City Of Death (Mosul)

First of all, I would like to thank all the Supervisors, Observers, members and of course the owner of this forum to give us the Opportunity of participating and communicating with other people and nations.
Second of all, in God willing I will support you with facts, updated news and events of Iraq in general and specific of what happing now in Mosul city where I was born.
I would like to start up with 9.4.2009 in the memory of invasion, where there were a group of marines tried to control the city...
they went there and took control then only promises , situation get escalated, and after that car bombs , insurgents , hostages ,causality , victims, head and body, orphans , widows, people had to leave Iraq , sectarian conflicts, death and death .....Disease, psychological problems, and so on....
That was the war of so called the operation Iraqi freedom!!!
Let us discus this event from different points of you., some American still believe that they did well to the Iraqis and some reject that opinion and insist telling the truth of the real situation in Iraq ,without any political interest or any point of views based on hatred or racisms backgrounds. Let us be open- minded and practice some of your freedom which you gave us in that year of getting red of saddam hussain and ………

best regards
almawsil


[edit on 6-4-2009 by almawsil]

Originally posted by almawsil
That was the war of so called the operation Iraqi freedom!!!
Let us discus this event from different points of you., some American still believe that they did well to the Iraqis and some reject that opinion and insist telling the truth of the real situation in Iraq ,without any political interest or any point of views based on hatred or racisms backgrounds. Let us be open- minded and practice some of your freedom which you gave us in that year of getting red of saddam hussain and ………

Would Iraqis and Iraq be better off if Saddam had remained in power and not been removed?

Dear seekerof
If I were you, I would better say. What if Bush had to end the sanction and try to offer something could have changed that situation in iraq.we all know that sddam had to stay there for a while but not for good...........
I didn’t care for saddam, being a Sunni does not mean that you have been saved form that monster but at least you would live if you did not support any other external activates which could harm the entire situation in Iraq.
The problem in this war was based on lies before I took place and mistakes after it does happen.
If we treat it like a mathematic issue we would say that saddam did not kill that number which has been terminated during the operation Iraqi freedom. Saddam was a disaster but this war was the worst idea.


[edit on 6-4-2009 by almawsil]

It was a simple question and one that you have not answered.
If this removing Saddam was the "worst idea" then perhaps Saddam should have been left in power because certainly whether Sunni or Shia/Shi'ite, he would have not been removed anytime soon by the Iraqi people, thus, allowing him to continue shredding, maiming, and killing Kurds, Sunni, and Shia/Shi'ites. Perhaps you would be interested in this thread? Thank you.

[edit on 6-4-2009 by Seekerof]

reply to post by Seekerof

Sadly enough, yes. They may have stopped Hussein's use of political jails and torture and spared the Iraqis from Uday Hussein but all they really did was finish off what little remained of the infrastructure after Gulf War II in 1991; poisoned the environment, populace and allied troops with depleted uranium and God knows what else; and killed multitudes of people.

And, pulled the lynchpin on hundreds of years of intertribal and sectarian violence. Not to mention polarizing the entire world against the US and Britain at a time when their support and cooperation is desperately needed on the financial and environmental fronts. We may have succeeded in turning the country into a giant venture for industrialists and cell phone salesmen but how long do you think it will be before the country's water is safe to drink? Fat chance profiting off of future generations, judging by the increase in infant mortality, early death and high birth defect rates reported by WHO and other organizations. You can't turn a country without a healthy and competent workforce into a profit margin, especially when they hate the bossman.

reply to post by Seekerof


Seekerof, not to be rude or anything, but you seem pretty sure of yourself for a person that doesn't have to live there.

Any person with a measure of intelligence can see through the superficial simplicity of your question and recognize it as an significantly loaded one. Your question is simply not as clear as you would have us believe, and questions like that are what led us into this terrible war to begin with.

He's trying to answer you in the best way he can but it is obvious that you are strongly predisposed to your position and will even go to the arrogant length of believing you know better what is best for Iraq than Iraqis do.

I guess some things never change.

reply to post by almawsil


I'm not sure that I follow your logic . If I understood your post correctly you are saying that providing you didn't oppose Saddam people were better off under his rule then the current democratically elected government . Now if you don't mind I have a question .

Under Saddam rule if you were accused of an act against his rule weren't you as good as in jail or dead ?
The lack of a fair judicial system would have meant that you had no genuine way of defending any of the chargers against you .

Would Iraqis and Iraq be better off if Saddam had remained in power and not been removed?

could you make a comparision between the number of deaths in the years of saddam and th former 6 years.

just 1.5 millions were killed during these 6 years. Mr seeker

Sadly enough, yes. They may have stopped Hussein's use of political jails and torture and spared the Iraqis from Uday Hussein but all they really did was finish off what little remained of the infrastructure after Gulf War II in 1991; poisoned the environment, populace and allied troops with depleted uranium and God knows what else; and killed multitudes of people.

belive me , the 13 years embargo put on Iraq was an introduction to facilitate occupying Iraq in way that its people are poor , weak ,sick and don't have the capablity to refuse the occupation.
it's a plan

[edit on 7-4-2009 by Mosul]

Originally posted by xpert11
reply to post by almawsil

 

I'm not sure that I follow your logic . If I understood your post correctly you are saying that providing you didn't oppose Saddam people were better off under his rule then the current democratically elected government . Now if you don't mind I have a question .

Under Saddam rule if you were accused of an act against his rule weren't you as good as in jail or dead ?
The lack of a fair judicial system would have meant that you had no genuine way of defending any of the chargers against you .

Yeah right,
Let me ask YOU,
What would you do if some Americans were dragging you off to some illegally run, secretly controlled camp in Egypt?

Tell me how the "judicial system" for suspects now is any different to suspects under Saddam?



It all depends what side of the fence you sit on.

don't forget Abu Garib jail , Black Water scandals all of these reflect the democracy granted by the US forces

Originally posted by xpert11
reply to post by almawsil

 

Under Saddam rule if you were accused of an act against his rule weren't you as good as in jail or dead ?
The lack of a fair judicial system would have meant that you had no genuine way of defending any of the chargers against you .

As I already mentioned that although he was a dictator, he did not kill that number of innocent or non-innocent civilian as the US army did. we all known Iraq was under pressure of embargo which imposed on the poor Iraqis only but not on saddams family, for more than 13 years, there were more than 1 million infants have lost their life because they couldn’t get the right injection or a bottle of milk .there were no way to mess up with the internal security of Baghdad. Many forbidden parties and exterior organization and even individuals who were supported by Iranian regime committed crime against Iraqi .like the plot of the university of almustansria ,many students were murdered or even saddam himself once was on visit to a small village when a group of armed men opened fire and tried to assassinate him and many incidents were the reason to make him act like this . We could analyze it if you want to ……
If you really looking for facts and trying to recognize the reasons behind the crimes which had been committed against Iraqi in general or the shiaa or Kurds as you pretend we have to discuss every individual incident to come out with facts which could be taken as evident or recourses to be used in court or any judicial institute. But all this was not our concern and would not be the reason to justify the war on Iraq and kill 1, 5 million Iraqi.







[edit on 7-4-2009 by almawsil]

How many people in Iraq were killed by insurgents, who have continuously fought to keep the death tolls high, and maintain disorder in Iraq, in their efforts to stop the U.S. from developing a democracy in Iran?

If these religious insurgences, who seem most intent on creating an Islamic state through intimidation and coercion, had really cared about the people of Iraq, they would have left it up to the democratic process. At the very least they would have allowed the state to stabilize, and U.S. troops to leave, before attempting to achieve their political goals.

The religious extremist insurgence have created most of the problems in Iraq, not the U.S.. The U.S. military could be gone by now.

Great. A born Iraqui writes about his point of view regarding the US led invasion.

The brainwashed Yanks can write comments and star each other.

(yawn)

Originally posted by poet1b
How many people in Iraq were killed by insurgents, who have continuously fought to keep the death tolls high, and maintain disorder in Iraq, in their efforts to stop the U.S. from developing a democracy in Iran?

If these religious insurgences, who seem most intent on creating an Islamic state through intimidation and coercion, had really cared about the people of Iraq, they would have left it up to the democratic process. At the very least they would have allowed the state to stabilize, and U.S. troops to leave, before attempting to achieve their political goals.

The religious extremist insurgence have created most of the problems in Iraq, not the U.S.. The U.S. military could be gone by now.

Could you first answer my question? Who did allow the insurgence to get into Iraq, who gave them Excuses to do all thses mass of destruction? It is the invasion and the crimes later, like Abu graib prison. in other words the lies of Mr. Bush`s demonstration. Please try to be more comprehension.
The US army takes responsibility of most violence and crimes in Iraq ….

The religious extremist insurgence have created most of the problems in Iraq, not the U.S.. The U.S. military could be gone by now.

Excuses exactly just like 9.11 lies..... Religious extremist, religious extremist, religious extremist……………

[edit on 7-4-2009 by almawsil]

Originally posted by afaik

Originally posted by xpert11
reply to post by almawsil

 

I'm not sure that I follow your logic . If I understood your post correctly you are saying that providing you didn't oppose Saddam people were better off under his rule then the current democratically elected government . Now if you don't mind I have a question .

Under Saddam rule if you were accused of an act against his rule weren't you as good as in jail or dead ?
The lack of a fair judicial system would have meant that you had no genuine way of defending any of the chargers against you .

Yeah right,
Let me ask YOU,
What would you do if some Americans were dragging you off to some illegally run, secretly controlled camp in Egypt?

Tell me how the "judicial system" for suspects now is any different to suspects under Saddam?



It all depends what side of the fence you sit on.

Sir you are absolutely correct

Well, you never asked this question until now, but now that you have:

Who did allow the insurgence to get into Iraq, who gave them Excuses to do all thses mass of destruction?

Mainly they were home grown insurgents, following one cause or another depending on where their loyalties lay. Some did come from outside of Iraq, and the U.S. military tried to seal the borders as best as possible. Their extreme religious views apparently gave them the excuse to murder innocent people to further their own cause.

Nobody has claimed that there weren't components of the U.S. military who did things that they should not have done, but to put all the blame on the U.S. for what has happened in Iraq is blinding oneself to the realities.

Don't forget, the embargoes were place on Iraq to keep Saddam from obtaining weapons to attack his neighbors, which seemed to be his main objective in life.

If you don't want to read different perspectives on the whole thing, why post here?

Mainly they were home grown insurgents, following one cause or another depending on where their loyalties lay. Some did come from outside of Iraq, and the U.S. military tried to seal the borders as best as possible. Their extreme religious views apparently gave them the excuse to murder innocent people to further their own cause.

Poor comment, but why ? you can not convince any simple Iraqi with these few lines
Before the occupation, Iraq has secular governments since the 20th century till 2003 no extremist at all. So that we conclude that the occupation has caused increasing in fundamentalist....

Nobody has claimed that there weren't components of the U.S. military who did things that they should not have done, but to put all the blame on the U.S. for what has happened in Iraq is blinding oneself to the realities.

I guess ,every American unite has done horrible things to the innocent people ....look at the media and watch what they posted ...in Arabic we say what has been hidden ,being greater , that means what did the media show is only a little .

Don't forget, the embargoes were place on Iraq to keep Saddam from obtaining weapons to attack his neighbors, which seemed to be his main objective in life.

Wow really? I didn’t know it at all that saddam obtained weapon of mass destruction!! Come on man I cannt believe this any more

If you don't want to read different perspectives on the whole thing, why post here?

it ain`t a matter of different perspectives but rather a true or false !!



[edit on 7-4-2009 by almawsil]

Clearly you do not care about the truth or other perspectives.

Iraq did not have secular insurgents because it was ruled by a ruthless dictatorship that brutally put down any opposition.

Saddam may not have succeeded in obtaining weapons of mass destruction, but it wasn't from lack of trying.

Your press lies to you even more than our press lies to us. At least we have freedom of speech, while you have religious oppression. Also, we have far more avenues to seek out the truth. While you seem not to care for the truth.