Part One: Iraqis Have Been Killed To Reward Politicians!
As you all heard, the Iraqi parliament has postponed its session for “a few days.” It is not a big deal! A few more days won’t change anything in the massacre Iraq is going through since April 2005, when the current government was seated.
Last Wednesday, the parliament’s acting speaker, Adnan al-Pachachi, called for the political leaders and parliamentary blocs to convene today, Monday, to present the new Iraqi president and his two deputies and the new Iraqi prime minister. This move was supposed to take place at least two months ago, according to the Iraqi new permanent constitution.
In December 15, the Iraqis went to the streets, challenging death threats and insurgents’ warning, just to try to change the three–year long political, economic, and social crumbling of the country that benefited no one and has not solved itself, as the Iraqi wanted it to do. The Iraqis were waiting for their politicians to end the disaster, the politicians were waiting for the disaster to solve itself because they were and still are busy shaming each other and trying to take their rights and the others’.
When the Americans and their allies invaded Iraq, the first thing they’ve done was to dissolve the Iraqi army and police. They thought that the Iraqi security forces are all loyal to Saddam Hussein. So, they decided that they don’t need them. They thought the coalition forces are enough to secure a country with centuries of ethnic divisions and decades of ethnic cleansing and conflicts. A country with 35 years of dictatorship. A country with people that have no ability to decide for themselves, because over the history, they were used to be directed, not asked.
When they invaded Iraq, they didn’t have an already-formed Iraqi government to take place after Hussein’s was toppled. Instead, they installed an American administration to rule the country and take responsibility of its future. They decided to rule a country that was closed into itself and isolated from the world for decades. Their only advisors were Iraqis who’ve never been to Iraq in the last 40 years at least. All what the Iraqi exiles knew about the country and its people is what the reports they got from either Iraqis inside Iraq, who had their own agenda, or from Iraqis who’ve been in Jordan and Syria for the last ten years, minimum. When people from Iraq, intellectuals, artists, professionals, who never left the country tried to involve in the process of building a new Iraq, the exiles forced them out of the room because they didn’t share the same interests! There is no doubt that the majority of Iraqis wanted the Baathist regime to be wiped out. But no one of the new comers, foreign or Iraqi, knew how to handle the aftermath, simply because they weren’t familiar with the Iraqi community as of 2003. That was one of the huge mistakes committed in Iraq after the occupation was formally announced by United Nation and Security Council resolutions.
After a few months of total failure [go back to reports from that time and see the failure I am talking about,] the Americans decided that it was time for Iraqis to participate in the decision makers’ sessions, but as an audience only. That was when the 25-seat Governing Council or GC was formed, back in July 2003. That governing council, sources at the time said, had no decision-making authority. It was more of a propaganda to show the Iraqis and the world that the country is not led only by foreigners. Most of the members in the governing council were exiles, who came to the “liberated” country after the invasion. Of course I don’t blame them for fleeing Iraq, because have they stayed in Iraq, Saddam Hussein would have killed them. I only blame them for insisting that they are the ones who deserve to be the new Iraqi leaders, just because they’ve been forced to leave the country and “suffer” in foreign countries, where they’ve had privileges other citizens of these countries didn’t get! I blame them for insisting that they were in their luxurious villas and apartments outside Iraq and suffered more than the politicians who stayed in Iraq and were forbidden from leaving it and tried to work with low profile to avoid torture and assassination.
The governing council included, Iyad Allawi (later to be the first Prime Minister in post-war Iraq), Ghazi al-Yawar (later to be the first president in post-war Iraq), Ahmed al-Chalabi (later to be a deputy PM), Abdul Aziz al-Hakim (later to stay a Mulla and a key player in the Iraqis-against-Iraqis game), Jalal Talbani (later to be Iraq’s first Kurdish president ever), Masoud barzani (later to be a president in the northern region of Kurdistan), Ibrahim al-Jafari (later to be Iraq’s first elected PM and insists “democratically” to stay in the position), Samir Shakir al-Sumaidaie (later to be Iraq’s head of mission in the U.N. and then Iraq’s ambassador in the U.S.A.), Muwaffaq al-Rubaie (later to be a national security advisor), Adnan al-Pachachi (later to be acting chairman of the first full-term parliament), and other players, who were only sitting on the bench the whole time and still. Of the 25 members, I only could count three who were inside Iraq suffering Hussein’s regime. The three of them were women and had no role in the game. No role at all.
The presidency of the governing council rotated monthly among nine members of the governing council [in fact they’ve become 11 members for some reasons, including the assassination of one president while serving in the position.] The rotating came not out of no where, it came to give the first hints of the divisions of the Iraqi community and the problems and struggle over power among the political factions in Iraq. Every faction believes its members deserve to rule because they’ve suffered more. They couldn’t agree on one president for the council to lead in the next nine or ten months. Therefore they fooled the Iraqis of this rotating system. I couldn’t find another way to understand it!
In fact, the formation of the GC was a way to reward the Iraqi politicians who “suffered” in the exile and those who suffered inside the country because of the dictatorship of the former regime. It was a clever, later proved to be the stupidest, way to reward them and make them enjoy power for a while. The presidency rotation is a clear evidence of this reward thing is the presidency rotating. And here is how I believe it was:
- Iyad Allawi: for his close relation and cooperation with the CIA.
- Ahmed al-Chalabi: for his magic power and role in convincing the world that a war against Saddam Hussein’s government was necessary to save the globe.
- Ibrahim al-Jafari: for the sacrifices his Islamic Dawa party has paid over the nearly 30 years of struggle against Hussein’s government.
- Adnan al-Pachachi: he is one of the few respectable Iraqi politicians in the process and the eldest. He had to be given a post in the new Iraq in his last years.
- Muhammed Bahr al-Uloom: for the sacrifices Bahr al-Uloom family paid and the members it lost to Hussein’s brutal regime. And Bahr al-Uloom family is one of the most known and recognizable in Iraq.
- Abdul Aziz al-Hakim: as an acknowledgment to his family’s sacrifices in the struggle against Hussein’s regime and his Supreme Council for the Iraqi revolution in Iraq.
- Jalal Talbani: a Kurd, and the Kurds had to have their share of the cake. Also, he is one of those known for their opposition to the Iraqi former government, as all are.
- Masoud Barzani: Talbani and Barzani were and are rivals. If Talbani gets it, Barzani should too.
- Ghazi al-Yawar: he is a descendent of one of Iraq’s biggest and most powerful Sunni tribes, Shammar. Of course he would get it. Plus, he is from Mosul. If the Kurds and Shiites get it, the Sunnis in the north will get it. That’s is just the Iraqi way.
- Izzaldin Salim: he is from Basra. Mosul got it, shouldn’t Basra get it too?
- Muhsin Abdul Hamid: at the time, he was the secretary general of the Iraqi Islamic Party, the Sunni’s biggest and the only party that formally participated in the political process after the invasion. There had to be an evidence that the Sunnis are included in the process.
Note that non of the interim presidents of the GC was inside Iraq or suffered under Saddam Hussein. Those who suffered under Saddam Hussein shouldn’t be rewarded. It was their choice to suffer. No one asked them to!
Then a year after playing the Governing Council game, the decision makers in Iraq decided that it was the time to pretend that Iraq is sovereign and end the occupation. It was in fact changing the word from occupation forces into forces that the Iraqi government, appointed by the occupation forces, has asked to stay in Iraq and help in stabilizing it.
Iyad Allawi, a secular, was appointed by the Americans as a PM and all the names I mentioned above, plus others, were given government positions and ministries. The government’s first task was to hold Iraq’s first free elections to elect a National Assembly. The elections were held in January 2005, in which the Sunnis didn’t participate, and the 275-member national assembly was seated shortly after that. The assembly, which was only in power for one year, was tasked with electing its chairman the president of Iraq and his two deputies. Also, it had to charge the Prime Minister, nominated by the assembly’s largest group, in this case the Shiites, with forming his government to be approved. The deadline for forming a government was a month.
Because the Shiite political groups are headed by the two main ones, The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, and the Islamic Dawa Party, led by Ibrahim al-Jafari, those main parties had the right to nominate the name of the PM. In fact they didn’t have the right to, but in a country that got rid of the one-man dictatorship and replaced it with a militia and religious dictatorship, those parties are the most powerful and could turn the country into hell if they weren’t allowed to nominate the name. and because Hakim is a Mulla and presents himself as a religious leader more than a political one, Jafari got the post. Four months later, and after hundreds of Iraqis were killed and hundreds of them disappeared, Jafari formed his government, in which the Sunnis didn’t participate. The performance of this government is very controversial and the output was very little. The only progress to be made under this government was in the attempts to fuel a sectarian conflict. Since late April 2005, statistics and officials from both sides, Iraqi and American, say that thousands of Iraqis have been kidnapped and assassinated for no reason but their religious and ethnic background.
To be continued..
24 Steps,
At risk of pissing you off, I find some things frustrating in this post.
You say:
When the Americans and their allies invaded Iraq, the first thing they’ve done was to dissolve the Iraqi army and police.
Okay. You've told this little story before, I've explained exactly why this was not a mistake but, in fact, the ONLY way to keep Iraq as a single country. You haven't responded but you continue to tell the same story.
One more time:There was no Iraqi army to disband. The Iraqi army and many of the police "self-disbanded". The US forces *could* have chosen to force all the soldiers to return who fled the army during the invasion, but only at risk of the Kurds seceding from Iraq and the Shi'a possibly going into open revolt (ala Najaf 2004). According to Brehmer, the Americans were told flatly by Shi'a leaders that that was unacceptable.
Furthermore, to what extent should the military and police be retained? Should the Coalition have attempted to use Saddam's generals and colonels and other officer corp, which Saddam used to keep Iraq under his thumb, to keep Iraq under their thumb?
If there is a "mistake" that the Coalition made after invading Iraq, it was that it didn't merely remove the Saddam and pick from his government a new dictator that would rule Iraq more in line with Western foreign policy preferences. That is how this sort of thing is historically done. Is that how you think they should have handled Iraq? I ask because you disparage the Iraqi exiles, supposedly living it up in the West, while implying that those Iraqis who participated in Saddam's government until the end were some kind of national heroes. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
You say:
When they invaded Iraq, they didn’t have an already-formed Iraqi government to take place after Hussein’s was toppled.
Formed from what? Exiles? Corpses in mass-graves? The king of Jordan? Iraqi Kurds? (that last one is actually is looking more and more appealing)
The plan was to establish security in Iraq while stablizing the country, bring in the UN to hold a census, register the country, and hold elections. Well, (a)thanks largely to to the Iraqi Sunni Arabs who found it so difficult to accept the idea of being a minority in Iraq, and (b)thanks to backward muslims of all stripes (Shi'a and Kurd as well) in Iraq and out of it, and (c)thanks to surrounding Arab nations and well-meaning fools in the West who encouraged armed struggle against the New Iraq, the security portion never happenned. Much of the suspicion so many Iraqis have about each election comes from the fact that (as I am told by Iraqis) there hasn't been a census in Iraq for 50 years.
Would more troops have helped? Maybe. MAYBE. There IS the possibility that more troops would have caused the insurgency to be more popular. It is also LIKELY that more US troops would have meant more US soldiers' names on the KIA list...making the American people less likely to have tolerated the US military to remain in Iraq to keep Iraq from turning into Lebanon or Afghanistan circa 1992.
That's the problem with listing "mistakes". There are no BIG mistakes in Iraq. There are thousands and thousands of little ones (and more troops would mean more mistakes). We'll never know if more troops would have made things go better in Iraq, worse, or no change. You can bitch about "mistakes" but you will never have your better ideas tested against reality, nor discover all the ways that those ideas can go wrong.
The rest that you say, I mostly agree with. But looking at it with the benefit of hindsight, it seems clear to me that most of what has happened was bound to happen on the road from Saddam to liberal democracy.
In the end, it seems to me (as Ali of "Free Iraqi" has concurred) that this is a nasty patch that Iraqis must unfortunately go through to reach a free, stable, and modern nation. You say you want peace, but --lets face it-- you don't really, do you? Neither do I. You don't want peace with Sadr or Zarqawi. You want don't want their vision to infect the future Iraq. Neither do I.
This is a war, brother. The Iraqis and their American allies HAVE to win it. There are lots of venal members of the Iraqi government (just like the American one), but few of them are evil. The dwarfs running around in the American and Western media who are constantly complaining about the color of the drapes (for purely *domestic* political preferences) are only in the way.
At 12:20 PM, 
Truth About Iraqis
24 Steps,
Absolutely brilliant post! Mimicks almost everything I have ever said on my blog ... and more.
I agree with BT, it does take your breath away.
"Their only advisors were Iraqis who’ve never been to Iraq in the last 40 years at least. All what the Iraqi exiles knew about the country and its people is what the reports they got from either Iraqis inside Iraq, who had their own agenda, or from Iraqis who’ve been in Jordan and Syria for the last ten years, minimum. When people from Iraq, intellectuals, artists, professionals, who never left the country tried to involve in the process of building a new Iraq, the exiles forced them out of the room because they didn’t share the same interests! "
Oh, yes! This is the absolute truth that no one who supported the war and its aftermath wanted to hear.
This is precisely one of the major reasons we are in the state we are in today.
"Of the 25 members, I only could count three who were inside Iraq suffering Hussein’s regime. The three of them were women and had no role in the game. No role at all."
YES, YES, YES, tell the truth, brother. Spread it like a shroud to bury the lies.
"Then a year after playing the Governing Council game, the decision makers in Iraq decided that it was the time to pretend that Iraq is sovereign and end the occupation. It was in fact changing the word from occupation forces into forces that the Iraqi government, appointed by the occupation forces, has asked to stay in Iraq and help in stabilizing it."
Stake through the heart!
CMAR, 24 Steps repeats it over and over, as I do and as many other Iraqis do because it is the truth!
Our truth. Not yours. You don't even bother to blog about Iraq anymore instead choosing to debate Iran and what you miconceive to be the evils of Islam.
Furthemore, this is NOT a nasty patch.
How dare you say the thousands of dead, maimed, tortured Iraqis was a "nasty patch" on the way to liberalism.
Would you say that if it occured in your country?
At 2:07 PM, 
24 steps, i certainly appreciate your clear synopsis.
for an american not there it is hard to keep straight all the ins and outs. i will be able to refer back to this post as it contains so much important information.
a few comments
"They thought the coalition forces are enough to secure a country "
as you may have heard there is a polarization in the US at this time between the civilian and military leadership of the military. all of the pre war studies by the state department advisors and professionals w/in the military DID NOT THINK the coalition forces would be enough to secure iraq. they were repeatedly warned , and congress was warned. there is a poll conducted today saying 75% of americans believe sec rumsfeld should resign. he will not. many military leaders have come forward asking for his resignation. there is abundant evidence that ignoring the advice of our best military strategists had a direct impact o the failures of the occupation thus far. i have my own theory about why, something along the lines of 'creative destruction' a tenet of the neocon pnac theory.
" A country with people that have no ability to decide for themselves"
that is a pretty damning statement. in my heart i must believe iraqi's do have the ability, i just don't know how, when, please share that faith w/me.
i have a question. i noticed you didn't mention the formulation of the constution. specifically i am curious about the oil production sharing agreements. according analysis to by Greg Muttitt for Global Policy Forum
"ready for signing the day Iraq officially forms its new government. These agreements, which in name imply revenue-sharing and state control over the underground assets, in truth are vehicles so skewed in favor of Anglo-American petroleum companies that they have no counterpart in today's oil world.
According to Muttitt's conservative estimates, Iraq stands to lose between $74-194 billion in these agreements over the life of the contracts, which will most likely be in effect for 40 years. Instead of the average rate of return of 12 percent generated by most oil field development investments today, these arrangements will net between 42 and 162 percent. Not since Standard Oil won a 60-year concession from Saudi Arabia in 1933 for $35,000 has the oil industry been poised to make so much money."
i heard that the privitization of iraqi's oil interest was an issue the americans would not compromise on and wonder how you feel about their influence in your constitution. also, is not chabali oil minister?
also, since this deal is supposed to go into effect the day the new government is formed could there be other reasons for the delay, and possibly a reason for bush frustration?
there was a very aggressive fight here by cheney to keep his pre war energy meetings secret(went all the way to the supreme court)
"C P A director Paul Bremer issued Order 39 on September 20, 2003. The order abolished and reversed Iraq's constitutional ban on foreign investment, allowing 100% of over 200 state-owned enterprises to fall into foreign hands. "
i hope you address this issue in part 2
annie
At 6:12 PM,
@truth about iraqis
sometimes reality is so buried in red tape it gets lost. in my last comment responding to krypto on the previous thread i further adderss the implications of this order 39. make no mistake, before bush represents americans, his first loyalty is to the global elite. the military industrial complex his family is totally immersed in. as things stand, this consortium is ready and waiting to take the prize from iraq. it would be much better if the revenues from your resources were reserved for the benifit of the iraqi people.beware, be very aware. corporations rule. google mansanto/iraq. every aspect of your economic recovery will be dependent apon outside interference, sucking your profits. is this any solution for freedom?
At 6:26 PM, Truth About Iraqis
Anon 6:12pm, you captured one of my greatest fears.
Iraq has been an industrious society since the dawn of time, and given room to develop Iraq could in time have became a manufacturing hub in the Middle East.
Now, the prospects are dim. Iraq is being turned into a consumer and importer society for even its most prized commodity - oil.
At 6:28 PM,
sorry for posting so much
"On April 26, 2004, Bremer issued order 81, which revised the Iraqi patent law of 1970 to include articles for "plant variety", and thus began the attack on traditional farming methods in Iraq:
Chapter 66, Article 15.B - "Farmers shall be prohibited from re-using seeds of protected varieties or any variety mentioned in items 1 and 2 of paragraph C of Article 14 of this Chapter." [4]
Under order 81, "breeders" can now claim ownership of their hybrids by paying a fee to have them registered under patent law as "protected varieties". For genetically modified varieties, "breeders" means multinational corporations, as no individual has the resources to develop these varieties independently."
the upshot, iraq will have to buy seeds from a global corporation, and they don't reproduce, you will be bound by law to purchase them every year. you will not control the future of agriculture in iraq.
Bremer issued 97 edicts as part of the "democratization" of Iraq. There's nothing like a few dozen edicts from an unelected official to get the ball rolling on democracy.
At 10:23 PM,
A nice summary ... but I am not a mind reader so I do not know why
Bremmer made the choices he did ... Allawi was chosen as reported in US media because
he supposedly had ties to Saddams
military leaders ... the good decent patriotic Iraqi military... he was supposed bring those men
the decent non Saddamite Iraqi into the "new Iraq"
Opinions and re-hashing history are fine ... you are Iraqi and your lives were turned upside down ... but no one has a crystal ball ... no one can see alternate
versions of the future ....
unless your "Trans" from Andromed
on TV.
You do NOT know what would have happened if the choices were different ... just as I do not know ... and Bush does not know and nobody knows what would have happened if this and that were different.
You need to look forward and try to solve Iraqs problems of today ... if all Saddams Republican guard where automatically used for security
three years ago ... do you know how the huge numbers of
conservative Shia would have responded ... to see the very same security forces AFTER US invasion ??? I do not know ??
but I am not pretending to know.
Honor all the Iraqi who have died
by unifying and moving forward to build a strong nation ....
going on and on in 2006 about what
Bremmer did is a waste of time ...
Its what Iraqi can do now to end the violence ???
Do you want European soldiers in Iraq to help border security ???
to help with security in Baghdad???
If so the demand that your leaders ask for NATO assistance ...
One can be sure that France/Germany/Spain/Russia will
flock to Iraq for business once peace finally comes to Iraq ...
well ask for help now ...
If you want parliament to demand US forces withdraw as soon as possible then take a position on that ... rehashing very difficult choices made by others is a waste of time.
It seemed in 1993 after The world trade center was bombed the first time by terrorists that Clinton
would take out Bin-Laden ... but he did not ... he lunched a few missiles at a training complex and that was it ... but things were peacefull our economy strong ... and during the whole time Al-Queda was growing ...
Had US invade Afghanistan in 1994
perhaps this whole mess would have been avoided ... But then other repercussions of invading in 1994 would have surfaced ...
So its easy to say Clinton was wrong to offer so limited a response ... the point being one NEVER knows ... you must formalize
a policy for NOW and hope for the best ...
The weakness in Democratic party in US is similar ... all the geniuses who point to Bushes mistakes ... but candidate Kerry's
only difference on Iraqi occupation was that he would get more European involvement ...
No new ideas no solutions offered
just going on and on about what Bush knew in 2001 etc ...
You are a big journalist now along with BT ... very brilliant men ... know first hand how stupid Americans and Bremmer were ... know how stupid your
elected parliament is ... OK you are so brilliant ...
State clearly in your Blog what you would do to move Iraq toward peace ...
At 10:36 PM,
More prattle about stealing Iraqs
oil ... big oil industry experts here on this blog ...
considering that the paliament
that authored the constitution
and formed all of the new ministries are had an essentially conservative Shia slant I wonder
how these Anglo-favored deals were struck ... is Sistani a Jew
in disguise ????
Considering all it would take is
one or two major breakthroughs
in China/US/India/Japan to drive down the price of oil in say 5-10 years its possible that these
agreements the socialist bloggers
are so intimate with may very well
favor Iraqi ... its possible that oil can fall to 30 gallon say 7 years from now ... its also possible that it can be 150/gallon ... so I suggest the socialists head to Baghdad and offer consulting services to all those in the Iraqi government who
have sold out the Iraqi people
Truth About Iraqis –
Very apt commentary. I like how blithely some people dismiss the havoc wrecked in Iraq as “growing pains” or the “price of freedom”. The irony is “freedom” was not, and is not intended for Iraqis, whatever their political persuasion.
For example, why don’t Iraqis sell their oil in Iraqi Dinars instead of dollars?
That’s right, demand that payment be in Iraqi dinars. Demand that people trade with you in order to acquire the dinars necessary to buy oil. Some much needed trade for the Iraqi economy can’t be a bad thing, can it?
Except of course, the US would cap your asses with guided missiles if you dared suggest it.
Here is a small extract from a conversation Kalilzad had, as reported and translated by Dr Imad Khadduri on the Free Iraq blog demonstrating the respect that the US has for Iraqis and their so-called “freedom” :
In a meeting last Wednesday (March 29, 2006) that was held at 'president' Jalal Talabani's home near the Green Zone, which assembled the heads of the various Iraqi sectarian parties for crisis discussions, the American ambassador Khalilzad joined the gathering along with the US Consul, Robert Ford.
[...]
"No, no", replied Khalilzad, "[…] The joke goes like this. Some of the Alliance leaders, from the Da'wa Party and the Sadr group (Khalilzad did not include Al-Hakim's and Adel Abdul Mahdi's SCIRI, the third member of that Alliance) have asked Ibrahim Al-Jafaari, as head of the government, to expel me from Iraq".
[...]
Khalilzad interrupted him saying: " I do not want any apologies. I shall know how to respond next time if they ever repeat their threat again, and I shall restore their senses for them. I will show them who can expel who from Iraq (emphasis added). We are the ones who brought them here. We have opened for them the doors of opportunity, work and freedom. We have provided protection for them which, if we ever decide to remove it, then none of them will stay in Iraq for one hour.
[...]
//end excerpt
I think this speaks for itself.
CMAR2 said
“You say you want peace, but --lets face it-- you don't really, do you? Neither do I. You don't want peace with Sadr or Zarqawi. You want don't want their vision to infect the future Iraq. Neither do I.”
This is such a typical American warmonger reaction that it deserves all the attention and scorn it can get.
First of all, Zarqawi, who (if he still lives) has been admitted by the US as being a PSYOPS creation. Simply, his importance has been blown up out of all proportion to any real influence he might have. Salafist atrocities have been magnified and confused deliberately with the identity of the genuine Iraqi resistance which has aimed its attacks at the invader. This confusion of identity is to split ‘ordinary’ Iraqis from Iraqis who want freedom from occupation by demonising the freedom fighters.
Secondly. It is so, so typical of the Americans to immediately lable any group which it cannot corrupt, manipulate or bribe as being ‘evil’, and hence worthy of extermination. CMAR2 mentioning Sadr is a prime example of this. What he is ACTUALLY advocating here is the MASS MURDER of the millions of Iraqis who may support Sadr. Let’s just be clear about this.
CMAR2, you are no better than Saddam. That’s a fact.
US foreign policy also lables all Ba’athists as evil and hence worthy of immediate liquidation. Any non-Ba’athist Iraqi who happens to simply want his country free is a terrorist – according to American foreign policy. If we take into consideration that about 80% of Iraqis want an Iraq free of US troops ... are 80% of Iraqis then elegible for extermination?
It would seem so.
CMAR is absolutely right.
How dare you say the thousands of dead, maimed, tortured Iraqis was a "nasty patch" on the way to liberalism.
Would you say that if it occured in your country?
It did! How about 400,000 dead, at a time when our population was closer to Iraq's? We bled for our freedom too.
And last, keep this in mind: Saddam was very conservatively responsible for 2,000,000 deaths oer his 24 year rule. That's 228 a day, 83,000 a year. Iraq may be chaotic now, but it's far better than that.
demonising the freedom fighters
That's possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read on the internet. The insurgents aren't fighting for freedom, they're fighting AGAINST freedom and democracy so they can re-establish tyranny. They don't even PRETEND to want freedom for Iraqis. It's amazing that anyone would even try to claim otherwise, but I guess it just shows how delusional the antiwar crowd is.
The funniest thing about Bruno's posts (and they are full of hilarious statements, like that the US is going to exterminate 80% of Iraqis) is that he says "CMAR2, you are no better than Saddam. That’s a fact." even as he lionizes the Saddamist "freedom fighter" insurgents. Maybe he's trying to compliment CMAR.
Of course anyone not completely delusional recognizes the "occupiers" are there are the invitation of the democratically elected government of Iraq, and while Iraqis would undoubtedly prefer not to be occupied, very few would rather have the Saddamists in charge again.
the 300 million dollars we spend on info warfare in iraq and this is all you guys can come up with? this drivel? your posts are so friggin unoriginal, get real. slamming people who look at how iraq got into this mess w/your 'just look forward and trust us even tho you know we've lied our way here' and then dragging the reader back to the 90's and blaming clinton! don't you have any new tricks?
24 steps, you have been invaded by the warfare guys. face it, if you troll the internet for the US sites these guys hang out on here in their spare time(little green footballs, free republic) you can easily understand how racist they are. they don't come here to iraqi sites in their spare time. the one's who come here w/this pro american slam the anti war (undoubtedly delusional!!!) are paid to be here. they are the bullies. you will never be able to have an intellegent discussion w/reason as they will infect all conversation w/insults and bravado. just blather. you'ld think psyops could do better.
how delusional the antiwar crowd is.
the 300 million dollars we spend on info warfare and this is all you guys can come up with? this drivel? your posts are so friggin unoriginal, get real. slamming people who look at how iraq got into this mess w/your 'just look forward and trust us even tho you know we've lied our way here' and then dragging the reader back to the 90's and blaming clinton! don't you have any new tricks?
24 steps, you have been invaded by the warfare guys. face it, if you troll the internet for the US sites these guys hang out on here in their spare time(little green footballs, free republic) you can easily understand how racist they are. they don't come here to iraqi sites in their spare time. the one's who come here w/this pro american slam the anti war (undoubtedly delusional!!!) are paid to be here. they are the bullies. you will never be able to have an intellegent discussion w/reason as they will infect all conversation w/insults and bravado. just blather. can't millions in psyops$$ do better than this?
At 11:12 AM, Truth About Iraqis
Annie, you are absolutely right.
When both BT and 24 Steps started to blog what they believed in and that took a course in stark opposition to the gung-ho, pro-war crowd, they were both fiercely attacked.
For being Iraqis telling the truth about the decimation of Iraq.
For revealing the history which has been a shameful blight against the neocon blueprint which many of these people adopt as their bible.
I have always said these Iraqi bloggers are writing history.
The real war will never make it into the books - Walt Whitman
The pro-destruction-of-Iraq gang do not want to hear they were wrong over and over.
I blogged about how documenting the failures of the US in Iraq is a historical imperative, something both BT and 24 Steps, and others like Riverbend and Zeyad are doing.
In the BBC's History Magazine, noted historian and author of The Pursuit of History John Tosh writes:
"The most telling recent indicator of the lack of a critical public history was the Iraq crisis of 2003. Here was a country to which British troops were about to be sent, and about which, the British public knew very little. The least one might have expected was some media coverage of the British Mandate in Iraq after the First World War, when a precarious puppet regime was kept in place by British air power, and when the exploitation of Iraq's oil intensified year by year.
Instead the public was treated to a repetitive charge-sheet against Saddam Hussein; the only historical perspective consisted of a far-fetched analogy with the rise of Hitler."
I will say it again. The tide is turning.
I admire and respect both BT and 24 Steps for their courage in doing what they do and saying what they say ...
They both know they have my full support.
truth about iraqis. i read your blog yesterday (didn't comment in respect for the the request for iraqi voices) and sent you an email. Dahr Jamail just wrote another great story called " The Ongoing War on Truth in Iraq" re al-Adhamiya.i recommend. rummy is now trying to squash general kimmits statement "The Zarqawi PSYOP program is the most successful information campaign to date." by saying big Z and the terrorists " those people have media committees. They are actively out there trying to manipulate the press in the United States. " !!! this on rush limbaugh, the king of rightwing BS. read, our psyops propaganda is at war w/their propaganda!!
meanwhile, dynacorps is advertising for police (special, $104,000 per year person/contract) to go to iraq to train iraqi police(read death squads, oh i take that back) remember these contractors(mercenaries) are not bound by silly geneva convention formalities. our tax dollars at work. there's more than one way to skin a cat.
google negroponte for some truth.
i was wrong dyncorp is paying 134,000. if you follow the link you can see a picture of the iraq police they train. i hear the guys they recruit from south africa and israel are well trained.
At 9:09 PM,
Bruno,
You are insane if you think the Iraqi resitance are freedom fighters! A person who chooses violence is no better than the occupier. They are in fact delaying freedom to Iraqis. The numbers of attacks on the occupation are very small compared to that of Iraqi-on-Iraqi crime. Gandhi was a FREEDOM FIGHTER. Martin Luther King Jr. was a FREEDOM FIGHTER. Freedom is not won at of hand of a gun. It does not matter what side of a armed conflict you support, you are still a warmonger. Non-violence is a hard road worth enduring.
[TAI] "How dare you say the thousands of dead, maimed, tortured Iraqis was a "nasty patch" on the way to liberalism. Would you say that if it occured in your country?"
[Talldave] "It did! How about 400,000 dead, at a time when our population was closer to Iraq's? We bled for our freedom too."
The analogy is not equivalent. "Freedom" in this case means "freedom to become a US vassal state". That is not worth the life of a single person. It's more like as if the British had won the American War of Independence and proclaimed the victory as 'rescuing the American settlers from tyranny'.
[talldave] "And last, keep this in mind: Saddam was very conservatively responsible for 2,000,000 deaths oer his 24 year rule. That's 228 a day, 83,000 a year. Iraq may be chaotic now, but it's far better than that."
Any actual, um, SOURCES for that statement or are you inventing statistics again? Funny that every source I have seen indicates that Iraqi mortality is FAR higher under your glorious 'liberation' than under even Hussein's despotism. Why, just a few days ago I read a report indicating that child mortality in Basra has shot way up.
[bruno] "demonising the freedom fighters"
[talldave] "That's possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read on the internet. The insurgents aren't fighting for freedom, they're fighting AGAINST freedom and democracy so they can re-establish tyranny."
Really? That all depends on your definition of 'freedom fighter', I guess. I define a freedom fighter as somebody who believes in an Iraq for Iraqis, ruled by Iraqis and free of foreign influence. As somebody who is willing to stand up and fight for his home when attacked.
You are obviously talking about the phantom Zarqawi (btw, catch any more top lieutenants lately? *snigger*) who is a small fish blown out of proportion by US PSYOPS.
America defines anybody as an insurgent or terrorist who is against America. That means common Iraqis who are willing to fight for their homes. Take this for example:
Mystery Hangs Over Baghdad Battle
By Nelson Hernandez and Bassam Sebti - Washington Post Foreign Service - April 19, 2006;
" But in Adhamiyah, as in many Sunni Arab neighborhoods in Baghdad, organized groups of young men from the area keep watch over the streets. They say they are there to protect residents against attack by Shiite militiamen and Shiite-led Interior Ministry police who have been accused of rounding up Sunnis and executing them. Residents said it was likely that the armed men thought the patrol entering their neighborhood was part of a Shiite militia or the police. So they started shooting.
[...]
"The gunmen are suspected insurgents," Sgt. Doug Anderson, a U.S. military spokesman, wrote in an e-mail. "It is not known whether they are people from the neighborhood." //end excerpt
Get that? The local neighbourhood watch, who have the guts to stand up to the US-trained, Interior Ministry death squads, are ACTUALLY INSURGENTS. They deserve, according to CMAR 2 and Talldave, a merciless death. Any 'collateral damage' as a result of that elimination - which could mean Baghdad Treasure or his family - will be justified as a necessary nastiness in the pursuit of "freedom", whatever that is.
But the spokesman goes further, and resorts to the old psyops trick of dissassociating resistance from local Iraqis, of giving the impression that any resistance must be from villainous foreigners trying to oppress the Iraqi people which only the US can stop. (LOL, what a joke.)
Yep, according to people like Talldave, Adhamiya residents actually are fighting against freedom and democracy in order to establish tyranny. The tyranny of freedom from liquidation by death squad must be stopped! The El Salvador Option must continue! Or so the wingnuts would have us believe.
[talldave] "Of course anyone not completely delusional recognizes the "occupiers" are there are the invitation of the democratically elected government of Iraq"
Hmm. Somebody's been at the magic cookie jar again. WHAT GOVERNMENT? Iraq doesn't even have one. Last I saw the US was busy trying to undermine and manipulate the so-called "democratically elected government" in order to get what it wants. Need I repeat the words of Kalilzad? "I WILL SHOW THEM WHO CAN EXPEL WHO FROM IRAQ!" The "democracy" is a farce.
Only a dribbling lunatic would imagine that a country overrun by hundreds of thousands of foreign troops which are not accountable to the native law of the land while supporting an occupation in which the natives are less than dogs - hajjis all - only a lunatic would imagine that this constitutes anything like freedom.
[anonymous] "A person who chooses violence is no better than the occupier. They are in fact delaying freedom to Iraqis."
I see. The ol' " put down your weapons and we *promise* we won't steal your country from you " line. (Yep, nobody can now doubt the word of America.) I suggest you put the kool aid down and realise that this bullshit is a lie like all the other lies spouted by CENTCOM.
[anonymous] "The numbers of attacks on the occupation are very small compared to that of Iraqi-on-Iraqi crime."
So you are comparing CRIME with acts of RESISTANCE ? Well, that's very sneaky of you. Got any references for this 'idea' of yours?
[anonymous] "Non-violence is a hard road worth enduring."
Oh, yeah, sure, I'll grant you that. But that does not mean it is always effective. Non - violence works if the opposition sees you as human. Unfortunately the US troops (and especially marines) have been conditioned to see Iraqis as sub-human scum worthy of death. That's just the way it is.
Ask the civilians who were killed at Fallujah, while peacefully protesting the occupation of a school by US Marines (itself a violation of the GC) whether non-violence worked.
I remember the protest in Firdous Square held against the occupation by the Sadrists, which numbered in the hundreds of thousands, and which completely, completely outclassed the staged PSYOP of the statue toppling.
Nobody even noticed it.
As if it never happened. But a hundred imported Chalabists are the defining image of this invasion.
Make sense to you?
At 7:35 AM,
So Bruno, if non-violence has proven to be non-effective in Iraq what tactics are the resitance using that are working? And you condone these attacks?
So what you are saying is that it is okay that the resitanc etarget civilians because they are working for the government, depsite the fact that they are just trying to make a life out of what little is left. It is okay for the resitance to target the U.S. forces and Iraqi forces, but at the same time these forces have no right to self-defense. Iraqi resitance fighters do-no-evil, and the future of Iraq should be in their hands.
We should ignore the resitance's political motives.
[anonymous] “So Bruno, if non-violence has proven to be non-effective in Iraq what tactics are the resitance using that are working? And you condone these attacks?”
I would not say that non-violence has been non-effective. I would say it has not been SUFFICIENTLY effective. Some of the problems lie in the level of indoctrination that US troops have. Other problems lie in the fact that Iraq is divided, and by playing the sectarian card, the US can find any number of lackeys to do its work for it. Thus non-cooperation is a non-starter.
The Resistance is waging a very clever, if ruthless battle against the US.
It is directly targeting the US’s biggest weaknesses in Iraq, and doing so effectively. For example, by knocking out oil pipelines, it reduces the amount of plundering the US can do to offset the cost of keeping such a large occupation force in place, and it also reduces disposable income available to run the puppets in power, forcing the US to use its own funds to maintain them.
The primary purpose of American occupation is ultimately to economically exploit Iraq. By making this impossible, the rationale for being there becomes much weakened.
You are correct that the Iraqi Resistance targets Iraqi government employees. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I cannot agree with killing Iraqi civilians that are engaged in activities as innocuous as washing clothing for US troops. On the other, I can understand why interpreters and facilitators of the occupation are viewed as traitors and are targeted. Other government offshoots, particularly members of the ‘special forces’ such as the ‘wolf brigade’ for example, deserve to cop it.
The thing is, the US has from the start attempted to turn this into an Iraqi-on-Iraqi fight.
It is just classic occupation tactics. The USSR did exactly the same thing in Afghanistan. The Americans have taken advantage of the desperation of ordinary Iraqis who want to feed their families as a tool to co-opt them into the “official” power structure. The US sits at the top of that structure, and has put layers of Iraqis into the firing line between itself and the Resistance. This has the double advantage of getting Iraqis killed instead of Americans, and of driving a wedge between the passive Iraqi populace and the resisting Iraqi populace for much the reasons which you mentioned.
The civil war is thus inherently part of the US occupation which has pitted Iraqi against Iraqi. The post of 24 Steps is essentially discussing this very fact.
A guerrilla war is a nasty, nasty business. Ask me, I come from Africa, and I know. We should never forget that the US asked for this war; it BEGGED for it, and now that it has it, it is crying foul. It set the ball rolling, and it is ultimately responsible for the consequences.
At 6:43 AM,
If non-violence is not working what is? Mortars, suicide bombings, executions, and roadside bombs all seem to be leading Iraq further into hell. Endless retaliations by irrational and distraught people are not going to lead Iraq out of this mess. Nor will subjecting to power-maniacs responsible for this violence.
I believe that freedom cannot be imposed. It comes when people hit a breaking point. The French revolution, the American war for independence, and the civil rights movements across the world are all examples of a population hitting a breaking point. I think the Iraqi people are at that breaking point.
I know the French revolution and the American war for independence support your theory of armed resistance. I know it is hard to compare the civil rights movement with Iraq.
But there is one similarity of the current situation in Iraq with previous civil rights movements. That is there are democratic means to a peaceful change. Although the Iraqi democratic process foundation has been tainted, because the fact that it was built by a foreign entity, it is still has a scapegoat for the Iraqi people.
What the Iraqi resistance is engaging in now, by taking up an armed resistance against a far more superior force, is demeaning the very change they may hope to inspire. Not only does it demean their cause, but more importantly it turns Iraq into a bloodbath.
The Iraqi resistance needs to put pressure on this government to form. They need to put pressure on religious leaders to have their militias stand down. They have to put pressure on the government to crack down on corruption. They need to put pressure on this government to have a peaceful withdrawal of occupation forces. More importantly they need to inspire their fellow Iraqis to stand up for their rights as human beings. They need to do this with their voice and not their weapons.
I know it easy to say this and extremely difficult to do. But is it not easier than an armed struggle where thousands will perish? Maybe this election is tainted, but can't the next election bring more progress than an armed resistance?
Iraqis lives and country have been ruined by no fault of their own. They have been brought to this breaking point and have a decision to make. They can go down the treacherous road of violence, or they can inspire change through their numbers and voices. It is the Iraqi people’s choice. I for one hope they choose peace.
Anonymous –
The problem I have in responding to your post is that there is a lot of truth in it.
The truth is that if there is a non-violent solution it is almost always superior to a violent one.
My point, however, is that the circumstances here are not the circumstances of say an indigenous, homogenous populace reaching a tipping point and spontaneously marching to the streets to depose the current rulers. The situation here is that the ‘non-violent’ approach, which you advocate, is based on inclusion within the political system SET UP by the invader in order to legitimize its continued rule. The current process legitimizes the Bremer Diktat which effectively dispossesses Iraqis of their country.
The other problem is that the Iraqi populace is not homogenous. There are divisions which have from the start been exploited fully by the occupier in order to control Iraq. So it is impossible for example to get together a big enough bloc to expel the US “legally”. The very rules written into the constitution by the US ensure that the political system is going to be gridlocked on any matter of importance. Simply look at the Jafaari issue at the moment. The “Shiites” won a very large share of the vote, which in any other country would entitle them to form a government. Yet the US wields enough power to dictate to them who may or may not be Prime Minister. Now tell me that this process is not designed to entrench US power in Iraq!
I repeat to you the words of Kalilzad: “I WILL SHOW THEM WHO CAN EXPEL WHO FROM IRAQ!”
The current political process is a dead end by design.
[[ Another parallel is the Japanese constitution written by the US which made Japan forever dependent on US armed force for protection and hence forever occupied. On Okinawa, for example (which was only ‘returned’ to Japan in 1972) the Okinawans are opposed to the continued occupation of their island. 85 000 of them protested the US bases there in 1995. Later they rejected a proposal to build more bases via referendum. Guess what? The new base was approved, and the occupation goes on. Guess what? The JAPANESE government pays the US billions to keep its troops on Okinawa. Tribute? Maybe in another age - but still another dead end by design. ]]
Furthermore, the problem with non-violent resistance is that it can be suppressed by violence. I met Saleh al Mutlaq in South Africa very briefly, and he told me his chief fight in Iraq is to eradicate the sectarianist divisions which plague the country. A few days ago, his brother who was engaged in similar work, was killed by assassins unknown. Now, what does one do if best intentions are met with death?
The problems with the Iraqi armed resistance ARE big. I’m not going to lie about this. The very command structure of it is a problem, which is lateral rather than hierarchical and incidentally makes it extremely difficult to eradicate. ( I don’t know if the “kill em all” American yahoos quite realize the enormity of the problem facing them. Personally I think that most of them are simply ignorant.) This same strength means also that it is completely fragmented. In other words, it is able to agree on little other than that the invader must leave. This fragmentation means that it is also unable to exercise meaningful political pressure.
If we take the ANC from South Africa as a parallel case, it had a hierarchical command structure which was mostly based in exile, beyond the reach of the SA government. But this meant also that it could pursue a dual policy of political pressure and violence. The cadres were united in their objectives. The Iraqi resistance cannot form such a hierarchical, political front, beyond umbrella agreements on the broad aims of the movement or it risks eradication. The AMS organization is the closest thing to being a political spokesman for the Resistance and its effectiveness is disputable.
And let’s see where the ‘peaceful’ angle of the Iraqi Resistance has taken them. Some groups opened tentative negotiations with the US. The US used these negotiations as a means to “divide the insurgency”. In other words, there was no good faith, there was only opportunism.
Division in Iraqi society is the fuel that keeps the US occupation possible. Very few Iraqis want the US to stay in Iraq. But they fear each other more than the Americans. I cannot put it more simply than this for you: Iraqis need to regain their trust in each other before a peaceful solution is possible. And they will never trust each other for as long as a foreign power is there levering them apart from each other.
Truly, I wish the situation in Iraq was as clear and simple as you present it.
I have no doubt that Iraqis would do the right thing, if that were the case.
At 5:01 PM,
Annie - Actually, I reread your post and, of course, you did not answer my question. The question wasn't: "what would you do to bush and cheney" - you've made your political affiliations very clear throughout, and no one cares about that. My question is, how would you resolve the iraq crisis, both in 2003 and now (meaning, if you did think Saddam was a threat in 2003, would you have used force to remove him?) Yes, I know you said that the US should just "pull out" - but i don't see how this will lead to less violence than there already is...in fact, there will be much more.
bruno - "Another parallel is the Japanese constitution written by the US which made Japan forever dependent on US armed force for protection and hence forever occupied..." Forever? Wrong again, Bruno, the japanese can vote the US out anytime they want...and it will happen soon. The US wants out of there, and prepping Japan to reestablish its own military as a balance to china. the reality is that the japanese, german, and korean governments WANT our US bases. Every time we try to pull out, they moan about the disastrous effects it will have on their local economies. Sure, there are protests now and then by your brethren, but once the reality sinks in, people change tune.
keep with the propaganda though. you are the most transparent debater i've ever come in contact with.
krypto Actually, I reread your post and, of course, you did not answer my questions.in fact, you completely evaded them.
now you want me to answer hypotheticals.
"if" i thought sadam was a threat (to the US, no) then what ?
why don't you describe for me in what way you think sadam was a threat to the US?
i will except your view, as your opinion regardless that you will not respect mine"no one cares about that". and if you tell me, i will answer your hypothetical
" Yes, I know you said that the US should just "pull out" " could you direct me to the post (by time)that i made thias statement.
"..in fact, there will be much more."
you only get an opinion, you cannot state the future as fact.
i always aim to be transparent.
if the ideas you promote reflected reality, our tax dollars would not have to be spent on a propaganda campaign to promote them. and there would be no info warfare in the military.
i won't be answering any more of your questions unless you start answering mine.
it is natural when people are attacked and invaded illegally to want retribution. it is also natural in a civilized society for criminals to face prosecution and face the evidence of their lies and trespasses.
it is this context i think the bush and cheney should come to trial. no different than bringing sadam to trial. to bring closure, to move forward. to say my feeling are political makes no difference. no difference than calling the trial of sadam political for shiites.
it must hurt you to watch your heros fail so miserably.
At 6:44 AM,
Well, annie, now you are simply being manipulative. You say in one post that Saddam was not a threat, and then you imply that he was, and then you turn around again and ask me to prove that Saddam was a threat...so which is it? Why is it such a difficult question for you to answer? If you don't think Saddam was a threat, then SAY SO! Its very simple. If you don't think so, we can argue about it --if you do think he was a threat, then we can chalk that one up to a stipulated consensus. No sense wasting time arguing about something we both agree to, right?
And by the way, don't respond to my questions by making up a question and then going on in later posts saying that I don't answer your question, so you aren't going to answer mine. Very sloppy.
And please, enough with the red herrings and straw men arguments. Just be straightforward and say what you think...not what Bruno tells you to think, but what you think.
At 6:51 AM,
annie -
"if the ideas you promote reflected reality, our tax dollars would not have to be spent on a propaganda campaign to promote them. and there would be no info warfare in the military." What exactly are these ideas that I promote that you find so vulgar? That I want an end to the conflict? That I want democracy and peace in Iraq? That I want the suicide bombings to end?
"i won't be answering any more of your questions unless you start answering mine." ummm...you never answered any of my questions. It's okay though - I was pretty certain you weren't going to anyway. I don't think any less of you now than I ever did.
"it is natural when people are attacked and invaded illegally to want retribution. it is also natural in a civilized society for criminals to face prosecution and face the evidence of their lies and trespasses." Yes, that is why Saddam is on trial right now.
"Yes, that is why Saddam is on trial right now."
and it is also why i believe george and cheney's indictment and trial constitute one form of solution towards resolving the iraq meess, thereby proving that i did in fact respond to one of your queries about what should be done, tho only one of the aspects of my response towards a solution, not the primary response both of which you chose to ignore and make light of and chalk up as political.
your refusal to accept my oft repeated statement that i do not believe, as our intellegence suggests, and is thoroughly hashed out in press, sadam is at present or ever was, a threat to the natonal security of america while accusing me of manipulation is downright comical. it is clearly irrelevant whether or not i believe sadam was a threat to iraqis(which i have also made clear, and is frankly a nobrainer) and again your continued harping about any contradiction while at the same time refusing to either answer or entertain my queries, which answer seems to somehow qualify, in your mind the continued presents of out illegal occupation of iraq
call me anything you want, but anything less forthcoming is transparently disengenious.
i know you are not ignoring my answers, you are just to cowardly to acknowledge them because they undermined your intent.
" in what way you think sadam was a threat to the US?"
"i won't be answering any more of your questions unless you start answering mine."
"it must hurt you to watch your heros fail so miserably. "
At 4:30 PM,
Annie, first of all I apologize if I misunderstood your previous responses...maybe, if they weren't so laced with personal attacks, it would be alittle more clear what you were actually trying to communicate. Okay...so you believe Saddam was a threat to Iraqis, but not to anyone else, correct? I'm just trying to be clear here. Okay...but can you specifically explain what made him a threat to his own people? I mean, what did he do that was so threatening to his own people? Please note that I am refraining from dismissing you or attacking you because I am trying to actually discuss this matter. I hope you can show me the same respect.
Annie - Kryptonite is the master of setting up a straw argument based on what he wishes you had said. Hang around a bit, and you will see that Tolkein has nothing on this guy.
“Peace” Anonymous –
Here is a link to an organization in Iraq that I can fully support which is more in line with your mode of thinking: http://www.ifcongress.com/
They have achieved some impressive successes against the odds, and are doing exactly the sort of thing that is necessary to ensure the continued survival of Iraq as a country. TAI, I may have gotten this link from you; if not take a look. An excerpt from the founder of the movement:
The Iraqi Freedom Congress and the Civil Resistance
06 Apr 2006 - By Bill Weinberg - A secular, progressive alternative to occupation and political Islam
“ [Houzan Mahmoud] And we who are involved in these movements decided to form an organization that is more political and can attract many more people to its ranks. And we have student union that is also part of this, and other individuals and political parties that are part of Iraq Freedom Congress. And we have our own platform—we want an end to the occupation, we want an end to this ethnic and sectarian division of Iraq, and we want people to identify themselves on the basis of their humane identity, not this kind of degrading classifications such as being Sunni or Shiite or Kurd or Arab or you name it.
So therefore, I think Iraq Freedom Congress is a hope at this moment, and we are trying to mobilize people for this movement worldwide, as well as inside Iraq to create a civil movement, with a very clear vision for an egalitarian secular system inside Iraq to be established. Ending occupation is a very important aim. ” // end excerpt
All power to them.
At 8:25 AM,
" in what way you think sadam was a threat to the US?"
"i won't be answering any more of your questions unless you start answering mine."
again, no answer. i told you i would answer your question as soon as you answer mine, but you are afraid for some reason. no need to check with bruno. nice independent thinking there, annie. why do you let bruno use you like that?
bruno, please, you are a straw man whore. although, i notice your posts have become slightly more sane recently -- perhaps my posts are having their desired effect.
every answer i have provided for you , you have ignored or not acknowledged while at the same time acknowledging i did in fact answer " I apologize if I misunderstood your previous responses" yet you response to my answer was in the form of another question. ha! you 6:51 post has 4 questions!
now saying i am afraid! lol how could i be afraid of a coward. you pose hypotheticals nd ask me to respond yet i turn it around and ask you to answer your own silly hypothetical, because we all know sadam posed to threat to the US and you just can't say it!!
and now to back up your silly accusations of my alledged 'fear' you drag in another poster who i have not referwence once in my many attempts to satisfy your continued demand for me to explain notonly myself, but what has now become acknowledged facts.
not very ingenious. you won't answer any question because you are the authority! lol, you only pose questions and make ungrounded assertions
krypt, you are a straw man whore. your posts have become more insane and cowardly -- perhaps my posts are having their desired effect!! lol
lets give credit where credit is due,
its easier when borrowing
to borrow from you!
the reason is because i have no need to borrow facts, only the ease in which you insult, this is going to come in quite handily when dealing w/more of your manipulative ilk in the future.
At 5:54 PM,
Annie, if you weren't personally attacking me, would you actually have anything to write? Seriously, what is the use trying to insult me? - do you really think I care? - come on, grow up.
Again, if you want to discuss this matter in a mature and intelligent way, I am here. I would love to hear you CLARIFY your answer with some details, and then I will respond and we can go back and forth and argue and discuss like two normal humans.
Again, here we go, WHY WAS SADDAM A THREAT TO HIS OWN PEOPLE? If you would like me to clarify further, since you can't seem to read between the lines - HOW COULD SADDAM BE A THREAT TO HIS OWN PEOPLE, AND NOT TO ANYONE ELSE? There, I just gave you a taste of what my answer to your question might be...let's see if you are intelligent enough to respond.
krypt, if you can direct me to the time of the post where you originally ask me that question, and if that post proceeds my question to you, why you think sadam was a threat to the US, i will do my best to answer. this is a new question you have come up with to evade answering my question which i believe proceeded yours. i answered many of your questions prior to this last one, all of which you have ignored
coward.
"and our problems w/iraq, iran, the middle east that have gone back for years you say. why don't you explain to me what they are. 9/11? do you think the governments of these countries are going to come invade us? unfortunately citizens of the middle east are going to have to find a way to deal with their crazy fundamentalists. they are not the only country who have wacko religeous fanatics trying to control the government. i have one question for you? who do you consider the most dangerous nuclear threat in the world? in the middle east? a madman w/a nuke? kind of blows 9/11 out the window. "
these are a sample of the questions i ask you prior to this thread that you ignored, instead asking me to provide you w/ answers!!!
i am sure there are many iraqis that are much better qualified to answer your question, but you are probably alone here in answering mine.
coward
" in what way you think sadam was a threat to the US?"
what are you afraid of?
At 5:43 PM,
annie,
your arguments are truly creative and fascinating. okay, now listen, if you look back over my posts, you will see that I answered all of your questions already. however, since you refuse to provide any information that saddam was, in fact, a threat to his own people, i will attempt to respond to your statements: saddam was a threat to the united states for the same reasons that I believe he was a threat to his own people. now...please explain to me why YOU think saddam was, in fact, a threat to his own people...
""i won't be answering any more of your questions unless you start answering mine."
" saddam was a threat to the united states for the same reasons that I believe he was a threat to his own people."
really? a riddle? for me to guess? for me to answer?
cute, you answer w/a question .
"please explain to me why YOU think saddam was, in fact, a threat to his own people... "
no, you tell me " in what way you think sadam was a threat to the US?"
" if you look back over my posts, you will see that I answered all of your questions already."
no, i cannot ever find you answering any of my questions. please provide a time for the post or a quote, you have done neither
what are you afraid of?
"krypt, you are a straw man whore. your posts have become more insane and cowardly -- perhaps my posts are having their desired effect!! lol"
you are a child and no match for me because you have no basis in facts, you travel in lies and misinformation. i see right thru you, you have been
stumped by a very average middle aged housewife!
info warfare only deceives the ignorant.
At 11:01 AM,
"info warfare only deceives the ignorant." Yes, and you have been deceived.
"stumped by a very average middle aged housewife!" that's funny, i could have sword you were a 14 year old boy.
annie, you finally stated that Saddam was a threat to his own people, but not to the United States. we'll have plenty of time to talk about whether or not saddam was, in fact, a threat to the US, but first i need to know what kinds of facts you are working with before i answer your question. did saddam actually do anything to his own people? i mean, where are you getting this outrageous information about saddam being a threat to his own people? how is that possible?
"first i need to know what kinds of facts you are working with before i answer your question."
ha! no, to answer my question you only need to know the premise you are working with. your answer should be able to stand, if its true , on its own merit, regardless what i believe or not.
" in what way you think sadam was a threat to the US?"
what are you afraid of?
notice how you would rather play this game than answer my question. you won't ever answer, its against the rules of your master. you can only evade and spin. you can't even provide a past post to back up your earlier false accusations, you are a tool krypt. a powerless joke. all your bravado, you can't answer this simple "truth' you so profess! ha!
coward
At 5:38 PM,
At 6:07 PM,
kryptsies a chicken little!
" " in what way you think sadam was a threat to the US?"
"what are you afraid of?
notice how you would rather play this game than answer my question. you won't ever answer, its against the rules of your master. you can only evade and spin. you can't even provide a past post to back up your earlier false accusations, you are a tool krypt. a powerless joke. all your bravado, you can't answer this simple "truth' you so profess! ha!"
At 4:49 PM,
At 7:28 PM,
" Either way, you lose. "
either way the iraqi's lose dipshit.
"" " in what way you think sadam was a threat to the US?"
i ask you first. i also offered to answer the question if you could direct me to the post you ask me first, you can't because it never happened. i am thru answering your questions. not because i can't back up any 'claims', but the multiple answers i have provided for you were ignored or twisted. you will never answer, because you are a coward, and not allowed, not part of your reportie.
meanwhile we supported pinoche who was no better than sadam, simple because he was a willing puppet, as any fool knows we also supported sadam when we felt we could use him, it really makes no difference in any of the reasons we invaded iraq, as i'm sure you know. it is you who support the illegal occupation, not i. yet you fail miserably in justifying your assertions. words cannot make you a winner, and they don't fool me 1 iota. anyone following this can easily see, you are a coward.
and you will never be a winner.
tool
At 10:24 PM,
as you have pointed out, i haven't made any assertions. you are the one making assertions, claiming to know everything, and then not backing up your statements. i am questioning your analysis. your response is to call me a coward and make lame attempts to distract readers from the matter at issue. again, the matter at issue is not pinochet, it is saddam: how was saddam a threat? you acknowledged that saddam was a threat to his own people. Now, answer the question - i know you can do it, and its not a trick...how was saddam a threat to the iraqi people? What did he do? you made this claim, not me. now back it up...and, by the way, feel free to keep slinging childish insults at me. just answer the question when you do it.
At 2:27 AM,
"as you have pointed out, i haven't made any assertions. "
traveling in lies? you are the king of false assertions! try this one
"American "presence" in the middle east was purely for the purposes of containing the brutal DICKtator "
purely! ha!
"Saddam Hussein and his intelligence services were integral to the Arab nationalism/Anti-americanism that led to 9/11. "
and nothing the US (or israel) did could be seem as an intregal part? ha!
"blame Saddam, for leaving the Iraqi people in a state of total paranoia, mistrust, and, yes, ignorance,"
"the OVERWHELMING majority of people, on the right and the left, are misinformed about this war and the reasons for it. "
"by your definition, anyone in any military is the member of a death squad"
liar liar pants on fire.
assertions spill from your mouth like diarrhea, i could copy 10 more in 2 minutes.
"you, I guess, were not worried about Saddam ruled Iraq. There are some of us, though, who are EXTREMELY concerned about how these types of regimes could harm the good people of the United States. 7:56 (earlier thread) oh really??? how?? what, just making wild claims w/no way to back them up.
" in what way you think sadam was a threat to the US?"
"i also offered to answer the question if you could direct me to the post you ask me first, you can't because it never happened."
your questions change shape and mutate once you hear an answer you don't like. you are just settling on this 'most important' one now because i have refused to answer! you are so predictable. want to listen to yourself answering one of my questions .
me "now, why would someone w/a proven record of clandestine secret kidnappings, torture and murder be brought in to quell the problems in iraq?" (negroponte, i provided links)
you "BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE WILL DO IT" (now who's the freak?!) 5:53 PM
as long as you act like an impetuous child you can expect childish insults, but don't bother telling a free person to feel free, it is a waste of bandwidth
coward
here's some more answers you refused to answer
"and our problems w/iraq, iran, the middle east that have gone back for years you say. why don't you explain to me what they are. 9/11? do you think the governments of these countries are going to come invade us? unfortunately citizens of the middle east are going to have to find a way to deal with their crazy fundamentalists. they are not the only country who have wacko religeous fanatics trying to control the government. i have one question for you? who do you consider the most dangerous nuclear threat in the world? in the middle east? a madman w/a nuke? kind of blows 9/11 out the window. "
krypt
"now listen, if you look back over my posts, you will see that I answered all of your questions already. "
liar, liar pants on fire.
At 4:27 AM,
At 7:24 PM,
"which one is it?" i 'seem' to acknowledge? i guess to a mind that wraps its own assertions into a false sense of 'reality' you could construe almost anything! ha!
pinocchio, the threads all yours. i won't be back, you've bored me beyond all expectations.
fyi, although you are a little measly part of an elite globalization your support will never guarentee any place for you other than that of tool. no matter what cheesy tone you use, no matter the lies, bravado, or abundant clains of rightness and spin, the occupation will always be seen for what it is. no amount of spin will ever gain your respect. will never wash the blood off your hands. the iraqi people will never be stupid enough to smell a rose from filth and shit. will never lick the hand that kills its hope from an occupation that will never leave. once the country is divided up in partials (all the better to control and steal) they can look back and know who the true villian is.
now the american people are supposed to hear the new lies about the threat of iran, then syria
not so very hard to see is it? i know you can admit it to yourself , harder to acknowledge your own complicity. come on, now...i know you're almost there.
if only you weren't such a coward
At 8:44 PM,
annie, thank you for proving, once again, how classless, cynical and simple you are. In spite of your moaning, Iraqis will be just fine. Over the next few years, the insurgency will be subdued, and the meak shall inherit the beautiful country that is Iraq...and with no help from you, or zarqawi, or bin laden, or saddam. Iraq is a good country that is being reborn, and it is strong enough to sustain your negativity. What you don't understand is how small you are-- small like saddam, and zarqawi, and bin laden and the other egomaniacs of this world who seek to destroy beauty and embrace hopelessness. Fortunately, there is too much good in the world, and in Iraq, for you to ever succeed. With every day that Iraq's government holds on to power, your insurgency grows weaker and weaker, and your goal is more and more diluted and dishonest. In spite of all your bombs and killing, Iraq is still there, still standing, still strong...you cannot stop her now. she is well on her way.
At 10:28 PM,
america's premier media monitor
" the concept of military information operations, or IO, was undergoing a remarkable transformation. On October 30, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld signed a secret Pentagon directive, in the works for at least a year, known as the Information Operations Roadmap. The work of Christopher Lamb, then the Pentagon’s deputy assistant secretary of defense for resources and plans, it established IO as a“core military competency, on par with air, ground, maritime, and special operations.” Until then IO, which includes such subspecialties as military deception, psychological operations (psyops), and electronic warfare, had been considered an activity that merely supported combat operations, but it has taken on a prominent role in the war on terror. "
This mentality is summed up in an unofficial strategy paper titled “Information Warfare: An Air Force Policy for the Role of Public Affairs,” written by an Air Force major at the School of Advanced Airpower Studies in Alabama. The paper suggests that public affairs could be the “ultimate IW [information warfare] weapon” since it is “so stalwart in its claims of only speaking the truth.” It quotes an unnamed information warrior who says, “The reason I tell you the truth is so that when I lie, you will believe me.”
Information warriors often formulate what they call “truth-based” messages — information that is often vague and one-dimensional, sometimes misleading, and frequently includes statements that are subtly derogatory.
“We say what we want people to believe even if it’s not fully grounded in facts or the truth, and that is becoming a very disturbing trend in the military,” said a Pentagon public affairs officer
"Propaganda, even the kind intended for specific audiences, can turn up anywhere — on the news wires, in newspapers, on blogs or Web sites. “They’re not going to know that they were written by some information-warfare guy,” she said. In the hands of policymakers, she continued, these skewed stories can then be used for political ends — to show that the Taliban is disintegrating, say, or that Iraqis are taking the initiative to protect and rebuild their country, or that the war on terror is going better than it really is. She seemed less than hopeful that the damage could be contained. “It’s a Pandora’s box.”
"
“Disinformation campaigns,” he said in an e-mail, “will in time cause the public to doubt the veracity of our reports.” In a separate conversation, Christenson, a veteran military writer for the San Antonio Express-News , wondered, “How do you prevent Pentagon propaganda disseminated in Iraq from finding its way into stories back at home? You probably can’t, given today’s technology, and that means our government has now found a way to circumvent laws forbidding the propagandization of people in the United States — whether it intends to or not.”
At 11:11 PM,
pinocchio, thank you for proving, once again, how classless, cynical and simple you are. because of your lying, Iraqis have a huge struggle ahead. Over the next few years, the occupation will be thwarted, and the meak shall inherit the beautiful country that is Iraq...and with no help from you, the disinfo warrior, or cheney, or rumbsfeld,or their neocon allies in israel. Iraq is a good country that inspite of you and your ilk, is strong enough to sustain your negativity. What you don't understand is how small you are-- small like bush, and rice, and chabali and the other egomaniacs of this world who seek to destroy beauty and embrace global dominance. Fortunately, there is too much good in the world, and in Iraq, for you to ever succeed. With every day that the world unveils your lies, your insurgency grows weaker and weaker, and your goal is more and more diluted and dishonest. In spite of all your bombs and killing, Iraq is still there, still standing, still strong...you can never stop her now. she is holding on, despite you.
At 10:18 AM,
Yes, as we all know, America's enemies, and the enemies of democracy NEVER engage in "disinformation campaigns." How could they? Terrorists and radical socialists are a lot of things, but at least they don't "spread lies" - about America, about Israel, about their own cause. Funny how the "insurgents" weren't around to fight off Saddam...considering he was such a threat to them - right, annie?
At 5:50 PM,
ah, the joys of democracy isn't it marvelous how our constitution and bill of rights get tossed out at will by our king george!
At 7:36 PM,
At 8:23 PM,
"Though officially non-partisan, Cato is heavily linked to the Republican Party and the conservative movement in general. The large donors who fund both Cato and Republican candidates include Fed Ex founder Fred Smith, Australian-born media tycoon and Fox CEO Rupert Murdoch, tobacco-maker Phillip Morris, the John M. Olin Foundation, and Charles Koch. Cato also draws its staff largely from a Washington DC-based pool of Republican writers and lobbyists."
Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush
"Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power.In its official legal briefs and public actions, the Bush administration has advanced a view of federal power that is astonishingly broad, a view that includes
a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech—and restrict it greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a federal election;
a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror;
a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as "enemy combatants," strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror— in other words, perhaps forever; and
a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave.
President Bush's constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers. "
At 8:28 PM,
"According to a new Cato study, "Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush," President Bush has failed in his most important responsibility "to preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States. The authors of the study, legal scholars Gene Healy and Timothy Lynch, say that the administration's sweeping claims of executive power in the Padilla case would suggest that Mr. Bush believes "the liberty of every American rests on nothing more than the grace of the White House." The study details a pattern with the Bush administration of a "ceaseless push for power, unchecked by either the courts or Congress" on issues ranging from war powers, habeas corpus, and federalism to free speech and unwarranted surveillance."
At 11:54 AM,
Again, what exactly did he do? All this article says is that some other people "believe" that Bush "believes" he does not need to adhere to the constitution. what exactly has Bush said to make these people think that Bush doesn't care about the constitution, or believes in the expansion of the executive power? We are in a war and there is a natural expansion of executive power during wartime, but this does not mean that Bush is trying to establish some kind of dictatorship.
And by the way, i don't like bush and i did not vote for him. what i DO like is journalistic integrity, and objective reporting. the articles you cite are opinion pieces.
why do YOU think Bush is trying to expand executive power? because the Cato institute says so? come on...THINK.
At 9:04 PM,
"The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, accusing the White House of a ''very blatant encroachment" on congressional authority, said yesterday he will hold an oversight hearing into President Bush's assertion that he has the power to bypass more than 750 laws enacted over the past five years.
''There is some need for some oversight by Congress to assert its authority here," Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said in an interview. ''What's the point of having a statute if . . . the president can cherry-pick what he likes and what he doesn't like?"
Specter said he plans to hold the hearing in June. He said he intends to call administration officials to explain and defend the president's claims of authority, as well to invite constitutional scholars to testify on whether Bush has overstepped the boundaries of his power.
The senator emphasized that his goal is ''to bring some light on the subject." Legal scholars say that, when confronted by a president encroaching on their power, Congress's options are limited. Lawmakers can call for hearings or cut the funds of a targeted program to apply political pressure, or take the more politically charged steps of censure or impeachment."
“The reason I tell you the truth is so that when I lie, you will believe me.”
" in what way you think sadam was a threat to the US?"
"i won't be answering any more of your questions unless you start answering mine."
all the answers to your questions you can find by googling signing statements, how to override vetos,or reading the pdf file i linked to. do your own homework. "come on...THINK"
At 8:46 AM,
just because bush's political enemies say that bush is breaking the law doesn't mean that bush is breaking the law. you have to come up with your own argument. now, what does this have to do with Saddam being a threat? i get it -- bush is a chump, so that means saddam should still be in power? right?
At 11:38 AM,
answering a question w/a question? how very by the book you play. ha! are you making your handlers proud? right?
coward
"now, what does this have to do with Saddam being a threat? "
now, where did i say this had to do w/sadam being a threat? switch and bait? right?
" just because bush's political enemies say that bush is breaking the law doesn't mean that bush is breaking the law."
just because you say" i don't like bush and i did not vote for him." doesn't mean you can't defend him w/out ever providing any reason why.
tool
" in what way you think sadam was a threat to the US?"
"i won't be answering any more of your questions unless you start answering mine."
At 4:04 PM,
This is a blog about iraq, not about bush. i have no need or interest in defending bush as a president. however, by attacking bush's decision to remove him, you are implying that saddam should not have been removed. you have already stated that saddam was not a threat to the united states. however, you stated that saddam was a threat to the iraqi people. you now ask me how bush was a threat to the US, further implying that saddam should not have been removed if he was not a threat to the US. i have answered this question in several emails, yet you keep asking me to answer your question, even though you have not answered mine. how was saddam a threat to the iraqi people? Obviously, answering your question will undermine your argument that saddam should not have been removed, which is why you will not answer it.
At 6:54 PM,
At 8:35 PM,
well, at least you know how to spell "coward" and "liar". now, if we can get back to the issue at hand - how was saddam a threat to his own people? again, answering this question unravels all the propaganda you've been spitting out since we started this, so I do not, and never have expected you to answer this question. Stamp your feet, flail your arms, yell and scream like a little child. I find it extremely amusing that you've chosen to go on and on like this, making a mockery of yourself and your whole cause. I at least thought you would give up like your puppet master Bruno. Of course, we can keep doing this, as I love throwing it in your face, over and over again, that you are 1) too stupid; 2) too childish; 3) too stubborn; 4) too hateful - to answer my question, which, by golly, just HAPPENS to be the SAME answer to the question you posed to me. Sorry you haven't been able to figure out this little game...guess who won?
At 8:37 PM,
At 1:41 AM,
" Stamp your feet, flail your arms, yell and scream like a little child"
seriously, you crack me up. you see, i have no 'handlers' unlike you, who are not allowed let someone else have the last word.
if you don't want to hear from me, don't respond. period. fyi, it is you who lavishly use capitol lettrs to insinuate screams. nothing you have said has driven me crazy, you are just a tool,
and a coward.
quite a while ago , more than once i offered to answer you question if you could provide me with the post and time you ask me first. you cannot, because it never happened. there is a reason you cannot tell me why sadam was a threat the the US, we both know what that reason is.
don't we.
you don't want to hear from me?
shut up
At 7:37 AM,
yes, you're right, my child...i don't want to hear from you - that's why I put up with your nonsense and keep asking you. and, please, please, please stop copying me. come up with your own witty remarks instead of using mine or i'll sue you for plagiarism. the words coward, liar, tool, and "shut up" are getting a little bit boring, don't you think? wouldn't you rather engage in an actual conversation than slinging mud? but again, as i said, i love it because it makes people like you and bruno and the other terrorists and terrorist sympathisers look as insane as you are.
At 7:42 AM,
At 1:42 PM,
" come up with your own witty remarks instead of using mine "
wit? only someone w/a radical ego problem could consider anything you write witty!
"please, please, please stop copying me. "
why? you find it "a little bit boring, don't you think?"
"slinging mud?" wassamadda? can dish it out but can't take it?
actually, i am truely interested in why you think sadam was a threat to the US.
aside from that, i am here only in an exercise to educate myself into the workings of pyscops and info warfare. i have already figured out many aspects of the way you operate, spelled out quite clearly in the link to mind games i provided.
given that it is against the rules for you to let anyone else, an adversary that is, have the last word i have a seemingly endless opportunity here to watch the MO first hand. frankly, you are a bore, and i understand your twisting the facts, eveasion, and lying are not really a part of who you are, just a role you are playing, you need to accept that when i call you a coward and a liar, i am referring to the role, just as i realize your many insults , claims and evasions are simply you following the rules.
sometimes i wonder how many of you there are out there playing this krypto part. anyway, i've told you how to get rid of me, i don't need to repeat it.
if you want any serious discussion w/me you can either respond to one of the many links i have provided(oh right you did, just slaming the source w/out consideration it could be based on fact) or answer this simple question , or provide the link where you answered it. otherwise, until the handlers cut me off, you will have to just continue on, in your boring, repetitive way, and eat all the shit i dole out to you.
what's the big deal, its your job! apparently you have yet to 'win'
At 4:08 PM,
"wassamadda? can dish it out but can't take it?" ROFLOL. that's a good one.
yep, all of us "Removing Saddam Was Good" people are "psycops" out to get you. You are an oppressed American being targeted by bush's evil autocratic rule. maybe you should move to iran, where people are truly free! Again, feel free to answer my question, and therein lies the answer to yours.
At 7:50 PM,
" You are an oppressed American being targeted by bush's evil autocratic rule.
maybe you should move to iran, where people are truly free!
Removing Saddam Was Good" people are "psycops" out to get you
Bush will be sending over his SS guards to take you away and put you in a gas chamber. keep a look out - since we all know bush is a dictator, this is going to happen.
the other terrorists and terrorist sympathisers look as insane as you are
Bush's secret service will come knocking at your door and haul you away, just like all the other dictators. "
my my, what a vivid imagination you have, this is a side of you i'm sure i have yet to fully appreciate, please enllghten me more w/your fantasies!
are there rooms in your house and partners you play games with? you know , w/whips and all.
or is this just a natural progression from dungeons and dragons.
little boys and their imaginations, never cease to amaze me, at least it's not boring. do tell me more about myself and all the things the dictators will do.
At 9:33 PM,
Ahhh...so now Bush is not a dictator. You seem to have a very difficult time making up your mind. In one post, you say Saddam is a threat, then you say no, then you say yes again. Now, with Bush, in one post you say he's a dictator, and now he's not. You are many things, but always inconsistent. That's what I love about you guys. No moral compass.
At 9:50 PM,
Bush is not a dictator?
by all means provide me with the one of my own quotes, that establishes this opinion you ensue from my comments.
oh, wait, not in the book, you're not allowed
quote me, i dare you
1a. An absolute ruler
tool
At 8:05 AM,
Again, switching...now Bush is a dictator. I don't care one way or the other, but you've make it more or less impossible to actually discuss these matters if you can conveniently switch your position anytime you feel like it. People like you ensure the war will continue. Nice articles, by the way - but do you have any thoughts of your own? Can you try to write a post without plagiarizing?
At 8:53 AM,
"now Bush is a dictator"
by all means provide me with the one of my own quotes, that establishes this opinion you ensue from my comments.
"do you have any thoughts of your own?"
lets all pretend that you don't have even one quote to back up your assertions about what i think or not and choose to highlight those false assertions by establishing that i an 'switching'
you are so transparent its almost amusing.
sqirming yet, you failure
put your money where your mouth is bigshot.
"do you have any thoughts of your own?"
like why sadam was a threat to the US?
i won't be answering any of your questions until you answer one of mine.
ps, feel free to construe any opinion you want from things i never said, it doesn't bother me in the least.
your a tool, your job is to entrap, to corner, you are failing miserably.
you will have to use my words to prove your point. i offered you a challenge in the last email. i'm sure you would have taken up the challenge of proving your point if you could have. but you can't.
plus, you think you are slippery by making no assertions of your own (other than what you claim i'm thinking) but rather making these wild extreme snarkie comments, whether you believe true or not delivered in such a way as to render them useless in any rational discussion.
i'm sure this MO works perfectly well on idiots, the uneducated, the weak, but anyone w/any brains can easily manuver thru any of these pathetic little traps, don't you have any proffesional you can sic on me?
really, lets play ball. i promise you i will make an assertion that you will be able to quote to prove you know something of what i think , but only after you answer my question.
you know what it is, come on big boy, spill your guts. or conceed you are a failure. (well, not you, just your little handbook)
At 1:24 PM,
You are obviously hurt because I disagree with you - sorry, you don't know everything. Unfortunately, since you refuse to back up your assertion that Saddam was a threat to his own people, I will refuse to back up my assertions. I know, I know, I'm a tool, a coward, a liar...don't you have any new words? God, who says tool anymore? Aren't we a little too old to be using such a word? You sound like a drunk fratboy. Anyway, feel free to backup your assertion that Saddam was a threat to his own people and we can continue the discussion. Until that time, I am perfectly happy to watch you make an idiot of yourself by continuously contradicting yourself, and posting, over and over, how I'm a coward and a liar AND a "tool". I love it.
At 3:11 PM,
bait and switcher:"(meaning, if you did think Saddam was a threat in 2003, would you have used force to remove him?)
5:01 PM "
"annie said...
krypto Actually, I reread your post and, of course, you did not answer my questions.in fact, you completely evaded them.
now you want me to answer hypotheticals.
"if" i thought sadam was a threat (to the US, no) then what ?
why don't you describe for me in what way you think sadam was a threat to the US?
i will except your view, as your opinion regardless that you will not respect mine"no one cares about that". and if you tell me, i will answer your hypothetical
i won't be answering any more of your questions unless you start answering mine. "
1:26 AM
a simple review of the thread above demonstrates i ask you first! if you can provide evidence of you asking me (why was sadam a threat to iraqi's), say from the last post, or anywhere prior to me telling you i wouldn't answer anymore of your questions until you answered one of mine, i will answer, but alas, you can't.
not hurt in the least btw, actually it's kind of satisfying watching you squirm by not being able to prove your point. you can't even provide proof i of my alleged 'assertion', which btw, is irrelevant.
here, go ahead and listen to yourself ignoring one of my answers you didn't like, asking me another, and then never a comment (other than, i didn't ask you if bush and cheney were...) asking me yet another, me enthusiastically answering and you, once again, never acknowledging my answer.
b&s (that's kinda cool, i'll just call you bs since liar has gotten on your nerves, or was it tool, or both, anyway...) bs says"all you want to do is moan and complain and judge. Come up with a SOLUTION! "
me, a solution. absolutely. first off, i do not feel i , or any american has any right to determine a solution for iraqis. but i do think an excellent solution for the united states is to listen to our long term military leaders,take their advice, get rid of the jerk rumsfeld, and get some new fresh blood in command.i also think we should censor then impeach bush. send him to the hague for crimes against humanity, and make available our very very best middle eastern foriegn policy experts to the iraqi people to assist them, if our assistence is requested by an overwhelming majority, in every way we know how to formulate a government that most benifits the iraqi people.
don't cry, chin up, all you have to do, is prove it, oh yeah, you can't, puts a smile on my face whiny pants
oh yeah, you may find this kinda fun, after hookergate we now have ta da, mr deathsquad himself's favorite military guy taking over at the cia!!! nothing like getting all your ducks lined up. so, rummy vs negrop, hmm wonder how he feels about that?
oh, you don't have to answer that, besides i already know the answer.
sometimes you have to look on the sunnyside, like today for example, we can rejoice some military contractor will make money replacing the helicopter shot down w/10 of our guys in it. get your war on dude!
oh, i enjoy your creativity w/the insults, especially calling me a terrorist, very... creative
At 12:32 AM,
Still avoiding the question - it is too hard. It's okay, though, as I would totally lose respect for you if you actually answered the question now - I mean, after going on and on about how you refuse to answer it. Maybe we can break a record, though. Of course, every time you refuse to answer, I win, so its great - one more time, how was saddam a threat to his own people?
At 7:43 AM,
by the way, i did not call you a terrorist, i said you support terrorism. i know you are probably too lazy to ever put money where your mouth is and actually do harm to Americans and people who work for the US government, but morally and rhetorically, you condone terrorism because in your mind they are "freedom fighters."
At 10:43 AM,
oh, i have never refused to answer your question, in fact i will volunteer again, i will definitely answer, after you answer mine, because i ask you first!
" by the way, i did not call you a terrorist, i said you support terrorism."
" i love it because it makes people like you and bruno and the other terrorists and terrorist sympathisers look as insane as you are. "
yawn
other than who? other than me and bruno? sounds to me like you called us terrorists. oh well splitting hairs. now if you had said .. "it makes people like you and bruno and the other terrorist sympathizers"
or say, it makes you and bruno and terrorists and the other terrorist sympathi.... ah, irrelevant
btw, a turd, by any other name, will always smell like shit, but i got a little chuckle out of your new bs title!
"you condone terrorism because in your mind they are "freedom fighters." !!!!
easier for you to spew about who you imagine me to be than say anything about your own views you can actually back up, huh?
la di da, from the earlier mind games link
"A longtime Defense Department consultant who has taught strategy at three of the military’s top war colleges, Gardiner had participated throughout the 1990s in a series of war games that simulated attacks on Iraq. He was familiar with Iraq’s military and was therefore surprised to hear officials, such as the Army Brigadier General Vincent Brooks, the deputy director of operations of Central Command’s headquarters in Qatar, tell the press of ongoing operations to eliminate “terrorist death squads.” The allegation struck Gardiner as odd. Matter-of-fact and precise in their speech, military officers would not typically refer to irregulars as “death squads.” More important, as far as Gardiner knew, in 2003, when the invasion began, Iraq had no “terrorist death squads.”
Gardiner believes that this formulation, which first entered the official vernacular a week after the invasion began, was a skillful execution of a classic propaganda technique known as the “excluded middle.” The excluded middle is premised on the idea that people, provided with incomplete but suggestive information, will draw false assumptions — in this case that Saddam Hussein had ties to terrorism and therefore to Al Qaeda (a connection that administration officials actively pushed during the run-up to the war)
you know, it's sad for a number of reasons that so much of our precious resources(blood and treasures) that could have actually been used towards a positive end towards combating evil in the world, instead of propagating it, have been used for this stupid lying campaign of false information. unfortunate because like the boy who cried wolf, the villagers all know you can know longer be trusted w/intergrity. very very sad indeed that what was once an incredible nation could fail so miserably in it's foriegn policy.
oh well, my tax dollar at work, paying you to sit there and be bored. you, dangling from a string, unable to let go (not it the book) stuck w/this thread you simply cannot shake me, well, to your relief i will be going on holiday in the next couple weeks, when i'm gone you can hurdle massive insults at me (what courage!) like you did last time i said good bye, but i promise you, when i come home, i will come back, and you will be forced to either
A) let me have the last word or
B) come back to continue this little game of you lying( going on and on about how you refuse to answer it) and me holding firm that after answering numerous of you bait and switch answers i will no longer carry on this charade until you choke up the pathetic justification for sadam alledged 'threat' to our nation. so absurd it would be hystericly funny if it weren't for the situation.
but, i'm not taking off just yet, so flail away, better yet grab a shovel, and dig that hole of denial even bigger!
At 10:46 PM,
same old boring story...no answer to my question...too bad. I have an idea, I'll try to answer my question for you, and then you can either agree or disagree. We will start with this one factor, that made saddam a threat to his own people.
First, let us address Saddam's psychology. Would you characterize him as:
a) a sociopath
b) a tyrannical despot
c) completely insane
d) a, b, and c
e) basically, a good guy, though misunderstood
If you answered a, b, c, or d, then congratulations, you are not as stupid as you sound.
At 9:33 AM,
dude , i have no interst in your questions, but i know you do. talk all you want on it, i won't be engaging you unless you address the topics i initiated, i already told you what i think of this crap you love fixating on, its all over the friggin media, all the time since before the war, what a no brainer. drumming up anti sadam news was the whole focus of rendon, true or not, just a drumbeat. its irrelevant. totally irrelevant. what is relevant is how anyboby ever thought sadam was a threat to the US.obviously the powers at be didn't think he was or they would nt have had to make up false assertions to lie us into a war, obviously they would not have had to pay chabali a fortune of our tax dollars every months to drum up fabricater stuff, they wouldn't have ignored our own itellegents, they wouldn't have to get rid of goss who won't tow the line on iran, negroponte and the cheney junta want to invade iran, and they want to blow over bad news of iraq because its irrelevant, were onto ou next fabricated theat. so i'm not even going to read you 1thru4's or consider them. but you keep slugging away, you never know you might catch a fly.
hows the site panning out for you? doesn't look like yu got many takers. maybe everybody and their brother has figured out you are the boy crying wolf.
" covert perception managers using our taxpayer money to start wars. ... the product of a clandestine operation -- part espionage, part PR campaign -- that had been set up and funded by the CIA and the Pentagon for the express purpose of selling the world a war. ... it was hired by the CIA to help "create the conditions for the removal of Hussein from power." Working under this extraordinary transfer of secret authority, Rendon assembled a group of anti-Saddam militants, personally gave them their name -- the Iraqi National Congress -- and served as their media guru and "senior adviser" as they set out to engineer an uprising against Saddam. ... "
sound familiar
bla bla why write about reality when you can spin?
looser
At 12:59 PM,
darn, I really thought you would have had the cajones to answer the question. oh well...i tried to help. as for your assertion that "anti-saddam news is irrelevant" i wholeheartedly disagree. That's the whole point. If Saddam was a legitimate, peace loving democratic, we would not be in the current predicament. Saddam's conduct has everything to do with where we are now.
At 2:35 PM,
" darn, I really thought you would have had the cajones to answer the question."
speaking of cajones, i noticed you once again ignored the question i posed to you first, what no balls? or is that you just don't want to face the music, la di da iraq is going swimmingly.
lets all rejoice around the campfire.
If bush and the neocons were legitimate, peace loving or democratic, we would not be in the current predicament. there conduct has everything to do with where we are now.
hey just wondering, why aren't you over there 'protecting' america if you believe your own bs. gutless, a coward, a hypocrite, or all three?
i got more balls in earlobe than you could ever dream of having.
At 5:05 PM,
"why aren't you over there 'protecting' america if you believe your own bs. gutless, a coward, a hypocrite, or all three?"
you have no idea where i am or what i am doing to protect your right to insult me.
hmmm, you seem hell bent on discussing the bush administration, which suggests to me your bias in discussing how best to address Iraq (or any other "problem" country). If anything the Bush administration does is tainted, as you appear to be suggesting, then there is no point in discussing any of these matters, as your presumptions are determining the outcome of the argument, rather than logical deductions. Therefore, you have no credibility in discussing any of these matters, as your goal is not resolution in Iraq, but attacking the current administration. as far as iraqis are concerned, you are a waste of time.
not sure why it is so difficult for you to separate the two issues, which, as you acknowledge, are different - my sole argument is that it was correct to remove Saddam from power, for many reasons, including his threat to the Iraqi people (as you acknowledge), in addition to his "threat" to other countries, and the world. Now, it appears you want to narrow the discussion to a single issue about whether or not Saddam was a threat to the United States, that Bush lied about the threat, or some other nonsense that is only marginally related to whether military force should have been used to remove Saddam from power. You suggest that he was not a threat to the United States, but ONLY a threat to the Iraqi people. This is incorrect. Saddam threatened Kurds and Shiites, and also Iranians, Kuwaitis, Israelis, and Saudis, not to mention the United States. More than just being a threat to his own people and the people of the United States, Saddam was a threat to the world, and it was reasonable to seek his forced removal. However, it is still impossible for me to discuss these matters with you until you present me with your understanding of the threat Saddam posed to his own people, as this would go far in providing me with an appropriate response to your own concerns, about whether or not Saddam was a threat to the United States.
At 12:27 AM,
if you think sadam was a threat to the US it should not be an issue for you to say why, regardless of where i'm coming from, but you refuse to do so. you don't see me excusing myself by saying i cannot tell you my opinion until i know where you're coming from because my opinion will be based on your notion of whta reality is. you're almost there, come on, just tell me why you think he was a threat to the US. i answered numerous questions for you, it got us no where, you dismissed them w/more questions and debunked them as just opinion, or belief.
i copied your stupid paragraph not because i am bent on focussing on bush, more to show you that your claims are interchangable when discussiong tyrants. most iraqi's want us out of their country, i'm afraid it may be you who's a waste of time. fyi you are not protecting me, you are making my world unsafe, and not just for me, you are your kind are a danger to the world.
re credibility, the feeling is mutual.
Now, it appears you want to narrow the discussion to a single issue about whether or not Saddam was a threat to the United States,
it appears? ya think? i have no interst in narrowing the very non discussion. i just don't want to continue a discussion where it is you who decide what we discuss. i ask you a perfectly resonable question, which you have refused to answer. it is you who have limited this dialogue, you seem to think you can engage and direct this conversation, and you can't. i will not budge. it is clear this is a real difficult topic for you, you will talk all around it yet simply cannot answer, so be it. you are unable to produce a shred of evidence of answering any of my questions while i have answered plenty of your. the buck stops here. answer or give up.
you have no idea where i am or what i am doing to protect your right to insult me.
and of that i am certain.
"my sole argument is that it was correct to remove Saddam from power, for many reasons, including his threat to the Iraqi people (as you acknowledge), in addition to his "threat" to other countries, and the world"
hmm, if that is your sole argument why don't you make iit a little simpler, and just explain why he was a threat to the united states?
bush got authorization from congress to enforce regime change and remove sadam why?
oh yeah, it didn't happen like that did it. and you call this protecting our freedoms, w/all those signing statements. i don't think you are in the majority here, our constitution is threatened and here we are imposing this 'democracy ' in iraq.
i'm not a fool. answer the question, you don't need any information from me bigshot, spill the beans or at least have the courage to admit sadam was not a threat to us. btw, if he was so much of a threat why did we sell him weapons, nerve gas, etc.
At 9:18 AM,
"i'm not a fool. answer the question, you don't need any information from me bigshot, spill the beans or at least have the courage to admit sadam was not a threat to us. btw, if he was so much of a threat why did we sell him weapons, nerve gas, etc." You've told me over and over again that I said Saddam was a threat to the US. If I've already admitted this, why do you want me to "admit" this again? Now, are you alleging that the knowingly sold US manufactured nerve gas to Iraq - was this before or after the first persian gulf war? timing really matters when discussing the threats to the US that saddam posed. now, as i have said numerous times, you must answer my question first to continue this discussion - how was saddam a threat to the iraqi people? "answer or give up"
At 12:02 AM,
you must answer my question first to continue this discussion
well,actually it is you who has to continue the discussion, i can leave whenever i want, because i am not a tool. you on the otherhand are forbidden by your masters from leaving this site, regardless of what i say! ha! ha!
i've got your number mr oh so transparent infor so scary warfare, pseudo 'psyco ops'
You left me speechless. You've summerized almost everything happened since the occupation started until this moment. I can't wait to read the second part. feeeeh