US Attack on Iraq: Just Do It!

``US Attack on Iraq: Just Do It!``

Shouldn`t the people of Iraq be asked whether they want to be attacked? I am not quite sure why everyone else feels they have a right to decide the fate of the Iraqis. Maybe, they hate the USA even more than they hate Saddam.

If someone was to attack the author`s house to, ``liberate`` him, wouldn`t he want to be consulted first? If someone decides tomorrow to attack Pakistan to, ``liberate`` it, shouldn`t the Pakistanis be asked first, whether they want to be, ``liberated``?

Every single country in the Middle East that has been attacked, either militarily or politically has had a few things in common:

- The attackers always suggest they are doing it for the benefit of the people of that country
- The country is completely devasted for ages after the interventions

A few examples come to mind:

1) Afghanistan was invaded by USSR to, ``benefit`` the Afghanis. The USA then attacked it to, ``liberate`` the Afghanis. In the process, Afghanistan was destroyed completely.

The USA attacked Afghanistan again recently to democratize it. I am waiting to see how that goes......

2) Iran`s govt. was toppled by the USA and Britain, in favor of the Shah, to, ``assist`` Iran. We know what happened there. Now, Iran may get invaded again due to, ``axis of evil`` reasons to, ``free`` the Iranis from mullahs. Same thing will happen again.

Had the USA not brought in the Shah to begin with, Iran would be much better off today.

3) Palestine and South Asia were colonized, at various times, by the British to, ``civilize`` the natives. In the process, huge famines occured in South Asia. It was used to pump up the British economy. The British eventually left, leaving both regions in a perpetual state of war.

The Palestinians and South Asians remain as uncivilized as they ever were. Infact, they ranked far higher, ratio-wise, on the world`s civilization index when the British invaded, then when the left.

4) Kuwait was supposed to be, ``liberated`` and democratized, by the previous Gulf War. It was liberated, but I am still waiting for it to be democratized.

The way to, ``democratize`` or, ``civilize,`` or ``liberate`` a country is not by attacking and bombing it, and killing its peoples. Nor is it by conquering it and making it a part of one`s empire. Such phrases are only a smokescreen for achieving other purposes. Why in the world, would all of a sudden, the USA be worried about, ``liberating`` the Iraqis? Why such a heartfelt desire to help out Iraqis now? And why is that the USA only wants to, ``liberate`` countries that are in someway related to oil? How many Americans even knew where these countries were on the map, before they appear on CNN?

The only justification for any country to attack Iraq is if the people of Iraq want them to. And to the best of my knowledge, they do not want to be attacked. What they do want is for the USA to remove the sanctions against them, so they can eat.

Anyone supporting an Iraq is doing nothing more than supporting the killing of innocent people. It is truly a terrorist mentality. And just goes to show that terrorists can be religious and secular. Every terrorist, deep down in his heart, think he is doing something good. Then he goes around trying to convince the rest of the world of that. And when the rest of the world isn`t convinced, he/she states:

``Attack: Just Do it``

OBLs battle cry and Bushs` battle cry seem to have an eerie similarity. As do the supporters of both of them, in their war-mongering.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Maz:

“Globalization is the basis for all social and economic progress, isolation results into poverty, anarchy and terrorism.”

---globalization is the avatar of colonialism and the world is aware of unfttered colonialism

“ A war in Iraq would almost guarantee a long term US and global commitment to Iraq and would become a channel for change for the neighboring countries.”

---this unbridled power display will certainly cause change…though am afraid it will not be a good change…and our world may become even more unsafe place then it already is…

…have no doubt the US (current admin.) will abandon reason and caution and ‘do it’…also have no doubts that when the times comes the US (civilians ) will have to pay it back too…

…t

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

``Opposition leaders inside Iraq believe Washington has crafted a military plan to placate Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt, whose leaders are known to fear the idea of a new federal democracy in Iraq. All Sunni-majority states, they likely want to see the existing power structure in Iraq left in place, allowing Sunni Muslims to exert control over a country that is an estimated 65-per-cent Shiite.``

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0212-10.htm

Looks like a `shiite-comeback` ain`t gonna happen...so much for the spirit of Jamhooriyat!

A war in Iraq would almost guarantee a long term US and global commitment to Iraq
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
sorry, can`t buy it...look at what they did in Afghanistan.
Can you tell me where are those 30+ billion dollars pledged for Afghanistan`s reconstruction?
and why is it that Karzai`s jurisdiction ends outside Kabul?
and why is it that Afghanistan produces more opium than before? that doesn`t sound like signs of prosperity...

The only (possible) upside of the upcoming war is that Shiites of iraq might find some degree of autonomy (the kurds already have some, although they are regularly mauled by the US ally Turkey)..I hope that might also lead to the return of Al-Hakim family, represented by Ayatollah Baqir Al Hakim, that has already sacrificed 70 of its members in their quest for justice against the Takriti ifrit...

re#1: thanks, it has been fixed.

There is a duplication in this article. Regardless of this weakness, I would like to say the following:

1. It is increasingly noticible that the US Troika (i.e. US Gov - establishment and media) is trying to give face to a new found enemy - Muslims. The WOT had started on the right footings - elimination of Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan. It seems that the WOT has been converted into a War on Muslims by vested interests. I am not saying that elimination of Saddam would be anti-Muslim, but the way the US Torika is conducting its affairs in general gives credence to that belief.

2. Those Indians who are so pridefully quoting Mr. Blackwill and Ms. Powell on anti-Pakistani stance should ask themselves one simple question. Why should we believe such statements coming out the reps of US administration, when the same administration is not being believed by almost the entire world (including India) for a single word on its stance on Iraq? When the US administration is being questioned on the validity of its claims on Iraq, why shouldn`t we question it on the validity of its claims on cross-border infilteration?

there is something wrong with this article in that paragraphs repeat themselves...it needs to be fixed.