He’s referring to the Down’s Syndrome childused for a suicide bombing. No one is claiming that the mentally handicapped are terrorists - in this case, a mentally handicapped child was used by terrorists.
Woosh!
Yes, you could be. There’s not a scrap of evidence to support your assertion, and quite a lot of evidence to indicate that the neoconservatives in the Bush administration were looking for any excuse to invade Iraq specifically, but you could be right.
I remain cautiously optimistic about the result of the elections. There was less terrorist activity than I (and indeed many people) anticipated, and the turnout was relatively good under the circumstances. Although the Sunnis largely boycotted the election itself they have asked to be included in the drafting of the Constitution and early noises from the Shi’a political leaders suggest they may solicit Sunni input in the interest of mitigating future conflict. It’s a good first step.
Damn that George III anyhow. I certainly wouldn’t have voted for him.
I hear that there was some voter irregularity in Florida…
Thought I’d share something with the folks that relates to the images of Saddam’s statue being pulled down. Check this page on the National Archives website. (Click the picture lower right for a better view.) This kind of image as a propaganda piece goes way back in history. When I saw that picture in a book on the American Revolution I read some time ago, I was immediately struck by the similarity. Of course, there have been plenty of other examples in more recent history. Lots of Lenin statues came down in the former USSR a little over a decade ago.
As for the roads the US would be building except for the doings of the resistance: they are building roads, roads that lead to the multiple permanent military bases that are being built in Iraq. That says a lot more about US motivations in Iraq than anything else, though the ever-changing justifications for the invasion speak volumes, too.
Anyone who thinks the US invaded Iraq for the sake of establishing democracy or any such altruistic motive, please line up to the left with for your drug tests. And remember folks, fill that beaker to the brim…
Much sooner – so soon, in fact, that all he needed was an excuse.
Bush Planned Iraq ‘Regime Change’ Before Becoming President
US to Propose Broader Control of Iraqi Oil, Funds
Heck, if the Iraqi government actually had any power over the fate of their own nation, why didn’t they lift a finger against the perpetraitors of the Abu Girade prisoner torture scandal?
Did not mean to imply that. It was reported that one of the suicide bombers used in the election had Down’s Syndrome which means Alzacowardly took advantage of the meekest of God’s children (a new low even for him).
An apt summary:
Rjung are you kidding me? We’re supposed to take a cite which has the words ‘US imperialism’ ‘Communilism’ seriously?
Oh and this also rings bells too.
Well considering the Iraqi government doesn’t exist yet, and its own efforts to provide security to the Oil infrastructure have been somewhat lacking, where do you think they would turn to, to make sure it wouldn’t be outright destroyed? The United States of course.
Ack. If true, that IS really f’ed up. OK, I understand you POV now.
…your POV…
And why does the infra-structure need protecting? Could it be because the USA invasion destabilised the country with bombing, death, and destruction.
That is like asking the fox to protect the hen-house after it has broken in and wreaked havoc.
Iraqi militants sabotage piplines, Oil infrastructure.
Not everything is the United States fault you know, you must learn this.
Learn what?? I very much doubt that this sabotage would have taken place of the invasion had not taken place and Saddam been deposed. So it does come back to being the responsibility of the USA.
We’re 75 posts into this and no one has mentioned who is the likely winner in this election, aside from a couple blanket “Shiite” mentions.
The most likely next president of Iraq will be Abdel Aziz al-Hakim. A Shiite cleric who spent decades living in Iran. He is the candidate most strongly supported by The Islamic Republic of Iran. In fact, more Iraqi expats voted in Iran than anywhere else, I believe. That excludes the huge number of Iranians who reportedly crossed into Iraq to vote. Additionally, according to NBC, Iran spent as much as one-hundred million dollars on promoting their favored candidates in this election.
Former Bush favorite Ahmad Chalabi (who turned out to be an Iranian operative) stands a good chance of taking a prominent role in the new government.
“We think what the Americans have done is very good for Iran,” said Mehdi Hashem, son of a former (and future?) hard-liner President of Iran.
In any event, the real power in Iraq will reside with the Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani. He is from eastern Iran. He is very close to the leaders of the Islamic Republic.
Oh, the Sistani crowd is saying the right things about not being too close to Iran, but who really buys that?
In short, this election will be a major stepping stone in turning Iraq (or a large part of it) into Iran-west. Our soldiers could soon be dying to protect an Iranian vassal state.
This is what I figured would happen from day one with this idiotic war.
Yet Bush said in the State of Union Address
This is not reality.
On the other hand, it may turn out that the free, liberal Iraq with close ties to Iran may be a liberalizing influence on that country. The Iraqis most decidedly do not want a theocratic Islamic state. That is clear. Not even the Shia want that. al-Sistani strongly believes that governments should be secular and that Clerics on involve themselves in the governance of the people.
It may in fact be that this is a start of a thaw in Iran. The U.S. has removed Iran’s existential threat in Saddam Hussein. The borders between the two countries will be relatively open. People will move back and forth. The countries will influence each other. Why assume Democracy and freedom will lose?
I have heard that the mullahs in Iran have even been giving the Iraqis advice to avoid the same kind of clerical rule Iran has. Can’t remember the source of that, though.
…and replaced it with the new threat of permanent, fortified American bases in Iraq.
Yeah, I can see the Iranians sleeping soundly over that one. :rolleyes:
Iranians don’t want a theocratic state for a long time… and they still don’t have it. Reform is slow… but when Iran does get rid of the mullahs it will probably be for good. Iraq is way to unstable…
Now I agree with the “thaw” idea… but eventually the fact that the USA has bases in Iraq will stop/reverse this thaw. American atitudes to Iran and vice versa are just as silly and childish as in the past. Saddam may be gone… but the US will produce that fear factor that might keep mullahs in power that much longer. Eventually the US has to get out and stop poisoning atitudes by their military presence in the Middle East. Without full diplomatic and comercial to Iran the US maintains an atmosphere of confrontation and beligerency.