yet when Saddam is commiting some of those crimes, U.S was supporting him (from 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran war, U.S was on Saddam's side).

more importantly, U.S government is lying to its people on WMD or nuke issue, a real shame.

and nice work in Iraq now, a civil war is ahead for sure.

more importantly, U.S government is lying to its people on WMD or nuke issue, a real shame.

and nice work in Iraq now, a civil war is ahead for sure.

Micheal Moore made a an account!

First of all the United States had false intellgence and did not "lie" to its people. The reasons for this false intellgence might of had something to do with 8 years of neglect from the clinton adminstration.

On the second point, are you a blind? THE FACT THEY MADE A CONSTITUTION IS PROOF YOUR WRONG. They got over there diffrences compromised and drafted a constitution, how is this leading to civil war? When i see shia and sunni clerics standing side by side denoucing the insurgency i dont see this as a prelude to civil war. Are there going to be mistakes yes, were there mistakes in the US constitution; yes, and they have been corrected just as they will be in Iraq.

1. Bush and his buddies intervented the procedure of filtering intelligence, and they took the intelligence they wanted (no matter how ridiculous and baseless they were).


2. are you sure the consitution is approved by everybody??

read it carefully and see who has rejected it and who are the consequences!

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/me...ion/index.html

Originally Posted by gladius

I saw this show on Iran about a year or saw ago, most people in there where secretly saying that they do not like the Iranian government and that they wish the US would do the same thing as they did with Afganistan over there.

And yes its funny, and sad, how alot of Europeans believe in their own flawed liberal thinking, when the common people of Iran believe otherwise.

Unfortunately, the new Iranian President is an Islamic hardliner. It was a major setback for the moderate Iranians. His main agenda is to develop Iran as a modern and advanced Islamic power.

I actually think that day is coming. Give it about 20 years or so.

Europe will be invaded by a united Islamic Empire. The deathtoll for this war will surpass even WWII.

Hmm I suppose it could happen but how would they ever unite? One big difference is Sunni and Shia muslim, why would they unite to invade Europe? Also Egypt and Syria did merge to become the United Arab Republic sometime in the mid 20th century to try to unite Arab nationalism, almost got Yemen in as well, but it failed and collapsed in 1961.
Kuwait backs the US, Saudi arabia's government does to some degree. Egypt's government does as well. Iran's public seems pro american. Iraq is changing to a democracy. Turkey is close to Europe as well
If you include Northern African Arab countries, then Tunisia is close to Europe, and Morocco and extremely close ties to the US and Europe spanning many years.
It seems like it would be near impossible to unite the Arab states.But that is just my opinion.

Rabs

You kidding yourself, take off the blinders. No matter what your opinion is about Iraq (stay or leave now) there is absolutely no doubt that Bush lied about Iraq. To deny that now is to deny reality. I saw the 2nd in Command of the CIA James McLaughlin on CNN saying that the Administation 'cherry-picked' the information around their policy. You have the aides to Powell saying how shocked they were of how weak the WMD case was, you have the British Downing Street memo, You have GOP congressman expressing grave doubts about the sincerity of the Administration what more do you need? Even Bill O'Reilly admitted the Administration lied. Clinton had his faults, but blaming him for Iraq is like blaming Bush for Hurricane Katrina. Not even the worst Bush apologists in the media could go that far.

The constitution is as worthless as the paper its written on if the Sunnis dont agree to it. There are many Sunni that want nothing more than to put Saddam back in power and totally crush the Shites and Kurds. How do you plan on have democracy with a policy like that?

As for the Islamic Empire. I hate to tell you this but Europe has been fighting radical Islam much longer than the USA has. Most countries (France being the most severe) have very strict anti-radical laws. The two countries were that was weak was Germany and the UK. Both of which are in the midst of improving their security as we speak.

Although this is about IRANIAN people not Iraq but let me have my say here:

1- Bush repeated the same false intel that russians, french, british and germans had given him

2- In the long run, Iraq will be a safe, democratic country in the region.

3- Global war on terror is necessary because right now resembles the 1930s when Democracies were scattered and Nazis and Fascists (now islamists) were taking the world. Set aside the differences and focus on your common enemy before it is late

Phoenix

Well its hard to talk about 1 with discussing the other as they are somewhat linked...

1. Brits, french Germans etc never gave Bush anything. The intel came from the CIA. Like Bush, They simply assumed that Saddam was cheating without proof, the difference is thqt they didnt act on a assumption. As they say Assumption is the mother**** of all disaster.

2. No, thats what you HOPE and PRAY might happen. What will happen has yet to be written. The Muslims have been at war with each other for centuries, if you really think that declaring "democracy" in Iraq is going to change that, you might as well declare "mission accomplished" for the civil war you about to start.

3. As for Iran. The fact that the new president is a hardliner doesnt really change much internationally. The fact the the ultra extremist Guardian Consul still has final say in most everything makes the election almost moot. I think the rhetoric will go up but everything else will stay the same, meaning Iran will continue to try and get the bomb. the real question is what is th rest of the world going to do about it?

Originally Posted by WorldWatcher

Hmm I suppose it could happen but how would they ever unite? One big difference is Sunni and Shia muslim, why would they unite to invade Europe? Also Egypt and Syria did merge to become the United Arab Republic sometime in the mid 20th century to try to unite Arab nationalism, almost got Yemen in as well, but it failed and collapsed in 1961.
Kuwait backs the US, Saudi arabia's government does to some degree. Egypt's government does as well. Iran's public seems pro american. Iraq is changing to a democracy. Turkey is close to Europe as well
If you include Northern African Arab countries, then Tunisia is close to Europe, and Morocco and extremely close ties to the US and Europe spanning many years.
It seems like it would be near impossible to unite the Arab states.But that is just my opinion.

I agree with Rhodes on the attitude of the Europeans. What I wanted to point out, Watcher, is that exactly you're right, that's why the Islamists consider all the governments of all the Muslim countries, either democratic, socialist, dictatorial etc, as blasphemous govts. Only the Taliban they regarded to as legitimate. That is why they have been attacking Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan. Those govts in their eyes are nothing but friends of the West.

I am interested why Iran wants Nuclear weapons? This is speculative, but if the people of Iran want greater freedom, and closer ties to Europe and the US (as per the article), then that desire would likely be perceived as a threat by the ruling theocrats to their power. In that case, the theocrats might view the possession of Nuclear weapons as useful bargaining chips to expand & shore up their influence domestically and within the global community.

Saddam Hussein used the saber rattling technique to maintain his power base for years. (Although he miscalculated in the end). North Korea's Supreme Idiots 1 & 2 have both used this technique to maintain power and are now going down the nuke path presumably with the same aims. It just appears that desperate leaders seem to think the nuke option is a sensible game plan.

IMO, the world's most urgent priority should be to stop the development of nuclear weapons by "rogue states". The UN however is more interested in periods of prolonged navel gazing!

Has anyone taken into account the fact that Iraq had approximately 10 years to resolve any and all doubts about their WMD programs or anything else for that matter? Yet over the course of those years they repeatedly delayed and removed UN workers from various sites in the country and refused them access to other parts and sites.

One of the reasons that I feel we went in was for the blatant disregard of the UN council. I mean how many times does a person have to be asked or told to allow inspection of your facilities etc etc. How many times must we impose sanctions against a country? In the long run all it was doing was hurting the people, not him. He could give a crap. It never hurt his lifestyle.

Saddam was given an ulitmatum, (paraphrase) "let us in freely, or else."

Well he chose the "or else."

This is putting a very basic spin on the whole situation of course. But if you look back and consider what was originally released in the press at the very beginning, that was the (I think) basic reason for us going in in the first place. (He thumbed his nose at the UN counil for 10+ years and the US took offense and socked him in it.)

He kicked out the UN workers and refused to allow them 100% inspection as required under the previous terms of agreement. (I am not sure exactly what the agreements were, this is an uneducated assumption on my part)