Iraqis protest against terrorism

[bfp]

[Iraqis demonstrate against terrorism]

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Nov. 28 (UPI) -- Thousands of Iraqis took to Baghdad's streets Friday condemning terrorism and urging a halt to political violence.

The demonstrators shouted "death to terrorists" and called for confronting and uprooting "this evil trend which is foreign to Iraqi society."

The march, in which an estimated 4,000 protesters took part, was organized by 30 minor political parties which are not represented in the U.S.-sponsored Iraq Governing Council.

In the meantime, a U.S. army spokesman said one U.S. soldier was killed accidentally at a camp in the city of Ramadi, 90 miles west of Baghdad, and a hot spot for Iraqi insurgents fighting U.S. forces.

Elsewhere, witnesses said a U.S. patrol was attacked with gunfire and rocket propelled grenades in Abu Gharib west of Baghdad.

They said two military vehicles were set on fire but there was no immediate information on casualties.

[Adam D]

um...they were protesting the US.

[bfp]

Originally posted by Adam D
um...they were protesting the US.

What would make you think that?


Thousands of Iraqis took to Baghdad's streets Friday condemning terrorism and urging a halt to political violence.


They were condemning terrorism(bombings due to Iraqi insurgents).

Wouldn't you if your children were getting killed by the US? Not to say that we shouldn't of toppled Saddam...but we shoulda gone about it a different way.

Originally posted by EnergyWithinUs
Wouldn't you if your children were getting killed by the US? Not to say that we shouldn't of toppled Saddam...but we shoulda gone about it a different way.

what way would that have been?

[bfp]

Originally posted by xiannaix
what way would that have been?

Through peaceful solutions. The United Nations of course.


Lord knows that you can't get the backing of people who have their money invested in the Country that's about to be attacked. Not to mention the numbers of countries that have a bias against the United States.

Well...for starters, we could've made sure we wouldn't "miss" our intended targets, and it would've been nice if our gov. hadn't of lied to us about the main reason for starting this BS war - and just would've went after Saddam and his regime becuase they are War Criminals, not because they supposedly had WMD's...
But I understand that there are alwayz going to be mistakes and civilian casualties in a war...but it seems this war was just wrong from the get-go.

Originally posted by EnergyWithinUs
Well...for starters, we could've made sure we wouldn't "miss" our intended targets, and it would've been nice if our gov. hadn't of lied to us about the main reason for starting this BS war - and just would've went after Saddam and his regime becuase they are War Criminals, not because they supposedly had WMD's...
But I understand that there are alwayz going to be mistakes and civilian casualties in a war...but it seems this war was just wrong from the get-go.

We almost always hit what we want to - the error is more often in choosing the wrong target - not hitting it. How would you eliminate error in target selection and in precisely hitting that target?

I agree about that the mesage used to "sell" the war was poor - but you are attacking the sale's pitch and then accepting the product? You say we should have gone after Sadam only for different reasons - then - you undercut your argument by saying the war was just wrong......

could you clarify this for me?

1 - Should we have overthrown Sadam?
2 - Why?
3 - How should we avoid error in target selection?
4 - How should we avoid missing the properly chosen targets?

If the reason we went to war was a lie, then the war itself is wrong...if we would have gone in to oust a war criminal, for his past crimes, not for possessing invisible WMD's, then the war would be legit.

1. Yes
2. He was a cruel dictator who murdered his own ppl.
3. Make sure our intelligence is 100% sure of the significance of the targets.
4. I guess make sure our guided weapons are calibrated correctly...I dunno, stop missing?

Originally posted by EnergyWithinUs
If the reason we went to war was a lie, then the war itself is wrong...if we would have gone in to oust a war criminal, for his past crimes, not for possessing invisible WMD's, then the war would be legit.

1. Yes
2. He was a cruel dictator who murdered his own ppl.
3. Make sure our intelligence is 100% sure of the significance of the targets.
4. I guess make sure our guided weapons are calibrated correctly...I dunno, stop missing?

ty for the response - and for not presuming I was attacking you - I wan't - merely looking for you to defend your allegation - which you did....

for my part -

I do believe the WMDS did(do) exist. The existence wasn't debated in the months leading up to the war. And, if Sadam didn't have them - why did he choose invasion over prooving that he'd destroyed them? Sadam is shrewd if nothing else.

If we find WMDs I doubt those who currently disbelieve will be swayed by the evidence.

I think the WMDs argument was a weak one for going to war.

I think, as you, that the cruel dictator is a good reason, but the 10 years of violations of agreements Sadam made to get coalition troops out in the first place was the best reason.

Regarding intelleigence being 100% certain - well - this is the real world - that doesn't happen. We can hope for it - but that's about it. About missing - yeah - hard to fix that one. As we've noted - the real trick is picking the right target - not hitting it. In wars mistakes aer made and innocent people die. This was a war of Sadam's choosing - we gave him ten years to comply and many many ways to avoid the conflict. He made his choice. As i said - it is sad that innocents have been killed. The number however, is fewer than what Sadam's thugs killed. But it still doesn't mean much to a dead guy to distinguish who killed him. but it is better to have fewer dead than more.

N E Time, I have no qualms with friendly debates.
And well said!
We've left out the REAL reason we went to war, though....OIL, $, and power for Bush & Co...
No????

[Element4040]

Originally posted by EnergyWithinUs
N E Time, I have no qualms with friendly debates.
And well said!
We've left out the REAL reason we went to war, though....OIL, $, and power for Bush & Co...
No????

Oil, no. Reshaping the Middle East, yes.

as I've said many times - a war in the middle-east (accepting religious war with Israel) cannot separate itself from oil.

However, w/Iraq - oil is not a primary motivating issue. But to say it doesn't count is to ignore the obvious.

A stable middle east creates a more stable oil market. A pro-West Iraq makes the market even more friendly.

So - we didn't go in to take it - but - we do hope that it'll be cheaper as a result.

There are plenty of nasty UN sanction flaunting dictators around the world - we don't invade unless we have an interest.

[Element4040]

Originally posted by xiannaix
as I've said many times - a war in the middle-east (accepting religious war with Israel) cannot separate itself from oil.

However, w/Iraq - oil is not a primary motivating issue. But to say it doesn't count is to ignore the obvious.

A stable middle east creates a more stable oil market. A pro-West Iraq makes the market even more friendly.

So - we didn't go in to take it - but - we do hope that it'll be cheaper as a result.

There are plenty of nasty UN sanction flaunting dictators around the world - we don't invade unless we have an interest.

I don't disagree that Oil wasn't taken in to cosideration. But when people say that we went into Iraq to take their oil it's absurd. I am not stating it wasn't a factor, just aways down the priority list.

I also agree that the reasons given are BS as well. We did not go in there to "free" Iraqi civilians, nor did we go in their because Iraq had WMD's. There are many behind the scenes reasons to this that you nor I will know for many years. Sure we can speculate and point out the obvious, but the true reasons for this I think remain a secret to all but those in tight with the current Administration.

Originally posted by Element4040
I don't disagree that Oil wasn't taken in to cosideration. But when people say that we went into Iraq to take their oil it's absurd. I am not stating it wasn't a factor, just aways down the priority list.

I also agree that the reasons given are BS as well. We did not go in there to "free" Iraqi civilians, nor did we go in their because Iraq had WMD's. There are many behind the scenes reasons to this that you nor I will know for many years. Sure we can speculate and point out the obvious, but the true reasons for this I think remain a secret to all but those in tight with the current Administration.

never meant to put any words of any kind in your mouth - you speak quite well on your own