South Africa to Syria's rescue

[takeo]

nbarzelay

You are making assumptions again that there weren't any Al-Qaida or other terrorist factions present in Iraq during Saddam's regime. We've discussed this before, and you are once again presenting it as mere fact.

Actually US congress committee which studied this subject considers it to be a fact as well... there were some small al-Quaida affiliated groups present in Kurdistan, which wasn't under Saddam's controll since the first gulf war, but even that was peanuts compared to for example Saudi Arabia.

The terrorist factions seen operating in Iraq today have been present long before the 2003 invasion or Iraq and before the first gulf war. The removal of Saddam simply allowed them free reign of Iraq through the porous borders.

According to the US congress committee Al-Quaida wasn't present in Saddam's Iraq. Also most other islamist (both shiite and sunnite) groups were heavily oppressed by the Baath-regime and didn't stand a chance as long as Saddam remained in power. Of course the US-intervention changed all that and proved to be a God's gift for those islamists, not only in Iraq but all over the Middle East. This is a fact even you can hardly denie, as much as you would want to, it is the ultimate proof of the failure of the neo-con policy.

Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other players has jumped on this situation of anarchy as a chance to increase their influence amongst the Shia majority in Iraq

Iran of course supported their own friends which are now in the Iraqi government, but weirdly enough the US protected the same people, since they couldn't afford to alienate the shiites faced by a huge sunnite ressurrection. It was clear long before the start of this war that Iran and the shiites would benefit from it, and that's what I said on this forum before the start of the war as well, the only real and credible opposition against Saddam were the shiites.(besides the Kurds of course). Syria and Jordan didn't benefit from this war, they now had to take million of Iraqi refugees who fled the violence in Iraq, nearly all Iraqi christians fled to Syria. There is evidence that Saudi Arabia supports extremist sunnite groups in Iraq, as usual mainly trough the islamic medreses they finance all over sunnite parts of Iraq. (which was not allowed during Saddam's rule)

To present this secular infighting as a new phenomenon is just blatantly false.

It's not new of course, but US-invasion led to the current civil war, which wouldn't have erupted without US-invasion. Iraq lived in peace since 1992 (apart from the occasional US-Brittish raid)

Sure, the US could've handled this situation a bit better, but you are proving extremely stubborn and misguided to put the instability seen in Iraq squarely on the coalition forces.

Let me see, in 2003 there was no war in Iraq, since 2004 a civil war erupted in Iraq. The US invaded Iraq in 2003... purely coincidence I assume?????

The simple case of the matter in the US's past support for Saddam was simply in opposition to Iran. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Yes, the US choose to support the bloody invasion of Iran by Saddam's regime because Iran overthrow their own puppet dictator, it also choose to support islamic terrorists against secular communists in Afghanistan, it choose to support bloody tyrants in Latin America against democratically elected governments, it made its priorities sufficiently clear, just like today with this extraordinary alliance with the Saudi islamist medieval tyrants. This may be real-politics, but it also undermines all efforts to present US-policy as being in the interest of freedom, human rights and democracy and other propaganda. Very few people outside the US actually believe that kind of nonsense, even less since Bush assumed power.
But "the ennemy of my ennemy is my friend" is also a principle other countries apply, that's why Chavez visited Iran lately, why Putin arms Iran, Venezuela and Syria, why Iran (a shiite islamist regime) and Syria (a sunnite secular regime) are allies, etc. That's also the reason why the christians and Hezbollah work together in Lebanon to overthrow the mainly sunnite government.

[takeo]

Reffo

This reminds me of the saying: "Never argue with an idiot! He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience!I'm arguing with an idiot "

If you are going to use personal insults instead of arguments it is more revealing about yourself than about me.

...You don't blame them regularly enough!

Why should I, it happens regularly enough on this forum by other members, but whenever necessary I do.

Especially since by your own admission, they are not interested in peace so even if Israel does everything that people like you ask of it, Hamas will not stop what they are doing....they will continually murder Israeli civilians and try to destroy Israel!

The problem is that Israel does not what "people like me" (not to mention the UN and much of the rest of the world) ask: to stop the illegal occupation and colonisation in Westbank, Eastern Jerusalem, Golan heights and Gaza. I think Hamas will have no other choice than to recognise Israel if Israel decides to withdraw in return for peace, because no Palestinian will forgive them if they sabotage the chance for palestinians to have a real independant state, based on the UNSC resolutions. (so not some kind of partial solution such as Oslo where neither side really stick to the agreements, but a total solution such as what happened in Dayton concerning Bosnia), problem is that Israel is not willign to give up the occupied areas.

No, but Islamofascists didn't just appear spontaneously out of thin air. Before the Iraq invasion they operated elsewhere, like Bali, Niarobi, New York (9/11), Kashmir, the Balkans and lot's of other places .... So now, at least most of them congregated to Iraq and to afghanistan instead of New York and other places...

All of the perpetrators and planners of these attacks fought in Afghanistan with American taxpayers money... yes now they congregate in Iraq and Afghanistan but it doesn't mean they are not planning new attacks against the West, 2001 is only 6 years ago, the time lapse between the first WTC attack and 11/09 was 8 years... Remember the nearly successfull plans to blow up dozens of transcontinental flights with liquids some months ago, the London metro attacks? Also all over the Middle East, not just in Iraq, terrorist acts multiplied, a well as in India, Turkey, Pakistan, etc. Of course nothing compares to Iraq, where the Americans created a huge new opportunity for terrorists to congregate and multiply. Neighbouring countries are extremely worried about the violence spilling over the border, that's one of the reasons Iran and Syria, not exactly US' best friends, cooperate with the US and international community to find a solution for the Iraqi war.

Most of them are not quite as bad as Saddam.

You mean that a situation were 1000's of civilians a die get killed and many others displaced is not worse than the situation before 2003? Also I doubt if the current government is any better than Saddam's. They have their own militia and deathsquads, and worse they enforce the Shariah, which never existed under Saddam, no Iraqi woman these days will try to leave the house without a scarve at least, which was normal under Saddam, and even men who shave their beards get killed. Under Saddam as long as you didn't involve in politics you could live your life. Of course life was not good, especially as a consequence of the embargo, but now it's worse. Let me also point out that the US and GB wanted to continue this embargo which harmed the Iraqi people, not the regime, despite growing resistance from other UNSC-members.

But even if they were, idiots like you would be the first to scream if the USA would attempt to remove them from power. Like you have been screaming ever since the USA at least did one thing right with Saddam, even if a bit belatedly....

What you don't understand is that it's not upon the US to remove a regime, but upon his own people, whenever possible. Foreign intervention always lead to war and bloodshet, and is only advisable in extreme situations such as a genocide going on on when the country attacks neighbouring countries. (which wasn't the case in 2003). What's more the US didn't remove Saddam because he was a dictator (there are plenty of them, some worse than Saddam and US-supported such as Saudi Arabia) but because he didn't fit in their geo-political plans for the Middle East. The US didn't do the right thing to remove Saddam in 2003, it was seen as a foreign aggression even by the people who disliked Saddam the most and suffered under his regime such as the shiites or Iran. They could have supported the shiite uprising in 1991, that would not have been considered a foreign aggression, but didn't since that would have brought a pro-Iranian regime to power. In 2003 they had no reason or right whatsoever to invade Iraq.
In the Arab world less than 1% supported this war according to polls, and worst of all it was legitimised by referring to blatant lies. (because they lacked any other legal argument to start this war)

No one would have agreed with you if the Iraqis would have grabbed the golden opportunity that was handed to them to create a paradise (like Germany and Japan did after WW2) out of the ruins that Saddam left them.

A golden opportunity to get colonised by the Bremer administration or corrupted US-puppets such as Alawi? Get real please...
The comparison with Germany and Japan is misleading since those countries started the war, they were not colonised but occupied when they lost the war they started themselves. That changed the perception of Japanese and Germans, who understood their regimes were responsible for the war. Also the US offered Japan and Germany a lot of money to become again industrial superpowers, while in Iraq it was clear since day one they would use Iraq as a base to controll the strategic reserves of the middle East. Another difference is that the war against Japan and Germany was supported by almost the entire world, while the war against Iraq was highly controversial and based on lies.






.

[takeo]

As it is, unfortunately many misguided people will agree with you, not me.

Few people in the US agreed with me in 2003, misleaded as they were by the US-lies and propaganda, but now that the facts have been revealed they changed their opinion.

And no doubt you are happy about that even though it means misery for the Iraqi people.

Let me say I've made some friends while I visited Iraq and I don't know at all what happened to them, I'm not happy at all about that or the terrible situation in Iraq. This misery however was inflicted on the Iraqi people by the people who initiated this war. On the other hand, as bad as the situaiton might be, it might have been worse if the war would have been less of a disaster, because in that case the extremists in the White House would have expanded the war to Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and many other countries, maybe even China or Russia some day, causing a nuclear war. At least one positive consequence, good for the world but at the expense of the Iraqi people, is that interventionists, bloodthursty warmongerers and hawks in the US have faded, Rumsfeld has disappeared, and Cheney lost lots of power, Condo has changed course and old-style republicans such as Baker have gained influence.

But you don't care about that, all you care about is that the USA (Bush) has egg on his face, that's the only thing that counts for idiots like you!

No, it's not the only thing that counts, actually I like Bush, his personal style, he's much less of a hypocrite than Clinton was (I got sick by his constant reference to human rights etc. to defend a policy which was as much realpolitics as the current one), and under Bush the US-influence and image in the world suffered badly.

You do, whether you admit it to yourself or not, the effect is the same because you are against confronting the Islamofascists with the only thing that they understand and respect, FORCE!

I think we should confront islamofascists in different ways. By violence and imposing your rule in the middle East you're not going to achieve anything (the Soviets already knew that), that's exactly what these people want, it proves their theory about the evil West, crusades and other nonsense, you can combat them by other means, for example supporting more secular countries with advantageous trade agreements, than the people will see life in a secular neighbouring country is better than in an islamist one, and will start to oppose the regime. "Islamofascists" are good at fighting but bad at governing, as the Saudi's and Iranians (and now also the palestinians) have experienced. Sooner or later their own people will turn against them, as will undoubtly happen in SA or Iran one day. But the US does exactly the opposite, they attack the secular regimes and support the most dangerous "islamofascist" regime in more than one way.

Yes I do! They look for signs of discord in the west, they look for weakness, their morale rises when they see 100,000 misguided and well meaning people marching against Bush in the streets. It spurs them on to create more anarchy, death and destruction and they rely on idiots like you to create political opposition against the war in the west, so that the west eventually loses heart, gives up and hands control over to the Jihadis. In this way, they win wars that otherwise they wouldn't ever have a chance of winning....

This is incredible nonsense. Most islamists couldn't care less about the opinion in the West, if not they would not kill or abduct people from neutral countries like France or Norway all over the islamic world (not long ago in SA), they wouldn't blow up dancings full of innocent young people.
Leftists and people opposed to the Bush-war for exactly the reasons I explained to you above (because this war actually helps the terrorists to achieve their goals!) had no influence whatsoever on the decisionmaking proces so it's really one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard to accuse them of the total mess in Iraq! Islamists and the Bush-regime have a lot of secret shared interests, as the alliance with sA demonstrates. 11/9 gave a great boost to the Bush-administration, and it gave them the opportunity to prepare the public opinion for wars against longstanding ennemies like Iraq. I'm not saying that the Bush-administration knew about 11/9, but there is no doubt it facilitated a neo-con interventionist agenda which existed well before 11/9/01. The other way around the Bush-policy gave a great boost to extremists in the Arab world, and less opportunity for moderates and secularists.

Yep, the moderate ones who will be suppressed by your Mullah buddies forever. Especially once they will be allowed to develop their cherished bomb with the help of idiots like you who oppose even sanctions let alone something more effective ...

Sanctions will only enhance the position of the radicals, who will than be able to blame all the problems on the great and little Satan, it will isolate and impoverish Iran wich will weaken the moderates and strenghten the hardliners, exactly as happened in Cuba. Another example is China, once the West changed policy China became a trade-partner rather than an ennemy. In Iran currently the opposition against the regime is very strong and even from within the regime there is dissatisfaction. But if faced by foreign aggression I can garantee you that all Iranians, who are fierce nationalists, will close their ranks and fight the invader. Iran is much stronger than Iraq and I'm very convinced that a war against Iran would make the war in Iraq look like a sunday afternoon picnick... (not to mention the fact that the shiites in Iraq will support Iran not the US... so that means the US-troops would be attacked by both shiites and sunnites in Iraq...) Also such a war would create a warzone from Afganistan to Iraq and possibly even to palestine and Lebanon, the ideal situation for islamists and extremists to blossom and for hate to rule the hearts. This is absolute madness and I think even the Bush-administration understands this and is quietly changing its policy.

When are you going to learn to live in the REAL WORLD takeo? The world already made it's mistake with Pakistan, they have the bomb, the horse has bolted......

But nothing happened, on the contrary this lead to a detente between India and Pakistan who now both understand it would be madness to attack eachother. A nuclear Iran wouldn't be much different.

But there would still be a chance to stop repeating the same mistake with Iran. And your logic is? "Pakistan has it, why should we stop Iran? Right Takeo?

We should stop Iran, but not by threatening with force, that will only cause the regime to fasten up the process and devellop nukes as an ultimate security garantee (as Noth Korea succesfully did). We can stop it by diplomacy, security garantees and cooperation as in the case of Libia.

[Reffo]

All of the above nonsense by Takeo amounts to the following:

Reward negative behaviour (of either secularists like Saddam or religious nuts like Iran) by appeasing them, supporting them economically and boosting them up. Takeo's theory being that eventually the tyrants will be toppled from within.

Personally, I don't understand such woodoo like mumbo jumbo. My simple brain tells me that if we help them create the good life, it will boost those regimes because they'll claim credit for it. And it will help them export their revolutions, because others will want a piece of the good life that they would seem to be able to offer.

Now compare that to a properly executed campaign fought with sufficient stamina. To my mind, even though the first nut (Iraq) maybe a bit harder to crack, subsequent tyrants will take note and they will tow the line. And Takeo, there probably wouldn't even be the need to attack them because they would take heed from what happened to Saddam and his regime.

But unfortunately, leftists like Takeo were (and are) petrified of such a prospect. And that's why they sabotaged the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, their relentless propaganda on the home front, bore fruit for them.... But in the process, they made the world a far more hazardous place.

Takeo just about admits that my analysis is correct here:

And no doubt you are happy about that even though it means misery for the Iraqi people.

Let me say I've made some friends while I visited Iraq and I don't know at all what happened to them, I'm not happy at all about that or the terrible situation in Iraq. This misery however was inflicted on the Iraqi people by the people who initiated this war. On the other hand, as bad as the situaiton might be, it might have been worse if the war would have been less of a disaster, because in that case the extremists in the White House would have expanded the war to Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and many other countries, maybe even China or Russia some day, causing a nuclear war. At least one positive consequence, good for the world but at the expense of the Iraqi people, is that interventionists, bloodthursty warmongerers and hawks in the US have faded, Rumsfeld has disappeared, and Cheney lost lots of power, Condo has changed course and old-style republicans such as Baker have gained influence.

[Illuminatus]

Unfortunately, their relentless propaganda on the home front, bore fruit for them....

I'm not so sure -- alot of bad news for Saddamites is developing. There's been a dramatic drop in al-Qaeda bombings & sectarian killings in the past few weeks. Meanwhile the vast majority of the Iraq's 6 million children are peacefully going to school and now this:

IRAQIS - LIFE IS GETTING BETTER: Most Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam, according to poll published Sunday...

I mean this is a devasting blow to Ba'athists and forum Sddamites. What are they going to do??? What with French suicide rates rapidly rising .... I worry for our Saddamite.

Takeo just about admits that my analysis is correct here:

I agree

[nbarzelay]

nbarzelay
Actually US congress committee which studied this subject considers it to be a fact as well... there were some small al-Quaida affiliated groups present in Kurdistan, which wasn't under Saddam's controll since the first gulf war, but even that was peanuts compared to for example Saudi Arabia.

Look, I don't quite understand how you can just outright make these false statements and attempt to get away with it. Saddam provided Iraq as a safe-haven for a multitude of terrorist organizations as well as provided weaponry, financing and training grounds for these terrorist organizations, mainly for Palestinian terrorist organizations. Whether Saddam had a hand in supporting Al-Qaida's 9/11 attack is still debateable and although preliminary findings such as the 2006 Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence, 2006 Pentagon study, 2004 CIA report, and the 2005 update of CIA report, point to no formal connections between Saddam and Al-Qaida, this only eliminates that Saddam did not formally support Al-Qaida but this doesn't mean that this eliminates Al-Qaida presence in Iraq since Zarqawi was present in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion.

Now for the other terrorist organizations that Saddam did have formal connections with:

Saddam's Iraq and Support for Terrorism

Some Undeniable Truths

Saddam's regime first and foremost was a skilled user of terrorism to intimidate Iraqis and eliminate any opponents, real and imaginary. Saddam's multiple security services succeeded in its internal goals and in eliminating its critics, defectors, and enemies abroad. The mukhabarat (secret police) state that was Iraq under Saddam was able to reach out to Iraqis in the Middle East, Europe, and the United States whom it wanted to silence. Some were murdered with thallium poison, others shot for the sin of opposing the regime or, equally risky, cheating the family in business deals. In January 1998, four Iraqi and four Egyptian businessmen were murdered in Amman probably by Iraqi mukhabarat agents. The Iraqis were believed to have been acting as agents for Saddam's oldest son Uday; the Egyptians may have been innocent visitors. That same year, an Iraqi businessman in McLean, his wife and son were murdered in their home by a visitor apparently known to the family. According to press accounts, the businessman had bragged about an important new contact, Uday.

The issue today, however, is not Baghdad's use of terrorism against its domestic opponents or business deals gone bad. It is about Saddam Husayn's use of and support for international terrorism. One of Saddam's first acts was to use the threat of international terrorism against Iraq to rally support to his regime. The Ba`thist regime began its long and cruel rule with the hanging of 12 Jews from the lampposts in Liberation Square, claiming that the Jews were plotting with the international Zionists and Israel against the new government. This focused the attention of many Iraqis on an external threat and away from what would be a long and bloody period of repression and terror as Saddam consolidated his power.

Iraq under Saddam supported international terrorist organizations to bolster Iraq's revolutionary credentials, ensure his own role as Great Arab leader, and intimidate rival governments. In examining the history, methods, and patterns of behavior of Saddam Husayn in supporting international terrorism, some "truths" stand out. Beginning in the early 1970s, Saddam provided safe haven, training, arms, and other forms of assistance to Palestinian and Arab extremists. Baghdad hosted the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), and the Hawari faction of the PLO. In addition, Baghdad created the Arab Liberation Front (ALF) as its personal surrogate in the wars against Israel. Although the ALF conducted no terrorist operations, Saddam used it in the 1970s and resurrected it again in the current Palestinian intifada as a means to recruit Palestinians and, in 2001, to win praise for offering $25,000 to the family of each Palestinian "martyred" in an Israeli attack. Some examples of Iraqi support include:

* Abu Nidal. While enjoying safe haven in Iraq, the ANO conducted a number of terrorist attacks on Jewish and Israel targets in the 1970s and 1980s, including murders at synagogues and attacks on El Al airline passengers in Turkey, Austria, Belgium, and Italy, and the hijacking of a Pan Am airliner (Pan Am 73) in Karachi, in which 22 people (2 Americans) were murdered. ANO also attacked PLO representatives in Europe, murdered Jordanian diplomats, and attempted to assassinate Israel's ambassador in London. (This attack became the cause celebre for Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982.) When ANO leader Sabri al-Banna refused to conduct operations against the Syrian regime ordered by Iraq, he was cast out of the country, only to later be allowed back. He died in August 2002 in Baghdad from 4 gunshot wounds to the head, a suicide according to Iraqi security officials. I assume Saddam had decided to remove evidence of his links to one of the most notorious of international terrorists at a time when the United States was increasing pressure on him to reveal his WMD programs and was accusing him of sponsoring al-Qaida.
* Abu Abbas. Palestinian terrorist Mahmud Abbas, known as Abu Abbas, and his organization, the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), enjoyed safe haven and support in Saddam's Iraq. Abu Abbas was responsible for the October 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly American confined to a wheelchair. In October 2000, following the outbreak of Israeli-Palestinian fighting, Abu Abbas announced from Baghdad that the PLF would resume attacks on Israel.
* Others: In the 1970s Saddam aided Palestinian radical factions that conducted terrorist operations on Israeli, Jewish, Western, and moderate Arab targets. In the 1980s, he sheltered the Kurdish anti-Turkish terrorist group, the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) at the same time he allowed Ankara hot pursuit of PKK terrorists across its border. In the 1990s, he provided safe haven and supported attacks by the leftist anti-Iranian Mujahideen-e Khalq on targets inside Iran, including rocket attacks on government office buildings in Tehran.

Finally, Saddam's mukhabarat state may have been extremely effective in cowing Iraqis and terrifying regime opponents, real and imagined. And it may have been quite effective in operations abroad against defectors and those who cheated the family of Saddam. Iraq's security services and surrogates showed little success, however, in planning or ordering operations against foreign targets. Baghdad ordered its Palestinian dependents to launch terrorist operations against the United States and its coalition partners in the fall and winter of 1990; they refused to comply. Iraq made an apparently singular effort to send terrorist teams abroad prior to the initiation of hostilities with the U.S.-led coalition in 1991; it failed. One of the Intelligence Community's reported successes in the period of Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm was the arrest of the teams on landing outside Iraq. They were caught by their fake passports, all of which were in consecutive sequence. The attempt to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush in Kuwait in April 1993 was a botched job, using apparently ill-trained operatives in an ill-planned operation.

Additionally:

Iraq ruthlessly suppressed elements of its Shia community, nearly 60 percent of the population, who were known or suspected of belonging to, harboring members, or merely sympathetic with the aims groups such as the Iraqi Islamic Amal, the Islamic Dawa Party, and the Iranian-based Supreme Council for the Islamic Republic in Iraq (SCIRI). As noted above, Saddam was willing to aid the Syrian-based Sunni Islamic Muslim Brotherhood organization as a tool to attack Hafiz al-Asad, but he would not permit an Iraqi chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood to thrive.

Really interesting article, worth a full-read.

[nbarzelay]

According to the US congress committee Al-Quaida wasn't present in Saddam's Iraq. Also most other islamist (both shiite and sunnite) groups were heavily oppressed by the Baath-regime and didn't stand a chance as long as Saddam remained in power. Of course the US-intervention changed all that and proved to be a God's gift for those islamists, not only in Iraq but all over the Middle East. This is a fact even you can hardly denie, as much as you would want to, it is the ultimate proof of the failure of the neo-con policy.

I disproved this already with my previous post. Al-Qaida was present in Iraq prior to 2003. The US congressional, senate, FBI, CIA, etc. investigations proved only that Saddam didn't support Al-Qaida formally. These investigations actually affirmed the presence of Al-Qaida within Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion and even affirmed Bush's allegation that Zarqawi was present in Iraq prior to 2003, but Saddam's support for him and Al-Qaida was denied.

Hopefully you can see the difference between existing in a certain place and receiving support from the ruling party in this certain place.

Iran of course supported their own friends which are now in the Iraqi government, but weirdly enough the US protected the same people, since they couldn't afford to alienate the shiites faced by a huge sunnite ressurrection. It was clear long before the start of this war that Iran and the shiites would benefit from it, and that's what I said on this forum before the start of the war as well, the only real and credible opposition against Saddam were the shiites.(besides the Kurds of course). Syria and Jordan didn't benefit from this war, they now had to take million of Iraqi refugees who fled the violence in Iraq, nearly all Iraqi christians fled to Syria. There is evidence that Saudi Arabia supports extremist sunnite groups in Iraq, as usual mainly trough the islamic medreses they finance all over sunnite parts of Iraq. (which was not allowed during Saddam's rule)

So now you are admitting that Iran supported miltant/terrorist organizations within Iraq. Finally some progress. You can now see that Iran was given the opportunity for free-reign over these organizations already present in Iraq prior to 2003 unabated by Saddam following his downfall. But I guess you would've picked Saddam and the continuance of his oppressive regime over Iran's support of Shias killing Sunnis and Saudi Arabia/etc. support of Sunnis killing Shias.

The US didn't create this problem, it was already present. You finally get this?

The US supported Saddam so that Saddam could do the dirty work against a common enemy. Do you think this method is employed solely by the US? Do you actually propose that this is something new?

It's not new of course, but US-invasion led to the current civil war, which wouldn't have erupted without US-invasion. Iraq lived in peace since 1992 (apart from the occasional US-Brittish raid)

Let me see, in 2003 there was no war in Iraq, since 2004 a civil war erupted in Iraq. The US invaded Iraq in 2003... purely coincidence I assume?????

Iraq lived in peace? You got to be kidding me. Iraqis have shown their support for the removal of Saddam and feel that they finally have a chance to live a normal life (as Illuminatus has provided evidence for).

There was oppression in Iraq prior to 2003. Provide some evidence that this wasn't so since I've provided plenty of evidence stating the contrary. Saddam was at war with his own people. Whoever opposed him was jailed, tortured, and/or killed. So please explain these disappearances and the discovery of hundreds of mass-grave sites uncovered following the 2003 invasion.

These lame post-hoc arguments of yours don't float, so finally give up with this rubbish, or better yet, go on another vacation.

Yes, the US choose to support the bloody invasion of Iran by Saddam's regime because Iran overthrow their own puppet dictator, it also choose to support islamic terrorists against secular communists in Afghanistan, it choose to support bloody tyrants in Latin America against democratically elected governments, it made its priorities sufficiently clear, just like today with this extraordinary alliance with the Saudi islamist medieval tyrants. This may be real-politics, but it also undermines all efforts to present US-policy as being in the interest of freedom, human rights and democracy and other propaganda. Very few people outside the US actually believe that kind of nonsense, even less since Bush assumed power.
But "the ennemy of my ennemy is my friend" is also a principle other countries apply, that's why Chavez visited Iran lately, why Putin arms Iran, Venezuela and Syria, why Iran (a shiite islamist regime) and Syria (a sunnite secular regime) are allies, etc. That's also the reason why the christians and Hezbollah work together in Lebanon to overthrow the mainly sunnite government.

So you finally understand this concept. However, Chavez and Putin only care for their profit-margins and staying in power. Or perhaps, do you support these oppressive regimes as you do Saddam. There will be no end to the secular infighting between Muslims until Sunnis and Shias disappear. Sunnis are winning by overwhelming number, but don't count the Shias out just yet. More bloodshed to come.

[Reffo]

I'm not so sure -- alot of bad news for Saddamites is developing. There's been a dramatic drop in al-Qaeda bombings & sectarian killings in the past few weeks. Meanwhile the vast majority of the Iraq's 6 million children are peacefully going to school and now this:

IRAQIS - LIFE IS GETTING BETTER: Most Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam, according to poll published Sunday...

I mean this is a devasting blow to Ba'athists and forum Sddamites. What are they going to do??? What with French suicide rates rapidly rising .... I worry for our Saddamite.

Yes, perhaps I was a tad pessimistic, I too have been hearing some positive news from Iraq lately but I still think it's an uphill battle. I don't mean militarily! I mean from the propaganda point of view. Unfortunately the Takeo types seem to be getting more numerous on the home front and they have been gaining ground politically. And as he says, their greatest fear is that the Iraq venture would turn out to be a success after all. They will do anything to sabotage that and they will use any bit of bad news to agitate to bring the troops home. Of course it's easy for the Jihadis to oblige them with bad news! All they have to do is to find some easy civilian targets and blow some people up and voila, there is some bad news for any leftist or rightist antiwar newpapers to lap up and dish out to their gullible public. And if the news are not bad enough, never mind, those types of newspapers will gladly embilish it, no qualms about it....

So Lumi, that's why I am a tad pessimistic. Those of us who want the war to bear fruit and see democracy in Iraq flourish, see a good life for Iraqi people without the Baathists and with economic prosperity, have the harder job. It's always harder to build than to destroy and all the Jihadis and their so called "antiwar" leftist (mostly) buddies need to do is to destroy. The Jihadis actually destroy people, while their leftist buddies destroy the morale of the west's home front ......

[Reffo]

you can combat them by other means, for example supporting more secular countries with advantageous trade agreements

Which secular countries Takeo??? Syria? They use terrorism and support Hezbollah! Egypt? You'd hardly call them a democracy but in any case they are already being supported by the USA, to the tune of billions of Dollars. I suppose I could see some merit in supporting Jordan, but again they are being supported. Ditto Lebanon. Saudi Arabia? Nah...even you wouldn't advocate that and in any case, they are rich enough already! Ditto the Gulf states.

Now you see Takeo? Your idea has already been implemented and tried but I haven't seen momentous improvements in the Middle East. Now, on the other hand, toppling the tyrant, Saddam was definitely something that hasn't been tried recently and the idea was both good and morally justifiable. I wouldn't disagree though that the execution of that idea could have been improved .....

[takeo]

Reffo

Which secular countries Takeo??? Syria? They use terrorism and support Hezbollah!

They support Hezbollah in response to Israeli occupation of a part of their country(which is an act of war), it would be easy enough to stop Syrian support for Hezbollah and Syrian recognition of Israel in return for the Golan heights, which belong to Syria anyway. Negotiations have been going on secretly by the way and Syria has already stated several times it is ready to to so. Syria is the most secular country in the Middle East and the country where the christian minority enjoys the best protection, it is also, together with countries such as Lebanon and Tunisia, one of the most progressive Arab countries in such fields as gender equality, education, religious freedom etc. Of course it's a dictatorship, but so are all the Arab countries minus Lebanon.

Egypt? You'd hardly call them a democracy but in any case they are already being supported by the USA, to the tune of billions of Dollars.

Egypt is a corrupted hellhole where christians are discriminated (anyone converting to christianity gets tortured), most of the population lives in abject poverty and where the religious leaders influence the laws. It is an extremely backwards country and extremely corrupted, also it is one of the coutries where islamists have the largest support. I don't know what happens to all those billions in any case it's not going to devellopment. Also I never said the West should support a dictator with billions and military training, just sign favorable trade agreements, to help to devellop those countries. (as the EU did with countries such as Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria, as well as with Ukraine, Georgia, etc.)

I suppose I could see some merit in supporting Jordan, but again they are being supported.

another corrupted dictatorship, and once again the us does much more than favorable trade agreements but directly and militarily supports this hugely impopular regime. This is of course not what I meant. The US on the one hand wants to bomb or embargo countries because they are dictatorships but on the other hand supports some of the worst dictatorships with direct military and financial help. This position is not based on anthing else than geopolitical interests and not on freedom, democracy etc.

Ditto Lebanon.

Lebanon turned against the US during the latest war when it became clear the us was behind the Israeli destruction campaign. Also the opposition is ready to bring down the current government, which mismanaged the afterwar reconstruction.

Saudi Arabia? Nah...even you wouldn't advocate that and in any case, they are rich enough already! Ditto the Gulf states.

Why don't you say "The US already supports them" because that is obviously the case, not financially, but by directly supporting the regime, which is also a personal favorite and business partner of the Bush family. You are aware of that and each time I mention this you ignore it, I think there's a weak point in your rethorics. Also of course SA isn't a secular country, actually it's the least secular country in the entire middle East, and probably on earth, since the Taliban tumbled down. Even Iran is much more secular than SA, in SA women can't drive, can't leave the street without a hijab or an accompanying family member, can't talk to men, can't work (in Iran there are even female ministers and parliament members, feminist marches and most women are employed, women are very visible in the streets altough they are legally required to cover their heads, in Iran there are media openly criticising the president, in SA that would be equal to a death sentence), it's also one of the most repressive medieval and corrupted regimes which supports terrorism, actually the regime's ideology is also the religion of Al-Quaida (most of whom are Saudi's, some with links to the royal family) and the taliban, and the extremist Koran schools Saudi Arabia finances all over the islamic world are the main reason for radicalisation and a terrorist facotry in many countries. Of course you will try to ignore these facts, but I won't allow you to do so, this fact alone undermines your entire hypocritical rethorics. The US defies secular countries like Iraq and Syria but directly supports the worst most islamist and most repressive regime in the Arab world. The US isn't interested in a secular, progressive or democratic Arab world, it just wants cheap oil and reliable business partners.

Now you see Takeo? Your idea has already been implemented and tried but I haven't seen momentous improvements in the Middle East.

Yes, and with succes, look at Libia. Your ideas have been implemented as well, in Iraq, and we all know the catastrophic results...

Now, on the other hand, toppling the tyrant, Saddam was definitely something that hasn't been tried recently and the idea was both good and morally justifiable.

Why don't you first stop support for even worse tyrants such as SA before causing a very bloody war to topple another dictator? Everyone in the Middle East asks this logical question, and most people know the answer, SA fits in the US geo-economical interests, Saddam, which was going to sign huge contracts with Russian, French and Chinese companies once the embargo lifted, didn't.
Also, reversing a regime without any legal reason has already been tried several times in Latin America, where the US usually reverses democratically elected presidents in favor for military tyrants. In the middle East it has been tried as well, in Iran in the 50's the US and GB toppled the government which was going to nationalise the oil companies and they installed a puppet tyrant, this provoked so much anger in Iran and hate against the West, which led ultimately to the Ayatollah revolution. As in Iraq foreign intervention in the politics of another country had negative consequences and only inhanced extremism.
Morally justifiable to invade another country without UN-consent and based on lies, morally justifiable to plunge a country in a bloody civil war? My @$$$$$

[takeo]

Yes, perhaps I was a tad pessimistic, I too have been hearing some positive news from Iraq lately but I still think it's an uphill battle. I don't mean militarily! I mean from the propaganda point of view. Unfortunately the Takeo types seem to be getting more numerous on the home front and they have been gaining ground politically. And as he says, their greatest fear is that the Iraq venture would turn out to be a success after all. They will do anything to sabotage that and they will use any bit of bad news to agitate to bring the troops home. Of course it's easy for the Jihadis to oblige them with bad news! All they have to do is to find some easy civilian targets and blow some people up and voila, there is some bad news for any leftist or rightist antiwar newpapers to lap up and dish out to their gullible public. And if the news are not bad enough, never mind, those types of newspapers will gladly embilish it, no qualms about it....

So Lumi, that's why I am a tad pessimistic. Those of us who want the war to bear fruit and see democracy in Iraq flourish, see a good life for Iraqi people without the Baathists and with economic prosperity, have the harder job. It's always harder to build than to destroy and all the Jihadis and their so called "antiwar" leftist (mostly) buddies need to do is to destroy. The Jihadis actually destroy people, while their leftist buddies destroy the morale of the west's home front ......

As usual the sources of illumi are not neutral ones, he's been saying, as the White House, that things in Iraq go as planned since 2003. It's true that some indices have improved, at least in parts of the country such as the shiite south and especially in Kurdistan. Because the embargo was lifted, mobile phones and cars are now much cheaper than before the war, however other things such as education, medical service have deteriorated. But still many people struggle to survive, that's why millions fled the country.


I have a few other polls, conducted by scientific institutions:

The percentage of Iraqis who said they would not want to have Americans as neighbors rose from 87 percent in 2004 to 90 percent in 2006. When asked what they thought were the three main reasons why the United States invaded Iraq, 76 percent gave "to control Iraqi oil" as their first choice.

Along with an increase in xenophobia, the survey found a growing sense of powerlessness, pessimism about the future and insecurity. Among Iraqis as a whole, 59 percent of those surveyed in 2006 strongly agreed with the following statement: "In Iraq these days life is unpredictable and dangerous." That compares to 46 percent who strongly agreed in 2004.

http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html...Jun06/r061406a

Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.

The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.


Andrew Robathan: Government policy 'disastrous'
It demonstrates for the first time the true strength of anti-Western feeling in Iraq after more than two and a half years of bloody occupation.

The nationwide survey also suggests that the coalition has lost the battle to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, which Tony Blair and George W Bush believed was fundamental to creating a safe and secure country.

82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html
(btw this latest opinion poll conducted in the shiite south only, in sunnite areas hate against coalition troops is almost 100%.)

More ominously, more Shias approve of attacks on U.S. forces, up from 41 percent to 62 percent. Nine out of ten Shias (91%) have little or no confidence in U.S. forces—making them nearly as unhappy with the U.S. military as the Sunnis (98% little or no confidence).

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...nt=276&lb=brme

As much as Iraqi's agree that foreign troops are legitimate targets and that Americans invaded the country to grap the oil there are huge differences concerning the removal of Saddam Houssein, considered positive by shiites and Kurds and negative by nearly all sunnites.

Perhaps most significant, 92 percent of Sunnis said they do not believe the new Parliament will be the legitimate representative of the Iraqi people. This is in sharp contrast to 90 percent of Shia and 81 percent of Kurds who said that the new Parliament will be legitimate.

A very large majority even express regret that Saddam Hussein was removed. Asked whether the ousting of Saddam was worth the hardships suffered as a result, 83 percent of Sunnis said it was not worth it. This is in stark contrast to the mere 2 percent of Shia and 8 percent of Kurds who said they feel that way.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...nt=174&lb=brme

Also do you really think that the current Iraqi government will be loyal to the US and not to Iran? Dream on:

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq on Wednesday forcefully denounced the Israeli attacks on Lebanon, marking a sharp break with President Bush’s position and highlighting the growing power of a Shiite Muslim identity across the Middle East.
The comments by Mr. Maliki, a Shiite Arab whose party has close ties to Iran, were noticeably stronger than those made by Sunni Arab governments in recent days. Those governments have refused to take an unequivocal stand on Lebanon, reflecting their concern about the growing influence of Iran, which has a Shiite majority and has been accused by Israel of providing weapons to Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militant group.

A growing number of Iraqi officials have stepped forward in recent days to condemn Israel. On Sunday, in a rare show of unity, the 275-member Parliament issued a statement calling the Israeli strikes an act of “criminal aggression.” The militant Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, whose followers play a crucial role in the government, said last Friday that Iraqis would not “sit by with folded hands” while the violence in Lebanon raged.

In recent days, residents of some cities in the Shiite heartland of southern Iraq, including Kut and Basra, have taken to the streets to protest Israel’s strikes.

The Israeli assault is bringing to the fore one of the unintended consequences of the American war here — the potential for what many analysts call a Shiite crescent stretching from Iran to Iraq to Lebanon. It is a phenomenon that could rewrite the political map of the Middle East, with Sunni Arab countries drawing together to oppose Shiite dominance. The lukewarm responses from Sunni countries during the Lebanon conflict, in contrast to the statements from Mr. Maliki and other Shiite leaders, are the latest manifestation of the divide.

Top Shiite politicians in Iraq have myriad connections to Iran. Many officials in Mr. Maliki’s political group, the Islamic Dawa Party, fled into exile there to escape the brutal persecution of Saddam Hussein. Mr. Maliki also has other ties to pro-Hezbollah leaders in the region. He spent most of his 23 years in exile in Syria, where he ran the Damascus branch of the Dawa party. Syria supports Hezbollah and Hamas, the militant group that now leads the Palestinian government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/20/wo...rssnyt&emc=rss

[takeo]

nbarzelay

Look, I don't quite understand how you can just outright make these false statements and attempt to get away with it. Saddam provided Iraq as a safe-haven for a multitude of terrorist organizations as well as provided weaponry, financing and training grounds for these terrorist organizations, mainly for Palestinian terrorist organizations.

Saddam supported a few palestinian resistance organisations, as do most other Arab countries including your ally Saudi Arabia. Saddam also supported an Iranian communist terrorist organisation, which wants to overthrow the Ayatollah regime. The Bremer-administration has allowed them to stay in Iraq but the shiite government wants to oust them.

Whether Saddam had a hand in supporting Al-Qaida's 9/11 attack is still debateable and although preliminary findings such as the 2006 Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence, 2006 Pentagon study, 2004 CIA report, and the 2005 update of CIA report, point to no formal connections between Saddam and Al-Qaida, this only eliminates that Saddam did not formally support Al-Qaida but this doesn't mean that this eliminates Al-Qaida presence in Iraq since Zarqawi was present in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion.

so at least you agree Saddam didn't support Al-quaida and that this could never have been a legitimation for removing Saddam, as much as the Bush-administration tried to link him to 11/09. Terrorist groups linked to al-quaida were present in Iraq, but not in the part of Iraq controlled by Saddam, but in the kurdish north, so STOP LYING!

[Reffo]

you can combat them by other means, for example supporting more secular countries with advantageous trade agreements

Which secular countries Takeo??? Syria? They use terrorism and support Hezbollah! Egypt? You'd hardly call them a democracy but in any case they are already being supported by the USA, to the tune of billions of Dollars. I suppose I could see some merit in supporting Jordan, but again they are being supported. Ditto Lebanon. Saudi Arabia? Nah...even you wouldn't advocate that and in any case, they are rich enough already! Ditto the Gulf states.

And Takeo's recommendations? Drum roll .......

Syria and Libya, the epitomes of enlightenment, progressiveness and democracy (NOT)!!!!!!

Is that the best you could come up with????? What a surprise

[takeo]

Reffo

Reward negative behaviour (of either secularists like Saddam or religious nuts like Iran) by appeasing them, supporting them economically and boosting them up.

As opposed to rewarding oppressive terrorist-supporting medieval dictatorship with sophisticated weapons and an exclusive alliance...
Not appeasing these regimes like the us does by giving them weapons and military training, just trading with them.

Takeo's theory being that eventually the tyrants will be toppled from within.

That's right and that's the only right way to topple tyrants, foreign intervention always leads to complication and more bloodshet. If a dictator is hated sooner or later some of his loyals will defect and his regime will tumble down, I expect this to happen in Iran within the coming years, as well as in Egypt, or in Zimbabwe. That's the way the shah-regime was eliminated, what happened in Yugoslavia or Ukraine, in many Arab countries in the 50's and 60's, or in several Latin and African countries. Of course when tyrants are toppled by his own people you have no controll over the outcome, since it's the people who decides and not the US, and that's probably what worries you and why the us refused to support the shiite uprising against Saddam.

Personally, I don't understand such woodoo like mumbo jumbo. My simple brain tells me that if we help them create the good life, it will boost those regimes because they'll claim credit for it.

That's not the way it works, your simple brains are perhaps unfit to understand complicated politics. If they have a better life, good education, they will question the regime's legitimacy as happened in Spain, Portugal and Greece. Poor uneducated peasants people are not into politics usually and can be easily manipulated or frightened. Also, if the regime really provides a better life, like in China, it will indeed, and rightfully, take credit for it, and there's nothing wrong with that, except maybe from US' geo-political point of view. But trade alone will not improve life if the regime is bad, the only difference is that in that case they can not blame outside interference for the foes of their country, as Saddam easily could, since the embargo was in place. Also, if the regimes devellop the economic and social level, oppressive social and religious habits disappear on the countryside and this may be a bad evolution for theocratic regimes such as the Iranian one.

And it will help them export their revolutions, because others will want a piece of the good life that they would seem to be able to offer.

Well if it really improves life, than I see no reason why they shouldn't export that revolution. However, the Iranian regime proved to be economically incapable and corrupted (maybe less so than many Arab regimes, but still far from examplary and behind the expectations of Iranians), and economic sanctions would make it easy to blame the West, while nowadays people blame the government. Perhaps it can be exported to Iraq, because of the shiite majority there and internal dynamics in Iraq but certainly not because of the Iranian economic successtory, the time Iran was an example for the whole muslim world are long over.
Another example is Cuba, Castro could blame all the failures on the American embargo, sometimes rightfully so, sometimes not, that's the reason Cuba is still an ideal for many oppressed Latin-Americans and even for many Cubans, despite the fact that Cuba didn't really proove to be an economic successtory.(of course it's better in some fields such as education, healthcare, etc. compared to most neighbouring countries, but it's not really a wealthy paradise either)

Now compare that to a properly executed campaign fought with sufficient stamina.

Yes, we've all seen to what this amounts. No, thanks...

To my mind, even though the first nut (Iraq) maybe a bit harder to crack

that's a bit of an understatement, Iraq is ruled by islamist militia's, over 100000 Iraqi's and over 3000 Americans lost their life, many millions have been displaced, and nothing has been achieved.

, subsequent tyrants will take note and they will tow the line.

Really? All I can see is that since Iraq both Iran and North-Korea don't care anymore about foreign pressure and go ahead with their nuclear program, also Russia has been increasingly hostile to the US, while freedom in the Arab world diminushed according to house of freedom.

And Takeo, there probably wouldn't even be the need to attack them because they would take heed from what happened to Saddam and his regime.

exactly the inverse happened, North Korea and Iran have never been as defiant.

But unfortunately, leftists like Takeo were (and are) petrified of such a prospect. And that's why they sabotaged the war in Iraq.

Thank you for the credit, but you are utterly insane if you think the failure is due to the "leftist" subversive opposition to this war based on lies. (anyway what about free speech, or do you want to abolish that as well?) That is an insane and ridiculous lie because you are desperate now that intervensionism and neo-conservatism proved not to work. Even the american people are turning their backs at it and if you believe that's because of "leftist subversive propaganda" and not because of the WMD-lies and the total disaster, it just shows how desperate you are in denying reality. The war was due to become a disaster since the very beginning, only the Bush-administration can take credit for the disasterous results, that's why ultimately Bush had to sack Rumfsfeld.

Unfortunately, their relentless propaganda on the home front, bore fruit for them.... But in the process, they made the world a far more hazardous place.

On the contrary, if there would have been more opposition to this war it would never have happened and Iraq wouldn't be turned into the terrorist heaven it is now. Likewise in Vietnam, because of millions of courageous people protesting against this other insane carnage and warcrimes the US withdrew, since there is peace is South-East-Asia, no more people are dying there and the country is devellopping at a fast pace.

[takeo]

And Takeo's recommendations? Drum roll .......

Syria and Libya, the epitomes of enlightenment, progressiveness and democracy (NOT)!!!!!!

Is that the best you could come up with????? What a surprise

Compared to your Saudi or Egyptian buddies, yes! (of course that doesn't mean Syrian or Libian regimes are ok, but still better than your Suaid, Pakistanese, etc. friends...)