This is most unfortunate and sad to know that just doing simple acts can get you killed, maybe they were not even really interested in what the posters had to say, it was just a job:
3 Sunnis Promoting Vote Slain in Iraq
AP - Masked gunmen killed three Sunni Arabs in front of horrified witnesses outside a mosque in Mosul on Friday, after grabbing them as they hung posters urging fellow Sunnis to vote in a referendum on the new constitution
Ref. https://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_re_mi_ea/iraq
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 3231 100%
Bush Begins 5-Day Push to Defend Iraq War
AP - With anti-war protesters continuing their vigil outside President Bush's ranch, the commander in chief began a five-day push Saturday to tell Americans why he thinks U.S. troops must continue the fight in Iraq.
Ref. https://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_go_pr_wh/bush
QUOTE |
Shiites Bury Stampede Victims in Iraq Thursday September 1, 2005 7:31 PM By ROBERT H. REID Associated Press Writer BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Wailing over the coffins of loved ones Thursday, Shiites buried the nearly 1,000 victims of a deadly stampede on a bridge while politicians and ordinary Iraqis demanded the government explain whether botched security controls may have played a part in the tragedy. Tension and confusion persisted one day after the biggest loss of life in a single event in Iraq since the 2003 fall of Saddam Hussein. Gunfire erupted at the bridge during a protest march, killing a 12-year-old girl and wounding four other people. |
QUOTE |
Three Iraqis were hanged for murder in the first executions in Iraq since Saddam's ouster, the government announced. |
International Level: Ambassador / Political Participation: 595 59.5%
Reading through the 81 pages of this topic I can't help but realize that America knows nothing but bomb the hell out of the country and has a hard time rebuilding the country. Look at Angola,Somalia and Vietnam. I think that Bush wanted to be a good son to his father and finish his dirty business in Iraq. Now that the dirty business is over he is very lazy to rebuild the country. The best politicans would first rebuild the infrastructure,in my humble opinion. I really don't think the Iraqis would care who won the election, what provisions their new constitition has until they see how it affects their lives. Seemingly minor things like rebuilding pipes,fixing the electricity with the help of the Iraqi people. Rememeber, how FDR put through all the programs through the New Deal? That is exactly what Iraq needs today. Maybe then people in Iraq would stop blaming the U.S, insurgency might stop and the country will get back to normal. One thing I do agree is that if America leaves Iraq as of now, It remain a Middle East Somalia,though not as extreme.
Message Edited! Persephone: Fixed bad bold tags |
Sheesh! They are doing everything they can to rebuild the country. Besides, when, in all of history, has it been the responsibility of the victor to rebuild the country of the loser in the war? The US did it after WWII, and now we are expected to do it all the time, right?
However, we are trying. However, certain organizations are determined to stop that rebuilding, at all costs. Those organizations are the ones who finance the terrorist "insurgents" being imported from the surrounding countries. It is very difficult to rebuild things when every time you start, that thing is blown up, the contractors are kidnapped and murdered, the food delivery people are mobbed, shot, burned, then hung out to dry. It is even harder when certain people in the US, including Senators and Representatives keep voting NOT to provide the money to adequately provide security, resources, and infrastructure needed to do the job.
It is easy to blame Mr. Bush. But there are a whole lot of forces throughout the world doing everything possible to make him fail.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 85.4%
TALABANI: SADDAM CONFESSES TO EXECUTION ORDERS
Saddam Hussein has confessed that he gave orders to execute thousands of Kurds
in the late 1980s, according to Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.
Ref. https://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/09/06/...fess/index.html
Oil-For-Food Probe Faults Annan, Others
AP - The U.N. Security Council and Secretary-General Kofi Annan will both face sharp criticism for allowing corruption and waste to overwhelm the Iraq oil-for-food program, according to a probe of the $64 billion operation.
Ref. https://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...un_oil_for_food
Statistics tell no lies ... The Iraq Wars are now in there 15th year. Throughout that time one million Iraqi children were killed through sanctions, hundreds of thousand of Iraqi civilians through aerial bombing. Compared to the losses suffered by the Iraqi people, the West suffered .03% killed or wounded.
And Iraq was considered a threat!
Every war video or televised event I ever saw about the Iraq Wars showed the West picking off Iraqi soldiers and civilians like flies; like a turkey shoot.
15 years and no end in site. It is not a good war!
Good inputs; my retort:
1. Turkey shoot or not, having superior weapons and technology shouldn't make "the west" feel bad. Comparing deaths doesn't really put this into perspective. "The West" isn't out there destroying civilians; these folks are trying to kill people. If nothing else, this should perhaps teach a lesson to other terror-sponsoring nations that "the west" might settle your hash if you run a rogue state.
2. I don't support sanctions - I'd rather support removing megalomaniacal/legitimately criminal world leaders from power. I'm baffled as to where the "hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths" statistic comes from. Please link.
3. Yes, Iraq was clearly considered a threat. Rogue States are dangerous for a couple reasons: first, WMDs float around pretty easily. Second, terrorist cells float around fairly freely. Not even France (no offense meant to the French, of course) said "Iraq doesn't have WMDs and doesn't have intentions to use them on other countries."
Preemptive strikes are self-explanatory in this case (that is, striking before something worse than our not-striking happens). The previous post reminds me of the same "Well, Iraq wasn't a threat until we attacked it" kind of argument I hear so often. The choice was made, and the U.S. chose to have troops fight the war on terror in the sands of Iraq rather than have civilians fighting on the streets of "Anytown, U.S.A."
4. I can't see why stating Iraq-related actions have lasted 15 years makes it "not a good war." Sometimes things are worth fighting for, and Iraq is better off now than it was under Saddam's hand, and will be better off in the future. If we can introduce something resembling free markets and free minds to one country in the Middle East in my lifetime, I'd be happy.