Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
supercar

Muqtada al-Sadr has fled Iraq

122 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Aztec Warrior

Al Sadr has had ties with Iran for years. That should be of no surprise to those informed. And why is that some sort of propaganda?

linked-image

Al-Sadr vows to defend Iran

Muqtada al-Sadr, the Iraqi cleric, has said his al-Mahdi Army will help to defend Iran if it is attacked.

Speaking on Sunday on the sidelines of a meeting with Ali Larijani, the senior Iranian nuclear negotiator, he said his militia was formed to defend Islam.

"The forces of Mahdi Army defend the interests of Iraq and Islamic countries," al-Sadr said. "If neighbouring Islamic countries, including Iran, become the target of attacks, we will support them.

"The Mahdi Army is beyond the Iraqi army. It was established to defend Islam."

Al-Sadr's comments could be seen as a message that Tehran has allies who could make things difficult for US forces in the region if Iran's nuclear facilities are attacked.

Popular cleric

Al-Sadr has a large following among Iraq's young and impoverished Shia community. His militia launched two uprisings against US troops in Iraq in 2004, but since the fighting ended he has transformed himself into a political figure.

Al-Sadr's al-Mahdi Army fought

US troops in Iraq in 2004

Al-Sadr's followers now hold 21 seats in the outgoing parliament as well as three cabinet posts.

Al-Sadr's backing of Iran, a Shia-majority nation, comes after a hint from Israel's defence minister that the Jewish state was preparing for military action to stop Iran's nuclear programme.

But Larijani said that Tehran was capable of defending itself. "I don't see any threat against Iran," he said after his meeting with al-Sadr. "Iran is big and strong and it is a hard target."

Defiant Iran

Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman said earlier on Sunday that Israel would be making a "fatal mistake" should it resort to military action.

Iran has said that Israel is living in a "glass house" and is well within Iran's missile range.

"If neighbouring Islamic countries, including Iran, become the target of attacks, we will support them"

An upgraded version of Iran's Shahab-3 missile has a range of more than 2000km, keeping all US forces in the Middle East and Israel within its range.

Iran's resumption of its nuclear research programme earlier this month has caused an international stand-off and a flurry of meetings.

Some Western nations fear that Iran is using its civilian nuclear programme as a cover to develop an atomic bomb. Iran says it is using it for peaceful energy purposes.

Source: AP

Iran, Hezbollah support al-Sadr

By Rowan Scarborough

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr, the fiery Iraqi Shi'ite cleric who ordered his fanatical militia to attack coalition troops, is being supported by Iran and its terror surrogate Hezbollah, according to military sources with access to recent intelligence reports. Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
Supercar, there are other positive things in Iraq that simply does not interest the media. And this is one positive event that as you can see the liberals , anti Bush and anti war gets quite worried about for the worst thing that could happen for them is for Iraq to be successful. You can see clearly how they reacted to this news, it's like NO! NO! NO! it can't be, we are suppose to loose and the insurgents are suppose to win for war is bad.

Nobody wants Iraq not to be "successful", but this means an end to the sectarian violence and self-rule free of external control, not the unholy mess that's going on over there at present. The ones who started this debacle are the ones who should be required to fix it, but the national politics of the relevant nations would seem to indicate that others will have to clean up their [the war-mongers] mess.

It was an ill-advised, ill-executed, illegitimate (allegedly) action and those who spoke out against it and continue to speak out against it are quite right to do so.

...and war is always bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Celumnaz
Nobody wants Iraq not to be "successful"

what I've experienced with human nature, combined with statistics, with a little bit of listening to what people say and following their own ideas to their logical conclusions forces me to disagree with that. :(

The ones who started this are mostly long dead. War is sometimes a necessity, unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
How exactly is the bad guy getting away good news?

Not quite sure what your question is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Nobody wants Iraq not to be "successful", but this means an end to the sectarian violence and self-rule free of external control, not the unholy mess that's going on over there at present. The ones who started this debacle are the ones who should be required to fix it, but the national politics of the relevant nations would seem to indicate that others will have to clean up their [the war-mongers] mess.

It was an ill-advised, ill-executed, illegitimate (allegedly) action and those who spoke out against it and continue to speak out against it are quite right to do so.

...and war is always bad.

I disagree, there are those because of political motive or simply hatred for Bush would love to see Iraq fail.

Majority of the Iraqis are fighting for self rule and needed external help to achive their goal for they are not yet strong enough against an insurgents who would do anything to assure that they do get control instead of those who seek a more civilized free society. The unholy mess is the playing card of the insurgents, the stay on course is the playing card of those who seek better life, who gives in is what it is all about.

Not quite ill advised as some would want to accept or want it to be, no one was certain about the WMD even the UN and Saddam was very illusive with the weapons inspectors then and uncooperative. That is why there were 17 resolutions. Now we all know there is none indeed, we got in and VERIFIED it for the whole world.

War is something that no one wants but is a last resort to assure us of a civilized world.

Edited by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
el midgetron
Not quite sure what your question is?

"Muqtada al-Sadr has fled Iraq, this is a victory for US and Iraqi forces"

Muqtada al-Sadr got away. We didnt capture him. We didnt kill him. How is this good news?

Is it also a victory for the US that Osama has fled Afganistan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
"Muqtada al-Sadr has fled Iraq, this is a victory for US and Iraqi forces"

Muqtada al-Sadr got away. We didnt capture him. We didnt kill him. How is this good news?

Is it also a victory for the US that Osama has fled Afganistan?

Victory or good news maybe not, but positive news it is.

This war like most all war is all about land or territory, agree?

So your opponent left the territory that is being fought for, isn't that positive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

It's true I should have qualified my statement as 'No one in their right mind wants Iraq not to be successful". There are extremists of the opposite wing who would see the situation in Iraq becoming impossible as a 'victory'. Thanks for pointing that out. :tu:

I'm not going into the pre-war 'Saddam has WMD' accusations as the information freely available was strongly suggestive he did not (although he probably had the technology and resources to produce more), but there could have been information still kept classified that we are not privy to.

Sadly I do not share the idealistic hope that Iraq will become the 'free, democratic society' which is the lofty ambition of the perpetrators of this conflict. The invasion has simply radic.a.l.i.sed another generation of young muslims, more of whom will turn to extremism as a result. The eventual fate of Iraq I do not know but I suspect it will end up fractionalised along ethnic and sectarian lines with the Shia state forming a close affiliation with it's neighbour - Iran. :(

Edit - sorry about the spelling of radic.a.l.i.sed, I fell victim to the spam filter.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
el midgetron
Victory or good news maybe not, but positive news it is.

This war like most all war is all about land or territory, agree?

So your opponent left the territory that is being fought for, isn't that positive?

Humm, I don't agree. I tend to think terrorist are not subject to the old rule of "controlling territory". In ww2, when the Russians took Berlin it was the end of the war for Hitler. When we we took Afganistan and Iraq, the terrorist (mostly) just slighterd away into the vast international network they have in 50 some countries.

Also, the strategy of a guerilla war in much different than the old "front-line" push for territory of traditional war fare. The insurgent are not so much trying to control Iraq, they are just trying to wear down the occupying forces. They do this by remaining concealed untill they attack and then disappearing back into the shadows.

So the US no longer knows where this al-Sadr guy is. How is this a positive turn of events from when we at least knew he was in Iraq?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

Is it also a victory for the US that Osama has fled Afganistan?

I was about to bring up the same point.

Victory or good news maybe not, but positive news it is.

Really? If a serial killer in the US manages to cross the border into some country that the US has no jurisdiction in, is that positive news? What basically happened if al-Sadr left Iraq for Iran is--- he escaped. The US has no way of persuing him in Iran. As long as he stayed in Iraq, there was the capacity to capture him if he does anything...

This war like most all war is all about land or territory, agree?

Disagree. This is nothing like that. You're not fighting an opposing army (the Iraqi army has long been defeated)... you're now trying to stabilize the country. Plus... what war are you refering to? The war on Iraq has been accomplished, remember?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Humm, I don't agree. I tend to think terrorist are not subject to the old rule of "controlling territory". In ww2, when the Russians took Berlin it was the end of the war for Hitler. When we we took Afganistan and Iraq, the terrorist (mostly) just slighterd away into the vast international network they have in 50 some countries.

Also, the strategy of a guerilla war in much different than the old "front-line" push for territory of traditional war fare. The insurgent are not so much trying to control Iraq, they are just trying to wear down the occupying forces. They do this by remaining concealed untill they attack and then disappearing back into the shadows.

So the US no longer knows where this al-Sadr guy is. How is this a positive turn of events from when we at least knew he was in Iraq?

-More of you won't admit, what is to rule or control with no territory to do so?

Yes they slight into the vast international network like Afghanistan, Fallujah and Somalia and we are rooting them out slowly.

The thing is there are those like yourself who say this is a different war we are fightting and yet disagree with how we are fighting it differently :blink:

- What the heck do you think they would do when they wear down their enemies??? Just stay at bay and tell the Iraqis now you can go vote and elect your own leader??? :wacko:

- How is Al Sadr fleeing positive? Ever try ruling a territory occupied by your enemy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
It's true I should have qualified my statement as 'No one in their right mind wants Iraq not to be successful". There are extremists of the opposite wing who would see the situation in Iraq becoming impossible as a 'victory'. Thanks for pointing that out. :tu:

I'm not going into the pre-war 'Saddam has WMD' accusations as the information freely available was strongly suggestive he did not (although he probably had the technology and resources to produce more), but there could have been information still kept classified that we are not privy to.

Sadly I do not share the idealistic hope that Iraq will become the 'free, democratic society' which is the lofty ambition of the perpetrators of this conflict. The invasion has simply radic.a.l.i.sed another generation of young muslims, more of whom will turn to extremism as a result. The eventual fate of Iraq I do not know but I suspect it will end up fractionalised along ethnic and sectarian lines with the Shia state forming a close affiliation with it's neighbour - Iran. :(

Edit - sorry about the spelling of radic.a.l.i.sed, I fell victim to the spam filter.

As I said, the whole world was guessing then and Saddam purposely was deceiving the whole world for whatever reason. Maybe he did not want to look weak.

He has created enough trouble for mankind that putting him away for good was long over due.

The radical objective is to get bigger and grow regardless, you fight them now before they get so big and us wondering why we didn't do anything about it before when we could have done so easliy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
-More of you won't admit, what is to rule or control with no territory to do so?

Yes they slight into the vast international network like Afghanistan, Fallujah and Somalia and we are rooting them out slowly.

The thing is there are those like yourself who say this is a different war we are fightting and yet disagree with how we are fighting it differently :blink:

- What the heck do you think they would do when they wear down their enemies??? Just stay at bay and tell the Iraqis now you can go vote and elect your own leader??? :wacko:

- How is Al Sadr fleeing positive? Ever try ruling a territory occupied by your enemy?

AROCES,

* The ultimate in disposing one's troops is to be without ascertainable shape. Then the most penetrating spies cannot pry in nor can the wise lay plans against you.

* And therefore those skilled in war bring the enemy to the field of battle and are not brought there by him.

* What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

* To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.

Sun Tzu

The insurgents don't need to control the territory they are operating in, they just have to deny the Coalition/Iraqi forces that control.

For all the parts of this 'network' that are being slowly rooted out by force, many others will spring up from the resentment this force will provoke.

Unfortunately, the Coalition are still fighting the last war. This new war - the war against the insurgents and terrorism - will not be fought and won or lost on the traditional battlefield.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
AROCES,

The insurgents don't need to control the territory they are operating in, they just have to deny the Coalition/Iraqi forces that control.

For all the parts of this 'network' that are being slowly rooted out by force, many others will spring up from the resentment this force will provoke.

Unfortunately, the Coalition are still fighting the last war. This new war - the war against the insurgents and terrorism - will not be fought and won or lost on the traditional battlefield.

- Well, you can tell Sun Tzu by going to Iraq we p***ed off the hiding enemies and they came out and fought us, now we have a battle field.

- They are denying for they want to control it instead. GEE, can't you even figure that out?

- Yup, and we will root them all out, just a matter of who caves in, that is the psychological part of the war. Obvioulsy there are those who already are defeated by the insurgents.

- And you want to fight them with peace signs and doves while they are aiming their AK47 at you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
el midgetron
-More of you won't admit, what is to rule or control with no territory to do so?

Not sure what you are talking about but one might say the power of allah is recognizes no boarders.

Yes they slight into the vast international network like Afghanistan, Fallujah and Somalia and we are rooting them out slowly.

3 down, 47 more to go.

The thing is there are those like yourself who say this is a different war we are fightting and yet disagree with how we are fighting it differently :blink:

It seems like we are fighting it alot like we fought vietnam. Except we legalized torture this time around. Maybe thats the extra kick in the pants vietnam needed.

- What the heck do you think they would do when they wear down their enemies??? Just stay at bay and tell the Iraqis now you can go vote and elect your own leader??? :wacko:

Well, the insurgents are said to be mostly Iraqies. so.......maybe?

- How is Al Sadr fleeing positive? Ever try ruling a territory occupied by your enemy?

Whos occupying who? And whos our enemy?

As I said, the whole world was guessing then and Saddam purposely was deceiving the whole world for whatever reason. Maybe he did not want to look weak.

Yeah, I dunno. Your "guess" is as good as mine.

He has created enough trouble for mankind that putting him away for good was long over due.

Saddam is smiling in his grave right now thinking of what a notorious bad guy he will be rememberd as. Its a legacy he never could have created on his own. Perhaps if he wasnt dead you could stroke his ego in person.

The radical objective is to get bigger and grow regardless, you fight them now before they get so big and us wondering why we didn't do anything about it before when we could have done so easliy.

Yeah, but then why is it positive news that al-Sadr got away. Arent we gonna have to fight him eventualy? Seems it would have been "easier" to get this guy when we at least had a faint idea where he was?

Edited by el midgetron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Not sure what you are talking about but one might say the power of allah is recognizes no boarders.
So we drew borders that the power of Allah could recognize.

3 down, 47 more to go.

Yup, for we didn't bother with any before and yet we got hit on 9/11

It seems like we are fighting it alot like we fought vietnam. Except we legalized torture this time around. Maybe thats the extra kick in the pants vietnam needed.
We are fighting it differently, it is the Liberals who sees it and is doing the same thing as they did in vietnam.

Well, the insurgents are said to be mostly Iraqies. so.......maybe?

Well, you are wrong. A lot of the insurgents are foreign fighters.

Whos occupying who? And whos our enemy?
We are occupying the Iraqi land and the enemy is the same enemy of the Iraqis themselves.

Saddam is smiling in his grave right now thinking of what a notorious bad guy he will be rememberd as. Its a legacy he never could have created on his own.

He can smile on his graave now as much as he wants for doing that causes no one harm.

Yeah, but then why is it positive news that al-Sadr got away. Arent we gonna have to fight him eventualy? Seems it would have been "easier" to get this guy when we at least had a faint idea where he was?

Got away? You mean he ran away from the fight, so who knows when we will fight him again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

AROCES, my friend, calm down.

I am not trying to insult anyone nor engage in an argument. My insinuation is that the tactics being used to fight this war are not the tactics that will win it.

Well, you can tell Sun Tzu by going to Iraq we p***ed off the hiding enemies and they came out and fought us, now we have a battle field.
Firstly 9/11 provoked the US to go and fight on foreign soil. Your enemy caused you to fight the war where your advantage of superior equipment was somewhat mitigated. In Iraq (not linked to 9/11) the Coalition forces have been drawn into an ugly urban guerilla war. While some of the forces involved are no doubt trained in this type of warfare it is vastly different - and more difficult - than traditional warfare which the great majority of the forces would have been trained in.

They are denying for they want to control it instead. GEE, can't you even figure that out?

The insurgents know they cannot control the territory yet. But by denying control to the Coalition they draw out this war into a hugely expensive campaign. They may be able to win by simple economics and this should be a concern.

Yup, and we will root them all out, just a matter of who caves in, that is the psychological part of the war. Obvioulsy there are those who already are defeated by the insurgents.
See my point above. How many generations of Coalition youth will be asked to sign up to continue this action? Are these nations willing to bankrupt themselves to do this? The way the war is being fought must change if we are to achieve victory.

And you want to fight them with peace signs and doves while they are aiming their AK47 at you?

The war has been engaged and the clock cannot be turned back. I would not have entertained the invasion of Iraq had I been able to effect it, but now that it has happened the only way out of this is to finish rebuilding Iraq and then look at how to engage this new enemy - the terrorist. Entertaining ideas such as continuing a campaign in the ME against Iran is a sign the Administrations of the major Coalition players either have an agenda in the ME they are not divulging to the public ( :rolleyes: ) or are incredibly inept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brave_new_world
- Well, you can tell Sun Tzu by going to Iraq we p***ed off the hiding enemies and they came out and fought us, now we have a battle field.

Talking about Sun Tzu I thought I would cite some lines from his famous "The Art of War".

Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistence without fighting.(Shame George Bush, Tony blair, John howard cannot figure this out. Gandhi did and proved successful with it against the might of the British empire )And this: All warefare is based on deception. (I think it is very safe to say that the war on iraq was started by lies and deception) And also this:There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. (Well it isn't exactly doing wonders for the american economy or the families who are losing young and old ones in this stupid war, or for the thousands of civillians dying and suffering in Iraq, and to think they may want to do the same thing with Iran, where is the intelligence???)

- And you want to fight them with peace signs and doves while they are aiming their AK47 at you?

Yes that is what I'd suggest. And if we died in the process then so be it. Better to die for what is right without killing anyone for it. Bloodshed only leads to more bloodshed. It is the Golden rule and very ancient. Take World War one for example. It was meant to be the great War to end all wars but it only brought on World war two in a matter of years, which many historians consider to be a more sinister world war than the first.

I'll put up some of Gandhi's writings to elucidate the point:

-"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall — think of it, always."

-"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

-"There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for."

Gandhi also said one could apply this to the situation of war. When it looked as though Germany was going to invade England Gandhi said as thus:

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."

Be happy to die for what is right and have faith that by doing the right thing, you'll be taken care of. It is the fear of death that stops us. Do your best not to fear death. It is going to happen to us anyway. And in war there is always going to be heavy casualties so if that is so why not die doing the non-violent, peaceful thing?

That is my logic anyway.

Edited by brave_new_world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES

Firstly 9/11 provoked the US to go and fight on foreign soil. Your enemy caused you to fight the war where your advantage of superior equipment was somewhat mitigated. In Iraq (not linked to 9/11) the Coalition forces have been drawn into an ugly urban guerilla war. While some of the forces involved are no doubt trained in this type of warfare it is vastly different - and more difficult - than traditional warfare which the great majority of the forces would have been trained in.

Tell that to the Marines.

The insurgents know they cannot control the territory yet. But by denying control to the Coalition they draw out this war into a hugely expensive campaign. They may be able to win by simple economics and this should be a concern.

Not yet means they do want to control it regardless, the only thing that is going for the insurgents is the Psychological warfare. Their bomb here and there are very effective, echoed by the media and magnified by the Anti War/Bush.

See my point above. How many generations of Coalition youth will be asked to sign up to continue this action? Are these nations willing to bankrupt themselves to do this? The way the war is being fought must change if we are to achieve victory.
What we are doing here is a struggle for the future against the kind of people who cut heads on video and would want to rule a civilization. At what price do you ask we are willing to pay for it?

The war has been engaged and the clock cannot be turned back. I would not have entertained the invasion of Iraq had I been able to effect it, but now that it has happened the only way out of this is to finish rebuilding Iraq and then look at how to engage this new enemy - the terrorist. Entertaining ideas such as continuing a campaign in the ME against Iran is a sign the Administrations of the major Coalition players either have an agenda in the ME they are not divulging to the public ( :rolleyes: ) or are incredibly inept.

More of it was time we draw a line to this threat that we been trying to ignore and hoping it will just die down OR we can live with. As you can see, they want to expand and see a world more to their liking. Either we do nothing and adopt to them or fight them for they will never adopt to the Western World.

Edited by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES

[

I think it is very safe to say that the war on iraq was started by lies and deception
You are talking about Saddam and his 10 years of thumbing his nose at the UN, right?

And also this:There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. (Well it isn't exactly doing wonders for the american economy or the families who are losing young and old ones in this stupid war, or for the thousands of civillians dying and suffering in Iraq, and to think they may want to do the same thing with Iran, where is the intelligence

Do we make it a policy then that whenever an enemy can outlast us, or become too expensive we pull out, withdraw or surrender?

Do we go to war from now on with a set budget and pull out when we meet the set budget?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited
[

You are talking about Saddam and his 10 years of thumbing his nose at the UN, right?

Do we make it a policy then that whenever an enemy can outlast us, or become too expensive we pull out, withdraw or surrender?

Do we go to war from now on with a set budget and pull out when we meet the set budget?

exactly who is the enemy?..thats why you cant win in iraq..everyones the enemy...it's a religous civil war...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
exactly who is the enemy?..thats why you cant win in iraq..everyones the enemy...it's a religous civil war...

If everyone is an enemy in Iraq, we would have been driven out of there on day one. Imagine the whole Iraqis on the Street of Baghdad chanting U.S. OUT!. Why is that not happening? The Iraqis who are longing for a more civilized living conditions are working on it against those who does not want it,

the thing is there are those like yourself who basically has given up the fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brave_new_world
You are talking about Saddam and his 10 years of thumbing his nose at the UN, right?

Funny the Un said he had no weapons of mass destruction..........

Do we make it a policy then that whenever an enemy can outlast us, or become too expensive we pull out, withdraw or surrender?

Do we go to war from now on with a set budget and pull out when we meet the set budget?

They are no longer the enemy. You got rid of saddam now you are just occupying Iraq for conquest at the expense of your own soldiers and iraq civilian lives, I am not talking about the american people in general here. I am talking about the government that wants to be dictators in the name of democracy. You never should have gone to war there in the first place. This is exactly like vietnam but this time round yous have legalized torture for extricating information.

Where do you see this war in five years time? Ten years time? I see if anything not the cleaning up of Iraq but the going forth into other middle-eastern countries i.e. Iran. This war is set out to be a long war with no beneficial interest to the masses on either the west's or east's side.

This is my opinion anyway. Here is some song lyrics to show what I mean. Just change the word "Vietnam" with the word Iraq and you'll get the picture:

Yeah, come on all of you, big strong men,

Uncle Sam needs your help again.

He's got himself in a terrible jam

Way down yonder in Vietnam

So put down your books and pick up a gun,

We're gonna have a whole lotta fun.

And it's one, two, three,

What are we fighting for ?

Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,

Next stop is Vietnam;

And it's five, six, seven,

Open up the pearly gates,

Well there ain't no time to wonder why,

Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Well, come on generals, let's move fast;

Your big chance has come at last.

Gotta go out and get those reds —

The only good commie is the one who's dead

And you know that peace can only be won

When we've blown 'em all to kingdom come.

And it's one, two, three,

What are we fighting for ?

Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,

Next stop is Vietnam;

And it's five, six, seven,

Open up the pearly gates,

Well there ain't no time to wonder why

Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Huh!

Well, come on Wall Street, don't move slow,

Why man, this is war au-go-go.

There's plenty good money to be made

By supplying the Army with the tools of the trade,

Just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,

They drop it on the Viet Cong.

And it's one, two, three,

What are we fighting for ?

Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,

Next stop is Vietnam.

And it's five, six, seven,

Open up the pearly gates,

Well there ain't no time to wonder why

Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Well, come on mothers throughout the land,

Pack your boys off to Vietnam.

Come on fathers, don't hesitate,

Send 'em off before it's too late.

Be the first one on your block

To have your boy come home in a box.

And it's one, two, three

What are we fighting for ?

Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,

Next stop is Vietnam.

And it's five, six, seven,

Open up the pearly gates,

Well there ain't no time to wonder why,

Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

----Country Joe and the fish :gun::gun:

Edited by brave_new_world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES

Funny the Un said he had no weapons of mass destruction..........
17 UN Rsolutions, Embargo, No fly Zone, Oil for food program.

Yes, UN was able to say that for we went in and verified it!

They are no longer the enemy. You got rid of saddam now you are just occupying Iraq for conquest at the expense of your own soldiers and civilians lives, I am not talking about the american people in general here. I am talking about the government that wants to be dictators in the name of democracy. You never should have gone to war there in the first place. This is exactly like vietnam but this time round yous have legalised torture for extricating information.

If we didn't take a stand in Vietnam, should we have then not do anything if Indonesai was next, then the Philippines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brave_new_world
17 UN Rsolutions, Embargo, No fly Zone, Oil for food program.

Yes, UN was able to say that for we went in and verified it!

If we didn't take a stand in Vietnam, should we have then not do anything if Indonesai was next, then the Philippines?

As it was yous lost in Vietnam. And besides indonesia and the phili[[ines are not your governments country so why should you be worried? The oil for food program was a scam especially here n australia. And if you went in and verified that there was no weapons of destruction then why the need for military action? Amazing how quick it went from removing weapons of mass destruction to regime change...........

Anyway I have said enough. I dont care to debate this any longer. I have had my say. Only sufffering, hatred and fear can ever be the outcome of war. The Iraq war is a perfect demonstration of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.