Christian/Muslim ThreadsHow do Muslims view the war in Iraq?Peace Believer, Summary: ElBaradei believes that Saddam Hussein has not resumed his weapons program based on them finding no signs of any weapons program. In the last inspection, the UN inspectors were allowed on all sites to look for the weapons. None were found. Your response was that they had been moved into neighbouring countries. Now, where is the evidence for this? Please don’t dodge the question. You defended them, implying that you are ok with them. It’s as worse as saying that they were the best move. Not in words. Believer, you did not admit to any of your countries mistakes. You’re only having this attitude now because of Pub’s post. So your logic is that you’re going to make an entire nation suffer because of the actions of one man. Mind you the same actions he took in Iran and yet you supported him, so you cannot say his actions were wrong according to American standards. I could not care for these countries. If you were Russian and defending your country, I would show you the evil of your nation. But since you’re American and convinced that Bush is a peaceful man, I will show you the evil of America. These countries are trying to follow in the footsteps of your country. This is the same man that described “the war on terror” as crusade. Yeah, he isn’t against Islam. Slip of the tongue I suppose. So Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait for political reasons too. Same reason, different response. HYPOCRITS! :evil: That’s true. Some of it! Of course America is greedy. And so are Australia, and France, and Russia and all of these greedy countries. And if any country had the same opportunity, I believe they too would be greedy. But since its America that led the invasion, the spotlight is on them. While were on the subject of oil, want some proof that the war was for oil purposes. Hold tight, here it is: In April 1997, there was a report from the James A. Baker Institute of Public Policy at Rice University and they addressed the problem of America’s oil shortages. In particular the report targeted "The Threat of Iraq and Iran" to the free flow of oil out of the Middle East. When the Bush administration came to power in 2001, the same institute brought out another report. This Task Force Report was co-sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in New York; another group historically concerned about US access to overseas oil resources. The Report represented a consensus of thinking among energy experts of both political parties, and was signed by Democrats as well as Republicans. Now here’s the interesting part. The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century, concluded: "The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de-stabilizing influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments." Not convinced and wish to see it said more bluntly? Anthony H. Cordesman, senior analyst at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies said: "Regardless of whether we say so publicly, we will go to war, because Saddam sits at the center of a region with more than 60 percent of all the world's oil reserves." http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html President of America or any country? If I was for example, leading Saudi Arabia, I would get Islamic advice on what to do and go from there. If it’s America, I wouldn’t even get involved. Ever heard of country called Equatorial Guinea? The man that brought up the idea of a part “Islamic” was not even a radical leader. He is the same man that later supported this new government after his suggestion was shot down. And he had a huge following. I’m sorry, I can’t recall his name. But my point was that it wasn’t even a choice. Did America have a referendum to know what the Iraqis wanted or did not want? How did they come to this conclusion? You are an advocate of choices. This other form of government should have been put on the table and then let the Iraqis decide what they wanted. Don’t worry about it. It’s not important to the discussion. Deny all you want. Amnesty International is a credible source. Just because you can’t stomach that 10,000 civilians died, doesn’t make it unrealistic. I want you to admit that Bush is an evil man who is responsible for the death of thousands of civilians, and that he and the coalition should leave Iraq at once and to leave Iraq’s oil behind. Peace and Blessings be to the Believers |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame