THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Great story JW. I'll post it so it doesn't disappear in the archives.

Iranians welcome massively Bush's re-election
SMCCDI (Information Service)
Nov 3, 2004
Millions of Iranians expressed their satisfaction on the outcome of the US Presidential elections and George W. Bush's victory by calling and congratulating each other. Many were seen walking in the streets and shaking each others hands or showing a discret V sign.
Many are speaking about the promises made by Mr. Bush to back the Iranian Nation in its quest for freedom and democracy.
As Iranians and especially the younger generations have become happy , those affiliated to the Islamic regime are seen deeply worried about their future.
The regime and its US based known apologists and lobbyists had tried hard to make fear to Iranians on the outcome of a Bush win. Money was poured by controversial individuals, such as Akbar Ghahary the treasurer of IAPAC, to money oriented TV and radio networks, such as, 670 AM, Tamasha TV, Melli TV and a specific program of Apadana TV hosted by an ideologist named Faramarz Foroozandeh.
But all these desperate tries were not able to lure the Iranians of inside and nor especially the members of the Diaspora.
Witnessing such fiasco, the Islamic regime tried hard to bring the few thousands of professional demonstrators for its organized celebration of the 1979 attack against the US Embassy in Tehran. It's to note that the Iranian Capital has over 12 millions of inhabitants and that the today's official commemoration of one of the main Islamist act of terror ecountered another massive popular rejection.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Well it would be my GUESS that the people of the middle east, want to be able to walk out in the streets, go to work, go to the market and not be worried that they might be mistaken by the coalition forces as insurgents nor mistaken by the insurgents as sell-outs to the occupation forces and in either case be shot dead. Lets face it folks the people are living in constant fear and neither side is offering a solution. But that would just be my guess.

Yes, yes, that's always the fall back position isn't it. Confused

Point out the temporary downside of the solution to try and counteract the perpetual downside of the problem. That doesn't work, Dys. By that logic, no battle would ever have been fought, let alone won.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Yes, yes, that's always the fall back position isn't it. Point out the temporary downside of the solution....

The "solution's" "temporary downside" (such a lot of encouragement implicit in these simple phrases) has been described by the International Red Cross as a humanitarian disaster of crisis proportions.

Some solution.

0 Replies

If some of you guys had been around on D Day, we never would have gone further than the beaches of Normandy. More on both sides were killed on that one day than have died from all causes throughout the Iraqi and Afghanistan conflicts. Fortunately, we had leaders then and we have leaders now with more vision than the immediate difficulty.

0 Replies

Ah, yes, the old WWII comparison again. It's just amazing how like nazi Germany Iraq is.

And as for Chicken George, the war leader: Didn't he go missing for days after 9/11, until his handlers had worked out the angles?

0 Replies

Foxy
If you were around on D day or even during WW2 you would not compare it to the quagmire this blot on the landscape got us into.

0 Replies

One of the rare moments, I totally agree with au Shocked

:wink:

0 Replies

foxfire wrote : "If some of you guys had been around on D Day, we never would have gone further than the beaches of Normandy. More on both sides were killed on that one day than have died from all causes throughout the Iraqi and Afghanistan conflicts. Fortunately, we had leaders then and we have leaders now with more vision than the immediate difficulty." ... i believe we discussed this at length some time ago. seems to me, if we want to make any comparison to WW II, we could compare the iraqui resistance to the french resistance against the german army during WW II - even what took place in yugoslavia when tito's resistance fought against the german occupation during WW II was similar. anyone who has at least a basic understanding of the history of the middle east realizes that, the people of the middle east look with at least some suspicion at the western nations when they invade the middle east under the banner of "freedom". the people of the middle east have suffered from the promised 'freedom' for quite some time already. now if the western nations would be willing to take the time to understand the mindset of the people of the middle east and offer them 'freedom' under their terms, i think there might be some hope of mutual understanding. we have to understand that the nations of the middle east have been around a lot longer that 'modern' western nations. trying to 'westernize' them on our terms quickly, likely won't be very acceptable to them, IMHO. hbg

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

My guess is that the election will go on as scheduled and it will be completed efficiently and effectively. Any other course will give aid and comfort and a sense of victory to the terrorists.

There aren't just two peole having doubts:

Quote:

In New York, Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations said the government has ``a good chance'' of being able to hold the elections in January but might have to postpone them if violence escalates or Sunni Muslims decide to boycott.

source

0 Replies

Walter, don't you know that Iraq's ambassador to the US is a doom sayer too? Why he might even be sympathatic to lefties in the united states which would explain his worry about the violence in Iraq.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

... seems to me, if we want to make any comparison to WW II, we could compare the iraqui resistance to the french resistance against the german army during WW II - even what took place in yugoslavia when tito's resistance fought against the german occupation during WW II was similar.

The WWII resistance groups were attempting to regain their democracies and kill the murderers of their civilian populations. This was accomplished at the expense of tyranny of the civilian population

The current Iraqi resistance are attempting to regain their power of tyranny over the civilian population and kill the defenders of their civilian population. This will be accomplished at the expense of beginning freedom of the civilian population.

If the current Iraqi resistance fails it will be accomplished at the expense of ending tyranny over the civilian population.

hamburger wrote:

anyone who has at least a basic understanding of the history of the middle east realizes that, the people of the middle east look with at least some suspicion at the western nations when they invade the middle east under the banner of "freedom".

Some do; some don't. It looks like the some who "look with some suspicion at the western nations" are mostly that small minority who populate the resistance and know that they have much to lose and much to fear if they persist with their murderous resistance.

hamburger wrote:

the people of the middle east have suffered from the promised 'freedom' for quite some time already. now if the western nations would be willing to take the time to understand the mindset of the people of the middle east and offer them 'freedom' under their terms, i think there might be some hope of mutual understanding. we have to understand that the nations of the middle east have been around a lot longer that 'modern' western nations. trying to 'westernize' them on our terms quickly, likely won't be very acceptable to them, IMHO. ...

What are their terms? How are those terms really different from anyone else's who seeks freedom? How are their terms different from Western terms?

In the past the US and other western nations have supported tyrannical middle eastern governments to obtain what they thought would be stability on the cheap serving our own narrow interests. Many here in this forum have rightly criticized the US for such policies. Now, strangely you criticise the US for finally abandoning those policies for a policy of free-nation building: that is, a policy of helping those who are currently subjected to being murdered by their own governments to replace those governments with governments that will not murder them. Seems straight forward enough to me.

0 Replies

Go ahead and pretend Fox was comparing Saddam to the Nazis rather than pointing out that casualties don't necessarily mean something is wrong. It's the next step in your perpetual denial. Bob and move, instead of engaging the point. Then be sure and pile on, because if lots of you agree, you must be right, right? Nope. People die in every war and that fact in itself has nothing... NOTHING to do with whether the war is right or wrong. We do not yet know what the result of our action will be, but you guys will no doubt continue to pretend that the immediate casualties are the only result that matters... just like you would have in WW2 after the invasion of Normandy.

"Yeah, but people are dying!"... Yep they are. That's one of the temporary downsides to war. Outside of the philosophy forum, however, this is an argument against nothing.

0 Replies

The D Day analogy was just that, an analogy people, not a comparison. It was purely to illustrate that negative and doomsday thinking isn't going to solve anything and will likely make things far more difficult.

There is always talk, even among higher ups, about 'this could happen' or 'that might happen'. The fact is, goal by goal by goal, the goals are being met on schedule and as planned.

We need more encouragers and positive thinking here I think, and a whole lot fewer naysayings, pessimists, and 'it can't/won't be done' people.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Walter, don't you know that Iraq's ambassador to the US is a doom sayer too? Why he might even be sympathatic to lefties in the united states which would explain his worry about the violence in Iraq.

The violence in Iraq will not end with a premature US departure. It did not begin with a premature US arrival. It will end when the Iraqi insurgents/resistance are dead. That will take a while. The US occupations of Japan and Germany succeeded in free-nation building in about 7 years. If 7 years is par for this sort of thing, then we have only 5 years to go to beat par.

0 Replies

Very well said Ican. I especially like this part.

ican711nm wrote:

In the past the US and other western nations have supported tyrannical middle eastern governments to obtain what they thought would be stability on the cheap serving our own narrow interests. Many here in this forum have rightly criticized the US for such policies. Now, strangley you criticise the US for finally abandoning those policies for a policy of free-nation building: that is, a policy of helping those who are currently subjected to being murdered by their own governments to replace those governments with governments that will not murder them. Seems straight forward enough to me.

I guess when you're agenda is to "Blame America First", there is no right way. We were wrong when we supported Saddam and now we're wrong for taking him out. Confused

0 Replies

People dying is not a temporary downside, O'Bill.

The members of our family who died during the Second World War stayed dead. It's not a temporary condition.

So many people speak about what people are thinking about in Iraq. I'd have thought you'd have given a bit more weight to the views of posters who were living in Europe during the Second World War. They have more understanding of what people in Iraq are feeling than those of us who have not lived under conditions of attack, invasion and occupation.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

People dying is not a temporary downside, O'Bill.

The members of our family who died during the Second World War stayed dead. It's not a temporary condition.

So many people speak about what people are thinking about in Iraq. I'd have thought you'd have given a bit more weight to the views of posters who were living in Europe during the Second World War. They have more understanding of what people in Iraq are feeling than those of us who have not lived under conditions of attack, invasion and occupation.

Beth, people were dying before we got there. Have you heard the audio file I've spent the last year distributing? You're mistaken if you think I don't consider others views. I'm sorry, but the argument you're making here isn't against this war, it is against war in general... and that's what made Fox's point relevant.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

People dying is not a temporary downside, O'Bill.

The members of our family who died during the Second World War stayed dead. It's not a temporary condition.

Surely you understand what Bill meant. Death is of course not temporary. What is temporary is the high death rate suffered by those seeking freedom. That death rate is sharply reduced when freedom is finally gained. Absent determined effort to gain freedom, the death rate of those wanting freedom gets higher and higher until they make a determined effort to gain freedom and in fact gain it, or, unfortunately, until they are all dead..

ehBeth wrote:

So many people speak about what people are thinking about in Iraq. I'd have thought you'd have given a bit more weight to the views of posters who were living in Europe during the Second World War. They have more understanding of what people in Iraq are feeling than those of us who have not lived under conditions of attack, invasion and occupation.

One such group with whom I am familiar is still angry over the US's initial refusal and subsequent tardy efforts to stop the Nazis genocide.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

It's so nice
to wake in the morning
and not have to tell someone
that you love them
when you don't
love them
anymore.
goodnight Ican

so much nicer still
to wake each morning
beside your true love
and want to tell her
and tell her more
you love her this morning
and you will love her
forever more.
goodmorning dyslexia.

0 Replies

O'Bill, you and icann talk about war like it's a video game for big boys.

Listening to your audio clip is unnecessary when I can speak to my parents, and other family and friends about what it is like to be in a war, to be evacuated, to be a refugee.

Games for boys involving other people's lives. It disgusts me.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know