U mean under British Rule.....Freddy

Funny, but that is the first thing I think when I read your posts.

Reading Move-on.org does not lead one to the land of independent thinking...rather it leads to LaLa land.

Correct Tubs

Well than U agree with me then huh Fintstone

Somewhat. There is a much greater level of freedom under liberal British rule than strict islamic rule. The British granted Iraq independence in 1932. Progress was made off-and-on throughout the'30s. 40's and '50s...with influence by the Brits and other westerners.

The same could be said of Iran as well, even Afgan was a progressive place before the Soviets....that usually was the mark of British Rule...

...and why then, did they go backwards? See, there has to be a reason for that - something we should have studied in lieu of, as is the case with Iraq, what we did there.

Can you point me to a news story or other source? As I said, i hadn't heard this one.

How's the air on that planet?

"Terrorists" killed Iraqi citizens? What percentage of the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi citizens were killed by terrorists?

U.S. ordinance killed the vast majority of Iraqi citizen dead. Ordinary criminals killed hundreds of others in the complete vacuum of authority following the war. Iraq was not a country with "terrorists" until we removed the government.

Did the "terrorists" also imprizon 11,000 men women and children after the invasion? Only if U.S. forces are your "terrorists."

[QUOTE]Originally posted by techweenie
[B]How's the air on that planet?

"Terrorists" killed Iraqi citizens? What percentage of the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi citizens were killed by terrorists?

"Iraq was not a country with "terrorists" until we removed the government."

Good Sir, I would recommend that you read up your history of the baathist party in general and the regime of Saddam Hussein in particular.

A thugocracy built on violence and sustained with terror.

Just so everyone knows where GW stands...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/18/bush.iraq/index.html

Yawn...(this is too easy).....The British Left!

Guess he got my memo.

I'm sorry..I thought that was a rhetorical question.

If you are talking about noncombatant Iraqi citizens that were not terrorists....I would expect a very large majority of them were killed by terrorists..

Guess that would make the state of California a terrorist state also. How many men, women, and children imprisoned there?

Terrorist bombs killed over 20 civilians today alone...a typical day at the office for the terrorists.

Some days as many as 40 or 60 men, women and children are blown to pieces. That doesn't even count all the folks they have murdered in private. @20+ per day = @140 per week=...Doesn't take long to reach the 10k you report. Meanwhile they are holding many civilian hostages (including female aid workers) from many countries including the US...and promise to behead them soon as they tire of the torture....

If they are this willing to kill their own women and children...what makes you think they intend to spare your's?

That is what is happening on my planet...how is the air on your planet?

The British "left' (as in 'exited') because they understood they were losing.

Funny, isn't it, how history tends to repeat itself?

And how much of this would be happening right now if junior hadn't played right into Osama's hands, invading Middle East countries at random? OK, not random. Apparently Saddam tried to have junior's Dad whacked once. Every last one of those dead people would be eating breakfast right now, that is why smart leaders don't enter wars/invade countries w/o all of the facts straight.

You may now return to pufter land. :cool:

Thinking about Quackers on the Can
 

Oh U simple minded Quacker....The Brits left because they were broke...fighting 2 WW's dun em in....

Huessin was the monarch of Iraq (put in place by the Brits) and was assinated opening the way for the Bathists to eventually take power. For the most part Arabs don't acknowledge the nation state they are still tribesman.

What the West/US faces in the ME and Central Asia are peoples whose social and cultural structures are still stuck in the 14th century (thats a polite way of saying backwards).

The religion in and of itself is neutral, however it is the pulpet of the reactionary forces in their society that rejects the changes that the West brings to the table. So the population sees what the West has and yearns for it, yet with their social and governmental structures they can't achieve it (modernization, industrialization, secularism). Therfore they as a people feel left behind in an ever changing world. It is Ironic that the educated feel fustrated with the course of events and are the ones to take action (Mohamed Atta for example, Al Zawari #2 Al Oaeda is an MD) having a utopian ideal of an Islamic state.