Lili Gans

The U.S and its allies have made a serious mistake by invading Iraq in order to save it from Saddam Hussein. The mistake it made is in assuming that Iraqis value democracy as much as the Western nations do.
Arabs and Muslims are by nature followers of sheiks, imams and caliphs. They appear to be hierarchical rather than egalitarian as evidenced by their treatment of women. In Muslim culture women are second-rate citizens with few personal liberties. I will not debate this issue here for it is not the topic in question and frankly if the women want to be equal they will have to fight their own fight.
However, I am convinced that democracy is a way of living and not just a form of government. The right to vote is only the first step to a democratic lifestyle. In order to enjoy this lifestyle one must be able to express an opinion without fear of arrest or punishment. Such freedom is by and large non-existent in Muslim countries. It therefore is foolish to try to impose democracy on a people who are unprepared or hostile to it. They simply do not know how to live in a democracy, especially if they are fundamentalists.
For several decades Iraqis were under the yoke of a tyrant and therefore have no idea of what it means to be responsible for making free choices in life. All they are familiar with are violence and fear. Let loose following the destruction of Saddam it is not surprising that the Iraqis should behave like berserk ex-slaves. Who can blame them? They are now relishing the freedom to kill anyone with an opposing view. How could the average normal Westerner conceive of a situation where sectarian violence would follow the removal of a tyrant? And yet isn't that exactly what is happening among the Palestinians as well? They have a common foreign adversary and yet they fight among themselves. This shows that they are functioning among the lower levels of the evolutionary tree. They are blind to the bigger picture which may bring peace and development and a normal existence for them all. At the moment any voice of reason is hushed up. So it is in Iraq.
What really concerns me now is the future outcome of the Iraqi war. I do not want to see another body bag with the remains of an American soldier returned to a grieving nation. Such deaths are sacrifices for no good reason. The Iraqis don't appreciate the sacrifice. In fact they resent it. It is only now that Americans in general are realising that there will be no benefit in giving up one's life for a lost cause and the whole thing has turned sour and hopeless.
Not that I support the "head in the sand" attitude of those who never wanted to act in the first place. Something had to be done but Arabs don't respect peaceful negotiation. It is alien to them. There is no doubt that Saddam had weapons and that they are hidden in the Syrian desert somewhere. I never cared whether he did or not. The WMD excuse was always going to be lame when one had to depend on the loyalty of the cowardly French, the left-wing Germans, and the double-crossing Russians to support any action. How smug they all sound now! But do they have the right to be smug when they should be scared shitless because of their own internal problems with Muslims?
Eurabia is the real nightmare which faces Europe and even moderate cultures such as that of the Scandinavians and the Dutch are now apprehensive about having allowed Muslims into their countries. When problems with the Muslims escalate further as we have already witnessed in Paris I hope that America holds firm and leaves Europe to its fate. It will be interesting to see how long it will take those cowardly Europeans to ask for American assistance.
As for me, I would not have attacked Iraq, because I believe that there is a better and pragmatic way of dealing with the problem.Get rid of the leader who is encouraging and funding terrorism. The one who paid Palestinians to become suicide bombers in Israel and in other places. It would have been much more humane this way and fewer lives on both sides would have been lost. A monster can't exist for long without a head. I am aware of the fact that there was a stable of monsters ready to step into Saddam's shoes, but perhaps one of the leaders might have seen the light and thought more of the well-being of Iraqis than of his own megalomania.
So what should happen at this stage? It's a wise man who knows when to call it quits. I would give the Iraqis a last vote. Do they want American help or not? If they say yes, then conditions must be set down. Terrorists and insurgents will have to be named and arrested with the aid of the Iraqi people themselves. If they vote no and I hope that they will do so, then leave them to their fate. Sit back and watch how Sunnis and Shiites continue to massacre each other as they try to dominate their Muslim "brothers". I hope that the Kurds will be left alone and when the dust settles, perhaps Iraq will be no more. It seems to be the direction they are heading anyway so why postpone the inevitable?

Had Cindy Sheehan's son been killed while he was doing a tax return in his office for a client or twirling in a pirouette during a performance of "Swan Lake" it would have been a case of murder. Sheehan's son, however, was a soldier and fighting is what soldiers are meant to do. When they join the army, they have to be prepared to serve wherever and whenever they are needed. They can't say "Sorry, that place looks too dangerous for me. I prefer to go to Barbados for the weather. Send someone else cause I don't want to upset my mother."
There are thousands of mothers who would have preferred their sons to stay home and be safe. After all, no mother wants to see her son go off to war.
There are many jobs where the risks are great. Policemen and firemen, for example, face danger every day and they do this fully aware of the risks of their job. We all remember their bravery during September 2001.
Cindy Sheehan was traumatised by her loss and we sympathise with her grief, but she should accept this loss as the risk that her son took when he enlisted. By complaining and demonstrating against the war she is diminishing her son's profession, not to mention the contribution made by all military personnel and their families.
Do I advocate war? Most certainly not.The discussion should not be about the legality of the war in Iraq. That is an entirely different issue. But if Cindy Sheehan wanted her son to remain safe and coddled then she should have encouraged him to pursue a career with fewer obvious risks.
It was his choice, his risk and his life, and perhaps she would be happier today if she accepted that he did this in the hope that others would be safe. Even if his motivation were not based on the ideals of defending the nation, he made a contract to join the military and was obliged to fulfill it. He was not conscripted; he chose to join.

What a waste of an organ!
Can't help thinking that the family whose loved one donated a liver to George Best in 2002 would be feeling that the former football star disrespected the greatest gift that one person can bestow on another. Not long after the transplant, George resumed his alcoholic binges and is now on life-support.
Donor families aren't told who receives the organs but this must be a step-back for the donor cause. Most likely, there was another person in need of a liver who would have treated the transplant with the care it deserved. The donation would have represented a second chance at life for those poor souls who missed out in favour of the celebrity.
So what happened instead? George trashed it.
I firmly believe that George has every right to do whatever damage he wants to his own body, but in this case, isn't there a moral responsibility to the donor?
I was under the impression that recipients are vetted for more than just organ compatiblity. Surely they should undertake to change their ways following a transplant, not just for themselves but as a gesture to other would-be donors who wonder if their gift could also be wasted.