anonymous @ 4/8/2005 08:52:24 PM had answered you.
________________________________________
anonymous @ 4/9/2005 01:39:08 AM
The UNICEF report you linked to, say
"Unexpectedly perhaps, the rural-urban division evaporates when it comes to malnutrition, with children no more malnourished in the countryside than in the towns and cities. Ready access to locally produced food and higher incidence of breastfeeding provide at least some protection for rural children who, according to the survey, lag behind in so many other areas."And if remember what I have been said
"The amount of these foods sections are insufficient for ordinary person, but it supported the poor families, and it did prevent malnutrition in Iraq to an acceptable level."The report above spoken about specific area ( The governorate of Mesan) in southern and central Iraq.
"So you're basically saying malnutrition was not a major problem during the "sanctions" period of 1991-2003?"It is definitely a problem, specially when added to lack of other food stuffs not involved in the program of (oil-for-food and drugs), the lack for drugs, for sanitation specially in the rural areas, and other goods necessary for ordinary living.
That report also says:
"The MICS also reveals serious problems in rural areas, where only half the people have access to a water supply from a network, public tap or well, compared to 96 per cent of people living in towns and cities. Only 34 per cent have a sanitary type of latrine, compared to 97 per cent of the urban population. Immunization rates are some 10 to 15 per cent lower in rural areas and the survey found similar gaps in the proportion of rural children who have received Vitamin A supplements and on the numbers entering primary school."But the level of vaccination was satisfactory:
"The Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey does reveal some positive, as well as negative, trends. About half of all children surveyed had received at least one dose of Vitamin A, and immunization coverage remains adequate, with at least 80 per cent of children aged one to two years immunized against measles. The survey reveals no significant gender disparities between boys and girls in any of the areas examined. "Thank you for the link to this report anon.
_______________________________
John
Thank you for supporting the TRUTH.
__________________________
Waldschrat
"You mention security as a problem. Did security in Mosul become worse after Falluja? "Yes, it become worse, I guess, there were two reason for that;
First, the people here are very compassionate with the people of Falluja.
Second, some of the fighter of Falluja were escaped to Mosul after that massacre.
"Is is there any real improvement in security in Mosul recently? Are Iraqis in Mosul becoming more safe or less safe? And do you see any benefit to security from recent meetings of the elected assembly? Is the political situation becoming more acceptable or less acceptable to most people in Mosul?"Yes there is a clear improvement in security during the last weeks, but from yesterday and this morning there are a lot of explosions and shots in our neighborhood. There was an explosion of bombed car less than 100 m from our house, thanks God we were out of the house at that time. We don't know the exact situation right now.
It too early to see any benefit to security from the elected assembly.
The political situation to the neutral Mosul citizen at present is described as ( wait and see).
We heard a promises and want to see the realities.
_______________________________
maddog
"Truth Teller, tell me the meaning of your words "the situation of vaccination in Iraq. It was perfect before the war." Do you really know of what you speak? That goes completely against what the world now knows and understands."Read the above answers, I think it will satisfy your inquiry. The rest of your questions were answered by John, I think.
____________________
Anon. @ 4/9/2005 09:39:58 AM
"Are you suggesting that your country was better off under the rule of Saddam? "It is not fair to compare the condition right now with that under the rule of Saddam!!
The fair comparison should be made after the situation settled down.
Anyhow looking to the situation from every side. It was better under the rule of Saddam. I don't mean Saddam was a good guy, but he controlled the whole things in a secure way.
What concern the people now, is the security, which was much better at that time.
"But in my opinion if your country is so much worse now maybe they should free Saddam and let him get it back to the good life you all enjoyed!"I will not comment on this phrase. Ask your government. Who asked for the occupation.
But when things happened, and hundred of thousands killed, all for mistake or a misunderstanding of CIA reports, or they were fooled about the WMDs because of "double agents, we prefer to have REAL democracy than the rule of a dictator. But the price we are paying is very expensive.
_________________________________________________
anon.@ 4/9/2005 10:04:54 AM
"I don't believe in the statements by Bush saying we are in Iraq to bring "freedom and democracy" any more than I believed the "Saddam has WMDs and is a threat to the USA" crap.You said all what I have to say. But in better English than mine. Thank you.
According to what Perle said the other day to the US Senate, they were fooled about the WMDs because of "double agents".... which means double agents are influencing and directing our federal government!
And no appologies from any damn one of them... to Americans or Iraqis! They don't give a rip who dies, as long as they make a bunch of money."
94 comments:
I am a Portuguese citizen and I lived under Salazar's rule - generally considered as a dictatorship. There was then a political police and some people were arrested for their opinions. There was also censorship and no political parties were allowed. In spite of this, 99% of the Portuguese people suffered no inconvenience and were no worse off than they would have been in a democracy. The other 1% were those people who had political ambitions and were prevented from fulfilling them, or were intelectuals who were prevented from freely expressing their views. All in all, the situation was good from a law and order point of view, and there was a lot less corruption. This doesn't mean that it is better to live under a dictatorship than under a democracy, but simply that for the average person things were pretty good. I guess that's what happened in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Some people suffered a lot, most people had it pretty good. And if there had been no sanctions, probably a majority of Iraqis would have been quite satisfied. Unless one lives under extreme oppressive conditions, democracy or dictatorship makes very little difference to most people, as long as one can freely work, earn a proper living and live in reasonable security. That being so, I can even believe that for educated Iraqi women living in a secular state ran by Saddam Hussein would be a lot better than living in a sort of democracy where women are prevented, by a strict application of the sharia, from holding responsible positions in a firm. Unfortunately Americans seem to think that happiness is living the way they do, without regard for cultural differences. Which makes them ignore the fact that imposing their way of life may be a bigger tyranny than living under Saddam Hussein.
As an American I have to say I share your distrust of America's generosity and good intentions, although probably for different reasons. American policy is controlled by politicians, and cynicism is always the correct approach when judging the motivations of politicians. I strongly suspect that charitable words of support and aid to Iraq will be quickly forgotten by any politician when a voter in his/her home district says the money would be better spent on Americans. Any elected politician's first loyalty is to himself and then to the people who elected him, and then to people who might make him look good to the people who elected him.
If I were in Iraq, knowing what I know as an American and if what I understand of Iraq is correct, I would consider the US military as the best resource to help Iraq at this time. I realize this is not obvious to the average Iraqi, but be patient for a minute and consider my words.
Unlike American politicians, the U.S. military is a disciplined force which has been commanded to do "good" in Iraq. Believe what you like, I was a soldier in the US army from 1969 to 1971 and I KNOW how they are taught to behave. If they are told to attack they will attack. If someone attacks them, that person and anyone near him are in extreme danger. But if they are treated with kindness and courtesy they will almost certainly respond with the same behavior. They can not be bribed, they can not be corrupted, or if they can it will be enormously more difficult to do so than it would to bribe or corrupt the average soldier or civil servant in a middle eastern country, because the cultures are different. In the ideal case they can act as the "perfect policeman", a person dedicated to maintaining order who can not and will not cooperate with evil doers for his own profit. This may be useful if they can be used to train Iraqi forces to act the same way. Forgive me, but many reports suggest that in the middle east (and other places including Russia) corruption among civil servants and police is common and laws, particularly tax laws and laws against bribery, are viewed with enormous disrespect.
Anyway, what I am saying is the US military is not bad unless you fight it. It is honest and has been commanded to try to make Iraq better. The problem is that people in Iraq fight the US military (when they are not killing , kidnapping and robbing each other to make some obscure political or theological point or simply for criminal profit).
The best way for Iraqis to use the US military is not as a target but as a friend and a customer. The one thing the US media, the US politicians, and the US media want most is for Iraqis to make it appear that this stupid war has accomplished something useful, some peaceful, beneficial imporovement, and that Iraqis can be friends with the US. The enthusiastic demolition of Saddaam's statue in Baghdad was a dream come true to Americans. Pictures of US soldiers rebuilding the electrical generating system of Mosul (and Falluja and Baghdad, etc, etc), or helping to vaccinate children or other such constructive, helpful activities would be glorious. That kind of thing would be so beneficial to US politicians that they could even justify spending the money in Iraq instead of in their home districts where people vote for them, at least for a while.
Instead, the insurgents seem determined to keep the US military on the perpetual defensive. As long as every soldier, every policeman in Iraq has to perpetually fear for their lives they will not be able to play the part of benefactor. To the extent that honest people believe that it is the US and it's war that have brought the security problems the insurgents create, the insurgents will continue to achieve their objectives. Saddam, and any number of middle eastern nations and organizations who wish to portray America as the "great Satan", have ensured that the insurgents have plenty of explosives and guns and are paid for their murders and atrocities. When it will stop, IF it will stop I can not say.
I do believe that US politicians will be able to justify fighting insurgents in Iraq as long as there are insurgents to be fought. Justifying a war with bad intelligence is bad, losing the war to a disorganized band of thugs and murderers is worse.
Whether the experience of Falluja will be repeated in other Iraqi cities I can not say, but I sincerely hope Falluja will be the worst and that the worst is behind us.
In the ideal case I think the US military could be used by Iraq to Iraq's advantage. This is not an ideal world, but America has a reputation for making the countries is conquers rich.
I am sorry, this message has become too long and I am too sleepy to make good sense. I hope I have presented some useful ideas.
From California I send my best hopes for your family and your country.
It was very kind of you to answer the questions I asked previously, and I thank you. Are there any questions I can try to answer for you?
"Hell is full of well-meaning people", so they say. Waldschrat is certainly a well-meaning person who would very much like Americans to be loved all over the world. But it may be a tiny little bit unrealistic to expect to be able to bomb and destroy indescriminately and then end up by being loved by those you have just bombed. I may go along with the thought that most American soldiers kill innocent people not because they are evil, but because they are scared. But that is not very helpful to the families of those who have been wrongly killed. Iraqis are a proud and ancient people who do not accept being ruled by foreigners. It is to be expected that they will fight back. The only solution is for Americans to leave Iraq as soon as possible and let Iraqis sort out their own problems. It may be a bit messy to start with, but the end result will be much better. It would do the US a lot of good if Americans learned to be a bit humbler. You do not have all the answers, and your answers may not be that good for everybody.
albatroz - You said "Waldschrat is certainly a well-meaning person who would very much like Americans to be loved all over the world. But it may be a tiny little bit unrealistic to expect to be able to bomb and destroy indescriminately and then end up by being loved by those you have just bombed."
I have tried to contribute what I could in the way of constructive comments, and I appreciate your favorable assessment of my intentions. As a practical matter, the "American go home" suggestion is unlikely to be heeded right away although I expect the Americans will leave eventually. While the American military is in Iraq I suggest that the very best strategy for Iraqis dealing with them is to avoid the company of people who might attack them and encourage other Iraqis to do the same. It is entirelly possible that if you invite them to build a school or a road or dig a well they will try to do so. On the other hand, if your neighbor attacks them that is an invitation for them to shoot back, and they are likely to be in such a hurry to kill your neighbor that they may accidentally kill you in the process. If insurgents were good people they would always try to stand far from innocent people and valuable real estate while they attacked American forces. If insurgents were smart people they would ask American forces to do something useful for Iraq instead of attacking them.
I know it seems like a simple minded strategy, but it beats shooting at tanks with a pea shooter from behind a human shield of your fellow citizens, or simply taking a short cut and killing your fellow citizens directly, or tolerating people who do such things. The use of force is NOT the only way to get rid of the so-called "occupation". Peaceful tactics, competition in words and positive deeds, is much more likely to successfully expel a superior military force than competition in combat, however determined and clever and cruel. A military force with nobody to fight is not economically justifiable. The presence of a plausible enemy is justification not only for military forces and activity but also for all manner of less savory political and industrial profit. Right now Iraq is the very best place on the planet to find and kill "terrorists", the US military-industrial complex is growing fat and happy on the booming business they've discovered, and the insurgents and whoever supports them are doing everything they can to keep the ball rolling.
Reasonable people should not contribute to the problem!
Waldschrat,
What you are saying to the Iraqis is: "Surrender and we will let you live". It wouldn't appeal to me, if I were Iraqi, so I suppose it doesn't appeal to them either. Nobody (not even the UN) asked you to go to Iraq, so the polite thing to do would be to leave immediately. For an example of a different and successful intervention, please refer to East Timor. The Good Lord knows what would have happened if the intervening forces had been American...
moron99
Opinion polls in present day's conditions? Were they taken inside the Green zone?
And yes, Europeans are arrogant too. But they are not killing anybody, presently. We had our proper share of killing, in the past, and we graduated to a more civilized way of doing things. Rather than despising us for that you might want to look at Guantanamo and think whether your ways are all that appealing. The use of torture - which doesn't seem to have been all that incidental - doesn't bother you? Is Al Qaeda winning by forcing you to adopt their ways?
strykeraunt,
There are certainly people in Iraq who "are living in mud huts and no running water or sanitation". But I remember the last time I walked through the streets of the Bronx - an unwise thing to do - and looked, in a near state of shock, at the incredible amount of dirt on the streets, the poverty, the derelict buildings. Don't you think that the American troops could do something to improve the situation at home, rather than faking the good Samaritan in Iraq? Don't you ever run out of silly excuses to justify your imperialistic impulses? Why don't you come clear and say what we all know: "It's all about oil!"
albatroz - You said "What you are saying to the Iraqis is: 'Surrender and we will let you live'."
No, I'm saying I'm thousands of miles from Iraq and in no position to stop the war and/or occupation. All I can do is give advice. The very best practical advice I can give ANYBODY faced with armed troops to not provoke them. Confronting them head on is suicidal, it doesn't matter whether they are US troops, Russian, Saudi, or whatever. Stay the hell out of their way, deny them a plausible enemy, and they will become economically unjustifiable. Attack them, or tolerate neighbors who do, and you invite attack in kind. If you can subvert their purpose and divert their efforts to useful tasks, do so. It's called non-violence, albatroz. It works, it keeps people alive in dangerous situations, and it's very very practical. Take a deep breath, let that hot portugese temper simmer down, and think about it. You might decide it makes sense.
moron99,
For a moment I thought you really believed all that crap. May I remind you of the way you treated (treat?) American Indians? May I remind you of your actions in Vietnam? May I remind you of the millions of gallons of napalm thrown on Korean villages? May I remind you of over 40 years boycott against Cuba? May I remind you of how you prevented medicines from being sent to Iraq during Saddam Hussein's rule, and of what that did to Iraqi children? May I remind you - once more - of what you are doing presently in Guantanamo? May I remind you of your present intervention in Haiti? May I remind you of your assistance to Pinochet? May I remind you of your help to criminal forces in Nicaragua and San Salvador?
If you are so willing to help other peoples out of their miseríes, why can't you end poverty and misery in your own country? If you are so willing to build schools for the Iraqi children - it would have helped not to destroy those they had, in the first place - why not build good schools in America's slums? Seeing that there is yet so much to do in the US, why spend billions of dollars to wage war against people who were no threat to you? Maybe your kind of propaganda will work in the backwoods of the US, but you certainly are wasting your time here. Instead of trying to defend what cannot be defended, why don't you join those Americans who are trying to stop your government's aggression in Iraq? And if you do not know how to find them, I can give you some internet addresses...
Waldschrat,
I am not insensitive to non-violence, but I am not sure non-violence works against American aggressions. If, as I believe, the US intervention in Iraq was meant to guarantee a supply of oil for a few more years, and the denial of that oil to others, non-violence will only guarantee the continuous rape of Iraq and the continuous theft of their ressources. Have you asked yourself why the US government is so vocal against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela? Could it be because Hugo Chavez cannot be manipulated and the US risks loosing an important oil supplier? The US was quite willing to accept the Venezuelan coup d'etat against a democratically elected government, to get rid of someone who refuses to serve American interests. Would you advise Venezuelans to submit to the American threats and blackmail? Or would hope they would fight back and resist economical aggression? Non-violence may sometimes be the right strategy. But not always. In Vietnam it paid to resist. The cost was very high, but you should not undervalue dignity. The Vietnamese are free by their own efforts. They may be poor but they are certainly proud of themselves. I hope Iraqis will someday take pride on a freedom conquered by their own efforts, having defeated an attempt at turning them into a client state of the United States.
Why do they consistently want Iraq to fail as a democracy?
Because they don't care about Iraq. It's all about giving George Bush a black eye, the Iraqis be damned.
I will bet that if good old Bush is forced to bring back the draft, all these "patriotic" Americans will suddenly go silent... Unless they are over 40 years of age and know they will not risk being drafted...
maddog,
Are you old enough to remember the rioting in the US about the war in Vietnam? It was all about young Americans not wanting to go to Vietnam to be killed. Are you sure present day youngsters are more willing to be stupidly slaughtered than their fathers?...
albatroz and hurria - Regarding the best way to attack US forces and policies in Iraq (assuming you reject non-violence) I have previously suggested that if insurgents were good people they would attack US military forces while standing as far as possible from their fellow Iraqi citizens and valuable real estate. I urge both of you to be good people.
As an alternative to violent resistance I suggest verbal, visual or musical protest, applied as loud and vigorously and enthusiastically and often as possible. When I ws drafted back in 69 they taight US troops not to fire into crowds (or, IF they must fire into a crowd for self-preservation, to dispatch a sniper to eliminate armed individuals selectively). What this means is you can get in the face of the US military bigtime with a mass demonstration and they will not kill you unless you are armed or they fear serious injury.
Right now I have the following tune playing in my earphones at high volume on auto-repeat:
http://tinpan.fortunecity.com/vanishing/958/sound/midi/CSNY/crosby_stills_nash-ohio.mid
It's an angry old protest song, like I'm an angry old pacifist. If I was an Iraqi I would download the damn thing and play it out of a boombox as loud as possible every time I saw the US military to remind them of past errors.
Never believe there are not viable alternatives to violence!
However, if you are in Iraq and you are committed to violence, I urge you to do as I have suggested above. Carry non-combstible identification papers and leave your last will and testament with your friends. I will remember your contribution to the improvement of the gene pool with respect.
Waldschrat,
I find you a much more pleasant person to talk to than some of your more aggressive fellow countrymen, but your brand of radical pacifism frightens me almost as much as their brainless violence. While I would absolutely refuse to participate in any aggressive war, I would do my utmost to destroy anyone trying to violate my home or my country. I guess Iraqis feel the same.
moron99,
Sorry if I sounded a bit aggressive in my previous post. But you were trying to project an image of the American armed forces and of the US government's good intentions that is in no way supported by past actions. The lack of concern by the US government about democracy in so many countries in the world (South and Central America, Southeast Asia) makes it very difficult to believe that democracy is your goal in Iraq. Specially after a number of years supporting Saddam Hussein against Iran. Why is it so difficult for you to even consider that oil is the real issue? We all know that oil production has probably reached its peak. We all know that China and India will require more and more oil, and that therefore they will be competing with all of us for a dwindling resource. Studies have been made showing that around 2031, when China's GDP per capita will equal ours (2004), if their oil consumption is similar to ours, they alone would need 99 million barrels of oil per day, when total oil production, today, is 79 million barrels. Is it so surprising that the US will want to guarantee oil supplies for their economy for as long as possible? Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. If the US could control that oil source, their problems would not be over but could be posponed. And you keep saying that Americans went into Iraq for the sake of democracy? Do you really believe that?
moron99,
Actually the math is pretty straightforward. The Chinese will need 99 million barrels of oil and production will peak at around 80/90 million. The US needs oil. Costs are no problem, you can always print some more dollar bills. But oil cannot be invented. You will spend whatever it takes to guarantee a regular oil supply. You are thinking about profits. I am talking about survival. Question is: will the Chinese let you have all that oil?
Hurria,
Would you care to be more specific?
moron99:
if it is not about oil, what is it about?
There are no WMDs, and Rice and Powell said so in early 2001.
Saddam was not even a threat to neighboring countries, and again Rice and Powell said so in early 2001.
It certainly had noting to do with 9/11, unless the goal was to make some more 9/11s by encouraging people to become suicide bombers.
It sure has NOTHING to do with bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people. If the Bush administration cared about the Iraqi people, they would make a sincere effort to count the dead.
So what is it, if it is not about controlling the area and the resources (oil)?
Moron99 is a frightening accountant who deals with people as if they were part of some special ledger, subject to some bottomline to be assessed only in terms of advantage to Americans. The words colateral damage are never used, but they are implied everywhere. That's why he made such a nice effort at calculating the profit and loss of oil being stolen from Iraq, forgetting what I said earlier: the US does not care how much oil will cost - in terms of military occupation - as long as it keeps reaching the American economy. Simply soon there will not be enough oil for all industrialized countries (including fast developping China and India), at the present rate of consumption. Survival - and power - in the next decades will depend on having oil and on preventing your rivals from having it. Stupid is not understanding this simple equation. But Moron99 is so happy fiddling with figures that he forgets the real issues. If Iraqis don't keep making the costs of war too high - in terms of bodybags going back to the States - soon we will see another war against the next big oil producer (Iran), and the economic occupation of Central Asia oil producers. We are already seeing the preparation of another WMD bogus in relation to Iran. War will come next. Meanwhile Moron99 will do the accounts - but not in terms of human suffering. Pity his IQ is not matched by some ethics...
hurria - you said "There have been enough reported incidents, some of them very well documented, to show a clear pattern on the part of U.S. troops of utter disregard for the lives and safety of unarmed protesters."
This concerns me deeply. All I can tell you with certainty is that when I was drafted into the US military in 1969 they taught us in basic training to avoid firing into crowds if at all possible and to use snipers if necessary against armed individuals mingling with an un-armed crowd. I assume this is still routine.
I have not seen reports here in the US of American troops firing indiscriminatly at unarmed Iraqi protestors. I did see one report of Iraqi guard troops firing on protesters. I have also seen pictures of Iraqi individuals carrying weapons in a crowd. One report from Aljazeera mentioned "protesters" who threw grenades, suggesting that they don't quite understand there at Aljazeera the usual use of the word "protester" here in the USA. A group armed with guns or grenades, or a mob apparently intent on ripping people apart with their bare hands, is a different thing from a group of people carrying signs and chanting slogans or insults but not equipped for or intent on violence.
Beyond this, armies are stupid and mistakes happen. The protest song I posted a link to previously is about Kent State University in Ohio, where in fact US troops fired into a crowd of angry protesters, killing four people and claiming the crowd fired first (no evidence of that was ever found, if I recall). This was an exception to the rule. It should not have happened, but it did. In and of itself it does not constitute a "pattern".
As I said, I am not aware of a clear pattern of US troops firing on unarmed Iraqi protesters. I certainly would not condone such a thing, and it concerns me deeply. You said some reports are "well documented". If you can provide me with links to such reports I'd really appreciate it. I don't think the average American citizen would be prepared to accept or condone any such "clear pattern" if they were aware of it. If there is such a pattern, I damn well want to know more about it. What can you tell me?
You all need to understand that the US did not go into Iraq to make a bunch of money. There was never any intent to make money there. Liberating Iraq was always going to be an expensive alternative for the US. No one thought otherwise. I can find no reference from anyone in the US Administration who thought otherwise.
As far as the 100,000 innocent civilian deaths, that number is bogus. It comes from a scientifically debunked article from an English magazine and should not be repeated. It does not help the discussion.
Also, I doubt that much depleted uranium was used in shells in Fallujah. Depleted uranium shells are to distroy tanks, they are not used to blow up buildings that house people shooting at you.
Having said that, I think a wait and see attitude is wise at this time. I wish you all well.
Moron99,
"Logical sense" to you means profits, hard cash. Logical sense to me means that if you desperately need something you will go and get it, no matter how much it costs. The US government knows that the US economy will be desperate for oil within one or two decades. Since other people will be equally desperate (ourselves in Europe, China and India, at least), the objective is to control as many sources of oil as possible, preferably with your troops on the spot. By coincidence this is exactly what the US is doing right now. You may choose to play dumb - actually I do not think that you fail to see my point - but that's the real issue in Iraq. Soon enough we will have all the proof we need of this scheme. Why would the US be upset at the oil deals being signed between Iran and China, Japan and Russia? Because those deals strenghten Iran, or because any oil going to China, Japan or Russia, will not go to the US? Why is the US government trying to topple Hugo Chavez in Venezuela? Nothing to do with oil? Please, use your high IQ for something else than dumb figures...
Moron99,
Let me tell you a story not known by many people. A few years ago Angola's UNITA leader, Jonas Savimbi, went to Abidjan in the Ivory Coast to meet with the then US Secretary of State. The idea was to discuss future relations, in case UNITA conquered power, as it then seemed quite probable. During that discussion Savimbi was asked to guarantee American interests in Angola (oil!!!), and had the incredible naivete of saying that his first duty was to the Angolan people but that, if American interests did not conflict with Angolan interests he would be more than happy to assist. After that meeting Americans switched all their help to the competing MPLA movement, and UNITA was ultimately defeated. This was told me by one of UNITA participants in that meeting, after Savimbi had been killed in Angola and the war had come to an end.
As you see, Americans are quite different from us, despicable Europeans. Their choice of allies, in Angola, was a matter of principle, and the idea of profitting from Angola's ressources didn't even come to their minds. Had Savimbi promised all the help Americans needed to continue plundering Angola's oil, and he would very probably be alive and sitting in the presidential palace in Luanda.
Did you get it?...
Moron99,
Sorry, but it was the other way around. MPLA were the marxists - they were at a time helped by Cuban troops - UNITA were the pro-western ones, getting for some time help from South Africa. What is your argument now?...
Thank God..whats really going on today in Iraq can be read at Chrenkoff's blog http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/04/good-news-from-iraq-part-25.html
Our conscience takes no notice of pain inflicted on others until it reaches a point where it gives pain to us. In all cases without exception we are absolutely indifferent to another person's pain until his sufferings make us uncomfortable.
- Mark Twain
Wow. Took me an hour to read all the posts. I read lots of passionate arguments and premises, few cross-referenced facts.
Go make love to a woman! This is a war of words appears to give no satisfaction.
Bottom line: Love those who love you. Kill those who don't.
There is 2 sides to every coin and no matter how right you think you are someone else considers you wrong or worse. Truthteller's blog has come a long way since I first started reading and commenting in August. Live long and prosper!!
-Rich
What I want to know is if all the Americans left Mosul tomorrow, what would happen? Would peace come or anarchy?
John,
You have a lot of hyperbole in your answer, but didn't really answer the question clearly.
What would life be like if the Americans left Mosul today. If all would be peaceful, then why stay? If needed to help the Iraqis keep the peace then stay.
I am worried about the innocent civilians, rather than to make a political point here. Let's leave politics to the debating societies.
Moron99,
I lived in Angola and was familiar with leaders of both UNITA and MPLA. You have no idea of what you are talking about. MPLA is about as democratic as Saddam Hussein, with a President who was never elected and whose term of office has been extended indefinitely. You are so eager to defend every single act of rape by the US that you definitely stopped being interested by any facts that might show your government for what it is: a bunch of old time imperialists. No wonder the US has refused to accept the International Court of Justice jurisdiction. Otherwise Bush would now be sitting next to Milosevic... As far as I am concerned our discussion ends here and now.
John said: "Again sorry about the hyperbole Anon, but yes my answer would be leave Iraq now!! "
And if the US left, what would happen in Mosul?
My guess is the Baathists would take over. If not, the organized crime most definately would. I really don't think that is for the best for the individual Iraqi citizen.
They came out in mass for democracy. Even though you hate America, at least, right now, America is defending democracy in Iraq. Let's let them have democracy, please.
According to Hurria, if you don't live in the country you are talking about, you have no right to comment.
Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry.
-Winston Churchill
"Now - remember - don't take your eye off the target. It's basic, it's simple. The target is terrorists. They are the guys who slammed jetliners into cities. The long term goal in Iraq is the same today as it was two years ago. To end the creation and recruiting of militant radicals in the mideast."
In case you haven't noticed, terrorism is increasing in Iraq every day. They are not using jetliners, they are using car bombs and IEDs and such. Of course, most is directed against IRaqis, but *Same idea*.
"It is a complex issue, but the bottom line is that freedom and prosperity breeds tolerance and tolerance kills terrorism. So the goal in Iraq is a peaceful, prosperous nation that respects human rights."
Americans sure are not setting a very good example, are they? Detentions for months without trials, torture, killing wounded, check point shootings, dropping bombs on a country that did not hurt the US or even threaten it....
When all is said and done, I wonder if we won't make Saddam look good!
"It doesn't matter whether it is puppet or not-puppet, secular or not-secular, democracy or theocracy. The only things that matters is the end result."
I'm just guessing here, but I'll bet it matters to the Iraqi people... but what do they know? It's only THEIR COUNTRY, WHO ARE THEY TO TELL THE USA HOW IT SHOULD BE RUN???
"Peace, prosperity, and tolerance poisons the well of terrrorism."
And I think we can conclude that bombing, torture, sexual assult,night time house raids, killing, lack of basic services like electricity and water, unemployment rate of 50% or better will lead to what we have on the ground in Iraq today..... which is a significant amount of terrorism, happening on a daily basis.
I'm only guessing again, but I'll bet Americans would act pretty much the same way under such horrible circumstances.
nybody out there who does not believe they are doing war to make money?
go google "Uncle Bucky"
moron99,
Yep, the Iraqis are in charge. They have a Republic, let's hope they can keep it.
Hurria,
Are you saying Saddam had a Republic? I wouldn't call it that.
By the way, right now the Iraqis have a Republic. There is very little control being placed by the Americans. You could call it a colonial rule, but it would be a very loose one.
US troops are in 'peace keeping' mode in the country and would love to leave if they could.
But I guess you will only be convinced when they are gone. And I really can't blame you for that.
So, Iraqis need to establish a sound security force, the citizens need to turn in the terrorists and the US should leave.
In the mean time the Iraqis need to set down their own Constitution and get busy and run their own governmental agencies (which they have had for a while now).
By the way, country wide, attacks are down by 1/2 since the elections.
hurria - You said "The Iraqis will not be running the show until they succeed in forcing the U.S. out completely - military, mega-embassy, "reconstruction" programs and all."
That doesn't sound like a very productive program. What you're apparently saying is that you support sabotage, mayhem and revolution regardless of whether the majority of our fellow citizens think that way or not. That kind of thinking and the actions it encourages are a large part of the reason Truth Teller and other Iraqis have poor security, poor electical service, and all manner of other inconveniences. It seems like a bombs-instead-of-brains psychology, a fanatic's futile ravings. What have you actually done to make the situation in Iraq BETTER lately? And what in the world do you have against "reconstruction programs"?
When I was a kid we studied a piece of literature in school called "The War Prayer". Mark Twain wrote it. I'm posting it here for the benefit of all patriots, hawks, holy warriors and would-be heros on both sides.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Twain apparently dictated "The War Prayer" around 1904-05; it
was found after his death among his unpublished manuscripts.
The actual prayer is also sometimes seen in poem form.)
The War Prayer
It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The
country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned
the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands
playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing
and spluttering; on every hand and far down the receding and
fading spread of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of
flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched
down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the
proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering
them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by;
nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot
oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and
which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of
applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the
churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and
invoked the God of Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause
in outpourings of fervid eloquence which moved every listener.
It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash
spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt
upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry
warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank
out of sight and offended no more in that way.
Sunday morning came--next day the battalions would
leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were
there, their young faces alight with martial dreams--visions of the
stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the
flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping
smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! Then home from the
war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden
seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud,
happy, and envied by the neighbors and fiends who had no sons
and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for
the flag, or , failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The
service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was
read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst
that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose,
with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that
tremendous invocation
*God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest!
Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!*
Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of
it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language.
The burden of its supplication was, that an ever-merciful and
benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young
soldiers, and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic
work; bless them, shield them in the day of battle and the hour
of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong and
confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the
foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable
honor and glory--
An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and
noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister,
his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head
bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his
shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to
ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he
made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the
preacher's side and stood there waiting. With shut lids the
preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued with his
moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in
fervent appeal, "Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord
our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!"
The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step
aside--which the startled minister did--and took his place.
During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with
solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep
voice he said:
"I come from the Throne--bearing a message from
Almighty God!" The words smote the house with a shock; if the
stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the
prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such
shall be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained
to you its import--that is to say, its full import. For it is like
unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than
he who utters it is aware of--except he pause and think.
"God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he
paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two--one
uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him Who
heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder
this--keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon
yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a
neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain
upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly
praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which may not
need rain and can be injured by it.
"You have heard your servant's prayer--the uttered part
of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other
part of it--that part which the pastor--and also you in your hearts-
-fervently prayed silently. And ignorantlyy and unthinkingly?
God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the
victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. the *whole* of
the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words.
Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for
victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which
follow victory--*must* follow it, cannot help but follow it.
Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of
the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!
"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our
hearts, go forth to battle--be Thou near them! With them--in
spirit--we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved
firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their
soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their
smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us
to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their
wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble
homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of
their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn
them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the
wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst,
sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter,
broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge
of the grave and denied it--for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord,
blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter
pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their
tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet!
We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of
Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that
are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts.
Amen.
(*After a pause.*) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire
it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!"
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic,
because there was no sense in what he said.
hurria
Thank you so much for your posts.You said what I can't do because of my poor english.. I support you all the way.
Hurria,
I get a lot of my news from the Associated Press
"Guerrilla attacks are down across most of Iraq" - Associated Press 4/12/05
The Baathists had a fascist state under Saddam. Whether the name "Republic" was in the title or the country or not. That is very clear to an objective observer or historian.
What is also very clear is that many of those who want America to leave Iraq now would like the Baathist state to return. For whatever personal reason they have they do not wish for the current path Iraq is on to continue towards a true Republic. They just want America out of the way so that things will return to the way they were under Saddam.
"You have the order wrong. The U.S. leaves first - not just the troops, but the whole lot of them, including the "reconstruction" contractors (aka war profiteers). After that the Iraqi people will work things out without the interference of an outside power following its own agenda."
I understand that to mean, "America get out of our way so the Baathists can take over again".
Hurria seems to be pro-Saddam
anon - hurria sounds more like she's echoing the Al Zarkawi propaganda line to me, but who knows, maybe she's a disgruntled teenager in Dallas having a little fun. Her writing in English is typically free of errors and quite elloquent, suggesting she's either quite brilliant or a native speaker of the language.
I know this will probably go to deaf ears in this discussion group, but the US President again today reminded the US troops:
"In my liberation message to the Iraqi people, I made them a solemn promise: "The government of Iraq, and the future of your country, will soon belong to you." I went on to say: "We will help you build a peaceful and representative government that protects the rights of all citizens. And then our military forces will leave."
From the beginning, our goal in Iraq has been to promote Iraqi independence -- by helping the Iraqi people establish a free country that can sustain itself, rule itself, and defend itself."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050412.html
It's when Moron99 writes about Angola that his ignorance and bad faith appears (to me, who lived in Angola and have many Angolan friends) most clearly. Savimbi was no democrat (according to our standards) but he did not loose the presidential elections in Angola. No candidate obtained the required 50% plus one of the vote, so that a second round was necessary between Savimbi and Eduardo dos Santos. That never took place, following the slaughter of high UNITA officials in Luanda, at the hands of MPLA forces. It was that slaughter that forced Savimbi to go back to his guerrilla war. The US supported MPLA because they agreed to Americans continuing plundering their oil, something Savimbi was unwilling to accept. I am writing here about FACTS that anyone could check. Moron99 is happy enough with brainless propaganda, which makes me doubt his alleged high IQ. Unless he is paid to repeat here that crude propaganda. In which case he may be very intelligent but would be as corrupt as those he is defending. Now, if he is that wrong about anything he writes about Angola, why would we believe that his opinions on Iraq are any better? He could, like so many of his fellowcountrymen, fight for justice and for an early end to this imoral occupation of Iraq. But he prefers, for reasons we can only guess at, to side with the plunderers and torturers and rapists. Too bad...
"At one point, MPLA flipped and decided to embrace democracy as it's political calling card. US support immediately switched from Savimbi to MPLA".
Good grief, Moron99! "MPLA decided to embrace democracy"! The "President for life" type of democracy, no doubt. Presumably the same type of democracy Americans are trying to impose in Iraq. That sort of democracy that enables the US to plunder other nations' oil. Can you really believe all that crap?
By the way, you - and everybody else - might want to look into the following:
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0504c.asp
P.S. - José Eduardo dos Santos had gotten his fill of votes. Short of 50%. Supporters of other candidates would more likely vote for Savimbi than for dos Santos, seeing that MPLA was the power everybody wanted to defeat. Do you think that the attack on UNITA's top officials had been necessary if MPLA was confident of winning? Do you know anything of Africa or Angola, besides what you can read on the CIA site?
Hurria,
Instead of yelling at us, tell us you are against Saddam and the Baathists, that will solve the issue once and for all.
Otherwise your hyperbole is simply hot air. It might have worked in Saddam's day to calm the crowds, it doesn't impress us.
Hurria,
Saddam isn't coming back and neither are the Baathists.
Best go find a good, Sunni slate of candidates to support.
Truth teller,
Best you vote next time.
hurria,
Stop trying to deflect the points made. Saddam is not coming back, and neither are the Baathists. You need to find another cause.
Moron99,
I found a nice article specially writen for you:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD13Ak01.html
"so, albatros - what do you think about gassing the Kurds?"
The same I would think of gassing Americans or Iraqis. The same I think of shooting, bombing and killing innocent people all over the world. But I guess you would think it alright, if it was done in the name of democracy... by American troops...against baathists...
I have a good question for Albatroz and Moron, what do you think of the new Iraqi President? I understand he is against the death penalty.
just a simple statement would clear the entire matter up. Are you pro-Baathist or not?
My guess is that Hurria is in England.
"The previous "realpolitik," when the United States cozied up to some unsavory authoritarians in order to thwart Soviet hegemony, is at an end. Franco, the Shah, Pinochet, Somoza, Papa Doc, and others were artifacts of the Cold War, when the aberrant condition of 7,000 nuclear missiles pointed at our cities reduced and warped our options. If it was once hypocritical for the land of Jefferson and Madison to support dictators, then it is surely right to walk away from those earlier wrongs now that the Sword of Damocles has been removed.
And while promoting democracy is idealistic, it does not necessarily follow that it is naive. What, after all, prevents wars? Hardly the U.N.; and not just aircraft carriers either. The last half-century of peace in Europe and Japan, and the end of our old enmity of Russia, attest that the widest spread of democratic rule is the best guarantee against international aggression. Ballots substitute for bullets in venting internal frustrations."
This is a quote from an evil neocon. Victor David Hanson. Funny though, it rings true. If interested, the entire article is here:
http://taemag.com/issues/articleid.18473/article_detail.asp
Hurria,
We are all cowboys and Boy Scouts, don't you know?
you said: "Ba`thists bloody well ARE back"
I say: yep, from England like I thought!
Allawi is not in power anymore, get over it. Anyway, why do you care? Your in England. Let the Iraqis vote in whom they want (and I assume it isn't Allawi).
And socialism/communism is not in the cards either. Not in Iraq
Moron99,
I am not ashamed of my past or my country's past. It is true we did some unpleasant things in various parts of the world, but we are not in the same league with you in that respect. For instance, we were one of the first countries in the world (in the 19th century) to abolish the death penalty, an act of civilization which the US has not yet copied. It is true we traded in slaves, mostly for your benefit, but we abolished differences based on race or colour much before you even start thinking about it. As for myself I was a reserve officer in Angola, for two years, and I never shot at anyone during all that time, although I was in a so-called operational area. My troops were African and they were responsible for most of my education on Africa and Africans. I fell in love with Angola, lived and worked there for sometime and did all I could to contribute to a peaceful society there.
My abhorrance of war comes from my own experience, although I never participated in any acts of violence. I learned that white and black could work together as equals, and that we were in no way superior to them. I learned to respect different cultures and not to try and impose on others my own values. That's why I so deeply dislike your actions in Iraq. You are ignorant and violent, you despise those who are different from you. You try to impose on them your views and your ways of life. You try to force them to serve your selfish interests. But I suppose you can't understand any of this...
hurria - FYI, I will respect you because Truth Teller respects you. I reserve the right to disagree with your beliefs about American intentions and with any statements you may make that seem to advocate violence.
BTW, I notice that anti-American demonstrations were reported in Baghdad today but the American press omitted any report of US troops spraying the demonstrations with machine gun fire. Is it possible you may have overstated the facts in portraying a pattern of US attacks on peaceful demonstrations? Are US troops just getting lazy or perhaps running out of ammunition? Or is the US press simply lying again?
But seriously, here is an honest question for you or Truth Teller: who is providing the most security for Iraqi citizens in Mosul right now, US troops or Iraqi police? I certainly agree that Iraqi forces might be best suited to the job, but I wonder if they are capable of it at this point. Does one see more US troops in Mosul or more Iraqi police and security forces?
Moron99,
"How it is imposing our views upon another culture to say that every person should have a voice and that every voice should count equally?"
The principle is universally valid. But who appointed you guardians of that principle? It is patronizing to assume that others are incapable of putting that principle in practice without your assistance. Or, worse, without your imposing it on them at gunpoint. It is up to the Iraqi people to find the best ways to achieve that degree of tolerance. They are a much older people than you. They may be economically less developed, but they certainly do not need your guidance. They knew how to read and write while we all were still living in caves. You have absolutely no respect for their intelects. According to you only you - with your guns - can create the right conditions for Iraq to achieve freedom and democracy. That's an incredible show of arrogance which no civilized person can accept. But you are so sure of your superiority - although you just wrote that "All men are equal (women too)" - that you fail to see how barbaric your whole attitude is. You treat Iraqis as if they were children who must be punished to learn manners. Please, grow up.
waldschrat.
Thank you for trusting me. I really appreciate your attitudes.
"who is providing the most security for Iraqi citizens in Mosul right now, US troops or Iraqi police?"
Security ? for Iraqi citizen ...? Up to my knowledge, there are no security for Iraqi citizen in Mosul!.
The American troops are as dangerous as the terrorists, the same is true for the Iraqi police but to a lesser extend.
(1) Aya (my grand daughter), her grandfather, has been shot dead by the American while he was going back home walking, and there were American stryker in his way home. There were a fire exchange at the neighborhood at that time. but the American prevent any body from helping him, he died from profuse bleeding from a thigh injury.
(2) My next door neighbor expose to Americans fire in his car but he get out safe in some thing like a miracle, the bullets penetrate the front seat back and the head rest of his seat. A women was in the back seat, get injured badly.
(3) a close friend of mine was in his old car (toyota, corona, 1980) when an American convoy pass him, the last car shot him, they broke his left Ankle joint, and he is almost cripple now.
(4) When the iraqi police come near to an intersection, they shot fire in the air, to open the road infront of them. They follow the nonstop rule.
So, when we will have security, I will answer your question.
hurria - what I expect of US troops is that they should according to their training tolerate peaceful(!) demonstrations although they may according to that training (as I understand it) defend themselves if necessary. What I understood you to assert is that they routinely do not adhere to this standard. When a single apparent failure of this policy occurred at Kent State University in the US it created a nationwide incident. It did not create a "pattern".
Several factors could make it more likely that US troops might fire on an Iraqi crowd than a crowd of US citizens: (1) Iraq is awash in guns and explosives, to the extent that children sometimes have appeared in crowds carrying pistols and been photographed, and people have demonstrated a willingness to attack and kill US troops. This could make it more likely that US troops might act in perceived self defense, rightly or wrongly. Beyond this, any crowd or demonstration can become a riot subject to mob psychology regardless of the original intentions of the organizers and participants - demonstrations are potentially volatile situations. Further, there is a language barrier which may mask warnings issued by US troops and the intentions of an Iraqi crowd in any confrontation.
Despite these risk factors, the news I have heard suggests that organized demonstrations are generally respected and that US troops either avoid confrontation or hold their fire.
Directing heavy weapons or massed rifle fire against a crowd would have horrible effects, similar to the worst car bombings which have occurred. I have heard no reports of such behavior. I have read occaisional reports of US action against groups of Iraqis, generally portrayed as self defense against a violent mob with limited casualties.
As I have said previously, your report of a "pattern" of US action against peaceful protestors does not match my understanding of events. An apparent pattern of mistaken US attacks against vehicles full of civilians I acknowledge, noting that the first step in killing someone with a car bomb is to drive toward them and there IS a language barrier. But a pattern of attacks against organized peaceful protests does not seem to be apparent. If you believe it is, I can only surmise that you have been mislead by propaganda or are overstating the facts or (and I consider this unlikely) that a systematic effort to conceal the facts from US citizens has succeeded.
hurria, two governments have fallen to peaceful mass protests in the last year. Any mass protest can be a volatile and dangerous thing if it gets out of control, but if the will of the participants is in fact peaceful and determined, such things are a powerful, viable form of political expression. I suggest that they are far preferable to blowing up one's fellow citizens, sabotaging the utility infrastructure of one's nation, and waging a largely suicidal guerrilla war against a heavily armed military force. Beyond this, they provide valuable practical experience in democratic action. Ballots and picket signs are better than bullets and gravestone epitaphs in my opinion.
bruno
When I started this blog, my goal was to communnicate with peole from different parts of the world tolearn what is going on there, and to let them know what is going on here in Iraq. The media, the western, the arabic, or any media, all are biased and not telling the truth.
I learned a lot from those comments, specially of yours. I really found a good teacher, who understand the politics better than me and I can learn from him. please keep on posting, I like to read your comments, and so all my friends.
waldschrat
You are the sound of wisdom in this blog. when it got hot, you cool it.
albatroz
I enjoy reading your comments, they open a field of knoledge in front of me, I was very ignorant about. It fulfil the goal of this blog (to know the others,and let the others know you).
moron99
Although I don't share the same opinions with you in most of your comments, but I guess we can agree most of the time, if you could manage to live in Mosul for a while as an ordinary Mosuli citizen.
hurria
where ever you are now. No doubt you are an honest Iraqi, have the same feelings of most honest Iraqis.
I agree with you in every ward you said. I wish I have a good english as yours so I can declare my thoughts in better way.
Moron99,
You seem to have forgotten to react to my arguments on my previous post (4/13/2005 11:47:13 AM), which was meant to answer your previous challenge. Experiencing some engineering problems?...
I have noticed that we have a clear situation here: everyone who isn't American is against the US occupation of Iraq. Maybe because of that, every American has been feeling compelled to defend the outrageous actions of their government. Is that how democracy is supposed to work? You defend your government's actions, no matter how criminal they may be? Or are you supposed to be critical of such actions, even if they are performed by your government? Maybe we should not be so surprised anymore at the fact that civilized and cultured Germans seemed to have supported Hitler's rule. The non-critical attitude of Americans on this blog makes it easier to understand that apparent aberration.
Truth Teller - your words warm my heart. "Wisdom" is not something I ever hoped to claim.
I can understand your anger and frustration at the presence of armed foreign troops in Mosul and horrible disasters like Falluja. To a medical doctor whose work is preservation of life and health, all the death and chaos must seem even worse. Other commenters should perhaps consider this!
Never be ashamed of your English skills, Truth Teller. Your writing is perfectly understandable and better than that of many Americans. Relatively few Americans can claim to speak a foreign language with such skill. I certainly can not.
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in
waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnat tihng is taht
the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae.
The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm.
Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but
the wrod as a wlohe.
moron99
I am not an engineer, many members of my family are engineers, but i am not. I am a physician.
"How is it possible for an engineer to think that Saddam only killed a few thousand Kurds?"
Saddam was not against certain ethnic or religious group. He was a president of Iraq. To keep the securit of Iraq was his first intention. The Kurds were part of the Iraqi population, there were no discrimination against them. BUT there were some political movements in between the Kurds calling for separation. They had a militias to fight against the Iraqi government, not against Saddam. The fight was the same as what the insurgents doing now. Attacking the military bases, killing the government emploees, and planting mines every where in the land of Kurdistan. They were terrorists in the viewpoint of the government. They got arms and military help from different sources, the most important of which are; Iran, previou USSR, and Israel. It was a guerilla war, in the mountains. Any number of causalities exceed 10 is regarded as very high.
BTW the land of Kurdistan is mainly mountainous, and very difficult for the ordinary army to progress there in the same way they could in a flat areas. Few militants can stop a whole army for long time, or even for ever from progress in that land. That is why Saddam or the other rulers of Iraq uses the warplanes in these battles, although their enemy are small in number.
The majority of the Kurds were satisfied with the living with other Iraqis as united nation. And many of the Kurdish tribes were volunteered to fight beside the government troops against the Kurdish insurgents.
It was the business of the media to view the case in the most attractive manner.
BTw , I am not trying to defend Saddam, but you asked me a question, and I am telling you the truth as I know it.
moron99
Sorry, the link doesn't work with me.
Could you send the URL
It's good Moron99 never had to deal with Senator Joseph McCarthy... It might have shattered his American peace and love dream...
It still beats me how someone of at least moderate intelligence can be so completely fooled by a fantasy. The America Moron99 dreams of does not exist. When will he wake up to that reality?...
Moron99,
"You support the dictatorial model of governance..."
Where in heavens have you found that out? I have been for days fighting here the authoritarian, aggressive, undemocratic policies of the US on Iraq, in the name of Iraqis' right to self determination. How can you construct that as "support" for any dictatorial model of governance? You are the one who wants to impose a certain model of governance upon Iraq. In my dictionary, that's what "dictatorial" means. To "dictate" something to someone. I guess you are getting increasingly confused, maybe because you do not seem to be able to convince anyone around here. You seem to be the only person here who fails to see the American government for what it is. I can almost sympathize with your "patriotism", misguided as it may be. But it is difficult to sympathize with the systematic oppression of the Iraqi people. I hope the precarious situation of the US economy will soon put an end to this folly, no matter how much you would like to keep Iraqi oil for yourselves.
hurria - I don't know about "corruption" in the Bush administration, but I have to say I also find it hard to appreciate Bush as a leader. One thing is that the guy is so totally incompetent as a speaker! It seems he and his father both have a hard time with words, either some sort of genetic problem in the family or a fondness for the same drugs or something. If his thoughts are as confused as his words often are, then it is very worrisome indeed. One thing I notice about the guy is that he is much better at speaking from a prepared script than when he must find words to express himself. Frequently he seems to search for words that simply do not come to him.
The result is that Americans (and the world) must wonder if their leader is mentally competent. The fact that the invasion of Iraq was justified at least in part on an apparently false premise, that Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction" he was concealing, is particularly tragic. I personally believe there were other reasons that may have been more valid and secretly given more weight, although much of what I suspect is totally unverified and substantially less morally justifiable.
To the extent that America faces a threat from the Arab world it seems to be related to radical fanatics linked to Saudi-financed and inspired activity. Most of the terrorists which flew into the World Trade Center in New York were Saudis, Osama is a Saudi, the whole thing stinks of Saudi connections. The Saudi connection persists and is now apparently part of Iraq's problems. One link is the Al Zarkawi operation, apparently tied to the same support base as Osama. Another link is the report that the Jordanian suicide bomber whose glorification in Jordan inspired Iraqis to raise hell at the Jordanian embassy a while back traveled first to Saudi-land for training before going to Iraq, according to the reported words of his family.
So, why DID the US really invade Iraq? Clearly, attacking Saddam was the most popular choice if a military force was to be inserted into Arab territory outside Afghanistan. NOBODY liked Saddam.
It seems Saddam had no WMD's. The most that's been found according to reports is a few aging left-over artillery rounds that were apparently overlooked when the Saddam regime secretly(!!!) disposed of chemical weapons supplies it had decided were a liability and not an asset. Somebody had some potent ANTHRAX because they mailed it to various recipients in the US government and press, but no link to Saddam has ever been reported.
One claim was that Saddam's regime was likely to be inclined to support terrorism. At the time no Al Qaida activity in Iraq outside a small operation in Kurdish territory was known. The most pro-terrorist thing Saddam actually did outside Iraq was support the Palestinian cause (at least in word). However, it seems that now terrorist behavior is being sponsored at least in part by elements of the former Saddam regime (not to mention the fact that the suitcases full of money Saddam had when captured were undoubtedly useful for such purposes). It seems that now Al Quada has Al Zarkawi's operation well established on Iraqi soil. Terrorism and hell raising has taken firm root in Iraqi soil. Surely this can not really be a surprise to anyone familiar with the history of events in Chechnya, regardless of how incompetent American intelligence agencies may or may not have been in assessing the WMD inventory of Saddam's regime.
The end result is that American forces are in Iraq, waging war against terrorists linked at least in part to Saudi support, on territory which is a LOT closer to Saudi-land than Manhattan. The Saudis (and other nations in the neighborhood) have not failed to notice this. Iraq is a battleground, Falluja is in ruins, and honest citizens in Mosul cringe at explosions and hesitate to enjoy a spring outing because of the security situation.
I would be disappointed in US intelligence agencies if they did not forsee much of this. I suspect they did forsee it, at least as a possible result of invading Iraq, long before the first tank crossed the border. It is, of course, an outcome MUCH harder to justify morally than suppressing a dictator believed to be hiding chemical and biological weapons.
On the plus side Saddam is gone, Iraq has a chance for a fresh start, and those who might choose to wage war against America for whatever benighted reason have a shorter commute and a practical example of the consequences of such decisions.
Or perhaps Bush actually believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
I don't know about "corruption" in the Bush administration, but I have to say I also find it hard to appreciate Bush as a leader. One thing is that the guy is so totally incompetent as a speaker!
Well, I know a lot of public speakers who are terrible leaders and I know a lot of outstanding leaders who are terrible public speakers. You don't need to be a good public speaker to be a good leader. Even though it is frustrating for the media who are always looking for good entertainment to put on the television.
I have developed the habit of searching the news for reports of events in Mosul. Here is a link to one recent story describing a competition of words.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050414/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_war_of_words_1
Competition with words is beter than competition with weapons. Competition with peaceful words is better than competition with threatening words.
I would like to have Moron99's comment on the April 15 post ("Judicial review hasn’t been controversial for 200 years") on the following blog:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/3983.html
Could it be that his beloved US of A is becoming something of a Saddam's Iraq? Shouldn't Americans start getting more concerned about the situation back home than on whether Iraq is or not going to be a democracy?
albatroz - I will comment because it is a subject which interests me and my attitude may be of interest to others.
Currently there is an unusual situation in the US - the Republican party has control of both the Presidency and Congress. This means ideas and proposals of the President can be enacted into law more easily and with less opposition than if the President were of one party and the congressonal majority were of another. The loyalties of and motivations of "party members" are not perfectly uniform, however, so there is always some opposition to any idea, even now. It has been more common to have a President from one party and a Congress from another and quite rare for BOTH houses of Congress to be controlled in majority by the President's party. The current situation is probably largely unprecedented since the Roosevelt years when I believe the Democrats held both the Presidency and Congress. Those were the years of the great depression and World War II, they were crisis years.
Judicial review of laws enacted by Congress is in fact very important to the history of the US. It is the very basis of the mechanism which holds the Congress and the President, the entire government, to our Constitution. If anyone has doubts of this country's reverence for it's constitution they need only consider the oath of military service which soldiers take. Soldiers are sworn to defend the Constitution, not the government. "Marbury vs Madison", mentioned in the article you linked to, is discussed in history lessons taught to every school child. The court system is commonly consiered non-political, judges are approved in elections but generally do not run with the support of any party nor do political partys present opposing candidates for judges offices.
The policies of the current government are very responsive to the philosophy of the Republican party. They might be characterized as supporting lower taxes, less charity to the poor, lower government expenditures, greater respect for individual rights and beliefs, and a more nationalistic attitude. For the most part, differenecs between Democrat and Republican party philosophies are a matter of degree rather than black and white - our political partys necessarily respect the common things on which most Americans agree. They are different only because they draw votes from somewhat different parts of the population and cater to those voters. Democrats tend to support labor unions, racial minorities and charity to the poor more than Republicans. Republicans draw vots from religious groups, people opposed to taxation, groups supporting individual rights, and groups favoring American nationalism and pride. With control of both the Presidency and Congress these Republican loyalties tend to be translated into action with less argument. Some Republican ideas seem to have been carried to extremes, particularly the reduction of taxes without a corresponding reducton of governmental expenditures.
The debate in the article you linked to is closely linked to Republican support for certain religious opinions and issues than anything else, specifically the recent Terry Schiavo "Right to Die" court case in Florida and such issues as use of the words "under God" in the pledge of allegience to the flag recited by school children. The right of women to have an abortion may also be involved. To continue to receive votes from certain people, Republicans must appear(!) to support certain religious philosophies. They are trying to present such an appearance. In fact, these philosophies are contrary to the majority opinion of American voters and are held only by a highly vocal minority which votes Republican. The Republicans know this, and will not risk alienating the majority. Further, they will not really risk the rtaditional right of courts to pass judgement on laws because this safeguards BOTH the Democrats and Republicans and would strike so close to the principles of the Constitution that the Democrats could use it as a wonderful tool to sweep Republicans from office.
In other words, albatroz, I think you over-estimate the importance of that issue.
I am more concerned about a recurring theme of Nationalism in US politics and elsewhere. The theme of "us against them" is a wondrous tool for gathering political support and has been used repeatedly in recent years. A would-be dictator can gain support by convincing citizens there is an evil enemy which must be opposed by strong, unified effort. This is the kind of nonsense that earns terrorists charitable contribitions from Saudi backers, that brought on the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia, that brought Hitler to power. Muslim-against-Infidel, German-against-Jew, Iraq-against-Iran, Arab-against-Israel, Catholic-against-Heretic", over and over "us-against-them". Paint a clear and convincing picture of an enemy who eats babies and challenges your religion, your nation and your way of life and you neighbors will assist you in any number of horrific acts, give you as much power as you need to defeat that terrible enemy. It is a powerful, seductive argument. Has anyone you know used it lately? Beware!!!!!!!!!
Some information whch might interest Truth Teller and others.
Islam and folks from the Arab culture have been established in Sacramento, California for many years, but it seems more common in recent years to encounter someone in traditional Arab dress. Yesterday I saw a father and several children at Home Depot (which sells tools and building materials) and all were wearing hats somewhat similr to the one in the drawing of Truth Teller's grandfather and one-piece, long-sleeved garments similar to a long "shirt". The kids were all smiling. There were so many of them I suspect they were from several families and involved in some sort of cooperative educational project.
There is also a large building a few miles from me identified as the "Masjid Annur" which I understand to be an Islamic community center and school. They have a web site here:
http://www.masjidannur.com/
The building has been converted to it's current use only in recent years. I sometimes see people outside reading when I pass by.
A couple miles north of where I live there is a small market where folks leave early for prayers on Friday and they sell arab spices and foods. I think they are not from the middle east but from some Pacific island. I forget the island, it is not important, some of the food is delicious and they are nice people.
My best wishes to Truth Teller and all his family.
Moron99,
I don't think I am going to let you expel me from here... Nor will you be able to silence me with your pharisaic love for Iraq... My concern for Iraqis translates itself in a simple phrase: I want them to be free of American occupation, so that they will be able to organize themselves in freedom and in accordance with their traditions and desires. My love for them does not involve shooting some of them, raping someothers, and plundering all of them. My respect of Iraqis involves accepting the risk that they may make some mistakes. But it will be their mistakes. My concern with oil is simply my desire that Iraq - not the US - may enjoy the benefits of their wealth. I may come from an old colonialist country, but you are the one who defends colonial wars and colonial (by proxy) rule. We are experts on colonial adventures, so we easily recognize them when we see them...
Waldschrat,
I thank you for your comments. You seem a lot less concerned about this "conservative/radical" approach to politics than some of the commentators on the original blog. You may be right and not them. But I can't help being a bit worried at the apparent support someone like Bush is getting in the US. As the recent elections have shown, better educated and more cosmopolitan Americans have voted against Bush, but they seem to be in a minority. Support for the Iraqi adventure is much higher than it should be, maybe because many Americans are being denied objective information on what is going on. That, plus late night arrivals of injured soldiers, plus no fotos of coffins, may contribute to that "patriotic" attitude by so many Americans, who have not yet been conftonted with the death or severe injury of a relative or friend, and who have seen no fotos of, for instance, Fallujah. That's maybe why those radical conservatives are trying to tie the judiciary's hands.
Moron99
"If push came to shove, America could fulfill her oil needs with sources on this side of the Atlantic."
I suppose that's why you are trying to get rid of Hugo Chavez, just like you did with Saddam Hussein... How will it be done? Having him killed by some "patriotic" Venezuelans?... Ousted by another "democratic" coup?... I'm sure your CIA has enough experience of such "legitimate" uprisings to guarantee you all that oil on your side of the Atlantic...
Moron99 likes to say that my views on the American intervention in Iraq are the product of my European envy and greed, my colonial past, my love for dictators, etc. I wonder what his opinion will be of the text found on the following site, writen by a full-blooded American, a bishop and a former officer in Vietnam:
http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/100298/100298l.htm
Could it be that I am right and Moron99 is wrong, unlikely as that may be?...
Moron99
"America is the puppet and the new Iraqi government is its master. They have been empowered by free elections. Any American politician who defies them will lose the next election. America is the puppet."
That's a joke! In a very poor taste, if I may add...
albatroz - Regarding whether the US would or would not depart promptly if the Iraqi government requested it to do so, I think there is no simple answer. I don't think the Iraqi government is fully functional yet, and certainly the plan seems to be to formalize a constitution and consider the government formed under that constitution legitimate. To the extent possible it is a government chosen by Iraqis. The byzantine negotiations associated with the national assembly selection of officers suggest (to me , anyway) that it behaves the way I expect Iraqis to behave. However, members of the government are nominally members of a temporary government in a country where an active insurgency targets such people for assassination. I would expect people in such a situation to have a realistic fear for their lives. Currently the most reliable force protecting them may be the US Military. I would therefore expect that the probability of them telling the US military to leave would probably be approximately zero.
What that seems to mean is that the question of whether the US would leave if told to do so is moot, at least in the next year and as long as Iraqi politicians' lives depend on a US presence.
Consider as a practical matter what will happen when the US does leave. If there is a strong, active insurgency it may quickly overcome government forces and deliver Iraq into anarchy, chaos and the "rule of the gun", protracted tribal and religious conflicts, civil war, or all of the above. Alternatively, severe measures might be taken by the government for it's own protection, involving results comparable to the destruction in Falluja and tactics comparable to the worst of Saddam's behavior. In this later case the insurgency might be crished at the cost of huge disruption and the central government might become self-defensive and tyranical.
Maybe I am being too pessimistic. It does seem, though, that when US troops have retreated from places like Najaf and Falluja to avoid escalating violent confrontations things have quickly descended into lawlessness and violent anarchy. I would not expect the insurgency to vanish if the US military simply and suddenly left.
Alternatively, the insurgency may eventually fade away. Events which might accelerate this might include popular success of the government formation process, improved economic conditions, decreasing Iraqi sympathy for insurgents, and pesuasion of insurgents by words or force to abandon the way of violence.
I really don't know what the future will bring. However, I think it is unreasonable to portray America as a colonial power occupying Iraq for commercial reasons. Economic considerations are no doubt part of US policy, but they are largely secondary to security considerations in decisions regarding military action I believe. A distinction should be drawn between the US government and US corporations.
BTW, I'm a also a little irritated with the repeated use of the word "rape" in diatribes against the US. If I climed that people who accuse US troops of widespread rape eat their own children and drink their own bathwater, I believe the accusations on both sides would be about as true. In every group of people there are a few criminals. Rape happens. It is a crime. I suspect it is a less common crime among US troops in Iraq than among Iraqi citizens. Certainly I have read reports that US troops are officially cautioned against any association with Iraqi women to avoid angering Iraqis. I consider all reports and accusations of widespread rape by US forces to be pure lies and propaganda of the most implausible sort.
Waldschrat,
Although your description of Iraqi difficulties seems to be pretty accurate, we cannot forget that they were caused by the American invasion and occupation. Until then we had a dictatorial but secular regime in Iraq, where most problems were the consequences of an economical boycott enforced by the US. I believe that most peoples have the governments they wish or that they deserve. If Saddam Hussein was able to keep power in Iraq was because, on the one hand, many Iraqis were at least moderately satisfied with his rule and, on the other hand, those who were against his rule could not muster enough support to overthrow him. It is practically impossible for any government to prevail against the will of the people, unless such government is supported by an outside power. If Iraqis could not overthrow Saddam Hussein it could only be because they did not want to achieve that. At least not bad enough. And those who did want to get rid of him were very probably a minority. With the exception of North Korea I know no country where people could not change their rulers, if they really wanted it. By invading Iraq the US created chaos, and set the stage for a religious regime to take over. A future Iraq risks being no more democratic than Saddam's Iraq, and a lot more unpleasant for the Iraqis themselves if fundamentalists get the upper hand. It is extremely arrogant from Americans to think that they can dictate the type of government another people should have. A democracy based on political parties is a western phenomenon that may have no legitimate basis in other societies with different values. In such countries political parties are usually corrupt and no more than a means to allow minority groups to plunder their countries' riches. To export such a system may be a great disservice to those peoples. If the American government is well-meaning - something I very much doubt - than it is, at best, misguided.
Moron99 assumes that insurgents are baathists; assumes that Iraqis in general want to kill baathists; if that was the case, he assumes that Sistani would be able to prevent that killing. And he assumes, although he didn't say it this time, that only the American troops can save the Iraqis from themselves. Moron99 must be an expert on Iraq either living in Iraq or having extremely reliable sources of information. Shouldn't we ask real Iraqis about their opinions on all this? Or would Moron99 assume they would be baathist if they dared not to agree with his views?
"Ethnic clensing is almost always part of a revolution and the baathist's actions have made it clear that Iraq will never find peace until they are eliminated."
Americans have always been so fond of Mr. Lynch's law. First the indians, then the blacks, and now the Iraqis... Of course moron99 would rather not have all those baathists killed - after all even they are people!!! - but if there isn't any other solution, so be it... This is getting really disgusting and I am starting to regret moron99 didn't work in the top floors of the Twin Towers... I hope decent Americans will prevail, otherwise we are going to have a very bleak future indeed.
As a matter of hygiene I am going to ignore Moron's comments from now on.
hurria - by that logic it seems many elections in the USA might be invalid since low election turnout (for whatever reason) is not uncommon here. By our own logic, though, the percentage that counts is the percentage of the votes cast, not the percentage of elegible voters. Nobody in the USA imagines that staying home from the polls is a reasonable or useful way of expressing dis-satisfaction with the system. For that reason, the decision of some leaders in Iraq to advocate such a strategy seems totally confusing to most Americans, at least to me.
hurria - I'm sorry for not reading more carefully. I did not intend to misrepresent your words.
You did say in one post "The 'election' itself was not merely 'flawed', it did not meet even the minimum standards for a free, fair, democratic election."
The principle complaints I have heard about the election were (1) It was unsafe for some voters to go to the polls and (2) Some people (including an association of religious "scholars" and Vladimir Putin) contended a fair election was impossible in an "occupied" country. I certainly concede that conditions were not perfect! Still, my impression is that under the circumstances it was the best that could be done. The greatest cloud I see on the election is the low Sunni vote count. Security seems to be worse in Sunni areas and I suppose this may be part of the reason, but I also suppose the boycott urged by many was at least partally responsible.
Please describe the important defects of the elction as you perceive the facts. I do not wish to debate you, there has been far too much heated debate in this long train of comments all ready. I would simply like to understand your views and opinions better. You hae a right to believe what you want regardless of whether people agree with it. What was wrong with the election?
Some people here seem to think that those who fight American occupation must be baathist or nostalgic of Saddam's rule. In the same vein all Germans who fought in WWII must have been nazis, and American soldiers in Iraq must all be republican friends of Bush. They forget that sometimes one fights for love of country, specially when that country is subject to a cruel occupation. No doubt some insurgents in Iraq may be old Saddam people, but the majority are simply patriots fighting to liberate their country.
The day may not be far when our feelings about the US will be similar to those we held about Hitler's Germany or Pol Pot's Cambodja...
For those who claim that the US is in Iraq to help building democracy, go to this site anr read it carefully.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/
7E04B68D-AAD5-4EAD-9B12-D25E2760AAFA.htm
albatroz -
You said " For those who claim that the US is in Iraq to help building democracy, go to this site anr read it carefully."
The link you gave describes US soldiers roughing up a member of the elected assembly and detaining him temporarily, apparently because his car was decorated with Sadr posters. Probably the soldiers acted inappropriately, assuming that their actions were due only to the posters. However, I would not say it is unreasonable to search any car in Iraq for explosives, even the car of a member of the assembly, and if that was their intent it might be a problem of bad communication across the language barrier. Certainly any rough treatment of a member of the asesmbly warrants investigation! The Asembly should NOT be motivated by threats or force from anybody!
However, I do not think that the incident, however undiplomatic and embarrassing, indicates that the US does not truly support democracy in Iraq.
The job of those soldiers was and is to keep people in the Green Zone, including the Assembly, safe from attack. They did their job in a stupid and undiplomatic way, apparently, but nobody blew up the Assembly meeting.
Soldiers are undiplomatic and typically ignorant. If they were told to stop cars that looked suspicious and this guy's car looked suspicious to them, his report of their shouting and kicking his car might mean they believed they must attract his attention and force him to stop and be searched. It might mean they simply didn't like Sadr's organization. I do not know, I have no way of knowing. None of it tells me the US does not support democracy. It tells me soldiers can be crude, forceful and violent - this is not new to me but perhaps you did not know it previously.
(Moron99 is loosing his marbles. The post he so aggressively commented was not mine but Bruno's. Maybe he should enlist and go to Iraq. Who knows, maybe the heat will help his confused mind...)
Waldschrat,
One notices you are embarrassed by your troops' behaviour, but you shouldn't be. It is not your fault they are as they are and act as they act. On the other hand you could go one step further and join those many Americans who are trying to do something to get your troops out of Iraq. It's going to take every single goodwilled American to stop that nonsense and give Iraq back to the Iraqis. What is at stake is a lot more than just Iraq. If your unbalanced President decides to attack Iran we may all be in a lot of trouble. Being the mightiest country in the world may not be sufficient to stop a Middle Eastern disaster.
moron99 - I think all reasonable people are upset over that. Folks can talk as long as they want to about the US and it's motivations, but Iraqis seem to be killing Iraqis. I'm sure there are good people in Iraq, but the bad people seem to grab the headlines.
" Thus, while the ostensible savagery of targeting of civilians does help the US government label the freedom fighters of the present as terrorists, the simultaneous media censorship omnipresent throughout the war in Iraq blinds us to the equally if not more savage violence perpetrated by our state against the Iraqi civilians. In Fallujah, for instance, where reporters were prohibited for several months beginning in November 2004, 65 percent of buildings were leveled to the ground and anywhere between 600 to 3,000 civilians were murdered, mostly by carpet-bombing, the increasingly favored technique employed in Iraq as manpower begins to dwindle. All of these conditions must be recognized when we consider our relation to the Iraqi resistance."
Read further here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8603.htm
Post a Comment