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

Are these the facts? If not, then how would you reword these to make them the facts?

1. The Iraqi people are willing to risk there lives to establish a democracy of their own design.

2. When the new government of Iraq tells the US to remove its troops from Iraq, the US will remove its troops.

3. The US is eager to remove its troops from Iraq and is seeking to help create the conditions that the new Iraqi government wants help creating to end Iraqi dependence on US troops for securing Iraqi democracy.

If you were an Iraqi voter what conditions would you want the US to help create?

Would you say the facts support this opinion of Revel's, Ican?

You know, I was working late the other night and one of the late night talk show hosts had some U.S. soliders telling about some of their adventures and accomplishments.

And it just struck me. If we HAD found Saddam's WMDs when we went in, I wonderif we wouldn't have just dismantled them, transported them out, packed our bags and went home leaving the Iraqi people to fend for themselves against al Qaida and Saddam's henchmen, many of whom were no doubt as evil as he was?

As it was we kept looking along with looking to dismantle the entire regime--remember that deck of cards that toppled one by one--and found ourselves interwined with the Iraqi people with a chance to help them build a democracy in the Middle East.

I honestly don't know. I don't know if anybody knows. But there is an old saying that God works in mysterious ways. Maybe. . .

No, Foxfyre! I know of no facts that support this opinion of Revel's. Bush repeatedly insisted that the elections be held January 30th, despite pleas and/or demands that they be postponed until a later time. Bush repeatedly insisted that the form of the elections be designed by the Iraqi Provisional Government with the help of Iraqi opinion leaders, and not by the Coalition.

Do you think if we more rightist types were to declare that Bush is an incompetent fraud who was lucky that things turned out right despite his machinations and manipulations, that the more leftist types would agree with the facts I posted? If not, what do you think their problem is?

"With God On Our Side"

Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And the land that I live in
Has God on its side.

Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.

The Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns on their hands
And God on their side.

The First World War, boys
It came and it went
The reason for fighting
I never did get
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.

When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And then we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.

I've learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war comes
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.

But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.

In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.

THen there is always the possibility that God was on the Iraqi's side all along, Geli.

He is five foot two,
anbd he's six feet four,
he fights with missiles and with spears,
he is all of thirty-one,
and he's only a seventeen,
's been a soldier for thousands years.

He's a Catolic, a Hindy,
an atheist, A Chein,
A Buddhist, a Baptist and a Jew,
and he knows, he shouldn't kill,
and he knows, he always will,
care for me, my friend, and I will care for you.

And he's fighting for Canada,
he's fighting for France,
he's fighting for the USA
and he's fighting for the Russains,
he's fihgting for Japan,
and he thinks we put an end to war this way.

And he's fighting for democrazy,
he's fighting for the Reds,
he says it's for the peace of all,
he's the one who must decide,
who's to live and who's to die,
and he never sees the writing on the wall.

And without him, how would Hitler
kill the people at Dachau,
without him Cesar would have stood alone,
he's the one, who gives his body
as a weapon of the war,
and without him always killing cant gho on.

He's the universal soldier,
and he really is to blame,
his orders came from far away, no more,
they came from here and there,
and you and me ain't brothers,
can't you see,
this is not the way we put an end to war.

Other songs in Unknown album

http://search.csmonitor.com/2004/0120/p01s03-woiq.html

Of course, I don't know either. However, it's my judgment that the number one objective was not removal of Saddam's alleged ready-to-use WMDs. I judge it was removal of Saddam himself and his regime. I bet the primary reason for removal of Saddam and his regime was reduction of the chances of Iraq becoming a viable replacement site comparable to al Qaeda's lost Afghanistan site. Before or after we arrived we realized that the only really workable way to reduce those chances was to replace Saddam's regime with a democracy.

Please pardon me for the following speculation if I'm wrong. I think you posed this IF, because you were trying to make a subtler point. Namely, do the people who despise our invasion of Iraq really think that the only valid justification for invading Iraq was Saddam's alleged ready-to-use WMD? And, when none were found, we should have got our boots the hell out of there?

Good point!

CORRECTION:

No, Foxfyre! I know of no facts that support this opinion of Revel's. Bush repeatedly insisted that the elections be held January 30th, despite pleas and/or demands that they be held earlier or be postponed until a later time.

Well I'm not sure if I've read the majority sentiment in this thread that way. Among the anti-war group mostly it has seemed to vacillate between 1) there was no justification of any kind for invading Iraq or 2) the only justification would have been if Saddam had WMD's.

Oh yes, and it was all George Bush's fault when he lied.

Ah so! If George Bush had not lied about believing Bill Clinton and his administation's lies that Saddam possessed ready-to-use WMD, then the US never would have invaded Iraq.

Hmmmmm

Then Saddam could have continued to murder his own civilians by the thousands each year, al Qaeda could have evolved its northern Iraq base in preparation for another strike against US civilians, and the French German and Russian governments would not hate us so much.

Washington Post 06/28/03:
"In a postwar situation like this, if you start holding elections, the people who are rejectionists tend to win," Bremer said. "It's often the best-organized who win, and the best-organized right now are the former Baathists and to some extent the Islamists." Bremer was referring to members of Hussein's Baath Party and religiously oriented political leaders. SAMARRA, Iraq -- U.S. military commanders have ordered a halt to local elections and self-rule in provincial cities and towns across Iraq, choosing instead to install their own handpicked mayors and administrators, many of whom are former Iraqi military leaders. Perhaps not coincidentally, within days Grand Ayatollah Sistani issued a fatwa calling for national elections as the only acceptable way to choose the assembly that would draft a constitution, specifically rejecting the U.S. plans to appoint a committee.

The Bremmer (Bush) plan) as reported 11/14/03
1. The Governing Council would draft a governing document, or set of basic laws, that would assert basic rights, define a framework for a transitional government and outline a timetable for elections.

2. By next spring, each of Iraq's 18 provinces would hold a caucus composed of elders, leaders and tribal leaders. The caucuses would select a slate of delegates to an interim assembly. . . . Approximately 200 to 300 delegates of the interim assembly would, in turn, elect a transitional government.

3. The Coalition Provisional Authority would transfer authority to the new transitional government, and go out of business. The U.S.-led occupation would end but the transitional government could invite U.S. and allied troops to remain to help secure the country.

The transitional government could also invite other countries, who have been reluctant to participate in the occupation, to come to Iraq to help the people of Iraq. It is hoped that this process would be completed by June or July 2004.

4. Elections would be held to choose a constitutional assembly, which would write the permanent constitution. The constitution would then be submitted to a vote for ratification.

This is the central issue that undermined Bremer's original, seven-step plan. Iraq's most senior Shiite cleric, the Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, had issued a fatwa, or religious decree, that the Iraqi constitution should be written by an elected body and not an appointed entity such as the Governing Council, as envisioned by the Bremer plan.

5. National Elections would be held for the election of a national government that, when elected, would assume power from the transitional government.
As can pretty plainly be seen was trashed by Sistani when he demanded actual elctions by and for the Iraqi people instead of by a council comprised of Bremmer (Bush) appointees. Bgte Bush/Bremmer plan was not to have direct elections but Sistani ruled the day and got exactly what he wanted, Bush took the credit for the elections that he had opposed.

Trashed No Changed Yes

Did the original "Bremmer (Bush) plan" require change Yes it did Was it changed as a consequence of Sistani's demands It probably was Should it have been changed Absolutely

Bush took the credit for agreeing to a plan supported by the Iraqis, and did not stubbornly insist on his own plan. Bush took the credit for recognizing and adopting a better idea and a better way than he and his subordinate originally proposed. Congratulations President Bush You deserved that credit The last thing we need are leaders who stick to their past mistakes, endlessly repeating them in the expectation they will get a different result

It was a very good idea for Bush to stick to his plan for a January 30, 2005 election Congratulations President Bush for sticking to a good idea and a good way to get things done in a timely manner

Dyslexia, what's your point

I take it you like similes, ican?

my point ican was that you denied that Bush had opposed the election process when, in fact, he did oppose the election process until Sistani over-ruled him. and yes, Bush did adjust his plans. I was simply adjusting your rememberance of history which seems a bit faulty. Sistani adjusted Bush's plans not Bush adjusted Bush's plans. again my point as from above

Revel, what's your point

Or, would you rather I take it you don't have one

MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Mark Hosenball of Newsweek reports that Iran is attempting to place its assets in key ministry posts in Iraq. The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Al-Da'wa Party, both old-time revolutionary Shiite organizations, were in exile in Tehran in the 1980s and after, and it is not impossible that some members were recruited by Iranian intelligence.