can’t see the forest

Petition: Why We Stand for Immediate Withdrawal of All US Troops from Iraq

Please go [ here ] to sign the following petition:

Why We Stand for Immediate Withdrawal of All US Troops from Iraq

THE U.S. occupation of Iraq has not liberated the Iraqi people, but has made life worse for most Iraqis.

Tens of thousands of U.S. service people have been killed or maimed, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have lost their lives as a result of the U.S. invasion in 2003, the ongoing occupation, and the violence unleashed by them.

Iraq’s infrastructure has been destroyed, and U.S. plans for reconstruction abandoned. There is less electricity, less clean drinking water, and more unemployment today than before the U.S. invasion.

All of the justifications initially provided by the U.S. for waging war on Iraq have been exposed as lies; the real reasons for the invasion — to control Iraq’s oil reserves and to increase U.S. strategic influence in the region — now stand revealed.

The Bush administration has insisted again and again that stability, democracy, and prosperity are around the next bend in the road. But with each day that the U.S. stays, the violence and lack of security facing Iraqis worsen. The U.S. says that it cannot withdraw its military because Iraq will collapse into civil war if it does. But the U.S. has deliberately stoked sectarian divisions in its ongoing attempt to install a U.S.-friendly regime, thus driving Iraq towards civil war.

The November elections in the United States sent a clear message that voters reject the Iraq war, and opinion polls show that seven in 10 Iraqis want the U.S. to leave sooner rather than later. Even most U.S. military and political leaders agree that staying the course in Iraq is a policy that is bound to fail.

Yet all the various alternative plans for Iraq now being discussed in Washington, including those proposed by House and Senate Democrats, aren’t about withdrawing the U.S. military from Iraq. Rather, these strategies are about continuing the pursuit of U.S. goals in Iraq and the larger Middle East using different means.
Even the proposal to redeploy U.S. troops outside of Iraq, a plan favored by many Democratic Party leaders, envisions continued U.S. intervention inside Iraq.

With former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger insisting that a military victory in Iraq is no longer possible and (Ret.) Lt. Gen. William Odom calling for “complete withdrawal” of all U.S. troops, the antiwar movement should demand no less than the immediate withdrawal of the U.S. military — as well as reparations to the Iraqi people, so they can rebuild their own society and genuinely determine their own future.

We call on the U.S. to get out of Iraq — not in six months, not in a year, but now.

ALI ABUNIMAH

GILBERT ACHCAR

MICHAEL ALBERT

TARIQ ALI

ANTHONY ARNOVE

NOAM CHOMSKY

KELLY DOUGHERTY

EVE ENSLER

EDUARDO GALEANO

RASHID KHALIDI

CAMILO MEJÍA

ARUNDHATI ROY

CINDY SHEEHAN

HOWARD ZINN


Advertisements

14 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. awmyth said, on 1/8/07 at 4:16 am

    The world stood by when Bush led US forces invaded a soveriegn Iraq. There was active support from Blair. UN was as usual just a voice.

    The real motives for starting the war was clear to everyone. Only those of subnormal intellegence believed that it would make the world a better place. To feel good by proxy.

    Only the stupid or the naives sincerely believed in the justness of the cause and the possibilities of a victory.

    We all accept that Mr Hussain had committed atrocious crimes. We never gave it a thought that probably that was the only way he could keep his country together. To prevent fighting amongst different factions with the country. Prevent civil wars.

    Now the occupying forces are having to do exactly the same. They have to ‘kill’ civilians, the insurgents and the innocents, to maintain the unity and law and order of the country, or whatever is left of it. Isn’t that ironic.

    The US congress authorised the invasion; it was passed by the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. Majority of Americans were in favour of the war.

    Now that all their plans have gone wrong, they do not want anymore american lives to be lost. Suddenly we hear talks of exit strategies, getting their boys out.

    Do the Americans at all care about the increase in loss of civilian lives that will inevitably follow a withdrawl? To deny that possibility is as naive as the stupid naivity that led to the invasion.

    The Americans have gone in and destroyed a country. It is their responsibility to get it back to normal, it is their responsibility to find the way to do so…deliver the ‘promise’ they had made to the Iraqi civilians.

    To ask them now to withdraw is making their escape strategy easier. Letting the Americans escape before they have completed the task they said they would, will create a precedence for any country in future to indulge in similar wars on dishonst policies.

    If we are all being asked to support this petition, (asking for withdrawl of troops) because the reasons for the necessity for going to war as given by the US president were lies, we should also be petetioning for a trial of Mr Bush and Blair for war crimes.

    There should be a clear message to all future heads of states that such unilateral actions against sovreign will never go unpunished.

    I would support a withdrawl only when I know that there are concrete plans in place to improve the lives of the ordinary innocent Iraqi civilians.

    As things now stands, I say NO to this petition.

  2. Curtis said, on 1/8/07 at 5:00 am

    Thank you for your comment, and best of luck to you in the blogosphere!

    I can agree that, particularly from the standpoint of those outside of the US and outside of Iraq, there is something which seems hypocritical about the clamor for US withdrawal from a mess that is decidedly US-made. You screwed it up, now you fix it. I understand that concept.

    That being said, it is important to realize that the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq is not crucial because of a perceived need to the service of US interests. It is in the best interests of the Iraqi people and their sovereignty that the US evacuate the premises expediently. As a US citizen, I naturally harbor great concern for the welfare of US servicepeople; but the principal interest I have in this scenario is for the people of Iraq, whose deaths resulting from the occupation outnumber those of US servicepeople by a factor of more than 100, according to most estimates.

    Occupying armies have no rights and no responsibilities beyond the desires of the occupied peoples. At least seven out of ten Iraqis want US forces out of their country as soon as possible. The (previously US-backed) tyrant Hussein is now dead and the foundations of a national government are in place in Baghdad. When US forces leave the country, there will be scores to settle. The situation may worsen before it improves. The US government can help to mitigate these circumstances by providing appropriately massive financial reparations and by allowing a truly international and multilateral peacekeeping force to assist the young Iraqi government in securing a tenable future.

    In my opinion, the subtle fallacy behind your argument is the implicit idea that US officials have any intention of “fixing” the situation in Iraq, if by “fixing” we mean establishing unity and order in the country. You have recognized that the stated goals behind the invasion were not the real goals, and I salute you for that; but I think it is a propos to take the logic one step further and thereby realize that the Iraqi government cannot create or maintain sovereignty as long as there is a hostile foreign military presence dominating the country. When the majority of Iraqis want US forces out of their territory, there is no way that a continued presence of the undesired entity can work to bring peace, particularly when the leadership of that entity does not desire peace. I agree that it is not wholly just to withdraw US troops from a quagmire that has been created by their presence. But I fundamentally disagree with your position. The wound will not heal if the stinger is left in place. In a perfect world, the US leadership would suddenly show a great deal of concern for Iraqis and would turn the military occupation of Iraq from a destructive force into a constructive force. Based on what you wrote above, however, I think we both know that is not going to happen. Therefore, withdrawal of US presence from Iraq is, by far, the lesser of two evils in this excruciating dilemma of a humanitarian crisis.

    Thanks again for your thoughtful words.

  3. awmyth said, on 1/8/07 at 7:36 am

    Thanks.

    Either you have misunderstood my stance, or you deliberately do not want to recognise the truth.

    This is not just a simple situation as you are describe, of ‘you screwed it up, now you fix it’. It is a situation of an unprovoked war, without UN mandate and the near destruction of a sovereign state. It has brought a massive shift in the world order as we knew.

    You are an US citizen, majority of the people of your country backed the invasion. Now your country has to take the full responsibility of the misery you have created but are unable to rectify.

    You have agreed that the ‘stated reasons’ for the invasion were not the ‘real reason’. That in fact is saying that your president lied and drummed up a war which was not there. A war that has led to the death of thousands.

    First you tell me, is that not a crime? It is.

    So who takes the responsibility for that crime, who will stand trial, who will hang as an example, so that no other ‘tyrant’ ever has the arrogance to commit the same offense again?

    You say:
    “It is in the best interests of the Iraqi people and their sovereignty that the US evacuate the premises expediently.”

    Where was the best interests of Iraqi people and respect for their sovereignty when your troops went in.

    You say:
    “Occupying armies have no rights and no responsibilities beyond the desires of the occupied peoples. At least seven out of ten Iraqis want US forces out of their country as soon as possible.

    When the majority of Iraqis want US forces out of their territory, there is no way that a continued presence of the undesired entity can work to bring peace, particularly when the leadership of that entity does not desire peace.”

    You admit the US Army as an occupying force. The same 7 out of ten Iraqis did not want you in their country in the first place.
    How did your Army ‘invade’ and ‘occupy’ and killed soldiers and civilians of a sovereign state; who had not declared war on you or any other state. Regardless how ‘evil’ or how big a tyrant Mr Hussain was, Mr Bush and Blairs’ actions are crimes no worse than Mr Hussain’s.

    You say:
    “The situation may worsen before it improves”.

    What if it does not. There is a distinct possibility. You do not care, as by that time your soldiers will be safely out of there.

    You say:
    “The US government can help to mitigate these circumstances by providing appropriately massive financial reparations and by allowing a truly international and multilateral peacekeeping force to assist the young Iraqi government in securing a tenable future.”

    You don’t get it do you? You really think ‘massive financial’ reparation is the answer? Or is that typical yankee arrogance that you can throw money to get anything and everything you want.

    Where will you get truly international and multilateral peace keeping force? Your president has been round the world begging, nobody wants to get involved in the hell he has created.

    What you are saying here, will never ever happen. Do you really think the world will trust your country ever again and believe such empty words?

    You say:
    “Therefore, withdrawal of US presence from Iraq is, by far, the lesser of two evils in this excruciating dilemma of a humanitarian crisis.”

    It maybe the lesser of the two evils from yours and probably your fellow citizens’ perspective. You will get what you want out of this. Your troops back home.

    What if it is the greater of two evils for the Iraqi civilians, the people who really matters? What if it pushes the country into anarchy from which it never recovers? Into a scenario far worse than Mr Hussein’s regime? It is far more likely that is what will happen.

    You say:
    “That being said, it is important to realize that the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq is not crucial because of a perceived need to the service of US interests”.

    No? That is the only thing this is all about. Your country went in to ‘shock and awe’ the world with your military power. Did not happen, the victory never came, will never come. You are now trying to flee from the hell you have created but do not want the world to see where you hide your tail as you run.

    Any excuses you make on grounds of humanitarian reasons stinks of dishonesty and hypocrisy. The list of prominent people in agreement with you, that you have published, I lose any respect I may have had for them.

    You may brush your hand off the matter and lay all the blame on the Congress and the President. You cannot escape so easily. You are proud of your ‘democracy’, what you have tried to enforce in Iraq.

    Democracy is of, by and for the people, remember? Any crime your president commits is in your name.

    Justice? Americans always believed they can ‘buy’ justice. Will not happen in this case. For the crimes your country has committed, you are paying back with the sacrifice of lives of your sons and daughters.

  4. peoplesgeography said, on 1/8/07 at 11:01 am

    Curt, terrific post and worthy effort. I have signed this important petition. I agree that a withdrawal of the occupying coalition forces, whose presence is in large part fuelling the violence, is the best possible first step. The same argument was pitched with the British early last century in Iraq: how people forget this is the cradle of civilization and Iraqis are more than capable of governing themselves! I do agree however that reparations and contributions of both medical and military US personnel to peacekeeping and NGOs ought to be instituted to heal the wound and the damage this BushCo maladministration has created.

    Awmyth, if I may, I would suggest a number of things. First, it is important to direct any legitimate comments you wish to make at the problem; this is not a platform for the throwing of unwarranted personal insults at the weblog owner whose thoughtful comments you apparently misunderstood.

    Second, your stance is one possible point of view, it is not the only or the correct one. Your case is more compelling if you make good supporting points devoid of personal derision.

    Third, we are all in some respects subjects of Empire, whether as wage-slaves in the US or India, and there are privileged wealthy Indians as much as there are privileged wealthy Americans. Your rhetorical and repetitive comments would appear to attempt to lay blame specifically at Curt’s feet.

    Please, endeavour to see the people and their government as two separate, albeit interrelated entities. Am I going to blame you personally for all your government’s ills?

    If a majority of Americans apparently supported the war to start off with – at least as claimed by the mainstream corporate media to maintain the appearance of consensus reality – that situation is not the case now (if it ever was) and it also ignores the very significant and vocal and active US peace movement who have been working hard to change opinions.

    Does that mean that it ending the war might be pitched by appealing to the numbers of US rather than Iraqi deaths? Yes, probably, but the latter does count too. That US deaths will carry more emotional weight in America is not surprising. It would be the same case in any country. To suggest that Americans are not at all other-regarding or caring is wholly unwarranted and unsupported.

    Curt’s own personal concern is in clear and abundant evidence in these pages, if you’d care to look. His thoughtful and nuanced writing is admired and greatly appreciated by his American and non-American audience alike.

    And, though it shouldn’t matter, for the record, I am not an American. I was practically raised by Arab men, in fact, and my grandfather worked for the Iraqi Petroleum Company (IPC). My father was born in an oil refinery of the IPC. My whole life and family history has been steeped in the travails of the Middle East and the west’s military misadventures there. Please endeavour to recover your compassion and try not to tar a whole nationality by the same brush so unfairly. I’m one of the most critical people of western culture you can encounter and its often vacuous celebrity-crazed dumbed down popular culture, but casting blame so misguidedly doesn’t help.

  5. awmyth said, on 1/8/07 at 12:21 pm

    @ peoplesgeography

    In the 21st century, a country because of its wealth and military power, thought and decided to ignore the concerns of the world at large and invaded another sovereign country for selfish reasons.

    That is the fact here. It is a crime. No matter which way one looks at it.

    Comparing the British presence in Iraq a more than 50 years ago is laughable. The world has changed since then in case you have not noticed.

    Say you, whatever relieves your conscience, you cannot change the truth.

    The only people who will support that petition are the escapists. And those with some form of vested interest, political and or financial. The hypocrites.

    Every where the Americans have interfered, they have created a mess for others to suffer. Then they expect other countries to come and sort out the mess.

    The more I read of arguments like that you have presented, the more I am convinced that they are getting what they deserve. There is nothing the world can do about it.

    How I feel about this issue and how I argue my case with the original writer should not be your concern. Your advocacy on his behalf was unnecessary.

    Neither does your and your family links with Arabs and middle east of any relevance here.

  6. peoplesgeography said, on 1/8/07 at 3:48 pm

    Curt, as I write I am so enjoying the sounds of Texas Flood emanating from the speakers. Oh! that’s some fine blues. I know you’ll understand I wasn’t referring to all popular culture in the last comment ;) Your perception and generosity are always appreciated.

    I’ll be forwarding the petition; I was hoping to trackback or pingback (is there a difference?) — do your posts allow trackback URLs? If not I’ll simply use the ordinary URL.

    cheers

  7. zilla said, on 1/8/07 at 8:53 pm

    fwd-ing links to this post and to the petition to those I know will be interested. As usual, well done, Curtis

  8. little indian said, on 1/9/07 at 10:31 am

    @ peoplesgeography:

    Hi,

    I thought I would check your page after your comment (as above) on what I wrote (as awmyth) in reply to the petition put forward by curtis.

    May I just say, you chose to reply on his behalf and criticised the way I have reacted to the petition and the reasoning behind it.

    On your blogs page (http://peoplesgeography.com/about/) you say in your introduction :

    “…to the project of promoting contemporary radical geography, a rich tradition of dissent and positing alternatives,…

    …we must know what exactly are the disabling and disempowering currents out there eroding democracy and freedom…

    …This site is a noticeboard, a repository, a safe-space to air thoughts and to emote, a part of cyberspace that shall be forever radical …(read = aims for justice).”

    ??

    dissent and positing alternatives?
    we must know what exactly…?
    radical?
    aim for justice?

    Strangely, what you wrote here in your criticism, is in direct
    contradiction to your claims on your blogspage. Nothing, absolutely nothing you claim there, comes across in this message.

    “contemporary radical geography” cannot be dissected away from the realities of “contemporary history”; and having the courage to accept and admit to the truth, however unpleasant and unpalatable that may be.

    Without the truth every claim, every ‘blog’ degenerates into just empty words. By God, we have more than enough of that in our lives.

    Empty words and hypocrisy.

  9. Curtis said, on 1/9/07 at 4:22 pm

    Ad hominem attacks appear to be your specialty, L.I. That, and dictating to me the logic behind my own reasoning in direct contradiction of the reasoning I have given, as if you know my mind better than I. Both are hallmarks of empty argument. I am glad to discuss issues, and I am only too happy to agree to disagree, if this is not possible; but if this sort of polemic is the whole of what you wish to bring to blogging, then you will need more than good-natured wishes of luck. The only “empty words and hypocrisy” I find in this comment thread are, in fact, your own. That being said, you are always welcome to comment here.
    Also, PG is free to comment here whenever and however she chooses. It is not your place to decide the propriety of her responses or of anyone else’s here, outside of constructive argumentation of the ideas and materials presented, and I am sure we all would extend the same respect to you at your page (if there are any further posts there.)

    It appears to me that your hatred of America and Americans, while perhaps not wholly unjustified, is clouding your judgment in this matter. Whether or not the majority of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq at its outset is no longer relevant; I do not recall a referendum on the matter, nor was it an issue at the pertinent Presidential or Congressional ballots. Perhaps you still mistakenly believe that the United States of America is the gleaming bastion of democracy exposited in schoolbooks. Those of us who live here know different, and, indeed, we ought to do better. If you have any suggestions to that end I would be only too happy to entertain them.

  10. Curtis said, on 1/9/07 at 4:45 pm

    PG, just as country singer Alan Jackson does not know the difference between Iraq and Iran (’cause he’s just a simple country man), so I do not know the difference between trackbacks and pingbacks. But I have seen them on here before, so I am guessing that the answer to your question is “yes.” :-)

    Awfully glad you enjoyed the music. SRV was one of a kind.

  11. little indian said, on 1/9/07 at 5:49 pm

    There is no such thing as your page or my page it is a bloggers community. As far I understand we have been given the opportunity by WordPress to exercise our rights to freedom of expression.

    It is obvious that you and ‘pg’ know each other, and so are trying to defend each other. It also appears you are some kind of a guru, and probably forgotten what it means to have your writings questioned or challenged.

    The message for PG is in relation to what she wrote here. I did reply on her page first, but she chose not to publish.
    ________________________________________________________________

    You have asked your readers, on the www. to sign a petition based on what YOU think is appropriate in Iraq.

    You are in denial that there are people outside of America, who might think differently. I, as one in that group have every right to question you. And because you have requested the public to respond to your call, you have a moral obligation to justify your statements. If you can, that is.

    I asked you a few questions you avoided answering them. Let me ask them again.

    Q 1.
    You have agreed that the ’stated reasons’ for the invasion were not the ‘real reason’. That in fact is saying that your president lied and drummed up a war which was not there. A war that has led to the death of thousands.

    First you tell me, is that not a crime? It is. So who takes the responsibility for that crime, who will stand trial, who will hang as an example, so that no other ‘tyrant’ ever has the arrogance to commit the same offense again?

    Q2.
    You say:
    “It is in the best interests of the Iraqi people and their sovereignty that the US evacuate the premises expediently.”

    Where was the best interests of Iraqi people and respect for their sovereignty when without UN mandate your troops went in?

    Q3.
    You say:
    “Occupying armies have no rights and no responsibilities beyond the desires of the occupied peoples. At least seven out of ten Iraqis want US forces out of their country as soon as possible…

    …When the majority of Iraqis want US forces out of their territory, there is no way that a continued presence of the undesired entity can work to bring peace, particularly when the leadership of that entity does not desire peace.”

    “Undesired entity”… your words, not mine.

    You admit the US Army as an occupying force. The same 7 out of ten Iraqis did not want you in their country in the first place.

    What right did your Army have to ‘invade’ and ‘occupy’ and kill soldiers and civilians of a sovereign state; who had not declared war on you or any other state?

    Regardless how ‘evil’ or how big a tyrant Mr Hussain was, Mr Bush and Blairs’ actions are crimes no worse than Mr Hussain’s. What steps do you propose be taken against them?

    Q4.
    You say:
    “The situation may worsen before it improves”.

    What if it worsens and does not improve; but keeps on worsening?
    There is a distinct possibility. You do not care, do you? as by that time your soldiers will be safely out of there.

    Q5.
    You say:
    “The US government can help to mitigate these circumstances by providing appropriately massive financial reparations and by allowing a truly international and multilateral peacekeeping force to assist the young Iraqi government in securing a tenable future.”

    You really think ‘massive financial’ reparation is the answer? If that is the answer, why has it failed so far.

    And where will you get truly international and multilateral peace keeping force?

    Your President has been round the world begging, nobody wants to get involved in the hell he has created. In desperation there has been suggestions of asking Iran!! and Syria for help, will they solve the crises or make the sectarian violence worse?

    How would you expect these international peacekeepers to be able to keep peace? Handing out peace pipes? What if they have to ‘kill’ innocent civilians to do the job? Acceptable collateral damage, isn’t that what it is called? What if there are more atrocities like in Abu-Ghraib?

    Q6.
    You say:
    “Therefore, withdrawal of US presence from Iraq is, by far, the lesser of two evils in this excruciating dilemma of a humanitarian crisis.”

    What if it is the greater of two evils for the Iraqi civilians, the people who really matters? What if it pushes the country into anarchy from which it never recovers? Into a scenario far worse than Mr Hussein’s regime? It is far more likely that is what will happen.

    It maybe the lesser of the two evils from your perspective. You will get what you want out of this. Your troops back home.

    _________________________________________________________________
    Your friend too makes interesting comments in your defence and / or on your behalf.

    Q7.
    She said:
    “I do agree however that reparations and contributions of both medical and military US personnel to peacekeeping and NGOs ought to be instituted to heal the wound and the damage this BushCo maladministration has created”.

    Contribute US personnel for peacekeeping? The very “undesired entity” that the Iraqi people now wants to get rid of? And is not the role of US Army now, as peacekeepers? Or are they still fighting a war?

    Q8.
    She also writes,
    “Does that mean that it ending the war might be pitched by appealing to the numbers of US rather than Iraqi deaths? Yes, probably, but the latter does count too. That US deaths will carry more emotional weight in America is not surprising. It would be the same case in any country. To suggest that Americans are not at all other-regarding or caring is wholly unwarranted and unsupported”.

    Ending the war, which war? I presume the war in which the American soldiers are getting killed.

    And is that really the end of war in Iraq? How stupid do you think your readers are? What is being suggested by you and your friends is to REPLACE THE PRESENT WAR WITH THE CIVIL WAR, which is already raging. Where Iraqis’ will be killing each other. Innocent Iraqi civilians will die in the cross-fire. Your troops will be safely home.

    I would have expected you to answer the questions I had asked before describing my reply as an empty argument. Let other readers decide whose arguments has any substance.

    You talk of my hatred for Americans are clouding my judgement.

    Try telling the same to the Iraqi civilians who wants you out. Tell them that they are mistaken, their judgement too is clouded in their hatred. That the USofA has sent in their Army to deliver them from evil and make their country a better place.

  12. Curtis said, on 1/9/07 at 8:14 pm

    Q1: There is no provision in the Constitution of the US of which I am aware which would allow the people of this country to ‘hang’ our President. Some are working to impeach him.

    Q2: That is precisely why I want the troops to leave, because their presence clearly does not serve the interests of Iraqis. The argument you are making, in philosophical language, is called begging the question or circular reasoning.

    Q3: See Q1.

    Q4: I already made it plain that my primary interest is not the welfare of US troops. The argument you are making, in philosophical language, is sometimes called a straw man. You are arguing against a point that I never exposited, and you are equating me and my opinions (despite my clear exposition of the contrary) with your own gross, misinformed generalization of the American people. Have you ever been to my country, to dinner at my table? Of course not. So you have no right to dictate my own opinions to me, such as my primary interest being for the welfare of the troops of my nationality rather than for the people of Iraq.

    Q5: If you truly believe that the continued presence of US troops in Iraq is better than any of these alternatives, then I have nothing further to offer on this point. I profoundly disagree with you and I suggest you read more on the topic.

    Q6: See Q4

    Q7: They are clearly still fighting a war, which is why they need to leave. I think your condescending conception of the Iraqi people as incoherent combatants unable to manage their own affairs shows your ignorance of Iraqi history. The idea that Iraq will descend further into a state of anarchy outside of the presence of the very entity that is creating the anarchy is self-immolating and self-reducing into absurdity. I am sure many Britons were fed such ideas when India gained her independence. “How will she ever manage herself without us?” they must have said in London.

    Q8: See Q4, yet again. This is getting tiresome.

    I still feel your arguments are largely vapid and reek much more of childlike anger than of sophisticated reasoning. Care to continue? I don’t. I have nothing more to say in regards to this post, thank you kindly.

  13. little indian said, on 1/10/07 at 5:24 am

    That is one point I will agree with you.
    It is tiresome trying get to the truth when clearly you are in denial of the truth.
    Neither do I want to ever cross your path again.

    Let the other readers decide for themselves:

    whose words are empty
    who is denying the truth
    whose reasoning are sophisticated
    who is conveniently hiding behind “philosophical reasoning”

    whether you or I am right in our knowledge and perception of the situation in Iraq, we shall soon find out as the events progresses.

    “As you sow, so shall you reap”. – there’s no escaping.

  14. little indian said, on 1/10/07 at 5:56 am

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

    Any readers who would like to make an informed judgment on this issue, I put up a link for your convenience.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: