Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
wiseguy

Obama The New Terrorist In The White House

Recommended Posts

Barack Hussein Obama II the New Terrorist in the White House

 

The inauguration of Barack Obama as the forty-fourth President, and Joe Biden as Vice President, took place on January 20, 2009. The theme of the inauguration was "A New Birth of Freedom," commemorating the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln.[135]

 

In his first few days in office, Obama issued executive orders and presidential memoranda reversing President Bush's ban on federal funding to foreign establishments that allow abortions (known as the Mexico City Policy and referred by critics as the "Global Gag Rule"),[136] changed procedures to promote disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act,[137] directed the U.S. military to develop plans to withdraw troops from Iraq,[138] and reduced the secrecy given to presidential records.[139] He also issued orders closing Guantanamo Bay detention camp "as soon as practicable and no later than" January 2010.[140]

 

Source: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Barrack_Obama#2008_presidential_campaign"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Barrack_Obama...ential_campaign[/url]

 

The fact is Obama is the new terrorist in the White House:

 

1) Instead of directing the U.S. military to develop plans to withdraw troops from Iraq, he orders the US forces to occupy Iraq indefinitely. About 50 000 US soldiers will remain in Iraq indefinitely as a part of the illegal US occupation of Iraq. Therefore, Iraq is an occupied country that is governed by the US regime and the US puppets.

 

2) Instead of issuing orders closing Guantanamo Bay detention camp, he deceives the world by transferring the innocent Muslims to other US secret detention centres overseas so that the innocent Muslims can be tortured and detained without trial by the sadistic soulless US agents and the US allies.

 

3) Obama is sending more US soldiers to invade and occupy Afghanistan illegally and terrorize and massacre more innocent and defenseless Muslims in Afghanistan. By sending more reinforcement to support the NATO forces in Afghanistan, we know that the US regime and its allies are losing the war in Afghanistan.

 

4) Obama is supporting and financing the barbaric israeli regime of terror and he and Clinton are also highly hypocritical for making so many statements that support the illegal israeli occupation of Palestine and Zionist terrorism and ignoring the Zionist crime against the innocent and defenseless Palestinian people.

 

5) Obama allows the US forces to attack and massacre innocent and defenseless Pakistani people in Pakistan and the US forces have massacred so many innocent and defenseless Pakistani people and destroyed so many civilian targets in Pakistan.

 

Obama always proclaims that "change has come to America" which is a meaningless slogan. The fact is Obama is still a Zionist slave just like the idiotic Zionist joker GW Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Do you still remember that Obama has promised to withdraw all the US forces from Iraq within 16 months and now he breaks and violates his own promise by saying that 50 000 US soldiers are going to occupy Iraq for a long long time? So now we know that Obama is a hypocritical terrorist just like GW Bush, Sharon, Hitler, Mussolini etc who lie and terrorize the world. In other word, Iraq is being occupied by the US regime of terror and the US puppet Iraqi regime is governing Iraq on behalf of the US regime.

 

Obama to Leave 50,000 Troops in Iraq Indefinitely

 

President Tells Lawmakers Troops Will Stay to "Protect US Interests"

Posted February 26, 2009

 

Last Updated 2/27/09 4:35 PM EST

 

As we reported yesterday, President Obama’s Iraq “withdrawal” plan will leave up to 50,000 troops in a warzone engaging in combat missions. Today the president detailed the plans for members of Congress, and said the remnant forces, which would remain for an indefinite period of time, will be in Iraq to “advise Iraqi troops and protect US interests.”

 

The decision to keep such an enormous number of ground troops in the nation after the war is ostensibly over, engaging in combat no less, does not sit well with many in Congress. The White House briefings are meant to shore up support for Obama’s new position, a stark contrast from his campaign promises.

 

During the campaign the president spoke repeatedly of a 16 month timetable, but backed off of it almost immediately after taking office. The current plan would spell a significant cut in ground troops in 19 months, but leaves open the question of when (or even if) the Obama Administration ever intends to formally leave the nation.

 

Source: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_news.antiwar(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2009/02/26/obama-to-leave-50000-troops-in-iraq-indefinitely/"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_news.antiwar(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2009/02/26/obama-t...q-indefinitely/[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is a terrorist in the White House because he allows the US forces to terrorize and massacre innocent and defenseless Muslims and destroy civilian targets in Pakistan, Afghanistan , Iraq etc:

 

Outrage in Pakistan as US Attack Kills 20

 

Posted September 3, 2008

 

Updated 9/4 11:45 AM EST

 

At approximately 3 AM this morning, US helicopters landed in a tiny village in South Waziristan, not far from the Afghanistan border. Troops emerged and opened fire on the villagers, killing at least 20 civilians according to North-West Frontier Province Governor Owais Ahmed Ghani. Governor Ghani condemned the attack as “cowardly” and urged the Pakistani military “to defend the sovereignty of the country” with a response to the attack.

 

Source: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_news.antiwar(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2008/09/03/outrage-in-pakistan-as-us-attack-kills-20/"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_news.antiwar(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2008/09/03/outrage...ttack-kills-20/[/url]

 

Conclusion: Obama is a highly hypocritical US president who fools the world by talking about peace while innocent Muslim blood is on his hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama and the barbaric US forces are going to massacre more innocent and defenseless Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan:

 

US Mulls Expanding Covert War

 

Washinton: President Obama and his national security advisers are considering expanding the covert war in Pakistan far beyond the tribal areas near the border with Afghanistan, the New York Times reported on Tuesday.

 

Source: Reuters

 

It seems to me that Obama is behaving like GW Bush, Hitler, Mussolini, Sharon, Olmert etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you still remember that Obama has promised to withdraw all the US forces from Iraq within 16 months and now he breaks and violates his own promise by saying that 50 000 US soldiers are going to occupy Iraq for a long long time? So now we know that Obama is a hypocritical terrorist just like GW Bush, Sharon, Hitler, Mussolini etc who lie and terrorize the world. In other word, Iraq is being occupied by the US regime of terror and the US puppet Iraqi regime is governing Iraq on behalf of the US regime.

 

Obama to Leave 50,000 Troops in Iraq Indefinitely

The internet is a double-edged sword, unfortunately. In addition to presenting a broad survey of views, it also provides support for the propagation of the food of conspiracy theory laden, sensationalist, melodramatic claims that everything in the world is the fault of the U.S and you (yes, YOU, young conspiracy theorists) are the only one who understands and can do something about it!

 

To address your overly melodramatic and sensationalist claims regarding U.S. troops remaining in Iraq, that is with the approval of the Maliki government.

 

Iraq's al-Maliki: US will stay in insecure areas.

 

you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgoogle(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/hostednews/ap/articl...SCiqGwD96UMI1G1

 

By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA – 5 days ago

 

BAGHDAD (AP) — U.S. troops will not be removed from areas of Iraq that are not completely secure or where there is a high probability that attacks could resume after the Americans leave, Iraq's prime minister said Sunday.

 

Nouri al-Maliki said in an interview with The Associated Press that he had told President Barack Obama and other top U.S. officials that any withdrawals "must be done with our approval" and in coordination with the Iraqi government.

 

"I do not want any withdrawals except in areas considered 100 percent secure and under control," al-Maliki said during his flight from Australia to Baghdad at the end of a five-day visit.

 

"Any area where there is a likelihood of a resumption of attacks, withdrawals from there will be postponed," he said.

It’s interesting, don’t you think? The Maliki government is requiring the U.S. to protect it’s moslem civilians from the moslem holy warriors™ who otherwise would be splodin’ and shootin’ them.

 

That's odd. We're protecting from moslems from moslems. How's that workin' out for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that is with the approval of the Maliki government

How old are you, Ruggedtouch? did you ever try to watch any channel other than fox and cnn? Maliki is the man of the US. How come you didn't figure this out yourself? do you know that Iraq is an occupied country?

 

That's odd. We're protecting from moslems from moslems. How's that workin' out for you?

You seem to be one who is used to encourage and praise theft. But hopefully sending a few thousands of those 50,000 home in boxes may eventually convince you and your zionist slave president what your mom must have taught you: never stick your nose in other people's businesses.. let alone countries. She did tell you that, didn't she?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maliki may be "a man of the the US" but he is an elected man of the US. The majority of Iraqis support him. A minority of Iraqis (and other fanatics) continue to slaughter Muslims.

 

If Maliki is a fraud and a traitor, why not just wait until the next elections and throw him out? Why continue to suicide-bomb markets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but why do you care? what business is it for you to stay and get killed for? do you send your troops anywhere there are casualties in other parts of the world? are you angels or what? or must it be a Muslim spot, rich in oil, and with zionist interests to do your thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not American. I did not agree with the invasion of Iraq. It was a monumental error.

 

But it happened. Now we need to help Iraq recover. Why on earth would anyone support suicide bombing and continued fighting when they could just as easily wait for elections to throw out Maliki? Why encourage Muslims to kill Musims?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe how innocent and angelical some people's thoughts are. Its a good thing to apply that thinking on a personal level, but this has nothing to do with politics. The 'Muslims killing Muslims" part was planned all along. That didn't happen before the US occupation of Iraq. Its the outcome of US-israeli collaboration, in a bigger plot to destroy Iraq from within. And now they decided to keep 50 thousand (Americans of course.. israel hates the idea of getting killed, and prefer to suck others into it) to make sure it keeps going, and protect "American interests" in Iraq's oil and wealth and strategic location as a base for futue destructions in the area.

 

I'm truly disappointed in Obama.. I thought he would make a difference. But imperialism seems to have its charm on American politics, so much that, no matter how many lessons they receive, they are still hypnotized by the idea. Even ancestors of the victims of American black slavery themselves got charmed, against all logical expectations.. I consider it one of the mysteries of the human being.

I'm afraid they will only stop when they lose their ability to destroy other nations. I don't know when will that happen, but it seems that they are getting there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 'Muslims killing Muslims" part was planned all along. That didn't happen before the US occupation of Iraq.

 

I don't agree that it was planned. Bush stupidly expected the US troops to be greeted as liberators. And there was plenty of Muslims killing Muslims before the invasion - Saddam heavily persecuted the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs, and his political oponents, plus the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait.

 

However, even if it was true that the US encouraged (and continues to encourage) Muslims to kill Muslims in Iraq, so what? Aren't Muslims capable of making their own choices? I repeat - instead of killing Muslims, why don't the fanatics simply wait for the elections and throw out Maliki?

 

I'm truly disappointed in Obama.. I thought he would make a difference. But imperialism seems to have its charm on American politics, so much that, no matter how many lessons they receive, they are still hypnotized by the idea.

 

You are too quick to be disappointed with Obama. It is not possible - politicallly and morally - for the US to immediately pull all its troops out of Iraq. There would be a blood-bath much worse than anything that occurred during the invasion. Yes, this would be the US's fault for invading Iraq in the first place, but surely you don't want that, and surely you must support preventing that. Obama has to deal with the situation as he finds it. The quicker that Muslims stop killing Muslims in Iraq the quicker the US will leave. That has been the case for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"1) Instead of directing the U.S. military to develop plans to withdraw troops from Iraq, he orders the US forces to occupy Iraq indefinitely. About 50 000 US soldiers will remain in Iraq indefinitely as a part of the illegal US occupation of Iraq. Therefore, Iraq is an occupied country that is governed by the US regime and the US puppets."

 

indeed. Perfectly expressed. The invasion of Iraq is illegal under international law, and the occupation doubly so. (re providing basic services for those occupied, such as repairing the water facilities that the Allies deliberately bombed - and then prevented repairs for under the sanction regime).

 

the US has - and had - absolutely NO intention of ever leaving Iraq until the people ONCE AGAIN force out the western Imperialists. This was made very clear immediately after the invasion, with even the original orders of the occupational Govt spelling out the military control of the country, to impose the ironically labelled 'liberal economy' upon the country - ie the occupoers (america) get to sell of the national assets, and the new owners are then protected under the new 'liberal' constitution.

 

no nationalisation of oil assets for example.

 

the US did not invade Iraq to protect the population from political abuse - it IMPOSED the political abuse (saddam was a 'US asset'), then it imposed sanctions to punish to population for rising against him, and then it decided to take direct control to reap the multi-trillion dollar assets - and strategic position. The US is absolutely NO different from the European States that proclaimed tey were 'civilising the natives' whilst (completely coincidentally, you understand) robbing the nation blind of its natural and human capital, to ensure the Imperial economy worked in favour of the Imperial Nation. (or its rulers).

 

"I don't agree that it was planned. Bush stupidly expected the US troops to be greeted as liberators. And there was plenty of Muslims killing Muslims before the invasion - Saddam heavily persecuted the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs, and his political oponents, plus the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait."

 

and indeed in some places they were greeted as liberators... for a while. Until the occupational authorities prevented local elections that had been organised by iraqi democrats hiding under saddam, until they revealed that democracy and development were the last things trhe US had in mind for Iraq. Then things changed.

 

and yes - of course moslems kill moslems. And somehow whilst 'turning the other cheek', Christian nations managed to invent the new word "genocide", and then teach it to the rest of the world. A curious turn of events, one might even call it cheeky. Or, more accurately, a two-faced bare-faced line of ## to justify their rapacious murder and slaughter across the entire world, and the US is the latest to wear the Imperial Purple.

 

apparently GWB's 'Gawd' told him to invade Iraq with the multiple MILLIONS of dead, injured and tortured - d'ya reckon Jesus would have said they had the same 'God'?

 

Muslims kill Muslims, and Christians certainly don't turn the other cheek - heck, even Buddhists kill each other! *SOME* might wonder if these individuals deserve the titles of "Muslim, Christian, Buddhist", but that is a discussion for later.

 

"However, even if it was true that the US encouraged (and continues to encourage) Muslims to kill Muslims in Iraq, so what? Aren't Muslims capable of making their own choices? I repeat - instead of killing Muslims, why don't the fanatics simply wait for the elections and throw out Maliki?"

 

ever wondered how hard it would be to have a viable *third* candidate/party in the US elections??

 

now put that into an Iraq context.

 

(not that i agree with people killing people, but the idea that the Iraqi political process is a smooth, perfect democracy is... laughable, surely??)

 

"You are too quick to be disappointed with Obama. It is not possible - politicallly and morally - for the US to immediately pull all its troops out of Iraq. There would be a blood-bath much worse than anything that occurred during the invasion. Yes, this would be the US's fault for invading Iraq in the first place, but surely you don't want that, and surely you must support preventing that. Obama has to deal with the situation as he finds it. The quicker that Muslims stop killing Muslims in Iraq the quicker the US will leave. That has been the case for years. "

 

garbage. My apologies, but utter garbage. Do you *seriously* imagine the US elite is concerned with Iraqi lives, considering the deliberate policies it has followed has led to the murders of Millions, the torture of hundreds of thousands, the utter destruction of EVERY facet of civilised life in Iraq, and the destruction (including war crimes) of ancient cities and holy Masjids? Any such claim is intellectual vacuum, the US elite don't even care enough about their OWN population to have prevented the enormous amount of citizens living under the poverty line, the collapse of the US educational system - heck, the ENTIRE US is disfunctional, and all because the uber-wealthy elite don't give two hoots about the regular american citizen. And you somehow imagine these people care so much about Iraqis they are there for THEIR benefit??

 

only in front of the camera, i'm afraid.

 

the US will only leave Iraq once the Iraqis unite and throw them out. Gee, i just HAVE to wonder if that could possibly be the reason US and UK special forces went to so much trouble to both INSTIGATE, and then CONTINUE the sectarian violence?!?

 

that will never end whilst the Imperial Power is still in Iraq, even if the US has to blow up EVERY ancient and fabulous Masjid in the country to ensure its continuance.

 

think what it took to get rid of the French, Dutch, Portuguese and British Imperial strangleholds - why will the US be any different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
indeed. Perfectly expressed. The invasion of Iraq is illegal under international law, and the occupation doubly so. (re providing basic services for those occupied, such as repairing the water facilities that the Allies deliberately bombed - and then prevented repairs for under the sanction regime).

 

Except that there is no longer an occupation. The government of Iraq is recognized (under the same international law) as legitimate.

 

Yes, the invasion was illegal. But so what? What should Obam do NOW? Allow a bloodbath?

 

the US did not invade Iraq to protect the population from political abuse - it IMPOSED the political abuse (saddam was a 'US asset'), then it imposed sanctions to punish to population for rising against him, and then it decided to take direct control to reap the multi-trillion dollar assets - and strategic position. The US is absolutely NO different from the European States that proclaimed tey were 'civilising the natives' whilst (completely coincidentally, you understand) robbing the nation blind of its natural and human capital, to ensure the Imperial economy worked in favour of the Imperial Nation. (or its rulers).

 

Perhaps, but so what? The invasion happened. How do you suggest that Obama deals with the current situation?

 

and yes - of course moslems kill moslems. And somehow whilst 'turning the other cheek', Christian nations managed to invent the new word "genocide", and then teach it to the rest of the world. A curious turn of events, one might even call it cheeky. Or, more accurately, a two-faced bare-faced line of ## to justify their rapacious murder and slaughter across the entire world, and the US is the latest to wear the Imperial Purple.

 

A wee bit hysrerical there. Again, what do you suggest that Obama does about Iraq?

 

apparently GWB's 'Gawd' told him to invade Iraq with the multiple MILLIONS of dead, injured and tortured - d'ya reckon Jesus would have said they had the same 'God'?

 

Yes, but Bush is not the president. You're talking about past history.

 

ever wondered how hard it would be to have a viable *third* candidate/party in the US elections??

 

I don't get your point. Most democratic countries tend to have two major parties or groups of parties. No, it isn't ideal, but it's a hell of a lot better than a civil war.

 

garbage. My apologies, but utter garbage. Do you *seriously* imagine the US elite is concerned with Iraqi lives, considering the deliberate policies it has followed has led to the murders of Millions, the torture of hundreds of thousands, the utter destruction of EVERY facet of civilised life in Iraq, and the destruction (including war crimes) of ancient cities and holy Masjids? Any such claim is intellectual vacuum, the US elite don't even care enough about their OWN population to have prevented the enormous amount of citizens living under the poverty line, the collapse of the US educational system - heck, the ENTIRE US is disfunctional, and all because the uber-wealthy elite don't give two hoots about the regular american citizen. And you somehow imagine these people care so much about Iraqis they are there for THEIR benefit??

 

Garbage. I don't care what the US elite thinks. We're talking about what we think Obama should do. Are you seriously suggesting that all US troops leave immediately?

 

I understand that you hate the USA, but you need to think a bit (for a Buddhist you are certainly letting your emotions get the better of you!). If the US was the psychopathic country you claim, then Baghdad would have been carpet-bombed. Or simpler yet, nuked. Why wasn't it? Because people in the US aren't the monsters you would like them to be. Yes, the invasion was illegal and horrible. No, it was not anywhere near as horrible as it could have been.

 

 

the US will only leave Iraq once the Iraqis unite and throw them out. Gee, i just HAVE to wonder if that could possibly be the reason US and UK special forces went to so much trouble to both INSTIGATE, and then CONTINUE the sectarian violence?!?

 

Some evidence of that would be nice. But I have already answered that point - even if the US did stir up the violence, can't Muslims make decisions for themselves? They claim to be better than the rest of us.

 

think what it took to get rid of the French, Dutch, Portuguese and British Imperial strangleholds - why will the US be any different?

 

It certainly didn't take violent uprisings to get rid of the Brits from almost all of its empire. They went broke in WWII and could no longer afford their empire. Most of the other colonial powers decolonised for the same reason. And - amazing though you think it - because ethics does play a part in the intellectual life of western countries.

 

However, in what way do you think my view differs from yours? I am the one urging the Irqis to stop killing each other and vote in a government that will restore peace. You are encouraging the fanatic Iraqia to keep killing each other. Blowing up police recruits is not going to help "throw out" the US - allowing civil infrstructure to reform will. Blowing up woemen going shopping won't help much either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salaam sis,

 

Except that there is no longer an occupation. The government of Iraq is recognized (under the same international law) as legitimate.

 

i suspect most Iraqis would beg to differ. What would happen if tomorrow the Govt of Iraq politely requested the US to close its new military bases and clear off? Would we see US troops leaving the next morning? Or would we hear that Al Maliki was suddenly ill and needed medical care in a US base? The Iraqis know the answer - they've seen it all before, and their history books have seen it many many times.

 

with Imperial politics the TV does not tell the truth - the guns on the ground tell the truth. Ask the Tibetans.

 

Yes, the invasion was illegal. But so what? What should Obam do NOW? Allow a bloodbath?

 

as a teacher i would not ask the bully who caused a crisis, to remain to 'solve it'. If Muslims do not kill Muslims, then it is *our* presence there that is causing the problems. Oddly enough, this is the generally held view of Moslems all over the world. Might have something to do with Western Special Forces being caught planting some of those 'suicide bomber' events - deliberately, in full market-places. Who knows what's in the mind of those "terrorist sand-bunnies who need Westerners to invade and teach them democracy".

 

Perhaps, but so what? The invasion happened. How do you suggest that Obama deals with the current situation?

 

estimate how much a continued military presence there for the next 5 years would cost the US. Pull out. Give the same amount of money to international aid orgs (such as the grameen bank), central Iraqi govt, and regional govt, along with an apology and internationally agreed reparations, send the neo-con cabal to the ICC, and cut its own military spending so it could no longer mount such a destructive, aggressive and "pre-emptive" war again - ie, disarm back to the original doctrine of self-defence.

 

would be a good start, anyway.

 

I don't get your point. Most democratic countries tend to have two major parties or groups of parties. No, it isn't ideal, but it's a hell of a lot better than a civil war.

 

my point was that it is at best naive, at worst laughably naive, to think that politically active Iraqis will - or could - be content to work within such a blatantly controlled political process. This is like imagining the American Revolutionaries would have been OK with an elected Govt that was protected by, and enforced the laws of, King George. Who happened to have the biggest, and most powerful, armed forces in the country.

 

recontextualise the situation within your own country - would the 'better dead than reds' have been OK with Russian troops in the US, as long as the USSR allowed an election - where the national assets had already been sold off, and the imposed constitution didn't allow that to change?

 

yes, most certainly the political process is preferable to armed conflict - but the political process has to be flexible and powerful enough to answer the demands of all the People.

 

 

Garbage. I don't care what the US elite thinks. We're talking about what we think Obama should do. Are you seriously suggesting that all US troops leave immediately?

 

yes.

 

I understand that you hate the USA,

 

i don't.

 

but you need to think a bit (for a Buddhist you are certainly letting your emotions get the better of you!). If the US was the psychopathic country you claim, then Baghdad would have been carpet-bombed. Or simpler yet, nuked. Why wasn't it? Because people in the US aren't the monsters you would like them to be. Yes, the invasion was illegal and horrible. No, it was not anywhere near as horrible as it could have been.

 

not a Buddhist. Not offended though. :sl:

 

the US is not psychopathic - although sociopathology is certainly higher than in any other industrialised country. And your rulers (not necessarily the people on the TV) are behaving in the exact same manner as European rulers acted since the days of Rome (cursed be the name of Rome and all her works!!) - and for precisely the same reasons, and even justifications.

 

why was Iraq not nuked? Because an Imperial nation requires Imperial subjects to work hard, to fill its coffers - more accurately these days, the coffers of the multinationals. Although indeed, you might not remember, but there was oft a mutter in the US mainstream media about "nuking the ragheads", including some high-ranking military and administration officials.

 

and then yes - the invasion *could* have been worse. Things can ALWAYS be worse. However, it could also have been a great deal BETTER, if it even had to happen at all. Which of course, it didn't.

 

the fact that the US could have dropped BOTH bombs on Hiroshima i'm certain did not have the Hiroshimans on their knees thanking the US, suprising really, ungrateful beggars. Just think how much WORSE it could have been!

 

sorry, don't buy it.

 

but nor does the actions of the American Rulers necessarily mean the general people have the same qualities and beliefs... if that WERE the case, the Administration would not have felt it necessary to lie about "Saddam's WMD".

 

as i said, i do not hate the US. But i do feel nothing but disgust for a certain meme that is very prevalent in certain class structures within Western Societies.

 

and i am most ashamed my culture does not live up to its claimed and cherished doctrines and beliefs.

 

 

Peace and Love. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry, missed a bit:

 

It certainly didn't take violent uprisings to get rid of the Brits from almost all of its empire. They went broke in WWII and could no longer afford their empire. Most of the other colonial powers decolonised for the same reason.

 

it most certainly did need violent uprisings - the British State only ended its direct rule when the cost of maintaining control became greater than the wealth extracted from the country, to the extent that the few wealthy and powerful who directly benefited from the colonial economy were overruled by the others who could see a cheaper way of maintaining economic control, much cheaper (the post-colonial debt/multi-national ownership/local dictator model). Remember, the UK - along with virtually all other Western 'democracies' - are in reality controlled by a very few, with the *very* occasional change in policy forced by popular political actions. There were sound economic reasons why the UK decolonised, not that very much changed for the vast bulk of the newly liberated Peoples.

 

And - amazing though you think it - because ethics does play a part in the intellectual life of western countries.

 

i'd like to believe so. In fact ethics plays a part in ALL societies... "amazing though you think it" :sl: . Curious though that ethical behaviour in politics (again, across the world) only seems to kick into play once some of the rich and powerful see a way to scam more money or power out of it. A wise person said something along the lines of "Poets are a Society's Conscience... there are few Politicians who are good Poets."

 

(i wouldn't be surprised to discover some words about that in the Qoran!)

 

However, in what way do you think my view differs from yours? I am the one urging the Irqis to stop killing each other and vote in a government that will restore peace. You are encouraging the fanatic Iraqia to keep killing each other. Blowing up police recruits is not going to help "throw out" the US - allowing civil infrstructure to reform will. Blowing up woemen going shopping won't help much either.

 

we differ because you see the US - and the UK, and the other Axis members, as part of the solution - i see them only as part of the problem, until they stop using military force, and ACTUALLY support an independent, democratic Iraq. And i can see precious little difference so far from Obama Christ on that score, although to be fair, the overtures to Iran show promise.

 

although i have my suspicions even about that.

 

Peace and Love. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salaam sis,

i suspect most Iraqis would beg to differ. What would happen if tomorrow the Govt of Iraq politely requested the US to close its new military bases and clear off? Would we see US troops leaving the next morning? Or would we hear that Al Maliki was suddenly ill and needed medical care in a US base? The Iraqis know the answer - they've seen it all before, and their history books have seen it many many times.

 

As a hypothetical perhaps you are correct. However, most Iraqis know what would happen if the US left - massive slaughter and civil war. Yes, they are in a rotten position. Yes, they are innocent victims. But what are you suggesting that Obama should DO?

 

as a teacher i would not ask the bully who caused a crisis, to remain to 'solve it'. If Muslims do not kill Muslims, then it is *our* presence there that is causing the problems. Oddly enough, this is the generally held view of Moslems all over the world. Might have something to do with Western Special Forces being caught planting some of those 'suicide bomber' events - deliberately, in full market-places. Who knows what's in the mind of those "terrorist sand-bunnies who need Westerners to invade and teach them democracy".

 

So you are advocating that all US forces leave immediately. I think that would be a disaster.

 

It's pointless to go on about how nasty the US is. This isn't a thread about whether or not the US is a nice country, it's a thread about the best thing for the Iraqis.

 

estimate how much a continued military presence there for the next 5 years would cost the US. Pull out. Give the same amount of money to international aid orgs (such as the grameen bank), central Iraqi govt, and regional govt, along with an apology and internationally agreed reparations, send the neo-con cabal to the ICC, and cut its own military spending so it could no longer mount such a destructive, aggressive and "pre-emptive" war again - ie, disarm back to the original doctrine of self-defence.

 

The first half of your answer is an idea worth discussing. The second half is simply ranting. Maybe the people who planned the Iraq war should be tried and punished; maybe the US should spend less on its military - but that has zero to do with the topic.

 

The problem with your idea is that it depends on the Iraqi government. The same body that most posters on this board would like to see killed. The Iraqi government needs to be in a position to defend itself and enforce the law. I doubt that it can, yet. At the very least there would need to be a massive peace-keeping force. If such a force could be raised from Muslim countries, it might work. However, getting Indonesia and Pakistan (the two most populous Muslim countries) to agree to commit the resources would be difficult.

 

What I find as infamous as you find the US's conduct is that the Muslim nations have not proposed anything like this. Extreme Muslims regard most middle-eastern Muslim nations as US puppets, I know, but I don't think the same applies to (say) Malaysia and Indonesia. Why aren't Muslims around the world calling for those countries to offer to take over peace-keeping from the US? Instead they simply call for civil war, revenge and slaughter. It's easy to see why no-one takes very seriously the wishes of the Umma.

 

my point was that it is at best naive, at worst laughably naive, to think that politically active Iraqis will - or could - be content to work within such a blatantly controlled political process. This is like imagining the American Revolutionaries would have been OK with an elected Govt that was protected by, and enforced the laws of, King George. Who happened to have the biggest, and most powerful, armed forces in the country.

 

With a bit better management by Britain the American revolution could have been avoided. It wasn't being British subjects that upset them, it was the lack of a vote.

 

recontextualise the situation within your own country - would the 'better dead than reds' have been OK with Russian troops in the US, as long as the USSR allowed an election - where the national assets had already been sold off, and the imposed constitution didn't allow that to change?

 

I'm not American. I entirely agree that many Iraqis are rightly upset about the political situation. But just pointing this out does not help. And turning over the whole country who belive 'better dead than Shia' and 'better dead than Sunni' crazies is not a great solution.

 

yes, most certainly the political process is preferable to armed conflict - but the political process has to be flexible and powerful enough to answer the demands of all the People.

 

Depends on what you mean by "answer the demands". There are people in Iraq who demand an Islamic state; there are people in Iraq who demand a liberal republic, there are people who want something like Saddam's dictatorship. All these demands cannot be met. I agree that a government has to be strong enough to cope with conflicting demands.

 

the US is not psychopathic - although sociopathology is certainly higher than in any other industrialised country. And your rulers (not necessarily the people on the TV) are behaving in the exact same manner as European rulers acted since the days of Rome (cursed be the name of Rome and all her works!!) - and for precisely the same reasons, and even justifications.

 

As I said, I'm not American. I don't think you can say that all European rulers have all acted the same way since Rome!

 

why was Iraq not nuked? Because an Imperial nation requires Imperial subjects to work hard, to fill its coffers - more accurately these days, the coffers of the multinationals. Although indeed, you might not remember, but there was oft a mutter in the US mainstream media about "nuking the ragheads", including some high-ranking military and administration officials.

 

There might have been mutterings but it didn't happen. In fact it couldn't happen because of public opinion. Democracy has its uses. Nuking Baghdad would have got rid of all those pesky intellectuals demanding a republic, and wouldn't have affected the supply of oil. You don't need many Iraqis to run the oil-wells, and it would have provided lots of well-paying jobs for Americans if there were no Iraqis.

 

You have decided that the US is an imperial nation, but the model you apply is the 19th-century model. Other than its oil, the only conceivable use that the population of Iraq would be to the US "empire" would be as consumers. but if that was the case it was pretty silly to reduce the economy to rubble, wasn't it? Please try to sort out your generalized hatred of the US from fact.

 

and then yes - the invasion *could* have been worse. Things can ALWAYS be worse. However, it could also have been a great deal BETTER, if it even had to happen at all. Which of course, it didn't.

 

I agree.

 

the fact that the US could have dropped BOTH bombs on Hiroshima i'm certain did not have the Hiroshimans on their knees thanking the US, suprising really, ungrateful beggars. Just think how much WORSE it could have been!

 

I bet the Hiroshimans were grateful to someone/thing that two bombs weren't dropped. No-one is asking Iraqis to be grateful to the US. We're simply asking what Obama should do. You think that he should withdraw immediately and send in aid workers. i don't think that would work, but it's worth discussing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The internet is a double-edged sword, unfortunately. In addition to presenting a broad survey of views, it also provides support for the propagation of the food of conspiracy theory laden, sensationalist, melodramatic claims that everything in the world is the fault of the U.S and you (yes, YOU, young conspiracy theorists) are the only one who understands and can do something about it!

 

To address your overly melodramatic and sensationalist claims regarding U.S. troops remaining in Iraq, that is with the approval of the Maliki government.

 

Iraq's al-Maliki: US will stay in insecure areas.

 

<a href="you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgoogle(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hwK_CSpBxsNuVUEaDuOwmSSCiqGwD96UMI1G1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgoogle(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/hostednews/ap/articl...SCiqGwD96UMI1G1</a>

 

By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA – 5 days ago

It’s interesting, don’t you think? The Maliki government is requiring the U.S. to protect it’s moslem civilians from the moslem holy warriors™ who otherwise would be splodin’ and shootin’ them.

 

That's odd. We're protecting from moslems from moslems. How's that workin' out for you?

 

Your ignorant statement above reflects your own ignorance. We all know that al-Maliki is a US puppet and his Iraqi regime is a US puppet regime because the US regime is still occupying and governing Iraq illegally. Therefore, al-Maliki is an Iraqi traitor who is cooperating with terrorist US forces occupying Iraq. As such it implies criminal deeds in the service of the occupying power, including complicity with the occupying power in murder, persecutions, pillage, and economic exploitation as well as participation in the US puppet Iraqi regime.

 

According to the Geneva Convention, the International Law etc , Iraqi people have their right to use force to defend their country against the terrorist US forces and their allies that are illegally attacking, invading and occupying Iraq and terrorizing and massacring innocent and defenseless Iraqi people and destroying civilian targets in Iraq.

 

You claim falsely that "The Maliki government is requiring the U.S. to protect it’s moslem civilians from the moslem holy warriors who otherwise would be splodin’ and shootin’ them." In other word, you may say that the Vichy regime and Vidkun Quisling of Norway required Nazi Germany protect their civilians from the Christian holy warriors who otherwise would be splodin’ and shootin’ them so now you are a Nazi supporter!!!

 

Please remember that most of the Iraqi people hate the US regime and the terrorist US forces for illegally attacking, invading and occupying Iraq and terrorizing and massacring innocent and defenseless Iraqi people and destroying civilian targets in Iraq:

 

Poll: Iraqis out of patience

 

Posted 4/28/2004 3:32 PM

 

By Cesar G. Soriano and Steven Komarow,USA TODAY

 

BAGHDAD — Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll. Source: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetusatoday(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetusatoday(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/news/world/iraq/20...oll-cover_x.htm[/url]

 

More news:

 

Most Iraqis Want US Troops Out: Poll

 

John Solomon, Associated Press

 

WASHINGTON, 17 June 2004 — President Bush is fond of telling Americans they have liberated Iraq and that the country’s future generations will be thankful. The current generation, however, overwhelmingly views US forces as occupiers and wishes they would just leave, according to a poll commissioned by the administration. Source: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetarabnews(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/?page=4&section=0&article=46915&d=17&m=6&y=2004&pix=world.jpg&category=World"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetarabnews(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/?page=4&sectio...;category=World[/url]

 

Most people want troops out of Iraq: global poll

 

Sep 6, 2007

 

LONDON (AFP) — Two-thirds of people questioned around the world want US-led troops to pull out of Iraq within a year, but fewer than half believe that they will ever leave, according to a poll published Friday.

 

In the BBC World Service poll of 23,000 people in 22 countries, 67 percent said they backed a troop withdrawal inside a year, while 49 percent believed the United States would permanently leave troops in the country. Source: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_afp.google(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/article/ALeqM5gUu4_f-Bot88G689IDkBg73NDFQA"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_afp.google(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/article/ALeqM5gUu4_f...689IDkBg73NDFQA[/url]

 

Therefore, most of Iraqi people hate the US regime and the terrorist US forces and their allies and the Iraqi people want the terrorist US forces to leave Iraq forever. Even most of people around the world want the US-led troops to leave Iraq forever!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maliki may be "a man of the the US" but he is an elected man of the US. The majority of Iraqis support him. A minority of Iraqis (and other fanatics) continue to slaughter Muslims.

 

If Maliki is a fraud and a traitor, why not just wait until the next elections and throw him out? Why continue to suicide-bomb markets?

 

When you claim falsely that Maliki may be "a man of the the US" but he is an elected man of the US. The majority of Iraqis support him. A minority of Iraqis (and other fanatics) continue to slaughter Muslims, it is like to say that Philippe Pétain and Vidkun Quisling might be "a man of the Nazi Germany" but they were elected men of the Nazi Germany. The majority of French people and Norwegians supported them. A minority of French people and Norwegians (and other fanatics) continued to slaughter Christians.

 

The fact is Iraq is being occupied by the US regime illegally so the so-called democratic election is not valid at all. We know very well that CIA often rig the so-called democratic election in many countries to ensure that the so-called elected (US puppet) government will always serve the US interest not the people of the occupied countries. The fact is Iraqi people are fighting against the terrorist US forces so that they can liberate Iraq from the US-Zionist imperialism.

 

And the Zionist media and you always slander, blame and frame Muslims by calling them suicide-bombers eventhough you have no evidence to implicate them. If a US mortar shell hits a car, the media would say that a Muslim has comitted a suicide-bombing and kill innocent civilians. If a Mossad agent plants a bomb in a car and the bomb explodes killing civilians, the media would say that a suicide-bomber has carried out a suicide-bombing. If a US bomb explodes among the innocent people, your media would say that a Muslim has carried out a suicide-bombing. Why do the media and people like you always slander, blame and frame innocent Muslims who had nothing to with the suicide-bombings and other crime while ignoring the savage and excessive killing of many innocent and defenseless Muslims by the terrorist US forces and their allies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it is like to say that Philippe Pétain and Vidkun Quisling might be "a man of the Nazi Germany" but they were elected men of the Nazi Germany.

 

The were not elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barack Hussein Obama II the New Terrorist in the White House

 

it's too early to condemn obama, give him space to breath and time to do what he considers problem solving thing to do. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The were not elected.

 

They were elected by the Nazi regime and Al-Maliki is elected by the US regime so they are puppets!!! PUPPETS !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They were elected by the Nazi regime and Al-Maliki is elected by the US regime so they are puppets!!! PUPPETS !

 

No, they were not elected, whereas the current Iraqi government was elected by the Iraqis. Shouldn't you respect the decision of your Muslim brothers and sisters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, they were not elected, whereas the current Iraqi government was elected by the Iraqis. Shouldn't you respect the decision of your Muslim brothers and sisters?

 

The Nazi regime had invaded and occupied Norway and French so the leaders of the Nazi regime were responsible for appointing Vidkun Quisling and Philippe Pétain the Nazi puppets who served the Nazi Germany. The US regime has illegally invaded and occupied Iraq so the leaders of the US regime are responsible for appointing Al-Maliki the US puppet to govern Iraq on behalf of his American masters. And this can be achieved by CIA by manipulating the so-called democratic election in Iraq dishonestly for US imperialistc interests etc:

 

Bush's man in Iraq

December 1, 2006

 

'HE'S THE right guy for Iraq," President Bush said of Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki

Source: The Boston Globe

 

The people of Iraq and I will not recognize the Iraqi election as long as the US regime occupies Iraq illegally because the US occupation of Iraq is illegal according to the International Law, Geneva Conventions etc so I will not expect the US regime to carry out the so-called democratic election according to the democratic principles. Would you recognize a so-called democratic election of a Nazi-occupied country if it is is carried out and supervised by the Nazi regime?

 

01 Feb 2009. Iraqi election turnout not as high as hoped....The 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq had patrols on the streets and helicopters in the sky (Source: Reuters) which means the Iraqi people are boycotting the so-called Iraqi democratic election and the presence of the large number of American soldiers etc intimidate Iraqi people! The Iraqi people do not recognize it because they know that the US regime is illegally occupying Iraq and the US regime is controlling and manipulating the so-called democratic election dishonestly for the US imperialistic interests.

 

The fact is the presence of the US forces in Iraq, the US Iraqi puppet regime and the so-called democratic election are to protect US imperialistic interests !!! Any attempts to establish an anti-US government will be crushed by the US regime and the barbaric US forces and CIA. We know that the imperialist dogs such as Hitler, Mussolini, Sharon, Olmert, GW Bush, Obama etc would crush any attempts to liberate the countries that they have illegally occupied. In fact, GW Bush and the US regime and the Zionist media will slander and frame Iraqi patriots by calling any Iraqi people, who want to liberate Iraq from the US imperialism, the terrorists. On the contray, it is the American and Zionist criminals who are illegally occupying Iraq and plundering Iraqi petroleum etc and violating the sovereignty of Iraq. According to the International Law, the Geneva Convention etc, Iraqi people may use force to fight against the barbaric US forces and the US puppets so that they can liberate Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth of the matter is, the U.S. simply cannot afford to have troops and bases in over 100 countries. We recently opened a new military base in ITALY, of all places. In the midst of a deepening recession, how can we possibly afford to spend money on a new military base in a first-world country like Italy? Italy should defend itself, just like Germany ought to defend itself.

 

This all goes back to President Woodrow Wilson, who popularized the idea that America must "make the world safe for democracy." I wasn't aware that pointing guns at people is considered "democratic." If another country decides to elect someone like, say, Mohammed Mossdeq in 1951 in Iran, you'd think we would've respected that decision, rather than respond to it with Operation Ajax in 1953 which resulted in the Shah.

 

We have too many problems back here in the U.S. to always interfere with everyone's business around the world. Heaven forbid that states make their own internal decisions without the threat of a CIA overthrow. We don't need to have soldiers and bases in almost every country on the planet. We don't need to be interfering with the internal affairs of sovereign nations. We don't need to be handing out foreign aid and weapons like candy. All of these expenditures and more cannot be good for the U.S. We need to stop somewhere.

 

The way I like to frame the situation to fellow Americans is this: imagine that some great power decided to invade the United States. What would you do? The answer I normally get is that Americans would fight that invading power to the death until said power abandons all hope and withdraws. Indeed, wouldn't that unite an entire nation against said invader? Even the gun-haters here in America would take up arms or assist those that do in repelling the invader.

 

Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, most assuredly. But there are many bad people in the world. North Korea, for example, HAS nuclear weapons, yet Bush never even considered invading North Korea. Iraq didn't have them, and yet it got invaded. Now we hear saber-rattling regarding Iran, which probably figures that if it gained a nuclear weapon, the U.S. would act the same way as it did towards North Korea.

 

But it all boils down to money. We simply do not have the financial resources to continue foreign adventures. Perhaps we should save some money by closing our foreign bases and bringing all of our soldiers home, from EVERYWHERE, not just Iraq and Afghanistan. We should open up trade to countries like Cuba and Iran, rather than continue to punish innocent civilians within such countries for the actions of their government. Foreign intervention in the Middle East has only caused headaches and slowed the development of the area. We ought to just pull back and allow the people there to sort out their business so that they can rebuild and improve their countries. The more we interfere, the slower their growth and development. Trade and communication can do far more good than bullets and bombs.

 

Perhaps we could both learn from each other, if we just stopped to listen. I personally think that the U.S. is a cultural morass at the moment; perhaps we should be reminded of the values of family and community from potential friends in the Middle East and other areas. Maybe someday I'll be able to watch a film that doesn't need to depict graphic acts of sex and violence in order to present a story driven by a creative plot.

Edited by Wanderer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, most assuredly. But there are many bad people in the world. North Korea, for example, HAS nuclear weapons, yet Bush never even considered invading North Korea. Iraq didn't have them, and yet it got invaded. Now we hear saber-rattling regarding Iran, which probably figures that if it gained a nuclear weapon, the U.S. would act the same way as it did towards North Korea.

 

Actually, I must have missed the news that said that N Korea has nuclear weapons. When did they test one?

 

I agree that the invasion of Iraq was stupid, illegal and incredibly damaging for the US. I would assume that the Iranian government isn't a stupid as it sometimes seems to be, and that it realizes that israel will no permit it to have nuclear weapons. And the rest of the world would cheer israel.

 

Foreign intervention in the Middle East has only caused headaches and slowed the development of the area. We ought to just pull back and allow the people there to sort out their business so that they can rebuild and improve their countries. The more we interfere, the slower their growth and development. Trade and communication can do far more good than bullets and bombs.

 

Well, maybe, but if the US withdrew support for israel (and Russia and China didn't step in to fill the hole, as they almost certainly would) there would be a blood bath and probably nukes on Damascus and Teheran, and perhaps Mecca. It might be in the US's economic interests to allow this but it certainly wouldn't help "development in the area".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×