THE US, UN AND IRAQ V

Steve wrote:

5. Why the war on terror? It's a genuine effort to eliminate Islamist terror attacks, which in turn are the result of American and Western interference in Middle Eastern countries. It also provides justification for action in relation to point 1 which may have little or nothing to do with fighting terrorism as such. Iraq is a case in point. Bush gave the (false) impression that Saddam was behind 911, and invaded Iraq (for other reasons) despite the fact that doing so risked making international terrorism worse.

Pardon me for interrupting Steve but I would like to point out a small error here. You said "the terrorist attacks are the result of American and Western interference in Middle Eastern Countries." European perhaps, American NO----Wahhabism---the predominant strain of Islamist extremism and the one fostered around the world by Saudi Arabia----was born in 1750 in what is now Saudia Arabia. It was they who proclaimed it was OK to murder women and children and any other terrorist type of action to force adherence to their fundamentalist doctrine. I don't believe America could have had much influence on that action. Check it out on Google.

0 Replies

Japan Set to Send Troops to Iraq
Prime Minister Koizumi Approves Plan Despite Public Opposition
By Anthony Faiola
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, December 4, 2003; 10:53 AM

Excerpt

TOKYO, Dec. 4--Japan is set to give final approval next week to a plan dispatching nearly 1,000 troops to Iraq, Japanese government sources and local media said Thursday.

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi reportedly signed off on most details of the plan -- Japan's first military deployment since World War II -- after receiving a briefing on security in Iraq late Wednesday from Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba.

Koizumi was officially mum Thursday on widespread media reports that he had made his decision to mobilize Japan's Self Defense Forces, a move opposed by an overwhelming majority of Japanese, following the slayings in Iraq on Saturday of two Japanese diplomats.

Full story

0 Replies

Japan Today

0 Replies

Hi Perc!

Missed your acerbic comments recently!

I agree America had absolutely nothing to do with the rise of Wahabbist Islam. In fact I wish America and "The West" could eliminate Wahabbist Islam.

But I still think it is a reaction to what I We You are doing, rather than an aggressive attack on us by them.

I do actually think that "western" civilisation is superior, however if you stick someone in the eye, there is bound to be a reaction.

0 Replies

Steve wrote:

But I still think it is a reaction to what I We You are doing, rather than an aggressive attack on us by them.

Still playing the old Blame game eh-----you can spin it if you want but the only thing they(bin Laden and al Queda)could pin on us is that we were "contaminating" the holy grounds of the Prophet ever since the first Gulf war. And believe me when I say that not one of our troops wanted to be in that sorry assed place. We were there protecting their asses from Saddam and as soon as we had a place in Iraq to move to we left(at least that was the plan)I can't say for certain all US military are out of Saudia Arabia----I know we would like to be.

I really believe you should be more discerning about the tripe you swallow from all your dubious sources such as that biased crap that Gel and Hobitbob post.
Yeah the stuff that most of us --SCROLL---past most of the time. Every time I waste my time reading it I get sick.

Here is a link on Wahhabism from PBS and Frontline(fairly reliable source)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/etc/synopsis.html

0 Replies

I'll be honest. I detest militant Islam. I detest militant American imperialism. I don't know which I detest most.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I'll be honest. I detest militant Islam. I detest militant American imperialism. I don't know which I detest most.

Jeezzz---you forgot to mention how much you hate Bush and how he is worse than either bin Laden or Saddam.

I had purposely stayed away from this thread for a couple of months----instead of more civil it is more foolish, more vitriolic, more venomish and just downright boring. Have fun in your cesspool.

0 Replies

Aw thats not so nice Percy

Cheer up!

You might win in Iraq.

0 Replies

Steve, Exactly what, may I ask, are we winning?

0 Replies

hi ci

I was being a little flippant (as usual) dunno exactly what you will/are/might win. But we're in it too!

0 Replies

"The methods employed on Bush's Baghdad trip were nothing new for him -- he's been flying with the lights out for years." - barrycrimmins

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/bushhelmethead.jpg

0 Replies

A search for "Barry Crimmins" on the FAA database of licensed pilots gave 0 results. The man (if civilian) can't have flown into darkened runways in a plane without lights. Who is he, anyway, Gelisgesti, and why should anyone care about his views?

For the record, for anyone who knew me before this posting - am a pilot completely furious at commentary <G>

0 Replies

Sarcasm?
GW gets instruction straight from God, so the fact that he has no light in his head is of little consequence.

Why did the plane have to go in with no lights? Why couldn't GW mingle among the Iraqies? He didn't have to hide out in a hanger did he? If God is such a close ally, wouldn't God protect GW from any harm?

0 Replies

perception wrote:

You said "the terrorist attacks are the result of American and Western interference in Middle Eastern Countries." European perhaps, American NO----Wahhabism---the predominant strain of Islamist extremism and the one fostered around the world by Saudi Arabia----was born in 1750 in what is now Saudia Arabia. It was they who proclaimed it was OK to murder women and children and any other terrorist type of action to force adherence to their fundamentalist doctrine. I don't believe America could have had much influence on that action. Check it out on Google.

Whahhabbist Islam and the Saudi govt.'s support of violence is certainly an important factor, but not all, or even most, of the terrorism in the ME is associated with Wahabbism. The major fundamentalist terror group in the ME is Hezbollah. Hezbollah are Shi'ites, not Sunnis, and therefore are as far removed ideologically and operationally from the Wahabbis as the Catholic IRA is from the right wing fundy militia groups in Idaho.
Hezbollah's major point of contention is Irael, and US support for Israel.
Please see, Daniel Byman's, "Should Hezbollah Be Next?" in the November/December 2003 Foreign Affairs.

0 Replies

Hello Helen, welcome to the war thread! We read in the papers that Bush flew into Baghdad in total darkness, no runway lights. So that is not true? It made a good story.

Quote:

I do actually think that "western" civilisation is superior, however if you stick someone in the eye, there is bound to be a reaction.

Steve, I don't think perc has the same reaction, but you crack me up! Laughing

0 Replies

Re: Sarcasm?

pistoff wrote:

Why did the plane have to go in with no lights?

Night landings at Baghdad are routinely done without landing lights for security reasons, I would guess. It removes visual cues for snipers, etc...

Quote:

Why couldn't GW mingle among the Iraqies?

Fear, perhaps. He (or his handlers) know that he would probably be mobbed, leading to mass killings of Iraqis by US forces, which would certainly not look good!

Quote:

He didn't have to hide out in a hanger did he?

Like with the recent visit to England, this was about a photo shoot for the elections, not aboput any real issues.

0 Replies

Helen, might one ask about what you are doing lately? On Abuzz, we used to ask and sometimes you could not give us a direct answer.

0 Replies

Hi Ms Helen of Troy, You have traversed into "hellfire and tarnation," by your post into this forum, but it's good to see an old friend. c.i.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I'll be honest.

Never doubted it.

0 Replies

Quote:

Like with the recent visit to England, this was about a photo shoot for the elections, not aboput any real issues.

HBob, I don't agree with you about the visit to the UK. He was showing support for Tony Blair, but he gave precious little to Blair until he got back home and stuff came out, such as the issue of the detainees at Guantanamo: not just the Brits but many others are being considered for release. The issue of those detainees has become so huge and was ready to implode. He had to do something.

I really do not think the trip to Baghdad was just for political reasons, although it is easy to think so and I would usually be the first to jump to that conclusion. It will be forgotten quickly. There is too much else going on, and we see interesting things such as the sudden removal of the steel tariffs -- international pressure or states important in the elections are suffering from higher steel prices? I could only hope that he actually gave in to international pressure. He might seem human, vulnerable, and part of the world, not above it.

0 Replies

THE US, UN AND IRAQ V

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know