posted April 23, 2003 09:31 AM              

Wouldnt u have preferred to do something about bush (supposing he does turn undemocratic) yourself? In a manner and fashion that suits ur needs, interests and collective sensibilities?

posted April 23, 2003 01:35 PM            

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

If we had the real opportunity to remove that cancer from the world and looked the other way instead, we would be responsible for every horrible act he committed thereafter--with the blood of every single victim on our hands. No, war is not nice, and I feel compassion for every Iraqi who lost their Life, but the Life of every future Iraqi will be a Life of potential.

posted April 23, 2003 02:30 PM              

From the horses mouth as we used to say in the "OLD" days!

Here, for your enjoyment, is some Wisdom from Dennis Miller

Subject: Wisdom from Dennis Miller

"TRYING TO HELP"

- By Dennis Miller

All the rhetoric on whether or not we should go to war against Iraq has got my little brain spinning like a top. I enjoy reading opinions from both sides, but I've detected a hint of confusion from some of you. Maybe this can help.

As I was reading the paper recently, I was reminded of the best advice anyone ever gave me. He told me about the "KISS" method ("Keep It Simple, Stupid!"). So with this as a theme, I'd like to apply this theory for those who don't quite get it. My hope is that we can simplify things and recognize a few important facts.

Here are ten things to consider when voicing an opinion on this important issue:

(1) Between President Bush and Saddam Hussein... Hussein is the bad guy.

(2) If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right things, keep this in mind:

The UN has Libya heading the Committee on Human Rights, and Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own math here.

(3) If you use a Google or Yahoo search and type in "French Military Victories," don't be surprised if your computer panics at its inability to respond to your inquiry.

(4) If your only anti-war slogan is "No War For Oil," hire a pit bull lawyer and sue your school district for having allowed you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the minimum education that any non-troglodyte deserves

(5) You can take this one to the bank: Saddam and bin Laden will NOT seek UN approval before they try to kill us.

(6) Despite common belief among some, Martin Sheen is NOT the President. He only plays one on TV.

(7) If you are anti-war and even an outright "America Basher," to bin Laden you are still an "infidel" whom he wants dead.

(8) Be careful: if you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy," but not in the danger that Hussein poses, the only job you may be able to get is as an Ivy League college professor.

(9) Even multi-culturalists who try to browbeat us into believing that all cultures are equally deserving of respect have trouble explaining the past 500 years of Islam.

(10) Whether you are for or against military action, our young men and women overseas are fighting to defend our right to speak out on these issues. They deserve our unreserved support.

I hope this helps.

Maria

posted April 23, 2003 02:58 PM              

NO IT ISNT. And as long as innocent naive Americans like you dont catch up on some thorough forein policy reading and realize that your government's making major mistakes....OBLs will keep on hating you.

They hate you for the democracy that you have, and the democracy that u inadvertantly and unknowingly stole from them.

posted April 23, 2003 03:30 PM              

Sheba

posted April 23, 2003 04:21 PM              

As you don't know anything about my history or who I am, I find it surprising that you can know what my knowledge of foreign policy is. I would venture to say I know more about foreign policy than you might suspect

Because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't know nuttin hahahaha. Just as an FYI, I was one of the original peace marchers during the Viet Nam war. I don't fit your "naive person" model. Sorry about that.

If I could wave my magic wand and make all dictators disappear, I would, but alas, it doesn't work (I've tried it).

However, if people want to hate the United States of America, there's truly nothing I can do about it. We are, by no means, perfect. But I'm willing to stick my neck out and say, we're closer than most other countries on this planet. I'm also willing to bet, that given a chance, the majority of the Earth's population would enjoy living in this country.

Just my not so humble opinion (well I do have a Leo stellium)

posted April 23, 2003 07:42 PM              

U.S. Planners Surprised by Strength of Iraqi Shiites

By Glenn Kessler and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 23, 2003; Page A01

As Iraqi Shiite demands for a dominant role in Iraq's future mount, Bush administration officials say they underestimated the Shiites' organizational strength and are unprepared to prevent the rise of an anti-American, Islamic fundamentalist government in the country.

The burst of Shiite power -- as demonstrated by the hundreds of thousands who made a long-banned pilgrimage to the holy city of Karbala yesterday -- has U.S. officials looking for allies in the struggle to fill the power vacuum left by the downfall of Saddam Hussein.

As the administration plotted to overthrow Hussein's government, U.S. officials said this week, it failed to fully appreciate the force of Shiite aspirations and is now concerned that those sentiments could coalesce into a fundamentalist government.

Some administration officials were dazzled by Ahmed Chalabi, the prominent Iraqi exile who is a Shiite and an advocate of a secular democracy. Others were more focused on the overriding goal of defeating Hussein and paid little attention to the dynamics of religion and politics in the region.

"It is a complex equation, and the U.S. government is ill-equipped to figure out how this is going to shake out," a State Department official said. "I don't think anyone took a step backward and asked, 'What are we looking for?' The focus was on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein."

Complicating matters is that the United States has virtually no diplomatic relationship with Iran, leaving U.S. officials in the dark about the goals and intentions of the government in Tehran. The Iranian government is the patron of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the leading Iraqi Shiite group.

Since the Iranian revolution in 1979, a major strategic goal of the United States has been to contain radical Shiite fundamentalism. In the 1980s, the United States backed Hussein as a bulwark against Iran. But by this year, the drive to topple Hussein -- who had suppressed Iraq's Shiite majority for decades -- loomed as a much more important objective for the administration.

U.S. intelligence reports reaching top officials throughout the government this week said the Shiites appear to be much more organized than was thought. On Monday, one meeting of generals and admirals at the Pentagon evolved into a spontaneous teach-in on Iraq's Shiites and the U.S. strategy for containing Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq.

The administration hopes the U.S.-led war in Iraq will lead to a crescent of democracies in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, the Israeli-occupied territories and Saudi Arabia. But it could just as easily spark a renewed fervor for Islamic rule in the crescent, officials said.

"This is a 25-year project," one three-star general officer said. "Everyone agreed it was a huge risk, and the outcome was not at all clear."

The CIA has cultivated some Shiite clerics, but not many, and not for very long. The CIA is helping to move clerics safely into towns where they can build a political base. In Najaf, for instance, agency case officers worked with a couple of clerics.

"We don't want to allow Persian fundamentalism to gain any foothold," a senior administration official said. "We want to find more moderate clerics and move them into positions of influence."

One major problem is that Hussein executed hundreds of Shiite clerics and exiled thousands more, leaving behind few Shiite civic or religious leaders of national standing.

Shortly after Baghdad fell, Abdul Majid Khoei, a London-based Shiite cleric who was working with U.S. Special Forces, was stabbed to death at a shrine in Najaf, apparently by followers of a young anti-American Shiite leader. They also surrounded the Najaf home of Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the nation's top Shiite cleric, and ordered him to leave the city before tribal elders persuaded them to disperse.

U.S. officials are hoping to combat fundamentalism by helping the Iraqis build a secular education system. Before 1991, Iraq had what was regarded as one of the finest education systems in the region, but years of economic sanctions have devastated it.

"The most radical aspects of Islam are in places with no education at all but the Koran," an official said. "There is no math, no culture. You counter that [fundamentalism] by doing something with the education system."

The Shiites of Iraq make up about 60 percent of the population, compared with less than 20 percent for the Sunnis that have long dominated Iraqi political life. Shiite Muslims, who make up less than 15 percent of the world's 1 billion Muslims, formed their own sect shortly after the death of Muhammad, founder of Islam, in 632.

While Shiites are the majority in Iran and Iraq, the Shiites in Iraq are Arab, not Persian, giving U.S. officials hope that a strong sense of Iraqi nationalism and a tradition of resisting the concept of a single supreme Shiite ruler will keep Persian fundamentalism in check. "There is a big difference, a tremendous difference, between Persian and Arab Shiites," a U.S. official said.

Indeed, some experts believe ending the suppression of Iraqi Shiites will begin to turn the center of the religion away from Iran. The shrines of two of its most revered imams -- the Shiite successors to Mohammed -- are in Najaf and Karbala.

Some U.S. intelligence analysts and Iraq experts said they warned the Bush administration before the war about vanquishing Hussein's government without having anything to replace it. But officials said the concerns were either not heard or fell too low on the priority list of postwar planning.

Chalabi's influence, particularly with senior policymakers at the Pentagon, helped play down the prospects for trouble, some officials said. "They really did believe he is a Shiite leader," although he had been out of the country for 45 years, a U.S. official said. "They thought, 'We're set, we've got a Shiite -- check the box here."

"We're flying blind on this. It's a classic case of politics and intelligence," said Walter P. "Pat" Lang, a former Defense Intelligence Agency specialist in Middle Eastern affairs. "In this case, the policy community have absolutely whipped the intel community, or denigrated it so much."

U.S. officials have tried to make inroads with Iraq's most important Shiite group, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), starting with contacts in Kuwait about five years ago. A senior representative of SCIRI met with Vice President Cheney in August when U.S. officials gathered leaders of the Iraqi opposition groups in Washington.

But SCIRI, which is based in Tehran and is closely linked with the Iranian government, boycotted the first U.S.-sponsored meeting of Iraqi political and religious leaders in the town of Ur to discuss the country's political future. Over the years, "there was not as much contact as there should have been," the State Department official said.

"They expected a much warmer reception, and as a result it would be unnecessary for them to deal with some of these issues," said Kenneth M. Pollack, a Brookings Institution scholar, who was one of President Bill Clinton's top Iraq specialists. "That flawed assumption is at the heart of some of the reasons they are scrambling now."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

Jakie

posted April 24, 2003 12:14 AM            

Remember when the sky was falling, the troops were bogged down, the war plan was a failure, the Iraqi resistance was greater than anticipated and it was said this would be a long war? Remember? Remember it was all BS?

Now, the sky is falling again. The US is surprised at the Shiite insistence on an Islamic theocracy. Pleeeeese.

No one in their right mind would anticipate that there would NOT be groups competing for power in Iraq, including the radical elements among the clerics who want to enhance their power.

So, network camera crews and reporters find the people they want to put forth their doom and gloom forecast and presto, new debacle.

I'm surprised anyone would fall for it yet again. These are the same networks who routinely interviewed hundreds of Iranians and Syrians to find the one's who would rant against America and furnished them with American flags to burn.

You don't live here so maybe you don't know that in the State Dept. and all other branches of the American government there are people from previous administrations who disagree with the current administration and never miss a chance to "leak" what they feel will be damaging information or opinions. In this case "opinions."

There is going to be representative government of some type in Iraq and it isn't going to be a Shiite Islamic Theocracy. There are too many divergent groups in Iraq for that type of representation to be acceptable to the Iraqis and certainly not to the Coalition. There are about 350,000 coalition troops and people who will pull together the various factions to form an interim government, one way or the other.

The Coalition didn't drive one dictator from power only to see another dictatorship take hold in Iraq in the form of a radical theocracy.

posted April 24, 2003 12:55 AM            

What makes you think the war is over? Anyone who thinks that hasn't been listening to what the President said from the beginning. Or maybe you just didn't believe him.

Let me assure you that the sponsors of terrorism in Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, North Korea, et al. are aware of what the President said and they now have the proof he meant it. These are states which also repress and oppress their own people and are seeking or have chemical, biological and/or nuclear weapons or are attempting to develop them.

So, is it your compliant that we didn't start a general war and go after all of them at once, since you seem disturbed that we singled out Iraq? Iraq was a special case, already being in violation of US Resolutions to disarm. Is it lost on you that there are about 350,000 coalition troops smack in the middle of the Middle East, between Syria and Iran, or that there are now airfields in Iraq at the disposal of coalition forces? Be assured, it isn't lost on the Iranians or the Syrians, for sure. It also hasn't escaped the notice of the North Koreans that Saddam's regime quickly disappeared in the face of coalition forces and they are rapidly backpedalling away from their bellicose positions, same with the Syrians.

The removal of the Taliban and the removal of Saddam Hussein was an object lesson to ALL the terrorist sponsoring states that the rules have changed. They are not going to be permitted to send out proxies in the form of terrorists to fight the battles they are too cowardly to fight out in the open.

The single most stupid thing done historically since Japan attacked Pearl Harbor was the terrorist strike on the WTC.

So, you don't like the President's response, too bad. There is now a concessus among most civilized nations that terrorism, governmental repression of populations, coupled with the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction constitute a threat to the long term peace of the world. The opening shots have been fired in the war against those governments and independent terrorist networks. They are going to change their behavior or they are going to disappear from the world stage, one way or the other.

I don't see any of those nations holding their hands up to be NEXT.

jwhop

posted April 24, 2003 05:20 PM              

Well...I don't think that anyone with a minimum capacity of reasoning had any doubt about the American victory.
The only doubt was in relation to the time that this war would last and if Saddam would use his mass destruction weapons ... but as we observed, the threat was not that threatening after all...

Now, do you really believe that the Iraqi people are in love with the coalition forces or are they being tolerated just for their immense destructive capacity and because they removed Saddam?

However, this is the main question: "Who will govern Iraq?"

It is not believable that the Bush's government pragmatism will tolerate other tyrant in the government. The alternative is somebody from the exile. Now, who has a strong pulse to maintain that country united?

quote:

---

“Who, never in his history, lived in a democracy, will have difficulties to accept it”

---

You may say what you want, but, if there is not some Iraqi with moral force to join internal union and a strong pulse, very strong, Iraq will implode literally in a heap of feuds argued among the tribes, religious sects or simple local gangsters.

We all know that Iraq is not nor it was never a united country. The patchwork quilt that constituted it, with 35 tribes permanently in war amongst themselves, two islamic slopes potentially hostile and against everything that we knew as democracy, doesn't allow to foresee a coalition government strong enough to join union and to begin the necessary reconstruction.

A government imposed won't last one year, when internal rebellions began to appears everywhere.

Then the risk of the disaggregation will stop being just a risk to be real.

We have the Sunnite, the Shiite,( being these tremendously sacrificed by Saddam), unassuming the three Christian slopes, besides the problem of the Kurd that want their independence.

quote:

---

There are about 350,000 coalition troops and people who will pull together the various factions to form an interim government, one way or the other. The Coalition didn't drive one dictator from power only to see another dictatorship take hold in Iraq in the form of a radical theocracy.

---

Iran will support the Shiite population, seeking to control to the only exit for the sea, and in consequence the exploration of the petroleum or, at least the control of the export.

Saudi Arabia will panic with the increase of the area of Iran's influences almost in their door, what can provoke revolts among the Shiite population - that is majority - controlled with an iron hand by their Kingdom. Worsened by the Arabs of the Iranian Arabistan that will also try to have their advantage alleging solidarity to their brothers from Iraq, which, will force the ayatollahs to use the force to control intern rebellion.

And Turkey, with the problem of the Kurds, will also have to leave for a more energetic action, in the control of the local Kurd, associated to the Iraqi Kurd, in the search of their independent earth.

Conclusion. A civil war of terrible proportions, that may contaminate the cradle of the civilization and, probably their first grave.

We all hoped that a new government has a democratic and human feature, contemplating the whole people in the most balanced and impersonal way possible, promoting the good common...my fear is that this hope is illusory.

So, the exit would be to annihilate all the warlike capacity of the Orient, promote the good for everyone, using the wealth of the petroleum, finding a civilized way of coexistence among the different, towards the common well that it is nothing else that the search of the happiness for all.

Of course, as this is an Utopia , it remains the comfort of knowing that this war was made – as the USA's government said - for liberation and democracy.

Yet, who will promote the peace?
All we can do is wait to see.

Jakie

posted April 24, 2003 05:21 PM              

"To kill the elephant is easy.
Difficult it is to remove the body."

Jakie

"The whole is more than the sum of its parts."

posted April 25, 2003 12:15 AM            

Do the Iraqi's love the coalition forces? Depends on which Iraqis you would talk to. Those connected to Saddam's regime, no and the press seems to seek them out to cast a negative pall over the proceedings. Do the radical Islamic clerics and their radical followers, no and the press seeks them out too.

However, the people in Iraq who don't have an ax to grind have shown they are happy to be free of Saddam and give credit to America and the coalition for making it happen. While it's true they are subject to the rumors of America's motives--oil in chief, they will find that issue laid to rest as governance of the wealth of the oil fields is turned over to a government of Iraqis.

The President and every spokesperson for the President have made it clear their government will be chosen by Iraqi citizens. Right now, an interim government is being put together, taking into account all the factions in Iraq and exiles from without. To think an outsider is going to emerge as the leader of Iraq is not realistic. Right now, there's a vacuum in the leadership dept. with lots of competing parties vying for the various positions.

It's somewhat racist to think Iraqis can't govern themselves. They're going to have a lot of help understanding the concept of representative government. I wouldn't pay too much attention to comments of those outside Iraq who have a lot to lose when representative government takes hold in Iraq.

I think the American team in Iraq is going to forcibly bring home to the Iraqis that all the factions need each other and foster a sense of cooperation. Iraq as a whole nation is far stronger than any of the groups would be if they fragment into 3 separate countries. Further, those coalition forces are going to be there for some time, to keep order being chief and to let the passions subside in the groups who have been repressed.

Something that seems to have been lost in press reports and perhaps by many others too is that Iran was on the receiving end of 2 different cruise missiles attacks. 2 on one day and a third on another day. Iran has been warned their interference isn't going to be tolerated in the affairs of Iraq. Of course, those missiles simply went off target and we apologized for it. Seems there were some in Iraq who wanted to enter Iraq during the conflict and had massed on the border. Hmmm, those missiles have an accuracy measured in feet. Strange they would stray so far off course

The radical clerics in Iran have their hands full with their own population who are fed up with their government being run by the clerics. Look for Iran to develop into a real representative governmental system within the foreseeable future.

One thing I wouldn't worry about overly is Iran being in any position to assert power over Iraq or Saudi Arabia. This may be a high stakes contest of wills but don't expect the President to blink. Iran and Syria are on the s list for supporting and harboring terrorists. There is movement now to settle the Palestinian issue. Hamas and Hezzbola, supported by Iran and Syria are not going to be permitted to scuttle the peace plan. As I said, they're NEXT if they don't change their behavior and they know it. Settling the Palestinian issue of a Palestinian State will take the wind out of the sails of the radicals.

Time will tell if what I think is correct but it looks like events are moving in that direction and it's going to get a lot of attention in the coming months.

It was somewhat gratifying to hear the SEC of Defense confirm today what I said yesterday that an Islamic Theocracy wasn't in Iraq's future.

posted April 25, 2003 03:44 AM            

One bite at a time.

posted April 25, 2003 06:06 PM            

quote:

---

Terrorists aren't demons from hell bent upon causing havoc to well-established democracies like America and India....they want to reform the world too and do it in a way that they know best.

---

Surely you are not asking us to have compassion for sadistic cold-blooded killers? The only thing terrorists understand is brute force and the same violence that they wreak on others. Fear is the only thing that keeps them under control, which is why terrorist states (like Syria) are keeping their mouths shut. They just saw a major player fall in a matter of weeks, and if they hate us even more for it, so be it, just as long as they are not out there killing more innocent women and children in their acts of cowardice. And while I don't see us going after any other nation like we did Iraq, I would support that action if it is necessary, because nations that refuse to follow the simple rules of humanity do not deserve a place in the global community.

Have You Forgotten?
by Darryl Worley

I hear people saying we don't need this war
I say there's some things worth fighting for
What about our freedom and this piece of ground
We didn't get to keep 'em by backing down
Now they say we don't realize the mess we're getting in
Before you start your preaching let me ask you this my friend

Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout bin Laden
Have you forgotten?

They took all the footage off my T.V.
Said it's too disturbing for you and me
It'll just breed anger that's what the experts say
If it was up to me I'd show it everyday
Some say this country's just out looking for a fight
Well after 9/11 man I'd have to say that's right

Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout bin Laden
Have you forgotten?

Now I've been there with the soldiers
Who've gone away to war
And you can bet that they remember
Just what they're fightin' for

Have you forgotten all the people killed?
Some went down like heros in that Pennsylvania field
Have you forgotten about our Pentagon?
And all the loved ones that we lost and those left to carry on
Don't you tell me not to worry about bin Laden
Have you forgotten?

Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout bin Laden
Have you forgotten? Have you forgotten? Have you forgotten?

posted April 25, 2003 06:32 PM              

unfortanately it doesnt quite have the resistance to corruption i hoped it would.

I think terrorism is rediculous and there's no way to condone taking someone elses' life, however these people just see a big blank grey wall stomping their way and as products of their environment i feel they are reacting in the only way they are able to.

On the ends of their tongues is: Fight or be assimilated.