remnants of the fascist Baathist dictatorship and our interfering neighbors. To contain these tensions, and to defend our young democracy, requires the support of American and other troops. Foreign forces are needed to train and equip the new Iraqi armed forces and to give Iraq its own counterterrorism capability. Only the United States and its closest allies are able to provide such assistance.
Creating these Iraqi forces has not been easy, but Iraqis have been undaunted by the difficulties. Every terrorist attack on Iraqi forces leads to a surge in military recruitment--the opposite of the appeasers' myth that resisting terrorism causes more terrorism. For all the short-term problems, the soundness of the long-term strategy of building up Iraqi forces was demonstrated in recent days when Iraqis took over sole control of security in the holy city of Najaf.
As Iraqi forces gain in confidence and capability, so the need for foreign troops will diminish. The number of foreign troops will be determined in consultations between the Iraqi government and its foreign allies on the basis of operational requirements.
American forces are in Iraq at the invitation of the democratically elected government of Iraq, and with the backing of a United Nations Security Council resolution. Your soldiers are in my country because of your commitment to democracy. Moreover, during my visit to Washington, Mr. Bush reaffirmed the United States' complete support for the Iraqi political process toward sustainable democracy, and for the fight to defeat fascist and jihadist terrorism in Iraq.
That commitment to liberty has shaped our opposition to any timetable for withdrawal. There are also two practical, policy reasons to avoid such a scheduled reduction in foreign troop numbers. First, a timetable will aid the terrorists and tell them that all they have to do is wait. Second, military plans must be flexible. We should have the suppleness to respond to the often-changing level of terrorist threat. Indeed, we will require ongoing security assistance in many forms for many years to come.
If we keep progressing at the present rate, Iraqis may be able to take over many security functions from foreign forces by the end of 2006. That is not a deadline, but it is reasonable aspiration. During my visit to the United States, I was fortunate to meet relatives of some of the brave troops serving in Iraq. They were staunch, and I want their loved ones to have to serve in Iraq not a moment longer than is necessary.
Americans should be proud of what its soldiers have achieved. The presence of foreign forces has prevented a renewed civil war in Iraq--renewed because there has already been a civil war in Iraq. For 35 years, Saddam and his Baath Party made war on the Iraqi people. The liberation of Iraq ended that civil war.
Above all, American forces provide Iraq with a much-needed deterrence capability. In the past, Iraq sought an illusory security through the follies of aggression, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Today, our external security comes from our alliance with the United States. Our neighbors can thereby be assured that we will settle all of our differences with them peacefully.
Sadly, some of our neighbors have chosen not to understand this. They seem either unwilling or unable to shut off the pipeline of terrorists crossing into Iraq. And in addition to what is at least passive support for the terrorists, some of them are providing financial and material support to them, too. They must desist from this behavior now.
While the problem of some of our neighbors supporting terrorism is bad enough, we can only imagine what our neighbors might have done if American troops had not been present. Most likely, Iraq would have been transformed into a regional battlefield with disastrous consequences for Middle Eastern and global security.
Without American forces, the vision of American leadership and the quiet fortitude of the American people, Iraqis would be almost alone in the world. With its allies, the United States has provided Iraqis with an unprecedented opportunity. Iraqis have responded by enthusiastically embracing democracy and volunteering to fight for their country. By giving us the tools, your troops help us to defend Iraqi democracy and to finish the job of uprooting Baathist fascism.
Mr. Talabani is president of Iraq.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110007289
this whole situation is unfortunate, during saddams regime and after (i.e. the present) we can only pray that Allah swt lets good come out of this and awards those who have suffered at the hands of saddam and this war.
:sl:
Fair enough. Just seems like you were being light on Saddam when you said he "was not the best ruler." That is the understatement of the century.Quote:
Originally Posted by Far7an
I believe I said some people, not you in particular. Sorry for the mix up, if you are not one of those people, then that's great.Quote:
Again, you are putting words into my mouth, I did not say this or even make this assumption.
That was intended for those who started bringing up the Jews, I don't think you mentioned them at all.Quote:
Alhamdulillah, I do not think any of my comments have been racist. If so, I apologise, and I assure you that was not my intention.
Of course the war was legal. The United States signed a cease fire with Saddam Hussein's government ending the last gulf war, it was the United States who had the sole right to decide when Iraq was in violation of the cease fire. Going to the United Nations was more an act of good will than it was an act of neccessity.Quote:
Now brother, do you believe the war in Iraq was legal war? lets not think about what they achieved (removing saddam). When the press asked TonyBblair whether the war was justifiable based on the reason given when they first invaded the country, he said "The world is a better place without Saddam". He failed to answer the question, this shows even Tony Blair had doubts of whether the war was legal.
wasalamu alaikum.
The United Nations does not decide when the US will or will not be allowed to protect its interests. The US interests in this case was to disarm Iraq from it's potential threats.
This entire war would not have happened had Saddam Hussein abided by the cease-fire terms he accepted on the battlefield in 1991.
:w:
Ameen.Quote:
Originally Posted by cheese