Those who oppose war in Iraq are supporting Saddam Hussein.

[Guinastasia]

*Originally posted by december *
**The Pope supports a regime that murders the Jews. What else is new? **

december, would you please stop in here.

You realize, of course, that this is a defense of Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor.

EXCELLENT point, Cervaise. Of course it will be lost on december.

:rolleyes:

[Milum]

“… the US has such a powerful military that it could conquer any country in the world, if it wanted to. It’s fortunate that the US hasn’t been inclined in that direction.” ~ december

Not “fortunate”, december, “noble”.

By the way, why do you ply your clear thoughts with those who think fuzzy?

[Weirddave]

*Originally posted by AZCowboy *
**
While Shahristani wants to see Saddam deposed, he did not support a pre-emptive US military invasion and occupation.

Please, just please, suggest to me that this man, tortured by Saddam, is working for Saddam’s interests.

If you wish to investigate his background or positions further, please note that his name is also sometimes spelled Hussain Shahristani.

Hussein Shahristani, in an interview by Jana Wendt
WENDT: With that horrendous experience, we now are at a point in the world where it appears that there will be an attack on Iraq. Do you support that attack?

DR SHAHRISTANI: No, I do not support an attack on Iraq. I think it’s utterly unjust for the Iraqi people to put them in one box with the regime of Saddam and call that Iraq, and then direct sanctions against them, or attack them. I think the war should be focused on Saddam’s power base, on his elite republican guards, on his security apparatus, on his party headquarters, presidential palaces, and spare the Iraqi people yet further suffering.

**

Dosen’t the underlined pretty much show that Dr. SHAHRISTANI supports the war and is simply concerned about what is generally know as “collateral dammage”?

[AZCowboy]

Weirddave, I’d agree that the quote would lead you to believe that.

However, in the 60 Minutes segment, Shahristani made it clear that he could support deposing Saddam by force, but didn’t think the US should go without UN support. He was concerned that the Iraqi polution has no love for the US, and they will see it as an invasion of their country by imperialist yankees. There is alot of resentment and mistrust among the Shia for abandoning them to be slaughtered back in 91.

If you read the link, you would have seen this next:

Interview with Shahristani
[The US and British administration officials] assure us that they are looking very carefully into their plans of action, and they are paying great attention to details — how to avoid civilian casualties, or damage to the infrastructure. However, quite frankly their record, at least in Afghanistan, doesn’t show that they have been very successful in targeting, and there has been fairly large collateral … what they call collateral damage. And we hope not to see similar situation in Iraq.

So, yes, he is concerned with “collateral damage”, but the first part of your question, asserting that “Dr. Shahristani supports the war” is refuted with my original quote where he said, “No, I do not support an attack on Iraq.”

[Weirddave]

Well, I think a fairer assesment would be “Dr. Shahristani supports a war to depose Saddam, but not unilateral U.S. action”. Thanks for the clarification.