IRAN, IRAK and the US position. - Page 8




 
--
Boots
 
February 16th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gingerbeard
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
Gingerbread read it again Spin Doctor. Foreign Nationals.
alrite, so what business is there for US go into iraq to take out foreign nationals who are harming iraqis?

its like, when US have prejudice in balck ppl, then u think tis right for africa to send its men over to US to stop US ppl harming black ppl? why do u think its right to enter someone else's country, and to judge what kind of gov should use, take its resources and put down so call "terrorists" while they are only against US?
I love the way a Theocracy can be called a Democracy or anywhere near the same. Religious fanatics do not discriminate. They consider Chinese or any Communist country as worse infidels as the USA. If they win, your butt will be hung out to dry next. Stop fanaticism now or you will fight it for the rest of time.
February 16th, 2005  
gingerbeard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missileer
Quote:
Originally Posted by gingerbeard
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
Gingerbread read it again Spin Doctor. Foreign Nationals.
alrite, so what business is there for US go into iraq to take out foreign nationals who are harming iraqis?

its like, when US have prejudice in balck ppl, then u think tis right for africa to send its men over to US to stop US ppl harming black ppl? why do u think its right to enter someone else's country, and to judge what kind of gov should use, take its resources and put down so call "terrorists" while they are only against US?
I love the way a Theocracy can be called a Democracy or anywhere near the same. Religious fanatics do not discriminate. They consider Chinese or any Communist country as worse infidels as the USA. If they win, your butt will be hung out to dry next. Stop fanaticism now or you will fight it for the rest of time.
really what prove? iraqis actually liek chinese due to the fact alot of products are being sold there, not to mention its veto against us action.
i saw a documentary about how iraqi think of chinese, they were pointing their thumbs up and where showing how chinese have traded and sold goods to iraq before the war.

remeber when tehy try to kidnap a japanese but it was a chinese? the iraqis freed those chinese when they found out and show sincerely to them.

point is, china actually want to improve relations rather than making it worse and invading a country.

i never said they disciminate, but they would fight against any invaders.

i am now getting a reaction that its getting a personal attack now, is it because i have different opinions? or u cannot take the fact?

fanaticism wont stop just because u invade a nation, u got to brainwash the ppl in order to get rid of it. try take the whole of middle east then educate them, i wonder where US economy and men lay?
February 17th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Once again Gingerbread you get waved a Maggies Drawers on getting the point. And continue to twist every statement into the rest of the world Loves Red China and hates the US agenda.

Communists do not acknowledge that God/Allah exisits. Christians and Jews on the other hand are considered people of the book in Islam. So although they are infidels by not following Islam they are not nearly as bad as Communists who are Godless in the eyes of many Islamic people.


Got it. Understand. Good I'm here to help
--
Boots
February 17th, 2005  
Big_Z
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gingerbeard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missileer
Quote:
Originally Posted by gingerbeard
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
Gingerbread read it again Spin Doctor. Foreign Nationals.
alrite, so what business is there for US go into iraq to take out foreign nationals who are harming iraqis?

its like, when US have prejudice in balck ppl, then u think tis right for africa to send its men over to US to stop US ppl harming black ppl? why do u think its right to enter someone else's country, and to judge what kind of gov should use, take its resources and put down so call "terrorists" while they are only against US?
I love the way a Theocracy can be called a Democracy or anywhere near the same. Religious fanatics do not discriminate. They consider Chinese or any Communist country as worse infidels as the USA. If they win, your butt will be hung out to dry next. Stop fanaticism now or you will fight it for the rest of time.
really what prove? iraqis actually liek chinese due to the fact alot of products are being sold there, not to mention its veto against us action.
i saw a documentary about how iraqi think of chinese, they were pointing their thumbs up and where showing how chinese have traded and sold goods to iraq before the war.

remeber when tehy try to kidnap a japanese but it was a chinese? the iraqis freed those chinese when they found out and show sincerely to them.

point is, china actually want to improve relations rather than making it worse and invading a country.

i never said they disciminate, but they would fight against any invaders.

i am now getting a reaction that its getting a personal attack now, is it because i have different opinions? or u cannot take the fact?

fanaticism wont stop just because u invade a nation, u got to brainwash the ppl in order to get rid of it. try take the whole of middle east then educate them, i wonder where US economy and men lay?
Care to throw some meat on those bones? My aunts cousin in law said.....
February 17th, 2005  
gingerbeard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
Once again Gingerbread you get waved a Maggies Drawers on getting the point. And continue to twist every statement into the rest of the world Loves Red China and hates the US agenda.

Communists do not acknowledge that God/Allah exisits. Christians and Jews on the other hand are considered people of the book in Islam. So although they are infidels by not following Islam they are not nearly as bad as Communists who are Godless in the eyes of many Islamic people.


Got it. Understand. Good I'm here to help
dun assume whati didnt said, i never said everyone loves china. but there are more haters of america than china.

i think there is more wrong in attacking islam then actually not believing in their god. being infidals dun mean they would attack them due to that reason. which i do not see any muslim countries do so beacuse of that. they attack christians just because they want more land.

so u say muslims would attack china? right, i dun see that in the 80s, or 70s ot so on. there is only a very few wars between them in the ancient era. some muslim states are a natural ally of the chinese in the ancient times.

right, u got to know, ppl pick and choose what to obey. so r u staying pakistani hate chinese? ask the pakistani, see what do they think.

also another pick and choose, is alot of muslims do disobey the law of islam. examples are iraq now.

also u got to know communist is only a name in china. i think the middle east knows that very well. and alot of chinese ppl do believe that god exist.
February 17th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gingerbeard
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
Once again Gingerbread you get waved a Maggies Drawers on getting the point. And continue to twist every statement into the rest of the world Loves Red China and hates the US agenda.

Communists do not acknowledge that God/Allah exisits. Christians and Jews on the other hand are considered people of the book in Islam. So although they are infidels by not following Islam they are not nearly as bad as Communists who are Godless in the eyes of many Islamic people.


Got it. Understand. Good I'm here to help
dun assume whati didnt said, i never said everyone loves china. but there are more haters of america than china.

i think there is more wrong in attacking islam then actually not believing in their god.

so u say muslims would attack china? right, i dun see that in the 80s, or 70s ot so on. there is only a very few wars between them in the ancient era. some muslim states are a natural ally of the chinese in the ancient times.

right, u got to know, ppl pick and choose what to obey. so r u staying pakistani hate chinese? ask the pakistani, see what do they think.

also another pick and choose, is alot of muslims do disobey the law of islam. examples are iraq now.

also u got to know communist is only a name in china. i think the middle east knows that very well. and alot of chinese ppl do believe that god exist.
GingerBread

No I never said the that Islamic people would attack China. No I never said Pakistan hated China. Matter of fact I don't recall bringing up Pakistan but hey...twist ,spin, twist ,right. ( ooops sorry I meant left)

What I was doing was trying to explain the preception of Communists that most Religious (not just Islamic) extremists hold.

Lets read more carefully shall we? And calm down it'll be alright lil' fella.
February 17th, 2005  
gingerbeard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
1. Where do you get the US harming black people thing?

2. The US removed Sadaam Hussien a dictator who raped, murdered and tortured his own people. Yeah that was a bad thing for us to do huh?

3. The Iraqi's just had an election or did ya miss that too? They are selecting their own Iraqi goverment.
in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

2: right, so why us didnt remove saddam in the 80s, cos that could of stopped another 14 years of rape etc...

3: iraqi hold an election yes. but that's the way US wanted to achieve other ends, and is it actually working? and u got to know not all country actually work well in a deomcracy, and installing a democracy is just a US excuse in entering iraq:

Elections Are Not Democracy
The United States has essentially stopped trying to build a democratic order in Iraq, and is simply trying to gain stability and legitimacyBy Fareed Zakaria
NewsweekFeb. 7 issue - By the time you read this, you will know how the elections in Iraq have gone. No matter what the violence, the elections are an important step forward, for Iraq and for the Middle East. But it is also true, alas, that no matter how the voting turns out, the prospects for genuine democracy in Iraq are increasingly grim. Unless there is a major change in course, Iraq is on track to become another corrupt, oil-rich quasi-democracy, like Russia and Nigeria.


In April 2003, around the time Baghdad fell, I published a book that described the path to liberal democracy. In it, I pointed out that there had been elections in several countries around the world—most prominently Russia—that put governments in place that then abused their authority and undermined basic human rights. I called such regimes illiberal democracies. In NEWSWEEK that month, I outlined the three conditions Iraq had to fulfill to avoid this fate. It is currently doing badly at all three.

Most-Popular Articles

• Royal Match: Camilla and Prince Charles to Wed—>
• The Myth of the Perfect Mother
• King Karl: Rove's New Duties
• One Mom’s Slacker Manifesto
• Q&A: Why Charles Can Now Marry Camilla

First, you need to avoid major ethnic or religious strife. In almost any "divided" society, elections can exacerbate group tensions unless there is a strong effort to make a deal between the groups, getting all to buy into the new order. "The one precondition for democracy to work is a consensus among major ethnic, regional, or religious groups," says Larry Diamond, one of the leading experts on democratization. This has not happened. Instead the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds are increasingly wary of one another and are thinking along purely sectarian lines. This "groupism" also overemphasizes the religious voices in these communities, and gives rise to a less secular, less liberal kind of politics.



Second, create a non-oil-based economy and government. When a government has easy access to money, it doesn't need to create a real economy. In fact, it doesn't need its citizens because it doesn't tax them. The result is a royal court, distant and detached from its society.

FAREED ZAKARIA Current Column | Archives
• Zakaria: Hail to the Flip-Flopper
In a recent letter to a Civil War historian, President Bush wrote, 'Lincoln set the goal and stayed the course. I will do the same'
• Zakaria: Elections Are Not Democracy
The United States has essentially stopped trying to build a democratic order in Iraq, and is simply trying to gain stability and legitimacy

Iraq's oil revenues were supposed to be managed well, going into a specially earmarked development fund rather than used to finance general government activities. The Coalition Provisional Authority steered this process reasonably well, though its auditors gave it a less-than-glowing review. Since the transfer of power to the Iraqi provisional government, Iraq's oil revenues have been managed in an opaque manner, with scarce information. "There is little doubt that Iraq is now using its oil wealth for general revenues," says Isam al Khafaji, who worked for the CPA briefly and now runs Iraq Revenue Watch for the Open Society Institute. "Plus, the Iraqi government now has two sources of easy money. If the oil revenues aren't enough, there's Uncle Sam. The United States is spending its money extremely unwisely in Iraq."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6885455/site/newsweek


Iraq voter turnout lowered


Tuesday 01 February 2005, 3:18 Makka Time, 0:18 GMT


Election commission: Initial tally of 72% was just an estimate



Related:
Confusion surrounds Iraq poll turnout
Summary of attacks on election day
Explosions in Iraqi cities as polls open



Tools:
Email Article
Print Article
Send Your Feedback



Election reports from Baghdad indicate that voter turnout was particularly low in the capital, while Iraq's poll panel has backtracked on its claim that 72% of all registered voters cast their ballots.


Iraqi journalist Ziyad al-Samarrai told Aljazeera on Monday that voter turnout in Baghdad was poor, especially in the al-Yarmuk, al-Amiriya, and al-Adhamiya districts - the main population centres in central and western Baghdad.

The Independent Election Commission of Iraq (IECI) said on Sunday its initial tally of 72% had been little more than a guess based on local estimates.

The panel has since revised the estimated turnout at 60% to 75%.

Boycott's reasons

Al-Samarrai reported that political beliefs, rather than security factors, were the reasons behind Iraqis' boycott of the elections.


Iraqis were killed in a blast that
targeted Australia's embassy


Most citizens interviewed by the journalist said the elections reflected nothing but the will of the United States and was for its own interests.

The Iraqi journalist also said the security situation in Iraq was deteriorating. He reported that clashes erupted on Monday morning between fighters and US forces in Baghdad while US helicopters hovered over the city.

US and Iraqi forces are heavily deployed in the city's streets, he added.

Protests in north

In other developments, Aljazeera has learned that demonstrations have swept Christian and Kurdish villages in northern Iraq's Shaikhan district in protest against the inability of voters to cast their ballots in Sunday's election.

"Because of the exceptional circumstances, the turnout [in the Sunni governorates] was
not high"

Harith Muhammad Hasan, election commission deputy chief

The protesters accused the parties concerned of failing to deliver ballot boxes to the polling stations in the area.

Furthermore, Dawud Baghistani, supervisor of the Kurdish candidates' list in Singar district, has accused interim President Ghazi al-Yawir of using his powers to transfer a number of ballot boxes in Singar, near Mosul, to another village in the region controlled by his cousin.

Baghistani said the transfer of the ballot boxes provided al-Yawir with about 9000 extra votes and deprived hundreds of Shaikhan residents of the chance to exercise their voting rights.

No final number

Earlier on Monday, Iraq's election commission said a final figure for turnout will take some days to determine.

Nevertheless, Harith Muhammad Hasan, deputy chief of IECI, said a majority of voters took part in the election in most provinces.

"We still don't have a final number but we can say it was better than expected," Hasan said.


The security situation remains
tense one day after the polls

"The reports from the provinces are very good. In most of the
provinces a majority of voters came out."

Referring to the Sunni governorates, he said that
"because of the exceptional circumstances, the turnout was not high".

Baghdad and the governorate of Salah al-Din, Anbar, Ninava and Diyala are where Sunni opposition to the election was concentrated.

Hasan said the vote in Ninava, which saw much anti-US fighting in recent days, was better than Anbar, where the volatile towns of Ramadi and Falluja are located.

Marine killed

In a separate incident, a US marine was killed in combat in Iraq's western Anbar province, the US military said on Monday.

The marine, assigned to the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, was killed while troops conducted security operations on Sunday.

The statement did not say exactly where he was killed.


Heavy security was not enough
to persuade all Iraqis to vote


In other developments, Australia has abandoned its Baghdad embassy and shifted diplomatic staff to a US military base after a car bomb attack on the embassy compound on 19 January, Canberra said on Monday.

Relocation awaited

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Camp Victory would be a temporary home while the Australian mission awaited relocation to a permanent embassy inside the heavily fortified Green Zone international sector of Baghdad.

Camp Victory, a major US facility close to Baghdad International Airport and the headquarters of both the US and Australian military, will accommodate ambassador Howard Brown and his two staff members for up to six months, Downer said.

Two Iraqis were killed and two Australian soldiers slightly
injured in the 19 January attack in which a car bomb exploded
outside the embassy's concrete blast barriers and alongside the Australian soldiers' accommodation.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...BE41ADE2C8.htm


Shia victory is blow to US line on Iran's N-arms
By Charles Clover in Baghdad
Published: February 14 2005 02:00 | Last updated: February 14 2005 02:00

The victory by Shia clerics in Iraq's elections is likely to complicate US efforts to press Iran to dismantle its nuclear programme.

The United Iraqi Alliance is dominated by two political parties formerly based in Iran, and many members of the bloc still have close ties with their Shia neighbour.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/bb316aaa-7e...00e2511c8.html

US fights back against 'rule by clerics'
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - Given the widespread Sunni boycott of Iraq's January 30 elections for a National Assembly, with voting concentrated among the Kurdish north and Shi'ite south, the polls served more as a referendum to prove Shi'ite and Kurd strength.

This can be seen in the results of the polls released on Sunday, with the Shi'ite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance capturing 48% of the vote and the Kurdish alliance 26%.

Now it emerges that there is a strong movement in southern Iraq for the establishment of autonomous Shi'ite provinces as a precursor to introducing vilayet-e-faqih (rule by the clergy) in the whole country.

Of these calls for autonomy or federalism, the most disconcerting for US authorities is the call for religious rule. Already, leading Shi'ite clerics in Iraq are pushing for "Islam to be recognized as the guiding principle of the new constitution".

To head off this threat of a Shi'ite clergy-driven religious movement, the US has, according to Asia Times Online investigations, resolved to arm small militias backed by US troops and entrenched in the population to "nip the evil in the bud".

Asia Times Online has learned that in a highly clandestine operation, the US has procured Pakistan-manufactured weapons, including rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, ammunition, rockets and other light weaponry. Consignments have been loaded in bulk onto US military cargo aircraft at Chaklala airbase in the past few weeks. The aircraft arrived from and departed for Iraq.

The US-armed and supported militias in the south will comprise former members of the Ba'ath Party, which has already split into three factions, only one of which is pro-Saddam Hussein. They would be expected to receive assistance from pro-US interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's Iraqi National Accord.

A military analyst familiar with strategic and proxy operations commented that there is a specific reason behind procuring arms from Pakistan, rather than acquiring US-made ones.

"A similar strategy was adopted in Afghanistan during the initial few years of the anti-USSR resistance [the early 1980s] movement where guerrillas were supplied with Chinese-made AK-47 rifles [which were procured by Pakistan with US money], Egyptian and German-made G-3 rifles. Similarly, other arms, like anti-aircraft guns, short-range missiles and mortars, were also procured by the US from different countries and supplied to Pakistan, which handed them over to the guerrillas," the analyst maintained.

The obvious reason for this tactic is to give the impression that the resistance acquired its arms and ammunition from different channels and from different countries - and anywhere other than the United States.

Asia Times Online contacts said it is clear that Pakistan would not be the only country from which the US would have procured arms. And such arms could not be destined for the Iraqi security forces because US arms would be given to them.

For the Americans, the situation in southern Iraq has turned into a double-edged sword. Iraqis there fully embraced the elections - even if they had to be convinced by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani to do so - and this participation was welcomed as a sign of democracy taking root in the country.

But with Shi'ite religious parties emerging as the strongest power, no sooner were the elections over than voices were raised for the creation of an autonomous southern Iraqi region, and for vilayet-e-faqih .

People from different walks of life from Basra and other southern provinces can be heard on television and radio channels demanding a federal system in which southern Shi'ites could govern their oil resources for their benefit.

Notably, Ahmad Chalabi, a leading secular Shi'ite candidate in the Iraqi elections, has called for autonomy for the Shi'ite south, which contains some of the world's largest oil fields. Chalabi, a former US favorite who fell out with Washington after the 2003 invasion, said the move would ensure a fairer share of wealth for a region that provides the bulk of Iraqi revenue but receives only a fraction of state spending. The mainly Shi'ite southern provinces of Amara, Nasiriya and Basra are Iraq's poorest, Chalabi said.

Observers say this is the beginning of a new era which could climax in a movement for vilayet-e-faqih , a compulsory part of the Shi'ite faith that is intertwined with the concept of imamat or leadership (all Muslims under one leader). The difference between a caliph and an imam is that a caliph can be anyone accepted by Muslims, but an imam must hail from the Prophet Mohammed's family and be a recognized religious authority (clergy).

Already, members of the Da'wa Party, many of whom were taught in Iran, have taken over mosques in Basra, and members of Hezbollah have heavily infiltrated the Shi'ite population, in addition to Iranian intelligence and members of the Pasdaran-i-Inqalab (Iran's Revolutionary Guards) to pave the way for vilayet-e-faqih.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GB15Ak02.html

AMS: Iraq election lacked legitimacy


Monday 14 February 2005, 2:03 Makka Time, 23:03 GMT


AMS officials said the elections could not be accepted



Related:
Iraqi politicians regret Sunni absence
Shia list wins most votes in Iraq polls
AMS rejects writing constitution



Tools:
Email Article
Print Article
Send Your Feedback




The Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq has said the country's elections cannot be accepted as they were conducted while under occupation.



A spokesman for the influential Iraqi group, Muhammad Bashar al-Faydhi, told Aljazeera on Sunday: "We, from the beginning, have announced our position towards the election as a political process that does not meet the interests of Iraqis since it lacks legitimacy.

"It was carried in the absence of international supervision and under occupation. Only persons with vested interests were supervising the political process, a move that is not logically and scientifically accepted," al-Faydhi added.

Election officials announced the results earlier in the day, saying 47% of eligible voters took part in the 30 January vote.

"It was carried in the absence of international supervision and under occupation. Only persons with vested interests were supervising the political process"

Muhammad Bashar al-Faydhi, AMS spokesman

But many Iraqis, most notably Sunni Arabs, did not vote due to security concerns or after boycotting the elections altogether.

Officials said only 2% of Sunni Arabs from al-Anbar province voted while only 29% from Salah al-Din province voted.

AMS officials said they will establish relations with the new government despite their belief that it lacks the authority to govern.

"For the sake of those people [who voted], we respect their choice, and will deal with the new government. Yet we know it lacks authority, does not diplomatically represent Iraq, and does not have the right or legitimacy to draw up a permanent constitution and enter in or ratify agreements," al-Faydhi said.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...957A0390D1.htm

Shiites and Kurds
The main winners in Iraq elections

By Ahmed El Amraoui | Morocco TIMES 2/13/2005 | 3:54 pm


As expected a coalition of Shi'ite Islamist groups won the most votes in Iraq's election, well ahead of an alliance of Kurdish parties which came second, followed by a bloc led by the interim Iraqi Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi.




Ph. AFP

As also predicted only two percent of eligible Iraqis in the Sunni Arab-dominated Anbar province voted in Iraq's elections, and only 29 percent in the mainly Sunni
Salahadin province.

Though the percentage it received was lower than expected, the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance remained dominant, winning 47.6 percent of the vote, well ahead of a coalition of the two main Kurdish parties that came second with 25.7 percent, followed by 13.8 percent, for interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's list. The final tally released today showed.

The United Iraqi Alliance, allegedly claimed earlier today that it had been told by Iraq's Electoral Commission that it had won around 60 percent of the vote in the country's election.

According to the Electoral commission, these results will, however, allow the Shiite coalition to take a majority of 132 seats in the new 275-member National Assembly, which will allow it to eye for top posts in the coming Iraqi government.

Horse-trading to determine who will get the most powerful positions in the next government is already in full swing between the Shiite and Kurds coalitions.

According to the commission's tally, overall turnout was 8.55 million votes, 58 percent of those registered to vote.

The Shi'ite United Iraqi Alliance won 4.075 million votes, the Kurds won 2.175 million and Allawi's list won 1.168 million.

The low turnout in Sunni provinces showed that many Sunni Arabs boycotted the election or stayed away out of fear, paving the way for Shiites and Kurds to win the majority in Iraq's landmark elections in half a century.

http://www.moroccotimes.com/news/article.asp?id=3725

if u r going to use democracy to cover up ur real cause, then do it better.

why do u think i twist the facts? is it because u cannot accept them?

u never said why saddam wasnt removed int eh 80s if US is really always fights for human rights.
February 17th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Wow nice manifesto. Boy I tell ya what.

1800's and 1900's. That has alot of bearing on this discussion right ( ooops did it again...meant left) But hey spin twist spin reach twist.

Why not remove Saadam in the 90's? could have been because our Arab Allies did not want us to.


And gee willikers there Gingerbread. The Iraqi's had an election and man the that has apparently won was not favored by the US. But by the Iraqi people hmmm. Does that mean that the US didn't control it . Wow.

Elections don't make a democracy. Well you should know huh. Whens the last time China had free elections? They may not make a democracy but it's a good start.
February 17th, 2005  
gingerbeard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
Wow nice manifesto. Boy I tell ya what.

1800's and 1900's. That has alot of bearing on this discussion right ( ooops did it again...meant left) But hey spin twist spin reach twist.

Why not remove Saadam in the 90's? could have been because our Arab Allies did not want us to.


And gee willikers there Gingerbread. The Iraqi's had an election and man the that has apparently won was not favored by the US. But by the Iraqi people hmmm. Does that mean that the US didn't control it . Wow.

Elections don't make a democracy. Well you should know huh. Whens the last time China had free elections? They may not make a democracy but it's a good start.
well, if u like to deny the facts and saying it is irrelevant when i only used it as an EXAMPLE. then there i sno point discussing with u. twist left and tiwst right, then use denial.

so, u think its right for us to go into a country to take its natural resources and teach them how to govern themselves just because it doesnt suits u? right, as i said, so u think its right for africa to enter us when us was still heavily prejudice upon blacks? best logic i have ever heard.

so right, let's twist the facts, what does china relate to this? china isnt even democracy. right i guess u have a gd sense of humour, twist, spin, twist, left. nice joke!

favoured by the iraqi ppl? what about the sunni minority? i guess u still need to know what democracy means.

when did ur arab allies didnt want u to? this already shows US is not working for human rights then.

but hey, just believe what u believe. i dun see the point disccusing with u as u like to deny every facts that shows US dun follow the standard but liek to impose on others.
February 17th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Don' worry lil' fella some day you'll understand what everybody is trying to explain to ya.