Related Information to Post War Iraq

Post War Iraq - Page 110

I take your point Konq, but my point is that these tensions that once existed many centuries ago are not the reason why these two sects are fighting today. You only have to ask Iraqis about the history and they will tell you it is not the case. Modern history has shown that Sunni and Shiite Iraqis live together and quite peacefully. In 600 AD I am certain there was a lot of religious motivated massacres, but this doesn't translate to modern history.

Anyway, that aside, I think your point about Bush's arrogance is very true. I would like to think he is also naive, but to be fair, some of his proposals display utter stupidity. He is the President of the most powerful country in the world and has so little idea about how the world and other nations operate. Is he doing this because he knows Congress won't want it and it will make him look like the poor little boy who wasn't allowed to play? I would really like all Bush supporters to justify why he should risk any more American lives for this mess? Why doesn't he send his daughter over there? It's so easy to play with other people's lives it would appear.

Iraq War Post

SADDAM'S EXECUTION COULD HAVE BEEN MORE 'DIGNIFIED': BUSH

U.S. President George W. Bush said Thursday he wished the execution of Saddam Hussein "had gone in a more dignified way."
Ref. https://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...ush-saddam.html

Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics

What is up with the Iraqi Tribunal dropping all charges against Saddam now that he is dead? What is more... on that same day they play and audio tape of Saddam giving the go ahead to use chemical weapons against men, women and children. They even showed the dead children after on video! This reminds me of the term: Banana Republic.

Page 110 Iraq War Post

Simple. He was condemned to death in another trial. The charges that were dropped come from another trial but since he is dead, what would be the purpose of continue with it?.

https://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01...reut/index.html

Iraq War Post

JB, I think this is more a legal issue. The man is dead and cannot stand trial so why waste taxpayers" money with costly proceedings. It won't change anything. Because this was such a hurried trial it never allowed Saddam to face up to all his atrocities. I believe he should have been trialled in the International Court, but then you deprive Iraqis of their "natural" justice, which is really just revenge.

Why it was so rushed and only included one atrocity is beyond me. As far as I"m concerned that guy should have had several life sentences handed down so that everyone he affected could feel a sense of justice. If I had to guess, I would say there was US and Shiite pressure to have the tyrant killed asap. Unfortunately, the trial itself was a shambles. Saddam never received a fair trial. He received a politicised trial with no order or sense of law. He was guilty before even setting foot in the court room (which of course is true anyway, but beside the point). But justice was done in the end, so who cares, right?

The way this whole fiasco has been handled from day one to the final moments is a disgrace. Even after the guy is dead it has been a disaster. Saddam is now a martyr, which in my opinion is the biggest irony of the whole invasion. Only the bumbling idiots in the Pentagon and at Downing Street could turn the region's most evil leader into a martyr.

Post War Iraq

Bush Escalates Iraq War with 20,000 More Troops; Threatens Iran, Syria with Military Action

President Bush announced plans Wednesday night to escalate the war in Iraq and send over 20,000 more troops. He said he took responsibility for past mistakes but that more troops are needed to pacify Baghdad and other parts of the country. The President also threatened military action against Iran and Syria. We play excerpts of his address.
Ref. https://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/11/1536230

Post War Iraq - Page 110

Gee, just say you want to take over the Middle East and get over it! I tell you all one thing, with all the plans Bush has with regards to wars and conflicts in the Middle East (now Iran and Syria), I would be very concerned about living in the USA.

Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 110

Another major speech - another raft of lies, deceit and foolish aggression by yesterday's man in the White House.

Bush's speech is yet another example of why he has becoming one of the most hated US leaders in history.

His plan for Iraq had all the usual elements.

Now that Saddam is removed, Bush has been forced to change the enemy of this invasion. It can't be the "Butcher of Baghdad" anymore, he's dead. What about that other Arab bloke, the one with the long greying beard? Yeah, we still hate him, let's make Al Qaeda public enemy number 1. The same Al Qaeda that was responsible for Sept 11. These are the terrorists that we all hate, that we "must" fight, because if we don't more planes will come crashing into US skyscrapers.

The word terrorist was included in Bush's speech at least 9 times to my count, Al Qaeda made 7 appearances. Iran then came next with 6 while Syria only had 2. Amazing, North Korea didn't get a mention and hence the Axis of Evil was not complete.

The reason why Bush constantly batters these words into the US psyche is because they invoke a feeling of discomfort and passion among US listeners. Hatred is another term that could be thrown into the mix. US media organisations constantly demonise these nations/organisations, rightly or wrongly, partly for ratings and partly to be seen as patriotic. The reality is Syria and especially Al Qaeda have so little to do with the current Iraq conflict. Their mere mention smacks of gross ignorance at best. Iran could be more involved but not to the extent that Bush would dream about.

Now that Saddam has gone, Bush has turned to trump card number one, Al Qaeda. This says in a nutshell the man is desperate to garner support for his imperial invasion of the Middle East.

Al Qaeda has never had anything to do with Saddam or Iraq. Hussein tried to have Bin Laden killed and they both hated each other.

The sectarian violence in Iraq is NOT terrorist related. But Bush knows that if he tells Americans terrorists have nothing to do with it, and it is really about Iraqi's fighting among themselves, he will lose the few splinters of support that still exist.

Bush mentions America's defeat, not Iraq's defeat, in his speech. America's defeat of who? Wasn't this whole conflict about liberating Iraqis? Since when was it about the US? This was a clear error on the part of his speech writer. By saying this, Bush is trying to fool Americans into believing the conflict is about US security. This is a blatant lie is as much a lie as Weapons of Mass Destruction and the War on Terror. The latter two catch-phrases will surely haunt the corridors of the White House until this Administration leaves. But I don't believe Americans are being fooled anymore. The invasion in Iraq has never been about US security and we all know it. How on earth can anyone believe that? Americans won't stand for this anymore so I am surprised White House officials have again clutched at these straws.

This whole notion that if we pull out, the terrorists have won is so ridiculous it must literally take someone with an IQ of 30, or whatever Bush scores, to actually believe it. Since when was it ever a terrorist war?

Iraq is almost at a point of civil war, many say it is civil war, because there is a massive power vacuum. There are revenge attacks between Sunni and Shiite militias. The Iraqi security forces are very much involved. It has NOTHING to do with the US anymore. Sure, they will be targeted as well because nobody likes being occupied by an imperial force.

Sending 20,000 odd troops won't solve anything though. It won't result in scores more lives lost or saved. All it does is shows us that this US President to be stubborn beyond levels previously thought. He is willing to risk more US lives for a plan that completely ignores any sense of reality. Why doesn't he send Chelsea Bush? It's so easy for someone who cowardly escaped his own duty of national service to risk the lives of other children for political gain.

It's too late for the extra US troops, unfortunately Rummy screwed that part up of the plan. If Bush wants to leave politics with any sense of dignity, or at to least save face, he must admit his administration got it wrong. Then he must encourage an international effort to provide help to Iraq when and where necessary. This will involve Iran, who have not once been proven as a country that is seeking nuclear weapons, another lie repeated in Bush's passionate plead.

Providing financial support to Iraq is one tick Bush gets in his plan. But Iraq needs a whole lot more. Iraqis don't want any more US/British interference in their domestic affairs. It's time for the Texan to take defeat like a man.

I will probably receive a lot of criticism for these comments, but I would like to add that the Australian prime minister, John Howard, is perhaps the last lackey who continues to defend Bush. For his part in this conflict, John Howard is a national disgrace and NO free-trade agreement with the US is sweet enough to continue to support this calamitous imperial occupation.