Or is it MockDemocracy? Every word is worth reading.

No elections will be credible while occupation continues
Iraq's current political process will not solve the crisis. Only a US and British pullout and a UN sponsored poll can do that
Harith al-Dari
Thursday December 15, 2005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ - The Guardian

Iraq has a long history of civilisation that has contributed both knowledge and wisdom to humanity. For many centuries, Islam also immunised Iraq against religious or sectarian strife and protected its population from the oppression that peoples of the ancient world had been subjected to. Generation after generation of Iraqis succeeded in maintaining peaceful coexistence among their diverse sects and races, despite the hardships and challenges they faced. It is by virtue of this cohesion that Iraq managed to rise up again and put its house in order in the wake of every calamity.

In recent times, one of the most difficult periods has been the past 35 years, during which Iraq was subjected to one-party rule by a minority that dragged the country through a series of misadventures, with heavy losses for the Iraqi people. During the last chapter of that painful era, Iraqis were for many years punished with sanctions that caused the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, most of them children. The sanctions ended with an invasion, followed by an occupation by US and British troops, in total complete contravention of international law and in defiance of the UN. The invaders resorted to pretexts that soon proved to be false, including the lie about weapons of mass destruction.

Things became much worse under occupation, which has delivered none of the promised dividends of democracy, freedom, security and prosperity. Instead, Iraqis have been living in fear, poverty, oppression and a lack of freedom.

The occupation troops have resorted to excessive force, indiscriminate killing and collective punishment of the population. They have besieged entire towns, storming into them, instilling fear and horror among residents and destroying their homes. Iraqis have been humiliated and stripped of their basic human rights; they have been subjected to brutal and ghastly forms of torture, as the infamous Abu Ghraib prison case and the British troops' abuse of detainees in Basra have shown.

In the meantime there has been a scandalous failure by successive Iraqi governments to attend to the basic needs of the population. There has been a continuous rise in unemployment, which has been used to force young men to join the military and security establishments, which in turn throw them into the furnace of a destructive, yet futile, war. Many other young men find themselves drawn into drug trafficking because Iraq has become a theatre for this sinister industry although it had until the invasion been one of the few countries in the world that had no significant drugs problem.

The conduct and motivation of the occupation authorities were suspect right from the start, when they encouraged the organised theft of public properties; left weapon dumps unguarded; dissolved the Iraqi army and replaced it with militias whose agendas are incompatible with the collective interests of the Iraqi people; and when it introduced sectarian and racial quotas in political life, paving the way for serious sectarian and racial conflict that has been exploited by some political groups for their own exclusive ends.

This is what has become of Iraq under occupation. The US and its allies bear full legal and moral responsibility for all this: they are the ones who instigated it by illegally invading Iraq.

This is Iraq's reality today. It goes without saying that the continuation of this dreadful situation will have very serious repercussions not only for Iraq but for the region and the entire world.

What is the solution? The cause of the problem, the source of the trouble, is the occupation which has brought all this upon Iraq and the Iraqis. This has to be eliminated. But the US administration remains committed to its occupation and insistent on pushing ahead with a political process that is entirely without credibility.

The refusal by some Iraqi political groups and religious authorities to endorse this process is not born out of a rejection of peaceful political engagement or a decision to opt for a violent solution - as the occupation-sponsored media machine alleges - but stems from a belief in justice, freedom and independence as basic prerequisites for any genuine political process. None of these prerequisites are present, and therefore the current political process cannot provide the Iraqi people with peace and security.

The abuses witnessed during previous elections, as well as during the draft constitution referendum - which had the effect of denying the will of the majority of the Iraqis - only generate scepticism and reinforce the suspicions of those who are boycotting today's elections. Whether Iraqis take part or not, few regard these latest occupation-sponsored elections as any more free or fair than those that preceded them, and they will not help to solve the crisis facing the country.

For the political process to succeed it must proceed in a healthy environment which will take shape only when occupation comes to an end. The solution to the Iraqi problem, in the view of the Association of Muslim Scholars, is simple and logical: it is one that fully complies with international legality and would serve to reinforce it; that would put an end to the daily haemorrhage of Iraqi blood; that would lay the foundations for a state of law that protects the rights of all its citizens and seeks to secure basic human dignity; that provides an alternative to occupation, as explained in the memorandum we submitted to the United Nations and the Arab League.

This solution must be based, first, on an announcement by the US and its allies of a timetable for withdrawing their troops. Second, it would entail replacing the occupation forces with a UN force whose main task would be to fill the security void. This would be followed, thirdly, by the formation of an interim Iraqi government for six months under the supervision of the UN in order to conduct genuine parliamentary elections in which all parts of the Iraqi population would take part. Finally, the duly elected Iraqi government would take charge of the task of rebuilding the country's civil and military institutions.

Nothing will work in Iraq unless the root of the problem is addressed: the occupation must end.

� Harith Sulayman al-Dari is secretary general of the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq

Do you have some problem reading simple plain Ingleesh? And, what the hell silly idiots who can't even pronounce Eyerak properly know what the Eyerakis want.

In Farsi, we call pips like you pissoos.

In some other string you were talking about HONOUR!

Honour is about not going to a neighbour's house uninvited and salivating for their oil riches.

Absolutely filthy coward murderers. Anyone can be brave at 52,000 feet up in the air.

I would respond only if someone had two braincells to rub together.

Thank you.

True! True! The Iraqis would do much, much worse than that. They are drowning; they would grab anything to get the hell out of Iraq. They are between America and the deep blue sea. What else anyone can expect them to do?

Saddam should have been given a chance to stand in the election �

No Saddam gets to stand trial for the 1 million Muslims hes managed to kill since taking power. But apparently all those dead are OK with you because you obviously want him back.

Sheer American garbage. Do you have proof? Plus what was your c**try doing when he was killing those people.

And, a Mid West hardcore white male Cristian Funda Mentalist cares more for Muslims than us? What a Holywood script.

Only idiots can spread that to legitimise some occupation.

Sheer American garbage. Do you have proof? Plus what was your c**try doing when he was killing those people.

And, a Mid West hardcore white male Cristian Funda Mentalist cares more for Muslims than us? What a Holywood script.

Only idiots can spread that to legitimise some occupation.

Why don't you do a search on a word..."Halabja".......Select any of the numerous sites that come up. and take a good look at those pictures! The man who did that is who your defending.those people were Muslim.do you care? obviously not! and don't even try to say America did worse THAT is garbage!  5000 people died in 1 day in" Halabja." and ill be this is what mustard gas( aWMD) does to children. wow the US had it all wrong Saddam was a great guy. LOOK AT THE PICTURES.

and heres some facts about the Al Anfal offensive

Facts and Figures

• Ba'ath Party eliminated 3,827 villages, including 1,274 directly as a result of the Anfal campaign.
• 1,754 Schools destroyed
• 2,450 Mosques destroyed
• 270 Hospitals destroyed
• around 75% of villages wiped out

And just in case you are too afraid to do a search on your own heres a link.And by the way how can anyone look at these and not feel Saddam needed to be removed? This site is not for weak people. This is who Saddam really was. How can you  forget!

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html - http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

Are you afraid to answer my question: What was your admin doing when he was doing all the dirty work for them?

Why was Rumsfeld in Baghdad with a pair of golden spurs?

Plus, since when have you suddenly turned more concered about anyone killing Muslims?

Period.

kenski70, you said No Saddam gets to stand trial for the 1 million Muslims hes managed to kill since taking power.

Really?? Very enlightening!! That piece of information is something new to me. Could you please elaborate on that. To how many countries did Saddam go to kill that many Muslims? There must be more millions including the non-Muslims he killed; right? I�m dying to get more information on that, please.

If I were to take you seriously, I have to admit I have been misled by the Western historians and the Western media. According to them, it is only Americans who are capable of annihilating millions. Again, they are the only capable ones who could and can wipe out whole nations, and destroy countries. Countries like Japan, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq are �living examples�. Further, based on these historians� and media records and reporting, Americans are the most aggressive, brutal, merciless and ruthless in the world.

So your statement about Saddam is definitely something different. Please elaborate.

Please don�t ask me to search on a word..."Halabja". and EVEN IF the 5000 people died in 1 day in" Halabja." is right, it is too few compared to the killing of more than a million CHILDREN in Iraq alone by the Americans.

Maybe you need more �Halabia�s to support your statement about Saddam.

My most Americanised witted nail, no one has to do anything to slam America. Your admins have had a special contract to do that and they are doing a far better job of it than anyone else. Oil is not the only consideration, it's always just any advantage.

The Serbian problem was fomented by the US and their other Hang Low Sexnn cousins, this side of the pond, as an excuse to keep NATO troops deployed in Europe after the Cold War collapsed - or more like that the people got to find out about the reality of this cold war drama!!

Let's forget about all this heavy stuff. It must be a bit too much for your terribly flagwashed head. Just tell me, why doesn't anyone in the world ever take America seriously without your guns? 

Really?? Very enlightening!! That piece of information is something new to me. Could you please elaborate on that. To how many countries did Saddam go to kill that many Muslims? There must be more millions including the non-Muslims he killed; right? I�m dying to get more information on that, please.

 Saddam started the Iran- Iraq war. Close to 1 million died in that war alone. Saddam also killed hundreds of thousands of his own people throughout his Regine. Ask the Kurds.,or Shia in the south. why do you think the UN had no fly zones over 60% of his country? to keep him from using aircraft to attack said groups. He used tanks instead. The invasion of Kuwait....few more hundred thousand dead Muslims from Kuwait. And Saddam's army when the coalition hit back. Then you got Saddam smashing the Kurds again after the war. And doing the same to the Shia in the south AGAIN. Prompting the no fly zones. Then Saddam pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars in the oil for food scam. Hospital supplies were supposed to be part of the deal. They were never distributed why???? You say your dying for information but refuse to learn about Halabja?

why doesn't anyone in the world ever take America seriously without your guns? 

Stupid question back at you buddy! Why doesn't the world take Muslim extremists seriously without their bomb belts?

Only idiots jump to conclusions in this manner.

What makes you think you are addressing a Muslim? What happens to your guts (I know other parts are a bit dysfunctional) when you are asked a simple question. The question still remains:

why doesn't anyone in the world ever take America seriously without your guns? 

why doesn't anyone in the world ever take America seriously without your guns? 

Probably because your a moron! Plenty of people take America seriously.Don't believe me? look at how many American companies there are world wide? there are significant trade pacts with many ,many countries. You see there are now wal-marts in china...... that didn't happen through force. That was an economic  decision.  Did you know wal- Marts profits last year were more than the entire country of Saudi Arabia? America is filled with companies just like that. And employment opportunities are everywhere. Thats why record Numbers of immigrants are coming to America right NOW!  Care to address the Coca Cola or Pepsi companies and how many people world wide take home paychecks from them?  Or from Microsoft? Or more people who use their products?? No US guns forced Indonesia to have McDonald's either.The lure of money to be made did......Lots of people take America seriously!...... OK back to the Istanbul question?

Go and ask some grown up what my question means!

A moron always thinks everyone else to be a moron like him.

kenski70,

you said

Saddam started the Iran- Iraq war. Close to 1 million died in that war alone.

If not for the American involvement, the border clashes between Iran and Iraq could have ended as border clashes. No doubt it was Saddam who started the �war� but later he was stupid enough to get into the American trap and the border clash became a long lasting war.

Oh you got me every thing is the USAs fault.If one of our allies does something bad gotta be our fault right? Sadden want to fight its a US plan to conquer everything.The US sided with Saddam for 1 reason AMERICANS  HATE IRAN is that complicated for you to get?They held 66 Americans hostage for 444 days they will never be on our good side at all. The "out side power" Carter was referring to was the soviet union. And with good reason. that was during the cold war and subsequent arms race. allowing the soviets to get their hands on a huge cash cow like that would mean a longer war. by the way the soviets spent just about all their money on military trying to keep pace with the US and they bankrupted themselves.Saying the US is responsible for the whole  Iran-Iraq war thing is just crap.that would be like saying the US was behind the invasion of Kuwait too.

Now is the question time:

Provide an one-word answer: Who is responsible for the killing of the 1� million Muslims during the Iran-Iraq War?

saddam

The US, with its former foe now in a state of chaos, found its ideological justification for international military hegemony being undermined. Against whom or what was the US protecting the world now? Hence the American search, beginning in the early 1990s, for new enemies to replace the old Soviet Union.

The Gulf War began with a dispute between Iraq and Kuwait over ports in the Gulf and over oil export quotas. Iraq�s plan to invade Kuwait appeared initially to have been condoned by the US, so the real motives for the entrance of the United States into the conflict were unclear. President Bush (Sr.) had sent his emissary Henry Shuyler to persuade his then-ally Saddam Hussain to intervene in OPEC to hike oil prices for the benefit of his Texas constituents. Bush and his advisors knew that OPEC cheated and fell on the idea of a border incident whereby Iraq would take the southern end of the Rumaila field, from which the Kuwaitis were pumping.

On the eve of the invasion, the US Ambassador in Baghdad, April Glaspie, said, �We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait�

� a statement countersigned by Secretary of State James Baker in Washington.

Saddam assumed he had a wink and a nod to invade his neighbour.

kenski70, Provide an one-word answer: Who is responsible for the killing of the 1� million Muslims during the Iran-Iraq War? saddam

Before I sign off on this, let me try to wake you up with the following:

Britain, the U.S., Kuwait and Saudi Arabia convinced Iraq to invade Iran, then covertly supplied Saddam with money, arms, intelligence, and advisers. Meanwhile, Israel secretly supplied Iran with $5 billion US in American arms and spare parts while publicly denouncing Iran for terrorism.

Who supplied "Chemical Ali" with his mustard and nerve gas? Why, the West, of course. In late 1990, I discovered four British technicians in Baghdad who told me they had been "seconded" to Iraq by Britain's ministry of defence and MI6 intelligence to make chemical and biological weapons, including anthrax, Q-fever and plague, at a secret laboratory at Salman Pak. (Toronto Sun, December 19, 2004 )

If it "was" a crime now, it was a crime then. And if Bush and Blair want Saddam to be held accountable now for crimes he committed then (a reasonable proposition, to say the least), then those that enabled his crimes should (they're still alive, after all) be held accountable as well.

http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/73316 -  

Given above are just two examples. There are hundreds and hundreds of such opinions and remarks. I confined to �hundreds and hundreds� because they are from Westerners and Western Media; the other sources are not included. If interested let me know.

Your answer for the question is wrong. You need more exposure and therefore need to venture out. Try to read more about what was and is happening in the Middle East and learn to be discriminating in your reading. You also have to learn to read in between lines.

Incidentally, please do not get the idea that I am propagating Saddam�s innocence. I am not in a position to judge him. All that I am trying to say is that America has been doing and would do anything and everything to safeguard its interest.

Who supplied "Chemical Ali" with his mustard and nerve gas? Why, the West, of course. In late 1990, I discovered four British technicians in Baghdad who told me they had been "seconded" to Iraq by Britain's ministry of defence and MI6 intelligence to make chemical and biological weapons, including anthrax, Q-fever and plague, at a secret laboratory at Salman Pak. (Toronto Sun, December 19, 2004 )

Hey wait a minute here!!!!! I thought Saddam didn't have these weapons and Bush LIED!!!!

kenski70, you said

You think gassing Kurds was doing Americas dirty work?

No! No! It wasn�t, because there wasn�t such a thing as gassing the Kurds. If there was, it was not done by America or Saddam. Then, by whom? Well, read through.

You also said,

� Didn't see any Muslim nations rise up in defense of these people.

1)         True! True! �No Muslim nations rose up in defense � � Who needed defence?

Let�s look at the following:

Memo To: Karl Rove, President�s political counselor
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: Saddam Did Not Gas the Kurds
�

On three different Sunday talk shows, Cheney repeated the charge that Saddam killed as many as 100,000 Iraqi Kurds, in this manner. What I am telling you publicly, Karl, is that this DID NOT HAPPEN. �

Note the words �DID NOT HAPPEN� in capital letters. By that he meant to say that he was absolutely certain Saddam did not kill his own people.

Now you see why no Muslim nation rose up in defence? According to your own fellow American, there wasn�t such a thing. Then, what to defend? Whom to defend?

2)         Then, what did the American government say?

A preliminary http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=4c32nbm5klr0s?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Defense+Intelligence+Agency&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc01b - - Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for much of the early 1990's.

3)         And what did a senior CIA political analyst on Iraq during Iran-Iraq war say?

(a)  �  �  all that is known for certain is that Kurds were hit with poison gas that day, during battle with Iranians;� (b) � � that US Defense Intelligence Agency's report found both sides used gas during battle, and blamed Iranians for Kurdish deaths �� and (c) � � Kurds died of cyanide-based gas that Iran, but not Iraq, had at time��

Why are his statements so important? This is what he said:

�I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.�

Then why did the incident become so controversial? The following is part of what Stephen C Pelletiere told the Voice:

"And it's an especially crucial issue right now. We say Saddam is a monster, a maniac who gassed his own people, and the world shouldn't tolerate him. But why? Because that's the last argument the U.S. has for going to war with Iraq."

4)         Now let�s look at what Michael Pallis say in his book �A People Without a Country: The Kurds and Kurdistan�:

             �If the CIA official is correct, the Kurds were accidentally killed by Iran, not Iraq.�

5)         Now let�s look at what the Star had said about the incident:

� � there's reason to believe the story about Saddam "gassing his own people" at Halabja may not even be true.�

6)         In September 1988, the Star quoted a UN official as saying:

             � � the Security Council chose to condemn the use of gas in the Iran-Iraq war rather than finger Iraq, generally believed to have lost the war with Iran��

7)         What has the Pentagon to say about this matter?

"...the 1990 Pentagon report, published just prior to the invasion of Kuwait.  Said  A) NO EVIDENCE THAT IRAQ COMMITED THE CRIME b) � �

             Elsewhere in the same report it is stated:

� � we find it impossible to confirm the State Department�s claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with there were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds -- in Turkey where they had gone for asylum -- failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.�

8)         What Don Sellar of Toronto Star who believed Saddam had mistreated Kurds, has to say:

�No doubt, Saddam has mistreated Kurds during his rule. But it's misleading to say, so simply and without context, that he killed his own people by gassing 5,000 Kurds at Halabja.�

9)         The �gassing incident� was supposed to have taken place 14 years before the invasion of Iraq. And the main reason sighted for the invasion was what Saddam did in Halabja. Why did America take that long to realize Saddam had to be punished for gassing his people? Or is it that neither Bush the Father nor Bush the Son did not know anything about it?

Now let�s look at the real reason for creating the �gassing of Kurds�:

�Ever since September 11, the administration has been trying to hook Iraq into the "war on terror." Initially, a claim was advanced that suicide pilot Mohammed Atta had met with Iraqi operatives in Prague. Then Iraq was floated as a source of the anthrax attacks. Finally, the "axis of evil" speech accused Saddam of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Although few doubt that Saddam has such armaments, none of these charges was ever substantiated. But by repeatedly citing the New Yorker article, Bush and Cheney were saying that they didn't need to prove a thing. What Saddam did in Halabja is reason enough to oust him.�

Now LET�S SUPPOSE the gassing incident really took place.  And then, let�s exam what you said:

Saddam also killed hundreds of thousands of his own people throughout his Regine. Ask the Kurds.,or Shia in the south.

10)       Want to see what your favourite Wikipedia says about it?

             The Halabja poison gas attack was an incident on http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=4c32nbm5klr0s?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=March+15&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc01b - - 19 March http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=4c32nbm5klr0s?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=1988&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc01b - - chemical weapons were used, allegedly by http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=4c32nbm5klr0s?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Iraq&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc01b - - Kurdish town of http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=4c32nbm5klr0s?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Halabja&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc01b -

11)       Let�s go back to 1988, when the patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdish Democratic Party had united and had joined in Iran�s war efforts against Iraq. Iraq was accused by Teheran of using mustard gas and cyanide against the Kurds in the Halabjeh region, but even the Iranians put the number of casualties at 3,000 to 5,000 -- never at the figures you cite.

             So, did �Saddam also killed hundreds of thousands of his own people ..�?

And how else shall we look at the incident?

12)       �This is serious stuff, because the United Nations tells us that http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/iraq/ -

 The Halabja atrocity remains murky. The CIA's former Iraq desk chief claims Kurds who died at Halabja were killed by cyanide gas, not nerve gas, as is generally believed  �.   What's the difference between the U.S. destroying the rebellious Iraqi city of Fallujah and Saddam destroying rebellious Halabja? What difference does it make if you're killed by poison gas, artillery or 2,000-pound bombs?  �.

Easy......Halabja was not rebellious. The inhabitants were Shia. Iran is Shia,  thats all Saddam went on. Falluja was full of insurgents. (armed insurgents) you see the differnce.... armed jihadist shooting RPG out a mosque window  /  unarmed woman holding a baby? Theres quite a difference.

kenski70,

Now I begin to understand why your posts contain a lot of incorrect statements, wild accusations and disparities.

When your newspaper (the Sun) asked you those two questions, they were not meant for you to answer them verbally or in writing. It was trying to challenge your humanity in you. Those questions were meant for you to think about the American atrocities. The answers to these questions, if you try to analyse them with an open mind, will tell you that the Americans are no better than the barbarians. You did not seem to understand the point. Do not be so na�ve. As I told you earlier, be discriminating in your reading.

And what�s about your accusation that �Saddam also killed hundreds of thousands of his own people � �?  Do you still believe it? If so, why don�t you put forward proof for your claim? If you can�t, may I suggest you admit your mistake.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ - http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/

Heres your proof. Feel free to browse through it.

Brother �whisper�,

Some, standing behind the shroud of ignorance, sling mud at anything that has some sort of connection with Islam. To them, authenticity of what they say is immaterial. As long as they believe they have already hurt someone�s feelings, they are happy. They practise a hit and run tactic. At least once in a while we should let them know they cannot get away that easily with everything they say. If they have any sort of self respect, they would realize their mistake and make an apology for what they have said.

kenski70,

Going through the �evidence� you have mentioned, and the links thereon, I could not come across anything that suggests �Saddam also killed hundreds of thousands of his own people throughout his Regine�. The closest figure mentioned in your �evidence� was �at least 50,000 rural Kurds had died� compared to your �hundreds of thousands.�

Supposing the estimate of 50 000 is correct, before we can make it a sensational issue, we should have an insight into who the Kurds are, their history , what is/was the relationship between them and Iran, why America took 15 years to make it as a campaign against Saddam etc. Maybe we will spend sometime on it in your next lessons.

You asked

�why do you think the UN had no fly zones over 60% of his country?�

Did UN have �no fly zones� over Iraq? It seems you have not done your homework. For your information, the UN had never imposed a �no fly zone� over Iraq. No doubt there was one, but it was not imposed by the UN. It was imposed by the International Gangsters, the super powers, America and the UK.

In actual fact what is this �no fly zones� that we are talking about?

In April 1991, claiming a false authority under Security Council Resolution 688, the US, UK and France began to patrol the skies over northern Iraq, excluding Iraqi aircraft from this zone. The same powers started to enforce a second �no fly� zone in southern Iraq a few months later. Announced as a means to protect Iraqi Kurds (in the north) and Iraq�s Shi�a population (in the south), the no-fly has offered dubious humanitarian protection, while engaging Iraq�s government in ceaseless military pressure.

(http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/flyindex.h tm)

Dubious indeed!

Now, do you begin to understand what the �no fly zones� are?

And who authorized US and UK to impose such restriction over Iraq? Not even a single member of the UN, other than the US, UK and France! Every member of the UN was aware of the American hypocrisy, but they were helpless. They could not do anything. They knew America was a terrorist nation and they did not want their people to suffer from the repercussion. So they had to keep quiet. We have to understand that France might have been duped into going along with the US and UK because it has realized its folly and withdrew from it.

France eventually withdrew from the no-fly process. The US-UK turned no-fly into an even more aggressive operation after 1998, when �more robust rules of engagement� have led to regular bombing of ground targets and substantial civilian casualties.

(http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/flyindex.h tm)

Here the BBC reports the withdrawal of France in this way:

France pulled out of patrolling the operation in December 1996 because, it said, changes in the mission had eliminated its humanitarian aspects. (BBC Correspondent - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/forces_ and_firepower/244364.stm)

Were these �no fly zone� legal?:

However, unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1175950.stm)

Let�s look at what your favourite Wikipedia says about it.

� � Regardless of the legal status, the northern no-fly zone was often credited for giving the parts of the Kurdish region of Iraq de-facto independence after the First Gulf War.�

Now let�s listen direct from the horse�s mouth:

�The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said � that Iraqi firing on allied planes patrolling the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq was not a violation of UNSCR 1441, no matter what the United States may say. �

What did the Russians feel about the �no fly zone�?

�The Russians agreed with Annan: "Recent claims that Iraq's actions in the 'no-fly' zones can be seen as a violation of the U.N. Security Council resolution 1441, have no legal grounds," the Russian foreign ministry said.�

Let�s read on further on the legality side of the no fly zones:

�I did a search on the legality of the zones and found that the United States usually cites UNSCR 688 in defending the zones. But there's nothing in the resolution authorizing their set-up. � and U.K. and U.S. vetoes keep Russia and France from introducing resolutions to end them. (Posted by Christopher at November 19, 2002 08:50 AM +0300 GMT)

And this is what the Guardian said about these �no fly zones�:

� � air patrols are now widely seen as an "undeclared war", a military operation to soften up Iraqi air defence systems and mobile surface-to-surface missiles which would threaten invading British and US forces.�

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538, 907024,00.html

And China said, :

� � that there is no resolution issued by the UN security council or others concerning the two "no fly zone" in northern and southern Iraq.�

The following are excerpts taken from an interview given in 2002 by Francis A. Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign.

Francis Boyle: Sure. After the Gulf War in 1991, the United States, United Kingdom and France unilaterally imposed so-called "no-fly zones" in Northern Iraq and Southern Iraq. They had no authorization from the Security Council to do this; and for the last 11 years now, the U.S. and the U.K. have been bombing targets illegally in Northern and Southern Iraq. Eventually, I believe around 1998 or so, France pulled out, realizing full well that these no-fly zones were illegal.

FB: That's correct - the Northern no-fly zone, and there...Again this is a pretext of fraud to say they were set up for the protection of the Kurds. The reason the Kurds were in jeopardy in the first place was that Bush Sr. called upon them to rise up against Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War, and when the Kurds did rise up, then Bush Sr. sold them out. So this has always been basically a pretext to de facto carve up Iraq into three chunks of territory and to have an excuse to continue low intensity conflict against Iraq whenever they wanted to.

FB: Right. No other member of the Security Council accepts that interpretation of resolution 1441. Indeed most other members of the Security Council say 1441 does not apply to the no-fly zones. Indeed, the reports are that the Bush Jr. administration tried to get language in there to bootstrap the no-fly zones into legality by name, and that failed. So, again, this is clear-cut aggression by the U.S. and the U.K. against Iraq. Iraq certainly has a right to defend itself. Indeed, yesterday they [US/UK forces] blew up an oil company near Basra, not even a plausible case for a military target; they just blew up an oil company and they said: well, the justification is there was an attack on us in the no-fly zone. I mean, this is completely preposterous. But look, Rumsfeld has admitted that around the beginning of the year he just ordered the air force to pick up the bombing campaign of Iraq in order to prepare the way for war, so it's no longer a pretext.

In fact there was a genuine; UN authorized �no fly zone� in Bosnia and Herzegovina that was enforced by NATO aircraft. It was a legal one, and maybe that�s why the US did not take part in it.

Now, is it  clear why America was interested in a �no fly zone�? It was not to keep him from using aircraft to attack said groups. What all that America wanted was to get the Kurds and Shiahs rise against Saddam. (Thinking along the same line, you may see light on Saddam �killing his own people�).

Now do you feel like apologising to your readers?

Brother �whisper�

Brother Ansari, you are absolutely right and I do understand. And, of course, if they had even some semblance of a solid stand or, for that matter, a wee less hollow state of their morally bankrupt nation, these empty drums would not make so much of noise.

It's extremely sad, but I am a simple straight Pathaan and I won't shirk to admit that I do enjoy the poor chap's plight - today's US plight.

Brother Ansari, you are absolutely right and I do understand. And, of course, if they had even some semblance of a solid stand or, for that matter, a wee less hollow state of their morally bankrupt nation, these empty drums would not make so much of noise.

It's extremely sad, but I am a simple straight Pathaan and I won't shirk to admit that I do enjoy the poor chap's plight - today's US plight.

At least we don't preach hate in our churches.can you say the same for your mosques?You consider us morally bankrupt because we are not Muslim nothing more. the crime here is just like anywhere else but whinny punks like you hate us because you  envy us.but at the same time despise us because we would fight to the death to defend our way of life. because you cannot stop us from living life in OUR own way.

because you cannot stop us from living life in OUR own way.

Sad man your extreme limitation makes you assume that I am speaking as a Muslim?

Who wants to stop you from your way of life? You say so just because FaaX Noose say so? Who's army is stopping who from their way of life?

What is there for anyone to envy you? You don't have what the rest of the world considers and values. Just a few tingods and plastic temples? Show me what have you got worth envying other than a few hammers and a few million nails?

Ever been to a mosque? I have been a few times. Never heard a word of hatred being taught there. Yes, people all over the world do discuss American bullyism - everywhere - I have found more Spanish anti-Americans than some poor Muslims.

You envy Muslims - you can NOT move an inch without WHAT THEY HAVE.

I will give you five Euros if you tell us just three things that someone could "envy" about the US.

Okay, Ten Euros!

Whisper wrote: Ever been to a mosque? I have been a few times. Never heard a word of hatred being taught there.

Wakey wakey my hate filled friend.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4693804.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4693804.stm

Mosque's terror connections

Abu Hamza preached outside the mosque after he was banned Police say that Finsbury Park Mosque, where extremist Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri was imam, has been linked to dozens of past al Qaeda-inspired plans.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4690224.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4690224.stm

Abu Hamza jailed for seven years

Controversial Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri has been jailed for seven years after being found guilty of inciting murder and race hate.

I read your posts but all I see is hate and venom.. this illusion you have that only the West are evil is the kind off uneducated attidude that sets back civilization.

As you can cleary see from the above articles there are bad apples on both sides. both sides have blood on thier hands.

To gain education and understanding you should discuss an issue, you may well not agree with what you read but just spouting outright hate will ultimately get you no where.. use logic not anger.

3 Things to envy about the West.

Western medicine, freedom to disagree with our leaders without fear of imprisonment, economic prosperity.  Although I am sure that no matter which three I chose you will disagree with all of them.

Why do you think that people from all parts of the world come to the West?  I do not see citizens of the West fleeing and hoping for a better life in Turkey, Egypt, Kuwait, etc.

In the US we have millions of muslims that left the middle east and came to America for a better life. Not to mention the millions of Mexicans coming to this country.

One thing I envy of the Muslim world are their strong family values and family bonds which many Americans lack!

Every culture has its strengths and weaknesses!

It would be a great idea, a US culture.

Western medicine - with 106 side effects for each shot? Lets not unleash me on "economic prosperity" of a human exploitation system.

I read your posts but all I see is hate and venom..

You would only see what your limits permit you to see. A very good ruse to avoid the actual picture. Good luck. Just live with your dreams of your liberties.

Whisper wrote: It would be a great idea, a US culture. Western medicine - with 106 side effects for each shot? Lets not unleash me on "economic prosperity" of a human exploitation system.

Yes having a health service really sucks doesnt it..

Do you have any idea how ignorant you sound?  Yes modern medicine has side effects but it also saves lives.... you say 106 side effects per jab, can you back this up with fact?  ~No you can't....   Yes, things can go wrong and it is tragic when it does but at the end of the day vaccines PREVENT epidemics and SAVE lives.  I have been innoculated against most nasties while growing up to no ill effect... as have many other billions of people.  You are a complete and utter fool to deny modern medicine.  I would like to hear your reasons as to why it it sooooo wrong... What about the all the innoculation projects that are going on in Africa?  Are you saying these are totally pointless?

I read your posts but all I see is hate and venom.. You would only see what your limits permit you to see. A very good ruse to avoid the actual picture. Good luck. Just live with your dreams of your liberties.

ak_m_f,

Have you been able to authenticate this man's claims elsewhere?  How can we believe him?  Has any credible person supported his statements?

Do you have any idea how ignorant you sound? 

Thank goodness, at least I do know how I sound, but your interesting innocent and puny imperial arrogance blindfolds you to the reality of how you sound or what you are talking about.

At least I know the reality of your essay.

I have been exposed to a variety of cultures. At least I know the effectiveness of other remedial systems that the Brits killed in other countries � for Self Interest!

While you seem to embrace your own words as the gospel truth.

Or, worse still, almost as some New Labour Dossier Truth!

Yes modern medicine has side effects but it also saves lives....

That�s the commonest and the most vulgar excuse the Pharma Fraudsters sell to the sufferers of their scam.

My father was a GP (you know TAMWORTH?) for decades. My son specialised in ENT (Ear, Nose & Throat). He became so fed up with the amoral practices of the Pharma Mafiosi that he sat another FRCS and is now researching / teaching as a psychiatrist.

you say 106 side effects per jab, can you back this up with fact?  ~No you can't....

You seem to be doing pretty well answering your questions yourself.

Why and where do you need us?

Just as an audience for gratification of some deep urges?

If your �health system� is so noble then why are people ever seeking some Real System?

Next, I suppose, you will be asking me to add �facts� to your dossier about �the Pill�s� contribution to women�s cancers.

but at the end of the day vaccines PREVENT epidemics and SAVE lives. 

Hooray! Yeah, exactly like wars and �our boys� save lives in Kandhar & Basra!

You are a complete and utter fool to deny modern medicine. 

I do hope you won�t report me to be tried under the blasphemy act!

I would like to hear your reasons as to why it it sooooo wrong . . .

My friend, why would I ever wake you up from your slumber?

Am I interested in �selling� you something or educating you?

It�s you medicine, keep it as sacred as you desire.

We (including your very own Royals + aristos) are happy + keep absolutely healthy courtesy Homeopathy and a few other straight simple herbal remedies.

What about the all the innoculation projects that going on in Africa?

Funding scams. A simple way of �doing full justice� to your tax money.

Have you already got the benefit analysis reports of these projects?

Next, you will be claiming that Bob Geldoff has made Poverty History.

Are you saying these are totally pointless?

Show me just one human exploitation system that has not been utterly pointless?

Good luck to you. It�s your medicine. Please keep it for yourself. Just don�t force these ghastlies and your wars of greed on us.

Whisper wrote: Do you have any idea how ignorant you sound?  Thank goodness, at least I do know how I sound, but your interesting innocent and puny imperial arrogance blindfolds you to the reality of how you sound or what you are talking about. At least I know the reality of your essay. I have been exposed to a variety of cultures. At least I know the effectiveness of other remedial systems that the Brits killed in other countries � for Self Interest!

You are arguing about a culture from over 100 years ago. can you grasp the possibility we might have moved on?

While you seem to embrace your own words as the gospel truth. Or, worse still, almost as some New Labour Dossier Truth!

 

Some might call it free speech..

 

Yes modern medicine has side effects but it also saves lives.... That�s the commonest and the most vulgar excuse the Pharma Fraudsters sell to the sufferers of their scam. My father was a GP (you know TAMWORTH?) for decades. My son specialised in ENT (Ear, Nose & Throat). He became so fed up with the amoral practices of the Pharma Mafiosi that he sat another FRCS and is now researching / teaching as a psychiatrist.

I don't know Tamworth.  Undeniably pharmas make money.. but innoculations save lives... if I went with your way of thinking we would be back in the early 20C living on over crouded housing and throwing our sh*t straight onto the streets..

you say 106 side effects per jab, can you back this up with fact?  ~No you can't.... You seem to be doing pretty well answering your questions yourself. Why and where do you need us? Just as an audience for gratification of some deep urges? If your �health system� is so noble then why are people ever seeking some Real System? Next, I suppose, you will be asking me to add �facts� to your dossier about �the Pill�s� contribution to women�s cancers.

Yes facts are good... it's ok to make wild sweeping statements but you never back them up... yes our health system is in trouble..   when it was first set up the country was  alot emptier.... The idea of a free health system is good.

The pill.... yes there have been links to cancer with long term use but what about the benefits?  It certainly has a good baring on uncontrolled pregnancies... next you will be telling me that condoms should be banned becasue they protect against unsafe sex, sexually transmitted diseases.

but at the end of the day vaccines PREVENT epidemics and SAVE lives.  Hooray! Yeah, exactly like wars and �our boys� save lives in Kandhar & Basra!

Why bring war into this?  I'm talking about using medicine to save lives. 

You are a complete and utter fool to deny modern medicine.  I do hope you won�t report me to be tried under the blasphemy act!

Whats the blasphemy act?  New to me. 

I would like to hear your reasons as to why it it sooooo wrong . . . My friend, why would I ever wake you up from your slumber? Am I interested in �selling� you something or educating you? It�s you medicine, keep it as sacred as you desire. We (including your very own Royals + aristos) are happy + keep absolutely healthy courtesy Homeopathy and a few other straight simple herbal remedies.

Speak English please.   if your child was dying of cancer what would you do?  stuff them with daisies?  Sit back and watch them die?  Or use any method possible to save thier life?

What about the all the innoculation projects that going on in Africa? Funding scams. A simple way of �doing full justice� to your tax money. Have you already got the benefit analysis reports of these projects? Next, you will be claiming that Bob Geldoff has made Poverty History.

Again you waffle.  This is like reading the insane ramblings of a child.  What has Bolb got to do with this?  His dream is to make poverty history... is that such a bad dream?  doesnt mean its going to happen.  I understand what you are saying.. let these people die impoverished and sick in thier third world country . lets ignore them and give no  health benefits because it isnt our problem... pharms are only there to make money. the fact that it is the uk, american blah blah blah citizens that are paying for it through thier very own taxes bares no issue on the subject. yay arent we aweful.

Are you saying these are totally pointless? Show me just one human exploitation system that has not been utterly pointless? Good luck to you. It�s your medicine. Please keep it for yourself. Just don�t force these ghastlies and your wars of greed on us.

Everything to you comes down to greed.. do you think your average joe bloggs cares?  If you are sick you go to the doctors. if he says you are seriously sick you take  what evers offered.

Lets look at TB... this was eradicated from the uk.. its increase has been links to immigrants travelling in from poorer countries whos health system s are classed as inadequate..  You know TB kills yes?   When sufferers as  coughing and spluttering all over the place spreading bugs would that be ok?  How about putting them in hospital and giving them treatment so they get better?  There is no herbal medicine treatment.

ak_m_f wrote: liberty wrote: ak_m_f, Have you been able to authenticate this man's claims elsewhere?  How can we believe him?  Has any credible person supported his statements? I Have his book, waht else I need

Evidence to back it up might help.....

ak_m_f wrote: Ketchup wrote: ak_m_f wrote: liberty wrote: ak_m_f, Have you been able to authenticate this man's claims elsewhere?  How can we believe him?  Has any credible person supported his statements? I Have his book, waht else I need Evidence to back it up might help..... ITs all in book... buy one and read it

I've read Watership Down (bloody good book if you haven't), it doesn't mean its true even if the author referenced.

I'm saying you read a book and state it as fact.. where is your background information?  Research.

Whisper wrote: ak_m_f Good luck and best wishes for you with this desperate-to-win-an-argument bunch

Atleast he is making an effort! 

Whisper wrote: What an effort at feeding your so desperately seeking attention ignoramii selves of a motherless fatherless land!

Some might call it having a discussion... all you do is name call, you are no better than a school bully.

all you do is name call, you are no better than a school bully.

Thank you for your compliments. I prefer to be a bully rather than some sly dossier stealing, copying pasting cheat.

Name calling?

What have you earned in the past 200 years of cheating and sowing hatreds amongst folks in the slyest fashion?

Whisper wrote: all you do is name call, you are no better than a school bully. Thank you for your compliments. I prefer to be a bully rather than some sly dossier stealing, copying pasting cheat. Name calling? What have you earned in the past 200 years of cheating and sowing hatreds amongst folks in the slyest fashion?

The only one  see spreading hate here is you.

Really my absolutely sad chap, chapi or whatever? Is telling the truth spreading hate? Have a couple of Bitters or anything else we binge drink these days, you will feel okay.

I know how it is in the cold, bleak, dreary, lawless and loveless Inglaand these days.

How sad! You claim to live in the United Kingdom and you don't know Tamworth? The place gave you Robert Peel and added the word "Bobby" for policeman.

Your come off as an ignorant, misinformed and "they are spreading hate" kind of an Amreeki. Are you really English? The English are quite prone to thinking - at least at dire times.

You talk like an American. You walk like an American. What a name for a female, Bob?

I've never been to Tamworth so how can I know it?  I know "of it" , but I don't "know it".. can you see the distinction here?  

Whats wrong with bob?  It's a nick name.

I prefer to be a bully rather than some sly dossier stealing, copying pasting cheat.

You said it.  As you are only telling  the truth, how am I a cheat?  Its ok of others to copy and paste here adding no input yet is isn't ok for me?  Please explain why it is ok for others but not for me?

Your come off as an ignorant, misinformed and "they are spreading hate" kind of an Amreeki. Are you really English? The English are quite prone to thinking - at least at dire times.

You clearly state your dislike for the English.. is that not hateful?

What have you earned in the past 200 years of cheating and sowing hatreds amongst folks in the slyest fashion?

It is now the year 2000, can you possiby conceive the idea that perhaps we ahve moved on?

cold, bleak, dreary, lawless and loveless Inglaand these days.

As opposed to where?  With the exception of the cold bit, we are no different to any other country...

What an effort at feeding your so desperately seeking attention ignoramii selves of a motherless fatherless land!

All your comments incite race hate.... but thats the intention isn't it.. you hate the uk and every thing it stands for, including the citizens.  This being the case then we might as well give up on living in peace and harmony, because if if you are only voicing how others feel then there is little point in even trying.

Your call.

You clearly state your dislike for the English.. is that not hateful?

Really? Is there no difference between "dislike" and hatred?

It is now the year 2000, can you possiby conceive the idea that perhaps we ahve moved on?

Iraq and Afghanistan + your attitude towards Iran proves it to be otherwise.

As opposed to where?  With the exception of the cold bit, we are no different to any other country...

Really? You mean all the countries in the world act as poodles for the idiotic US admin?

All your comments incite race hate....

You would win the Nobel Prize for the most unusual concepts. Is talking plain about some country's sly deceitful past "inciting race hate"?

but thats the intention isn't it..

Thank goodness, I am no football hooligan. That's definitely not my intention. I am just waking you up from your raw generalisations about Muslims - by dealing with you in your own coin! See! How it works.

you hate the uk and every thing it stands for, including the citizens. 

Do you always use the "hate card" against anyone who disagrees with you or just against people who happen to really know the United Kingdom and her limited self-interest?

This being the case then we might as well give up on living in peace and harmony,

"Living in harmony and peace" as in Basra? Falluja? or Kandhar? When did you last (as a nation) live in harmony with some nation? Trying to pull wool over our poor already dimmed eyes?

I have started to look for your posts. Need a laugh in these tense climes fomented by those cartoons.

Chip on the shoulder? Only because I put you in the picture about your imperial thinking.

Whisper wrote: I have started to look for your posts. Need a laugh in these tense climes fomented by those cartoons. Chip on the shoulder? Only because I put you in the picture about your imperial thinking.

You have succeeded in nothing but proving you have some serious issues that you need to deal with.