The ill advised AMERICAN INVASION has resulted in the entrire fabric of Iraqi society falling apart at its seams.

So you consider the fabric of Iraqi society as it was before the invasion a symbol of stability and happiness?

The "ill advised" invasion has saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Sunnis and Shi'ites have been fighting each other in Iraq for decades. The major difference is that now neither side has a fascist dictator on their side who would occasionally slaughter a few hundred thousand people or drain swamps and what not.

Iraqi society is not "falling apart", it's closer together than it was ever before.

The major difference is that now neither side has a fascist dictator on their side who would occasionally slaughter a few hundred thousand people or drain swamps and what not.

The killing that is now going on in Iraq is at a scale far far greater than it ever was in the period of Saddam. We do recognise that Saddam's reign at times was a thug state: however,he did not encourage private sectarian killing. No Death Squads were operating from governmenty minitries. Torture was used, but Abu Gaharaib puts everythiong else to shame. The Iraqi on the street now fels that life was better under Saddam than under the American yoke.

The killing that is now going on in Iraq is at a scale far far greater than it ever was in the period of Saddam.

In that case I am sure they will eventually find the mass graves of this new era. Perhaps several hundred thousand Shi'ites will die. Perhaps the "civil war" will kill as many millions as Saddam's wars. But so far you are lying.

I know you are lying, because you have said the same things before and were told that you are wrong. I can now only conclude that you lie on purpose. I only wonder why?

Is the belief that Americans are more evil than Muslims so important for you that you would lie for it?

No Death Squads were operating from governmenty minitries. Torture was used, but Abu Gaharaib puts everything else to shame.

No death squads? You must be talking about a different Saddam regime than I. And if you think that what happened in Abu Ghraib since the invasion was worse than what happened there before, you must have ignored quite many news reports.

The Iraqi on the street now fels that life was better under Saddam than under the American yoke.

Source?

The only thing that has kept Iraq as ONE country in the past was FORCE. From its beginning there were three groups that DID NOT get along and only by force did this country exist as a single country. It is likely that in the absence of another major FORCE to keep the three factions from fighting only a civil war can settle what sort of country or countries will be possible in this part of the world. The real danger is what impact such a civil war in Iraq will have on the surrounding countries in the region. Our policy may have enabled this civil war and the results may be MUCH worse then Saddam would have been to the region.

The only thing that has kept Iraq as ONE country in the past was FORCE. From its beginning there were three groups that DID NOT get along and only by force did this country exist as a single country. It is likely that in the absence of another major FORCE to keep the three factions from fighting only a civil war can settle what sort of country or countries will be possible in this part of the world. The real danger is what impact such a civil war in Iraq will have on the surrounding countries in the region. Our policy may have enabled this civil war and the results may be MUCH worse then Saddam would have been to the region.

Who ever said that the road to a better Iraq would be easy? You ask what impact a civil war might have, I don't even know why you ask since you already answered the question. As far as your concerned there is no doubt that there will only be bad consiquences.

You must really hate Arab people almost as much as Bush don't you Col. You wouldn't trust an Arab if he/she saved your life. You have no hope for the Middle East, yet you expect us to just sit and let them do as they please as if it didn't affect us in any way. You don't even know what you want Col, you are out of date, your mentallity is that of a clueless person.

The killing that is now going on in Iraq is at a scale far far greater than it ever was in the period of Saddam. We do recognise that Saddam's reign at times was a thug state: however,he did not encourage private sectarian killing. No Death Squads were operating from governmenty minitries. Torture was used, but Abu Gaharaib puts everythiong else to shame. The Iraqi on the street now fels that life was better under Saddam than under the American yoke.

Saddams regime was not a thug state at time, it was at all times. Saddam had no respect for life, he controlled his people with force and gave those of his culture more power than the rest and let the rest suffer at their hands. Time and time again it was proven the crimes commited by Saddam and his Gov't towards the Iraqi people and somehow you managed to forget all about it.

It is sad to see someone acting as if they are speaking in the best interest of the Iraqi people yet they easily forget what the Iraqi people suffered before the US invasion. I could only believe that those who say that they werer better off with Saddam were those who benefitted from him, obviously. But I will not believe till I see hear it from the horses mouth that the majority of the Iraqi people would rather have Saddam back. Even you don't believe that and it's a shame that you would come with such a story like that. It is a shame that anyone would defend Saddam in any way.

This is a disgusting article. Shame on you Bahu Virupaksha, it is one thing to believe something is wrong, but it is another to defend someone like Saddam just because you think things are not as good as they should be. Good things come to those who wait, rushing will only get you to death faster.

People need to understand that Shi'i and Sunni are POLITICAL divisions in Islam, dating back to the early caliphate and the protested appointment of Ali as caliph.
The Prophet Mohhammed made no deliniation of Muslim faith, and in fact, the sectarian divide was seen as heresy in early Middle Eastern History.
That these divisions are accepted is aposty to the message originally delivered by the Prophet.

It is an oversimplification to state that Islam is a fatalistic religion, but one can shortcut to a rationalization that the fatalist tendency to associate all things to "The will of Allah", can lay the groundwork for civil war, brutal dictatorship, or perhaps, just maybe...
enlightened leaders can take the opportunity to unite against fundamentalist instigators, and bring forth a unified and cooperative government....

This has succeeded in Turkey, complete with strife, and is on the verge of happening once again in Lebanon, now that Syrian influence has been mitigated...Iraq has many examples in their region to look to, so long as they recognize that the spark of their civil war is a product of outsiders.

These agitators are easily identified; Iranian backed Shi'i militias with retribution and power as motivators, Out of power Sunni's afraid of those Shi'i, Fundamentalist bent on causing American failure in the region irrespective of the cost to Iraqis, and organized criminals motivated by profit in chaos.....

As the elected general assembly come together to form a unified government ( and they will, what other choice do they have?) these other groups will wax, wane, and eventually die off ( literally or figuratively, it's their choice)and warts and all, the world will have a free and democratic Iraq.

The killing that is now going on in Iraq is at a scale far far greater than it ever was in the period of Saddam.

---Bahu

Man, where do you come up with this crap?
Saddam was a homicidal maniac who killed hundreds of thousands of completely innocent people over the years. At the present rate, there would have to be fighting going on for decades to reach those numbers. And that would be among COMBATANTS.
And, of course, the innocent people killed by their fellow Muslims----the insurgents, working hard to liberate them from burgeoning liberty.

The only unfolding tragedy connected with the present Iraq situation is that people like you keep trying your damndest to make the worst of a steadily improving situation.

You've finally reached the point where only one response makes any sense, Bahu:

This article is nothing but a load of shi'it.

Saddam was a homicidal maniac who killed hundreds of thousands of completely innocent people over the years. At the present rate, there would have to be fighting going on for decades to reach those numbers. And that would be among COMBATANTS.

Even in his trial that is currently going on the Quisling regime has charges Saddam with exactly 146 deaths. A far cry from the minnions that some claim to have died. If Saddam is held accountable for the civillian deaths in Iraq duering his regime then by the same logic Bush and his Bushmen can be held accountable for war crime in Iraq. The war crimes charge against Bush and Blair is just a matter of time.

To pine for the good old days of Saddam is of course ridiculous--his reign of terror has few equals. The argument today is that it appears we are not able to eliminate the killing field as the invasion was supposed to do and that perhaps a new strategy should be called up.

as the invasion was supposed to do and that perhaps a new strategy should be called up.

This is as far as you can go today. However I believe that the Us strategy was completely flawed and Bush underestimated the Iraqi Resistance and the Syunni backlash.

Even in his trial that is currently going on the Quisling regime has charges Saddam with exactly 146 deaths.

That's because the first charge is about one village, you idiot.

A far cry from the minnions that some claim to have died.

So where do these bodies come from?

http://www.massgraves.info

If Saddam is held accountable for the civillian deaths in Iraq duering his regime then by the same logic Bush and his Bushmen can be held accountable for war crime in Iraq.

Yes, I can see the logic. Bush should be helt accountable for war crime in Iraq because Saddam killed a few million people. Makes as much sense as the rest of your ideas.

When factions in a country have basic differences, civil war is often the result. Look at our country in 1863. What our invasion has done is unleashed the force that was preventing these factions from moving into all out conflict Thus the bottom line of the Bush policy may be that we committed the lives of 3,000 brave Americans, injured more then 35,000 more AND SPENT AS MUCH AS A trillion DOLLARS to facilitate a civil war in Iraq. HOW WOULD THAT MAKE America SAFER?

When factions in a country have basic differences, civil war is often the result. Look at our country in 1863. What our invasion has done is unleashed the force that was preventing these factions from moving into all out conflict Thus the bottom line of the Bush policy may be that we committed the lives of 3,000 brave Americans, injured more then 35,000 more AND SPENT AS MUCH AS A trillion DOLLARS to facilitate a civil war in Iraq. HOW WOULD THAT MAKE America SAFER?

God, your like a broken record and a broken mic all in one. Civil war could have happened anyways, what did you think these factions would have styayed this way for ever? Didn't it ever occure to you that Saddam might have died someday and that some of this would have happened anyways?

How are we safer? I don't know about you but i feel better knowing these bastards are over there and not over here. But I don't give to sh_ts if you don't feel safe, that's your problem. Some people use locks on doors, others use bolts, and others put chains and alarm systems, everyone has thier own idea of what safe is, doesn't mean that only one of them is right.

Now I know who you remind me of, my younger son (2 years old, ouch that is a horrible thing to say). Al he does is repeat himself no matter how many times we say no or not now. But what can I expect from a 2 year old mentality?

Even in his trial that is currently going on the Quisling regime has charges Saddam with exactly 146 deaths.

----Bahu

"Quisling" +LOL+ I haven't heard that term in years.
From the name "Vidkun Quisling"----The traitorous Norwegian leader who willingly helped the Nazis take over his country.
Keep peppering your replies with obscure words like this, Bahu. It makes them look intelligent, even if they're not.