peacenegotiator: How many people want to end the Iraq War?

Question

A challenge to all members (posters) of Yahoo! Answers and a challenge to the following Top Contributors (in level 7): FRAGINAL-NOYPI, coragryph, BeachBum, Brian, David B, CGIV76 and m1a1mikegolf. Many of these people post in (1) politics and government and (2) law and ethics.

For a longtime and almost forever, we Americans have been hearing about the Iraq War from our government's point of view. The media continually repeating US government propaganda.

How many of you know that if you want the Iraq War to end today, yes today, you can end the Iraq War and help save both Iraqi lives and US troop lives?

How do you do this? (1) By informing yourselves of the real truth behind the Iraq War and (2) by banning together in some kind of group to demand that our government end this illegal, bloody, and murderous war?

Please read the following websites:
http://peacenegotiator.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/group/loyalamerican

Thank you!

This posting coincides with http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsIg0JSR1QUA3zNMIuNPxdnsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071010040455AARcKOz

Answer 1

Truth... you are talking about truth... I agree 1000%. Most of my fellow Americans have no idea what is really going on in Iraq. The propaganda is so deep here in the states that it makes me sick.

Truth...
The truth is that the US military has made a deal with the Sunnis and agree to give them weapons, fuel and cash AND let them kill Shiites if the Sunnis will fight Al Qaeda.

Truth....
The US does not care a speckle of sand if the Iraqis kill each other. The US only wants the oil.

Truth....
Americans do NOT want refugee Iraqis to be able to come to the USA even though, we destroyed their homes and way of life.

I have a lot more but now I am going to post two articles I did last summer. I wrote these in June while I was in the Middle East.

No need to cite these because I am the author:

"US Iraq Strategy Taking Sides

The U.S. Military recently admitted supplying aide to Sunni tribal leaders to battle Al Qaeda. The idea is to split the insurgency and have Sunni tribes go after and drive out Al Qaeda by supplying them with arms, cash and fuel. Tribal members receiving aide are finger printed, given retina scans and serial numbers of transferred weapons are recorded. The U.S. Military has also vowed they will not arm a group with any members that have killed American troops.

The U.S. Military began this strategy in the Anbar Province about four or five months ago resulting in substantially lowering violence in that area; although, there are a few mitigating factors concerning this success. The Anbar Province makes up approximately 1/3 of Iraq and is almost 100% Sunni. The Iraqi government, being mostly Shiites, did not object to aiding the Sunnis in the Anbar Province because of the little affect on Shiites.

Opposition from the Iraqi police and Shiite government officials only recently arose when the U.S. began an attempt to replicate the Anbar Province success by giving the same type of aide to Sunni tribal leaders in other areas of Iraq. In areas such as northern and central Iraq there are just as many Shiite as Sunnis, if not more. The Shiites are outraged and argue aiding the Sunnis in mixed areas will result in an unfair Sunni advantage over the Shiites.

The Shiite led Iraqi government believes there will be a civil war within the next couple years and see arming the Sunni now as making a Shiite win more difficult. Arming the Sunni in mixed tribal areas is also being viewed by the Shiite as the United States taking sides.



Making Sense of Palestine

For less than a year, the Palestinian National Unity government has been controlled under a power sharing agreement between the Fatah and Hamas parties. Hamas, considered an Islamic movement, has controlled the parliament since winning January 2006 democratic elections. The largely secular group, Fatah, controls the executive branch which was also the direct result of democratic elections.

After Hamas recently took military control of Palestinian security operations in Gaza, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas announced the dissolution of the Palestinian Unity government. Abbas’ Fatah party, having taken control of all government buildings in the West Bank, proceeded to run out all Hamas officials as Hamas had done to Fatah in Gaza. Both sides participated in atrocities including executions and assassinations of opposing members.

Abbas then fired the Hamas Palestinian Prime Minister, Ismail Haniya, and appointed Salam Fayyad to replace him. In Gaza, Ismail Haniya, having just been fired the day before, said he did not recognize the order dissolving the government and went about official business as if nothing had happened. Currently two Palestinian governments are in operation in the two areas of Gaza and the West Bank.

Meanwhile, the European Union, U.S. and Israel decided to weigh-in on the conflict announcing they removed the economic and political embargo against the Palestinian Authority. The embargo was imposed last year after Hamas won the January 2006 election but then refused to recognize Israel. Lifting the embargo only applies to the West Bank though.

Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, and President Bush pledged support for Abbas; although, Olmert stated certain conditions would have to be met before talks could begin on a long-term peace accord, “In order to achieve this we have to fight terror, we have to achieve security, we have to upgrade the quality of life for the Palestinians and the Palestinians have to establish a much more credible and serious administration that would be able to take care of the daily needs in an appropriate manner.” U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, announced the U.S. would be sending $40 million of aide to the Fatah in the West Bank while Olmert agreed to release to the Abbas government $300 to $400 million in Palestinian tax revenues.

Hamas, growing more isolated with its borders shut down, in an attempt to illustrate a peaceful mission, vowed to fight for the release of BBC correspondent Alan Johnston. The Islamic extremists group, Army of Islam, has been holding him hostage for over three months. Israeli Prime Minister Olmert did pledge to allow humanitarian aide into Gaza. He has that authority because Israel controls all Gaza imports and exports.

A Mideast Peace Summit is scheduled for later this week in Egypt concerning the Palestinian situation. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, King Abdullah of Jordan, Palestinian leaders and other regional leaders will be attending. President Abbas previously refused Hamas’ requests for a national dialogue.

A bit of irony added to the situation is Hamas and Al Qaeda have been competitors and are actually rivals. Whenever Osama B. Laden has released videos, Hamas has gone through great pains to distance themselves from them. Many believe Hamas has played a huge role in keeping Al Qaeda out of the Palestinian region. Breaking, or destroying Hamas, may result in opening the doorway for Al Qaeda there.
"

Answer 2

The fact is, ending the threat of jihadist terrorist attacks
against the US and its allies would be easy enough. You
just need to do what Ron Paul has done, and pay attention
to the actual motivations of the jihadist terrorists. Every
serious analysis has concluded that their hatred of the US
is motivated by actions that the US government has
undertaken in their part of the world -- harmful interventions
against Muslim populations. These include backing Israeli
attacks on Palestinians, the destruction of the civilian
infrastructure of Iraq and sanctions that killed hundreds of
thousands of Iraqi civilians, support for various dictators
in countries like Saudi Arabia, etc.

In order to eventually halt the jihadist terrorists from
making these attacks, the US should stop committing these
harmful interventions and thus remove the motivation for
the jihadist terrorists (whose attacks on civilians they by
no means justify) in the first place. Ending these harmful
interventions would in any case be the right thing to do
from a moral standpoint.

This should of course be combined with a strong law-
enforcement effort to go after the jihadist terrorists who
undertake such attacks.

Instead, though, the Bush administration has chosen to
deny reality, misrepresent the terrorists' motivations, and
to engage in even more of these harmful interventions
(the invasion/occupation of Iraq, Ethiopia's proxy
invasion/occupation of Somalia, etc.). This simply
exacerbates the problem, driving more and more
Muslims to join the jihadists, and landing the US in the
Iraqi quagmire -- much to the delight of al-Qaida, as
they state in their internal documents.

A caveat is in order, though. This strategy would take
some time to eliminate the motivations of the jihadists --
that kind of hatred and fanaticism does not end in a day.

Another helpful thing to do would be to aid the good
groups in the region, such as:

http://www.rawa.org/
http://www.ifcongress.com/english/index.htm
http://www.equalityiniraq.com/english.htm
http://www.awalls.org/

News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/

Answer 3

So what you're suggesting is utilising any skill plausible to win? utilising this comparable reason, why not: - use nuclear weapons - use weapons of mass destruction - use chemical weapons I look to undergo in ideas that this replaced right into a clarification for going into Iraq contained in the 1st place. So will that make the coalition not extra useful than the guy bumped off.

Answer 4

I think we all want to end the war. To just pull out for the sake of doing so would be a mistake tho. The Iraqi people aren't prepared enough to defend themselves. Our pulling out may save American lives but not those of Iraqi civilians. Although you seem to have issues with this administration and President Bush, you have to ask yourself if you would have been comfortable enough to let the likes of Saddam kill hundreds of thousands of "his own people" and idly sit by in good conscience. You call the war illegal yet it was almost unanimously approved. They all had the same intelligence as the president. Whether it was right or wrong intel, we went to war and now we must finish it for the good of the Iraqi people and for the good of our country. We can't leave them hanging with all the terrorist organizations breathing down their necks waiting for us to leave so they can overpower them and turn the country into a terrorist state. I don't like war but I do see that sometimes it may be necessary to achieve peace in the world. I know you won't agree with me but I had to at least voice my opinion. I too wish for an end to this war but only if ending it doesn't make things worse.

Answer 5

Fewer than a third of Americans want to pull all troops out immediately.

This is a lie put out by the antiwar crowd. Look at any poll.

The vast majority have timelines or say "stay until it is done."

Answer 6

That's the governments business. I just feel that the terrorists are evil in the way they are trying to get to the government, by killing innocent people, people who may or may not be racist, nor understand. If these terrorist countries want their freedom, and to be left alone, then surely there's a better way of notifying the world, rather than portraying themselves to represent all muslims, etc....as evil! cheers.

Answer 7

You are deluded! Everyone wants the war to be over but on our terms not the TERRORISTS.