One year ago the United States unleashed its armed forces in an invasion of Iraq. Prior to the invasion, the Bush administration offered a variety of justifications for launching it and defended its war plan against critics who claimed that a U.S. invasion was unnecessary and would be immoral or unwise. For everyone except those blinded by partisan loyalty to the Bush administration, the truth is now all too obvious. The administration was wrong and the critics were right.
The president, the vice president, the secretaries of defense and state, and other leading figures in the Bush administration insisted confidently and repeatedly in interviews, speeches, and public forums that the Iraqi regime harbored vast stocks of chemical and biological weapons; that it was actively developing nuclear weapons; that it either possessed already or soon would possess effective means, including long-range missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles, of delivering so-called weapons of mass destruction far beyond its borders, even to the United States; that it had established links to members of al Qaeda; and that it was directing its military and related efforts toward wreaking great harm on the United States. Along the way, many auxiliary claims came forth involving, among other things, an alleged Iraqi attempt to obtain uranium "yellow cake" from Niger; procurement of aluminum tubes allegedly for use in Iraqi nuclear-weapons production; and an alleged April 2001 meeting in Prague between al Qaeda operative Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent. Administration leaders maintained that the conquest of Iraq (officially its "liberation") would set off a chain reaction of democratization across the Middle East.
On March 17, 2003, just two days before the beginning of the U.S. invasion, President Bush said in an evening address to the nation:
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. . . . The [Iraqi] regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other. . . . Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed. . . . The tyrant will soon be gone. [Iraqi people] [t]he day of your liberation is near. . . . [W]e cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed. . . . We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. . . . We choose to meet that threat now where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities. . . . [R]esponding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense. It is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now. . . . [W]hen the dictator has departed, [the Iraqi people] can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.
On March 19, having ordered U.S. forces to begin the invasion, the president said in an evening address:
We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people. . . . Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly, yet our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. . . . We will meet that threat now with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of firefighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.
Despite a lingering unwillingness to admit in plain language that none of the president's claims about Iraqi threats has held up in the face of the facts brought to light during the past year, the administration has ceased to defend them and has resorted instead to denying that the president himself ever used the phrase "imminent threat"; to blaming faulty intelligence for misleading the president; and to justifying the war on the grounds that no matter what else might have been the case, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. Moreover, although the U.S. occupation of Iraq has made that country a magnet for Islamic holy warriors, suicide bombers, and planters of roadside IEDs (improvised explosive devices) and although terrorists have carried out horrendous retaliatory bombings in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Indonesia, Turkey, and Spain, among other places, President Bush persists in his locker-room bravado and declares that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have made the world "a safer, freer place."
Today, many prewar predictions can be tested against the actual outcomes of the war. We now know, for example, that U.S. forces have not been welcomed - at least, not for long or by many people - in Iraq. But in view of the thousands of deaths that they caused among civilians as well as Iraqi soldiers, the countless persons of all ages and both sexes that they injured, the vast destruction of property that they wreaked, and the widespread looting that they unleashed and then stood by watching, why would they have been welcomed? Many Iraqis, especially the Shiites and Kurds, are pleased to be rid of Saddam Hussein and his regime, but few of them relish the occupation of their country by U.S. troops or their subjugation to a foreign power. In the port city of Umm Qasr, hospital director Dr. Akram Gataa gave representative testimony for the southern region when he said, "Everyone was happy when the soldiers came here to get rid of the old regime but now people are wondering what this so-called freedom has brought them." Dr. Gataa reported that the mood of the local people was turning quickly from frustration to resentment and anger, and he added: "All of us will fight them if they stay here too long. No Iraqi will accept this turning into the occupation of their country."
Nor do the U.S. troops themselves enjoy serving as targets in the scores of attempts made daily to kill them. As one soldier said, "U.S. officials need to get our asses out of here. We have no business being here. . . . All we are here is potential people to be killed and sitting ducks." Nearly 600 have died so far, thousands have been injured seriously, and many have had their mental states rearranged for the worse - approximately one thousand of the U.S. troops evacuated to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany were suffering from mental problems, according to hospital commander Colonel Rhonda Cornum. Violence can accomplish certain things, but neither "nation building" nor the promotion of sound mental health is among those things.
For many of us, none of these events has come as a surprise. Before the war, we told anyone who would listen that the administration had not made a convincing case for its impending invasion of Iraq and that its rosy forecast of the aftermath of a U.S. attack was so unlikely as to border on the fantastical.
Because the prosecution of a war serves so splendidly to promote government power and to gratify a president's delusions of war-leader "greatness" (his prime claim to fame as he seeks reelection), however, one naturally suspects that the invasion of Iraq was never intended to serve the announced purposes, that the stated rationale was pure pretext all along. A close look at the backgrounds, expressed policy preferences, and actions of the neoconservative schemers who played such a prominent role in promoting the invasion - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and company - does nothing to diminish such suspicion. Indeed, if the pure-pretext explanation is not valid, then one is hard pressed to understand how the government, with its vast multi-billion-dollar intelligence apparatus, managed to get so many things wrong while isolated individuals with no privileged access to classified or inside information, such as I, managed to get them right all along.
Truth be known, this discrepancy testifies to the comic-opera quality of the whole undertaking. It illuminates the many ways in which the administration, the so-called intelligence community, the make-believe checks and balances in Congress and the courts, and the propaganda organs that masquerade as major independent news media have been engaged, and even now continue to engage, in something akin to one of those huge ballroom dances at the Palace of Versailles, each dancer moving in perfect harmony with all the rest, almost as if the entire performance had been - dare I say? - choreographed. Gazing though the unshuttered windows of power at this grandiose performance, the awed peasants perceive the elegantly costumed and magnificently coiffured dancers as they join and turn and separate, only to join and turn again in harmonious synchronization.
Thus, the Democratic challenger for the presidency is represented by his party and by the press as a stern critic of the war, but one has to wonder: where was his steely resolve in October 2002, when he voted in the Senate to hand over to the president the authority that the Constitution gives to Congress alone to declare war? Now, weaseling like a typical politician, he maintains that he was tricked - Bush "misled every one of us," he declares - and that he voted as he did because he trusted George Bush to go to war only as a "last resort." Can John Kerry have been so obtuse that he had no idea who held the reins at the Bush administration? Did he not know what Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, and the rest of that gang had been cooking up for decades in public as well as in private? Clarifying his stance, Kerry maintains not that Bush should not have gone to war but only that Bush should have formed a bigger coalition before doing so. Evidently an immoral and unwise war is hunky-dory if enough aggressors join forces to wage it.
To suppose that Kerry is antiwar and Bush pro-war would be to mischaracterize a case of Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber. As a phrase used on another, similar occasion back in the 1960s reminds us, there's not a dime's worth of difference between these two barons of the ruling oligarchy. The effusion of campaign blather and the election that will mercifully end it in November are all part of the ritual dance. In no event will the election's outcome materially affect the realities of death and destruction that U.S. and puppet forces are dishing out worldwide or the spasms of terrorist retaliation and assorted other "blowback" that are certain to follow. To imagine anything else is tantamount to forgetting the entire political history of this country during the past century.
Meanwhile, the dance continues. A congressionally approved blue-ribbon commission, though repeatedly obstructed by the president's refusal to cooperate fully, strenuously probes the 9/11 disaster in preparation for its eventual preordained whitewash of presidential or administration responsibility. Another bipartisan, presidentially appointed panel, whose report has been conveniently scheduled to arrive well after the November election, digs into the "faulty intelligence" on which the administration relied prior to its invasion of Iraq. Weapons searcher David Kay has already admitted that "we were almost all wrong," and the commission's goal of course is to "get to the bottom" of this matter - as if, at this late date, the whole world doesn't know exactly how the neocons spun the whole shebang in order to tell a plausible tale on behalf of their beloved war. On Capitol Hill, Congressional committees hold mock-serious hearings, going through the motions of searching for the facts about intelligence failures, military snafus, and cozy deals in the military-industrial complex. These dedicated public servants are always shocked - shocked! - when they happen to stumble onto the truth, but as well-rehearsed dancers they can be counted on not to stumble that way frequently. If John Q. Public thinks that any of this official investigatory activity will provide him with reliable information about how the government actually works, or even about how it intends to work, he is sacrificing a good opportunity to go fishing. It's all for show.
If you think I'm off base, then take the following test. Check the cast of characters a year from now, five years from now, ten years from now. See who's prospered and who hasn't. See whose head has rolled (don't expect many) for misfeasance or malfeasance in public office. Check whether many politicians who came into office without great wealth somehow left office filthy rich. Check on their friends and relatives, too. Notice whose kids have been killed or wounded by roadside IEDs in whatever Third World hellhole the United States has invaded and occupied most recently (don't expect to find the scions of any government bigwigs among those blown to smithereens or driven mad by combat stress). Check whether the United States has managed to bring into being a glorious worldwide regime of democracy, peace, and prosperity and whether the world's peoples are hailing Uncle Sam with hosannas and strewing his global pathways with flowers in gratitude for his beneficent intervention (just don't hold your breath waiting for this oft-promised outcome). I'm prepared to be wrong. If I am, I'll deliver a dollar for each of your donuts.
What we see in Iraq one year after the invasion might have been foreseen, and in fact was foreseen, by anybody who cared to take the trouble to look into the matter without ideological or religious blinders and with a modicum of historical background on the conduct of U.S. foreign policy during the past century. This war, like all the others, has been not so much a case of who knew what when, of well-intentioned mistakes and tragic miscalculations. It has been more a case of who told what lies to whom, to serve what personal, political, and ideological ends; of who paid the price in blood and treasure and who came out smelling like a rose; of mendacity and irresponsibility in high places and of colossal public gullibility in the face of relentless political opportunism. As the saying goes, the more things change . . .
Robert Higgs is Senior Fellow in Political Economy at The Independent Institute and editor of its scholarly quarterly journal, The Independent Review. He is also the author of Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government and the editor of Arms, Politics and the Economy: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives.
We all know that we prefer to help our Ummah before anyone else because if we do not help ourselves first, then we will not be able to help out anyone else. So do not let such comments as some who posted before us deter you in your belief to help your fellow brothers and sisters into self sustenance and to acquire Islamic discipline. Charity starts at home. If you cannot support your own family first, then how will you go and support your next door neighbour?
As I have said before but some people do not listen, Islam came for all of mankin, and the example for us to follow is Nabi Muhammad (SAAW. He first made sure that his own family members, then his community families were all taken care of and strong in whichever way they needed. When this was accomplished, Prophet Muhammad (SAAW) and his thousands of companions were so strong and just in their ways, that when they reclaimed Makkah from Abu Sufyan and Hindi, they did not even kill or harm one single person.
"And he said, The LORD came from Si'-nai, and rose up from Se'-ir unto them; he shined forth from mount Pa'-ran [Mecca in Arabic], and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. (The King James Version Bible, Deuteronomy 33:2)"
These ten thousand saints mentioend in the Bible were the companions of the Prophet, and the law carried by Muhammad (SAAW) on re-entering Makkah, was the Glorious Qur'an.
I suppose that's understandable, but at the same time it's important for American policymakers to keep this in mind when listening to the Muslim world's complaints. It's quite possibly the case that the Muslim world prioritizes crises according not to the level of suffering of a given group, but according to religious affiliations of the "oppressors" and the "oppressed". American policymakers should weigh such factors appropriately when considering the "recommendations" of leaders in the Muslim world.
I need no laxatives, for I am quite regular.
Nor do I believe that your love affair with kurds is anything but an opportunistic sham, its almost laughable to hear of you being against bullying because you're an American, quite the oxymoron.
As far as diet is concerned, invest in laxatives for yourself. Maybe you'll think a bit more rationally then.
Elected by a majority vote by the people of Iran, Prime Minister of Iran, Mossadegh was assasinated by the CIA, who thereafter installed their own dictator tyrant Shah, and subsequently this carried on until 1979 when people rebelled and organized against American hegemonay, and the Ayatollah did rise to power because of that as a reaction to the previous history of events in the nation and tyranny of the Shah(s).
Point 2 - Donald Rumsfeld in the early 1980's visited Saddam Hussain and talked about the sale of illegal chemical weapons to the baathist dictator of Iraq - the same chemicals used on the Kurds. Saddam Hussain was also used previously in the Iran-Iraq war by the Americans to overthrow the Ayatollah of Iran, where tens of thousands of people died in the process - all the while the people were unaware that a foreign power (USA)'s agenda in the region was being fought over. Regardless of if he was influenced by communism, he was used as a pond under US foreign policy, to defeat the Ayatollah of Iran, not matter what the cost of human casualty would be on both sides--America didn't clean up our mess for us then.
Correction 3: There are Muslims suffering all over, Tibet, Kashmir, Uzbekistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, France, Syrian and Egyptian jails (re: the recent case of Maher Arar deported to Syria and put in a torture cell while US intelligence had full knowledge of his innocence but made him suffer torture and pain like electric shocks and subhuman living quarters in his 4x6 foot cell, cat urine spraying from above, and rat dung and infestation all over, for 11 months) - We Muslims recognize this in a majority we are not only speaking out about Palestine, even though Palestine is one of the major places where Muslims are suffering.
In any event, I did not "help to install" Hussein, since I wasn't even born yet (at least I don't think I was). And why would my country installed Saddam? Are you not aware that Baathism is heavily influenced by National Socialist ideology, i.e. Nazism? If America had the choice at the time, it probably would have preferred someone more pro-Western like the Shah.
It's true that Saddam did get American aid for a time. But my coutry did not provide him with weaponized chemicals. Of course, he got by with dual-use materials that we gave him (like fertilizer and such), but in hindsight that was a mistake. (Ironically, you seem to be in agreement with the neocons on that one. Hope that's OK.)
As far as bombing Iraq, I can assure you I did no such thing. Besides, even if I wanted to I couldn't because I just don't have that power.
George Bush did make a mistake when he flaked on the Kurds after the Gulf War. Apparently, he fell for the idea pitched by the other Arab leaders like al-Assad and Fahd that it would be much better with Saddam in power than without him. Again, the neocons would agree with you that this was a big goof. And yeah, the sanctions that the Europeans pushed for was a bad idea too, since not only did it keep Saddam in power and starved his people, but also it enriched the Russians and the French at our expense. And again, the neocons would agree that this was a bankrupt idea both from a moral as well as a practical standpoint.
As far as expecting to be welcomed with flowers and such, I was never under that illusion. If that's what you believed, then I think you watch too much Zionist Controlled Media (ZCM). ;)
I am not stupid, although I am but a simple man who desires little more than to live a meaningful life free from injustice. As far you, I think you need more fiber in your diet
1.first you help to install Hussein as dictator
2.then for years you support him with your tax dollars, provide him with weapons (including chemical agents), so he can kill thousands of Iranians and his own people
3.then you bomb Iraq completely destroying it's infrastructure
4.then you call on iraqis to rise up against Saddam - once they do that you abandon them --
5.then you support genocide which in 12 years kill millions of iraqis more
6. then you invade their country and bomb it again killing tens of thousands of innocent bystanders, claiming that you are there to "liberate" them, while companies like Halliburton are taking over their only natural resource by secret, no-bid contracts. AND THEN YOU EXPECT IRAQIS TO WELCOME YOU WITH FLOWERS AND MUSIC????????
you people are either completely stupid or completely out of touch with reality. I repeat: you are a disgrace to the human race.
Deano's observation that you are indeed a disgrace to humanity is well put.
Wassalam (and peace).
Growing up, my mom used to get annoyed with me for not cleaning up my room. So one day, she took matters into her own hands and stuffed my entire mess into my closet. My room did look a much less messy afterwards, but I wasn't happy about it because it made it really hard for me to find all my toys, which were deep inside the pile in my closet. Nevertheless, I learned my lesson.
The moral of the story: Either clean up your own mess or we will be forced to do it for you.
Many in the Muslim world point to 9/11 when telling us that we need to be "fair" to the Palestinians. Implicitly, this promotes the use of threats of criminal abuse against our citizens unless we give in to the demands of extremists. We reject this entireley. We do not do good merely because terrorists coerce us with threats. We do good because it is right, and our God is just.
In my opinion, the terrorist synpathizers in the Muslim world must reevaluate their moral priorities.
A good example is this "acc," a true mental defective peddling the same boring, predictable nonsense he usually posts, at odds with reality as ever. Notice the heavy emphasis on a toothless like has-been like Saddam and a not a peep about his daddy Sharon. And why do you pretend to be a Muslim ? C'mon your talmud teaches you to be sneakier than that does it not ?
Nobody in their right holds America to a higher standard, moron. Your former errand boy Saddam was condemned by us long before he became your latest talking point, so shut your filthy mouth. Morever if you Americans behaved like civilized people and not like the lying thugs and gangsters we see terrorizing the world our attitude would be different.
Unfortunetly for you lapdogs for empire history is a great teacher.
STEALING THE PEOPLES' OIL REVENUES, USING RAPE AS A POLITICAL TOOL OF OPPRESSION, INVADED A FELLOW-MUSLIM COUNTRY, KUWAIT AND OCCUPIED IT FOR SEVERAL
MONTHS, WAGED WAR AGAINST ANOTHER FELLOW ISLAMIC COUNTRY, IRAN. NOT A WORD, A SINGLE WORD AGAINST ALL THIS ABORIGINAL PRIMITIVISM. AL WE HEAR IS WHAT AMERICA DID. DOES NO BODY HAVE THE GUTS TO ADMIT THAT IN SADDAM HUSSEIN, ISLAM PRODUCED
AN ARCH CRIMINAL WHO WOULD NOT HESITATE TO KILL EVEN THE MAHDI IF IT SUITED HIS NEFARIOUS PURPOSES. IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT THE PRESIDENT OF ALGIERS CANCELLED THE ARAB LEAGUE
SUMMIT BECAUSE HE FOUND ARAB LEADERS ARE SIMPLY NOT INTERESTED IN REFORMS OR PEACE. THIS ITSELF SHOWS THE DEEPENING CRISIS IN ISLAM. THANK GOD THAT AMERICA HAS THE GUTS NOT TO BUY ALL THE GARBAGE THAT IS BEING PEDDLED IN THE NAME OF ISLAM. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
Democracy works not because people get their way 100% of the time. It works because the government is ultimately responsible to the governed. We might disagree with our officials, and that's tolerable as long as the country runs smoothly nonetheless. But if they screw us then the insitutional mechanisms of our democracy grant us the means to screw them back.
That's just how it is.
Democracy is a fraud.
Yeah, Islam is pretty cool. My issues are not with Islam but with much the Muslim world. But instead of going into detail about why I feel the way I do, I'll give you a link:
Although I don't personally endorse all that the website publishes, I consider the webmasters to be enlightened people. Feel free to browse the site.
Regarding Akbar Khan, he really doesn't irritate me as you seem to think. For me, his attacks are mere words on my computer screen that I disregard without effort. On the contrary, my gut feeling is that he feels more annoyed than I do (which no doubt only compounds his annoyance on his end). As far as building rapport, he has already spurned my previous attempts at detente, so I'm not holding my breath. Fact is that I have generally dismissed most of the points that he has tried to make to me because he's rude when doing so, and therefore I see his issues not worth much for a response from me. Same goes for anyone else who responds rudely to my comments.
Regarding Iraq, I actually agree with Christopher Ward somewhat. Even though I didn't want my country to invade, we now have a responsibility to maintaining stability. If our soldiers leave the ground now, there will most likely chaos. Better to just allow our men and women to finish their tasks so that they can expedite the handover to the Iraqi people under reasonably secure conditions. Hopefully, this will allow the Iraqi people to finally control their country's destiny after decades of Saddam, and our people can come home to defend the homeland.
But I would like inform these warm crminals that there is Allah watching them & he will make them pay for this crime in this life & life after death
What concerns Iraq, in principle is wrong. Invasion and occupation, in my opinion, is not a solution for anything. Not for the invader and not for the occupied. Iraq is not Nazi Germany. The Baath doctrine is not comparable with that of Hitler's. I do not approve of it, as well as I do not approve of imperialism and communism. The amount of the distruction done is not worth the effort. The Iraqi infrastracture destroyed, human life lost. Political instability and a nation on the brim of a national catastrophe, could be the start of Armageddon. Any American that is not blinded by his government political campaign's retorics can see this as a would needing a long time to heal. It makes one wonder who would pay the bills.
"The point is what is done is done."
Sure and that is a nice way to condone atrocities, kill thousands, destroy and pollute a whole country with DU missiles and then say: well, wahts done is done!
Sounds like you have not heard of the word: JUSTICE.
One does not kill civilians and lays waste to a country because one has the power to do so and then say; Whats done is done! That is barbarism and no civilised person should accept that no matter what creed.
Just think. As we write this your government neocon (new and old cons) are actually planning similar deceitful actions against Syria and Iran. And when they lay their eggs as we say! You then come to us again and say: Whats done is done! Lets be nice to them and let them do what they want! What school you went to!
In Kinder Garden days my children learnt to respect property and share with other kids. Such basic civility is learnt from a very young age.
So, please instead of preaching to us, try stopping those war mongers in your government not to venture into other lands with their Zionist dreams because they do much harm to the American interests overseas. Truly, they have given you a bad name and you must take back your country, dude!
I do not have a lack of empathy for the plight of the less fortunate. Nor do I use someone else's opinion to judge others. Ultimately it is not my place to judge, so I leave such things for God to decide.
Nonetheless, I refuse to remain silent when the people of my country are attacked. I would not expect expect you to stand idle if Islam is slandered, so please do not object when I do so for my own country.
All who deviate from the more common views expressed on this website should be prepared to be targetted with a barrage of false accusations by Akbar Khan.
If an Iraqi cleric praises the 9/11 attacks, while your your income supports the, so far, deaths of over 15,000 Iraqi's, do you think you should you be burning in hell too? Get in touch with reality. You think that an American life is more valuable than the life of someone who is not American (I can tell by reading your comment) and you think that anything that happens to America is worse than if it happens somewhere else. You have no idea what war feels like...you've been consuming 2/3's of the world's food production all your life like a glutton and living self-righteously in denial of what is outside your realm..the bubble that you live in; he box you've built inside your brain.
I urge Nitro and Christopher Ward to read this article:
Please also understand that there many such reports from reliable sources. Then question not why people can't understand you and that "Muslims" are against you. First it is your duty to figure it out: What your foreign policy does in Muslim world. How you are perceived there? Why your soldiers being hunted down in Iraq? Do not live in a continued state of denial. Read and then take action against those who project America in Muslims world.
And please refrain from such justification as Nick Cameron presents that you are the greatest and this is the way it is. No wonder people hate you. It is because of such arrogance and total lack of eympathy. Use your own moral barometer to judge others. If you do not like being treated that way, then rest assured that we too would not like to be treated with such arrogance either.
remember too that as human beings we need no reason to love and relate to other human beings but we sure need a darn good reason to hate them. Above all please be very wary of reading about us from your media which aims to vilify us since by doing so you have let your own heart be hijacked.
[Quran 8:28] And know ye that your possessions and your progeny are but a trial; and that it is Allah with Whom lies your highest reward.
Allah is the Lord of grace unbounded (Quran 8:29).
Allah is the best of planners (Quran 8:30).
Assalamu alaikum (wa barakatuhu).
Sometimes, it's a challenge for me to fathom you way of thinking. But no big deal, because I think I have the gist of what you're trying to say.
The reason why I bring attention to your apparent belief that I'm Jewish is that I happen to be something other than Jewish. Nothing wrong with the Jews mind you, it's just that I'm not one of them. As for your desire to know something personal about me, I hereby declare to you that I like spicy food. I prefer South Asian cuisine, although Southeast Asian comes a close second. Regarding Akbar Khan, I am dismissive.
But to put these comments back on topic, I will say that I am optimistic about Iraq's prospects. And based on the polls, most Iraqis seem to feel the same way.
My country is indeed a superpower. It's easy for me to swallow, contrary to what you claim. But we are not prostitutes, because prostitution is impolite. That's the way it is.
Regardless, America will do what is in its interests regardless of what you or the Israelis demand of us.
Funny thing is that your dreams kind of remind me of my old Star Trek fantasies in which everyone on Earth got along and humans travel faster than light. Anyways, I agree that Islam is fine, and the Quran has a lot of nice things in it. Regarding Iraq, I didn't want us to go to war either, primarily because of the waste in recources that could have been used to fight Al Qaeda. So when you ask me if it was worth it, I I can only respond that don't know either. (We'll have a better idea in a decade, I think.)
I'm not going to comment on the other things you said because we're more or less in agreement on those issues.
I am l o l too Nick but in support of Hudd D'Alhamd's comments and description of you attitude. May be your behavior is the result of your country's grandiose political prostitution to Israel. You just can't swallow the fact that your country that is today world's superpower is ironically politically prostituting herself to satisfy and gratify a minority of Zionists. Face it Nick: the Jews only represent 3% of your country's population yet 1% of those Jews are evil creatures called Zionists that will continue to lead your country to hell on earth until America joins the Roman Empire in the history books!!!
USA would hardly achieve any security by invading so called "rogue" countries. The problem with that is the creation of refugees and refugees that hate. Homeland security? As long as it does not target a certain race or ethnicity for the purpose of discrimination and harrassement, or panishment, if you wil, I guess it's the best way to protect the country. Solve the economic problems at home, create jobs, creat health care, give every citizen the means to live a happy life and you have security. Think of Iraq. Was it worth? Is there more petroleum coming into the USA than before? No, comes in less. Are the American more safe? I don't know, what I know is that they are more hated, more isolated, more afraid and their friends' circle is dwindling. Imagine if half what is spent on the war machine would be spent on the space program? I could dream again! Oh yeah!
I take this opportunity to thank Islamicity.com for having contributed so much to increasing my knowledge with information and news that is clear and unbiased and from reliable sources.
I have special regards to brothers like Yahya Bergum, Akbar Khan, Ahmed Asgher, Ahmed, HA, Hudd and all those that I have missed. Hats off to you all. I have learnt a lot from you. I humbly admit that I have gained knowledge through you in issues of relevance for our ummah in the current world. I shall definitely use this knowledge to educate people around me. May the Almighty Allah Bless you all, increase your Knowledge and benefit us all. May Allah continue to reward you InshaAllah! Peace!
Well done Mr.Robert Higgs. Keep it up.
LOL, you have a fascinating way about you. May all your dreams come true.
Those authors want: A) Security for Israel, B) Control of ME resources, C) Giving a large share of it to Israel, D) Using American souls to gain their supreme power, E) Preventing any other rivals to US dominance including any opposition to Israeli land grabbing and humiliation of indigenous Palestinians.
If you think I am on the wrong track then do a little more research and don't burry your head in sand. Rumsfeld is on record as saying : "there was a war (in Israel) and Israel won a lot of real estate and whats wrong with that". Bolton is on record as saying to Sharon: We will get Saddam and you will have a share in Iraq" Look how they are giving oil contracts to Israel. Who in their right mind does that. Israel has zilch oil production but the wealth of Iraqi oil must route via Tel-Aviv so they can make a buck each way. But at whose cost??? Poor US consumer. First they pay to prop up Israel whilst they invite a lot of hatred, then they pay a premium for their gas. May be that is the price for ignorance.
People who read other than CNN/ABC/Fox/NYT and other main stream media knew full well what others know now. How could they miss so many lies.
First Iraq was put thro 12 years of crippling sanctions and US was the most vocal pro sanctions which reduced the average Iraqi to a begger. The it was time for the kill knowing full well that Saddam had no defence. Those in the US would only attack weak nations they would not dare attack powerful nations. So, they knew full well Iraq had no WMD and Mossad is on record saying so. Cheney is also on record saying that WMD was the only justification that others could buy into.
Then there was the other reasons and they kept changing - WMD, Non-abidance with UN Resolutions, Regime change, Human rights, Democracy, Liberation. Even peace i
However, I admit, the author has rightly pointed out that, "Many Iraqis, especially the Shiites and Kurds, are pleased to be rid of Saddam Hussein and his regime," and that, "'All of us will fight [U.S. forces] if they stay here too long.'"
You know, if somebody posted an intelligent article on the web, that doesn't mean that you have to say something. It is not compulsary? Just sit back and relax..don't you have a wife to entertain? Gosh, Nick, you don't need to rush yourself to articles like the porker to the grits! Take it easy, the world doesn't end tomorrow. There is time enough left for you to worry and panic. Give us a break! A Holliday, what about that? The Holliday of:"Nick Cameron's Silence Day" or you prefer, "Nick's Sabbath"? Hasta luego, gringo!