I'd suggest the corporations have won the war in Iraq. Every corporation from the weapons makers to the drug companies to the gun runners.

Carsten,
The point is that we do NOT have a war in Iraq. The war ended when Saddams statue came down.

Our troops are there now as peacekeepers. The civil factions of Sunnis and Shia don't really have a civil war either. They just let off a few bombs each day. This mainly damages each other, so what the hell! A few Yanks get hit now and then but apparently they are perpared to suffer that for the oil.

Iraq might make a good staging post from which to invade Iran. But I would rather knock Magarbe for a six. Zimbarwe people deserve better than him.

Dear Carsten
sorry if it seemed like I ducked off, it takes a while for people to fully enter one's radar, specially when they have a few very regular 'anti'-fans like Pericles and CJ Morgan.

You made a number of points, and I wish to engage you on one most important one. You claimed the Old Testament can be used just as the scriptures of Islam can.

Firstly..did you actually read the link to the Quran? Please divulge its primary content.

Using accepted principles of academic interpretation on the Quran and hadith, it becomes abundantly clear that it not only can but IS being used to justify horrific acts today. In the other thread you said I have an anti Islam bent.. you BET I do.. I absolutely do, and the verses like Quran 9:30 are one of the reasons for that anti bent. See what they say, and remember..I am Christian. (I'd feel the same if I'm Jewish) I feel so strongly about this I've taken to the streets about it.

Secondly, on the grounds of accepted academic methods of interpretation (context, who, what, where, when, etc) which are applied to any historical document, I feel quite confident in saying that the Old Testament canNOT be used to justify aggression against anyone at any time.

It can ONLY be used by the Jews, in regard to the Canaanites, and those who are their enemies during the period before the Messiah.

If you believe otherwise, please provide one good example which we can together grapple with in terms of those accepted principles of documentary interpretation. Please don't waste my or your time with any cut and paste from some '50,000 contradictions in the Bible' or the Skeptics Annotated Bible :)

Banjo,

Actually the stated reason for the war in Iraq was that Saddam had WMDs, and Saddam also had links to Al Qaeda. Iraq was supposedly an immanent threat because of these things, and the coalition of the willing came up with its doctrine of pre-emption which was, and is, illegal under international law.

Of course there were no WMDs and there were no links with Al Qaeda. The “intelligence” was fabricated by the perpetrators of the war to justify their invasion. Iraq was never an immanent threat.

Although “regime change” was ruled out as a justification for the invasion by our own PM, once it was obvious WMDs would not be found, “regime change” conveniently became the justification. The “object” of the invasion was never to get rid of Saddam. The real reason for the invasion was to get control of the oil, and it had been planned long before 9/11.

This fabrication, and the real reason for the invasion, was patently obvious to millions of people all over the world. Yet you seem to believe the bull fed to you, after the fact, about getting rid of Saddam.

cont...

...cont

As for your comments that we are not still fighting a war in Iraq, well you could have fooled GWB and little Johnny. The phony “war on terror” is apparently going to go on for decades according to our fearless leaders, and Iraq is a central part of it.

Further to your suggestion that the civil war in Iraq has nothing to do with the invasion, you are just plain wrong. The disaster in Iraq flows inexorably from the illegal and predatory invasion, and the actions of an aggressive occupying force. The US used classic imperialist divide and conquer tactics designed to foment division among the various groupings in order to subjugate the population to their aims. Iraq was once a secular country with the some of the highest living standards in the Middle East. After two US invasions, a decade of debilitating sanctions, and a violent and oppressive occupation, vital infrastructure has been destroyed – water, electricity, hospitals, education etc, hundreds of thousands have been killed and injured, and millions displaced, and there is extremely high unemployment. These things are a direct result of the invasion, as is the civil war now being carried out.

Face it, the US and its coalition warmongers did not invade Iraq to “spread democracy”, they went in there to get control of the oil. Their actions, and the disastrous consequences of them, flow directly from the original motive. They are all war criminals.

no, tao, they are not war criminals. war criminals are people in front of a court with power to punish, and a prosecutor with evidence of wrong doing.

these people are merely national leaders protecting national interests. (a 'national interest' is someone else's property that you intend to use.) so long as the american electorate continues it's habit of supporting regimes which supply cheap oil, there will be no 'war criminals' in america. no high level war criminals, anyway.