1
   

IRAN WINS AGAIN

 
 
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 01:54 pm
The announcement has been made that Iraq will have yet another prime minister appointed by the U.S. If you don’t have a scorecard, the previous one, supposedly elected in a democratic manner, was Ibrahim al-Jaafari. For a few months, he was the darling of the U.S. administration, but he became old news. An influx of western politicians bombarded Iraq in the past couple of weeks and "persuaded" al-Jaafari to step aside for the good of the country.

The new stooge is Jawad al-Maliki. Don’t be concerned that your memory is failing if you don’t recall him. He lived in Iran from 1980 until the illegal March 2003 invasion of Iraq. His most remarkable feat since returning is his membership of the de-Baathification committee in which he was a zealous proponent of taking away the nationhood of millions of Iraqis.

All the pieces are fitting. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Dawa Party, formed in the 1950s, made various attempts at overthrowing the Iraqi government. Al-Maliki was one who failed and ran to Iran, just as Jaafari and others did.

The same group tried to assassinate Saddam Hussein in 1982. However, in a strange twist of logic, Saddam is now being tried for crimes against humanity for the incident in which he was the target. And, during the middle of a brutal war. In most countries, those who attempted the assassination, as well as those who fled to the enemy, would be considered traitors. Not in the "new" Iraq. The U.S. government (Republicans and Democrats alike) have not only re-written history, but logic as well.

source
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 342 • Replies: 1
No top replies

 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 05:09 pm
Re: IRAN WINS AGAIN
freedom4free wrote:
... However, in a strange twist of logic, Saddam is now being tried for crimes against humanity for the incident in which he was the target. And, during the middle of a brutal war. In most countries, those who attempted the assassination, as well as those who fled to the enemy, would be considered traitors.


I thought SH was not being tried for his assassination attempt, but for killing most of the men and boys of the town in which it occurred. Trying someone for mass murder does not seem like a stretch to me. Do you feel this was a legitimate reaction to the assassination attempt?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » IRAN WINS AGAIN
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 11:32:53