Iraqi Christians Lose All Hope with Violence, Anarchy

Christians of Iraq.Com ^ | January 19, 2007 | Michelle Vu

[TitansAFC]

---"The three state solution can't be micromanaged from Washington because of the sticky point of sharing oil revenue."---

That is probably the reason. Not the oil, but the micromanaging.

I think it would probably be better for them to set-up the three state Iraq and allow some time for appropriate relocations as desired by the Iraqis, then work more from afar as consultants and within as trainers.

If they continue to ignore the possibility of such a solution, they will probably be stuck with warring factions and a Sunni block content with anarchy rather than Shiite or Kurdish rule, under which they will be forced to pay for their atrocities by their own legal system. I seriously doubt we'll be able to get the majority to grant the minority immunity for their past crimes, which would be another hope for peace. It ain't gonna happen that way.

[AmericanMade1776]

OrthodoxPresbyterian wrote: “How little faith you have! Why did you falter?” Are you suggesting that George W. Bush is the Messiah?

If he (or should I say "He"?) is not, then it behooves us to admit that spending hundreds of billions of dollars and 3,000 GI lives to establish an Islamic theocracy dominated by Terrorist parties is, dare I say... a failure.

If this be treason... make the most of it.

----------------

Odd your interpretation of the words "“How little faith you have! Why did you falter?”

How do you think Christians will fare in Iraq, if we do not succeed there? You better start praying for our troops, for their safety, for their mission to be a success, not only for the Christians in Iraq, but for Christians everywhere. Did you not know that Christians are underattack by radical muslims all over the world. They started the war, and we have to finish it, Coming in second is not an option.

If you do not have the faith or the stomach to support our troops and the mission, you better get use to seeing more of this in your face, night and day,OrthodoxPresbyterian .

[George W. Bush]

I hate to say this, but Christians actually were better off under Saddam. The only thing Sunnis and Shiites hate more than one another is infidels (be they Christians or Jews).

Join the crowd. I suppose the Bush personality cult around here just dismiss any objections to the new Antichrist state we have created in Iraq.

The situation we see today is what Daddy Bush, following Baker's sage advice, successfully avoided during Gulf War I: creating a weak state with a power vacuum that will inevitably devolve to the worst Muslim theocracy in the Mideast.

[TitansAFC]

The Kurds have always wanter Kurdistan.

If, after they become a more automonous state, the Kurds succeed, it is then their problem.

Right now, it is our problem because we are ignoring the idea of states to begin with.

[Capt. Tom]

The U.S. has basically p!ssed away 3,000+ American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars for the sole purpose of establishing an Islamic state in the Middle East.

If this makes sense to anyone here, please wake me up and fill me in on the details.

(When I use the word Muslim here is what I mean- people who believe there is only one God, and Mohammed is his messenger. They stay true to the religion as written in the Koran and Hadiths. They are not to be confused with the Heretics, Apostates and infidel collaborators and useful idiots of the Infidels, that permeate the religion.

We went into Iraq because we thought Saddam had WMDs and they would ultimately be given to Muslim terrorists to be used against us. We did not go into Iraq to liberate Iraqis from Saddam's brutality.

Had Saddam come clean with us on the WMDs, he would,still be there killing his opposition and we wouldn't have lost any sleep over it. Anymore than Americans lose sleep over the hundreds of thousands butchered in Africa . It's not a concern of ours.

Finding no WMDs there,( and we have been all over Iraq for years) we get stuck with an unstable country.

We also have a President Bush, who is clueless about Muslims. (he thinks it is a religion of peace and we worship the same God) He tries to establish a democracy in a Muslim country by force of arms.

Now,what makes this idea almost workable; is Islam is shot through with so-called Muslims who are Infidel collaborators, and who will go along with us on this democracy idea.

But the fundamental Muslims won't have anything to do with that insult to Allah,the infidel idea of democracy.

So I would expect if we and our useful idiots prevail, eventually when we are gone they will be assassinated out of office by the Muslims, and Iraq will end up with a government like Iran.

Pulling out of Iraq now gives us no chance. We have to give it a last try.(a hail Mary ) That way if we succeed it might work out to our advantage.

If we pull out now, the Muslims will be emboldened. (as they should be) - Tom

[Austin Willard Wright]

We went into Iraq because we thought Saddam had WMDs and they would ultimately be given to Muslim terrorists to be used against us. We did not go into Iraq to liberate Iraqis from Saddam's brutality.

I have a long memory and don't buy this. WMD was a pretext or, at best, secondary. The neocons who pushed this were true believing Wilsonians in their hearts....and have been for quite some time. Bush is too and continues to be if his rhetoric is to be believed. Their masterplan was to create a "Democratic Iraq" which would produce a democratic chain reaction that would deal a death blow to "islamo-fascism." Of course, little did they know that the Islamo-fascists can win elections!

BTW, Hans Blix, much reviled here, said after his inspection in 2003 that Iraq did not have WMD (though he believe he had them before his inspection). Though proven right, I doubt he will get an apology! Bush and company blew him off because they were Wilsonian true believers.

[AmericanMade1776]

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

[Capt. Tom]

I have a long memory and don't buy this. WMD was a pretext or, at best, secondary.

I have a long memory too. And I remember just about every country believing Saddam had WMDs. The Kurds had a good reason to believe this.

Their masterplan was to create a "Democratic Iraq" which would produce a democratic chain reaction that would deal a death blow to "islamo-fascism."

Are you kidding? A master plan! The Iraq borders were never immediately secured,along with some other key places. Some master plan.
The problem with the Iraq war was there was no apparent plan for the aftermath. That is why we are still floundering around in Iraq.

BTW, Hans Blix, much reviled here, said after his inspection in 2003 that Iraq did not have WMD (though he believe he had them before his inspection). Though proven right, I doubt he will get an apology! Bush and company blew him off because they were Wilsonian true believers.

Hey don't forget me. I told you so too. -Scotty

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

How do you think Christians will fare in Iraq, if we do not succeed there?

The very FACT that "we" are "there" is the proximate cause for the massively-increased persecution suffered by Iraqi Christians of late.

Suppose that, in 2009, America was invaded and conquered by hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops intent on "freeing us from the Dictatorship of Hilary Clinton" and "establishing Confucian norms of democracy and Human Rights" or whatever, and instituted curfews and widespread gun-confiscations from citizens while conducting full-bore firefights with "American insurgents" in our nieghborhoods resulting in massive "collateral damage" (i.e., your kids getting killed by stray bullets)? How do you think we would feel about them being here? How popular do you think the small American ethnic-Chinese population would be with their neighbors?

As long as US Troops (which are perceived by Moslems to be the military forces of a "Christian" Nation) are in Iraq, the persecution of native Iraqi Christians will be worse than ever.

[Austin Willard Wright]

I note that you evaded my point about Blix.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

We have to give it a last try.(a hail Mary ) That way if we succeed it might work out to our advantage.

Define "success".

The Bush Administration has, apparently, defined "success" as spending Hundreds of Billions of dollars -- and thousands of GI lives -- to prop up a "Post-War Iraqi Government" which is dominated by the SCIRI Party and the Al-Dawa Party, the same nice people who brought you the 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis and the 1982 Mass-Murder of 240 Marines in Lebanon. And, in their most recent hits parade, the total dissolution of the Iraqi Christian Community. And this is the Iraqi Government we're fighting for?!

If if we "succeed" in propping up a "democratic" government dominated by radical Islamic Terrorists -- is that a "success"?

"One more victory like this, and we will be ruined" -- King Pyrrhus, 279 BC, after the Battle of Asculum

OP

[Capt. Tom]

I note that you evaded my point about Blix.

I didn't evade that point, I gave you another illustration of another person who said there were no WMDs in Iraq at that time.

They were both right. - tom

[Austin Willard Wright]

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

So....are you citing Carl Levin and Raping Bill Clinton as credible sources? Gee, things have changed here a lot. I remember when Freepers thought of him as a liar and opposed his Kosovo adventure.

Seriously, the question is not whether Saddam had WMD earlier but whether he had them in 2003. Hans Blix and others said that he no longer had them and Bush blew them off. You think that WMD was Bush's main concern. I think that his main motivation was to bring democracy to the Middle East. I base this in great part on Bush's purple Wilsonian prose (then and now) as well as the past record of neo-con Wilsonians such as Wolfy.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Neither one of us, however, can prove what was in his heart.....but IMHO he is true-believer Wilsonian, and continues to be.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Mea Culpa.

[gcruse]

"Their masterplan was to create a "Democratic Iraq" which would produce a democratic chain reaction that would deal a death blow to "islamo-fascism."'

You've pretty well nailed me. The last vestige of naivete in my cynical old heart was that humans are hard wired to desire freedom. Iraq got rid of that notion for me. And you're right. This whole thing is an exercise in Wilsonian diplomacy, something conservatives would normally abhor.

[Alberta's Child]

Funny you should list all those quotes from Democrats.

Reading and/or hearing those things for the first time during the Clinton administration is what convinced me that they were complete bullsh!t.

I never thought I'd see the day when @ssholes like Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, and Madeleine Albright would be cited right here on FreeRepublic as credible people with something relevant to say about any subject.

[Capt. Tom]

And, in their most recent hits parade, the total dissolution of the Iraqi Christian Community. And this is the Iraqi Government we're fighting for?!

The good old days, when Saddam was in power, and Christians were influential in his government.

Christian Tariq Aziz was the Deputy Prime Minister. I believe in the future when the Islamics take over, the dhimmi option might be passed over, and the Iraq Muslims will just kill the Christians.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I believe in the future when the Islamics take over, the dhimmi option might be passed over, and the Iraq Muslims will just kill the Christians.

What "in the future"? The Islamic radicals are in power in Iraq now. They are killing the Christians now. And this is the Iraqi Government which George W. Bush supports... with American blood and treasure.

What's "future" about it? Under W's "new, democratic Free Iraq", it's happening now.

[AmericanMade1776]

Suppose that, in 2009, America was invaded and conquered by hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops intent on "freeing us from the Dictatorship of Hilary Clinton" and "establishing Confucian norms of democracy and Human Rights" or whatever, and instituted curfews and widespread gun-confiscations from citizens while conducting full-bore firefights with "American insurgents" in our nieghborhoods resulting in massive "collateral damage" (i.e., your kids getting killed by stray bullets)? How do you think we would feel about them being here? How popular do you think the small American ethnic-Chinese population would be with their neighbors?

Once again, who is persecuting the Iraq Christians in Iraq today? You deal in suppositions, instead of realities. It is not the American Solider that is persecuting the Iraq Christians.

You do not know who the enemy is, have you forgotten these faces?

I could go on and on, putting pics up of the enemies of Christians and you will never find a picture of an American Solider.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I could go on and on, putting pics up of the enemies of Christians and you will never find a picture of an American Solider.

You're deliberately evading the point. The Christians of Iraq are not being liquidated by American Troops; they are being liquidated by their fellow Iraqis because "Christian" Troops (i.e., Americans) are in Iraq.

And George W. Bush, the most destructively incompetent president since Woodrow Wilson, is spending Hundreds of Billions of dollars -- and thousands of GI lives -- to prop up a "Post-War Iraqi Government" which is dominated by the SCIRI Party and the Al-Dawa Party, the same nice people who brought you the 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis and the 1982 Mass-Murder of 240 Marines in Lebanon... And, in their most recent hits parade, the total dissolution of the Iraqi Christian Community.

With "friends" like so-called "Christian" George W. Bush, what more enemies do Iraqi Christians need?