Do you remember the last day of school? How happy you were? When I see the celebration in the streets of the Iraqi people - the overflowing of joy known only to those who have been relentlessly oppressed - I feel their joy in my . I guess there are still some who believe that the US has done a bad thing. Guess there are still some who think President Bush is "morally bankrupt" and his administration is "the real evil on earth". I have trouble comprehending such twisted thinking. I would love to take credit for the following statement, but it comes from an article in the Phila Inquirer, by Jonah Goldberg:

The President has toppled two evil regimes on the premise that the stability of tyranny is less preferable than the instability that comes from giving democracy a chance.



Joyce

That "joy" the Iraqis are experiencing could not POSSIBLY match the "joy" the Cherokees Native Americans felt..............when being FORCIBLY marched to their brand new home in the west....

"Oh joy! New home for us! Aren't we lucky?" (no matter that there were many deaths along the way...what matters is that we have new start....human sacrifices are all part of the deal...plus it's for our own good...how do we know that? Because "the great white father" tell us so..) *sigh*

Luv,
Rainbow

And what about those Iraqis who are out in the streets protesting the American and British presence in their countries? We shouldn't be blindly oblivious to the fact that even in Iraq there are people with different viewpoints, but it seems that regarding events in Iraq, as well as here, the pro-war, pro-Bush folks prefer to go around wearing blinders.

No one here thinks that, Joyce. That is what you tell us we think.

I like your signature. Do you think perhaps we can also give democracy a chance in this country? Which means thinking for ourselves and speaking for ourselves.

Love, Connie

Happy Easter Joyce and everyone!

Easter time and spring had finally brought joy in millions of Iraqis' hearts.

Iraqis are liberated. They danced on the streets, shook hands with coalition soldiers, threw flowers on them and cheered....

I don't understand, Maria and Connie, why don't you watch TV programs more carefully, they showed so many new stories from Iraq, each of them clearly showing the happiness of Iraqis because of their newly discovered freedom.

I have many friends who were there as translaters and aid workers and they are telling me about the happiness mixed with many different and still unsolved problems, but still a pure happiness, tasting freedom finally.

This is the time of promise in Iraqi history.
Of course that people who lost relatives in this war, or are injured cannot celebrate , but the vast majority is celebrating...

I don't understand the constant criticism from some of you, you seem to enjoy every negative thing that can be attributed to American's administration?

Well, try to enjoy the positive side of this war if you can... if not, Happy Easter to all of you, whatever your thoughts and beliefs!

Peace and Light
El

Happy Easter to you, too, EL

The force (Iran, France, Syria, Saddam Hussein's followers or mullahs) behind Iraqi demonstrators know they can do it openly now that Saddam is gone. The mullahs (trained in the doctrine and law of Islam) are stirring up trouble in Baghdad. The mullahs definitely want a theocracy

I thought it was interesting seeing the Marines watching the demonstrators. Interesting, too, isn't it, that the demonstrators were able to freely protest and not have any fear of being shot by the military?

Can you imagine years of pent up frustration being released?

I, for one, did not take offense at seeing them demonstrate, I thought what a great liberty they now have.

There is an English woman from London, who is a millionaire and looks Iraqi, is dressing up as an Iraqi and going around pushing her fingers into the faces of Marines? She was one of the human shields that stayed over. Her name is Uzma Bashir and they call her Baghdad Betty. She initiates a lot of protests and the Marines have even given her rides to some of her destinations. Hmm, well, WWII had their Tokyo Rose.

Donna

El,

I'm quite certain, as I implied above, that there are some Iraqi people who are happy and cheering and throwing flowers as you stated, in fact, I have also seen those footages on TV. But I have also seen other footage that showed Iraqis carrying signs and protesting the presence of the U.S. in Iraq. There was altercation with soldiers shown on TV on yesterday's news. I look at both sides of the issues. Not just one side. And I don't just watch Fox News or just read News Max like most conservatives do.

We are not just being negative and critical as you suggested, El. We are looking at all the evidence and all the things shown on TV. We are dealing in realities. I would prefer to have nothing to criticize at all about my government.

There's two ways of looking at it. You see us as negative, I see you and Joyce as not looking at all sides of the issues but believing everything you are told by your government and the U.S. government without questioning.

I was just pointing out a reality, El. A reality that was on the evening news and in all the newspapers in the U.S. Perhaps a reality you chose to look away from and close your mind to. I don't know.

You don't understand us. I don't understand how you and Joyce can deny any evidence contrary to what your opinion is on the issues. You both only look at what you want to see and filter out the rest. Selective reasoning, selective outlook on life. I, and most folks here at CE, look at it all. Yes, there are some people in Iraq cheering, I agree with you about that, but not all the people in Iraq. Some are angry and want us out of their country. The Shiites and Sunni Muslims got together for the first time, to pray and protest the U.S. presence in Iraq. Did you not see that on the news in your country or in the newspapers? I would think that would be big news in Kuwait as well as in this country. Do you think that Iraqis are different than any other people in the world and you cannot believe that they don't all think alike? There are different opinions amongst the Iraqi people just like every other country in the world. Some of the people being held at Guantanamo Bay as being enemy combatants are Kuwaiti citizens. So apparently not everyone in Kuwait shares the same opinions as you and your friends. I think it's great that people have different opinions. God didn't make us all the same. He doesn't want us to all be the same and think alike. Some governments only want us all to think like them so they have total control over the people.

Please let us dissent if we choose to dissent. It is the American way of life, always has been. Our country was born on dissent, it's our right as citizens and voters and it is our right under the Constitution. I am happy that the Iraqi people have their freedom from tyranny. I have stated that many times. Since you and Joyce are also happy about their freedom, which includes their right to now dissent against the things they don't like in their government, then please allow us to be free to do the same in America. Anyone who is happy that the Iraqi people are free but want to prohibit dissent in America is a hypocrit. I'm happy that people in Iraq are cheering our soldiers and I am also happy that some of them feel free to dissent against the U.S. presence there. As you and Joyce should be as well if you both value freedom.

Love, Connie

Oops, I forgot to wish you a very happy Easter as well, El. You too Donna and Everyone!

Love, Connie

Happy Easter Everyone!

The war is over ... pfft! No matter what your race, nationality or religion, it is not hard to tell right from wrong. In an ever shriking world, we will not tolerate those who do not do right and who do massive wrong. Saddam and his regime killed millions of people. It is hypocritical to sit back and say - It is his country. Let him deal with it.

I have heard people on these forums say - Why Iraq? Oil? Well, Why not Iraq? Why not everywhere where there is no sense of human dignity? There are many areas of suffering, Africa being one of them. But in Arica, we see one tribal fight after another. There are no clear good guys/bad guys. They are fighting with small knives/firearms. There is no wealth, and no aims on the rest of the world. There is no proclaimed hatred of the west. Africa needs humanitarian aid. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, had huge wealth and no sense of human rights or morality - putting the world at risk.

I also hear on these forums - Where are the weapons of mass destruction? There are weapons of mass destruction and they will be found. Weren't chemical weapons already used on the Kurds and Iranian? Didn't we find chemical suits and antidotes - up and ready to go? Didn't we find empty warheads - up and ready to go? I'm sure Saddam Hussein allowed only a very few to know the location of these weapons. Hey, he probably had a fear that some of his subordinates might turn and use the weapons on His Highness himself. Why weren't weapons of mass destruction used? There is a good possibility that Saddam Hussein has been out of control since the beginning of the war, with the leadership destroyed/not functioning well. His generals probably decided not to fight for Baghdad - to surrender. And aren't we glad that the weapons were not used? Iraq is a big country. The weapons will be found.

North Korea and Iran seem to be softening. They are perhaps getting the picture - Those with no sense of human rights or morality will not be tolerated. Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush and the Aussies showed tremendous guts/courage in doing the right thing. They are to be commended, not only for their action in Iraq, but for the message they are sending throughout the world. Give Democracy a Chance! We will not tolerate acts of atrocity!

I also hear in these forums that President Bush is just like his daddy. Well, his dad and his aides spent much of the 1990's arguing that they were right for leaving Sadam in power. The son turned that argument on its head, now didn't he? He said they had waited too long!

I realize I offended many people on the thread - where I posted an article stating that many on the left were secretly hoping Saddam had put up a better fight. The that many felt on that thread was unjustified. They article said SOME felt that way - not specifically Rainbow, Connie, Greg, or Aries (although you didn't go as nuts - thank you, Aries). Now didn't that article say SOME? Why so defensive? It was an article worth posting. I believe that many do wish the war had gone the way they had predicted it to go - long, attacks on Israel, massive loss of life, etc. Any way, I am responding to many of your question, here - on a more positive and less offensive thread ...

The Iraqi' Joy

Because most Iraqis truly are happy to be liberated and are enjoying their new-found freedoms. Yes, even the right to protest! Give democracy a chance!

I'm now going to enjoy my Easter Sunday. It is a beautiful day.

Love,
joyce

Happy Easter Joyce. And all.

Joy to the world!

Love,
Greg

Happy Easter Joyce,

You did not offend me, the article did. You have stated many times in these forums that you were offended by something we posted. We weren't being defensive, no one was angry as you stated, and no one went "nuts." All that happened was that you told us how it was, and we told you how it was not.

We are all happy that the Iraqi people are now free to express themselves in any way they choose, either pro or against what is happening in their country. And we are all happy that we in the U.S. are free to express ourselves either for or against the government policies, without being called names, harassed or punished in any way. Right?

I agree with you, Joyce. It would be wonderful if the whole world were free and there were no dictators anywhere in the world. Then we could all live together in peace and harmony, without war, without hunger, a world where everyone could live up to their full potential and be educated. The only thing we differ on is how to go about acheiving that goal. True, peace and negotiations take much longer than wars do, especially when you are the super power in the war. But in negotiating for peace there are no casualties, no innocent lives and soldiers lost. That is the area where we differ in thought. And that's okay. It's perfectly okay to differ in thought because ultimately our goal is the same.

Where I differ in opinion in what you just said in your post is that in my thinking, IMHO, there never are any clearly defined "good guys and bad bads." Only in the movies, books and westerns. In real life the good guys and bad guys are named by governments. The enemy of the day. If you look back through histroy you find that those who were once our enemies are now our friends, and those who were once our friends are now our enemies. Hussein was once a friend of the Reagan/Bush administration and those Kurds that Hussein killed with his chemical warfare were killed by American helicopters that Hussein used to dispense those chemicals on the Kurds. Osama bin Laden was once a friend of the United States and trained by the CIA. Great Britian was once our enemy who our founding fathers fought against to gain our freedom. Governments name the enemy. Governments tell us who is the good or bad guy of the day. Otherwise we would have no enemies. Like U-2 says in their song, " no man is my enemy, my own hands imprison me." Governments start the wars that young men and women have to die in. The people of any country don't start wars. If not for governments there would never be wars. Because all the people on this planet want is peace and to live their lives with their family and loved ones, working and having a good life without government interference.

This does not mean I would abolish government. We need governments. But we as individuals have to keep our eye on our governments and what they are doing. If we don't, as I have said before, we could very easily have our freedom taken away from us. In the blink of an eye. Because of the temptation there is in governments towards power and control. Governments lie and therefore should not be given our total trust. We should never put our trust or faith in mankind. Humans are weak and easily tempted towards power, wealth and control. Humans can be deceptive. Governments are made up of humans. Put total trust and faith in God. But not in man. That even applies to the Pope or any religious leader. No one is above criticism.

Though you and I an El and others here have had our disagreements and some not so nice words directed at each other, we basically all want the same thing, just different ideas of how to reach the goal and different ideas about trust in the government and the need to watch what they are doing. Also to point out where the government is getting off the track of the principles of this country. Protect the Constitution. It is the only guarantee this country has of never electing a dictator. It is the only protection we have to guarantee our rights and freedoms.

Love, Connie

I stand by my statement that Saddam Hussein is a Bad Guy .

Give Democracy A Chance. There is going to be confusion. The Iraqis are free to express themselves, and they have not had this privilege. Let them talk! Let them protest! Good for them!

Joyce

Here's "our Rumsfield" shaking hands with that "bad guy!"

What's the deal?

Oh, I get it! He wasn't a "bad guy" back then...

Luv,
Rainbow

Anybody???

Luv,
Rainbow

Was that when they were making an arms deal? Maybe it was a handshake sealing the deal on chemicals or other weapons sold to Iraq?...something like that.

Thanks for the input, Aries.....

...whatever the case, I'm sure he wasn't torturing people back then...

....cuz gosh! We would have had to take him out, instead of shaking his hand......seeemz to me....

*sigh*

Luv,
Rainbow

Hi!
I don`t hope I upset you now. But I think you have to realize that in a war-situasion, there always is a propaganda for the people, so the government can defend their behaiviour. They just show and tell you what`s gain their interest.
Today in on of the biggest newspaper, there were photos of 4 iraq men. Totally naken Because they had stolen something in a park, the american soldiers had burn their clothes, wrote Ali Baba (that means thief) on their breasts, and then they had to run in the streets in Bagdad. The soldiers told the news paper that they had done that before and would do it again. What is that? A democratic act?
No, that is the act of their occupant who doing humiliating of the native people.
Another thing that I think is terrible, is that the Libary in Bagdad has been burn down. All the history of Iraq`s people is gone. The Iraq people had tried to get help, but the American didn`t care.
The only thing that care, are the oil wells. There it is a lot of military duties.
Sorry, but I don`t think Bush`s intention is to save the world, rather to get more power
Love from Ariel

Ariel.......thank you for your views....*sigh*

I, for one am NOT upset by your honesty...

...and I agree with you about Bush...

Luv,
Rainbow

Ariel,

I hope with all my heart.....that the article you read was propaganda from the other side.

If I found out our soldiers were behaving in such an imhumane fashion...I would be furious!

I agree with you about Bush too.

and Peace,

Dani

Hi Rainbow!

DIPLOMACY means posing, shaking hands, patting shoulders...

That picture was taken in 1983 when Ramsfeld was the special envoy of President Ronald Reagan. US shared enmity with Iran and Syria and that's what the two had discussed...

Diplomatically speaking in that time US and Iraq had some common interests.
Iraq received huge amounts of money from Kuwait and other Gulf states during that time.

In THAT TIME those countries were not enemies. Things do change.

Rabin and Arafat are mortal enemies and they were shaking hands in Washington... Milosevic was shaking hands with Clinton and many other of his enemies...

Shaking hands with enemy is nothing new or shocking, it's a part of diplomacy.

Enjoy your weekend!
El

Hi El...

...excerpts from CounterPunch website....

"Five years before Saddam Hussein's now infamous 1988 gassing of the Kurds, a key meeting took place in Baghdad that would play a significant role in forging close ties between Saddam Hussein and Washington. It happened at a time when Saddam was first alleged to have used chemical weapons. The meeting in late December 1983 paved the way for an official restoration of relations between Iraq and the US, which had been severed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

With the Iran-Iraq war escalating, President Ronald Reagan (who then had daddy Bush as his vice president), dispatched his Middle East envoy, a former secretary of defense, to Baghdad with a hand-written letter to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and a message that Washington was willing at any moment to resume diplomatic relations.

That envoy was Donald Rumsfeld.



"In March of 1984, with the Iran-Iraq war growing more brutal by the day, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad for meetings with then-Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. On the day of his visit, March 24th, UPI reported from the United Nations: "Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, a team of U.N. experts has concluded... Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before leaving for an unspecified destination

"The day before, the Iranian news agency alleged that Iraq launched another chemical weapons assault on the southern battlefront, injuring 600 Iranian soldiers. "Chemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs have been used in the areas inspected in Iran by the specialists," the U.N. report said. "The types of chemical agents used were bis-(2-chlorethyl)-sulfide, also known as mustard gas, and ethyl N, N-dimethylphosphoroamidocyanidate, a nerve agent known as Tabun."

"Most glaring is that Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq as the 1984 UN report was issued and said nothing about the allegations of chemical weapons use"

"Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan's Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the (Reagan/Bush) White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982. According to a February 13, 1991 Los Angeles Times article:

"In 1988, Saddam's forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they "believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs."

"In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the [Reagan/Bush) White House."

"Senior officials later told reporters they did not press for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up Iraq's ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing even remote concern about Iraq's use or possession of chemical weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he appeared on an ABC news special."

"In 1984, Donald Rumsfeld was in a position to draw the world's attention to Saddam's chemical threat. He was in Baghdad as the UN concluded that chemical weapons had been used against Iran. He was armed with a fresh communication from the State Department that it had "available evidence" Iraq was using chemical weapons. But Rumsfeld said nothing."

(parenthesis, mine)

From:

http://www.counterpunch.org/scahill0802.html

Luv,
Rainbow

Dear Dani!
That article wasn`t any propaganda, because there was one big photo of the front-page of this news paper, of 4 naken iraq men, and two american military with machine guns. Inside the news paper there were even more photos. Why should that be propaganda? The norwegian government is supporting USA.
Love from Ariel

Hi Rainbow!
Your writing was very interesting ...and terrible. The truth is always more complicated than we ordinary people even can suppose it to be
There is so much that I want to write about it, but the language do that difficult for me to explain... there is easier to read.
But I am very happy to hear that you american cares and don`t take everything as the only truth.There`s always different way to look at, and there`s always different reasons to what happen
Love from Ariel

Well, well Moonflower,

the counterpunch is the LEFTIST newsletter, which was clear to me even before I've checked it out.

No wonder, the leftist sentiment prevails on this site...

What are you trying to prove? Do you expect the politics to be clean??? It never was.

I have better things to do than read the antiamerican newsletters.

El

Well, well El...





I'll 'fess up that COUNTER PUNCH...might be just a little to the left.......same as that MAX NEWS (to which some here like to refer....) is a tad to the right...



....but what the heck....truth is truth...no matter where it comes from...



....and it's NOT my belief......that I quoted from an "anti American" newsletter......



Instead, I quoted from a newsletter that is VERY PRO AMERICAN....someone brave enough to tell it like it is.....someone giving a little history, and insight...showing how the Bush administration (which actually started with Reagan)...is carrying out its plans for THE PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY aka PNAC......ignoring the use of Saddam's use of chemical weapons, at a time when it was not 'in their best interest,' but using it as an excuse when the time was right in order to move forward on the project....



Here's more on PNAC which you'll probably not read since you'll regard it as a left wing web site....but here it is anyway...



=====================================================



"The Project for the New American Century seeks to establish what they call 'Pax Americana' across the globe. Essentially, their goal is to transform America, the sole remaining superpower, into a planetary empire by force of arms. A report released by PNAC in September of 2000 entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' codifies this plan, which requires a massive increase in defense spending and the fighting of several major theater wars in order to establish American dominance. The first has been achieved in Bush's new budget plan, which calls for the exact dollar amount to be spent on defense that was requested by PNAC in 2000. Arrangements are underway for the fighting of the wars.



The men from PNAC are in a perfect position to see their foreign policy schemes, hatched in 1997, brought into reality. They control the White House, the Pentagon and Defense Department, by way of this the armed forces and intelligence communities, and have at their feet a Republican-dominated Congress that will rubber-stamp virtually everything on their wish list.



The first step towards the establishment of this Pax Americana is, and has always been, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of an American protectorate in Iraq. The purpose of this is threefold: 1) To acquire control of the oilheads so as to fund the entire enterprise; 2) To fire a warning shot across the bows of every leader in the Middle East; 3) To establish in Iraq a military staging area for the eventual invasion and overthrow of several Middle Eastern regimes, including some that are allies of the United States.



"There are a number of depths to be plumbed in all of this. The Bush administration has claimed all along that this war with Iraq is about Saddam Hussein's connections to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, though through it all they have roundly failed to establish any basis for either accusation. On Wednesday, Bush went further to claim that the war is about liberating the Iraqi people and bringing democracy to the Middle East. This ignores cultural realities on the ground in Iraq and throughout the region that, salted with decades of deep mistrust for American motives, make such a democracy movement brought at the point of the sword utterly impossible to achieve.



This movement, cloaked in democracy, is in fact a PNAC-inspired push for an American global empire. It behooves Americans to understand that there is a great difference between being the citizen of a constitutional democracy and being a citizen of an empire. The establishment of an empire requires some significant sacrifices."



For the whole web page, click below:



http://truthout.org/docs_03/022803A.shtml



Luv,

Rainbow



PS...it IS Rainbow...and NOT Moonflower.....but I see how you could get us confused..............we're both Native American Indians....both grandmas....both live in the state of Michigan........and both LOVE OUR COUNTRY WITH ALL OUR HEART (we have some DEEP ROOTS here)........and both of us see the "writing on the wall." We fear what's happening to our beloved country...the subtle and not so subtle changes...losses of our freedoms, which is happeing now....yes, we are alike in a lot of ways....oh yes, we're both earth signs too...with Pisces Moons and water Rising.....*sigh*

...here's more....from same webpage....



Who is PNAC? Its members include:



* Vice President Dick Cheney, one of the PNAC founders, who served as Secretary of Defense for Bush Sr.;



* I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's top national security assistant;



* Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, also a founding member, along with four of his chief aides including;



* Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, arguably the ideological father of the group;



* Eliot Abrams, prominent member of Bush's National Security Council, who was pardoned by Bush Sr. in the Iran/Contra scandal;



* John Bolton, who serves as Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security in the Bush administration;



* Richard Perle, former Reagan administration official and present chairman of the powerful Defense Policy Board;



* Randy Scheunemann, President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, who was Trent Lott's national security aide and who served as an advisor to Rumsfeld on Iraq in 2001;



* Bruce Jackson, Chairman of PNAC, a position he took after serving for years as vice president of weapons manufacturer Lockheed-Martin, and who also headed the Republican Party Platform subcommittee for National Security and Foreign Policy during the 2000 campaign. His section of the 2000 GOP Platform explicitly called for the removal of Saddam Hussein;



* William Kristol, noted conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, a magazine owned along with the Fox News Network by conservative media mogul Ruppert Murdoch.



Hmmm...would be "conquerers" all seem to have something in common....and what's a better time to start, then when they are in total control of everything????



The EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, AND JUDICIAL offices!





Luv,

Rainbow