We must never forget what Saddam did. We must help the Kurds!
Showing posts with label Kurdistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kurdistan. Show all posts
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Jumping in Pools: Top 10 Cool Countries
I've decided to start a new feature on the blog and all of our writers are encouraged to chime in with their own articles. This time I'll start it off with some of the cooler countries that I like and why. The US is, of course, number one, so we'll skip us for now.
1. Kurdistan: Having put up with 25 years of the rule of Saddam Hussein, the fascist government in Syria, repressive Turkey, and the theocrats in Iran, these people are resilient. While Muslim, they are surprisingly secular and definitely tolerant, sheltering Yezidis and Christians from al Qaeda terrorists. Iraqi Kurds are also the most pro-American people on the planet and fight side-by-side with our forces in Baghdad.
2., 3. Albania and Kosovo: Pro-American and democratic, these poor nations are eager to help spread democracy throughout the world. Albania just joined NATO and has sent troops to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Darfur to help stop the spread of Islamic extremism. Albania warmly welcomed President Bush during his visit there and is a secular Islamic nation.
4. India: The world's most populous democracy, this nation has moved closer to the United States in the last eight years. Friendly also with Israel, the nation is one of the few in the world with a slim history of anti-Semitism. Tolerant and on the forefront of the War on Terrorism, this nation is one that just screams awesome. India is also sending rockets into space now and may beat us back to the moon.
5. Israel: One of the most berated nations, Israel's democracy is tolerant, despite having hundreds of millions of people wanting to wipe it out. Israel proudly takes on fasicst and theocratic forces, like Saddam's Iraq, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. This nation is one of our closest allies and deserves much more credit than it gets.
6. Georgia: This small country is one of the most pro-America on the planet. Georgia is pushing to join NATO and sent 2,000 troops to Iraq. Georgia also offered 500 to Afghanistan. Unfortunately, Russia's brutal and unjustified attack last August has decimated the nation's infrastructure and military and Russia's dictatorship is actively seeking to topple the Western-backed democracy.
7. Colombia: A democracy that has fought off narco-terrorism, Colombia is the United States' cheif ally in South America. A hedge against Venezuela, this nation is planning to send over 100 troops to Afghanistan. Thanks in large part to President Bush's dedication, Colombia ended much of its fighting with drug traffickers and communist guerrillas.
8. Poland: One of America's top allies in Europe, this nation suffered at the hands of Hitler and Stalin. From the ashes of the Cold War, this former Warsaw Pact nation is a leader in the fight against terrorism. Sending 2,500 troops to Iraq and over 1,000 to Afghanistan, Poland is looking to avoid the mistakes of the past. Poland is also integral to American interests in Eastern Europe, especially when dealing with Russia.
9. The Ukraine: The breadbasket of Europe, this populous democracy has shone as a US ally. Although Russia is pressing on the democratic government, the people have not conceded. Despite Russia poisoning presidential candidate Victor Yushenko in 2004 and rigging the elections, the people rose up and demanded a new vote.
10. Mongolia: Yes, the former home of Genghis Khan, this remote nation between Russia and China has positioned itself in the US bloc. Sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, Mongolia is looking to rebuild after about 70 years of Communist rule. Mongolia warmly welcomed President Bush's visit several years ago.
Bonus Country: Yes, Britain should be on this list, but it's too obvious. Australia is America's tough brother who always seems to be there for us. The Aussies sent troops to Korea and 'Nam, as well as to Iraq and Afghanistan, where they served with distinction. Australia's a venerable democracy who's looking to help its neighbors, especially with its intervention in East Timor.
Consider advertising on our site!
Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:
1. Kurdistan: Having put up with 25 years of the rule of Saddam Hussein, the fascist government in Syria, repressive Turkey, and the theocrats in Iran, these people are resilient. While Muslim, they are surprisingly secular and definitely tolerant, sheltering Yezidis and Christians from al Qaeda terrorists. Iraqi Kurds are also the most pro-American people on the planet and fight side-by-side with our forces in Baghdad.
2., 3. Albania and Kosovo: Pro-American and democratic, these poor nations are eager to help spread democracy throughout the world. Albania just joined NATO and has sent troops to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Darfur to help stop the spread of Islamic extremism. Albania warmly welcomed President Bush during his visit there and is a secular Islamic nation.
4. India: The world's most populous democracy, this nation has moved closer to the United States in the last eight years. Friendly also with Israel, the nation is one of the few in the world with a slim history of anti-Semitism. Tolerant and on the forefront of the War on Terrorism, this nation is one that just screams awesome. India is also sending rockets into space now and may beat us back to the moon.
5. Israel: One of the most berated nations, Israel's democracy is tolerant, despite having hundreds of millions of people wanting to wipe it out. Israel proudly takes on fasicst and theocratic forces, like Saddam's Iraq, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. This nation is one of our closest allies and deserves much more credit than it gets.
6. Georgia: This small country is one of the most pro-America on the planet. Georgia is pushing to join NATO and sent 2,000 troops to Iraq. Georgia also offered 500 to Afghanistan. Unfortunately, Russia's brutal and unjustified attack last August has decimated the nation's infrastructure and military and Russia's dictatorship is actively seeking to topple the Western-backed democracy.
7. Colombia: A democracy that has fought off narco-terrorism, Colombia is the United States' cheif ally in South America. A hedge against Venezuela, this nation is planning to send over 100 troops to Afghanistan. Thanks in large part to President Bush's dedication, Colombia ended much of its fighting with drug traffickers and communist guerrillas.
8. Poland: One of America's top allies in Europe, this nation suffered at the hands of Hitler and Stalin. From the ashes of the Cold War, this former Warsaw Pact nation is a leader in the fight against terrorism. Sending 2,500 troops to Iraq and over 1,000 to Afghanistan, Poland is looking to avoid the mistakes of the past. Poland is also integral to American interests in Eastern Europe, especially when dealing with Russia.
9. The Ukraine: The breadbasket of Europe, this populous democracy has shone as a US ally. Although Russia is pressing on the democratic government, the people have not conceded. Despite Russia poisoning presidential candidate Victor Yushenko in 2004 and rigging the elections, the people rose up and demanded a new vote.
10. Mongolia: Yes, the former home of Genghis Khan, this remote nation between Russia and China has positioned itself in the US bloc. Sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, Mongolia is looking to rebuild after about 70 years of Communist rule. Mongolia warmly welcomed President Bush's visit several years ago.
Bonus Country: Yes, Britain should be on this list, but it's too obvious. Australia is America's tough brother who always seems to be there for us. The Aussies sent troops to Korea and 'Nam, as well as to Iraq and Afghanistan, where they served with distinction. Australia's a venerable democracy who's looking to help its neighbors, especially with its intervention in East Timor.
Consider advertising on our site!
Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Sunday, February 8, 2009
We Must Support the Kurds
News out of Iraq appears to show that the Iraqi Army is attempting to curb Kurdish influence in the northern portion of the country. The operation has not caused violence, and it appears that things are going smoothly. However, if the federal government decides to push back the Kurds from lands that are rightfully theirs, then the United States should use its influence to help the Kurds.
The Kurdish people in Northern Iraq are the most pro-American on the planet. They have also been our strongest allies in the Iraq War, supplying us with troops that speak their native Kurdish, along with Arabic and English. English is being taught as a second language in Kurdistan, where 75% of the people in Iraq speak Arabic. Kurdistan has shown that they will stand with the U.S. and we need to stand with them, especially after we almost abandoned them in 1991.
The Kurds deserve better. They are a stable democracy which loves America. This is the result of the Bush Doctrine, and we should all be proud of its results.
Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:
The Kurdish people in Northern Iraq are the most pro-American on the planet. They have also been our strongest allies in the Iraq War, supplying us with troops that speak their native Kurdish, along with Arabic and English. English is being taught as a second language in Kurdistan, where 75% of the people in Iraq speak Arabic. Kurdistan has shown that they will stand with the U.S. and we need to stand with them, especially after we almost abandoned them in 1991.
The Kurds deserve better. They are a stable democracy which loves America. This is the result of the Bush Doctrine, and we should all be proud of its results.
Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Proof of Saddam's WMDs
This is a copy of something I wrote on the Investor's Iraq Forum. Enjoy.
Bush never stated that Iraq was a direct or imminent threat to us. In fact, he stated the opposite during one of his biggest speeches before the war. From the 2003 State of the Union:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?
As for chemical weapons that were a threat to us, we're forgetting the potential of Saddam's WMD. Contrary to popular belief, most of his WMD capacity was NOT given or sold to him by the United States. In fact, the vast majority was provided by Russia (his number one arms partner), East Germany, and Poland. The United States, under President Reagan allowed biological weapons components to be sold to the Iraqi regime, but was not the primary seller.
Sarin nerve gas was produced in the tons by Saddam's government in the 1980s. One liquid drop of this could kill an adult male. The Iraqi regime created and stockpiled even more deadly nerve gases, like cyclosarin and VX. Even ten shells filled with these chemicals could kill hundreds, or thousands in an enclosed ventilation system. And Saddam admitted to having at least 30,000 in 1991. The Iraqis had a bad habit of not labeling their chemical weapons shells. Of all of the millions of shells safely detonated by ordinance personnel, hundreds or thousands could have been VX, Sarin, Tabun, or Cyclosarin.
Sarin and mustard gas are fairly easy to construct, and considering the Iraqis had the blueprints and experience, it was only a matter of time that the stockpiles were rebuilt. These were seen as vital as a bulwark against Iran and Israel.
And Saddam's WMD stockpile wouldn't be used against us directly. Duh. With various bases in the region, the Kurds, Israel, and Saudi Arabia nearby, there was no reason to risk transporting the materials 11,000 miles. He could easily hit Americans in his own back yard. Or more likely, complete the Anfal Campaign when we weren't looking.
Of course oil is a major factor in the war. You don't invade a country with either the 2nd or 3rd biggest oil reserves in the world and not factor that in. And considering the fact that almost all of Iraq's oil is either in the Kurdish region or close to the Kuwaiti border (in the desert where no one lives), if oil was the only or chief concern, it could be secured and held even without toppling Saddam. Besides, these wells haven't been given to American or British petroleum corporations, which could have easily paid for the war. You cannot leave a dictator who invaded three of his neighbors and shot ballistic missiles at two others in control of this vast oil wealth. And considering that he was funding Hamas, Hezbollah, and Ansar al-Islam (to name just a few), this money was directly funding the deaths of Israelis and Lebanese.
If Bush really lied (or even really exagerrated) claims about WMD, it would be in short order that American chemical weapons from the Cold War (which we're disposing of anyway) would be sent as stand-ins. Considering if Bush and his Administration would know ahead that they were lying, this would have been done before the troops entered Baghdad.
This isn't about Bush. If Clinton or Gore were President, toppling Saddam would have been the right thing. It just so happened that Bush was the person who did it. Considering the threat that Saddam held for the region, it was by far a great decision. To deny that would fly in the face of fact, not opinion.
Bush never stated that Iraq was a direct or imminent threat to us. In fact, he stated the opposite during one of his biggest speeches before the war. From the 2003 State of the Union:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?
As for chemical weapons that were a threat to us, we're forgetting the potential of Saddam's WMD. Contrary to popular belief, most of his WMD capacity was NOT given or sold to him by the United States. In fact, the vast majority was provided by Russia (his number one arms partner), East Germany, and Poland. The United States, under President Reagan allowed biological weapons components to be sold to the Iraqi regime, but was not the primary seller.
Sarin nerve gas was produced in the tons by Saddam's government in the 1980s. One liquid drop of this could kill an adult male. The Iraqi regime created and stockpiled even more deadly nerve gases, like cyclosarin and VX. Even ten shells filled with these chemicals could kill hundreds, or thousands in an enclosed ventilation system. And Saddam admitted to having at least 30,000 in 1991. The Iraqis had a bad habit of not labeling their chemical weapons shells. Of all of the millions of shells safely detonated by ordinance personnel, hundreds or thousands could have been VX, Sarin, Tabun, or Cyclosarin.
Sarin and mustard gas are fairly easy to construct, and considering the Iraqis had the blueprints and experience, it was only a matter of time that the stockpiles were rebuilt. These were seen as vital as a bulwark against Iran and Israel.
And Saddam's WMD stockpile wouldn't be used against us directly. Duh. With various bases in the region, the Kurds, Israel, and Saudi Arabia nearby, there was no reason to risk transporting the materials 11,000 miles. He could easily hit Americans in his own back yard. Or more likely, complete the Anfal Campaign when we weren't looking.
Of course oil is a major factor in the war. You don't invade a country with either the 2nd or 3rd biggest oil reserves in the world and not factor that in. And considering the fact that almost all of Iraq's oil is either in the Kurdish region or close to the Kuwaiti border (in the desert where no one lives), if oil was the only or chief concern, it could be secured and held even without toppling Saddam. Besides, these wells haven't been given to American or British petroleum corporations, which could have easily paid for the war. You cannot leave a dictator who invaded three of his neighbors and shot ballistic missiles at two others in control of this vast oil wealth. And considering that he was funding Hamas, Hezbollah, and Ansar al-Islam (to name just a few), this money was directly funding the deaths of Israelis and Lebanese.
If Bush really lied (or even really exagerrated) claims about WMD, it would be in short order that American chemical weapons from the Cold War (which we're disposing of anyway) would be sent as stand-ins. Considering if Bush and his Administration would know ahead that they were lying, this would have been done before the troops entered Baghdad.
This isn't about Bush. If Clinton or Gore were President, toppling Saddam would have been the right thing. It just so happened that Bush was the person who did it. Considering the threat that Saddam held for the region, it was by far a great decision. To deny that would fly in the face of fact, not opinion.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Chemical Ali Sentenced to Death Again
From our friends at WorldThreats. Saddam Hussein's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid, infamous for his role in the Halabja massacre, was sentenced to death again. This time it was for his crushing of the Shi'ite intifada in 1991.
Majid, Saddam Hussein’s cousin, attempted his own theatrics, but the judge would have no part of it:
Judge Khalifa said Mr. Majid was guilty of crimes against humanity. Mr. Majid remained calm, but Mr. Ani shouted: “I welcome death if it is for Iraq, for pan-Arabism and for the Baath. Down with the American and Persian occupation!”
The judge responded, “Shut up.”
Fitting words.
Now, I oppose the death penalty, but if anyone deserves it, it's him. Keep the bastard alive so he can see the progress and success of Kurdistan, despite the malevolent and atrocious acts he leveled against it. Let him watch the Kurdish people become more than Saddam could ever do. Let him watch as Iraq and Kuwait (which he was installed governor during the Iraqi occupation) rise.
Biji Kordestan!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
