[anthias]

Hi all
I have read many threads all written by American people ,they are not happy and sad for this war,because of the problems happining for the american soldiers there.
ok but did the American nation knows what is realy happining for the civilians in iraq???
I want to clear that I m not from Iraq,but I do care for them because they are my nation (Arabic) .
Do you know that every day 30-50 civilians are killed in avery very very bad way,but who is killing them ??? it is the new Iraqi police organized with the blessing of the USA.
until now half million people killed in this war .
I realy dont know what is the US doing in Iraq why is all this war about???
saddam was bad person he killed many people but not as many as this war ,I stoped watching the news because I dont want to see all this blood daily,
I dont know If the CNN shows this to you.
I raq is not acountry any mor .

[Ninong]

Yes, we know what's happening Iraq. Just remember one thing: less than half of the American public voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and only 51% of them voted for him in 2004. So not all of us agree with everything he does. In fact, some of us agree with almost nothing that he does. In the November 7th midterm elections, the president's political party was soundly defeated by the opposition Democratic Party. Control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate will switch from the Republicans to the Democrats in January 2007, mainly because the American public is not pleased with the president's policies in Iraq. The president is still in charge of the military but the Congress will now exert more influence on him than before when both houses were in the hands of his own political party.

In the most recent polls of the American public, only 31% of those polled agreed that the president is doing a good job, mainly because most Americans do not agree with his policies in Iraq. Most Americans now believe that it was a mistake to invade Iraq. Most Americans believe that they were misled into believing that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in spite of the assurances of the Bush Administration to the contrary.

Some Americans think that the president was merely given bad intelligence information. Many Americans think that it's worse than that. They believe that the Bush Administration misused and twisted the intelligence information to fit their plans for war.

The current situation in Iraq is truly horrific. On average, about 100 Iraqi civilians are being killed every day. Many of them are being tortured. More than 90% of the killings are the result of sectarian violence between the Shiites and Sunnis. The Shiite militias control the Interior Ministry (the national police). They are engaged in genocide against the Sunnis. The Sunnis are retaliating.

The only hope for peace right now would be a political settlement negotiated with the assistance of the Iranians and possibly the Syrians. The Iranians have to get involved because they are behind one of the Shiite militias. I'm not even sure that a political settlement will be acceptable to both sides because the Shiites don't want to give the Sunnis anything.

The Kurds want to be left alone and they want Kirkuk and the northern oil fields. The Shiites want all of southern Iraq and Baghdad. In other words, they want the southern oil fields. That would leave the Sunnis with the areas to the west of Baghada and al-Anbar. There's not much oil in those areas.

For the past few months, between 3,000 to 4,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed each month in sectarian violence. That's really a civil war. Many of them have been tortured in the most horrible ways imaginable. They are even killing women and children now. It is very, very sad.

[SPasse]

George,

"The only hope for peace right now would be a political settlement negotiated with the assistance of the Iranians and possibly the Syrians."

Basically this is saying carve up Iraq into its ethnic components, and enter into a pact with some very unsavory countries, Iran and Syria.

It don't know if that would work even as well as the India - Pakistan partition that happened when India gained independence from Great Britain.

But sadly, that may be the best remaining option.

Regards,

Scott

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by SPasse

George,

"The only hope for peace right now would be a political settlement negotiated with the assistance of the Iranians and possibly the Syrians."

Basically this is saying carve up Iraq into its ethnic components, and enter into a pact with some very unsavory countries, Iran and Syria.

It don't know if that would work even as well as the India - Pakistan partition that happened when India gained independence from Great Briton.

I'm not sure exactly what they're planning to do, I just know that they're trying to do it right now! I don't know if they're shooting for three separate semi-autonomous regions or if they think they can still hold this artificial country together. One thing I do know and that is that James Baker is behind all of the recent activity. They even shipped Big Time to Saudi Arabia to enlist the help of the Saudis in leaning on the Sunnis.

This whole enterprise was screwed up from the beginning thanks to the monumental incompetence of Donald Rumsfailed, Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney! They completely ignored anyone who disagreed with them. They marginalized the CIA and the State Department. They even set up their own little Office of Special Plans inside the DoD to come up with "useful" intel. That was Doug Feith's little domain. But I digress, we all know all about this by now.

Here is something to ponder: How do you set up a government of national unity in a "country" that is not a natural country? This place was designed by Winston Churchill following WWI. Like Yugoslavia, it was held together by a ruthless dictator. Without a ruthless dictator in charge, it will fall apart -- like Yugoslavia.

Should they split up? The Kurds would love that as long as they get Kirkuk. Turkey would go bananas! As it is now, the ethnic Kurdish rebels in Turkey are taking refuge in the Kurdish-controlled areas of northern Iraq. The Kurdish minority-dominated areas of Turkey want to become part of Kurdistan. What do the Sunnis get? They get left holding the bag, that's what. I think that's why they need the help of Sunni Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan to help them figure out what is the bottom line for the Sunnis. What will it take to either get them to agree to partition or get them to agree to support some sort of national unity government.

They need Iran more than any other country because Iran controls the largest Shiite faction in Iraq. There is no question that if we leave Iraq and the surrounding area without some sort of working government in place, Iran will virtually take over southern Iraq, up to and including Baghdad. Nouri al-Maliki has no power whatsoever. Without the backing of Moqtadr al-Sadr's militia, he wouldn't survive another week. Don't forget that the candidates backed by al-Sadr got more seats than any other faction. Our puppets got less than 2% of the total vote.

We cannot go back and redo things. It's too late for that. Sending in another 20,000-30,000 troops won't accomplish anything at this point. And we don't have the manpower or the materiel to send in another 150,000 troops. (Oh, and by the way, Saint John McCain may be screwed if Bush does end up sending in another 20,000-30,000 more troops and we fail anyway because that would be McCain's plan. Right now McCain is running against the Bush Administration. He will have a hard time doing that if the Bush Administration follows his advice and things only get worse instead of better.)

All of the options are bad options. No matter how this turns out, it won't turn out well for us. It may be possible to get the parties in Iraq to agree to some sort of political settlement on their own but they have to be the ones who come up with it and we have to stay out of it as much as possible. At least that's what they're looking at right now. In the meantime, the pro-Syrian Lebanese just assassinated another anti-Syrian cabinet member. If one more seat in the Lebanese cabinet comes open for any reason whatsoever, the government falls. There are now seven open seats. If there are eight open seats out of the 24 members, the government must resign. That's why the current 17 cabinet members are hiding out in secure compounds afraid to go anywhere. The Lebanese situation could flare up and complicate matters for everybody. I'm not even sure Bashar al-Assad has agreed to go to Tehran this weekend??? Maybe he's still demanding a concrete commitment from us? For one thing, he wants us to lean on Israel to give up the Golan Heights.

Anyway, back on the ranch -- or the White House, as the case may be -- we have Condi Rice spouting off like nothing has changed. No one clued her in on what's going on. Bush fired Rumsfelled over Cheney's extremely strenuous objections and nominated someone Cheney isn't exactly fond of to take over at Defense. As I said previously, it would not surprise me to see Cheney "retire" early due to a knee heart problem.

P.S. -- St. John McCain is overlooking one little bitty problem: 80% of Iraqis want us to leave immediately and 60% of Iraqis want us dead! We are way past the "flowers and kisses" stage.

[Ninong]

Cheney to Meet With Saudi King Ahead of Iraq Summit

The U.S. Has Pressed the Nation to Help With Reconstruction and to Reach Out to Sunnis

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 23, 2006; A32


Vice President Cheney will fly to Saudi Arabia tomorrow and hold talks with King Abdullah on Saturday amid a flurry of diplomatic activity over Iraq that reflects the wider scramble to shape the war-torn country's future at a critical juncture.

The White House said Cheney will discuss regional issues but provided no details about the hastily organized mission to Riyadh. The trip, however, comes on the eve of a summit between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Jordan next week. It will also overlap with a weekend meeting in Tehran between the presidents of Iran and Iraq to which the president of Syria has been invited.

The United States has long been pressing the Saudis to use their tribal connections with Iraq's Sunni minority to get them to join reconciliation efforts, a key to weakening Iraq's escalating insurgency. Washington has few means of persuading the Sunnis to more fully support and engage in Iraq's fledgling government except through pressure from neighboring Sunni regimes with family or religious ties.

The White House also wants the oil-rich kingdom to do more to help with reconstruction. The Saudis pledged more than $1 billion to rebuild Iraq, but payment has been long delayed. Generally, Iraq has received only a small fraction of pledged reconstruction aid.

As vice president, Cheney has been to Saudi Arabia at least three times. The last visit was in January, when he met with the monarch at the king's ranch outside Riyadh to discuss Iraq, Iran's nuclear program, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Syria and Lebanon. All of those issues are even more pressing now.

The U.S. diplomatic outreach also comes as the Bush administration is reviewing its Iraq strategy. U.S. officials have talked openly for months about wanting to get neighboring nations to do more to help stabilize Iraq.

[SPasse]

George,

"This whole enterprise was screwed up from the beginning thanks to the monumental incompetence of Donald Rumsfailed, Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney! They completely ignored anyone who disagreed with them. They marginalized the CIA and the State Department. They even set up their own little Office of Special Plans inside the DoD to come up with "useful" intel. That was Doug Feith's little domain. But I digress, we all know all about this by now."

That would be my summary as well.

"Here is something to ponder: How do you set up a government of national unity in a "country" that is not a natural country? This place was designed by Winston Churchill following WWI. Like Yugoslavia, it was held together by a ruthless dictator. Without a ruthless dictator in charge, it will fall apart -- like Yugoslavia."

I agree. Winston Churchill's record on "Nation Building" was actually pretty lousy. Undoubtedly a great statesman and focal point for the resistance against fascism/Nazism. But a cool calculating politician as well. His maneuvering during WWII to spill as little Allied/British blood as possible (at the expense of Russian blood) was coldly calculating and skillful.

His "Rule Britannia" perspective on the "Crowned Colony of India" was another moral mistake.

As you are aware, most of the national entities of the Middle East are artificial constructs, products of post WWI British geopolitical maneuvers.

Jordan is an interesting country; arguably the most socially liberal/free in the Middle East. (As long as your issues are not with the King) (They don't even persecute gays)

"Should they split up? The Kurds would love that as long as they get Kirkuk. Turkey would go bananas! As it is now, the ethnic Kurdish rebels in Turkey are taking refuge in the Kurdish-controlled areas of northern Iraq. The Kurdish minority-dominated areas of Turkey want to become part of Kurdistan."

That is a problem. Our past "alliances" with Turkey is IMO one of those "deals with the devil". The Turkish were frequent and vicious practitioners of torture of there political dissidents.

"What do the Sunnis get? They get left holding the bag, that's what. I think that's why they need the help of Sunni Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan to help them figure out what is the bottom line for the Sunnis. What will it take to either get them to agree to partition or get them to agree to support some sort of national unity government."

Something else we tried to do is upset the traditional power structure between the Sunnis and Shi'as in this area. This would probably be enough "fuel" for a civil war, in and of itself.

"We cannot go back and redo things. It's too late for that. Sending in another 20,000-30,000 troops won't accomplish anything at this point. And we don't have the manpower or the materiel to send in another 150,000 troops. (Oh, and by the way, Saint John McCain may be screwed if Bush does end up sending in another 20,000-30,000 more troops and we fail anyway because that would be McCain's plan. Right now McCain is running against the Bush Administration. He will have a hard time doing that if the Bush Administration follows his advice and things only get worse instead of better"

Sending in an additional "20-30 thousand" would not fix things. Sending in around 500 thousand on day one just might have. That is another discussion.

"All of the options are bad options. No matter how this turns out, it won't turn out well for us. It may be possible to get the parties in Iraq to agree to some sort of political settlement on their own but they have to be the ones who come up with it and we have to stay out of it as much as possible."

Actually I think it still could turn out reasonably well for the US. But a complete strategy change is required.

"In the meantime, the pro-Syrian Lebanese just assassinated another anti-Syrian cabinet member. If one more seat in the Lebanese cabinet comes open for any reason whatsoever, the government falls. There are now seven open seats. If there are eight open seats out of the 24 members, the government must resign. That's why the current 17 cabinet members are hiding out in secure compounds afraid to go anywhere. The Lebanese situation could flare up and complicate matters for everybody. I'm not even sure Bashar al-Assad has agreed to go to Tehran this weekend??? Maybe he's still demanding a concrete commitment from us? For one thing, he wants us to lean on Israel to give up the Golan Heights."

Another fine mess/tinderbox.

Finally, we need to develop alternate energy as fast as possible. IMO, the ultimate "best outcome" for the US would be to be independent of that part of the world.

Regards,

Scott

[anthias]

The Shiite militias control the Interior Ministry (the national police). They are engaged in genocide against the Sunnis. The Sunnis are retaliating.
yes that is the problem ,and the shiite are related to Iran,but who give the power to shiite to do all this killing and kidnaping???

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by anthias

...but who give the power to shiite to do all this killing and kidnaping???

No one! However, let's not forget that when Saddam Hussein was in power, the Sunnis were running the show. The Shi'a were not given equal rights. They were the oppressed majority.

Back in the summer of 2003, after the fall of Saddam's government, it was the Sunnis who were behind the insurgency. They not only killed coalition troops, they killed fellow Iraqis simply because they were cooperating with the new government. Then people like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered the mix. And before long hundreds of foreign jihadists from Sunni-dominated neighboring countries started crossing the border into Iraq to fight the coalition forces. I will admit that al-Qaida was not allowed in any of the areas of Iraq controlled by Saddam before the invasion but they certainly moved in after he was overthrown. You might say that that was the result of a lack of planning and incompetent execution of the occupation of Iraq by the coalition forces. More should have been done to secure the borders, but there weren't enough troops for that and the Iraqi Army had been disbanded.

In the beginning of the insurgency, we had Sunni insurgents killing coalition forces and anyone who cooperated with the new Iraqi government and we had al-Qaida killing coalition forces and innocent Iraqi civilians just to cause friction between the two factions.

What we have right now is a civil war for control of Iraq. Each side has murdered and tortured thousands of innocent civilians from the other side. Almost all of the killing now is the result of sectarian violence. It is a mess!

[anthias]

"when Saddam Hussein was in power, the Sunnis were running the show"
the priciples of saddam party (alBAETH PARTY) are secular,although saddam was sunni but he killed sunnis ,shiite and kurdish people.
he was bad to most iraqi peoples.
but during his period the sunnis and shiite lived together peacefully specialy in bagdad,and they had agood relations so you can find sunnis and shiites in the same family(in bagdad).
During his period sunnis had the power yes I agree but they didnt make acivil war they didnt kill like the shiite doing now.
"No one!" the new system in Iraq is build by the US .
and iran sending thousends of warriors to Iraq.
"Then people like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered the mix"I never heard of this man befor the Iraqi war ,he has no importance ,but for some reasons the media give him mor than he deserve.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by anthias

"when Saddam Hussein was in power, the Sunnis were running the show"
the priciples of saddam party (alBAETH PARTY) are secular,although saddam was sunni but he killed sunnis ,shiite and kurdish people.
he was bad to most iraqi peoples.

Yes, he was bad to everyone except those from Tikrit, his hometown. However, his most genocidal acts were carried out against the Kurds and the Shia who lived in the Basra area.

As far as the secular part is concerned, the government of Egypt is a secular Sunni dictatorship. The governments of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, etc., are all Sunni monarchies and yes, they are all secular in spite of the pretentions of the Saudi royal family. Iran, on the other hand, is a Shiite theocracy with a democratically elected president who is subservient to the clerical authorities. (P.S. -- Saudi Arabia is different in the sense that the monarchy has chosen to enforce strict Sharia law but the country is not a theocracy.)

...but during his period the sunnis and shiite lived together peacefully specialy in bagdad,and they had agood relations so you can find sunnis and shiites in the same family(in bagdad).

Yes, it's true that "during his [Saddam's] period," the Sunnis and Shiites lived together peacefully. So did the various ethnic and religious groups in Yugoslavia when Tito was running the show. There was little "unauthorized" crime when Saddam was in charge just as their was little "unauthorized" crime when Stalin was running things in the Soviet Union. Totalitarian regimes are pretty good at maintaining order as long as they're in power. If you do the wrong thing or even say the wrong thing, you will disappear in the middle of the night and never be seen again.

Just because the Sunnis and the Shiites got along together when Saddam was in power doesn't mean that there wasn't a certain amount of tension between them. Of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, only about 15% are Shiites and most of those are in Iran and Iraq. In Iraq, the Shiites vastly outnumber the Sunnis but under Saddam's dictatorship the Sunnis were favored over the Shiites. The Shiites felt persecuted and rightly so. This had to breed resentment that would manifest itself if and when they ever came to power through whatever means.

As far as tension between Sunnis and Shiites is concerned, it goes back almost 1400 years to the dispute over who should succeed the Prophet Muhammad. The Sunnis got together and chose a leader they thought was most qualified to lead but the Shiites believed in bloodline succession like you have in monarchies. What followed was a series of battles that were mostly won by the Sunnis. That's why the Shiites have so many saints, the Sunnis killed them! The Sunnis killed the Prophet's grandson Hussein at the battle of Karbala. So yes, there has always been conflict off and on between the Sunnis and Shiites and the Shiites usually came out on the losing end.

There is nothing unique about the religious conflict between the two factions of Islam. It's not just the Sunnis and Shiites that killed each other. Christians and Muslims killed each other. Christians killed Jews. Christians killed other Christians. The Catholics killed Protestants and the Protestants killed Catholics. Just look at the history of England and France for good examples of this sort of Christian against Christian violence.

During his period sunnis had the power yes I agree but they didnt make acivil war they didnt kill like the shiite doing now.
"No one!" the new system in Iraq is build by the US .
and iran sending thousends of warriors to Iraq.

Yes, this is essentially true. Also, a certain number (perhaps as many as a few thousand) Sunni jihadists have entered Iraq to fight against the coalition troops there. They weren't there before the invasion. They came in after the invasion to fight against the Western troops.

"Then people like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered the mix"I never heard of this man befor the Iraqi war ,he has no importance ,but for some reasons the media give him mor than he deserve.

I think the media overplayed the Abu Musab al-Zarqawi story but that was because the U.S. government made a big deal out of him early on. The reason for that is because the U.S. government (aka the Bush Administration) was determined to show a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida even though there never was one. There was a definite link between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden and therefore it helped the Bush Administration's case by making al-Zarqawi the baddest guy on the planet. Al-Zarqawi was really a Jordanian anti-monarchist rebel who happened to bump into Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in the mid-1980's fighting the Soviets. Then in 1999, Osama bin Laden financed Al-Zarqawi's anti-monarchy operation (Jund al-Sham) in Jordan.

After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, al-Zarqawi went there to fight with the Taliban and al-Qaida against U.S. forces. Then sometime in 2002 he joined Ansar al-Islam in northern Iraq fighting against Kurdish-nationalist forces. After the U.S. led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, al-Zarqawi joined the insurgency. He gained worldwide attention when he had himself videotaped beheading Nick Berg. That's when he started calling his group Al-Qaida in Iraq. Of course he was going to get media attention. He was an extremely ruthless, brutal terrorist!

The reason you never "heard of this man before the Iraq war" is because he wasn't an Iraqi. He was a Jordanian who was trained by al-Qaida in explosives. He was in and out of prison in Jordan before getting money from Osama bin Laden to start Jund al-Sham. Then, after U.S. forces went into Afghanistan, he went there to fight against them. When U.S. forces went into Iraq, he followed. Actually he got there first by several months but he was in an area that was not under the control of Saddam Hussein.

Trivia: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi translates literally as Musab's father from Zarqa. That's because he has a son named Musab with his first wife and he was born in the Jordanian town of Zarqa. His real name is Ahmad Fadeel al-Nazal al-Khalayleh.

[anthias]

Ninong you know every thing about iraq.
do you know what is the problem btween sunni and shiite based on?

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by anthias

do you know what is the problem btween sunni and shiite based on?

I'm not sure if you mean what event precipitated the most recent sectarian violence in Iraq or if you're asking about the basis of the dispute between the two factions in history?

If you're talking about what got the whole thing started, it was the dispute over who would succeed the Prophet Muhammad after his death. The Sunnis appointed someone to be caliph but the Shiites said that Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, Ali, should succeed him and that Muhammad had said so many times during his life and again on his death bed. That's what led to the two separate factions and what eventually led to the Islamic Civil War some two decades after the death of Muhammad. Back in the 7th century, the caliphs were constanly getting assassinated and the head imams were constantly getting assassinated. Ali himself was assassinated. I'm not really up on all the details but you can look it up if you want.

That's not much different than what happened in England after Henry VIII's daughter Mary Tudor (aka Bloody Mary) decided to return England from Protestantism to Catholicism after she became Queen Mary I upon her father's death. She imprisoned thousands of Protestants and executed at least several hundred, including an Archbishop of Canterbury and one or two other bishops. Included in those executions were 283 individuals who were burnt at the stake! That was her way of persuading the English people to return to Catholicism. Then, when she died, Elizabeth I, Henry's daughter with his second wife, took the throne and switched back to Protestantism.

The late 15th and early 16th centuries were filled with religious wars in Europe.

Getting back to Iraq and the Sunni-Shia conflict: If you're asking what recent major event precipitated the outbreak of extreme sectarian violence it would have to be the bombing of the Al Askari Mosque, one of the holiest Shiite Shrines that was built in the 10th century.


The Al Askari Mosque in Samarra before and after the February 2006 bombing.

I don't know who did it. Reports are that the men who did it were dressed in Iraqi Special Forces uniforms. Some people think that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was behind it because he wanted to start a civil war. It's hard to tell who's doing what over there because they could always steal uniforms to fool the people. Then again, a lot of times it really is the Iraqi Police or Iraqi Army units that are involved. Look at all the prisoners that were being held in secret in the basements of Interior Ministry buildings. The Interior Ministry is VERY corrupt and totally controlled by the Shiite militias.

Right now Moqtadr al-Sadr, leader of the Mahdi militia, is threatening to pull out of the government if Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki meets President Bush in Amman, Jordan. Al-Sadr controlls six cabinet seats and 30 seats in the parliament. President Talibani is meeting with the President of Iran and maybe the President of Syria (if he decides to attend), U.S. Vice President Cheney is meeting with the Saudi royal family and President Bush is going to meet with the Iraqi Prime Minister in Jordan. It's safer in Jordan and doesn't require as much security planning and these were meetings that were just set up at the last minute. They're all trying to see if there is any way to get the Iraqis to agree to stop blowing each other up and form a stable government that is acceptable to Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites.

[anthias]

hi all,
have you seen the last mints of saddam life?
do you know what is the meaning of killing sadam at the first day of muslims Eid and the exact time they victimize?

have you heard and understand what is the people who killed saddam was saying in the last seconds?

have you heard the last words saddam said?

it is realy sham to iraqi goverment because they are not goverment they are realy a gang?it is realy a sham to whom they created this goverment....agoverment that is killing every day 50 civilians at least just because they are sunni?????
why no body is catching the killers why ??? because the killers are the goverment .
they killed saddam cause he killed 128 people in al dojail ,I dont agree with saddam of killing them but he had a reason to kill then because they tryed to kill him, but what is the reason for the recent goverment of killing 600 000 civilians??????
why is most of the iraqi goverment are of iranian origin????
I HAVE SEEN one of the iraqi goverment men talking at al jazeera TV ,my god he dont know how to speek arabic, I wonder what is the feeling of the US nation if they find themself ruled by maxicans.(maxicans are far better from iranian).
I didnt like saddam caze he did many bad things in his life for all iraqi people not only the sheiat , but when I saw his end and the last words he said I can say (compered with iraq today after saddam) :
he was ended as abrave man I didnt see any fear from the deth, his last words was about iraq he didnt care about him self .
2- he kept iraq as one strong country and protect it from iranian shieat.
3- he give iraq the life of his sons and fainly his life.
4- he fights the forein army who came in the name of (freedom) freedom to destroy iraq and freedom to kill,and freedom to give iraq as gift to iran .
we all knows that with out iraqi oil ,no one will come to invad this country, who cares about freedom in the arabic area , why not to give freedom to syria ,eygept ,jordan,saudia???

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by anthias

hi all,
have you seen the last mints of saddam life?

No, but I read about it. I refuse to watch execution videos.

do you know what is the meaning of killing sadam at the first day of muslims Eid and the exact time they victimize?

Is it true that Eid starts at sunrise? If so, then he was executed prior to Eid. An Iraqi government spokesman made the claim that Eid starts at sunrise and that's why they wanted to conclude the execution before sunrise. Why wouldn't Eid start at sunset of the day before? I thought Islamic holy days started the same as Jewish holy days? Maybe not???

have you heard and understand what is the people who killed saddam was saying in the last seconds?

Yes. It appears that the Iraqi government allowed some al-Sadr loyalists to participate in the execution.

have you heard the last words saddam said?

Yes.

it is realy sham to iraqi goverment because they are not goverment they are realy a gang?it is realy a sham to whom they created this goverment....

I don't think the U.S. can take credit for "creating" the current Iraqi government. If you look at the election results, the candidates that were favored by the U.S. government lost miserably. While it is true that the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. set the whole thing in motion, it's not going exactly the way the Bush Administration planned, and that's an understatement.

agoverment that is killing every day 50 civilians at least just because they are sunni?????

They are killing each other every day. I don't think it was Shia that blew up the Al Askari Mosque? It may have been done by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian Sunni Muslim. Sunni and Shia are killing each other. It's a complete mess.

why no body is catching the killers why ??? because the killers are the goverment .

Yes, we already know that. The Interior Ministry is controlled by the Mahdi Army. This is not news. It's a mess. Maybe if the U.S. troops left Iraq, the Iraqis would stop killing each other? Or maybe the killing would just get worse?

they killed saddam cause he killed 128 people in al dojail ,I dont agree with saddam of killing them but he had a reason to kill then because they tryed to kill him, but what is the reason for the recent goverment of killing 600 000 civilians??????

You know Saddam killed a lot more people than that. That's just the charge they chose to try him on. As you well know, the Kurds are angry that he was executed before he could be tried for gassing their villages, killing thousands of men, women and children.

why is most of the iraqi goverment are of iranian origin????

Because they're trying to set up a theocracy, like the government of Iran. What do you think we should do? Do you think we should just bomb all of Southern Iraq, all of Iran and all of Southern Jordan to get rid of all the Shia? I think we should have stayed out of Iraq in the first place.

I HAVE SEEN one of the iraqi goverment men talking at al jazeera TV ,my god he dont know how to speek arabic, I wonder what is the feeling of the US nation if they find themself ruled by maxicans.(maxicans are far better from iranian).

I would rather if we were ruled by Canadians. They have cheaper prescription drug prices and they don't usually invade other countries. On the other hand, San Antonio is ruled by Mexicans and they're doing just fine.

I didnt like saddam caze he did many bad things in his life for all iraqi people not only the sheiat , but when I saw his end and the last words he said I can say (compered with iraq today after saddam) :
he was ended as abrave man I didnt see any fear from the deth, his last words was about iraq he didnt care about him self .
2- he kept iraq as one strong country and protect it from iranian shieat.
3- he give iraq the life of his sons and fainly his life.
4- he fights the forein army who came in the name of (freedom) freedom to destroy iraq and freedom to kill,and freedom to give iraq as gift to iran .
we all knows that with out iraqi oil ,no one will come to invad this country, who cares about freedom in the arabic area , why not to give freedom to syria ,eygept ,jordan,saudia???

I don't think you can "give" democracy to another country. It's something that has to be earned from within. We have democracy in the United States only because we were willing to fight for it and get rid of the monarchy.

[anthias]

thank you ninong for answering all my ideas,
but for Al Askari Mosque was blowed by the suniis and I dont thing so because if they want they would do it in saddam period not now even if they did (some of them ) that does not give the shiet the right to kill all suniis .
I thing the US can do many things for iraq , for example they can rebuild the former national army of Iraq at least it is a real national army not just a shiet gang .
one thing I do agree with you about kurdish people , yes I heard that he used a chemical weppons againest them and that is why I hate saddam for along time and I was happy when the us terminate his party (albath),but what happend after that to iraq in the us period was ashock to me, and it seems that saddam have chenged in the last 10 years.
and let me tel you that saddam also atacked al faloja and killed many sunnis.
but I believe after all that god have the the right to forgive people,and the last words of saddam was (I believe in allah the one god and in mohammed his massenger) I hope god forgive him for what he did.
ofcourse saddam when he did the all bad things to his nation and all other people 15 years ago is not saddam now because the man who realy belive in islam will never ever kill like he did.