support the Marine acused of murder

round and round we go...

:werd:

None of us can decide whether he's guilty or not.

However, to those who are "on his side," why are you so opposed to a trial? What have you got to lose? Either he's found guilty, and is brought to justice (as you seem so intent to do with "world criminals"), or he's found innocent and has his name cleared, once and for all, rather than forever being shrouded in mystery and scandal...

The man can barely move. I dont see how he can harm anyone? IF the marine is not found guilty, Iraqis take revenge very seriously.Just keep that in mind. If they see one of there people get shot by americans...of course they're goin to be angry reguardless on what the circumstances are.

How many fingers does it take to fire a gun, to blow up a bomb, releaae a grenade? How hard would it be to booby trap his body and he only needs to move his arm to set it off?

You can be injured and still kill people. As for being up close to this injured insurgent what if the soldier had to check every body and make sure they were dead or alive. And when he saw him moving he could of freaked out by the sudden movemnet. What was near or under the injured insurgent that the camera didn't show.

All I see is a bunch of people condeming him already without even a trial.

Has anyone considered how they would feel if that was a weakened American, and the shooter was Iraqi?

I mean...the insurgent can use the same type of excuses, or whatnot (i.e. "what if he had a pistol hidden?").

Will you guys be signing a petition for the Iraqi fella?

That depends on the religious beliefs.In Islam we're not suppose to kill any retreating enemies, unarmed or wounded or in there homes. Or anyone who is not the aggressors shouldn't be harmed. The elders, women and children must not be harmed.

That depends on the religious beliefs.In Islam we're not suppose to kill any retreating enemies, unarmed or wounded or in there homes. Or anyone who is not the aggressors shouldn't be harmed. The elders, women and children must not be harmed.

That's nice to know but I wasn't asking you. I was asking those who are so ready to fight for the Marine, as they supposedly see his "plight", and understand his "situation", and say that the stress he's put in absolves him from a trial.

So, if the roles were reversed, will they still see his "plight", and understand his "situation", and say that the stress he's put in absolves him from a trial?

I actually agree that the Marine doesn't deserve a trial. It should be the people that put him in that situation that should be on trial, starting with the head chimp.

Has anyone considered how they would feel if that was a weakened American, and the shooter was Iraqi?

I mean...the insurgent can use the same type of excuses, or whatnot (i.e. "what if he had a pistol hidden?").

Will you guys be signing a petition for the Iraqi fella?


You know the answer to your question. Are you really looking for the answer to your question or was it just a statemnet?

That depends on the religious beliefs.In Islam we're not suppose to kill any retreating enemies, unarmed or wounded or in there homes. Or anyone who is not the aggressors shouldn't be harmed. The elders, women and children must not be harmed.

I'm not being hostile when I say this but what are the muslims religious beliefs in killing innocent lives thru beheadings and ramming airplanes into buildings?

I know and I realize not all muslims are extremists just like not all the American people in Iraq are their to kill people. Believe or not some people are there to help. But why kill the people that want to help? Why must they try to kill the UN people who had nothing to do with the US invading?

Since you know many people from that area can you tell me why not wait till the elections are over and Iraq can move on and finally start seeing the majority of US soliders leaving then fighting day in and day out? I am sure then know that they are outnumbered and outmatched to actually win.

I'm not being hostile when I say this but what are the muslims religious beliefs in killing innocent lives thru beheadings and ramming airplanes into buildings?

not that i know too much about islam, but im pretty sure that while one of the attackers may claim they are doing this in the ame of islam, muslims around the world were shaking their heads thinking "those crazy bastards just dont get it."

the majority of muslims would rather not be assosciated with alqueda or bin laden. islam is not a violent religion.

not that i know too much about islam, but im pretty sure that while one of the attackers may claim they are doing this in the ame of islam, muslims around the world were shaking their heads thinking "those crazy bastards just dont get it."

the majority of muslims would rather not be assosciated with alqueda or bin laden. islam is not a violent religion.


Co-sign


Thank you very much!

the majority of muslims would rather not be assosciated with alqueda or bin laden. islam is not a violent religion.

I didn't think the whole muslim population condoned these act but why do they allow non-Iraq muslims to live among the peaceful muslims and let them carry out acts of brutal violence?

Every religion has their radicals the muslim religion isn't the only one with radicals but most other religions will not allow the radicals to live among the normal people.

What really puzzles me is the death of aid workers and people trying to help in Iraq. I can understand going after soliders and contract workers for the US miltary. But why must they kill aid workers the UN aid workers and so on?

I also believe deep down the insurgents know its a lost cause fighting the US because they are outnumbered and out gunned. I also believe there are better ways of dealing with the US then getting killed.

I didn't think the whole muslim population condoned these act but why do they allow non-Iraq muslims to live among the peaceful muslims and let them carry out acts of brutal violence?

Every religion has their radicals the muslim religion isn't the only one with radicals but most other religions will not allow the radicals to live among the normal people.

What really puzzles me is the death of aid workers and people trying to help in Iraq. I can understand going after soliders and contract workers for the US miltary. But why must they kill aid workers the UN aid workers and so on?

I also believe deep down the insurgents know its a lost cause fighting the US because they are outnumbered and out gunned. I also believe there are better ways of dealing with the US then getting killed.


Why they live peacefully amongs christians and jews of Iraq? Its how true Islam suppose to be. We suppose to be respecting "the ppl of the good book" as the qur'an stated. Many of my family and Iraqis believes those people who did all that beheadings are not Iraqis. Theres a few foreigners there but not as much as the US would claim there to be. U honestly think Iraqis would kill that Margeret Hassan lady after what shes done for them? I know for sure that the Iraqis would NEVER TOUCH HER.

I dont see why you're trying to make excuses for that marine. The Iraqis doesn't care what the excuses are. They're furious to see that one of there own kind been shot dead UNARMED! They'll be even more furious if that marine is found not guilty.
He he should have not been there. There is a war going on and he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

He he should have not been there. There is a war going on and he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Er...he was in his own home country...if anyone should not be there,it's the Marine.

Er...he was in his own home country...if anyone should not be there,it's the Marine.

Since Iraq was defeated by the US, means the US is free to be there. Like it or not the US defeated Iraq.


I'm sure back in 1790 the Maori felt the same way about the French and British settlers invading New Zealand as the Iraq people do.

Er...he was in his own home country...if anyone should not be there,it's the Marine.
In a war zone...during a war...you don't go to your buddy's house for coffee and cards. The dumb ass shouldn't have been there. He made himself a target.

In a war zone...during a war...you don't go to your buddy's house for coffee and cards. The dumb ass shouldn't have been there. He made himself a target.

So wait...if my house is getting burglarized, and I happen to run into the burglar, and he shoots me because of it, it's my fault right?

Since Iraq was defeated by the US, means the US is free to be there. Like it or not the US defeated Iraq.

I thought we are there to 'liberate', and not 'defeat'?

Something you are finally admitting?

...I also believe deep down the insurgents know its a lost cause fighting the US because they are outnumbered and out gunned....

...Since Iraq was defeated by the US, means the US is free to be there. Like it or not the US defeated Iraq...

You obviously haven't grasped it yet.

Lost Cause
They do not have to win. All they have to do is prevent the others guys from winning and keep them bleeding both blood and money. Picture the way animals that hunt in packs bring down much larger and stronger animals and then apply that to the type of warfare going on.

Outnumbered
Are you aware that Sadr's militia alone is around 1 million strong?

Outgunned
As far as firepower goes - yes, and that is exactly why they are fighting the way they do - to neutralise the enemies advantages in equipment and technology as much as possible. However, they do have effective weapons, plenty of ammo and are able to improvise well.

Defeated
Well that depends on what your definition of defeated is. I see it like this - the coalition has established a presence in Iraq but they are not in control of it by any stretch. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that the coalition is in a reactive posture and that the insurgency has the initiative.

So wait...if my house is getting burglarized, and I happen to run into the burglar, and he shoots me because of it, it's my fault right?
Not talking about burglary. We are talking about WAR. There is a difference.

In a war zone...you don't go for visits to your buddies and lay around the crib drinking colt 45s and watching porn videos. You stay in a safe location unless you are up to no good.

Most SMART Iraqis would get out of Dodge.

If there was a riot in Watts and the cops were rounding up hoodlums and such....don't you think the wise residents would be laying kind of low? The trouble-makers will be together working out ways to advance their agenda of being trouble-makers.

you assume guilt when you should not gladhatter.

none of us know all the facts, none of us can possibly know what either man was thinking at the time, none of us can possibly understand the situation because non of us were there.

when there is conflict like this it is simply in the best interest of all involved to carry out the trial, find the marine innocent or guilty and move on.

i must make something incredably clear. whther or not he is innocent has no bearing on whther or not he should go to trial. something americans have lost is the notion of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". this is why we have courts. to sort shit like this out. sending him to trial is not solidifying guilt. it merely means "hey, we're not sure what went on, we need to find out"

so please, stop freaking out.

i must make something incredably clear. whther or not he is innocent has no bearing on whther or not he should go to trial.

:1:

My point exactly! Of course we all have our opinion of whether he's guilty or not, but our opinion in the matter means nothing. There needs to be a trial! Honestly, I don't even care what the ruling would be, I just think it's EXTREMELY unfair that any American should even think about ignoring something like this, while they would likely be in outrage if the roles were reversed...

He he should have not been there. There is a war going on and he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Oh! So that makes everything alright?

How do you know he wasn't a doctor, trying to heal his friends until he himself was wounded? How do you know he wasn't going to the mosque to pray (or whatever the Islamic equivalent is, pardon my ignorance) for a peaceful resolution?

All I'm saying is that we need to stop making judgements like this, since none of us know the details. Also, we never will unless there is a trial...

Outnumbered
Are you aware that Sadr's militia alone is around 1 million strong?






Ok where in the hell did you get that info from? The Shi'a can barely do any damage to the US. Its the Sunnis thats doin most of the damage. IF it was true then US would've been long gone. Strength in numbers does mean something but Sadr's militia is no where near a million or even 15,000.

I dont know what the hell gladhatter is thinkin but that was the most dumbest thing i have ever heard. US should have never been there in the first place.

That guy was an Iraqi living at home? Odd - what an unusual home.

I know its fasionable in some circles to be supportive of the people who kill American soldiers. The fact they terrorized the local population and murdered them in the streets is immaterial. Blowing up busloads of Iraqis, using places of worship as bases as well as targets is ok as long as it somehow hurts Americans and anything they are trying to do. The last thing these people want are elections and such travesties like that must be avoided.

Insurgents may kill on a whim and we hear the whole arguement about the US rightly being there being rehashed. A soldier kills an enemy and the Army puts on an investigation and people are calling for his head. Where is the investigation by the insurgents as to why they were using a mosque? Oh yeah - that doesn't matter because they were just defending their homes from an election.

^ They're DEFENDING THERE COUNTRY! They dont want the americans there and they sure dont want the puppet Iraqi Interim Gov't there as well!^ Anyone who helps the americans are enemies as well.

I know its fasionable in some circles to be supportive of the people who kill American soldiers. The fact they terrorized the local population and murdered them in the streets is immaterial. Blowing up busloads of Iraqis, using places of worship as bases as well as targets is ok as long as it somehow hurts Americans and anything they are trying to do. The last thing these people want are elections and such travesties like that must be avoided.

Insurgents may kill on a whim and we hear the whole arguement about the US rightly being there being rehashed. A soldier kills an enemy and the Army puts on an investigation and people are calling for his head. Where is the investigation by the insurgents as to why they were using a mosque? Oh yeah - that doesn't matter because they were just defending their homes from an election.
I don't at all condone the way the Iraqis are fighting, but just because they're doing things unfairly doesn't mean the US also can. On the contrary, the US should be a model of integrity, holding fast to their principles of justice. Matching the level that the Iraqis are fighting on shows, to me at least, that their conduct is acceptable, as you are now accepting that behaviour from your own. This invalidates the concept of the US trying to increase Iraqi standards to their own. Also, if the Iraqis are fighting dirty, the absolute best thing the US can do is to stand fast on their moral principles and concept of true justice - it is then that they would appear strong and wise. When, however, the US fights dirty "because the Iraqis did first," that shows, to me at least and likely to many frightened Iraqis, that the US is simply the next tyrant (def. "an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution", Merriam-Webster) rolling on through.

To sum up, I don't believe the Iraqis have fought well or fair. However, I believe the only way the US can truly succeed is by being an exemplary model of integrity and of the principles they propose; otherwise, they're just hypocritical terrorists blasting on through.
The last thing these people want are elections
So why is the US trying so hard to impose them?

What really puzzles me is the death of aid workers and people trying to help in Iraq. I can understand going after soliders and contract workers for the US miltary. But why must they kill aid workers the UN aid workers and so on?


Don't get me wrong, I don't at all condone that, but honestly, they make better hostages. The government likely wouldn't even think about conforming to demands if the hostage was a faceless, trained soldier.

I still believe that Magaret Hassan isn't killed. And if she is killed then Iraqis have nothing to do with it.

A soldier kills an enemy and the Army puts on an investigation and people are calling for his head. Where is the investigation by the insurgents as to why they were using a mosque? Oh yeah - that doesn't matter because they were just defending their homes from an election.

one, noone is really sure if he was an enemy or not.

two, just because the iraqi's arent investigating something like that doesnt mean we shouldnt.

and who cares if they were using a mosque to base attacks out of. you better believe if some nut-wit retard with an army invaded my town, i'd be using any standing building for shelter. sacred or not. if a church has to develop a few bullet holes so i dont die, so be it.

^ They're DEFENDING THERE COUNTRY! They dont want the americans there and they sure dont want the puppet Iraqi Interim Gov't there as well!^ Anyone who helps the americans are enemies as well.

Yup - defending it from elections. They certainly don't want the people making their own choice for their elected leaders. less then two months left until the people can choose who they want, its important to kill as many Iraqi police as possible.

So, the best thing to do now is to have an allout civil war instead of elections. Good plan :uhoh:

Refering to the elections...


So why is the US trying so hard to impose them?

I think you passed right over my sarasm.

Through all of the crap going on, it seems some are forgetting that the Iraqis will have the opportunity to choose their leaders and the form of their government. So some there have decided that letting the people choose is a bad thing. They attack Iraqis in mosques, at police stations and oil refineries. Nobody makes much mention of that, but they scream that they are defending their country against the Americans.

If a few people here wanted illegal immigrants to leave and started blowing up social services because they helping those immigrants, would they find support in the same way? I would hope not, but essentially that is what people are argueing about. You guys would have a more defensable position if these insurgents weren't also executing Iraqi civilians.

The government only has to ask the Americans (or any of the other countries) to leave. After January the same will be true.

I think you passed right over my sarasm.


Indeed I did, so I apologize.

However, it would certainly be interesting to see the results of an Iraqi vote, pre-invasion, asking them whether or not they want the US to invade their country and wage a bloody take-over to adopt them into the US way of life...

Getting back to the point of the thread, however, I've yet to see any valid reason why anyone is opposed to a trial. It's your chance to actually prove us wrong! Also, it would make your country look like the wise adult rather than the undisciplined child who wants a new sandbox to play in...

I think most people are fine with a trial, but in addition, many also believe him to be innocent of any wrongdoing.

Ok where in the hell did you get that info from? The Shi'a can barely do any damage to the US. Its the Sunnis thats doin most of the damage. IF it was true then US would've been long gone. Strength in numbers does mean something but Sadr's militia is no where near a million or even 15,000.
Yeah sadr has no were near a million people. Besides, he is a pussy, he leaves his troops behind and tells them to fight to the death! :disappoin

The Sunni's are doing most of the damage and its because they were under Saddam's wing while the Kurds and the Shiites were left nothing in the North and the South. They love the Americans and rightly so since they got the shaft under Saddam.

If im not mistaking The sunni's did allow sadr to operate his evils in their citys and their country.

Ok where in the hell did you get that info from? The Shi'a can barely do any damage to the US. Its the Sunnis thats doin most of the damage. IF it was true then US would've been long gone. Strength in numbers does mean something but Sadr's militia is no where near a million or even 15,000.
Ok, so I was wrong in labelling them all militia as in formal militia, of which there are visibly about 10,000, but I did not just pull this number out of thin air. However, if they chose to do so, the Mahdi army are fully capable of mobilising a million strong force.

Source which contains links to other sources (http://www.antiwar.com/blog/comments.php?id=696_0_1_0_C)

Now I realise you have your own sources inside Iraq, but a force this size is still only about 5% of the population, of which a similar percentage are likely to keep quiet about their loyalties depending on who is asking.

In other words, the true number available slips easily under the radar. This is especially true if you take into account that Sadr's strongest support is with the poorer and unemployed people (a fast growing demographic) in some of the most dangerous places. These are not places people (especially foreigners) can wander around freely asking provocative questions without taking big risks.

I agree with you that a force that large presents a formidable problem if mobilised fully. However, they haven't done it yet. Why? - Two reasons:

1) With such a large support base, they are real political contenders and elections might very well formalise their mandate. Obviously this is the most desirable outcome in terms of minimising casualties.

2) Militarily, the time is not right for them to have maximum effect with minimal loss. The ducks aren't in a row...yet. Before you ask, no I did not pull this out of thin air either. The precedent and model for it occured in 1954 at Dien Bien Phu.

Progress is being made towards the achievement of both objectives. Which option is used - only time will reveal.

^ They're DEFENDING THERE COUNTRY! They dont want the americans there and they sure dont want the puppet Iraqi Interim Gov't there as well!^ Anyone who helps the americans are enemies as well.

...and anyone who helps those who view Americans as enemies are AMERICA'S ENEMIES AS WELL!!!

We are there. We will prevail. THEY need to get that through their heads You do too.

I think most people are fine with a trial, but in addition, many also believe him to be innocent of any wrongdoing.
The bad thing is that when he is found innocent, the world that is tainted by the way the media has portrayed this will go nuts.

Yeah sadr has no were near a million people. Besides, he is a pussy, he leaves his troops behind and tells them to fight to the death! :disappoin.

For the numbers - see above post.
For the martyrs - I guess it's a measure of motivation and morale.

The Sunni's are doing most of the damage and its because they were under Saddam's wing while the Kurds and the Shiites were left nothing in the North and the South. They love the Americans and rightly so since they got the shaft under Saddam.

How about I show you some numbers from earlier this year that demonstrate that, in absolute numbers - not percentages, there are more Shia approving of attacks on US troops (1.6 million) than there are Sunnis (1.2 million).

Informed Comment (http://www.juancole.com/2004_04_01_juancole_archive.html#10812273995394058 8)

BTW, the majority of the Kurds are Sunni as well...go figure.

http://www.culturalorientation.net/kurds/krelig.html

Now, hopefully after putting a few myths to rest, we can get back on topic.

I kinda agree with mellowboy where he said that if there is a trial and the soldier is found not guilty, it will only make those who are already angry about it more angry.

so much to read! DAMN!

ok so wheres the petition to "FRY THE GUY"

sign me up....just for a gas!

...and anyone who helps those who view Americans as enemies are AMERICA'S ENEMIES AS WELL!!!

So, in other words, erm, nearly everyone else?

Says to me America went wrong somewhere.

Bring on the dumb asses!

^ They're DEFENDING THERE COUNTRY! They dont want the americans there and they sure dont want the puppet Iraqi Interim Gov't there as well!^ Anyone who helps the americans are enemies as well.
From the WRONG FREAKING PEOPLE!!

If they didn't want the US there then they should have revolted againsrt Saddam long ago and gotten rid of him on their own. Then the rest of the world would have been rid of him without the US need ing to do it for them. Sounds to me like they are a bunch of ungrateful whiners. We are doing them a favor!

From the WRONG FREAKING PEOPLE!!

If they didn't want the US there then they should have revolted againsrt Saddam long ago and gotten rid of him on their own. Then the rest of the world would have been rid of him without the US need ing to do it for them. Sounds to me like they are a bunch of ungrateful whiners. We are doing them a favor!
I can't claim that many people liked Saddam, but the US seems to be the only country that actually had beef with him. Ever thought the Iraqis might have been content with their situation?

You're awfully convinced the world is America or nothing. It's disgusting, really, and it's not helping put people on your side...

From the WRONG FREAKING PEOPLE!!

If they didn't want the US there then they should have revolted againsrt Saddam long ago and gotten rid of him on their own. Then the rest of the world would have been rid of him without the US need ing to do it for them. Sounds to me like they are a bunch of ungrateful whiners. We are doing them a favor!
^^^ :lol: ^^^ :lol: ^^^ :lol: ^^^ :lol:^^^ :lol: ^^^ :lol:^^^ :lol: ^^^ :lol:

Good god man! :rolleyes:

From the WRONG FREAKING PEOPLE!!

If they didn't want the US there then they should have revolted againsrt Saddam long ago and gotten rid of him on their own. Then the rest of the world would have been rid of him without the US need ing to do it for them. Sounds to me like they are a bunch of ungrateful whiners. We are doing them a favor!


Here's a heads up...how about that interfering clown gets the fuck out of the Middle East,far away from those who rightfully belong there?

Bush took America on the back of flawed information.The rest of the world wasn't convinced it was the right thing to do, and the rest of the world has subsequently been proved resoundingly right.

It's time for the twerp in the White Houdse to admit that he lost the plot.Maybe he should resign as well.He scraped back into office using a bunch of scare tactic and smears,and has no workable plans for a better Iraq. He's a failure,who can only maintain his presence in Iraq by force and brutality,as demonstrated by the behaviour of his Marines in Fallujah.

From the WRONG FREAKING PEOPLE!!

If they didn't want the US there then they should have revolted againsrt Saddam long ago and gotten rid of him on their own. Then the rest of the world would have been rid of him without the US need ing to do it for them. Sounds to me like they are a bunch of ungrateful whiners. We are doing them a favor!

Does it not seem really messed up to you, that you just said the Iraqis should have gotten rid of Hussein on there own just so the US doesnt invade?

That says a lot about the status of America in the world right now.

From the WRONG FREAKING PEOPLE!!

If they didn't want the US there then they should have revolted againsrt Saddam long ago and gotten rid of him on their own. Then the rest of the world would have been rid of him without the US need ing to do it for them. Sounds to me like they are a bunch of ungrateful whiners. We are doing them a favor!

every tyrant believes that they are doing the right thing. every dictator initially believes that what they are doing is good for their country, for their people and for the world.

hitler thought he was doing europe a favor.
stalin thought he was doing russia a favor.
mussolini thought he was doing italy a favor.
pol pot thought he was doing....well, everyone a favor.

see a pattern? just because you think you are doing someone a favor doesnt mean that you are. and even if we are bettering their position in life, have you ever stopped to think that maybe they dont want us to.

you possess hypocrytical ideologies. ive seen you rant and rave about self determination, and how its up to us to make sure we dont end up poor, and its not the governments job to take care of us if we dont...yet here you are, vehemently maintaining that it is our DUTY in the world to determine the paths other nations and cultures take.

please, make up your mind. take one side or the other.

hitler thought he was doing europe a favor.
stalin thought he was doing russia a favor.
mussolini thought he was doing italy a favor.
pol pot thought he was doing....well, everyone a favor.


What are you talking about? Those are very poor analogies. None of those people thought they were doing anyone a favor. They were consolidating and expanding their power.

I can't claim that many people liked Saddam, but the US seems to be the only country that actually had beef with him. Ever thought the Iraqis might have been content with their situation?

You're awfully convinced the world is America or nothing. It's disgusting, really, and it's not helping put people on your side...




^I agree^

Ok according to my customers (assyrians) who just came from Iraq tells me atleast 70% of the Iraqi ppl want Saddam back. I dont find that hard to believe either.

Supposedly they are goin to put Saddam on trial before the elections. SUPPOSEDLY. Now this is what i think its goin to happen. Saddam is goin to plead not guilty. Hes goin to make a deal. Hes goin to say something like...."If the Iraqis doesn't want me in power than prove it. Put me in the ballot and let them speak for themselves" What you guys think about that? ;)

Source which contains links to other sources (http://www.antiwar.com/blog/comments.php?id=696_0_1_0_C)
.





That site doesn't really prove anything. I mean think about it. If there was a "million" strong then they would've takin over the gov't since they dont like Alawi...AL Sadr made it clear that he wants no part of that gov't. They would've gotten rid of Alawi but they dont have that kind of power to do so.

What are you talking about? Those are very poor analogies. None of those people thought they were doing anyone a favor. They were consolidating and expanding their power.

They may seem a bit extreme, but they are indeed very similar. Hitler thought the world would be best without Jews, and felt he was doing the world a favour by getting rid of them. Most of the rest of the world saw otherwise, and usurped him. Bush seems to feel he's doing Iraqis and everyone else a favour, but most of the rest of the world sees things differently...

Also, perhaps Bush is consolidating and expanding his power?

What are you talking about? Those are very poor analogies. None of those people thought they were doing anyone a favor. They were consolidating and expanding their power.

Which of course is nothing like what George is up to............ :icon16:

More oil,vicar?

What are you talking about? Those are very poor analogies. None of those people thought they were doing anyone a favor. They were consolidating and expanding their power.

:disappoin

the rest of the post was more important than the part you chose to concentrate on.

That site doesn't really prove anything. I mean think about it. If there was a "million" strong then they would've takin over the gov't since they dont like Alawi...AL Sadr made it clear that he wants no part of that gov't. They would've gotten rid of Alawi but they dont have that kind of power to do so.
Just because they didn't do it doesn't mean they couldn't do it. Did you read the rest of my post where I explained why? In any case, that is my opinion - nothing more :smile:

Al Sadr, yes he wants no part of Allawi's govt but I don't think he was invited anyway. He is however being extended an invitation to join Sistani's list. Sistani's reps say that they will invite almost everyone to join their list but if they don't it's their own choice and doesn't mean they have Sistani's disapproval.

As it is, Al Sadr has popular support as a figure but not as a leader of Iraq.

Is there anyone that does like Allawi?

What are you talking about? Those are very poor analogies. None of those people thought they were doing anyone a favor. They were consolidating and expanding their power.

i'd be very interested what you base THAT accusation on?

Hitler most definately thought what he was doing was for the greater good. he states that no country has the right to invade another while that country has enough to support it's people. only when when the people outgrow the country can the country morally expand.

sounds to me like Bush could be a lot more moral if he took a leaf from mein kampf! so far hes doing stuff that Hitler wouldn't!

Lenin brought communism to russia and it WAS a good thing. under stalin huge amounts of money were directed to the military in order to try and keep up with the US. he invaded Afghanistan and tried to intal a different government. Bush invaded afghanistan and intalled a puppet government. If russia hadn't been there as a balance of power type thing i wonder whether the US would have progressed completely unchecked 50 years ago in their global conquest campaign? There is no doubt that stalin did terrible things but how you can argue that he didn't think what he was doing was good for russia... and the world... is a little strange.

i don't know too much about mussolini, but if Hitler won, wouldn't it be good for italy to be on his side?

the parrallels between the current US rageme and many of those "evil" dictators that years of propoganda has taught us to hate are completely clear.

Is there anyone that does like Allawi?


Bush likes Allawi.

do you think the US military are going to let the people they are oppressing rise up and displace the US imposed government?

^I agree^

Ok according to my customers (assyrians) who just came from Iraq tells me atleast 70% of the Iraqi ppl want Saddam back. I dont find that hard to believe either.

Supposedly they are goin to put Saddam on trial before the elections. SUPPOSEDLY. Now this is what i think its goin to happen. Saddam is goin to plead not guilty. Hes goin to make a deal. Hes goin to say something like...."If the Iraqis doesn't want me in power than prove it. Put me in the ballot and let them speak for themselves" What you guys think about that? ;)

I think the people you are talking are either lying to you or they only know a few people over there who travel with a few like minded indaviduals as themselves . I'm sure there are fools over there just as there are everywhere in the world. Fools who forget the past and are stupid enough to jump right back into the same mess they were miserable in before. Are things good now? Hell no. Will they be better with sadaam? If anyone answers that question yes then go back and read the statement above in blue.

I did a little looking a while back when I heard there was an actual survey done of Iraqi people. I am not trying to prove anything.Take it or leave it. I just have a hard time believing in hearsey from a friend of a friend of a relative.

The part of the survey that I am going to quote doesn't address sadaam directly. It more or less adresses him indirectly.

Anyway, here is an exerpt from the survey. You can find it in a number of places on the web.



"
Well, finally we have some evidence of where the truth may lie. Working with Zogby International survey researchers, The American Enterprise magazine has conducted the first scientific poll of the Iraqi public. Given the state of the country, this was not easy. Security problems delayed our intrepid fieldworkers several times. We labored at careful translations, regional samplings and survey methods to make sure our results would accurately reflect the views of Iraq's multifarious, long-suffering people. We consulted Eastern European pollsters about the best way to elicit honest answers from those conditioned to repress their true sentiments.

Conducted in August, our survey was necessarily limited in scope, but it reflects a nationally representative sample of Iraqi views, as captured in four disparate cities: Basra (Iraq's second largest, home to 1.7 million people, in the far south), Mosul (third largest, far north), Kirkuk (Kurdish-influenced oil city, fourth largest) and Ramadi (a resistance hotbed in the Sunni triangle). The results show that the Iraqi public is more sensible, stable and moderate than commonly portrayed, and that Iraq is not so fanatical, or resentful of the U.S., after all.
• Iraqis are optimistic. Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better.
• The toughest part of reconstructing their nation, Iraqis say by 3 to 1, will be politics, not economics. They are nervous about democracy. Asked which is closer to their own view--"Democracy can work well in Iraq," or "Democracy is a Western way of doing things"--five out of 10 said democracy is Western and won't work in Iraq. One in 10 wasn't sure. And four out of 10 said democracy can work in Iraq. There were interesting divergences. Sunnis were negative on democracy by more than 2 to 1; but, critically, the majority Shiites were as likely to say democracy would work for Iraqis as not. People age 18-29 are much more rosy about democracy than other Iraqis, and women are significantly more positive than men.
• Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities--neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S.--the most popular model by far was the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37% of Iraqis selecting from those five--more than Syria, Iran and Egypt put together. Saudi Arabia was in second place at 28%. Again, there were important demographic splits. Younger adults are especially favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. Interestingly, Iraqi Shiites, coreligionists with Iranians, do not admire Iran's Islamist government; the U.S. is six times as popular with them as a model for governance.
• Our interviewers inquired whether Iraq should have an Islamic government, or instead let all people practice their own religion. Only 33% want an Islamic government; a solid 60% say no. A vital detail: Shiites (whom Western reporters frequently portray as self-flagellating maniacs) are least receptive to the idea of an Islamic government, saying no by 66% to 27%. It is only among the minority Sunnis that there is interest in a religious state, and they are split evenly on the question.

• Perhaps the strongest indication that an Islamic government won't be part of Iraq's future: The nation is thoroughly secularized. We asked how often our respondents had attended the Friday prayer over the previous month. Fully 43% said "never." It's time to scratch "Khomeini II" from the list of morbid fears.
• You can also cross out "Osama II": 57% of Iraqis with an opinion have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 41% of those saying it is a very unfavorable view. (Women are especially down on him.) Except in the Sunni triangle (where the limited support that exists for bin Laden is heavily concentrated), negative views of the al Qaeda supremo are actually quite lopsided in all parts of the country. And those opinions were collected before Iraqi police announced it was al Qaeda members who killed worshipers with a truck bomb in Najaf.
• And you can write off the possibility of a Baath revival. We asked "Should Baath Party leaders who committed crimes in the past be punished, or should past actions be put behind us?" A thoroughly unforgiving Iraqi public stated by 74% to 18% that Saddam's henchmen should be punished.
This new evidence on Iraqi opinion suggests the country is manageable. If the small number of militants conducting sabotage and murder inside the country can gradually be eliminated by American troops (this is already happening), then the mass of citizens living along the Tigris-Euphrates Valley are likely to make reasonably sensible use of their new freedom. "We will not forget it was the U.S. soldiers who liberated us from Saddam," said Abid Ali, an auto repair shop owner in Sadr City last month--and our research shows that he's not unrepresentative.
"

Granted this survey wasn't done yesterday but I have been hearing the same thing about the Iraqi people wanting sadaam back for quite a while.

If it's true that they really want him back then I say let them have him.
I also have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale they might want to buy.

haha look at the language, "henchmen", what a crack up. I wonder if the SEALS are thinking of changing their name... maybe Tony Blair is going to run for "sidekick"....

anyway wasn't this the same survey that we have discussed before that found Sadam was still one of the top 5 most respected polititians and Alawi had absolutely no support? is it also the survey that found iraqis felt humiliated by the US invasion? I have to admit a US style government would be great... i think Australia should have it too.... but the emphasis should be on "style" because a democracy would be much nicer.

i can't wait till the trial... how much of it will be cencored? how representative will those who judge him be? who will pick them?

I can just see a puppet jury and an enshrowded trial so the world can't know the facts.... AGAIN!