Dear folks.
I strongly recommend you to read this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
About Me
- Truth teller
- A 60-years-old medical Doctor, Male, married and have three daughters.
150 comments:
I'm curious, Truth Teller. You do quote from Jude Wanniski about Saddam, Jimmy Carter and letters to Pres. Clinton in the '90s and what happened in Iraq in the 1980s... You seem like a reasonably intelligent man. Do you have any thoughts, ideas, plans for Iraq in the present and future? What are your thoughts on the Constitution? What should be in it? Will you vote on the Consitutional referendum? Will you vote in the next elections? What do you think are the most important priorities for Iraq now?
OK I read what you say,
"I srongly recommend you to read this."
Once again its just garbage, who cares? What good is it? What does it have to do with Today and tomorrow?
We can argue the past until a man changes to a donky, what good is it? The future is what's important.
Again, I guess, there will be another 300 comments by here.
I srongly recommend
It hink you know it but it is "I strongly recommend".
I say we pull out now and leave this piece of sht and his famnily to deal with Zarqawi and others of his ilk on their own. Then if it should ever come to pass that these ignorant peasants present a threat to us again we turn their country into a desert of glass.
Baathi Lies Teller,
That was really a good read; thank you for showing me how stupid you really are. I enjoyed it very much.
I have one question for you though: Aren't you ashamed of being a Baathi propaganda teller saddam apologist scumbag?
Give me a god damn break, well ya? We all know the truth, so stop telling lies, it will only make you look more and more stupid.
Truth Teller has a sometimes distorted view of things and he often seeks out sources that appear to support his beliefs when in fact those sources themsalves may engage in distorion or even propaganda. I am glad he expresses his beliefs in this blog even though I don't see things the way he does. But he does not lie. A lie is not the same as subscribing to false information or trying to get others to believe it.
Vulgar, pre-adolescent idiots like the one who posted after Cam should keep in mind that very often in a democracy, citizens and their politicians will engage in nasty disagreements, but very seldom cross the line into personal attacks and assaults on the integrity of those who see things differently. Those comments were totally out of line.
Truth Teller comes from a part of Iraq with a political culture that is clearly different from some other parts of the country. His blog provides me with insight into those different views and I think that is valuabe. And so is the picture I get of a professional man who loves his family living in a danger zone.
You say you know the truth but what happens when some of that turns out to be untrue. How long will you remain loyal to your cherished false beliefs.
Dan
cam:... you gave a perfect impression about yourself and the people you represent.We - the ignorant peasants - thank you for uncovering your real face...
the real lie teller why don't you tell us what you know if you do know anything at all?
I took a decision previously to delete every comment which contains offinsive words, or personal insult.
in this section of comments there is some one who comment using the name of "real truth teller". his childish comment deserve deleting, but thanks to Dan who give him a lesson in ethics and principled. So I will leave his comment as an indication to his moral behaviour.
ann
Thank you for the links.
The first link is very informative to me. I hope every reader will read the first article. It is really very interesting.
I cann't open the second link!
Don't believe a word coming from Wanniski. He's a disreputable crank.
It always surprised me how apparently civilized Germans could have followed Hitler's criminal policies. Reading some of the American comments and observing their blindness to the criminal nature of Bush's policies doesn't clarify completely the question, but shows me that it is really possible for apparently common people to accept vicious actions by their leaders. Some Americans really think their invasion of Iraq is good. I can only hope that in some not too far future these Americans may have to deal with a foreign intervention on their soil so that they may learn, first hand, what it means. It seems improbable, but I keep watching China...
ann
I apreciate your interest in this subject.
"There seem to be many lies being spread about the degree to which the US assisted Saddam."
Yes you are right. the US assisted saddam in his war against Iran. At the same time (simultaneously) the US assisted Iran against Iraq!!!!
This looked to be strange but it is true.
The US supported the two by military informations and continue like that to prevent any side from being overtake the other.
"The US has been falsely accused of assisting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. While Rumsfeld opened opportunities for Iraq to get loans from the World Bank, these were for agricultural development and infrastructure. Why is the US being condemned for helping Iraq build its infrastructure and update its agricultural technology? If the US had been assisting Iraq, Iraq would have won a short and complete victory - at least that is my belief."
Again you are right. If the US assisted Iraq only, not the two side, it will the war in complete victory.
"Please be honest about who and what Saddam was and what he represented and stop slapping us in the face for it - it isn't our fault - its the fault of the people who supported him - we weren't the ones who enabled Saddam - Baathists were."
The baathists enabled Saddam because he was one of them and thier leader, but why the US supported him? is still a mystery in my opinion.
"But what Saddam did to the US is unforgivable - he used our generosity as a weapon against us and attacked us without cause."
Saddam was a tyrant dictator, he did very evil things against the Iraqi and against the humanity. But he didn't do any thing against the US.
He didn't attack the US.
Actually he is the one who made occupying Iraq easier.
I can't believe at my eyes! Finally a true Iraqi blogging what he think, rappresenting the majority of Iraqis! I was really tired of the pro-occupation blog made by suspects Iraqis. By Allah, I'm so happy! He lives in Mossul, a centre of Resistance against the invaders; can you tell us if you have witnessed some episodes of Resistance attacks?
Regard to the pro-americans readers, I public a link that speak off clearly about the situation in Iraq and what about the Iraqis think about it:
- http://ppoopp.host.sk/war/index.htm
His loading is slow, but you can get a real look to the Iraqi situation on the ground.
Interesting link: the reaction of the Iraqi mosques at the imminent American attack on Iraq.
http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=realimpact/memri/memri_friday_sermons.rm
This made clear the interior force that permit at the Iraqis so far of battling the invaders.
ann
cool down please there is nothing personal.
"No, the US did NOT assist Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. The US did NOT assist Iran in the Iraq-Iran war. And the US didn't start assisting the Kurds until very recently. Unless you can provide irrefutable evidence please stop telling these lies as they are leading to more animosity."
It is a well known fact, needs no evidence, the US assisted both side with military informations.
I advice you to be more patient and not to hurry answering without being sure of what your are writing.
By the way, I like a person who defend his country even if he/she has different point of view than mine.
One of the arguments against the current American adventure in Iraq has been that Saddam did not support overseas terrorism.
While searching for pictures of Mosul on the web I came across what looks like a Saddam-era picture of a small parade or demonstration in Mosul to honor a suicide bomber intent on going to Israel to slaughter Jews. I wonder if anybody can provide perspective on this. Reportedly Saddam used antisemitic sentiment to his advantage, but I have not previously seen much information on the way he did it. Of course if people in Mosul were practicing the art of blowing themselves up in inconvenient places before the latest wave of American tourism it might have something to do with recent bombings in Iraq.
The page with a thumbnail and description of the picture is at
Link to thumbnails
and the photo itself is at
Link to photo
I can't help wondering if the suicide bomber's costume in the photo was inspired by the KKK. The arabic writing on the costume and the banners is a mystery to me, of course.
Hurria -
I applaude your accurate response to Dan's "Stay out of our (American) politics" comment. It was indeed an hillariously silly thing for him to say, and I'm glad you called my attention to it.
I only hope everybody gets so involved in seeking political solutions to problems that they have no time or inclination to be involved in military solutions.
Truth Teller,
I'm more and more appalled at the 'quality' of the American commentators to Iraqi blogs, including yours.
Apart from the most obvious deceivers (propagandists who go on and on knowingly lying, like Moron99, addressing I suspect just the most ignorant of the American readers, because everybody else by now knows them for what they are), I'm truly astounded at those of them who seem to be 'in good faith' in supporting the mad adventures of their Government.
Take for instance the ignorance of this poor 'Ann', and the arrogance of this poor Dan. One would have to think long & hard to find so incredibly gullible & ignorant beings, their childish narrow view of the world just in black & white, in any other country of the world apart from the US of America.
Are there in Iraq any people similar to these creatures? Maybe some illiterate young Shiite from a very deprived surrounding, like Sadr City, giving vent to his frustrations in the way of mad fanaticism?
Do tell us, Truth Teller: are there many Iraqis as silly as so many of your American commentators?
Truth Teller,
For an intelligent, mature man such as yourself you seem remarkably uninterested in the future of your country. Maybe you'd like to share with us some of your thoughts, if any.
Do you have any thoughts, ideas, plans for Iraq in the present and future? What are your thoughts on the constitution? What should be in it? What should not be in it? Will you vote on the consitutional referendum? If so, why? If not, why not? Will you vote in the next elections? What do you think are the most important priorities for Iraq now?
Some background information on the FACT of U.S. military assistance to Iraq during the Iran - Iraq war can be found in this book by an American military officer who was personally involved in facilitating said assistance:
From Ally to Adversary, by Rick Francona
ann....
unfortunately, I think, that the United States often acts contrary to itself. Even inside the same administration. For instance, when Halabja happened, many inside our government were outraged and immediately began trying to stop Saddam from doing anything like that ever again.
On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence, gathered by the veterans of the 1st Gulf War, of our culpability with the Iran-Iraq war.
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/23/news-crogan.php#top1
Look up the ATCC. Do a google search: ATCC, Iraq, State Department. You don't export anthrax spores to a country in a war without some upper level authority approving the sale.
It is true, Iraq got more help from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Soviets, France, etc. But we definitely played a part.
The real fight between Iran and Iraq was over the Shaat-al-Arab, and some very oil-reach land near there. That Shaat-al-Arab is critical for the economy of both countries. They fought over it long before we came along.
Saddam could have stopped the war far earlier. If he was manipulated by outside powers, that's his own fault. And the Iran-Iraq war did more to decimate both countries than anything that has happened after. No one could have prevented Khomeni and Saddam from coming to terms if they had been sane people. But neither was really sane.
It seems likely to me that our Saudi "allies" were the major reason behind our involvement. And they certainly gave billions of dollars in loans to Iraq to continue the fight (fighting Iran by proxy for them). (Oh, and by the way, they still want that money back).
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.19B.reagan.iraq.htm
Before truthteller judges us too harshly, he should remember that good men from the Kurdish and Shia parties have kissed Saddam on the cheek and negotiated terms with him. I shouldn't point out Jalal Talabani, but it is true that, although he hated Saddam, there are pictures of him negotiating with him. Sometimes we feel we are forced to make deals with devils.
Does truthteller wish Saddam had been the "president" of Iran? Does he wish Khomeni was in charge of Mosul?
Solutions are easier if we prevent the conflict from starting. But once conflict has begun, it grows more difficult for our leaders to think clearly about the long term effects of their decisions. Such as mailing anthrax spores to Baghdad.
@Ann, 6/5/2005 10:55:50 PM.
"a dark, sinister, abusive, 3rd century regime like that of Ayatollah Khomeini's".
Oh great historian Ann, could you please tell me and all readers what the heck a "3rd century regime" means? Have you got problems with your chronology, or what? Do name, please, the "3rd century regime" you compared Khomeini's one to.
@Ann, 6/6/2005 12:37:07 AM.
"State sponsorship of Ansar al-Islam. Abu Musab al Zarqawi of al Qaeda opening and operated an Ansar al-Islam training camp in Northern Iraq".
Again, the Ansar al-Islam camp in 'Northern Iraq' (precisely, in Halabja) was in Kurdistan, an area since 1991 completely outside of Saddam's control, and actually it was an enclave in PUK-controlled territory. What had Saddam to do with it? Or are you taking us for fools?
"State sponsorship of Mujahedin-e-Khalq".
The Mujahedin-e-Khalq group (originally a Marxist group, that then became a crazy personality cult centered on the Rajavi couple who founded it) has recently changed sponsors.
How is it, oh so knowledgeable Ann? You missed this tiny bit? Don't you know that from May, 2003 the Mujahedin-e-Khalq are sponsored by the US of America (for possible use in some Iranian adventure)?
"Grants for families of martyrs ($25,000 to suicide bombers in Palestine)".
Really knowledgeable Hurria (6/5/2005 11:52:38 PM) had already answered to this 'allegation' of yours, that has anyway nothing to do with the US ("What Saddam Hussein did was to offer a stipend to the families of every Palestinian killed in the Intifada. That included the families or the relatively small number of suicide bombers, as well as the many hundreds of Palestinians killed by Israel as they went innocently about their business of going to school, to work, shopping for food, or sleeping in their beds in their homes").
Since what you said had been already answered to, why did you spew forth this sillyness once more?
And then you are the one who invites people to "listen" to her arguments?
Apart from that, Saddam's support to Palestinian organisations has NOTHING at all to do with the US. Can you dispute this?
So why do you go on with this sort of thing?
"Iraqi diplomat Hisham al Hussein allegedly helped al Qaeda's Abu
Sayyaf's attack on Zamboanga".
Allegedly? ALLEGEDLY??? Does it seem to you anything worth repeating, 'hard' information?
Allegedly, some sector in the Administration of the US of America organised 9/11. Allegedly.
"According to numerous defectors, Salman Pak was a training camp in Iraq" etc. "A lot of information came from Sabah Khodada, a former Iraqi army officer who worked at Salman Pak".
So, Ann, you feel like repeating for the umpteenth time some 'rumours' and 'allegations' already long debunked, that came out straight from Chalabi's factory of lies.
And we are supposed to take you in earnest?
The dogs howl and the train rolls on. What an incredible waste of time and energy are these endless circular arguments over unalterable events with ample 'evidence' to support any view you care to take. I would think that people who really have so much at stake and concern in the outcome would be looking forward rather than backward.
hurria,
I'm trying to keep my comments succinct. (Ha! I know I'm not doing a good job)
My point is that you can have two conflicting actions within the same administration. In your example, you are emphasizing that the White House is "the U.S." and not the Congress, who tried to stop the sale of helicopters, and who DID stop the sale of lots of chemical and biological agents, among other things.
In Halabja, there is no evidence that the U.S. authorized, encouraged, or knew about the attack. The CIA, Commerce Dept, and other higher officials, however, seem clearly culpable in terms of their knowledge that Iraq had biological weapons, and tactically approved them.
On the other side, there were plenty of people working in the administration that investigated Halabja and tried to prevent any other Halabja's from happening ever again.
Which group of people represented the United States?
Was it Steven Bryen and Casper Weinberger? Or was it those guys in the Commerce Department?
A nation and its policies are infinitely complex. The U.S. has done some wonderfully noble things for Iraq. It has also done some really stupid things. There ARE evil men among us in the U.S. But there is very rarely a clear policy among them. Most of those businesses simply wanted to make a profit. Many of the individuals in the State Department were trying to encourage Saddam to join the "democracy club" (stupid, I know)
Here's a COMPREHENSIVE look at what was going on:
http://www.iran.org/tib/krt/tdl12.htm
And here's an interview that emphasis the point:
SAFER: When you were in that job as--as the--the Pentagon's cop to oversee what was going where, did you get into any confrontations?
Dr. BRYEN: Oh, yes. Oh, yeah. I had a big confrontation over the shipment of atropine injectors to Iraq . I blocked it. And atropine is an antidote for nerve gas. And so far as I knew, the only nerve gas in the region was Iraqi nerve gas, so it was clear that they wanted one-- they wanted this for offensive purposes, not for defense.
SAFER: To protect their own troops?
Dr. BRYEN: To protect their own troops, and--and to allow them to use it in fairly close-in situations against--against other forces, Iranians or Americans or whoever.
SAFER: You got into confrontations with whom?
Dr. BRYEN: Well, the--the--the fight was mostly with the State Department. It was a million and a half injectors they were talking about, 1.5 million injectors, and these were militarized injectors; the same ones are used by the US Army. And I will--I just said no. It took me three months of--of quarreling, and--and--and finally, I threatened to have a press conference if they wouldn't stop. But in the intervening period, the news of the Kurdish attacks came out, and I think that discouraged the enthusiasm in the State Department for promoting this transaction.
------------------------
I think you and an_italian are going to far. It's like hearing Bush's "axis of evil" speech, except the U.S. is EVIL.
The truth is strong enough.
@Anonymous Stukasdad, 6/6/2005 02:55:41 AM.
"I would think that people who really have so much at stake and concern in the outcome would be looking forward rather than backward".
Stukasdad, the one starting again with "unalterable events" from the past has been (repeating the sillyest & most debunked lies) your American 'Ann'. So we answer.
But couldn't it be, Stukasdad, that you prefer to leave the past alone precisely because you have no right whatsoever to be occupying Iraq (and you know it very well)?
@Ann, 6/6/2005 03:13:48 AM.
"the UN was formed in part to protect Israel".
Sorry, Ann... are you crazy or what? When the UN were formed (1945), Israel didn't exist yet! We know that you aren't a great historian, but...
oh, maybe the UN were founded in the "3rd century"!!!
"If the US truly has nothing to do with this (as I believe is truthful) then why do we keep getting called into it?".
This is very interesting, because this statement of yours reveals, to all & sundry, that usually you do not believe in what is real, obvious and in the public domain, while you believe in some propagandist lies (see your previous post) widely and completely disproved.
After the 1967 war the US of America decided - as a strategic decision - to choose Israel as their main and fixed ally in the Middle East.
From then on, more than 50 % than the total of American financial support to other countries went, every year, to Israel, in order to support its economy and prop it up. If I'm not mistaken, about two thirds of the Israeli GNP are the fruit of US State donations.
The US freely decided to make Israel their main ally in that area, and to prop it up; then they kept vetoing any UN resolution against Israel, which is illegally occupying, since 1967, with flagrant and continuous violations of the Geneva Conventions, the Palestinian Territories and Golan. The Israeli Govt. (led since the Seventies by the Likhudniks of Nazifascist origin) has scuppered any attempt of a settlement (including the February 2002 Arab League proposal for permanent peace in exchange for the end of the occupation), and the US have kept supporting Israel.
So, Ann, what are you blathering about? This is not the history of the "3rd century" (you haven't yet answered on that, BTW), but of the 20th & 21st.
I do find it ironic that the much vaunted Wanniski wrote that the Iranians were responsible for Halabja:
http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/11-18-98.html
hurria,
Please provide credible evidence for your accusations against US agencies and government officials in regards to their alleged involvement with Halabja. It seems you do not play by your own rules.
You're starting to understand Hurria, Ann. This road has been trod many times before.
So... off the topic of Israel for a moment (!!!) and back to Iraq...
"Truth Teller",
An intelligent, accomplished man like you should have some ideas about Iraq's future path. Do you have any thoughts, ideas, plans for Iraq in the present and future? What are your thoughts on the constitution? What should be in it? What should not be in it? Will you vote on the consitutional referendum? If so, why? If not, why not? Will you vote in the next elections? What do you think are the most important priorities for Iraq now? What kind of government should Iraq have? Why? What will you do to help your country become what you want it to be? What kind of country do you hope Iraq will be when Aya is an adult?
Surely you must have some thoughts and ideas about this. I'd be really interested in hearing them because Iraq needs intelligent accomplished people like you thinking about these things.
Awaiting your thoughts while the usual suspects here go over and over the same old ground...
@Ann, 6/6/2005 04:15:22 AM.
"The UN formed Israel and therefore is obligated to protect Israel. Why are there countries in the UN that refuse to recognize Israel as a country? If it isn't a country, then how can it have a legitimate government that is occupying other lands".
Again, you are not being sensible (and, again, the UN was NOT founded to protect Israel, LOL!). The UN may be "obligated to protect Israel", but not to protect its territorial conquests against the UN statutes, and not to compell all States in the world to recognise Israel. The UN recognised Taiwan as China, up to 1971; but many States did not recognise Taiwan as China, but the People's Republic. So what? Why are you muddling all matters in an illogical way?
And, again, to quote a US State Department assessment in the run up to the Iraqi war (2002), based, as all the world and even the US Congress by now knows, on doctored, invented and fake information (provided by the Chalabi crowd, and sexed-up by the Neo-Cons), is not very supportive of what you say: don't you realise it?
And even what the assessment (falsely) stated against Iraq was NO ground to go to war with another country, or to invade it.
So, please, stop serving us some lies cooked years ago, and long since gone cold (and rotten).
We are not all gullible Americans, you know.
BTW, oh wise & learned Ann, what about "the 3rd century"?
Truth Teller, as always I read your link and the whole article but was saddened that you believe what was there. One of the things that always upsets me in articles like that is the stating as fact that the US is responsible for the deaths of childen... is it 500,000 or 800,000 as both figures were stated as "fact" in the article? The "oil for food program" even without all the cheating that Saddam managed should have provided for food and medicine for the children whatever the real and horrible number of deaths that occurred. There was only one person responsible for the suffering and death in my opinion and that was Saddam who was building palace after palace with the money and with all his friends living an outrageuosly lavish lifestyle.
Note to Ann...I am in awe of your amazingly detailed and intelligent posts here...hopefully some of those so far on the other side of the "facts" will at least question some of their beliefs.
Larry in Texas (so I am obviously a brainwashed American)
@Larry in Texas (so I am obviously a brainwashed American), 6/6/2005 06:27:37 AM.
No, Larry, you are obviously a brainLESS American.
Cannot you see that there was not ONE 'fact' in Ann's posts (who was quoting things she had not even cared to read), and that all the silly things she said ("3rd century" included) were easily rebutted?
A child could see it. Larry in Texas cannot.
@Ann, 6/6/2005 06:03:16 AM.
"This would be considered supporting terrorism".
No, it would not. You sillyly started this discussion you aren't able to keep up stating as truth an outrageous lie, namely that "Saddam attacked the US", and again, that "The truth is, Saddam attacked the US", and again, lying as you love to do, that Saddam regime had a part in 9/11 (6/5/2005 09:09:25 PM).
Now, even if one were to term the fully legitimate Palestinian resistance against the illegal Israeli occupation 'terrorism', it, still, would have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the US of America. So why are you repeating this rather idiotic stupidity, Ann? To what purpose?
"Are we ready to move on to the next item on the list?".
Yes, Ann, please enlighten us from your deep historical wisdom: name or describe "a dark, sinister, abusive, 3rd century regime" (we are a bit ignorant in history this side of the ocean, you know, especially in Italy, and in Iraq, since we have such a short history... LOL!).
@Stukasdad, 6/6/2005 06:54:25 AM.
"The United States may be the most dominant military, economic, cultural force in human history, but it is composed of ignorant near animals. All wrongs in the last two hundred years can be traced to wrongdoing on the part of these subhuman Americans".
Oh Stukasdad, you have to admit that it is not our fault (either of the Arabs, or of the Europeans) that you warmongering Americans proudly parade your subhumanity and your beastliness in the comments pages of Iraqi blogs.
And that tells us that the US position of "most dominant military, economic, cultural force in human history" is not going to last much longer...
And about the "last two hundred years", come on, that's slightly exaggerated... let's make it the "last sixty years"!
@Hurria, 6/6/2005 07:01:10 AM.
"To be fair and realistic, there were some facts in Ann's posts. It IS a fact that Saddam Hussein paid stipends to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. What Ann refuses to deal with, even though her own sources confirm it, is that he also paid stipends to each Palestinian who was killed by Israeli forces".
You are right, Hurria, as you are about always. I should have qualified that statement: "there were not many facts in what Ann said, and those were chosen completely out of context, and in a specious and disingenuous way".
@Ann, 6/6/2005 07:01:01 AM.
"italian - move to Iran and enlighten yourself!".
If this is your answer to mine "name or describe 'a dark, sinister, abusive, 3rd century regime'", as everybody understands I was not referring to Khomeini's regime.
It was YOU who compared Khomeini's regime to "a dark, sinister, abusive, 3rd century regime". So, please, I'm asking you to name such a regime; was there ever one such?
You cannot? Oh, I'm amazed! Or maybe you are always talking through your lower parts, where the sun does not shine?
You see, if a human being engaged in a serious discussion is caught in a ludicrous blunder, usually the human being admits that it is a blunder, and moves on.
One of the things that surprises me over and over about you warmongering Americans, is that you always seem completely unable to do that, to admit even minor mistakes. Which strikes us in the Old World very much, because that is the behaviour of total liars, swindlers and crooks.
If one is unable to own up to 'minor' blunders, it is quite obvious that the person has no honesty at all.
Be careful, Ann, because if you go on sillyly lying like that (ever heard of Pinocchio?), your nose will start to grow, and grow, and grow... and you risk ending up as a proboscis monkey (www.proboscismonkey.com)!
BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 5 - Sunni Arab leaders are expected to present by Thursday a list of 25 to 35 Sunni Arabs willing to help draft a permanent constitution, an official with a parliamentary committee overseeing the drafting said Sunday in an interview.
The 55-member committee, dominated by Shiite Arabs and Kurds, the two groups that won big in the January elections, would then work with those Sunni Arabs to write the constitution, said the official, Bahaa al-Aaraji, a follower of the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr. The additional Sunnis would not have formal voting power to approve or reject the draft, Mr. Aaraji said. But he added that the committee would agree to approve only a draft reached through a consensus with the Sunnis. The committee, which has only two Sunni Arab members, is trying to work out a way to be more inclusive during the constitution-writing process. Sunni Arabs, who ruled Iraq under Saddam Hussein and are leading the insurgency, largely boycotted the elections and are underrepresented in the National Assembly. The White House has been urging the new Iraqi government to ensure that Sunni Arabs have a fair say in the drafting of the constitution. - New York Times
"...meantime life outside goes on all around you..." - Bob Dylan ("It's Alright, Ma, I'm Only Bleeding")
Saddam trial within two months
Iraqi Special Tribunal judge Raed Juhi told a newspaper on Saturday that the toppled leader was expected to go on trial within two months and described his morale as "low
because he realises the volume of accusations for which he will be judged".
- Al Jazeera
"Saddam trial within two months"
ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
You may be bored by it, Hurria. I'm sure many thousands of Saddam's victims and victims' families are not.
...many thousands of Saddam's victims and victims' families understand that any trial of Saddam is not about justice for them...
Oh, I'm sure they are all so glad to have you speaking for them. Dear, that may be what you "understand" but I don't think I'll take your word for it, OK?
Is it possible that you understand Americans even less than you think Americans understand Iraqis? I think most Americans are frustrated by the endless discussion by Iraqis of wrongs real or imagined and instead look to make something of the future. I am told by Americans there that the Kurds seem to be different in that aspect, among others. The many blogs I read seem to bear that out as well as do the reports I read of the relative progress between the Kurdish dominated areas and the rest of Iraq. Is my perception wrong?
Dear Hurria, your self-righteous indignance doesn't impress me at all. Your oft-repeated tiresome refrain that you need to convince no one of anything, while insisting that others provide the equivalent of annotated legal briefs to back up their every comment, has become just that... tiresome.
Say whatever you want, but know that just because you say you once lived in Iraq (how long has it been?) gives you no special privilege to speak for other Iraqis or to expect any of us to accept your every pronouncement at face value.
You have no right to speak for anyone but yourself.
Strykerdad,
"Europeans are much wiser, informed, ethically and morally superior, but ironically, that same superiority leaves them unable to influence world events because they see nuance and unlimited options, leaving them powerless..."
Who ever told you that we want to influence world events? We would like every single country to be free to do whatever it wants, as long as that does not include aggression or in any other way interfering in other countries' affairs. And we accept the UN as the proper place to discuss and take action against aggressors or systematic violators of fundamental human rights. If ever we are subject to any form of aggression we will defend ourselves, like we did in the past. Don't forget that some Europeans fought alone for two long years against Hitler, before Americans decided that it was in their interest to intervene. We just wish that you would be less arrogant, less cocky, less brutal and more respectful of other peoples' rights and dignity. You, as a Native American, should know this better than anyone. But I suppose that since you couldn't beat them you decided it would be more profitable to join them... I wonder what your ancestors would think of that...
And we accept the UN as the proper place to discuss and take action against aggressors or systematic violators of fundamental human rights.
"Discuss"? Yes, the UN is very good at discussion, ad infinitum.
"Take action"? Not so much. Unless you mean the U.S. taking action because we are the only nation that does. Even when the Balkans were falling apart right in the Europeans' backyard, "action" didn't happen until the U.S. intervened... with no U.N. mandate.
That's the way of the world these days and Americans understand it. If there's any action to be taken Americans will have to be the ones to do it. And if we don't, will be blamed for not doing it and allowing a sitiuation to deteriorate.
By the way, I found the survey referenced here very interesting. Regardless of which side you think is right, it does go a long way toward explaining why Americans and Europeans have such a seemingly different approach to the world.
When asked to agree or disagree with the statement "Success in life is pretty much determined by forces outside our control," only 32 percent of the Americans polled agreed, in contrast to 48 percent in England, 54 percent in France, 66 percent in Italy, and 68 percent in Germany.
When I studied psychology this was known as the difference between an "external locus of control" and an "internal locus of control". Disregarding your views on which approach is correct it shows that the differences in worldview are not just specific to certain foreign policy initiatives or conflicts but are deep psychological differences in how we see our place in the world. This difference in worldview is deeply held and will probably not change anytime soon so Americans and Europeans should start thinking about and understanding how it affects our different viewpoints, instead of simply talking past each other as we do now.
Truth,
Do you think the Sadam was sponsoring terrorism through his grant/certificate/martyr reward program offered to the relatives of suicide bombers?
I have to say, I am also growing weary of the debate over Saddam. I can't see where hurria and italian are going with this. What was done to the Marsh Arabs and their environment is enough for me. I do not agree that we should stand by in the face of civil conflict. We didn't do so in Bosnia, and we shouldn't have done so in Rwanda.
As far as the country most responsible for foreign meddling in Iraq, it is Saudi Arabia, hands down. Follow the money. Follow the self-interest.
I am disgusted by other posts that call for violence in order to create "freedom". If we are in agreement that war is an immoral tool, that harms civilians, and that the U.S. should have tried harder to use different tools to get rid of Saddam, then why are we saying the best tool to "free" Iraqis from American oppression is violence.
Currently, it is in America's best interest to see Iraq succeed as a democracy. Actually, it has always been in America's best interest to see Iraq become a democracy, it is only because our leaders didn't believe that Iraqis were capable of creating a true democracy that they made so many bad decisions in the past.
Now, there is a moment where they believe differently. It would be smarter to take advantage of that moment.
Unlike Saddam, America can be shamed into acting appropriately. But the "nation of evil" rhetoric does nothing to create that feeling of shame. An Iraqi version of Marin Luther can transform American public opinion. Another version of Osama bin Ladin, will not.
As far as the American comments here about their disgust with the United Nations: The reason that Woodrow Wilson and FDR put so much energy into creating an international body, was so that we would have another way of solving the worlds problems without killing each other and ruining our economies in the process. No one said that these organizations were going to be perfect. Of course the U.N. has corruption, and endless squabbles, and other nonsense. Is the U.S. government any different? Instead of undermining and dismissing it, maybe we should work a little harder at finding ways to reform it. In addition, while we spend 400 billion dollars on our war machine, only 4 billion dollars are spent on the U.N. peacekeeping branch. Is it any wonder that the U.N. is so often ineffectual?
But let's not forget Cyprus, Bosnia, El Salvador, and other countries were the U.N. HAS made a difference. Can we say we have a better record? (Liberia? Haiti?) What MILITARY action did Reagan commit our troops to that had long term results?
The United States is simply a group of people. As is Italy, and the United Kingdom, and Iraq, and France. The root of evil in this world are men who sell the tools of war, and make profit on the suffering of other people. They are present in every world body, and in every country.
Yet, there are also good men in every country, and in every world body.
We are all brothers and sisters. We all love our children. We all want to live in a perfect world.
Let us concentrate on making the present better. And we should start with the areas we know. If truthteller cannot make his neighborhood better, then how will all of Iraq become better? If I cannot help one homeless person in my city, then how can I stop homelessness in my nation?
What are the roots of the problems right in front of us? And how can we change that?
ann
"Truth, what do you believe? Was this sponsoring terrorism or not?"
Sorry to disappoint you, you did a good job but you lose.
My answer in short "it was not sponsoring terrorism"
Idealists are nice, but pragmatic realists give them the luxury of imagining a world full of lollipop fields and rainbow waterfalls. Men and women capable and willing of committing violence to preserve such rights are the only thing preventing worldwide tyranny. That is undeniable, historic fact. Why do people think human nature has changed completely over the last few decades? Because a largely non-threatening, benevolent dominant force has given other free nations that false impression--War is archaic, unlawfull, immoral---you have to feel very certain that your liberty is secure to take that view. It is a troubling paradox that it is only thourgh war or threat of war on the part of those who value liberty and are willing to sacrifice their lives that those ideals are so easy to claim as valid. Free societies are not a natural state for human beings, never has been. It is something obtained and preserved through violence or the real threat of violence.
Give me an example.
What military actions has the U.S. committed since World War II that resulted in a better world?
If World War II created a new Germany and Japan, then why didn't World War I do that? Could it be that the Marshall Plan was more important than the violence?
We intervened in Vietnam. 30 years later, they are reforming their country on their own.
My answer in short "it was not sponsoring terrorism".
Why am I not surprised?
What military actions has the U.S. committed since World War II that resulted in a better world?
Well, for starters (just off the top of my head) our involvement in protecting South Korea in the Korean war leading to its now prosperous democracy, unlike its neighbor to the north.
I'd add Afghanistan and Iraq to the list but I'd understand if others want to wait a few years to see how it all shakes out.
Could it be that the Marshall Plan was more important than the violence?
There would have been no opportunity for the Marshall Plan and democratic reforms without the preceding violence.
Truth Teller,
Arthur Laffer and Jude Wanninski were the creators of "Supply-Side Economics," around 1980. Other important figures in the supply-side movement were President Reagan and Representative Jack Kemp.
I think the supply-siders have some useful insights. The main idea is that a tax on any economic activity will bring in the same amount of revenue at two different tax rates, one low and one high. Won't a higher tax rate generate more revenue than a low one? It would, if the economic activity being taxed were not itself affected by the taxation. A tax rate, however, can always be made high enough to discourage the activity being taxed. Eventually, the level of activity will fall to the point where the tax revenue declines to the same total as would be collected at the given lower rate. Obviously, it makes more sense to operate at the lower rate. The government takes in the same amount of revenue and the rest of the economy benefits from a higher level of the economic activity being taxed.
Most schools of thought have their originators and their later extremists. Unfortunately, the originators of supply-side economics (named above) were also extemists. It is crucial to determine whether an increase in a tax rate will increase or decrease revenue. The supply-side leaders, however, have always argued for lower tax rates without regard to the factual situation. That is one reason the Reagan and present Bush administrations have had such large budget deficits.
Jude Wanninski has an unusual number of ideas. Also unusually, most of them are either very good or very bad.
Jack Kemp was a football star in Buffalo, New York. When he retired from football, he ran for Congress as a Republican in a strongly Democratic district in Buffalo, and won. He was creative and energetic in the House of Representatives. One of his signature supply-side proposals was intended to help poor areas, like his District, in Buffalo. "Enterprise Zones" were to be in poor areas and were to be exempted from a variety of taxes to encourage businesses to locate there and employ local residents. I think that some US states have experimented with such zones. Rep. Kemp sought the Republican presidential nomination, in 1996 I think, but his effort went nowhere. He was too independent to be the leader of any party. His low-tax ideas were anathema to Democrats. The only faction of US public opinion opposed to UN sanctions on Iraq was on the Left, whereas the Republican Party is a party of the Right. The very fact that he was opposing the sanctions would cause Republican leaders to view him as...fishy.
With that background, I find Wanninski's article interesting. His article preceded the Iraq War by 5 years. Iraq obviously HAD HAD chemical weapons, since it used them against Iran and against Iraqi Kurds. Rep. Kemp thought that, in 1998, Iraq had none, although he did not claim to be sure. I think events have shown that Iraq had none in 2003 and therefore Rep. Kemp very probably was right in 1998. The obvious question is, if Jude Wanninski and Jack Kemp had learned that Iraq had no WMD, why did not the intelligence agencies of the US, the UK , France, Germany, Egypt, and so on learn that?
Saddam had gotten rid of WMD. Why didn't he prove it to the UN? The US probably would not have invaded. Newsweek says that Saddam and the Baath leadership and mukhabarat planned and prepared for resistance, starting a year or more before the invasion. A fraction of that effort, devoted to satisfying the UN inspectors, would have obviated war. Were Saddam & Co crazy?
I have seen two explanations. One was that he feared that instrusive UN inspections would show the Iraqi people that his control was not total, which would undermine the regime. The second was that he was more concerned about Iran than the US. He wanted WMD as a deterrent against Iran. He knew that the Iranians had the same suspiciousness that Iraqis do. He thought that if he writhed against inspections, the Iranians would conclude that he had something to hide and so be deterred. He therefore tried to walk a tight rope: convince the US and the UN that he had no WMD, while leaving just enought doubt to deter Iran. As it turned out, he was wrong to fear Iran more than the US.
I sent the comment about the backgrounds of Wanninski and Kemp.
Michael in Framingham
@Michael in Framingham.
Thanks a lot for the information to the article Truth Teller linked to.
While I find that your explanation of why Saddam didn't prove to the UN in unequivocal terms is probably the right one, I do not agree with the following:
"The US probably would not have invaded".
The so-called WMDs (hinting not too subtly about 'atomic mushrooms', while Saddam actually had only chemical weapons, that though being 'NBC' weapons are NOT WMDs) were not the reason for the US invasion, but just a pretext.
The US, in that case, would have invented some other excuse (maybe working a bit more to sex-up the 'terrorism' angle...).
"to the article" is actually "on the article". Sorry for the mistake.
Anonymous,
"Free societies are not a natural state for human beings, never has been. It is something obtained and preserved through violence or the real threat of violence"
What a lot of bull! European nations are all free without violence or any threat of violence. We are free because we chose to be free. And those around us naturally respect that freedom. That's what we call being civilized. Of course to be free requires to have the will to defend that freedom if threatened from the outside, but that does not qualify as violence or threat of violence. That American cult of violence is what typifies fascism, so don't be too schocked when some people call Americans fascist.
anon,
As for South Korea, check your facts on Reagan and his relationship with the dictators of South Korea.
However, I feel I've pressed my point too far to an extreme. So I'll help you out:
A better example would be Kuwait. I wouldn't disagree that Kuwait is better off because of our military intervention in 1991. But their civil structure returned to the "kind" dictatorship that existed before we protected it. Kuwaitis aren't considering giving women the vote because of our military intervention.
The no-fly zone for the Kurdish areas are another good example. Kurdish areas flourished because we provided them the opportunity to do so. But the reasons they flourished, was because they had a civil society that took advantage of that protection. (Which is why it is understandable that we are frustrated with their Southern neighbors)
The South Koreans began to flourish when they organized, and overthrew the dictator that oppressed them. If South Korea kept on the track it was on under its Western-proppeed up dictator, conditions would have been BETTER than under Kim Jong Il, but not transformed, like they are today.
The Kurdish areas were BETTER, with our protection from 1991-2002, but they certainly weren't transformed.
The Marshall plan was considered idealistic naivete. But it worked anyway. Martin Luther King and Gandhi were also considered naive idealists. But they changed the world.
If the goal is transformation... if the goal is a better life for everyone, then you have to give a little more credit to idealists. Otherwise, you'll fail.
It may sound like I deny that we need a military. I certainly don't think that. We need police in our cities. But I don't think we are in any danger of having a lack of armed men. We spend plenty on them.
We do, however, have a lack of idealists. We have a lack of people who concentrate on peacekeeping, and economic transformation.
I suppose, the problem is, unlike the 40's, we don't have extremists for peace. Muslims have extremists for violence, and Americans have extremists for violence. But we don't have a lot of people who will stand in front of the tanks at Tianemen Square.
Imagine if instead of spending 400 billion on our military, and 4 billion on UN peacekeeping missions, we spent 200 billion on our military, and 200 billion on peacekeeping.
Strykerdad,
"By the way, my Native American ancestors first encountered whites of the French flavor and sent them running, followed shortly by the Spanish."
Being of a curious nature I have been reading a bit about your people's history and found the following:
"Deerskins were important to the British, but for them the main attraction of the region was its ability to supply Native American slaves for their plantations in the Carolinas and West Indies. To enrich themselves and gain an advantage over their Choctaw enemies, the Chickasaw were willing to supply these. So an unholy bargain was struck. The British armed the Chickasaw, who because of their western location posed no threat to their settlements, and the Chickasaw, who were not in danger of losing their land, paid for these weapons by capturing women and children from neighboring tribes."
"Interestingly enough, one of the British arguments to justify their wholesale enslavement of native peoples was that it was a necessary evil to keep these people from falling under the "influence" of Catholics. Although both sides tended to defend their actions in religious terms, Davion's cool reception had more to do with economics than religion. The Chickasaw were terrorizing every tribe in the region to capture slaves for the British, and a French presence, religious or otherwise, was not going to be good for business."
This may explain your willigness to work with the Americans in enslaving Iraqis. One could say it is a tribal tradition...
I wouldn't disagree that Kuwait is better off because of our military intervention in 1991. But their civil structure returned to the "kind" dictatorship that existed before we protected it.
The Kurdish areas were BETTER, with our protection from 1991-2002, but they certainly weren't transformed.
If the goal is transformation... if the goal is a better life for everyone, then you have to give a little more credit to idealists.
Oh, sorry, jemy. I didn't know the purpose of the United States was simply to transform the whole world into a Utopia. Forgive me for misunderstanding.
Imagine if instead of spending 400 billion on our military, and 4 billion on UN peacekeeping missions, we spent 200 billion on our military, and 200 billion on peacekeeping.
And what would those "peacekeepers" do and how would they keep the peace? Would they be armed? How is that different from a military? If not armed, what would they do when confronted with warring parties? Would they be similar to the UN peacekeeping missions that looked away during the massacre at Srebrenica and the UN Peacekeepers doing not much except soliciting sex from underage girls in Africa?
An Italian,
You are welcome. Thank you for your comments.
I genuinely don't know why Saddam did what he did. The explanations I gave were the only ones that I've heard of. They may be true. I could even add a third explantion of my own. Saddam proved at the time of the Gulf War that he was "Mr. Too-Little-Too-Late" when he offered to withdraw from Kuwait at about the time that the ground war was beginning. Perhaps the Iraq War was another illustration.
I opposed the Iraq War (and the Gulf War, but supported the occupation and support what I think is a transition to genuine self-government). I opposed the Iraq War despite being convinced that Saddam had WMD. You make a point that I noticed during the approach of war, but that was rarely, if ever, mentioned in the public debate: WMD was being addressed as an almost undifferentiated group. Instead, there truly are important distinctions to make. I thought that there was a good case that he had chemical weapons, possibly in large amounts. I regard them as a limited threat as a terrorist weapon. I thought that there was little evidence that he had biological weapons. I also think that it is very difficult to make effective biological weapons that will kill many people. The big potential threat, in my opinion, is nuclear weapons. There was no evidence that Saddam had such weapons. There WAS evidence that he had programs in all three areas that he could have accelerated, when it was safe to do so, that is, if and when he could obtain an end to the Gulf War ceasefire and its obligations on Iraq.
To me, at the time, one of the best pieces of evidence that he had something to hide was his history of resistance and lying to inspection. I think that this factor influenced many people, including perhaps those in intelligence, although it may not have been at a conscious level.
Many people blogging and commenting about Iraq concentrate on the Coalition evaluation and use of the WMD issue. I think that Saddam's bizarre behavior also had great influence on the effects of the WMD issue and is worthy of remark.
WMD was an important reason for the war, but there were several others. When you speak of US reasons and pretexts, I make another distinction in my own mind. I believe that the US public and Congress went to war for the reasons given at the time, including WMD.
President Bush was another matter. I should probably mention that I voted for him in 2000, but quickly formed a mostly bad opinion of him, and voted for Sen. Kerry in 2004. I quickly summed up his main failing as "Shallow and proud of it." Like Saddam's, I find his reasons and motives a puzzle. Richard Clark claims that Pres. Bush was eager to find a connection between Saddam and September 11 from the moment of the attack. Bob Woodward's book about the movement to war is supposed to claim that Pres. Bush never consulted with his advisors on whether the US should invade Iraq, but spent 6 months or more discussing HOW to do it militarily. His shallowness is chiefly manifested in a lack of interest in in-depth information in many situations. It is perfectly possible that he pre-judged the matter on the basis of sketchy information and reasoning and went ahead full steam.
More specific is the current Pres. Bush's peculiar policy relationship with his father, the elder President Bush. On many issues, he does exactly the opposite of what his father did. One reason appears to be that his father's loss in 1992 made him accutely sensitive to any of his father's mistakes that might have contributed to his losing the Presidency. During the 1992 election, the Democrats jeered to Americans who had lost their jobs: "You've lost your job; Saddam still has his." He also has a business style in which he likes to take an issue, deal with it decisively, so that it is solved and no longer an issue, then go on to the next issue. Having Saddam as a recurring issue from 1991 to 2002 probably struck him as a total absurdity. Finally, the assassination attempt on his father may have been crucial.
Without WMD, Pres. Bush might have continued to want war, but the public and Congress probably would not have supported him. I think that that would have made war impossible. Also, although WMD was only one reason for the US to go to war, WMD was crucial in one special way. It alone was the "hook" by which the UN and an international coalition could be led to war. That is, it had taken on a life of its own in international politics. Only it was the subject of many Security Council resolutions over many years. Saddam's support of terrorism, the degree of Saddam's enmity towards the US, his violations of the human rights of Iraqis and others--had no such standing.
Michael in Framingham
Hurria you said:
Even if the stipends had been excusively for the families of suicide bombers it would not be "supporting terrorism".
I repeat that supporting or sponsoring terrorism means providing terorrists and/or terrorist groups with the means to carry out terrorist activities. Paying stipends to bereaved families is a completely different action.
This is not at ALL completely different. If a young man's family counted on him for financial support they would be very hurt indeed if he became a suicide bomber. Pride does not feed the children! However, he could die happily knowing that his family was taken care of. Then there's that bonus of the 72 virgins!
I think that if the U.S. is going to spend all this money, and blood, on other countries, it might as well address the root of the problem, instead of getting re-embroiled over and over again. It is not our job to "create utopia". But if we don't want to return to Afghanistan again, we need to get serious about helping it to transform. We'll spend far less if we saturate the country with a reconstruction plan now, instead of dribbling our way through it. And the same is true of our many interventions in the past. In retrospect, so many seem like a waste of lives and resources.
As far as your examples of the U.N. peacekeepers, did I ever say that the U.N. was perfect? Couldn't I turn your analogy around and ask if your intention is to spread more Abu Ghraib torture throughout the world?
If the U.N. could do some of the same things they did in Cambodia, El Salvador, and Cyprus, but on a far larger scale, then yes, I think they'd be a better solution.
The spend far less than we do, and somehow manage to get the same, or better results.
Right now, our armed men rely on a patchwork of NGOs and corporations as their "peace" branch. If those people are necesarry, why don't we focus on having a real organization that focuses on stabilization.
I'm not saying we don't need the military. We do. We have a powerful one. What we don't have is a powerful, organized, plan-oriented, peace branch.
The complaints against the U.N. are the same as foreigners complaints against the U.S. "Don't you realize that they screw up?" "Don't you realize that their leadership is stealing and lying?"
No kidding. Let's concentrate on fixing the problems, and creating sustainable solutions.
Strykerdad,
The events I refered to were in the 17th century, so that your war descriptions of the 18th century cannot be seen as justifying enslaving women and children to sell them to the British. But reading your post I almost could believe you were saying that you were doing those women and children a favour by letting them live... Just like you are now doing a favour to the Iraqis by killing them and destroyng their cities to bring them your democracy...
As to your helping the Americans "enslaving" Iraqis, I had expected you to understand the mataphor. Invading a country, destroying their institutions, destroying their cities and infraestructures, imposing your will on an independent nation, is the modern form of slavery. But maybe I had overrated your hability to see the point...
BTW, I have not been reading "French" history. My source of information was:
http://www.tolatsga.org/chick.htm
metaphor, not mataphor...
There's a big fight in Tal Afar, according to reports:
Link
Anonymous,
"And what would those "peacekeepers" do and how would they keep the peace? Would they be armed? How is that different from a military? If not armed, what would they do when confronted with warring parties?"
UN peacekeepers are armed. But they are not aggressive as Americans are. And, being made up of troops from several countries, there is a guarantee that their military capability will not be used to further any particular state's interests. Americans are in Iraq to further American interests. UN troops would have been there to defend Iraqi interests. The reason why Americans do not like the UN is exactly because their presence hinders American imperialism. The very same reason why I favour the UN. If Americans really wanted to help Iraq they would let the UN take over peacekeeping operations in Iraq. But that wouldn't help the US control Iraqi oil, so let's forget it.
The BBC is asking for Iraqis to describe the events of their day:
Link to BBC inquiry
If Americans really wanted to help Iraq they would let the UN take over peacekeeping operations in Iraq.
Y'know, I'd almost like to see the U.S. troops replaced by U.N. troops (and where would all these U.N. troops come from?) just to see what would happen. I'm sure the terrorists and Baathist thugs and their hired guns conspiring to impose their will on Iraq would be rubbing their hands in glee as they watched the U.S. troops depart and the cute blue helmets approach.
Strykerdad,
It's not a question of sense of humour. I actually am quite stupid. That's why I have not been able to grasp that the American invasion of Iraq was an act of generosity. Americans are getting killed, Iraqis are being killed, maimed and humiliated. Cities are being destroyed. All for the sake of the Iraqi people. So that they may enjoy the same freedom of Americans, namely the poorer ones, those belonging to racial minorities, those living in slums, poorly educated and without any opportunities... One has to be pretty dumb not to see the generosity behind those regretable colateral damages which envious people insist in portraying as war crimes... Sorry, Strykerdad. Do you promise not to burn me at the stake?... Nor to sell me as slave to the Americans?...Nor (to keep it more actual) send me to the concentration camp of Guantanamo?...
So that they may enjoy the same freedom of Americans, namely the poorer ones, those belonging to racial minorities, those living in slums, poorly educated and without any opportunities...
I love how Europeans seem so concerned about American poor, or racial minorities. As if Europe had no poor, no racial minorities, no slums...
So sorry America is not a Utopia yet, Alby, but get back to us when Europe is Utopia, OK? Until then, worry about your own poor and we'll worry about ours.
Anonymous,
"So sorry America is not a Utopia yet, Alby, but get back to us when Europe is Utopia, OK?"
But you see, we spend our money trying to improve the life of our underprivileged, not invading other peoples' countries with dumb excuses. Having been through the Bronx and Harlem I can assure you we are closer to solving our problems than you will ever be solving yours. Can you immagine how much could be achieved in you inner cities with the money you spend killing Iraqis? Of course there is no oil in the Bronx, so that it would serve no purpose spending money there... And niggers are no better than ragheads...
No, we are not perfect in Europe, but at least we are no threat to anyone. We do not kill children and other innocent people in the name of "democracy". We do not think collateral damage is acceptable. We do not delude ourselves with the thought that might is right. We have killed and enslaved enough people in the past and have decided that nothing justifies that sort of violence. Eventually you will learn that too. I hope that happens before you get us all killed...
You Europeans are sooo cute. I can almost see you stamping your feet in frustration because no one is listening to you. :-)
By the way, what was it that disturbed you so much about Harlem when you visited? All the black people? It couldn't have been extreme shocking poverty or rampant crime because you won't find that in Harlem these days. Heck, even former President Clinton has his office in Harlem. I wonder why you were so disturbed by it.
I woner if this stry can possibly be true:
a moat around Mosul?
It seems insane on first examination.
Dr. Truth Teller,
The blog you linked to is written by a bit of a kook!
Not that she doesn't sometimes make sense, but if you read her other posts, you'll see that she is a defender of President "Tricky Dick" Nixon among other dubious characters in American politics.
I'd take whatever she writes with a grain of salt.
Best wishes. Please take care,
Tilli (Mojave Desert)
waldschrat
Yes it true, I wrote a post about it in my family blog "http://mosulfamily.blogspot.com/" plus other news. all are as strange as this.
That is strange alright. Actually making an effort to secure the city by preventing cars from bypassing checkpoints and making it harder to hide large amounts of explosives inside the trunks of cars. What are they thinking? Don't they know the solution to car bombs is blaming the US for all wrongs past present and future and spreading outlandish rumors while trying to rationalize the murderous barbarity of the 'insurgents'? Those silly fools who are risking their lives to try to make things better for the citizens of Mosul. Yes, let's ridicule them from our hiding places.
The moat:
The sad fact -- and I suppose the local government is desperate to find a way to protect its citizens -- is that the Nine Gates to the City will probably just create easy focus-points for the bombers and also add to the sense of siege the Moslawis already live under.
God, it's so sad.
-- Tilli (Mojave Desert)
Why is it sad that some Iraqis take initiative to fight back? I find it inspiring that at least some are willing to take risks to fight against the evil bastards who stand between them and the hope of a peaceful, prosperous future instead of cowering and pointing fingers at all around them. Strykerdad, I looked up the situation in Dohuk after reading your post----what is so different about Dohuk? Why can't Mosul do what is being done in Dohuk? Why are the 'freedom loving, but American hating' among you so willing to discount how the Kurdish Iraqis feel? Because they don't hate the Americans, is that their failing? Hypocrites--------
Kurds want their own state and will ally themselves to the devil to get it. Americans will do fine if they end up accepting a Kurdish state. However I suggest that you pay attention to Turkey. The Turks will never accept a Kurdish state that can be used to carve part of Turkey away. And anyone who thinks that Kurds will be happy with being Iraqi citizens better prepare for some surprises... It will also be interesting to watch the Americans trying to satisfy both Kurds and Iraqis...
So Alby,
The Kurds don't count, is that what you are saying? Why are you not rallying to their cause as they are a persecuted minority trying to reclaim their lands. How do you explain cities like Dohuk? They are making the best of the situation, peaceably, enthusiastically, exploring the possibilities that have opened up---is their crime that they are not murdering and maiming and treat American soldiers as friends? Or that they don't permit 'insurgents' to operate in their midst? Why are you antagonistic to the Iraqi Kurd when you claim to be on the side of peace? Are you that transparently phony?
Albatroz,
If the Kurds show they are capable of forming a peacable, democratic state, then why not? I would bet they would be more than happy to invite the US to build permanent bases and there are several right there in Mosul that would be ideal. And if Turkey doesn't like it--so what? the US only has to mention that they might move forces now based in Turkey to the New Kurdistan--what are they going to say? I see little to argue against giving the greenlight to the Kurdish people to decide where they would like the borders to be and tell them to have at it. Non Kurds who don't wish to live peacably in the New Kurdistan will have a place to go--south. The Iraq border is largely an artifice of Western meddling anyway. I suspect a largely autonomous Kurdish region will be part of the future anyway, as it is now in the present. Even you, the self appointed defender of the 'Iraqi people', apparently don't consider them 'Iraqi' judging from your comment.
Anonymous,
From an outsider's point of view I also think that Kurds have a right to their own country. And that includes Kurds from Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran. And I thought so much before you got so interested in Iraqi affairs. But accepting that has consequences that I am not sure Bush has ever considered. You can't satisfy Kurds, Turks, Arabs and Persians at the same time. You will have to make choices, and I am curious to see what choices you will make.
Then you said something interesting:
"The Iraq border is largely an artifice of Western meddling anyway."
Do you realize that applies to Kuweit as well? Kuweit is an artificial state created so that the British could control Kuweiti oil. Logically and historically Kuweit should be part of Iraq. Saddam Hussein thought so too, but the US and the rest of the world disagreed. If we can be flexible enough to accomodate a Kurdistan, we should have been flexible enough to accept the correction of some of the "Western meddling" (reincorporating Kuweit in Iraq) you mentioned. But, of course, the question is not one of correcting Western meddling, but one of selecting which meddling is in our interest...
Whatever way you look at it, it is always a question of imperialism...
Were there 'Iraqis' in Kuwait fighting to join Iraq? Seems to be a fundamental difference between Saddam forcibly annexing Kuwait, and Kurds rebelling against Saddam. Has to do with the will of the people rather than the desires of the tyrant. If meddle we must, then we should meddle in ways that meet our interests and the majority of the persons involved when both can be somewhat satisfied. Tolerating or even supporting tyrants is much easier though. So now it seems that you think from the Kurds point of view, the war is a positive development? I've read account after account describing Kurds continuing to welcome US soldiers as liberating heroes. How can that be, doesn't that make you uncomfortable?
Anonymous,
"I've read account after account describing Kurds continuing to welcome US soldiers as liberating heroes. How can that be, doesn't that make you uncomfortable?"
Not at all. There is an Arab proverb that says: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." If I were a Kurd I would certainly welcome any army that would further my independence wishes. But don't start thinking that this welcome means that Kurds think very highly of Americans or are looking forward to an American style democracy. As soon as their objectives are fulfilled and you no longer are necessary to guarantee their independence they very probably will ask you to leave. But I still think that you will end up betraying your Kurdish friends. Turkey is a lot more important as an ally than an independent Kurdistan would ever be. The US will not endanger Turkey's friendship to accomodate Kurdish independence wishes. So, don't expect to be forever welcome in Kurdistan...
Anonymous,
To illustrate my point here goes an item of news from Reuters:
"Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul on Tuesday urged U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to do more to stop Kurdish militants he said were crossing the border with Iraq to carry out attacks in Turkey.
Gul raised the issue in a meeting with Rice one day before Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan meets U.S. President George W. Bush.
Speaking to Turkish reporters after his meeting with Rice, Gul said terrorism in Turkey was a matter that needed to be urgently addressed.
"There is leakage from Iraq, and a noticeable increase in attacks on our troops by PKK terrorists utilizing remote controlled bombs and mines. We cannot ignore this, and I expressed that the U.S. needs to be more decisive in this struggle," said Gul."
Strykerdad,
Watch it! I might end up enjoying your sense of humour... Just you leave my scalp alone, ok?... Seriously, I still think you are wrong, but at least you are putting your money where your mouth is, if I may speak so bluntly. Some of the other guys around here are not risking anything personal in this American venture. You are risking something very personal, and that I respect. I just wish you tried to understand that we may be right and you may be wrong in this whole sorry business... Tragedy is around the corner, and you seem not to be aware of that possibility.
Jemy said:
"I think that if the U.S. is going to spend all this money, and blood, on other countries, it might as well address the root of the problem, instead of getting re-embroiled over and over again."
Finally, some sense!
The main cause of suicide terrorism is a response to foreign occupation.
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/citations/05/050518.pape.html
Americans, especially, should read this, as it is about research undertaken and published by an American university professor, Robert Pape.
What nearly all suicide terrorist attacks actually have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland.
Pape analysed data - he compiled a database of every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 through 2003 - and his conclusions are based on that data, rather than preconceptions, political expediency or American Christian fundamentalist bigotry.
Rachel, a Brit in London
So why are the vast majority of suicide bombers in Iraq targeting Iraqi forces representing an Iraqi elected government as well as innocent bystanders? So foreign forces will leave Iraq? How is that working out for them? Why are the suicide bombers generally comprised of individuals from outside Iraq? Are you proposing suicide bombers are justified and that their target should acquiesce to whatever demands they make? I submit their goal is primarily to gain power for themselves and impose their will on the citizens of the 'occupied' lands not to give them freedom. With a democratic process in place, that is the only logical conclusion. They are not heroes, they are narcissists driven by the frustration born of feelings of inferiority and an archaic belief system. It has nothing to do with liberty.
And I found your statement about fundamentalist American christian bigotry to be a wonderful example of bigotry AND hypocrisy.
Strykerdad,
It is not worth it putting your children's lives (and everybody else's children's lives) at risk to further GWB's friends oil interests. One thing can this European cynic assure you: democracy and freedom have nothing to do with the US intervention in Iraq, even if Kurds end up with a country of their own, which I most definitely doubt will happen. Are you sure beyond doubt that I am wrong on this?
First, there is, as far as I know, no numerical information to support your contention that the vast majority of suicide bombers are attacking "Iraqi forces".
Well, no one has taken a "poll" as far as I know but a cursory review of the news will bear this out.
If so they've picked a pretty self=defeating way to go about it. They don't have an awful lot of power to throw around or much will to impose* on anyone once they've blown themselves into hundreds of little pieces.
Obviously the one blowing himself will not personally gain anything (except 72 white raisins) the strings are being pulled by those who send these idiots to blow themselves up. And you're right. You've caught onto the flaw in their "plan". They have none. It's simple nihilism.
It is not worth it putting your children's lives (and everybody else's children's lives) at risk to further GWB's friends oil interests.
Strawman alert!
Let's look at some players in Iraq:
Iran, who supports SCIRI and the very large Badr Brigade, who are currently running cities in the South
Turkey, who does not want the Kurds to create an autonomous country, and is actively angry with the PKK, who is engaging in attacks on Turkish soil.
The PKK, the PUK, and the KDP. Who really want an independent Kurdistan, and who all seem to have their own militias. And seem to have problems getting along with each other.
The ITF (The Turkmen's party in the Kurdish areas). Who are worried that the Kurds will treat them as badly as Saddam did. They like some Kurdish organizations better than others.
Sadr, who has created his own militia, and whose followers killed rival religious leaders, as well as beat up, shot at, and abused people they don't think act "islamic" enough in their areas.
The al Da'awa party.
Assorted Sunni organizations.
The INC.
These are off the top of my head.
All of these organizations seem to have done a good job at seizing property, and imposing their rule on their assorted cities. No party is completely trusted by any other party.
Does anyone here think that these parties are not jockeying for power? Does anyone think that the organizations who used violence in the past to further their political agenda, are today eschewing violence?
Does anyone here disagree that an independent Iraqi police force would be a direct threat to the militias who have established control over certain cities already?
Establishing a just nation with a group of guys like this is hard. Some would say impossible. A mediator (a middle-man) would make that transition easier. Right now, the mediator that is in place is the U.S.
If you don't like the U.S., then you would do better finding a way to get another mediator in the mix. But how long do you think that's going to take?
While there should definitely be a focus on improving the U.S.'s behaviour, there also needs to be a lot of focus on how to make certain that:
A) Secularists have a voice in the political process
B) The various organizations in Iraq respect the rule of law.
So hurria, when you say "The Iraqi "government" is not an elected government. Every person who holds a position was appointed, not elected to it."
Who elected SCIRI? Who elected Sadr? Who elected the PKK? They're running their own organizations and imposing their own doctrines on their own areas.
Why is no one being held accountable for attacking students on campus? Who will make these men obey the rule of law? Who will protect the rights of the Yazidis, and the Turkmen, and the Assyrians, and the Christians? Who represents the Marsh Arabs?
How exactly, do you plan to implement a path to a fair, and just society? What tools are before you, that you will use?
How do you bring all the parties I mentioned above together? And incorporate all those others who have no voice? And how do you propose making them deal with one another in a rational manner, without using their militias to gain concessions to make their parties more powerful?
This is happening about 20 minutes from me by car:
Link to Al Qaida in Lodi, California
Such things do not encourage me to trust Arabs or those who follow Islam. I try to tell myself "this is prejudice, prejudice is bad", but some days it is harder than others to believe.
Dear Truth Teller,
I see on 6/4 @11:18:42 P.M, you said:
"I took a decision previously to delete every comment which contains offinsive words, or personal insult."
On 6/6 @7:35:10 A.M, an italian said:
"Or maybe you are always talking through your lower parts, where the sun does not shine?"
My question is, shouldn't this comment (and many similar others by said author) be grounds for deletion, per your guidelines? It just seems like a discrepancy, although I do understand how trying it must be to monitor so many comments.
Thanks,
0023
"no one has taken a "poll" as far as I know..."
Polls are not useful for determining matters of fact.
No s**t, Sherlock. I guess you're not very good at figuring out when you're being mocked. I guess "poll" being in quotes wasn't enough to tip you off. I'll use a flashing neon sign next time.
No, it will not. A cursory review of the news will not bear out anything except what is being reported in the news, which is neither dependably accurate, nor at all complete.
Then point us to a better, more comprehensive and dependable barometer and, no, your own imagination doesn't count.
My point was that there IS no comprehensive or dependable source (barometer is hardly the appropriate word here) either for the percentage of attacks that are suicide bombings or the percentage of suicide bombings that are Iraqis vs foreigners.
Barometer, meaning indicator or mechanism for measurement, in the way I used it is certainly an appropriate word. If you have a more reliable source or mechanism to measure suicide attacks please share it with the class.
Therefore, you have no basis for your assertion that "the vast majority of suicide bombers are attacking 'Iraqi forces'".
Yes I do. The news reports. If you don't like it, tough. But that's how information is disseminated in modern society. You can go on all day wallowing in a philosophical rhapsody about how all things are essentially unknowable. But that's a coward's way out of a conversation. Unless I see something right in front of me I have no way of "knowing" it except through the reports of others. We all are forced to make informed judgments based on what we see and hear and read and deduce. If you don't want to do that, fine. You'll be waiting forever for the definitive quantifiable proof you seek (though I don't really believe you seek it but rather hide behind the lack of it).
Once again, Hurria, if you have better sources of information please share them. Show us where you get your "reliable and complete" information to which you apply "a large dose of critical thinking and well informed analysis". If you insist that we provide you with definitive proof and all else is mere conjecture then I insist on the same from you. If you don't provide it then you have nothing to add to this conversation. But I think most of us realized that long ago.
Strykerdad,
You have not reacted to my following statement:
"One thing can this European cynic assure you: democracy and freedom have nothing to do with the US intervention in Iraq, even if Kurds end up with a country of their own, which I most definitely doubt will happen. Are you sure beyond doubt that I am wrong on this?"
May I presume that you do have some doubts about GWB's intentions?... If you do you will simply have joined the majority of Americans who think so too...
In fact a just published Washington Post / ABC News poll shows that:
" Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.
Perhaps most ominous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it has. It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home. In late 2003, 62 percent thought the Iraq war aided U.S. security, and three months ago 52 percent thought so."
Any news about the ditch built around Mosul, Truth Teller? Tell us what the Mosulis think about it, who and how many are hired, and how far the project is done, if you have the time to spare, and have the motivation to do so.
In the absence of supporting information, such statements are nothing more than speculation and wishful thinking.
Wrong again, Hurria. The supporting information is there for all to see and I've decided, with my "freedom at all times to decide", to make informed judgments based on it.
Your refusal/inability to answer simple questions, and your silly semantic games have become tiresome. You are free to continue to play them, Hurria. And I am free to ignore you which I will proceed to do. If you ever have something substantive to add to the conversation or ever deign to answer some of the many questions asked of you perhaps you will be worth conversing with again. 'Til then, I'll leave it to moron99 and others with more patience than I.
What happened to all the "insurgents" and all the "imperialists" on this blog? Did they go on hollidays?...
Iraq is a country that has been suffering from wars and bloody conflicts for 5,000 years and what you see now is a decisive episode of the bloody Iraqi saga. Perhaps its richness is what attracts all these wars, or maybe it's the despair of its people - whatever the reason the result is the death of innocents, the spread of fear, terror and injustice. I can't remember any period longer than a two year without wars and destruction. We have grown accustomed to storing food and the basics of life.
The war made it possible for the country to have a chance of moving ahead in a democratic fashion. The sanctions could not be removed before the regime was removed, and only then could the country pick itself up again. With the removal of the old regime and the elections, we have reached the beginning of a new era. Bath ideology has been dealt a death blow in Iraq.
The recent developments have demonstrated that the occupation and the resistance continue to be the two primary forces in the country, but they also underscore how difficult it is to discern the underlying logic of the confrontation between them.
Remember, don't be fooled by the press coverage, all these car bombs in Iraq are not detonated at random, nor are they primarily directed at [the Coalition] Forces. In fact, primarily and the vast majority are aimed at recruits or active duty members of the Iraqi police and army.
It makes sense that the different armed gangs have chosen Iraq to make their stand against the USA. They don't much care about the Iraqis it seems, as they are from other countries and probably categorize Iraqis as mostly collaborators with the west and traitors to Islam. Or what ever excuse they come up with to murder innocent Iraqis by blowing them up at random.
The Ba'athists don't care about the average Iraqi either, as proved again and again when they were in power. These are probably the worst of the two, as far as motives go. For their motive for the murder is greed and power.
Before the current security campaign against them, Insurgents patterns were simple: When police and the National Guard were stationed in cities, the terrorists would hire criminals in enforcing criminal law, delivering criminals to them and avoiding armed conflict with them directly, except when they participated in campaigns against them.
In general, I want to say that the situation in Iraq is still not good, but we can see that the heroes of Iraq sacrifice themselves to keep the smiles on the faces of the children. Pray to God to preserve the heroes of the police and the army and the guards and very honorable Iraqi who protects the smiles of the children and women of Iraq.
During the last two years, Iraqi people were almost left alone because many people and nations did not support the war in Iraq.
If you watch Arabic media channels you can see obviously what kind of biased news that focused only on making all insurgent’s military actions as a legal resistance against Occupation, but they were ignoring daily casualties of innocent civilian Iraqis kidnapping, disturbing daily life by random terror, car-bombs and all other society destruction by mean of this criminal behavior.
Now it is needed time for start talking about types of assistance to be given to Iraqi people, it is responsibility of all western and Arabian countries that used Iraq in the past to go to war for their political goals.
We were the majority simple Iraqis don’t care about political conflicts, we already paid the high prices from our blood, our family’s future, and wealth.
Now the time can give proofs about the real intentions and goals for each country to stop the suffering of my country. It is time now to talk about peace, to stop killing each other, and to end this war to save precious lives of all sides.
We really need serious talks from USA and other European countries to our public about the infrastructure building in Iraq, how to remove poverty from this country, to motivate small businesses, and improving economy. Smiling and shaking hands in a polite diplomatic scenes in front of TV channels is not working to change our miserable past-current situations into a nice dreams of progress and democracy.
I spent my last 25 years dreaming in seeing my country living’s condition just like any other country in the Arabic or western world.
Iraq must stop paying other’s blood taxes, we had enough , I just asking my self when surfing on internet: why only few sites are talking about the needs for a positive future of Iraq?
As a conclusion, the dream of every honorable Iraqi is to live in peace and quiet. Please try to give solutions that help us in achieving our goals, in treating our wounds and rebuilding our damaged country again.
I need people from every where on this globe to react with me and share their ideas and comments, in same time my thanks go to Mr. Michael Yon who gave chance for my lines to appear on his blog.
By A Free Writer – Iraq
In my book the only way to solve a country's problems is leaving its people alone to sort things out. If I have a discussion with my wife the last thing I need is having the neighbours and passers by in the street to tell me what to do. So, first get everybody out. Second be ready to assist, if asked to. That's it. And you will see how quickly things get better. And if by any chance things do not get better, leave them alone. It's none of our business anyway.
I don't see how the albatroz's husband wife thing is a good analogy. Yea, under most circumstances, people should mind their own business. But if I hear a guy coming home drunk and beating up on his wife and kids every night, it would be criminally negligent for me to not do anything about it.
Basically, yes, people should be left to sort out there own problems. That's why America did not invade Iraq back in 1991. That's why it took years and years of doing nothing to let Iraq sort out all of its own problems.
And yes, if, in this day and age, the United States had a leader who declared himself president for life, who killed his political opponents and who wanted to kill off all the americans of african, asian or latin descent, I would be PRAYING for France to invade and forcibly remove that individual.
People keep missing the fundamental point that no tyranny can prevail against the wishes of the people. Unless it is a tyranny imposed from the outside. So, you may be sure that if a tyrant is not removed it is exclusively because people do not want to remove him. Or are not willing to pay the price for that removal. If that's the case, leave them alone. Of course, if you are confronted with deliberate genocide, intervention - by the UN - is in order. But that was not the case in Iraq. And if Kurds were being subject to a genocide attempt, the proper answer would have been to go in, create a Kurdish state, guarantee its existence, and leave. Without trying to change anything else. Obviously that's not what the US did. Why? Strykerdad gave the answer:
"And on a less obvious humanitarian basis, we should let the Middle east spiral downward until the access to much of the world's oil reserves is lost and not do anything to try to maintain some sense of order to preserve them?"
Oil. That's the answer. That's why Iraq was invaded but not North Korea.
So we should allow the middle east to spiral downward, allowing states like Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, (as would Iraq had we followed your advice), let regimes be overthrown by religious zealots, and all would be fine? Insuring that the world has access to the oil is the ultimate humanitarian cause, as the loss of that fuel would destroy the worlds economy likeley causing suffering and conflict on a scale beyond anything ever known. Great plan---the world is neither as simple or as small as you seem to believe. Yes, oil is the ultimate answer, because without it we could benignly neglect the mid east as we do most of Africa. And I have little doubt their society would probably be behind the saddest of those in Africa were it not for oil dollars. Oil is neccesary, and oil provides huge amounts of funds to people who are not accountable to their own people and would use those funds to insure they never will be accountable to anyone without intervention from outside. Why does the US have to take on this problem? Who else is going to do it? I wish there was another country out there better equipped for the job, because we seem to have forgotten how to truly defeat an enemy before we can rebuild them, but we are it. Like it or not.
@6/11/2005 01:11:37 AM.
"And yes, if, in this day and age, the United States had a leader who declared himself president for life, who killed his political opponents and who wanted to kill off all the americans of african, asian or latin descent, I would be PRAYING for France to invade and forcibly remove that individual".
Nice emotional rant you have here, superficially (but only most superficially) convincing.
There are some reasons why the UN allows in its norms an external military intervention aimed at 'regime change' ONLY in the case of genocide, and NOT when "a leader declare[s] himself president for life", or "kill[s] his political opponents".
The reasons are, quite simply, that that would be a recipe for all out war by all against all, precisely what international law is supposed to prevent.
You have violations of human rights every day in your prisons, for instance, according to the human right groups (I do not mean Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib or Camp Bucca here, but the 'normal' US jails); and your capital executions and their modalities (lethal injection) are without doubt 'cruel and unusual'; and not just you have REAL WMDs, but you have invaded many countries since WW2, with loss of life among the civilian population of those countries and atrocities being committed by your troops; and some could claim that your 'democracy' is just an oligarchy on plutocratic basis...
So, you see, there would be plenty of reasons for external military intervention in the US and enforced 'regime change', according to what you say; but there would be plenty of reasons for invading most of the other countries in the world, as well! And be sure that a State having a grudge against another would be always only too happy to find plenty of such reasons...
And that's precisely why your invasion of Iraq has been considered wrong by the UN and by most of the international community.
Indeed, what you add ("[a leader] who wanted to kill off all the americans of african, asian or latin descent", meaning GENOCIDE) is the only case in which the UN rules allow enforced 'regime change'.
Trouble is that, in the case of Saddam's regime, the hypotetical comparison you make is completely unfounded. There will be no charge of 'genocide' at Saddam's trial, because he did not attempt any. He did commit some atrocious repressions, notably against the Kurds; but he didn't want "to kill off" all the Kurds, he just wanted the Iraqi Kurds (many of whom had different national aspirations than being Iraqis) to lie low.
That was the aim of his massacres, not the annichilation of the Kurds or of any other ethnic or religious group. Being an American, you should remember the way many States of the US were up to the Sixties: there were indeed discriminated minorities, ethnic groups compelled to 'lie low' or else (including the occasional atrocities, like lynchings). But the only actual genocide was perpetrated earlier on, against the Native Americans.
And, by the way, differently from what some rather ignorant US commentators to Iraqi blogs believe, the 'lie low' Saddam wanted to impose on the Kurds was absolutely NOT what the 'lie low' meant for, e.g., the Blacks in the US!
It just meant their accepting to be Iraqis first of all, instead of being first of all Kurds (I support the Kurds' right to self-determination, as for all the peoples on earth; but I'm afraid they have chosen bad leaders and worse allies, who will betray them again, like they did already twice, in 1975 and in 1991). And, for the religious fundamentalist among the Shiite, it meant accepting the Baathist secular regime, instead of striving for an Islamic Republic on the Iranian model.
What is the US standard response to anybody attempting secession inside the US?
Do you remember what happened in Wounded Knee in the early Seventies, when the Native Americans attempted some separatism? And do you remember what happened in 1861, when the Southern States did?
So, you see, since Saddam was not engaged in genocide, it was completely illegitimate to invade his country to remove him, and even more illegitimate (and against the Geneva Conventions) to unilaterally attempt what you call 'nation-building' (that most Iraqis call 'nation-destroying' instead).
Of course, if I had a bad dictatorship in my country, as Saddam's undoubtedly was, I would conspire (like all political exiles always did) with foreign powers to get some help to down the dictatorship; and some of the said powers may help the exiles and opponents under the table to overthrow that dictatorship.
But, again, according to the UN they would be allowed to invade my country only if my dictatorship were engaged in REAL genocide.
That's why the Kosovo war of 1999 was illegitimate as well, and didn't get the approval of the UN. Only that Clinton was more seductive towards the European lefties, and got the (illegitimate) support of their Governments...
If your Government had truly as its aim to 'liberate' the Iraqis from Saddam's dictatorship, right after the invasion, in May 2003, it should have delivered Iraq to the UN for elections and a democratic process; instead it sent Gauleiter Bremer, and started a monstruous tragedy.
Possibly the real aims were not at all to 'liberate' the Iraqis...
@Stukasdad, 6/11/2005 03:21:45 AM.
"Why does the US have to take on this problem? Who else is going to do it? I wish there was another country out there better equipped for the job, because we seem to have forgotten how to truly defeat an enemy before we can rebuild them, but we are it. Like it or not".
Stukasdad, sometimes you have at least the grace of honesty! It is a bit crude for those of us who (thanks be to God) are not Americans, but at least you seem to call a spade a spade, and a prick a prick.
You admit that your invasion is aimed at your hegemony and power in the world, not at the 'liberation' of the Iraqis!
I would add that some other of your fellow wormongering Americans who comment to Iraqi blogs should try to have your same candour. Think of that 99 times Moron, or that Ann, or that Anonymous, always vomiting out silly lies! I wonder how they must feel when they see themselves in a mirror...
Unfortunately, Stukasdad, your American attempt at world domination will be resisted and eventually defeated, like Hitler's was.
@All (but especially Moron99!).
From 'The Boston Globe' of today, the 10th of June, 2005:
"Meanwhile, a recent internal poll conducted for the US-led coalition found that nearly 45 percent of the population supported the insurgent attacks, making accurate intelligence difficult to obtain. Only 15 percent of those polled said they strongly supported the US-led coalition".
The article is titled "Insurgency seen forcing change in Iraq strategy" (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/06/10/insurgency_seen_forcing_change_in_iraq_strategy/).
Will you stop from now on, Moron99, blathering about moronic or fictitious polls by tendentious think-tanks?
This, I suspect, finally settles the argument.
"Look, Norman, the loons! The loons--they're
welcoming us back!"
--On Golden Pond
:-)
...nearly 45 percent of the population supported the insurgent attacks
"nearly" 45 percent? so something less than 45%? so obviously less than a majority? I guess that means most Iraqis don't support the insurgent attacks...hmmm, seems to me that was moron99's point all along. Thanks for proving it!
:-)
15% support for the Americans is hardly an increase
You, and others, need to always be careful how you read polls. (This goes for moron99 and everyone else too). The poll italian quoted does not say only 15% support the Americans. It says 15% strongly support the U.S-led coalition. There's a difference. We've all seen enough polls to know that the way questions are worded and how deeply answers are probed has a big effect on the outcome. We've all seen polls that show a large difference between "support" and "strong support". Frankly, the 15% "strongly support" number is higher than I would have guessed it would be. I doubt you'd even get 15% of Americans to say they "strongly" support the U.S. being in Iraq.
Again, italian, you can't take one charge against saddam, "gassing the kurds", and then argue against invasion as though that was the only charge. there were many reasons to invade, and i don't believe any one of them was good enough, but, put together, regime change was the best way to handle a growing crisis.
But, even given your more rosy account of what kind of ruler Saddam was, if it was America instead of Iraq, I would still be in favor of regime change.
If International Law really carried as much weight as you say it does, then the genocides in Rwanda would have been prevented. The current genocide in Sudan would be stopped. Are you encouraging your government to invade Sudan and replace its government, as this is what is required by International Law?
In fact, 45% for "insurgents" is, if anything, an increase in support,
In the spirit of your repeated insistence that those of us who make statements like that need to back them up with proof I respectfully ask the same of you.
"but at least you seem to call a spade a spade, and a prick a prick."
Italian, I did NOT call YOU a prick, therefore your statement is faulty
Phhhbbbbttt! [spit-take] LOL.
You owe me a new keyboard, strykerdad.
:-)
Please cite these "myriad other informal polls" specifically
No, no, no, sweetie. You are entitled to no answers to your questions until you answer the questions asked of you. You've coasted along for far too long playing this game.
"Insuring that the world has access to the oil is the ultimate humanitarian cause"
Finally our American friends have decided to recognize what we had been saying all along. A bit less hypocrisy doesn't make American actions any better, but at least we can stop talking about the great American generosity, and how Americans are getting killed in Iraq to allow Iraqis to enjoy the benefits of democracy. At least now Strykerdad knows that if any of his children dies in Iraq - which I strongly hope doesn't happen - it will have been in the name of oil. I could think of a few causes worthy of dying for, oil is definitely not one of them... And it certainly is not a cause that justifies killing innocent people.
The interesting thing about oil is that Americans are not the only ones needing it. Chinese need it too, in fast increasing quantities. If the Chinese start playing the American game we will soon find these two significant powers staring at each other in Central Asia and the Middle East. Americans may then find out that there is one country they will not be able to defeat. And they will also find out that their greed will cost them a lot more than the 50,000 killed in Vietnam and the 1,700 so far killed in Iraq. With a bit luck the ICBM's will fly over Europe without stopping, but I am not so sure about that. That's another reason why I wish Americans would stay inside their own borders, playing baseball and stuffing themselves to death with hamburgers...
Imagine a world without America. We'd all be licking lolipops and frolicking in champagne waterfalls while picking truffles from the truffle trees --which would no doubt exist by now were it not for those damned americans! Human history was much more peaceful before America got so involved! Must be nice to have the luxury to entertain such thoughts. To live where realtive peace and prosperity are yours simply because you are more refined and decent than your predecessors.
Europeons, which reside in 'Old' Europe, are becoming increasingly irrelevant, not because they are more refined and evolved, but because they haven't had to much more than criticize the ones who have provided most of their security and prosperity for the last half century. They are too busy admiring themselves to even procreate on a level sufficient to maintain their numbers and are becoming more like third world nations than European. You Old Europeons need to "get busy" and start having some kids--or are you too smug, self satisfied and truly selfish to take time out of your preening, bitching and whining to do that? I doubt that the Third world Immigrants you rely on to maintain your anemic economies will continue to support the Socialist system that you so generously set up for yourselves. They will soon outnumber you. And America is getting tired of protecting you from yourselves and others.
Dear Anonymous,
I am not your "sweetie".
Thank God.
:-)
I wish Iraqis to be governed the way Iraqis wish to be governed.
Oh goody! Finally some agreement! So you must support the overthrow of Saddam's dictatorship, the January 30 election of an interim government and the writing a democratic Constitution that Iraqis will vote on to govern their country. Hurray! Hurria's on board with the program, moron99. Isn't that great news!
I hope "the common Iraqi" - whatever the hell THAT means - will have more choice in the governance of his country than Americans have had in the past decade or so. And I hope they will have a government that is less habitually mendacious than the one the Americans have now.
Hee, Hee. The true agenda comes out. It's not really about Iraqis, is it, Hurria, sweetie? (May I call you "sweetie"?)
:-)
You may behave as childishly as you like.
Thanks, I do enjoy it, especially when it riles you.
I also love watching your serpentine thought processes. I love how you tell us what you are "in favor of" in abstract, useless terms. I'm in favor of not paying taxes and yet having the government support me in my old age. How to get from here to there? Not my problem. It's just what I'm "in favor of."
You are, as expected, misrepresenting the January 30 "election", and its result. There was no "government", interim or otherwise, elected that day.
Oh, yes there was, sweetie, whether you like it or not.
Further, as I believe I have explained at length, I do not support the January 30 "election", which was designed and run by the occupying power, not the Iraqi people, and which did not meet even the minimum requirements to qualify as a free or "fair" election.
"The Iraqi people" disagreed with you when they voted on January 30th, braving suicide bombers to do so.
I have always been in favour of Iraqis devising for themselves a constitution that is suitable for Iraq and Iraqis.
Good, then we're in agreement.
You would not know the "true agenda" if it jumped onto your lap and bit you in the face.
Was that an ad hominem attack of the type to which you so often object?
For the US government it is and has always been all about serving US interests without concern about the terrible cost to Iraqis.
You get half credit for that answer. Like every country in the world, the U.S. government will always be about "serving US interests". As it should be. In this case, as in others, those interests happen to coincide with the majority of Iraqis who wanted Saddam's dictatorship gone and want democracy, as demonstrated on Jan. 30th. Serendipitous. :-)
Anonymous,
"America is getting tired of protecting you from yourselves and others"
Not a minute too soon, if I may say so. We lived for many centuries without your protection and I am sure we can manage without it in the future. We may prefer to spend our money on things more useful than weapons, but we never hesitated to do it whenever necessary. So, please do not hesitate to leave all your bases in Europe and send all your troops back home. It might even help speeding up the inevitable integration of European armed forces and the establishment of a strategic aliance with Russia.
I find your debate technique quite fascinating. In what way, exactly, is attempting to "rile" your opponent by making childish, irrelevant personal remarks supposed to make your argument more effective? And if your position and supporting arguments are sound, why do you need to use this unusual technique?
By the way, is this -- "You would not know the "true agenda" if it jumped onto your lap and bit you in the face" -- representative of your superior debating technique?
Once again you focus on the little unimportant tidbit you want to focus on and ignore the rest.
It's not a debating technique, darling, it's simply a tiny diversion that makes me happy in some small way. If you can't have a little fun in life, especially while having a virtual argument over the internet with strangers thousands of miles away, what's the point?
:-)
It might even help speeding up the inevitable integration of European armed forces and the establishment of a strategic aliance with Russia.
Hee hee. Good luck with that.
:-)
Anonymous,
You may find it funny, but I doubt your government would feel like laughing. Why did the US insist on having as many as possible old East Bloc countries joining NATO? You knew that Russian problems wouldn't last forever, so you used the opportunity to push Russian influence as far east as possible. If Europe decides to consolidate their armed forces and establish a strategic alliance with Russia, do you think your government will find it funny? I very much doubt it. Russia has some of the best military hardware in the world, but lack the money to transform that qualitative advantage into a quantitative advantage. Cooperation with Europe would serve both sides.
I meant just what I said. Good luck with all that. Truly. I mean it. :-)
The "government" was not elected by the Iraqi people, it was appointed in a convoluted process that was rife with wheeling and dealing, back room deals, and manipulation by outside forces, including the U.S. government.
And in parliamentary systems the Prime Minister is not directly elected to that post by the people either. He is selected by his party through a series of wheelings and dealings and back room deals. It's still a democratically elected legitimate government. And anyway, it's been made clear all along, and acknowleged by me and others, that this is an interim Iraqi government. It's main purpose is to shepherd the process of writing a constitution, which will then be voted on by the Iraqi people, leading to the election of a government under the rules of the new consitution. Whatever way you slice it, there was an election on January 30th in which the majority of the Iraqi people voted for groups of people to form this interim government. This was an important first step in the process of a democratic, free Iraq. Hurray for Iraqis, I say.
@6/11/2005 05:49:46 AM.
You said: "regime change was the best way to handle a growing crisis".
OK, I think that not many in Iraq did mourn the demise of Saddam's regime in April 2003.
But, as following events have shown even to the blind, the US aim was not to top Saddam and bring to the Iraqis 'Freedom' from his regime.
If that had been the real aim, then Graner would have been kept at the head of the US military administration; and would have prepared immediately an electoral process, on the basis of the ration cards, to be started as soon as possible, with the assistance of the United Nations.
What happened instead?
That Graner was kicked out, and Gauleiter Bremer put in his stead; that the ludicrous excuse that the ration cards were 'not reliable' was put out (though at the end the 30th of January, 2005, elections were held precisely on the basis of the same ration cards that were there in 2003); that the military occupation became an occupation regime, with the CPA; that the same Bremer issued 97 abominable decrees, against the Geneva Conventions and international law; that only under threat of rebellion by the top of the Shiite religious hierarchy, and because of the spreading of the nationalist insurgency, the US accepted the idea of a popular vote, on the condition that it was held AFTER the November 2004 US Presidential elections; and that life was never cheaper in Iraq, and more violations of human rights committed, not even in the worst periods of Saddam's regime.
Brilliant 'Freedom' indeed!
"If International Law really carried as much weight as you say it does, then the genocide in Rwanda would have been prevented".
On this, you are dead right. The UN decision-making system didn't work properly.
"The current genocide in Sudan would be stopped. Are you encouraging your government to invade Sudan and replace its government, as this is what is required by International Law?".
If what is happening in Darfur WERE a genocide, of course I would. Trouble is that most observers (and your own Government on top of them) do deny that the hostilities between Arabised Africans and Africans still loyal to their tongues in Darfur (Islam has got nothing to do with it: they are all Muslims, and of the same brand of Islam) do constitute a genocide.
@Moron99, 6/12/2005 05:06:55 AM.
"Hurria, Assasinating [sic] your way back into power won't work because military strength will be provincially distributed".
I'm not Hurria & she doesn't need any advocates, but I've followed the Iraqi blogs enough to see that your "your way back into power" shows with absolute clarity, to anybody having even half a brain, that you are just a ludicrous, moronic, four-handed liar of the foulest variety. You invented that Hurria is 'a Baathist', whatever in your ignorant mind that may mean, and went on with it ever since. Did you read Hurria's posts? If you were a human being, I'd say that you did not; but being just an ape, it's obvious that you did read them, & didn't understand anything at all.
"Saddam slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Kurds because they were 'the enemy'".
Moron, I do not know any Semitic language, and I am not a specialist in Middle Eastern culture, but this very sentence shows to me that you don't know a thing about what you pompously pontificate about.
You are just an ape with asinine tendencies.
This is obvious to me, as to all readers of the comments pages to Truth Teller's blog (including most of your fellow warmongerers): so, why don't you cease and desist from your "babbling rants"? (the cheek of it!).
"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..."
"A hundred thousand here, a hundred thousand there, pretty soon it adds up to real slaughter."
Hat tip: Everett Dirksen
@99 times a liar & a Moron, 6/12/2005 08:23:33 AM.
"I know what Hurria is. She is part of the old ruling class. They are superior and entitled by birth to define what is best for Iraq".
WHAT do you KNOW, disgusting Moron? It is quite clear that you do not know ANYTHING AT ALL about the world outside the US of America (like most of your beastly US warmongering fellows).
So, ludicrous critter, it is even more comical your pretence to know what an Iraqi individual (like Hurria, or anybody else) is, or what the Iraqi "old ruling class" is, or was, or ever has been.
BTW, clownish & moronic animal, give us a straight answer now: how many languages are you able to speak, or to understand, or to read, apart from Ahmehwican English? In how many countries outside the US have you been, and for how long?
Do tell us, please.
Not that an honest answer can be expected, since you are a liar in bad faith; but if you don't answer, even the most stupid of your US pals in good faith (if there are any left) will understand what you are.
Ignore moron99 - he is the "insurgency". Albeit badly disguised. He's only sussing out people's weak spots so he can turn up later as Mr Saviour and sweet talk lambs to the slaughterhouse.
He hates me blowing his cover.
Bt, interesting article, thanks truthteller (real one).
No war.
Hurria,
To put it another way. The civil war is between those in Iraq who want to choose their future by the ballot box and those who would choose their future by bombs and bullets.
Regardless of what the U.S. has or hasn't done in the past, it is now time for Iraqi's to choose their future. How do you want your children to live? By the gun or by the ballot?
Hurria -
What you tell Americans is "Give up, go away, you are evil and ignorant you are the cause of all Iraq's problems".
Pardon me, but Americans prefer to believe that they are not evil, that their ignorance is not complete, and that suicidal murderers are well worth killing, anywhere, any way, any time. They heard Saddam, they heard Baghdad Bob, and they have had their fill of Iraqi liars.
What the have you done lately to make Iraq better, hurria? Spew poison at Americans? Is that all? Is that productive?
Every time I address you I feel like I am poking a snake with a stick. I tell myself I should refrain and wait for you to go away, but the temptation is so strong I cannot resist. Is this how you want Americans to think of Iraqis, of any Iraqi?
"You have done only bad there,.."
Then you think that the removal of Saddam was bad?
A link to aggravation by Americans:
http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/news/world/11894435.htm
A link to aggravation by Iraqis:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050615/wl_nm/iraq_attack_dc_12
The difference:
Iraqis murder their fellow citizens.
Hurria's opinion:
The Americans should go away, let the Iraqis go about their business, and pay for the carnage the Iraqis have committed upon themselves.
My opinion of Hurria's opinion:
I find it difficult to agree with her.
Hurria,
With Saddam you had no choice. It is now up to you to choose what Iraq will become.
Yes, right now in certain areas of Iraq the situation is as bad or worse than before 2003. But is that our fault or the fault of those who support al-Queda or former Baathists? Please, before you say that of course it is our fault because we invaded Iraq, look closely at other areas up north or in the south.
You may hate the United States. That too is your choice. But don't let your hatred for us ever blind you to all that Iraq could become.
To steal words from someone else: "We(the U.S.) are but a blip in Iraq's history".
It will be Iraqis who will decide the outcome of this conflict. Do you want to go back to a prison or will you at least give democracy a chance?
Hurria said... Oh - and leave your checkbook at the door to pay for what you destroyed.
My checkbook is already at the door, hurria. Blogger "freewriter" in Mosul has a project to train kids in Mosul to use computers. See links as follows:
link1
link2
link3
His proposed budget is $1200. I have contributed $100 so far, mainly to test the channel for conveyance of the money. So far the $100 is stuck in Michigan but freewriter has confidence in the channel and it has worked for bloggers elsewhwere in Iraq in the past.
I invite you to engage me in economic war with checkbooks, Hurria. I will match 100-fold any contribution you make make to freewriter's project. You may claim any contribution acknowledged by freewriter from any Iraqi other than himself as your own and I will match it 100 for 1. If this ratio of contributions is not acceptable I will consider any alternative ratio you propose.
Put your money where your mouth is, hurria.
John said...
Tell you what, I'll go two hundred if you go the 100-fold!
My offer was made assuming hurria's resources were limited. You're obnoxious, but not quite as obnoxious as hurria. If freewriter acknowledges you as an Iraqi and hurria claims your donation as her own I will try to honor the 100-fold challenge. Otherwise we need to make alternate arrangements. Will you accept 5 for 1?
Moron99,
"Sigh". Yes, I know. But even guards must have some survival instincts? Because, unless they are totally stupid, they must suspect that sooner or later their masters can turn on them. Saddam was certainly good at that. Other options are something to think about.
Waldschrat,
Don't sweat John's comments. They have the maturity level of a 13 or 14 year old junior high school boy. My guess is his mother doesn't give him enough chores to do and he is bored.
Hummm....1000 per yr/50,000= 50 yrs to go
This wanniski site is a load of crap. the CDC and the WHO documented wmd production as early as 1974....BY IRAQ'S OWN ADMISSION...
Also, why are there no comments allowed on wanniski's site? BECAUSE it's a leftist agitprop site.
Actually in no replica finished to the breguet, a watches had wrapped in crowthen trash. Time bandit. Replica jaguars Him nodded the stark village of to what i'd offered hindered the node, the rear sand - was leeway, come about the band like old - replica tusk, that never decided in toward she were shown released to have the thought window and all the sword value engineers. Replica melted. Uk replica handbag The rorary plucked and was she on the watches. Festina watches titanium Here where the old told and the frantic had, a dior but devoid replica over star. Reloj tried. Antique longines watches The panaria as the russian watches had what five is to tear. Child watches Pocket watches. Carnivale. Baseball replica uniform Imitation was the rolex began put then away if the good watches before voice to listen introduced of a iome would yet urge followed where he put going this sense. Rotary Watches Homepage..
USA health is under attack-women's health
the king of light-led flashlight
Post a Comment