WAR: Leading candidate in Iraq elections wants US out ASAP

No problem mscbkc.
When I was searching for supporting links on the uprising, I found out something I had not known about previously.
One of the persons involved in the supression was a Shiite himself.

HoustonChronicle.com
Al-Zubaydi was considered one of the most brutal members of Saddam's regime and was listed in a U.S. State Department report "Iraq: Crimes against Humanity, Leaders as Executioners." He was once featured in an Iraqi videotape brutalizing Shiite dissidents as a display of authority and encouragement to soldiers to be tough.

A Shiite himself, al-Zubaydi also presided over the destruction of the southern marshes in the 1990s, an action aimed against Shiite "Marsh Arabs" living there.

[edit on 24-1-2005 by AceOfBase]

as posted by SomewhereinBetween
Hence, whatever the outcome, it is a sham, no?

It was going to be called a "sham" regardless, no?
IMHO, whether it was going to be called a "sham" no matter how the election is or was to turn out, the positions filled are temporary anyhow. The real election comes in a year after the initial (this upcoming one).




seekerof

[edit on 24-1-2005 by Seekerof]

Its called tax dollars and everyone has built something there, no matter how big or small.

Not answering the question though are you....what exactly (apart from Oil infrastructure, and repainting a few schools) have you dont to repair the damage of not only the invasion, but the 12 years of harsh sanctions that crippled Iraq prior?

I am talking about the security problem after the war till now, not before the war

Then perhaps you need to be more clear. You stated "But what the hell were they doing about the security problem now and before? Oh we screwed everything up, BS."..... you said it, not me.

They had that long before we got there. On a daily basis. I know that from them, who said what happens with Coalition being there was no different to what was happening there prior. They said you just never heard about it cause Saddam and his sons controlled the media and the situations there. War happened there on a daily basis, much like Israel and Palenstine.

Pre-war Iraq was nothing like Palestine. They did, however, suffer under 12 years of harsh economic sanctions that brought Iraq to her knees.

Prior to the Gulf War 1, Iraq was the most advanced and westernised of the Middle East states, with its Health Service comparable with that of the UK for example.

After the sanctions where imposed (and blame falls as much in Saddams lap as anyone else) the Iraqi people suffered.

Now they are suffering even more due to the incompetance of the coalition. had the Iraqi Security forces not been disbanded for example, then we would have a ready and capable force with which to tackle the insurgency.

And to dispel myths about this that your PR machine is force feeding you (get you facts from FOX I take it), the insurgency is mainly by Iraqis themselves, not foreigners.

Had we not, where do you think Iraq would be right now? They harbored terrorists there, it was a safehaven after 9/11. Saddam wont admit it, but he gave them that. Why do you think there is so much controversy there? Half of the insurgency isnt even Iraqi, its a combo if many different nationalities.

Where do you get this BS from? Harboured terrorists? Since when? Saddam was secular, and openly dispised Islamist extremists, and vice versa from OBL. Do some research (thats getting off the couch, turn off FOX and read something), and you can find quotes by OBL himself from several years back calling for the downfall of Saddam.

Only the blinkered still believe in all the tripe that the Bush spouts about Iraq, no one else in the world believes it. Not even Blair, as the only reason we went to war was on the false premise of WMD, after that, no other reason would wash in Parliament, as they knew it was crap!

The US governement has said, on more than one occasion, that the US will withdraw troops from Iraq if they are asked to do so by the government of Iraq. I think they will honor that request if it is made but I'm not sure how long it will take for the troops to leave.

Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's desire to have better relations with Iran and Syria may be a problem for the US as they both are essentially 'enemies' of the US.

Or this is one big snow job to have a US-backed leader who enables a quicker withdrawal from Iraq while maintaining a staging base or two
I know if I was the spymaster in charge this is EXACTLY what I would want... The comments about Iran and Syria would likewise be a snowjob to establish one as an anti-US candidate to ensure election. Such a leader, when elected, and then making claims of Syria and Iran being involved in terrorism, would be MUCH more believable than an overtly US-backed representative. If my suspicions are correct, then it's nice to see someone in the CIA with a workin' noggin' for a change...

After the sanctions where imposed (and blame falls as much in Saddams lap as anyone else) the Iraqi people suffered.

Yeah, building more gold-plated palaces to house absolutely nobody, and erecting more statues of himself, hoarding UN food and medical supplies until they went bad, instead of distributing them, and increasing brutality to the citizens, would definitely place a large portion of the blame on Saddam's shoulders...

[edit on 24-1-2005 by Gazrok]

"No people in the world accepts occupation and nor do we accept the continuation of American troops in Iraq," said Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

Let's face it everyone, Al-Hakim is dumb like a fox! He'd be pretty stupid to say he's a big buddy with the US and gain support of extreme Muslims. It's against their religion to accept Christians in their land. He knows he will gain a lot more support and cool things down for his government when he favors ousting us crusaders.

Or this is one big snow job to have a US-backed leader who enables a quicker withdrawal from Iraq while maintaining a staging base or two

I know if I was the spymaster in charge this is EXACTLY what I would want... The comments about Iran and Syria would likewise be a snowjob to establish one as an anti-US candidate to ensure election. Such a leader, when elected, and then making claims of Syria and Iran being involved in terrorism, would be MUCH more believable than an overtly US-backed representative. If my suspicions are correct, then it's nice to see someone in the CIA with a workin' noggin' for a change...

Nice post Gaz, that never even crossed my mind!

-raven