skipper wrote:QuartzGooner wrote:skipper wrote:
Just to clarify something mentioned above, over 1 000 000 people who protested in 2003 on streets of London against war in Iraq were not 'fanatical organized group'...they were right!!!
So we should have let Saddam carry on ruling Iraq??????
The war and his death were not the problem, it was the underestimation of what needed to be done after the war.
Best thing would be to form a new country called Kurdistan and split that section of Iraq away from the rest.
Then transfer the Shi'ites to Iran, leaving Iraq as a Sunni country.
That 'procedure' is known as ethnic cleansing and the very idea is fascist to say the least...i'm surprised at yr logic considering yr background...
btw, follwoing yr logic regarding protests, why US/UK haven't invaded Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan, North Korea, China, Pakistan?
UFG...Obama, february 2009: "we should be carefull at exiting Iraq, as we were
careless entering it"
Transfer of Shi'ites to Iran makes a lot of sense to me.
Nothing fascist about it.
If they are there, in Iran, a largely Shi'ite country, then they will not be fighting a civil war in Iraq.
They would not be "booted out" of Iraq with no economic compensation, but Iraq appears to me to be a society and country split into three main groups who all war with each other.
Skipper said:
"btw, follwoing yr logic regarding protests, why US/UK haven't invaded Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan, North Korea, China, Pakistan? "
Well look at the fuss caused by fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan!
The Americans have fought in Somalia and Pakistan, so you are incorrect to mention those.
A force should have taken out Mugabe, but now there is a power sharing agreement with Tsangirai so things are moving on right track.
Sudan - definitely should be a proper UN force there.
North Korea - the nucleur bomb should be eradicated and the President assasinated.
China - I would say that a military invasion of China is a vast undertaking. But I would prefer a total ban on contact with them until they stop persecuting Tibet.
None of that absolves my original point, why didn't these Muslims protest against the massacres in Mumbai?
Or did they agree with them?