Friday, February 04, 2005

More comments........, more answers


First of all I have to tell you that you are write, I am surely Sunni, but definitely you are wrong, I am not belonging to saddam's regime as you guess. You are wrong again in saying that sunni= belonging to sadam's regime.
It is easy to determine that you don't know sadam or his regime. You have to thank Good for that. You are wrong again in saying that i have little to gain from democratic revolution!!!. You should know that there is no democracy under occupation. I can go on enumerating how wrong you are !!. But instead I will tell you some truths i hope it will open a new vision in front of you.
1-Me and most of my friends and relatives are anti sadam, the reason for that not because he is sunni but we believe from the early days he got the control that he is the man of America in the middle east.
The Iraqi - Iran war proved our believed. if you don't believe that , you should reread the history.
2- From the history also. All the governments ruled Iraq from the start of Islam in Iraq till the time of sadam all are sunni, what a coincident.?. I know why. But if you don't know you should reread the history once more again.
3- Most of our brothers, the Kurds are sunni, most of them are anti sadam too.
4- Till few months ago is: before the war, no body think that he is sunni or sheie, we all Moslems.
5- counting the Kurds as sunni, the majority of Iraqis will be sunni.... Did you got why the concentration of Arabic -Kurdish differencing in western media.??
6- Just for the FACT, sadam had killed thousands of Iraqi peoples Arab, Kurd. Moslems, and Christians with out differencing of any kind. the concentration on the event of Halabja city( where several thousand Kurd were killed by chemical weapon is all made by the media. I am sure the CIA and the American government have the write story......... You have to look for another source for history.

the last thing I have to mention here that i read an article about the Iraqi election, written by an American author. the complete text could be found at:

"It's almost two years since the invasion of Iraq and the world has not been able to hear from any of the members of Saddam Hussein's regime, because of course they are all under lock and key, waiting to go on trial for hiding weapons of mass destruction they did not have and for colluding with Al Qaeda, which they did not do. I've often wondered what happened to Muhammad al-Douri (as I have spelled his surname). I had been in daily touch with him by e-mail and cellphone when he was Iraq's Ambassador to the United Nations in the last days before the March 2003 invasion, but lost touch with him when he left quickly for Europe on the day Baghdad fell. We'd originally met through his predecessor at the UN, Nizar Hamdoon, who I'd known since I began looking into the allegations of Iraq's misdeeds in 1997. Hamdoon passed away last year, of cancer, and I'd been assured by the Iraqi U.N. Mission that al-Douri was okay. It was nice, though, to see this interview on the Al Jazeera English website this week. I would have missed it in my daily scan, but spotted his frowning visage. He's really a most pleasant fellow, a rather distinguished lawyer who joined the diplomatic corps to represent Iraq at the Human Rights Convention in Geneva. In case you wonder, I agree completely with him in this interview, that the recent elections are meaningless because they were arranged along sectarian, not nationalist lines. President Bush should read this. He would learn a thing or two.

Iraq elections, democratic practice but ...
by Ahmed Janabi

When Baghdad was occupied on 9 April 2003, the last Iraqi ambassador of Saddam Hussein's government to the UN, Muhammad al-Duri, declared that the game was over. A journalist, university professor and statesman who served as an Iraqi delegate to the UN from 1999 to 2003, he left Iraq in 1999 to act as Iraq's ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Switzerland before he was moved to New York where he remained until he resigned after the occupation of Iraq.

How do you feel about the elections?

al-Duri: Despite everything that has been said about its incompetence, it is still a democratic practice. It is part of a well-thought out US plan to implement its strategy in Iraq. But one must be aware that last Sunday's elections establish sectarianism in Iraq. So many Iraqis entered the electoral process whether as candidates or voters on a sectarian and/or ethnic basis and motives. It is very dangerous and Iraqis should reject sectarianism.

But according to many Iraqi voters who talked to reporters on election day, they did so because they wanted to end the state of chaos in their country and restore security and stability. Isn't that the case?

al-Duri: I do not agree with that concept, these elections are not designed to restore security and stability. The US administration has been desperate to legalise its occupation of Iraq, but it has failed so far. This mission has become an obsession for it; especially that the war on Iraq is still protested against by EU and Arab countries. Therefore the US is trying to legitimise its existence in Iraq by bringing in an elected parliament and a government which are fully loyal to it [US], and as such it will be able to conclude long term agreements that secure its interests and influence in Iraq.

As a politician and a professor of politics, do you think that the Iraqi Sunni Arabs boycotting of the elections could put the legitimacy of the process at risk?

al-Duri: It is wrong to say that Sunni Arabs boycotted the elections. It is an attempt to ridicule a national Iraqi position that opposes the division of the country, by labelling it as a sectarian position. The US occupation has encouraged the virtual division of Iraq into three entities. The first one is in the north, it is ethnically motivated and works to separate itself and establish an independent state (Kurdistan). The second in the south plans to split and establish a sectarian entity backed by Iran. The third is central Iraq which for some reason carries a national vision for the future of Iraq. Obviously the US works hard to destroy this entity, which happens to be Sunni and exists in central Iraq. But as a matter of fact, the people of central Iraq are Arab Iraqi Muslims in addition to being Sunnis. This part of the country holds a sense of national identity that rejects the foreign occupation and separation bids.

But boycotting elections would have delayed the formation of a national Iraqi government, parliament and constitution, don't you agree?

All that you are talking about was approved by the former US administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer.

And what is wrong with that if it would benefit the country?

al-Duri: A country's constitution must be national, while Iraq's interim constitution which laid the foundation for Iraq's future constitution was put forward by Noah Feldman, a Jewish American university professor. All the documents that rule Iraq today were made in the US, translated to Arabic and forwarded to Iraqis who could not even discuss them properly. How can a country adopt a constitution imposed by a foreign power? Even the elections were set by Feldman's document, and thus the elections have no legitimacy because it is based on illegal documents written by an occupying force.

The interim Iraqi interior minister has said the US could pull out of Iraq in 18 months. What do you think of this statement?

Initially, I would like to ask why this statement came on the eve of the elections? It was obviously part of the election campaign.
However, this is part of the US' exit strategy. This notion is being widely discussed in the US, not because the US genuinely wants to pull out from Iraq, but because of unexpected urban fighting. They are spending hundreds millions of dollars on Iraqi security forces in order to put them face to face with the resistance. Actually, this money is supposed to be for the reconstruction of Iraq, but I can assure you that nothing has been reconstructed, absolutely nothing, not even in the oil sector. At the end of the day, Iraqi officials do not speak for themselves, they just echo the US' desires and instructions. The real ruler of today's Iraq is not the president of Iraq, nor the interim prime minister; actually it is the US embassy in Baghdad. It is unlikely that the US would voluntarily withdraw from Iraq; it has spent nearly $300 billion up to now, how is it going to get this money back if it withdraws? The US has captured a goose with golden eggs (Iraq), why would it let it go? That cannot be. The US did not go to war with Iraq because of WMD, or links with al-Qaida. I am fully convinced that it has an agenda in my country. It also did not come to establish democracy in the country. On the contrary, if we look at what is in today's Iraq we will find nothing but division, hatred, and sectarianism. If the US were to pull out, it will not do so unless it secures powerful bases in Iraq.

US bases exist in Japan and Germany; I think no one can argue that US bases hindered the development of those two countries in the post-second world war era?

al-Duri: It is very strange that some Iraqis accept this idea. US bases in Germany and Japan were set up in different international conditions! It came after a world war involving Germany and Japan who waged an aggressive war and occupied foreign countries, and the US and its allies fought to drive out German forces from occupied Europe. That was not the case with Iraq. There were no Iraqi forces out of Iraqi soil, and the war took place on its soil with forces which came from overseas to occupy it. How can we compare what has happened in Iraq with Nazi Germany?!

Regardless, why don't anti-US Iraqis wait and see?

al-Duri: You have to choose either bread with dignity or bread without dignity. Why should we wait? What does Iraq need from the US? It is a country rich in resources, located in a strategic position, and with a highly educated people. If the US really wants to help, there are dozens of poor and undeveloped countries out there, let it help them instead of helping a country which possesses the world's second largest oil reserve and which has achieved high rates of development before it occupied it.

When Baghdad fell to US forces on 9 April 2003, you said the "game is over". What did you mean by that?

Many people interpreted my words that what happened was a game between Saddam Hussein and the US; actually I meant that during the 13 years of UN sanctions on Iraq, the UN was acting like a theatre.
All players were not sincere in finding a way to end the sanctions that killed millions of Iraqis. The proof for that is when the US decided to attack Iraq, everyone backed off and the US did what it wanted.

: But there were protests around the world, and many countries did oppose the war.
al-Duri: That was not enough."


Lisa, New York said...

"You should know that there is no democracy under occupation."

There would be no democracy without the "occupation" either. At least the "occupation" is attempting to set up the conditions for a democracy. Most Iraqis seem to understand that and are grabbing the opportunity. If you don't, that's your fault. You can stand on the sidelines while the rest of Iraq moves into the future if you want to.

"Till few months ago is: before the war, no body think that he is sunni or sheie, we all Moslems."

I think millions of your Shia brethren, who were not even allowed to celebrate their customs under Saddam, would disagree with your assessment.

"Me and most of my friends and relatives are anti sadam, the reason for that not because he is sunni but we believe from the early days he got the control that he is the man of America in the middle east."

What simplicity. He was also the man of France, China, Russia and many others. That's what happens with geopolitical strategy. Iran (which had taken Americans hostage at the embassy) was a bigger threat to the U.S. in the 1980s than Saddam was. Other countries made similar calculations. Stop trying to blame all your problems on America. Iraq created Saddam and kept him in power for years. Look within yourselves. There are 25 million of you.

Anonymous said...

2- from the start of Islam in Iraq till the time of sadam all are sunni, what a coincident.?

You argue that there was no sectarian divisiveness prior to 2003. I am of the understanding that Iraq is governed by large extended families. When there is a power vaccuum, the strengths of the tribes comes to the surface - one turns to one's family for survival.

From the start of Islam, hasn't it been a handful of tribes which have ruled through out the Middle East. Forgive me for saying so but it is not due to their inate superiority in governance but rather to a monopoly of resources - these ruling tribes are oligarchs.

I believe you are a doctor, a well educated man. Is it not possible you are suffering from cognitive dissonance? You renounce Baathism, yet you seek out a Baathist (al-Douri) to define the recent elections?

Jeff said...

Dr. Truth Teller:

Thank you for your long post. I hope my guess about what you thought didn't make you mad. I'm glad to hear the real story from you.

I know that since I have had the opportunity to read Iraqi blogs with all different ideas I have learned a lot of things. I don't agree with everything I read, but I can say that I have changed my mind about a lot of things and gotten a new perspective.

Iraqis and Americans are trying to understand each other and find the truth about each other. I think Iraqis can teach Americans about Iraq. And maybe listening to Americans can help Iraqis understand some things as well.

God bless you and your family and country. I hope everything will turn out well for Iraq. Maybe despite all the mistakes, misunderstandings and bad things people do, that will still happen.

Let me tell you one thing about America and what I see here. Whether the elections were good or bad for Iraq I don't know. But I know that the reason people in America were happy was because many of us love Iraq and we really want Iraq to be free and happy. Maybe out of this love that millions of Americans have for your country will come a way to solve all the problems.

I'm going to try to keep out of fighting with commenters; I know you can defend yourself and what I am really interested in is listening to you.


TxRockhound said...

You are obviously entitled to your opinion about America's intentions, but I can't see how as an educated and intelligent man you can accept the statements in the Al Douri interview without questioning their validity. For instance, he states that nothing has been rebuilt. Your own daughter has posted information about schools and other facilities being built right there in Mosul with US assistance and funding. There are stories all over the internet on blogs by other Iraqis about water, sewer, and electric service being constructed where they never existed before, and being rebuilt in areas where it was deliberately allowed to fall into disrepair by Saddam to punish the people who lived there. Iraq is now putting out much more oil than it has at any point since the first Gulf War (started by Saddam by the way), only through the support and reconstruction efforts of US troops and contractors working alongside Iraqis. We are paying for most of it, and aren't taking a penny of the oil in return. The "Iraqi Jihadists" who you once told your daughter are fighting the occupation of Iraq on behalf of all Iraqis, are also bombing pipelines and oil facilities to prevent Iraq from exporting oil. Without the constant need to repair the damage done by these people who are supposedly "for" Iraq, your oil production could be even higher today. Your electricity and water service could also be more consistent and reliable without the attacks of these so-called patriots.

Dr., you are obviously an educated man. I am not asking you to believe what I say simply on faith, or asking you to trust the Americans simply because I am one. I am just asking you to look at things said by both sides with the same critical eye. You can see reconstruction going on in Mosul. So why would you believe what Al-Douri says when he claims no reconstruction has occurred. Your fellow Iraqis have posted pictures and stories of newly paved roads, improving cellular service, improving sewer and water service, etc. So why would you believe a member of the former regime who is living outside of Iraq instead of the words and pictures of your fellow Iraqis and the sights you can see with your own eyes?

You were just given a chance to vote for the first time with more than one name on the ballot. Did anybody stand behind your relatives and neighbors with a gun to make sure they checked the right name? Did anybody force you to put your name on the top of the ballot so that they could see who you voted for? The answer is no. So if Iraqis select leaders based on ethnic or religious sectarianism, it is because they were free to do so and that is what they chose. There were plenty of lists to be voted for which were secular in nature and ethnically diverse. If the goal of the supposedly rigged elections was to force Iraq into religious and ethnic division, why were the secular parties allowed to be on the ballot?

Please, do yourself, and more importantly your daughters, a favor, and read EVERYTHING critically, not just what comes from the US or the current interim government. Ask critical questions about claims made by anybody before you simply accept them as fact. Then look around you and see which one really makes sense. I understand that stepping away from traditional distrust built over a lifetime (and carefully cultivated by Saddam) can be difficult. But all of Iraq has been given a new chance to decide who and what Iraq will be. Don't stand on the sidelines paralyzed by distrust and fear of what is new and unknown. Get involved in it, embrace the opportunity that has been presented to you, and make Iraq what YOU want it to be.

aNarki-13 said...

umm... in the last elections (during THAT reign) nobody held a gun at my family.. they simply spread the word around that if anybody THOUGHT of not showing up on election day THEY (whomever they are) would "disappear" him and his family down to their 7th neighbor!

anybody read Catch-22 ??

Anonymous said...

I guess I may as well remain 'anonymous' as I have inadvertently made myself known, ironically. I truly appreciate your response and believe it sincere. I did not wish to be rude or inappropriately confrontational, but hoped to instigate some give and take.
You have your right to your opinion which is a wonderful thing, and I have taken yours into account.

It is all but impossible for me to put myself in your place as you have lived in unimaginable conditions. Which is why I find your opinion and that of others in your situation most interesting. I have found others who have a distinctly different view that I frankly find much more insightful and informed, but perhaps that is because it more closely conforms to my own beliefs.But I think I have a reasonably informed view of the current situation that is at the very least on par with your understanding of America.

America has some culpability for Saddam as a result of choosing between the lesser of two evils in a different time. But it is the citizens of Iraq who have primary responsibility for what he did and what has happened as a result. I suspect many in your country have had a sense of helplessness and hopelessness. Many heroically have made a step towards changing that. No matter what your conspiratorial thoughts as to the motives, America has provided Iraqis with a chance for greatness, for freedom. Even if there were some shadowy group that conforms to your theories, the American people are already weary of sending men, women and billions of our dollars trying to set things right so the region can finally join the modern world. Why would we care, other than genuinely valuing liberty? Mostly because the region you live in sits on the largest part of the resource which runs our economic engine for which we pay enourmous amounts of treasure. And for too long it has been paid to a select few at the expense of the citizens of the region. The treasure we send to these regimes are threatened by a free society and use that treasure against us. So it is largely for our own self preservation, but all will benefit from a modern, free Iraq. It hasn't come at a small price, freedom never has and never will. Not in America and not in Iraq.

Anonymous said...

THE anonymous once more. I spent more time on your post and discussed it with others whose experiences of life in Iraq I have come to rely upon for better understanding. To varying degrees they all suported my original assumptions about your positions and views. That seems to be confirmed by your last post. You may have not been a supporter of Saddam, but you apparently feel your future under his rule was preferable to what could lie ahead. If you opposed his tyranny, it was while recieving relative benefit from it. I went through your itemized points and found some value in them and even agreed in part as you may have seen, but much of it is a very biased view from one who suffered realtively little. One Kurd with whom I shared your points thought them laughable. Would these ' bretheren Kurds' be the same ones you claimed were stuffing the ballot boxes up the street? Your supporting documentation is based on the conspiratorial ravings of a former Baathist who fled the country? Kind of throws light on all that preceded it. Did you learn nothing from your life with them? You still rely on them for truth? Where did that get get Iraq?

If you are not part of the solution, you are a part of the problem.

All that is required for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing. Trite, perhaps...but true nonetheless.
As an American I can be simple and idealistic like that. It got us to where we are, for good or bad, or both. Learn to deal with it, you may even come to like it.

DagneyT said...

" but I can assure you that nothing has been reconstructed, absolutely nothing, not even in the oil sector."

This is as false as the rest of his diatribe. Photographic evidence is available everywhere you care to look on the internet!

Anonymous said...

5- counting the Kurds as sunni, the majority of Iraqis will be sunni.... In terms of province, there may be more non-Shiite dominated province but in terms of population, I have seen statistics that the Shiite are 60% of the population, while Kurds are 20%, Sunnis are 17%, and the remaining are 3%.

Anonymous said...

Sigh. I just want to hear what Najma's father has to say.

But the typical neocon American reaction is here, too, saying: if you do not totally worship and adore us abd believe our government's lies as completely as we do, you are a scoundrel. Look behind you, Americans: Bush is introducing the draft by the back door (it will be the only way for poor and middle-class children to get an education), closing down your social programs, mortgaging your future - heading for a one-party state and national financial meltdown faster than you can think.

Rachel, a Brit in London

atypical-academic said...

You say ``Me and most of my friends and relatives are anti sadam, the reason for that not because he is sunni but we believe from the early days he got the control that he is the man of America in the middle east.''

So you are anti-American. Fine. (We are getting used to it. If we don't do anything we are blamed. If we do something we are blamed. !!!)

But do you have to cut your nose (representing Iraq and poisoning the mind of your innocent daughters) to spite your face (the US). [I think you probably have a similar saying in arabic.]

You say you were anti-Saddam. [I assume you still are; and not pro-Saddam because US is against it.] So now US, whatever its motives, has helped to get rid of Saddam. Once Saddam was gone, some government had to rule the country. You of course blame the US for not protecting this and that, and not maintaining peace, and at the same time you rightly called it an occupier. Fine. Eventhough, you may not believe that it has been the US intention to help establish a democracy in Iraq, let us think what can be done to make Iraq a democracy.

Of course one can not start from Saddam's rule book. So where does one start from. One has to start from somewhere. You can not have a ``fair election'' as in say your favourite democracy (hopefully it is not Syria, or Egypt :-) ) until you make some rules. But who will make those rules. The rules won't make themselves. However that rule is made, those rules won't be as legitimate as they would have been if they were made by a fairly elected body. So we have a chicken-and-egg problem. Which comes first: the legitimate elected body that makes the rules, or the rules used to elect that legitimate body.

The solution that was adopted: start with a set of rules, elect using that rules, make new rules, use the new rules to elect, and so on. Thats how one iteratively (step by step) solves a chicken-and-egg problem. As time passes things get better and more legitimate.

I hope you understand the above, and change your mind and participate in this iteration process. The US president has publicly said that he will withdraw US forces if asked. Please think of the best way and fastest way of taking him up on his promise. Not by being part of the Mosul populace who passively support (or at least do not have the courage to oppose) the killers/insurgents/terrorists, many of whom are hiding in Mosul; as that actually delays what you want.

If you love Iraq (which I am sure you do) and also want US to be out of Iraq as soon as possible, take up the offer by Mr. Bush. That is the fastest. Your seeminlgy opposite behavior (of not voting, whether it is legitimate or not) has exactly the opposite effect. The more unstable Iraq is, the longer the US will be. So please, as a lover of Iraq do what is best for Iraq. Don't cut your nose to spite your face.

with sincere regards

Truth teller said...


Just let me tell some thing, Iam NOT anti-american. I am anti- america policy in our area (the middle east).
I lived in the state for a while and still have very good memory for those days. still have American friends.
why I blame America for our problem.. ??
I suppose you know the answer very well.
From 1991 till 2003 there were very unjust and unfair sanction against the people of iraq, killed million childn leave several others in very poor and meserable condition. The aim was to make this poor people rise against saddam. If you don't know saddam your government know saddam very well. they wished the impossible.
Now you know why I am anti- america's policy . Will you excuse me for that? I hope you will.

Anonymous said...

Hello Truth Teller,
Excellent analysis. Despite all the damage this hurried,imperfect, divisive election is capable of causing, there does seem to be a great belief in Iraqi friendship across sects despite all kinds of provocations. Since Bush & Co. continues to meddle in Iraqi politics, I hope to see a broad coalition of Iraqis speaking out against the continued presence of US troops. Time and talk hopefully can heal the wounds of an intrusive, ignorant occupation.

strykeraunt said...

Hopefully my comments below will not be taken as an attack against you because that is truly not my intention. Instead, I am trying to gain a better understanding of your position. From everything I know to this point I agree with most of the commenters above (well I never agree with Rachel but that's another story). THE Anonymous mentions a couple of quotes that I personally am very fond of and try to consider when making decisions about my life.

"All that is required for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing." and

"If you are not part of the solution, you are a part of the problem."

THE Anonymous may consider them trite but I believe that they cannot be said enough.The first quote is one that often runs through my head as I try to better understand the situation in Iraq and when I think of the willingness of the American soldier to sacrifice so much (especially when at least some of the population chooses to blame them for every problem that has occured or will occur in the future).

While I don't really enjoy filling my comments with other peoples quotes, for convenience reasons I also am bringing your comment to me from your previous post to this comment section for discussion.

You said, "Specially if you put yourself in Najma's shoes and see what she saw and hear what she hear in daily bases. If you had two nephews serving in Iraq, she have many relatives, neighbors, and persons she used to see them every days killed or injured during the time when the American were supposed to keep the civilians safe."

One thing I can understand clearly is that, just as you cannot truly put yourself in the shoes of the American soldiers serving in Iraq, I cannot put myself in Najma's shoes because I have never been in the situation that she faces everyday. However, I also have to wonder what Najma and her sister are hearing from you. And how does your words and actions deepen the hatred they feels for the American soldier. And how does that hatred impact thier future.

I want to re-emphasis that which has been said many times be numerous people. The population of American soldiers serving in Iraq in proportion to the Iraqi population does not allow the American soldier to be at all places at all times, or to take care of all problems presented to them. What has been one of the more shocking revelations over the last two years is the lack of initiative by many Iraqis to take steps themselves in an effort to keep civilians safe (and then to blame the American soldier because it is not safe). However, I also believe that more and more Iraqis are taking the initiatives to take care of themselves. Perhaps, those Iraqis who have chosen to take the initiative do so because they understand to truly be a sovereign nation the people must stand up and take care of themselves. One of the most telling indicators in outcome of the Iraqi elections is the sense that there are perhaps more Iraqis than others believed possible, willing to take a stand for their country and a stand for democracy. It is totally understandable that some may have chosen to not go to the polls on January 30, because the fear that the threats posed to the Iraqi people must have been overwhelming. However, I cannot understand what would bring a group of people to not show up because their choice boycott the election, unless it is democracy that is their real threat. If democracy is a threat, why? Was it the threats of terror that kept you away from the polls or the threat of democracy? Najma mentioned that one of the problems with going to the polls is that those who chose to would have to walk. However, you mentioned in your post that a polling place was fairly close to your home.

You clarified that you were not for Saddam, but it is still not clear to me whether you are a part of the baathist party. To be honest, I don't know enough about the baathist party but assume there are members who were (secretly) not for Saddam. From the little I know, it appears that baathist and democracy do not complement each other.

Whether or not we agree, I believe do that the type of dialogue presented by most commenters here is important.

atypical-academic said...

Dear Truth-teller:

I can understand why you think the sanctions were unjust and because of that your are anti-US policy.

As you yourself would agree US policies change with time, at one time they supported Saddam and ofcourse they remove Saddam.

So why be just anti-US policy. Please think and pick and choose. Why not be anti US policy only when you think they are bad for you and your country, and be supportive when they are good.

In English there is a saying: ``Don't throw the baby with the bathwater.'' In your case please don't work/protest/be unsupportive against the good and the bad.

In think the elections were good, and I hope I was able to explain why there can not be an election in a country transitioning from Dictatorship to Democracy
that will be 100% legitimate. Please do not malign the election process and cast unreasonable doubts. Please consider the transitional process in Japan and Germany after world war 2. The US played a big role in it. Both turned out pretty good. Didn't they?

Anonymous said...

Rachel said: "Sigh. I just want to hear what Najma's father has to say." I'm not going to sigh, because everyone has the right to their opinions. But I, too, want to hear what Truth Teller has to say. There's that old expression about walking a mile in someone else's shoes. But before you can walk in those shoes, you have to tie the laces. Reading Iraqi bloggers has made it clear that not only do I have no clue about how to tie the laces, I have yet to figure out how to even put the shoes on. Truth Teller, thank you for the experiences you have shared with us thus far. I hope you will continue to do so. I wish you and your family the very best.

--Joanie, USA

Anonymous said...

Amen to that, Truth Teller. There is quite a bit of myth dispelling to do, isn't there not.

One can always tell when one is getting close to the truth because all the worms come out of the woodwork and begin nibbling on ones publishings in the substratum world of comments, as if to blight clarity.

Another truth-teller

Anonymous said...

The sanctions were imposed by the UN because Saddam did not honor the cease-fire agreement that he made. Now, how is that the fault of the US? If you don't like what Saddam does, you blame the US. If you don't like what the UN does (impose sanctions), blame the US. If you don't like it that Saddam continued spending Iraq's treasure on pursuit of WMD, filling his own pockets, building palaces and mosques by the dozens, just blame the US.

How can you honestly believe it is the fault of the US that Arab regimes spend their money for their own selfish pursuits and to shore up their monopoly on power instead of building medical, educational, and economic infrastructure to benefit their people? HOW? How is this the fault of the Americans?

What an incredibly bankrupt ideology to defer all responsibility for your well-being from your own rulers (political and religious) and your own people. Stand on your own two feet like a man and take responsibility for your own sad societies.

Mad Canuck said...

Hi Truth Teller,

The Western news media paints a picture of a very divided Iraq, with Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds hating each other, and other smaller groups (Christians, etc.) feeling disenfranchised and persecuted.

But, this view contrasts greatly with what I've read in the various Iraqi blogs. One thing that has struck me is that many Iraqi bloggers (including you) seem to get annoyed when someone asks them if they are Shia, Sunni, etc. - they don't think it should matter.

I wonder if you might comment on your experiences in this area. How divided do you think Iraq is? How much resentment and/or animosity do you see between the different ethnic groups in Iraq? When you were visiting Kurdistan, did you sense any resentment of the locals there towards you? Or, do you think this whole divisiveness thing is something that is limited to a few extremists and has been overblown by the Western media? I'd be very interested in your perspective here.


Anonymous said...

Hope that you are OK, Najma's father. We have heard reports here in the UK of a suicide bomber in a hospital compound.
Rachel, a Brit in London

Truth teller said...


The situation in Iraq is like a bowl of salad, its beauty is in its collection. We always regard Iraq as one unit of mosaic structure. We (at least in mosul) don't feel any differences between Moslim, Sunnis or Shias we don't think it matters. This means, we don't hate each other.

What i think about iraq is, it is a solid state structure, undividable country nomatter what the western news medias say.

My feeling when I visited Kurdistan may be not a typical one, because I have a lot of kurdish friends everywhere and they like me as much as i like them.
The ordinary people there are very generous, nice and lovely and respect the foreigners. I realy think as you say, that the whole divisiveness thing is something that is limited to a few extremists and has been overblown by the Western media.

Mirco said...

I'm so sad.
I red this post and I understand that iraqis will have a big problem to overcome.
You and too many people in Iraq are not able to think critically and be honest with yourselves.
I think that this is due the education system, that is centered more in memorizing than in understanding and verifing.
Do you red "Why Arabs lose wars?"
It is an old article but very informative.

What do you think about?

DagneyT said...

Truth Teller, you wrote, "From 1991 till 2003 there were very unjust and unfair sanction against the people of iraq, killed million childn leave several others in very poor and meserable condition. The aim was to make this poor people rise against saddam"

The fact of the matter is that the sanctions were from the U.N., and American policy was to take care of the Iraqi people via the oil for food program. We thought the program was getting food and medicine to the Iraqi people, as it was intended to do. We now know that it was a corrupt United Nations who worked with Saddam to keep the food and medicine money for themselves. So your blaming of America is unfounded.

Anonymous said...


Everyone knows that nothing comes out of a vacuum. Examine the most stable operating systems, and how do you install them? You put on an 'interim version' off the CD and then, if you know what you are doing you 'recompile the kernel', which means, rebuild it from itself, liberating it from its occupatied status.

You should study american history: Even the US government began under an occupation; the state parliaments which served as the foundations for the future government were imposed by Britain and under the thumb of the royally appointed Governors. It was from this that the modern American federal system was bootstrapped.