If Islamic fundamentalism is the gasoline of world peace, Christian fundamentalism is the match that will ignite it. Both see themselves as having a divine calling and a mandate to spread their particular world view. Ultimately when enough blood is shed and events evolve, the more rational element of both great relgions will say "enough" and a meaningful reconciliation will begin. Recall the Catholic church over twenty years ago acknowledged the legitimacy of Islam but couldn't quite go so far as to accept that Muslims are "saved" unless they acknowledge and accept Jesus. Funny thing, Muslims do. They just don't do the literal take on the term "son of God".
The yanks use the excuse of being a liberator to persue their own selfish needs, and that of Israel.
Iraq has sponsered Palestinian terrorism for years through oil profits, so Israel has finally pushed America into relighting the conflict in Iraq. I strongly doubt America would have even bothered to go on a 'liberating' mission in Iraq without pressure from another party.
Many other places in the World are living under the clutches of an evil dictator yet I doubt Coalition forces will help those people out. By attacking Iraq however, they have full control over all future issues regarding oil therefor Israel has less problems to deal with in Palestine.
I'd like to see America try to liberate North Korea.
In many cases, our choice of who to support politically consists in chosing the least of several evils, and you should know that. We have supported not only the Shah, but we supported Ferdinand Marcos, Manuel Noriega, Nuygen Cao Chi, and other unsavory characters. They just happened to be the most savory at the moment. We supported Saddam Hussein at first because he was fighting a war with Iran, one of the great centers of state-supported terrorism.
the examples i listed invalidate that assumption. therefore they are not irrelevant to the topic.
although I don't believe we in any way supported Pol Pot. And we are directly responsible for Pinochet and the Shah.
than i think you should read up on the topics. the CIA was directly involved in the killing of mossadeq and the installation of the shah. Same is true for the overthrow of Allende. and the US supported pol pot since he faught against the vietnamese. in all these cases the guy selected by the US was way worse than the opposer.
and these are BY FAR not the only examples! the history of central and south america is full of "BENEVOLENT" US interventions! have you looked at the history of haiti for instance?
the US is responsible for so much BS that its hard to comprehend. therefore it is rediculous to believe the US gov. is good hearted.
""than i think you should read up on the topics. the CIA was directly involved in the killing of mossadeq and the installation of the shah. Same is true for the overthrow of Allende. and the US supported pol pot since he faught against the vietnamese. in all these cases the guy selected by the US was way worse than the opposer.""
What an unbalanced consideration of the facts. Points to consider: What was the USSR’s activities in the cases you cited? Mossadeq was a Militant puppet of the USSR and obtained his power the same way the Shah did. So what? The question is, who did the most good? Ask any Iranian, and they will take the Shah!
You also give no alternative to the US backed leaders. The replacements have proven to be worse than what the US backed!
Someone needs a history lesson all right!
I offer this news report as another persepctive on the situation in Iraq. It does not neccessarily represent my own views which have already been overstated on this topic...lol
"US Forces Encourage Looting" By Ole Rothenborg - Translated article from Sweden's largest circulation daily, Dagens Nyheter, Saturday April 11, 2003
Malmoe. Khaled Bayomi looks a bit surprised when he looks at the American officer on TV regret that they don't have any resources to stop the looting in Baghdad. - I happened to be there just as the US forces told people to commence looting.
Khaled Bayomi departed from Malmoe to Baghdad, as a human shield, and arrived on the same day the fighting begun. About this he can tell us plenty and for a long time, but the most interesting part of his story is his witness-account about the great surge of looting now taking
place. I had visited a few friends that live in a worn-down area just beyond the Haifa Avenue, on the west bank of the Tigris River. It was April 8 and the fighting was so heavy I couldn't make it over to the other side of the river. On the afternoon it became perfectly quiet, and four American tanks pulled up in position on the outskirts of the slum area. From these tanks we heard anxious calls in Arabic, which told the population to come closer.
During the morning everybody that tried to cross the streets had been fired upon. But during this strange silence people eventually became curious. After three-quarters of an hour the first Baghdad citizens dared to come forward. At that moment the US solders shot two Sudanese guards, who were posted in front of a local administrative building, on the other side of the Haifa Avenue. - I was just 300 meters away when the guards where murdered. Then they shot the building entrance to pieces, and their Arabic translators in the tanks told people to run for grabs inside the building. Rumors spread rapidly and the house was cleaned out. Moments later tanks broke down the doors to the Justice Department, residing in the neighboring building, and looting was carried on to there. - I was standing in a big crowd of civilians that saw all this together with me. They did not take any part in the looting, but were too afraid to take any action against it. Many of them had tears of shame in their eyes. The next morning looting spread to the Museum of Modern Art, which
lies another 500 meters to the north. There was also two crowds in place, one that was looting and another one that disgracefully saw it happen.
Do you mean to say that it was the US troops that initiated the looting?
- Absolutely. The lack of scenes of joy had the US forces in need of images of Iraqi's who in different ways demonstrated their disgust with Saddam's regime.
But people in Baghdad tore down a big statue of Saddam?
- They did? It was a US tank that did this, close to the hotel where all the journalists live. Until noon on the 9th of April, I didn't see a single torn picture of Saddam anywhere. If people had wanted to turn over statues they could have gone for some of the many smaller ones,
without the help of an American tank. Had this been a political uproar then people would have turned over statues first and looted afterwards.
Back home in Sweden Khaled Bayomi is PhD student at the University of Lund, where he since ten years teaches and researches about conflicts in the Middle East. He is very well informed about the conflicts, as well as he is on the propaganda war.
Isn't it good that Saddam is gone?
- He is not gone. He has dissolved his army in tiny, tiny groups. This is why there never was any big battle. Saddam dissolved Iraq as a state already in 1992 and have shad a parallel tribal structure going, which since then has been altogether decisive for the country. When USA begun the war Saddam completely abandoned the state, and now depends on this
tribal structure. This is why he left the big cities without any battle.- Now USA are forced to do everything themselves, because there is no political force from within that would challenge the structure in place. The two challengers who came in from the outside were immediately lynched. Khaled Bayomi refers to what happened to general Nazar al-Khazraji, who escaped from Denmark, and Shia-muslim leader Abdul Majid al- Khoei, who both where chopped to pieces by a raging crowd in Najaf, because they where perceived to be American marionettes. According to Danish newspaper BT, al-Khazraji was picked up by the CIA in Denmark and then brought to Iraq.
- Now we have an occupying power in place in Iraq, that has not said how long they will stay, not brought forward any time-plan for civilian rule and no date for general elections. Now awaits only a big chaos.
mossadeq was supported by the large majority of the iranian population. he was friendly to the USSR but was not their puppet. he pissed off the US and britain and was removed for that reason and no other. so much for letting other countries make a free decision!
by the way...how many iranians do you know? i know 2 and they both view mossadeq in high regard.
You also give no alternative to the US backed leaders.
what do you mean? allende, mossadeq and the vietnamese were the alternatives. now are you actually telling me allende was worse than pinochet? that would take the cake.
PS: look at this article concerning mossadeq...it paints a pretty obective picture.
HS: A lot of the stories and reports we see turn out to be different to how they are first portrayed ...
I find it increbible that we can organise all the bombings and transport of arms and troops but cannot organise a bit of policing or protection of hospitals. What good-will there was is in danger of being p****d away I fear.
Maybe it would have been better if the French, Germans, and Russians had helped.
Yea, not a puppet? Supported by the National Front according to your story? I stand by my statement:
Your story does give a hint:
""As domestic conditions deteriorated, however, Mossadeq's populist style grew more autocratic. In August 1952, the Majlis acceded to his demand for full powers in all affairs of government for a six-month period. These special powers were subsequently extended for a further six-month term.""
Shades of Hitler..........Not an improvement over the Shah!