Iraqi Election: 2005

[toms]

I split the WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception thread after some paintstaking decision-making on which posts should join this new thread. If I missed one or screwed up a context, please let me know by PM.

[align=right]--- SkinWalker[/align]

 

 

 

Originally Posted By SkinWalker

And, yes, the Iraqi election turn out was better than could be expected.

 

which is both surprising and good news.

 

Would probably have happened on its own in a few years, but that is neither here nor there.

 

Would have been nicer if we had based our reason to go to war on the basis of bringing democracy to the iraqis (though even that is a dangerous precedent mildly analgous to the crusades or the misinaries bringing "civilization" or "god" to the heathens). Rather than Blair saying that if Saddam gave up the weapons he didn't have then he could stay in power.

 

(So theoretically, if we had a decent intelligence service then saddam would still be in power. )

 

Anyone seen the stories recently about the Uk atourney general's advice to the UK government on the legality of the war.. apparently it ammounted to a single side of A4 that kind of skirted over most of the issues...

[Wilhuf]

Would probably have happened on its own in a few years

Probably not. Several Iraqi tank divisions and assault helicopter wings would see to it that this would not be the case. By precendent, southern Shia communities tried for self-determination in the early 90s but that was violently crushed while Europe and the US stood by.

[Spider AL]

The Bush administration is nothing but an embarrassment to over 200 years of American spirit and true patriotism.

I for one consider Bush, his regime, his neoconservative chums and all those who voted for him, to be absolute wastes of oxygen.

 

However, I must point out that he's not the first neoconservative idiot president, nor is he the only president to do evil things. Even relatively liberal presidents such as Clinton were guilty of awful crimes against humanity. America's never been a particularly righteous nation.

[Wilhuf]

America's never been a particularly righteous nation.

 

62,040,606 elegible voters voted for Bush. So you're saying that 62,040,606 Americans who you don't know are a waste of oxygen.

 

Prejudiced much?

 

You'd be saying that in German if it weren't for the US commitment to Europe in WWI and WWII.

 

And throwing a bunch of cliche insults and labels on to US presidents and, well, all of America wont change the reality that the US brought free and open elections to Iraq on Jan 30. Sanctions and diplomacy with the Hussein regime would never have accomplished that.

 

Which crimes against humanity was Clinton found guilty of exactly? ... I must have missed the ICJ trial.

[Wilhuf]

The US invasion of Iraq created a situation of terrorism and insurgency that wouldn't have existed had we not invaded.

 

Obviously Baathists would have no need to support an insurgency if they maintained their iron grip over Iraq. So what?

 

I don't hold the US responsible for acts of terror by foreign nationals. The US isn't encouraging and supplying terrorists. Baathists, Al-Qa'ida and other foreign nationals are.

 

Had the US not intervened in Iraq, there would be no elections. And the forced deportations would have continued, and the Iraqi informant network would continue to persecute civillians. And more bodies would have been added to the mass graves.

 

Now that Hussein government is gone, the ferocity of anticoalition terror tactics reveals further its immoral, evil core. Freedom isn't free.

 

Did you know that when the USA "liberated" Afghanistan, they inserted a President instead of holding fair elections

Yes, in order to have a functioning interim government, Hamid Karzai was essentially installed as administration chief. But only until free, fair, and open elections were held in Afghanistan, where for the first time in 90 years, the Afghanis were allowed a national-level voice of self-determination . I guess somehow Eagle turned a blind eye to the news that the UN endorsed the October elections in Afghanistan. Presumably this type of news contradicts the America-as-imperialist worldview and is ignored.

 

I'll never accept the implication that America is out to 'colonize' Afghanistan. The US and its allies liberated Afghanistan from a vile enemy.

[toms]

Since Eagle has taken the brave (some might say foolish) step of marching into the middle of this i should probably cover his flank or something....

 

The way I see it there are three seperate questions:

 

1) Should the US have invaded Iraq based on Terrorism and WMD?

2) Should the US have invaded Iraq to install democracy?

3) Given that they are there now (whatever you answered to 1 and 2) what should they do now?

 

plus maybe a 4th of:

4) Is the world a safer place now?

 

My answers would be:

1) No.

The evidence was obviously shakey (even at the time) and a blatant excuse. Inspections were working, saddam was losing grip on power, inspectors wanted more time.

 

2) Maybe.

The aim is noble (if a bit holier than thou). However there are three obvious drawbacks.

 

(a) It sets a precident of powerful countries invading weak ones when they don't like them. This makes it harder to object when china or russia decides THEY want to invade someone who's internal polices they don't like. Given this danger it should only have gone ahead with full UN backing.

 

(b) Democracy works best when it exists from the bottom up. When the people have asked for and obtained it themselves. When it is installed from the top down it becomes unsupported and weak. This means it often fails, or needs to be supported by strong extrenal powers (which leads to resentment). Heck, Iraq itself was created in this way by strong external forces (US and UK) mashing a lot of antagonistic groups together "for their own good". That lasted a year or two before the "nice" installed leaders were ovethown.

 

© It was bound to create a huge power vacuum in an already unstable region with a number of naturally antagonistic groups present. Was the risk of removing a contained known threat worse the risk of an unknown threat from a power vacuum? I actually think that the situation in iraq has gone a lot better than it could, but even so a huge number of iraqis have died (30 to 40 timesthe number that died on 9/11).

 

3) We stay and sort out the mess.

I may not have been keen on going in in the first place, but now it has been started it has to be finished properly. Its odd that the ones who shouted loudest to go in are often the ones who want to leave first. The elections have actually been surprisingly successful, but americans are going to have to stay and die until they are no longer needed.

 

I'm a little torn on getting other countries to help out. Getting other muslim troops to help would be the best idea, but of course the US doesn't have many allies there. Getting the UN in control would add more legitimacy... but of course it is a lose lose situation for the UN. If they help then they suffer the same loses, and if it all works out get none of the credit and all of the "i told you so"s. If they don't help they get called cowardly and impotent.

 

It would have been nice if there had been more of a coalition going in, or some actual idea of what to do to keep order once the war was over. But its too late for that, they just need to do the best they can, and try and appear to be following the requests of the iraqi government, not running them.

 

and...

 

4) No chance.

Not only are we less safe, the iraqis are less safe. We have also given up all our rights without a fight. We are now so scared that anyone just has to mention the word "terrorism" and people loose all their common sense. Even though (even with all the escalation in iraq) terrorism has to be right down the bottom of the scale in terms of deaths.

 

I wonder if this decade will go down in history as the year that democracy was spread, or democracy was lost?

 

we now return you to your regularly scheduled edition of Crossfire with Skinwalker and Wilhuf...

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I wonder if this decade will go down in history as the year that democracy was spread, or democracy was lost?

[Cough]Patriot Act[Cough]

 

If Bush wants democracy to be spread, why's he taking away Americans' rights at home?

 

4) No chance.

Not only are we less safe, the iraqis are less safe. We have also given up all our rights without a fight. We are now so scared that anyone just has to mention the word "terrorism" and people loose all their common sense. Even though (even with all the escalation in iraq) terrorism has to be right down the bottom of the scale in terms of deaths.

Earlier in Iraq, only dissenters got shot. Now everyone is at risk of getting shot: Innocent men, women, and children who would have been spared by Saddam risk getting bombed or shot by Insurgent forces.

 

About "adding bodies to mass graves": 300 000 civilians killed in Iraq since the USA invaded (not to mention 500 000 killed by US sanctions and bombing before Operation Iraqi "Freedom", bringing the number of US/Coalition-caused civilian casualties up to nearly a million) sounds like it might add a bit to the mass graves, too...

 

You'd be saying that in German if it weren't for the US commitment to Europe in WWI and WWII.

Who's using cliches now, eh? 'Cause "shaddup an' obey, we saved you in WW II!" is the biggest cliche out there.

 

You'd be saying that in French was it not for the French involvement in the Revolution.

 

• The French supplied you with 90% of the gunpowder you used. How effective would the glorified Minute Men heroes of yours be without gun powder to fire their weapons with, hm?
  
• They contributed tens of millions of dollars. That's a lot of rifles, cannons, and other equipment, supplies, and weapons, especially when considering that a dollar was worth oh-so-much more back then.
  
• They put together a naval blockade that prevented the British from effectively reinforcing.
  
• By the end of the Revolution, there was practically more French infantry in the USA than there were American.
  

Bottom line: Without the French, the US revolution would be doomed. No question about it. But do you show any gratitude towards the French for this? Not an ounce.

 

If your ideal is really that "if country A saves country B, country B needs to be forever commited to country A" (which is what so many people are saying, with country A being the USA and country B being, say, Norway), it's time for you to live up to it yourself. From now on, listen blindly to France. "They saved you in the Revolution":rolleyes: .

[Spider AL]

62,040,606 elegible voters voted for Bush. So you're saying that 62,040,606 Americans who you don't know are a waste of oxygen.

Yes. Next question?

 

I know of those that voted for Bush that which I need to know: They were sub-humanly stupid enough to vote for an ex-alcoholic, religiously fundamentalist, obviously corrupt, warmongering idiot. Frankly, enough said.

 

You'd be saying that in German if it weren't for the US commitment to Europe in WWI and WWII.

"Commitment to Europe"? Need I remind you that America waited until their own shores were attacked before engaging in the conflict against nazism that had been raging for years prior to Pearl Harbour... and then claimed the majority of the credit for Hitler's downfall as well as the moral high ground TO THIS DAY?

 

It is and always has been a truly pathetic attempt at spin-doctoring the truth: That the US never had altruistic reasons for entering the second world war, but only selfish reasons. The US didn't care that countless numbers of their "allies" and other innocents were dying prior to the attack on Pearl. America as an entity cares only for itself and its interests, never for moral concerns. Your example merely proves my point. It does not prove yours.

 

And throwing a bunch of cliche insults and labels on to US presidents and, well, all of America wont change the reality that the US brought free and open elections to Iraq on Jan 30.

Bahahaha.

 

Elections that are somewhat less representative of the will of the people than your OWN utterly flawed, unrepresentative elections... can hardly be termed "democratic". I consider your stance in this matter to be strewn with gaping holes in knowledge and logic.

 

Don't you realize that US Task Force 626 is engaged directly in a battle against Al-Qa'ida elements in Iraq?

No offence, but I consider this perpetual regurgitation of unsubstantiated, uncheckable neoconservative (nazi) propaganda concerning mythical "Al-Qaeda forces" to be pathetic.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

He spelled "Al-Qa'ida" right, though, I think. That's something:).

 

"Commitment to Europe"? Need I remind you [not going to quote the whole thing when it's right ahead of my post]

Exactly. You eventually got into Europe, but with all due respect, letting the continent be ravaged for two whole years before finally getting your butts around to join the fight doesn't sound like commitment to me.

 

Yes. Next question?

I love this kind of straight answers:D.

 

I've lived in Houston for three years, and I have to disagree with you when it comes to your labelling of "every" Bush supporter being an idiot. My therapist back there, whose name shall not be mentioned as the world is smaller than we realize;), was an exceptionally wise woman who taught me more about psychology and coping with various bad things than you'd ever know. But she supported Bush's foreign policy "because there are people out there who want to hurt us." Again, she was a very smart woman (and certainly no waste of O2:D), but she still voted for Bush.

 

Unbelievable.

 

I don't hold the US responsible for acts of terror by foreign nationals. The US isn't encouraging (...) terrorists. Baathists, Al-Qa'ida and other foreign nationals are.

So you're saying that when the US does things like toppling democracy (Chile), bombing innocents deliberately (Clinton, Baghdad and certain other places), and selling weapons to dictators (Iran, Iraq, and many others), that does nothing whatsoever to encourage terrorism against the USA? I don't buy that.

 

As for supplying terrorists: Wrong again.

[Spider AL]

He spelled "Al-Qa'ida" right, though, I think. That's something

As far as I'm aware it's a phoneticised Arabic term, so there's no "correct" spelling in English. I use the spelling that the BBC news service used following the 9/11 attacks.

 

Again, she was a very smart woman (and certainly no waste of O2), but she still voted for Bush.

 

Unbelievable.

I too thought it unbelievable at first, but then I remembered that the accumulation of knowledge doesn't make one intelligent, much less a worthwhile human being. Neoconservatives in Washington have accumulated quite a bit of knowledge in their lifetimes... doesn't make them any less stupid, doesn't make them any less worthless.

[Wilhuf]

Yes. Next question?

So you are openly predjudiced against 62 million individuals you don't know. That puts your mindset down a notch in the eyes of many people. It is chillingly similar to neonazi thought. The predisposed and intentional condemnation of an entire group of people without regard to situation or value. How embarrassing.

 

etting the continent be ravaged for two whole years before finally getting your butts around to join the fight doesn't sound like commitment to me.

 

Your decision to ignore the impact of US-provided lend lease immediately at the war's onset takes you down a notch as well.

 

Democracy works best when it exists from the bottom up. When the people have asked for and obtained it themselves. When it is installed from the top down it becomes unsupported and weak. This means it often fails, or needs to be supported by strong extrenal powers (which leads to resentment).

 

A democracy is propped up from the bottom, by definition. You're unlikely to find a modern democracy that wasn't created by force. German, American and French democracies were all created by violent action, in relatively short time periods. It is certainly true that democracies need to be supported, frequently, by external powers. For example, the US forces deployed in Germany following world war II, to shield against east-block military might.

 

Elections that are somewhat less representative of the will of the people than your OWN utterly flawed, unrepresentative elections... can hardly be termed "democratic".

You know it is said that 'denial is the first step to recovery,' so perhaps you're on the right path. If by 'your OWN ... elections' you mean 'the US elections,' be advised that turnout in the 30 January elections in Iraq was actually better than in most areas in the US for the November 2004 presidential elections. And this was accomplished under threat of terrorist attacks directed against participants.

 

uncheckable neoconservative (nazi) propaganda

The free western press has stated many times that Al-Qa'ida elements are currently operational in Iraq. For example, Abu Zarqawi, an Al-Q'aida operative has openly issued a number of threats against Iraqis and the coaltion from within Iraq.

 

1) Should the US have invaded Iraq based on Terrorism and WMD?

2) Should the US have invaded Iraq to install democracy?

3) Given that they are there now (whatever you answered to 1 and 2) what should they do now?

 

plus maybe a 4th of:

4) Is the world a safer place now?

 

Very good questions, all of them. My take:

1. No. Iraq had the intent to acquire WMD, but no significant capability. Communications between Al-Qa'ida elements in Iraq and Iraqi officials was not likely a substantial enough basis for invasion.

2. Yes. If not now, when? If not the coalition, then by whom? Bullets and kinetic strikes, not sanctions, are what toppled Hussein. (Feel free to identify an example of a country which changed its regime because of political/economic sanctions, not armed force).

3. Crush the insurgency as quickly as possible, promote the economic reconstruction of Iraq, promote and safeguard Iraqi democracy, train and encourage the Iraqis to handle their internal and external security, remain commited to Iraq until these tasks are completed.

4. Today the world is safer (outside of Iraq) than before. The reality is that with every Jihadist Abu and Haji making a run for Iraq to wage war against the 'infidel', that's one less crazed Abu and Haji the rest of the world has to worry about knocking on their doorstep with a suicide belt or AK.

[Spider AL]

So you are openly predjudiced against 62 million individuals you don't know.

Nonsensical fallacy. I don't have to "personally know" axe murderers to be justifiably prejudiced against them.

 

That puts your mindset down a notch in the eyes of many people.

I'm prejudiced against stupid Bush supporters. That puts my mindset up a notch in the eyes of intelligent people. Why would I care what I seem like to stupid Bush supporters? They're muppets.

 

The free western press has stated many times that Al-Qa'ida elements are currently operational in Iraq.

The REALLY free western press has stated on many occasions that Saddam Hussein had no proven links with Al-Qaeda. The REALLY free western press has stated on many occasions that the so called "Al-Qaeda network" isn't as large nor as cohesive an entity as the American government likes to make out. The fact that all Arabic guerrillas worldwide are being called "Al-Qaeda elements" by your pathetic excuse for a national press is merely laughable.

 

You're unlikely to find a modern democracy that wasn't created by force.

You're unlikely to find a modern democracy. Period. At least not in the US or the UK.

 

'your OWN ... elections' you mean 'the US elections,' be advised that turnout in the 30 January elections in Iraq was actually better than in most areas in the US for the November 2004 presidential elections.

Once again you manage to miss the point entirely... The Iraqi elections were unrepresentative because the population didn't know who the hell they were voting for or why. Candidates' names were kept secret until the last moment. The members of several factions were excluded from voting. There was no space on the ballot for the Iraqis to vote for chucking the damn yanks out.

 

For these reasons and many others, the Iraqi elections were simply a sham. They were not even close to the democratic ideal. Neither were the recent US elections.

 

Turnout? Don't make me guffaw.

 

Yes. If not now, when? If not the coalition, then by whom? Bullets and kinetic strikes, not sanctions, are what toppled Hussein.

Install democracy? Makes it sound like an operating system. How silly. You don't even have democracy in your own country. How can you "install it" anywhere else? Are your system specs too low to handle it or something?

 

Today the world is safer (outside of Iraq) than before. The reality is that with every Jihadist Abu and Haji making a run for Iraq to wage war against the 'infidel', that's one less crazed Abu and Haji the rest of the world has to worry about knocking on their doorstep with a suicide belt or AK.

Guh. Yeah, let's ruin an entire country and kill a sizeable proportion of its population in order to DISTRACT those darned terroristas. (sic) With such bait, we can lure them back to where they belong, the DESERT!

 

Bigoted sentiment, frankly.

[Wilhuf]

Candidates' names were kept secret until the last moment. The members of several factions were excluded from voting.

Candidate names were kept secret in order to protect them from assassination or kidnapping by terrorists/insurgents. There was a very serious possibility the election would fail if candidate names had not been covered. Individual faction members were excluded from the list for various reasons, including their open calls for withdrawal of the Coaltion from Iraq, open religious intolerance, and in the case of Muktada Al-Sadr, terrorist activity.

 

I don't have to "personally know" axe murderers to be justifiably prejudiced against them.

Of the 62 million people who voted for Bush, you'd maybe find 1,000 axe murderers, at most. It's the gun-toters you have to watch out for.

 

Guh. Yeah, let's ruin an entire country and kill a sizeable proportion of its population in order to DISTRACT those darned terroristas. (sic) With such bait, we can lure them back to where they belong, the DESERT!

In a way (with the exception of the funny 'Guh' part), this is how it is playing out in Iraq. You have recognized that the war in Iraq has indeed (as skinwalker has pointed out) attracted terrorist elements, drawing them to the Iraqi battlefield, rather than, say, Europe.

[Spider AL]

Candidate names were kept secret in order...

Yes yes yes. We're all aware of the so-called "reasons" your beloved spin doctors gave for keeping the candidates names secret. All that utter drivel doesn't alter the fact that the simple act of keeping them secret ALONE, foils ANY chance that the election would be truly democratic.

 

Individual faction members were excluded from the list for various reasons

Ah, so your government gets to decide who can vote and who can't in iraq, and you're okay with that? And there's me thinking that the principle of our lovely western "democracy" was that EVERYONE of legal age could vote, whatever their political persuasion. And even you have to admit that iraqi people were excluded from voting in their own supposed election, simply for desiring that the yanks get out of their damn country. I can't imagine anything less democratic, and more occupational. Can you?

 

Frankly I can't believe you're sitting there, giving ANY credence at all to the neo-con rhetoric you're reguritating.

 

In a way (with the exception of the funny 'Guh' part), this is how it is playing out in Iraq.

Yeah mate, my point was that this is NOT OKAY. It is not a good idea, it is not a moral position to hold. Understand?

[Wilhuf]

And even you have to admit that iraqi people were excluded from voting in their own supposed election, simply for desiring that the yanks get out of their damn country. I can't imagine anything less democratic, and more occupational. Can you?

I would like a source of proof that Iraqi voters were prevented from voting. With little effort, you'll realize that the Saddam Hussein regime, which tolerated no elections, is a less democratic and occupational situation than what we saw 30 January.

 

Yeah mate, my point was that this is NOT OKAY. It is not a good idea, it is not a moral position to hold.

So presumably you'd prefer terrorists to conduct operations, say, in your neighborhood, rather than in Iraq?

[Spider AL]

I would like a source of proof that Iraqi voters were prevented from voting.

Try your own words:

 

Individual faction members were excluded from the list for various reasons, including their open calls for withdrawal of the Coaltion from Iraq, open religious intolerance, and in the case of Muktada Al-Sadr, terrorist activity.

Silly fellow. We've both read the same news reports. Many of these people had every right to be voters and were prevented from voting, as you yourself have admitted.

 

you'll realize that the Saddam Hussein regime, which tolerated no elections, is a less democratic and occupational situation than what we saw 30 January

Heh, reduced to splitting hairs eh. They're BOTH undemocratic. You're just happy because the people in charge of the undemocratic situation on 30/1 currently reside in Washington.

 

So presumably you'd prefer terrorists to conduct operations, say, in your neighborhood, rather than in Iraq?

I don't want Americans in my neighborhood.

 

 

Seriously though, your ideas are extremely wierd at times. Do you really believe that being afraid that the bad men might anthrax you to death is justification enough to go to an UNRELATED COUNTRY and decimate it? That IS wierd.

[Wilhuf]

Try your own words

I said that candidates were excluded from running for elected office. I never said Iraqis were prohibited from voting. (Although I'm sure a certain percentage of Iraqis were prohibited from voting because of criminal activity, as one normally finds in all modern democracies.)

 

My question was serious. I haven't seen reports that Iraqis were prevented from voting by the coalition or interim Iraqi Government and I'd like to see proof of that.

[Wilhuf]

My bad, you were refering to Iraqis being unjustly disenfranchised. Since that is the case, my response is 'no they weren't, not by the coalition.' I know that candidates were blocked, but I haven't seen proof that Iraqis were systematically denied voting rights. Denial of voting rights was in the form of anticoalition terrorist edicts promising 'death' to people who voted in an election that was an 'affont to allah.'

 

Again, please provide evidence that the interim Iraqi Government and or the coalition systematically prevented iraqis from voting. Oh and yes I know about the Kurdish unofficial vote to separate from Iraq. That is unacceptable if Iraq is to remain whole, obviously. Of course it does beg the question, should Iraq even remain whole?

[Spider AL]

It's okay, I forgive you.

 

My question was serious. I haven't seen reports that Iraqis were prevented from voting by the coalition or interim Iraqi Government and I'd like to see proof of that

You want to see a news report in the form of the Guardian's editorial on the subject, go here just for starters.

 

You want proof, as in... eyewitness proof, go to Iraq and find out for yourself. Send me a postcard. Though I'd like to see you "prove" anything YOU'VE mentioned in a comparable fashion. Just to pre-empt your response.

[Wilhuf]

I do appreciate your effort, but your source doesn't actually say that either the coalition or Iraqi Interim Government excluded voters. It said millions were unable or unwilling to vote.

 

There are many reasons this happened. For a minority, it was their unwillingness to participate in an election they believed to be rigged. For many many more, it was the threats of decapitation, threats against family members, and outright intimidation by Al-Qa'ida and other Iraqi terrorist groups that kept Iraqi voters away from the polling station, not any 'imperialist' US scheme.

[Spider AL]

Mate, I never stated that each American Soldier grabbed a Sunni voter and held a gun to their head until the election was over, did I? I think that might be a little obvious, even for a yank GI.

 

I stated that thousands were prevented from voting and this constitutes merely another undemocratic pillar in the huge pantheon of undemocratic aspects to the plainly undemocratic "elections" of 30/1.

 

(edit)

And I note you use the term "Al-Qaeda" again. You just love the sound of that, don't you.

(/edit)

[Wilhuf]

You're just happy because the people in charge of the undemocratic situation on 30/1 currently reside in Washington.

The election was democratic, despite terrorist efforts to derail the event through violence and intimidation. And yes, I am happy that the people in Washington, all parts of the US really, coaltion partners, and the Iraqi people took it upon themselves to make the election happen.

[Spider AL]

No it was not democratic, and I've listed several points to back that statement up, none of which you've been able to refute.

 

I declare my case proven beyond your capacity to rebut.

 

Still, if you come up with anything new, feel free to post it and I shall respond.

[Wilhuf]

Since you're making proclamations, I declare the election results beyond your capacity to comprehend. You haven't provided evidence that the Iraq election was undemocratic. The majority of Iraqis participated in the election. This simply could not have happened without coalition intervention.

 

You were unable to provide an example of a democracy that was created without resort to force.

 

You have forwarded no evidence that anything other than terrorist activity was responsible for the areas where turnout was below average.

 

As an aside, I wish you didn't have to give me a reason to say this, but I also declare some of your statements about Americans as blatantly prejudiced, and destructive to your 'case' and objectivity.

 

Innocent men, women, and children who would have been spared by Saddam risk getting bombed or shot by Insurgent forces.

But Eagle, the insurgency is composed of former Hussen regime members and others. The responsibility for this destruction lies squarely on the shoulders of Hussein and his ilk, not the coalition. The vast majority of deaths and property destruction in Iraq are caused by insurgent operations, not the coalition.

[SkinWalker]

Am I the only one that is beginning to not like Peter Cushing?