[eklipse]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...eadlines-world

"I am sure that the people who did this are enemies of Iraq, not the enemies of the Americans," Dunya Khalil Ismail, a 28-year-old college lecturer, said as she left work Wednesday. "Whether it was the Israelis or the Americans themselves, they are aiming at us.

Ismail is one of many people here — rich and poor, religious and secular — who see Israel as being behind the suicide bombings Monday at the International Committee of the Red Cross and three police stations, which killed at least 35 people and wounded more than 200. It might be an idea that seems farfetched to many Americans, but seen through Iraqi eyes, it has a kind of logic.

The reasoning goes like this: The people who masterminded the bombings wanted to hurt Iraqis, the vast majority of the victims. Who are Iraq's enemies? Israel is the one nearest at hand and the one that, it is widely assumed here, urged the U.S. to remove President Saddam Hussein. Who will benefit if chaos weakens Iraq? Again, Israel, because it will feel safer. And if Iraq is chaotic, it may force the Americans to keep troops in the country longer. Who wants American troops on Arab soil? Again, the answer is Israel.

I don't think there is too much validity to this line of reasoning but it does hi-light yet another line of division and suspicion between the occupiers and the occupied.

Whoever blew up the Red Cross facility in Baghdad certainly didn't seem like a friend of the Iraqi people (or someone trying to be) - which almost certainly rules out the involvement of an organized militia still loyal to Saddam. That would leave al-Qaeda or some other outside entity with ultimate responsibility - it would seem that some Iraqis are willing to point the finger at Israel before al-Qaeda.

[Zimphire]

Yes and now the Yellow Cross in backing out.

The Pig Dogs have ran them out.

Yeah Yellow Cross.

You aren't what you once where.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You aren't what you once where.

(Head explodes)

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes and now the Yellow Cross in backing out.

The Pig Dogs have ran them out.

Yeah Yellow Cross.

You aren't what you once where.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes and now the Yellow Cross in backing out.

And now the pink lemonade in adding up.

Another Zimphire sentence that makes absolutely no sense.

[Zimphire]

The Red Cross backed out of Baghdad. The Red Cross and the UN.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/...20031030ANS103

Make a bit more sense now?

[christ]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The Red Cross backed out of Baghdad. The Red Cross and the UN.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/...20031030ANS103

Make a bit more sense now?

Why were they there in the first place?

It was none of their business.

[asleep@thewheel]

who wants to stay in a place where anarchy reigns supreme...the place is starting to resemble detroit...good work u.s.a.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The Red Cross backed out of Baghdad. The Red Cross and the UN.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/...20031030ANS103

Make a bit more sense now?

I understood your "joke" about the Red Cross but it appears that perhaps you meant "is" instead of "in". Now, if you were going for quality of posts instead of quantity maybe you would have realised that. As it stands, practically 50% of your posts don't make sense!

As for the actual content of your post, I don't appreciate the joke. Instead of sitting on your fat a$$ calling aid workers wussies, why don't you sign up for the army, tough guy? Go help your countrymen fix the mess that the president you worship made!

I think it is callous of you to imply that the underpaid, underappreciated people who sacrifice their time, their comfort and their income to help those in need should, in addition, put their lives on the line. Working for the Red Cross is not about having the courage to stare down death. Workers are neither equipped, trained nor paid to face the sort of danger that the US's incompetence has created in Iraq. There is absolutely nothing reprehensible or "yellow" in their deciding to leave. They could be put to much better use in places that are safer than Iraq.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
I understood your "joke" about the Red Cross but it appears that perhaps you meant "is" instead of "in". Now, if you were going for quality of posts instead of quantity maybe you would have realised that. As it stands, practically 50% of your posts don't make sense!

Hiss Honk.

And being a grammar nazi somehow = quality?

As for the actual content of your post, I don't appreciate the joke. Instead of sitting on your fat a$$ calling aid workers wussies, why don't you sign up for the army, tough guy? Go help your countrymen fix the mess that the president you worship made!

1. I don't worship the president. 100% Silly.
2. I can't join the Army, I tried.
3. I am not fat, nor have I ever been.

I think it is callous of you to imply that the underpaid, underappreciated people who sacrifice their time, their comfort and their income to help those in need should, in addition, put their lives on the line. Working for the Red Cross is not about having the courage to stare down death. Workers are neither equipped, trained nor paid to face the sort of danger that the US's incompetence has created in Iraq. There is absolutely nothing reprehensible or "yellow" in their deciding to leave. They could be put to much better use in places that are safer than Iraq.

Nonsense. It's not the US that is doing this. It's the pig dog terrorists that are to blame.

The Red Cross aren't leaving because of anything the US did. They are leaving because a group of uncivilized animals can't control themselves.

It's going to get to a point where people get sick of these animals killing sprees.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Troll:
As for the actual content of your post, I don't appreciate the joke. Instead of sitting on your fat a$$ calling aid workers wussies, why don't you sign up for the army, tough guy? Go help your countrymen fix the mess that the president you worship made!

But, but, but, it's so easy to yell "cowards!" when sitting all nice and comfy in front of a computer.

[lil'babykitten]

Yeah.....so back on topic

Is Israel behind the bombings in Iraq? Sounds like an outlandish statement but the reasoning behind it does have some significance. We know Israel was very much in favour of the Iraq invasion, as the person quoted in the original posted says, de-stabilising Iraq makes Israel feel safer.
I think Israel has been trying to place countries like Iran and Syria (particularly Syria) in the limelight recently, hoping that the US may add them to it's War on Terror targets. I guess it's easy to see why some Iraqis may feel Israel is behind some of these bombings. The blame inevitably gets passed to a few select surrounding countries and no body thinks twice.

[moki]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Is Israel behind the bombings in Iraq? Sounds like an outlandish statement but the reasoning behind it does have some significance. We know Israel was very much in favour of the Iraq invasion, as the person quoted in the original posted says, de-stabilising Iraq makes Israel feel safer.
I think Israel has been trying to place countries like Iran and Syria (particularly Syria) in the limelight recently, hoping that the US may add them to it's War on Terror targets. I guess it's easy to see why some Iraqis may feel Israel is behind some of these bombings. The blame inevitably gets passed to a few select surrounding countries and no body thinks twice.

I think people who hate Israel come up with the most ridiculous conspiracy theories I've ever heard.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by moki:
I think people who hate Israel come up with the most ridiculous conspiracy theories I've ever heard.

Well, at least tell us why it's ridiculous.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Well, at least tell us why it's ridiculous.

We shouldn't HAVE to.

[vmarks]

Hussein funded Arafat and Arafat's organized terror attacks on Israelis. Hussein gave money to Arafat for the so-called martyrs, most of which Arafat pocketed, but about $30 US a month made it to their families.

Israel wanted Hussein out, yes. Nothing wrong with that.

Israel wants stability in the region. Hussein was not leading a stable Iraq, but a regime known to gas it's own citizens.

Knowing that Israel desires stability means it is ludicrous for Israel to support attacks on the International Red Cross, of which her Red Star of David is a member.

Some folks will make the most bizarre leaps from reason to ill-formed conclusion in order to accuse Israel of wrong-doing.

Worse than that, people who ought to know better will accept that something outrageous just might be true, because they're predisposed to agree with anything that might be anti-Israel.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The Red Cross aren't leaving because of anything the US did. They are leaving because a group of uncivilized animals can't control themselves.

Well there are those who see the Red Cross' departure as a result of what the US did, namely the invasion. There are those who see the Red Cross' departure as a result of what the US hasn't done, namely restore law and order as they are obliged to as Iraq's Occupiers. Either way, they're gone. The US should be happy for the help the Red Cross has given so far and no one should be calling them cowards.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It's going to get to a point where people get sick of these animals killing sprees.

Have you got a picture of one of these "sprees"? I wasn't aware that any were being killed by animals.

If you meant " animals' ", then I think the answer is probably that people are already sick of this. I haven't heard one person approve of this bombing. I think it's a pretty big stretch even of binary logic to say that if you don't disapprove of the Red Cross leaving then you support the terrorists! I think people were sick of this sort of thing before this little adventure in Iraq ... which is probably why so many pointed out that the adventure wasn't a good idea, why so many (including British intelligence) said that invading Iraq would HEIGHTEN the terrorist threat and INCREASE the number of terrorists.

Oh well, "Bring it On," right George!

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The Red Cross backed out of Baghdad. The Red Cross and the UN.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/...20031030ANS103

Make a bit more sense now?

Thanks for intentionally posting an early article that doesn't fully explain the situation.

1. They aren't "backing out", they are reducing their staff until security can be accessed and ensured for it's workers. Just as they have done in every situation where Red Cross workers were in jepordy. More than once they have fled a situation (fire, flood, earthquake) until they can ensure that they can provide safety for rescue workers AS WELL as the people.

The Red Cross *WILL NOT* put it's workers at risk. The US Military failed to provide adequate security despite repeated urging.

Upon security review, and beliefs that it's safer to work, they will resume as necessary.

2. It's not very likely that Al Queda was connected to these attacks. The Red Cross is the only agency providing any medical care to Al Queda prisoners in the region. The Red Cross is as close to a western ally as it gets (Red Cross is purely humanitarian).

Al Queda has nothing to gain from such an attack. No psychological, military, advantage at all. It's about as logical as firing into your own troops (assuming your not French).

Al Queda would benefit from attacking US Soldiers, Embassies, and transitional government facilities/people.

But the Red Cross wouldn't be a target.

Al Queda has a reputation for well thought out attacks. Every target they have ever attempted was well planned, calculated, and had stratigic value. The Trade Center wasn't a random building. There is a reason it was chosen over other buildings. Emotional attachment of the people is the main reason cited by their documents. It's viewed as the pinicle of the "Financial Capital of the world". A financial capital powered by the Middle East's oil (ironic if you think about it). That was the sole reason for it being a target.

Embassies have a obvious stratigic advantage. So do military installations.


The Red Cross attacks sound like yet another faction upset that the US isn't paying attention during the process of building a new government. Most like Saddam's guys. Someone who values the rich and the well of, rather than the poor.

I'm sure Al Queda is the fail safe for blame on these attacks, if they can't point it to someone else... but it would be a dramatic change of face. Al Queda has never done a completely pointless attack yet. This would be a complete 180. From perhaps the most intensive attack in modern history against a strong nation (9/11), to shooting itself in the foot (literally) 2 years later.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Hussein funded Arafat and Arafat's organized terror attacks on Israelis. Hussein gave money to Arafat for the so-called martyrs, most of which Arafat pocketed, but about $30 US a month made it to their families.

Israel wanted Hussein out, yes. Nothing wrong with that.

Israel wants stability in the region. Hussein was not leading a stable Iraq, but a regime known to gas it's own citizens.

Knowing that Israel desires stability means it is ludicrous for Israel to support attacks on the International Red Cross, of which her Red Star of David is a member.

You forgot to add, Israel does no wrong™

[vmarks]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
You forgot to add, Israel does no wrong™

Course they do, but pretty rarely in these past few years.

But go on, believe what you like, in direct opposition to reason- just know that putting forth a serious belief in distortions of reality in order to place blame on Israelis is counterproductive.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Course they do, but pretty rarely in these past few years.

Yeesh. I don't know about that. Things have been pretty bloody recently.

Reply:
Of course, due to the terrorist Palestinians.

Reply:
Israel has been overly agressive and has committed terrorist acts of its own.

Reply:
In response to Palestinian acts of terror.

And so on.

[thunderous_funker]

Well, I would think most people would realize that blaming Israel for the bombings is pretty paranoid conspiracy theory with little or no merit.

However, what no one seems to be talking about is what happens when Iraqi (and other Arabs) believe it? How does that effect the Occupation? How does that effect our chances for success? What can we do about it?

Saying its a ridiculous idea is all find and dandy, but that doesn't stop Arabs from believing it or help the US figure out a way to stop this cycle of violence or prevent and escalation because Iraqis start believing the Jews are behind it and the US is complicit.

Ideas like this get people killed. How do you fight the spread of such an idea? Is it even possible considering the almost pathological tendency towards bizarre conspiracy theories in the Arab world?

[petehammer]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Ideas like this get people killed. How do you fight the spread of such an idea? Is it even possible considering the almost pathological tendency towards bizarre conspiracy theories in the Arab world?

I agree and disagree. I don't think the Arab world is the only region with a "pathological tendency toward bizarre conspiracy theories." Much of Africa believes AIDS is a virus designed to kill blacks. Europe and the US have conspiracy theories as well.

The Arab world may have more anti-semitic conspiracies, but think of all the bizarre conspiracies in the U.S., especially those coming from the right (Bill Clinton is a murderer? The media is run by liberals?)

I agree, we need to figure out why ideas like this are commonplace in the Arab world, but we must not think we are in a better place merely because our conspiracy theories are different.

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by eklipse:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...eadlines-world


I don't think there is too much validity to this line of reasoning but it does hi-light yet another line of division and suspicion between the occupiers and the occupied.

Whoever blew up the Red Cross facility in Baghdad certainly didn't seem like a friend of the Iraqi people (or someone trying to be) - which almost certainly rules out the involvement of an organized militia still loyal to Saddam. That would leave al-Qaeda or some other outside entity with ultimate responsibility - it would seem that some Iraqis are willing to point the finger at Israel before al-Qaeda.

The Iraqis hate the Israelis. It's no wonder they'd blame them for everything.

There are warring factions in Iraq among the Muslims. It's been this way for centuries. expect much of this to continue.

The article is thoroughly unbelievable.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Course they do, but pretty rarely in these past few years.

LOL!

Originally posted by vmarks:
But go on, believe what you like, in direct opposition to reason- just know that putting forth a serious belief in distortions of reality in order to place blame on Israelis is counterproductive.

Did I say I believed it? No, I demonstrated the reasoning behind it. There's plenty of things out there that can lead one to such an opinion. I showed you how.
I really doubt Israel is behind these bombings. No body is entirely certain who they are, yet.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
However, what no one seems to be talking about is what happens when Iraqi (and other Arabs) believe it? How does that effect the Occupation? How does that effect our chances for success? What can we do about it?

Saying its a ridiculous idea is all find and dandy, but that doesn't stop Arabs from believing it or help the US figure out a way to stop this cycle of violence or prevent and escalation because Iraqis start believing the Jews are behind it and the US is complicit.

Exactly the point.

Ideas like this get people killed. How do you fight the spread of such an idea? Is it even possible considering the almost pathological tendency towards bizarre conspiracy theories in the Arab world?

I disagree on this point. I don't think the Arab world is any more or less prone to 'bizarre conspiracy theories'. In fact, when it comes Israel, I'd say they have several decades worth of good reasons to be suspicious.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Israel wants stability in the region. Hussein was not leading a stable Iraq, but a regime known to gas it's own citizens.

Knowing that Israel desires stability means it is ludicrous for Israel to support attacks on the International Red Cross, of which her Red Star of David is a member.

Good answer.

I think it's simpler than that though. Iraq was probably the only country in the region to pose any sort of a threat to Israel. Where is Iraq now? Under occupation and preoccupied with infighting and civil unrest. Why is Israel not involved? Because it doesn't have to be - things are going very well for it's interests as they are - there's no reason for Israel to entangle itself in an already messy situation.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Course they do, but pretty rarely in these past few years.

LMAO!

And there I was thinking you didn't have a sense of humor........

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by eklipse:
I disagree on this point. I don't think the Arab world is any more or less prone to 'bizarre conspiracy theories'. In fact, when it comes Israel, I'd say they have several decades worth of good reasons to be suspicious.

I wasn't impying cultural gullibility or something. Merely reminding people that Arabs have demonstrated a remarkable willingness to believe the absolute worst about Israel and the US. Irrational or justified, it still happens.

Like the idea that Gore lost the election because he was Jewish? Or the one about millions of Jews not showing up for work on 9/11? Or that the US was purposely not getting the water and power back on to punish them?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Good answer.

I think it's simpler than that though. Iraq was probably the only country in the region to pose any sort of a threat to Israel. Where is Iraq now? Under occupation and preoccupied with infighting and civil unrest. Why is Israel not involved? Because it doesn't have to be - things are going very well for it's interests as they are - there's no reason for Israel to entangle itself in an already messy situation.

Well Israel has said in the past it has claims to some of the oil in some "deals" the Iraqi people didn't live up to.

There is also pipeline talks.

Iraq means billions of dollars for the Sharon Regime.

Tis good thing for them. It didn't cost Israel a penny, and in 5 years, they will have a very steady income if the pipeline proposed with US backing is actually implemented.

Israel wouldn't want to make it look like there were problems in Iraq... they want this all to be over quick... screw humanitarian relief.. .get the wells going and the pipe's flowing.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Israel wants stability in the region.

Is that why it routinely violates Lebanon's air space?
I don't know if Israel is behind some terrorist acts in Iraq now, but to claim that it is seeking stability in the region sounds as credible as a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:

Iraq means billions of dollars for the Sharon Regime.

That was the least absurd thing you had to say- and it's pretty darn absurd.

Someone whose leadership is continually subject to both regular elections as well as elections which may called as the result of a vote of no confidence cannot, in any valid sense, be called a regime. That word is reserved for those who are unelected, or are elected and then cease the holding of elections to protect themselves. Arafat, Hussein, Khomeini.. Those are regimes. Sharon's government? Democratically elected with terms and checks and balances.

Misusing the word, implying guilt where there is none is... well.... counterproductive.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by vmarks:
That was the least absurd thing you had to say- and it's pretty darn absurd.

Someone whose leadership is continually subject to both regular elections as well as elections which may called as the result of a vote of no confidence cannot, in any valid sense, be called a regime. That word is reserved for those who are unelected, or are elected and then cease the holding of elections to protect themselves. Arafat, Hussein, Khomeini.. Those are regimes. Sharon's government? Democratically elected with terms and checks and balances.

Misusing the word, implying guilt where there is none is... well.... counterproductive.

Overreact much?

re·gime also ré·gime ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-zhm, r-)
n. [list=1][*]A form of government: a fascist regime. [*]A government in power; administration: suffered under the new regime. [*]A prevailing social system or pattern. [*]The period during which a particular administration or system prevails. [*]A regulated system, as of diet and exercise; a regimen. [/list=1]

And yes, Israel stands to gain massivly from the radical liberalization of Iraq's markets and resources--particulary the oil and water pipeline projects. Projects that would have probably never happened if left to the people of Iraq.

[moki]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Well, at least tell us why it's ridiculous.

Saudi Arabia is behind the bombings in Iraq. Tell us why it's ridiculous.

It's amusing that people who flame Americans for thinking Saddam had *something* to do with 9/11 are willing to believe the Jews are behind everything, with no proof whatsoever. I mean seriously...

[eklipse]

Originally posted by moki:
Saudi Arabia is behind the bombings in Iraq. Tell us why it's ridiculous.

Because they would have nothing to gain from it.

It's amusing that people who flame Americans for thinking Saddam had *something* to do with 9/11 are willing to believe the Jews are behind everything, with no proof whatsoever. I mean seriously...

Who was willing to believe the Jews were behind it?

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by moki:
Saudi Arabia is behind the bombings in Iraq. Tell us why it's ridiculous.

Actually, it could be possible that SA is somehow involved.

It's amusing that people who flame Americans for thinking Saddam had *something* to do with 9/11 are willing to believe the Jews are behind everything, with no proof whatsoever. I mean seriously...

It's amusing how you constantly play the anti-semitism card: if someone criticizes the neo-cons must be 'cause some of them are Jews; all criticism of Israel is based on the fact that it is a Jewish state, etc. Do you think Jews are somehow 'special - different than other human beings?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Overreact much?

re·gime also ré·gime ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-zhm, r-)
n. [list=1][*]A form of government: a fascist regime. [*]A government in power; administration: suffered under the new regime. [*]A prevailing social system or pattern. [*]The period during which a particular administration or system prevails. [*]A regulated system, as of diet and exercise; a regimen. [/list=1]

And yes, Israel stands to gain massivly from the radical liberalization of Iraq's markets and resources--particulary the oil and water pipeline projects. Projects that would have probably never happened if left to the people of Iraq.

Fits the definition quite well.

Saddam was elected by his people as well.

[Mohammed Atef]

this woman's reasoning and logic are idiotic. She is likely the biproduct of an education and upbringing that culture this kind of bacterial thought.

If you need reasons why the Middle East is still mired in despotism, fanaticism, and general backwardsness, look no further.

[Mohammed Atef]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Fits the definition quite well.

Saddam was elected by his people as well.

Robert, I hope you're saying that tongue-in-cheek.

Saddam was indeed 'elected'--it was the classic choice of choose Saddam or risk death. And there were never any other candidates.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Overreact much?

The only way to combat revisionism and misperception is through insistence on correction.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Worse than that, people who ought to know better will accept that something outrageous just might be true, because they're predisposed to agree with anything that might be anti-Israel.

This is true with just not Israel.

You can replace Israel with "America" or "Bush" and it would be dead on also.

Esp in these forums full of haters.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
Well there are those who see the Red Cross' departure as a result of what the US did, namely the invasion.

Right, there will always be people blaming the US for anything and everything. Fault or not.

The Red Cross didn't leave because of the invasion. They left because of the violent pig dogs that have no self control. They act like rabid dogs.

People aren't going to stick around when there are rabid dogs on the prowl.

There are those who see the Red Cross' departure as a result of what the US hasn't done, namely restore law and order as they are obliged to as Iraq's Occupiers.

They have for the most part. Their government isn't gassing them. Their government isn't taking them out into the streets and shooting them. Their government isn't stealing their daughters for sexual amusement.

Terrorism is Terrorism. It will always be there.

No one can stop it fully.

If you meant " animals' ", then I think the answer is probably that people are already sick of this. I haven't heard one person approve of this bombing.

Not one person. But you aren't talking to the people in charge. Or the people doing these things.

And the people that are in charge, if they are in the media, wont own up. They will act outraged too!

British intelligence) said that invading Iraq would HEIGHTEN the terrorist threat and INCREASE the number of terrorists.

Oh well, "Bring it On," right George!

Well good, get them all together and waste them.

They don't deserve to be apart of humanity.

They obviously have no respect for it.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Fits the definition quite well.

Saddam was elected by his people as well.

His people had no choice.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
His people had no choice.

Neither did they have any choice in the "Interim Council" or in how their Constitution is drafted; that being the document which will govern Iraq indefinitely going forward.

You say that Iraqis are better off because their government isn't gassing them and assaulting them. Of course, they have no government so your statement is pretty logical.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
You say that Iraqis are better off because their government isn't gassing them and assaulting them. Of course, they have no government so your statement is pretty logical.

Ok, take out government.

No one is gassing them, or raping them.

This isn't happening like before we kicked Saddam and his sons out.

There IS more stability. People AREN'T as afraid as they once where. Like the US or not.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
There IS more stability.

You have got to be kidding!!! There is more stability in Iraq now - lol. You really are living in a dream world!

Much as I don't approve of Saddam's techniques, Iraq was clearly more stable on his shift. Kids went to school, sewerage didn't run in the streets, people didn't fire guns into the air, the police weren't attacked, bombs didn't go off at NGO's. Go on over to the BBC's After Saddam special and read some of the locals' reports. You'll see that they're happy Saddam is gone, but none of them claim that Iraq is more stable! Stability is something they will hopefully get; it's laughable to suggest they have it now!

[swrate]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Troll:
[B]You have got to be kidding!!! There is more stability in Iraq now - lol. You really are living in a dream world!

Much as I don't approve of Saddam's techniques, Iraq was clearly more stable on his shift. Kids went to school, sewerage didn't run in the streets, people didn't fire guns into the air, the police weren't attacked, bombs didn't go off at NGO's. ....."


The Un and red cross could do their work without anxiety


chris wrote:

Why were they there in the first place?

It was none of their business.

NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS? :O

Dont you know that those organizations are present in ALL wars?
Or any place when there is humanitarian disaster, caused by starvation, earthquakes, floods, whateve the reason...

These associations work FOR the people, it is more of their business then it is the businees of the troops, who after having targeted iraq
power plants and even water supply,,,,,seem to have problems to take care of basic needs, such as food, water electricity, medical aid.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
There IS more stability. People AREN'T as afraid as they once where. Like the US or not.

wow. just wow. Are you really this uninformed, or are you just so used to apologizing for Bush you can't see what's patently obvious?

[christ]

Originally posted by swrate:
...Dont you know that those organizations are present in ALL wars?....

My point precisely. "Why were they there in the first place?" No war - no need for the Red Cross.

US clear up its own mess - no need for the UN.

[gadster]

Back OT: would be no surprise to me if they were.