In his first face-and-voice video tape aired a couple of weeks ago, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi vowed to announce an Islamic Emirate, or state, in Iraq within three months. People weren’t surprised by what he said, but also didn’t take it seriously. No one should!
I didn’t know what he meant by “Islamic Emirate.” What are we now? The country is full of believers. The majority of Iraqis believe in one God and his prophets. I didn’t get what the term “Islamic” refers to here. But not anymore, I got it.
A few days ago, neighbors of mine told me that pamphlets were distributed in the neighborhood pointing out several orders that the residents should follow if they wanted to live. The neighborhood woke up one day to see these papers thrown in the streets, no one handed them and they weren’t signed by any organization. They were just orders written in papers and asking people to follow. I didn’t see the papers yet, but I asked some people to find me some of them.
- Women should not walk in the street without a head scarf.
- Women shouldn’t drive cars or use a cell phones in the street.
- Men shouldn’t wear shorts or grow a goatee.
These were some of the orders in the papers. People weren’t shocked. A neighbor told me that “I wasn’t surprised. Zarqawi said he would announce an Islamic state in the country, and there he is preparing to do so.”
“I don’t know what to do,” a female relative of mine said. “I drive my grand children to school. I cannot stop that.”
I was thinking: is this Islam? Is this what Zarqawi meant by an “Islamic Emirate?” Oppressing people and prevent them from using technology? Or prevent them from wearing shorts in Iraq and during June, July, and August? The three months in which God rehearses hell on earth?
Let us think about these orders again and try to explain them on the background that Zarqawi aims to establish and Islamic state in Iraq using them:
- Women shouldn’t walk in the street without a head scarf: Ok, given that Zarqawi said “Islamic Emirate” and given that this is the case in the Islamic countries, like Iran and Saudi Arabia, all what I can get from this is that Islam is the first dictatorship in the world and is imposed by God. If this is true, why are we asking our government to be democratic and give us freedom when God is a dictator?
- Women shouldn’t drive cars or use cell phones in the street: That means Islam doesn’t like technology and doesn’t allow people to grow wise or improve their knowledge and try to add to the world. And that is not true. When I grew up, I learned that all religions, including Islam, encouraged people to learn and invent and make use of the brain God gave them. What if a woman got a call from her daughter, who had a car accident? The woman shouldn’t answer if the call came while she is walking in the street? And then we lose the girl? If she does answer, she will be shot. Then we lose the girl and her mother? That’s just none sense. Also, if women cannot use technology in public, which I don’t understand why and if they tell me God said so, I will announce myself independent of their God. So, if a woman cannot use it in public, why could Sajida al-Reeshawi, the woman who tried to detonate herself in a hotel in Amman-Jordan, why could she use technology? Explosives are technology.
- Men shouldn’t wear shorts or grow a goatee: Why? According to history books and fairytales, the Muslim fighters wore skirts! Why cannot I wear shorts if Zarqwai’s grandfathers wore skirts? And why cannot I grow a goatee? Also according to books and movies, old Muslims are always pictured with braids. Why cannot I grow a goatee if Zarqawi’s grandfathers were imitating women?
When his video tape was aired, Iraqi and American politicians went on TV to “wisely and logically” analyze Zarqawi’s personality and strength. I heard the most stupid analysis once. “It is clear that Zarqawi is not an expert in weapons because he was shown looking for the trigger. Neither his henchmen are, because one of them grabbed the rifle from the top, while it was still hot after shooting.” What a silly thing to say! If what they said was true, thank God Zarqawi and his group are mot experts in weapons because what could they do more if they were?! A weapon-ignorant and his group failed the Iraq and American plans in Iraq for three years, what would they do if they were experts. This “unqualified” terrorist paraded with his henchmen in the open desert for at least 30 minutes to film that video, while the smart American spy planes were hovering above but couldn’t find them. This “unqualified” man is ruling at least 50% of Iraq. I am really happy that he is not qualified enough. Otherwise, we would be living in an instable country!
The country is going down. It definitely is. I have no problem with confessing this truth, but what kills me, and Baghdad Treasure, is what the Iraqi TV station shows. Iraqiya is the only state-owned TV station in Iraq and the only ass-kisser of the government among the TV channels. The other day, BT and I were talking and he said that there is a song always aired on Iraqiya, the song says “Don’t be sad for what happened and is happening. You, Iraq, are still fine.” !!!!
At 5:51 AM, 
Um Haleema
How about you make a flyer of your own? This flyer can declare war on those who want Iraq to be this "Islamic Emirate". How many people will go along with Zarqawi out of fear? When they see these flyers they could see that they are not alone. Start an underground force of neighborhood watches and turn these people in. Let them know that they are not welcome and that you are not afraid of them but it is they who should fear you and your force.
At 6:07 AM, Treasure of Baghdad
Um Haleema,
Is it really that easy? If so, we would have done this from the first day people found Zarqawi’s leaflets. The question is: do you trust people around you? Hahaha, of course, not. The problem is no one trusts a stranger, a neighbor, a policeman, a friend, and sometimes a relative anymore. I cannot even tell my neighbors about that. It’ll take the criminals few hours to reach me and kill me and my entire family. No one trusts anyone anymore anywhere in Iraq.
At 9:16 AM, 
What happens in Iraq is ultimately up to Iraqis. I know it is difficult but you guys have choices to make: do nothing because you are unable to and lament about how bad it is or find ways to fight these criminals. I am not in Iraq and I can't understand how it actually is there but I do know you have to stand up for what you want in some fashion. Perhaps an unsigned letter to a local paper or contact with the mnf in your area to work out a contact system when trouble is brewing. How badly do you all want your freedom?
At 10:03 AM,
I sure hope there are enough people like you and BT that eventually you can defeat these Islamists. How strange that these people think that one can return the Islamic world to glory by turning back the clock 1400 years.
The MNF will eventually leave and then the terrorists will have to come up with another excuse to murder (which they always seem to do). They will likely claim that they have to keep blowing up children and shooting school teachers to ensure proper Islamic government in Iraq. It will be a showdown between those who want to live in the modern world and those who want to live in the past. I sure hope you and the rest of the good-guys win.
At 12:17 PM, Truth About Iraqis
"What happens in Iraq is ultimately up to Iraqis."
Ah, the bliss of naivete.
Let's see, can Iraqis really run their own country?
To answer that I will repeat what this blog and BT's and Mine and Fayrouz's and Moslawi and maybe 60 or 70 other bloggers have been saying.
1. There are roughly 150,000 US soldiers in Iraq give or take a few thousand.
2. There are roughly 20,000 "declared" foreign security contractors who do the work of the US military.
3. Iranian operatives stream across the border and only lately has US media reported this intrusion, with US military personnel apprehending dozens.
4. Agents of Saudi Arabia, the largest provacteur in the region, have been streaming into Iraq since before the war.
5. The Turkish military is very active in the north of Iraq.
So, how could this situation be up to the Iraqis?
How badly do we want our freedom?
You know, what always strikes me as rather peculiar is how people say in Wichita, Kansas can dictate what people say in Mozambique should or should not do.
Let us assume BT and 24 Steps walked down the street calling for peace or unity or some other ideal which is a beggar's dream in Iraq right now.
I think they would be shot, drilled, kidnapped, beheaded or a plethora of other entertaining options.
Let us say a letter was sent to a member of parliament or something like that.
Do you really believe that the people in parliament care?
They have their marching orders, some dance to American tunes, some dance to Persian flutes while others have the Saudis/Jordanians/Syrians to beat the tablah for them.
What Iraqis have since the summer of 2003 said to the American occupiers is that the formation of the IGC was a recipe for disaster.
The leaders in Iraq now are all injected venom, they are not of the people, for the people and by the people.
More than half of them would board planes and rejoin their families in Washington, London or Sydney, where they hold much property and their children are waited on hand and foot in the finest schools.
Stop telling us to stand up for ourselves when we are too busy burying our dead.
At 9:34 PM,
"What Iraqis have since the summer of 2003 said to the American occupiers is that the formation of the IGC was a recipe for disaster.
"
Well ... its been 3 years and 3
elections since the IGC so why do you insist going back to something
which was over within a year ...
Put the Blame where it belongs ...
Sistani and others have failed
to unify the various Shia militias
and use them to complement and enhance the Iraqi police and Army and COOPERATE FULLY with the US and Brits ..
THATS WHAT I AM WAITING FOR ...
schoolteachers shot dead on minibuses Mosques/Hospitals/Marketplaces
bombed and still NO UNITY
with US forces from the Shia Militias ... the majority of which will obey Sistani ....
The US never dreamed that the Shia
majority would splinter and hinder
our efforts ... US forces should
have been welcomed in Sadr city
and they were not.
The simple fact there is only one
armed faction in Iraq that does NOT want civil war and thats
the coalition forces ....
Moderate Iraqi and US forces
are stuck between
extremists on both sides
Sistani should address the United Nations in public ...
express HORROR at the lack of concern for Iraqi lives by the Syrians/Iranians/Saudis Kuwaiti
he should shun the Arab nations and Iran and speak of and demand
Iraqi unity with the Coalition forces ... This insanity of not cooperating fully with coalition
while Zarqawi and Saddamites
continue to massacre innocents
is mind boggling
At 2:43 AM, Aunt Najma
Today my cousin called from Baghdad to tell us she wore hijab. She's always wanted to, she needed a push though, and we were all afraid to give her that push.. I didn't want her to do it fast, I wanted her to believe in it first.
It really made me sad to know that she wore it because she had to.
Let's just wish the next step is not abayas, or Iraqi men should really hurry up and find wives!!
Hi All,
First off - I am an American living in America. So you are correct that I do not know the specifics of what is happening in your country. Our media does not want to publish anything other than what damage the latest IED did - and how many people were killed.
With that in mind, I want to thank you for blogging and for helping me to fill in my knowledge. It seems to me that even though it looks like Iraq has a long way to go to become stable, small baby-steps are being taken. That is good - any progress is good.
I know that Iraq holds a very important position in the history of the World, and I shudder to think that some of that is being destroyed. I look forward though to the day when people like me can openly visit your country and marvel at the history and wonders there.
The best I can do to help - and it is not much I admit - is to encourage you to stay the course, to continue to speak up for yourselves, to use the help provided and then to make Iraq a great country again. Believe it or not, most of America stands behind you. We will not leave as long as you want us to stay, but will if you ask us to....
Good Luck. Stay strong. Keep blogging because it is one of the best ways for true information to get out.
Specter
24 Steps, this post is tragic, and what is even worse is what is being said in the comments:
[Baghdad Treasure] “The question is: do you trust people around you? Hahaha, of course, not. The problem is no one trusts a stranger, a neighbor, a policeman, a friend, and sometimes a relative anymore. I cannot even tell my neighbors about that.”
It really looks as if you have hit rock bottom if you are not able to trust your own neighbours and family. Is this really the case, or is BT exaggerating a teeny bit? (Even though I suspect in my heart of hearts he is not) To me the only solution out of this mess would be to forge stronger ties with your friends and family and neighbours. To band together so that you can feel that at least at home you are safe on either side. I mean, the hell that you are going through - your neighbours are going through as well. Perhaps I, like Um Haleema, am naïve enough to believe that this could work.
What about the people that beat off the Interior Ministry goons a couple of weeks back? Do you know who they are? Can they not be trusted?
The whole “Zarqawi” thing is just so much BS. There are people on every side invoking his name like the bogey man in order to scare the Iraqis into doing what they want. If you look at the Americans, for example, they are getting smashed every which way right now (supposedly by “Zarqawi”) but yet they claim to have documents from his organisation which shows he only has 100 men in the whole of Baghdad! A war cannot be run on 100 men. So either the violence is nearly over or their statement is a lie. OR, of course, it could be that the whole Zarqawi story is just BS.
The only way out is to band with the people you know and the people you live with. If that is now impossible, then I fear deeply for your future.
This needs to be repeated:
[TAI] “What Iraqis have since the summer of 2003 said to the American occupiers is that the formation of the IGC was a recipe for disaster. The leaders in Iraq now are all injected venom, they are not of the people, for the people and by the people.”
Exactly. The solution cannot be imposed from the top, it must rise up from the bottom, from the common Iraqis who have Iraq in the #1 place in their hearts … and NOT from those who have been paid by the US to act as the new puppets.
[anonymous] “Put the Blame where it belongs ...Sistani and others have failed”
Another moron. I’d also be anonymous if I spouted such rubbish.
[anonymous] “This insanity of not cooperating fully with coalition while Zarqawi and Saddamites continue to massacre innocents is mind boggling”
I see.
So are the “Sunnis paying a price” for their anti-American sentiments yet?
That is, after all, what the script of the US-imported “El Salvador Option” calls for. Or more specifically:
The “Salvador option” For Iraq
By Bill Van Auken - 14 January 2005 - WSW
A US military official, who agreed with this assessment, told Newsweek: “The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists. From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation.”
As the occupation authorities see it, those who choose to collaborate with them are paying a very heavy and visible price in the form of assassination of political leaders, bombings of police stations and wholesale killing of militiamen. The purpose of the plan is to exact a similar price from those who oppose the occupation.
This would be the key objective of the so-called Salvador option. “ //end extract
Create enough fear and terror in the population and they will welcome anybody who can deliver them from it.
Is that it?
As I have said time and time before, the day Iraqis can start trusting each other again and look at each other in the eye without fear is the day the Occupation and all its attendant woes are a bad memory. All this radical sectarian bullshit was encouraged and aided by the foreigners, and it is only they who profit by it.
[specter] "We will not leave as long as you want us to stay, but will if you ask us to...."
PIPA Poll 2006 -
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa
/pdf/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_rpt.pdf
“Do you approve of attacks on the US-led forces in Iraq?”
Yes: Kurds: 16% Shia: 41% Sunni: 88% Overall: 47%
“Do you approve of the Government endorsing a timeline for US withdrawal? ”
Yes: Kurds: 64% Shia: 90% Sunni: 94% Overall : 87%
Respondents were asked what would happen in a variety of areas if US-led forces were to withdraw from Iraq in the next six months. Majorities of Iraqis express confidence that in many dimensions related to security, things would improve. Sixty-seven percent say that “day to day security for ordinary Iraqis” would increase, a consensus position among all ethnic groups—83% of Sunnis, 61% of Shia and 57% of Kurds.
[…]
Interestingly, there is a fair amount of consensus that if US-led troops were to withdraw, there would be substantial improvement in the performance of the Iraqi state. Overall, 73% think there will be an increase in the willingness of factions to cooperate in Parliament, including majorities of Kurds (62%), Sunnis (87%) and Shia (68%).
// end excerpt
Now you need to ask yourself, with numbers like these, why the Iraqi government hasn't told the US to get the hell out.
At 3:06 PM, Lynnette in Minnesota
Honestly, Bruno. I see you've been over here spamming poor 24 again.
He is an adult who can read and I am sure has access to numerous venues for informing himself of different views. I think he can probably judge without your "helping" him to understand.
"... why the Iraqi government hasn't told the US to get the hell out."
Maybe because they have a better understanding of Iraq than you do.
At 7:14 PM, Truth About Iraqis
Sorry, Lynnette had you read this blog and Baghdad Treasure's and not ignored the truth that gnaws at your bones you would have understood that the people in the Iraqi government were brought into power by the US military, for the US military.
The current so-called theater of tragedy that is the government realizes that if the US military were to withdraw both the resistance and the Shia militia would tear it apart.
Therein lies the nomenclature of Mama Amrika. Had you been in the Middle East you would have understood this satirical rendering of how many Arab governments grovel before the US for protection from their own people.
You don't really expect the new so-called Iraqi government to bite the hand that feeds it do you?
Why, that would make even them seem ungrateful for this great liberation ...
At 8:10 AM,
Jesus TAI..."resistance"...I though you lived in Iraq? I am sorry but how could anybody living through all this death and destruction try and legitimize these people?
Resistance? Blowing up cars in shopping centers? Pulling teachers off of buses and shooting them? Decapitating people? Driving up in a car and shooting a policeman directing traffic?!
Yeah, real noble! What a glorious resistance! I try not to get in these little pissing matches with people on blogs but this just pushed a button...
At 1:56 PM, Truth About Iraqis
To repeat what I told you elsewhere TEX:
First and foremost, those who fight for Saddam fight for Saddam, not Iraq. Saddam is not and never was Iraq.
It is only those who fight for Iraq, those who resist occupation, that can be called a resistance.
Those who target Iraqi civilians are not resistance. Those who target mosques and churches are not resistance.
Those who attack Shia simply because they are Shia, or attack Sunni because they are Sunni are not resistance.
Those who kidnap and behead people are not resistance.
Those who fight for an Islamic Caliphate are not resistance because Iraq has not asked to be that. Is is an imposition.
For example, one resistance fighter tells Asia Times why he fights:
Call them terrorists, call them resistance fighters. By whatever their name, they have their own reasons for fighting the Americans in Iraq. Abu Ayoub, a 35-year-old living in Baghdad, is a member of the Islamic Army. He spoke in the Adhamiya neighborhood about why he joined the fight.
"When the occupation forces entered Baghdad, they killed my brother in front of my eyes. He was wounded and bleeding but the occupation forces didn't allow me to save him. When I tried to save him they began shooting at me, and after a few minutes my brother died. After that I swore to fight them to the death."
"But the Islamic Army would never negotiate with the United States or the Iraqi government, Abu Ayoub said. He believes negotiators with the coalition and Iraqi government include only resistance fighters from the Ba'ath Party. "The Ba'ath resistance fights for Saddam, not for Islam or for Iraq. We are against this. They aren't representative of the Iraqi resistance."
But Ayoub believes it is still not right to attack members of the Iraqi army and police. "First we must liberate Iraq from occupation forces, and then we can judge each one of them who committed crimes."
According to Iraqi journalist Ahmed Ahmed Janabi:
According to eyewitnesses, confrontations with resistance fighters occur because the Iraqi police and National Guard troops, who are supposedly Iraqi patriots, proceed in front of the US troops to form a protective shield and are used in all missions that could involve clashes as well as raids of places sacred not only to Iraqis but to all Muslims, such as mosques.
These troops also routinely conduct joint patrols with US forces and return fire when attacked by resistance fighters. Who then is to blame—the Iraqi resistance for attacking the occupying forces or those who accompany these forces?
The fact that the occupation authority provides training to the Iraqi army and police forces and has complete control over their resources and ideological orientation training makes every individual within these forces viewed as being partisan to the US occupation, and it is difficult to convince resistance fighters that Iraqis who sign up with these forces are merely doing so to provide for their families, especially given the absence of channels for dialogue with the resistance, which is still underground and therefore not in a position to open these channels.
Furthermore, it should be stated here that resistance in Iraq is not a novice idea or phenomenon.
There were resistance movements dating back to the 1920s when nationalistic Shia tribes could no longer tolerate the presence of British troops. And so began an uprising that was quickly spread and supported by their Sunni brethren.
It was in that resistance that Iraqis found commonality - their Arab roots and their connections to the Arab World.
According to Marxist historian Hanna Batatu, the 1920 revolt saw "For the first time in many centuries, Shias joined politically with Sunnis, and townsmen from Baghdad and tribesmen from the Euphrates made common cause.
"Unprecedented joint Shia-Sunni celebrations, ostensibly religious but in reality political, were held in all the Shia and Sunni mosques in turn ... the proceedings culminating in patriotic oratory and poetic thundering against the English.
"Indeed, it would not be going too far to say that with the events of 1919-20, and more particularly with the bond, however tender, that was created between Sunnis and Shias, a new process set in: the painful, now gradual, now spasmodic growth of an Iraqi national community." ("The Old Social Classes and Revolu tionary Movements of Iraq," Princeton University Press, 1978)
The death toll at the time was catastrophic for Iraqis as the population of the country was barely 3 million people.
More than 13,000 Iraqis - many of them civilians - were killed, including by aerial gas bombing on many Shia villages in the south of Iraq and elsewhere.
Some 2000 British (Mostly Indian and Nepalese) troops, including the British commander at the time, were killed.
I could also go into the anti-occupation, anti-foreigner coups against General Bakr Sidqi in 1937 and King Ghazi.
I could also talk about the British-led ouster of Rashid Aali Al Geilani, the mounting of Nouri Said as British proxy ruler of Iraq and his eventual destruction in 1958, but I won't for the sake of time and space.
Foreign occupation in Iraq has always been rejected. Always.
And always will be. It is wise to heed the histories of the past in Iraq and understand that resistance against the occupier is valid.
As was in North America, as was in Mexico against the French, as was in France against the Nazis, as was in Vietnam against the French, as was in Russia against the Nazis, as was in Yugoslavia and Greece against the Nazis, as was in China against the Japanese and so on ...
Iraqi resistance groups have come out time and again to condemn attacks against civilians.
Let us not forget there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of small death squads operating for God knows who.
At 2:33 PM,
I don't know TAI. I guess I see the killing of ones own countrymen and destruction of your own country as sort of self-defeating.
Plus the Islamic Army, "has also murdered French journalists, Pakistani contractors, an Italian journalist, and Macedonian citizens working for a U.S. company."
Were these French journalists "occupation forces"?
Lastly, 24's original post was lamenting - as BT put it - the Talibanization of Iraq. Is the Islamic Army the sort of organization you would like to be "victorious" in Iraq? Will this organzization and these people just quit fighting and go home when the MNF leaves? Or will they keep fighting against the infidel government until they get an administration that the Muslim Brotherhood would find acceptable ala the Taliban?
At 9:36 AM, Lynnette in Minnesota
"... you would have understood that the people in the Iraqi government were brought into power by the US military,"
Odd, I could have sworn there had been elections. Sorry, my memory is not what it used to be.
"It is only those who fight for Iraq, those who resist occupation, that can be called a resistance."
If they truly fought for Iraq, they would be concerning themselves with:
Those who target Iraqi civilians
Those who target mosques
Those who attack Shia simply because they are Shia
or attack Sunni because they are Sunni
Those who kidnap and behead people
Instead they focus on an "occupation" that could be dealt with in non-lethal ways.
What exactly are they afraid of? The "occupation", or their possible sidelining in the struggle for power?
And Iraq is so "fine," that now the big players in the invasion (U.K., probably the U.S. soon...) are starting to announce that they will be withdrawing their troops (if you read the news headlines, you'd think they were coming home tomorrow).
So it seems like the overall battle plan (all you Iranians out there listen up, soon this may concern you too) is this:
(1)Stir up a propaganda campaign (with little or no factual evidence to support it) against "the target."
(2)Invade "the target" (with complete disregard for International Law, or Human Rights concepts relating to the minimalisation of civilian casualties)
(3)Secure the areas that can be used to make money (read: Oil Fields)
(4)Incite the inhabitants to fight amongst themselves, regardless of the civilian casualties inflicted in the resulting violence
(5)Withdraw to a secure location.
Forget Sun Tzu's Art of War, these day's it's to be the Bush Art of International Armed Robbery.
texag03 said...
"I don't know TAI. I guess I see the killing of ones own countrymen and destruction of your own country as sort of self-defeating."
(1)The Death Penalty; The Legality of high volume firearms sales
(2)Pollution increases of 14% per annum under the "voluntary" pollution reduction guidelines in the Bush version of Climate Change Protocol.
Just to add a tiny bit to the discussion...
[tex] “Resistance? Blowing up cars in shopping centers? Pulling teachers off of buses and shooting them? Decapitating people? Driving up in a car and shooting a policeman directing traffic?!Yeah, real noble! What a glorious resistance! I try not to get in these little pissing matches with people on blogs but this just pushed a button...”
Hey, that’s fine, it shows that you have a conscience and that you have empathy.
But let’s not forget that nobody knows who really perpetrates these acts. People getting held for ransom? Could be common kidnappers, yet it profits the US to depict this as an act of the resistance. People getting pulled off a bus and shot for sectarian motives? Half of the time it is the Shias, the other half the Sunnis. Which is Resistance? There is no clear line. The US sponsored death squads such as the SPF (Site Protection Force) that Bremer set up are responsible for many of the corpses that appear on the streets. Are they resistance?
An entry on Abu Khaleel’s blog showed us how easy it is to confuse one side with another.
Some kids were kidnapped by criminals for ransom. They escaped. They found refuge at a farmer’s house. The criminals tracked them and told the farmer that they were members of the Resistance that needed the ransom for funding operations. The farmer knew people who knew people … and they confirmed that these kidnappers had nothing to do with any resistance. Abu Khaleel got involved in trying to exile these common thugs from the area. A few days later hundreds of US soldiers were swarming over his little farm. Turns out that these kidnappers were actually US Army INFORMANTS and that they fingered him as a “big insurgent leader” as revenge.
Now, I’m not saying every informant is like this, or that every resistance member is a saint. What I am saying is that things are so confused on the ground that it is difficult to tell apart who is who. Thus generalizing statements like yours are a little off the mark.
[TAI] "... you would have understood that the people in the Iraqi government were brought into power by the US military,"
[lynnette] Odd, I could have sworn there had been elections.
Funny, I could have sworn that those elections were rife with fraud. And that the US blatantly interfered with them via financing parties that it liked, something which is verboten in the US. I guess I just forgot that the rules that apply to the rest of us don’t apply to the US.
[lynnette] “Instead they focus on an "occupation" that could be dealt with in non-lethal ways.”
Pray, how would that be? Don’t tell me that the bought-and-paid-for politicians will bite the hand that feeds them? Jafaari already saw how that move can be er, terminal to one’s career prospects. And the Resistance already tried to negotiate a ceasefire on the basis of a timetable for US withdrawal. Yeah, that went real well.
But then, there never was a plan for withdrawing, was there? In the words of General Zinni:
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1765707.php
" Anthony Zinni, the four-star who commanded U.S. Central Command before retiring in 2000, said when the U.S. commits forces to a country now, it means a long-term commitment. Iraq is no different. “It isn’t World War I anymore; we don’t come home anymore,” he said. Zinni said he doesn’t rule out a drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq at some point — he insists that shouldn’t happen now anyway — but the idea that the situation in Iraq will change enough to allow all U.S. troops to ultimately go home is simply wrong. “We’re not withdrawing,” he said. "
Argue with him, not me.
At 7:57 AM,
(1)The Death Penalty; The Legality of high volume firearms sales
60 people were executed in the US in 2005. That is about how many people can die in a single day due to terrorists in Iraq. Furthermore, it seems a bit of a stretch to try and draw a moral equivalency between executing convicted criminals and blowing up a bunch of people attending a religious service.
The right to bear arms...I don't really understand how this principle equates to placating mass murder. Just because some people are allowed to own guns doesn't mean they have to use them to kill people. Remember the old adage, “guns don’t kill people…”
(2)Pollution increases of 14% per annum under the "voluntary" pollution reduction guidelines in the Bush version of Climate Change Protocol.
And this is leading to the destruction of the country? The world perhaps? A destruction so heinous that it compares to blowing up your own roads, bridges, electrical grids and oil pipelines? Right. I bet there are a lot of people in Iraq that would trade a 14% increase in their pollution for a reduction in bombs and an increase in electricity and fuel.
Bruno –
The death and destruction taking place in Iraq is clearly the work of a large number of disparate groups. However the “sanctioned resistance” is, at least in part, creating the chaotic situation that allows many of these criminal elements to operate. Moreover there would be no need for a FPS or a large (and quickly assembled) security apparatus had terrorists not have used the post-Saddam environment as an excuse to launch their various “jihads” and campaigns of ruin.
I would like to know who these purely noble resistance fighters are? What groups do we point to as an example of the folks looking out the best interests of all Iraq? When the Islamic Army blows up a Humvee that’s okay but it is not okay when they murder journalists or foreign contractors.
Hey the Klu Klux Klan might have lynched black folks without a trial but undoubtedly some of them were guilty. Plus - at the same time - they were just protecting the south from northern carpetbaggers and their crazy ideals.
How about when these groups work with Ansar al Sunna or Al Qaeda to attack Americans and the next day Ansar is beheading policeman and Al Qaeda is murdering Shiite women and children.
To be forgiving of some acts of terrorism but condone others (especially when they are perpetrated by the same groups) seems to be quite a contradiction.
Tex, I just don't think that from your bunker in College Station, Texas, you can really appreciate the realities of the situation.
First of all, you make broad, incorrect assumptions based on republican "talking points" rhetoric that generally has little or no basis in reality. To give one example, you refer to those who oppose American occupation of Iraq as "rejectionists" and go on to make them out to be the bad guys, no different from the true terrorists who commit cold blooded murder in the name of ethnic purity, racial purity, religious purity, or whatever the excuse-of-the-day is. The fact that you accept the doctrine of "rejectionists" being the bad guys as truth is really, really starting to irritate me.
OF COURSE THEY REJECT OCCUPATION MAN, WAKE THE HELL UP! NEARLY EVERYONE IN THE WORLD OUTSIDE OF AMERICA REJECTS THE "MORALITY" OF AN AMERICAN OCCUPIED IRAQ! America invaded Iraq in violation of international law, most people in the world believe in law and order. You do know that the vast majority of people polled worldwide over the past 3 years have said that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea, right?
I don't mean to scream at you through my shift button, but there sometimes doesn't seem to be much other way to get through to you, and you often come across as adamently opposed to dissenting opinions.
You also seem to be failing to realise that the definition of "terrorism" that Rupert Murdoch's Republican Talking Points Dissemination System has beaten into your brain is, for lack of a better discription, WRONG. Resisting an occupying force that has illegaly invaded your country and is repressivly occupying your country IS NOT THE SAME as murdering someone in cold blood because they pray in a different manner from you.
Try thinkin about it this way: If a foreign country INVADED AMERICA, then proceeded to indiscriminantly kill American men, women, and children (innocent civilians, by the TENS OF THOUSANDS), throw random Red Blooded Americans in jail for no reason and subject them to torture, flatten ENTIRE AMERICAN CITIES with carpet bombing, and then proceed to tell Americans "hey, you should thank us!" would you (a) say "yeah man, you're great!" or would you (b)GET YOUR SMITH AND WESSON AND GO AFTER THE BASTARDS. I would do the latter, and I think you would do the same.
If your answer was (b), then, according to YOUR OWN definition of terrorism (provided by the Republican Talking Points Machine), YOU ARE A TERRORIST. According to YOUR OWN DESCRIPTIONS of Nadia or TAI, you would be a "rejectionist" for not choosing the "(a)" response.
Most importantly to this point, you would be, by the Bush/Rupert Murdoch over-broad and incorrect definition of terrorism, be NO DIFFERENT FROM THE PEOPLE WHO KILL OTHERS SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THEY PRAY IN A DIFFERENT WAY. (That is, basically, the main difference between Shia and Sunni according to my understanding, based on my reading of Iraqi Blogs). People who do that are, in my opinion, sadistic psychopaths. That is all. They ARE NOT THE SAME as those who would seek to resist an illegal occupation by a foreign power.
Do you not see that there's a difference? You often lump those who are "rejectionists" (who resist the american occupation) in with those who would seek to murder their fellow countrymen strictly based on small differences in praying rituals (it would be like a bunch of methodists trying to wipe out episcopalians). That is again, for lack of a better term, wrong.
Additionally, you may recall from recent blogger coverage of the clashes between Residents, Militants, The Iraqi Army, and the U.S. army a couple of weeks ago in Adhamiya and of other similar situations that, not really knowing what to do in certain situations, the U.S. forces tend to just open fire "at anything that moves." That does not exactly engratiate them with the local population, and as such, the local population would reasonably "reject" their presence. Would that not be a sensible thing to do given the circumstances?
While Saddam was a brutal dictator (I'll not get into the fact that during his worst atrocities he was a close ally of Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, Donald Rumsfeld, and a large percentage of the current administration that has been recycled into government from the previous tenures of the current regime, Reagan and Bush I), you should be well aware from your constant reading of Iraqi blogs that between 2002 (when saddam was still in power) and 2006 (after 3 years of american occupation) their quality of living has gone from basically normal to ABSOLUTELY UNBEARABLE. How can you be presented with facts like this but yet still lash out at those who are critical (or worse) of the American occupation. Do you not see the correlation?
For the past 3 years straight, Mercer Human Resources Group has determined that Baghdad is the worst city to live in in the world. America has been occupying Baghdad for, yes, THREE YEARS. Do you not see the correlation?
If Saddam had been removed (without the complete and utter destruction of infrastructure and slaughter of civilians that the invasion has brought about), and GENUINELY FREE AND OPEN ELECTIONS (wherein the Iraqis could choose between whomever they wanted to rule their country, rather than a bunch of people hand picked by the U.S. forces based on their willingness to do the Bush Administration's bidding, then perhaps people would now be saying more positive things about the american invasion. However, that is not what has happened.
(As I have already taken up like a dozen pages on the blog, I'm going to leave it at that, although I should really also mention that there should have been a better handling of the post-war situation, security, etc.)
----
Just to go back to my point about people killing their own countrymen and destroying their own country for a moment, I was specifically referring to the fact that americans are also killing their own countrymen and destroying their own country.
Any idea how many firearms deaths there are in america each year?
Any idea what america's higher-than-average pollution rates are going to do to your country over the next decade or two?
You speak in such a condescending manner towards others sometimes, but (as you seem to be some variety of a christian, as you would have to be to live safely in texas) perhaps you should think back to the words of Jesus Christ:
"Let whoever among you is without sin be the first to cast a stone"
I don't see how america can be held up as the moral guardian of the planet when their actions are almost the polar opposite to their rhetoric.
TexAg, I don't mean to personally insult you. I do greatly respect the fact that, even though your opinions are very different from ones that I hold to be the most logical and rational, you are not the kind of person who buries their head in the sand by way of avoiding exposing themselves to non-status-quo-protecting sources (sources other than Fox News or Reuters, or Right Wing blogs) to shield yourself from the painful realities of the world. I am absolutely flabergasted, however, that you can be presented with constant evidence that contradicts your viewpoints, yet still maintain them.
I challenge you to expand your knowledge base even further. Try reading dissident literature (Noam Chomsky comes to mind), and doing your own research into the sources used by "intellectuals" whose views contradict your own, and then perhaps you will understand better where some of the rest of us are coming from.
At 8:27 AM, Lynnette in Minnesota
Bruno,
If you would stop looking at Iraqi politics through your anti-U.S. bias, you would see that it is a complex place.
Here is a link to an interesting analysis of early Iraqi politics.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/730/re1.htm
To say that the U.S. is responsible for all events in Iraq is to deny Iraqis themselves any responsibility. Which is rather insulting for a country intent on becomming completely independent.
[lynnette] “Instead they focus on an "occupation" that could be dealt with in non-lethal ways.”
[Bruno] Pray, how would that be?
Make no room for an "occupation" to continue. By that, I mean start taking over the jobs performed by those "occupiers" and the responsibility for your country. Which if you would only look around, you will see has been started.
Is this government perfect? No. But you have to start somewhere. The question is will they improve on it or backslide.
It is those who, for their own selfish reasons, do not want to participate in that process that jeopardize that process.
It is those who are so blinded by their hate for the U.S., that encourage a "resistance" that is causing more harm than good for people in Iraq.
It will be the success of the Iraqis that determines when we can leave.
At 10:02 AM, The Ugly American
Stop telling us to stand up for ourselves when we are too busy burying our dead.
One day we will do just that and then what will you do "Truth About Iraqis"?
Go back to being raped murdered and killed by the newest dictator?
Or will you actually stand up for yourself?
It is your country after all. In the end no matter how many Americans, or Iranians, or Syrians or any other countries soldiers arrive you Iraqi's will decide what happens in your country.
When the Americans leave who will you blame?
Who do you blame for the last 30 years of death and corruption?
Of forgive me thats right you blame the Americans.
Are you responsible for anything?
Or are you a helpless child?
People in Whicita Kansas have sons, and daughters, husbands and wives dying for your freedom "Truth About Iraqis". That gives them a right to have their say.
War is a horrible horrible thing, and it breaks my heart to see innocent people die. It breaks my heart that you and your loved ones have to suffer throught this; but freedom is not free.
In the end you must choose a side. If you do not fight the terrorists, or insurgents killing people in your country then you as good as support them.
At 12:25 PM,
"In the end no matter how many Americans, or Iranians, or Syrians or any other countries soldiers arrive you Iraqi's will decide what happens in your country. "
really? you mean all they have to do is ask the occupation to leave? somebody's drinking kool aide.
New Iraqi leader reveals more urgent and ambitious troop withdrawal than UK and US had admitted
"Nuri al-Maliki, the new Iraqi prime minister, had a surprise for Tony Blair and his entourage in Baghdad yesterday. At a joint press conference, Mr Maliki said British troops would hand over responsibility in two provinces to Iraqi security forces by next month and that he expected US, British and other foreign troops out of 16 of the country's 18 provinces by the end of the year, a much speedier and more ambitious schedule than the US and Britain have so far admitted to.
The announcement was news to Mr Blair and his team. Mr Maliki said there was an agreement with the British: but British officials said there was no agreement. And he said the withdrawals would be in June: officials say it will be July.
Mr Blair was more vague than the Iraqi prime minister. He insisted that there was no timetable and that the handover to Iraqi forces would depend on the prevailing conditions."
At 2:44 PM, Truth About Iraqis
There is no sovereignty in Iraq. It was revealed two days ago that Iraqi courts operate based on CPA laws, not Iraqi laws.
Several "insurgents" were given jail time because they broke Order 3. Go look it up.
Freedom is not worth 200,000 lives, am sorry.
Freedom is not worth having your brothers and sisters tortured and mutilated.
Freedom is not about having tens of thousands of armed units - gangs - kidnapping and murdering people and working under government supervision. A government you brought to power.
Freedom is not about having 60% unemployment and child nutrition far worse than pre-war levels.
Freedom is not about a debilitated power grid or failing phone system.
Freedom is not about Halliburton coming in and robbing both the Iraqi people and American taxpayers blind.
Freedom is not about raising the flag of reconstruction and then stealing monies from Iraq's oil money.
Freedom is not about standing idly by while the government is looted. Most of Iraq's advanced machinery is now in ... Iran.
Freedom is not about detention without charge. 35,000 Iraqis are in detention. Their families dont know where they are.
No charge. No court.
Freedom is not about the massacres in Haditha.
Freedom is not about the US humiliation of Abu Ghraib.
There were no elections in Iraq. So dont ask me. Bark all you want about it.
People in Wichita, Kansas have signed on to illegally invade and occupy a country that had nothing to do with you. Oppress and debilitate a people that can no longer even see their kids go to school.
They died? Sorry, but not for Iraqis, they died for a US foreign policy run amuck and criticized openly by former administrations on a daily basis.
Iraqis leave the house in the morning not knowing if they will ever see their loved ones again.
This is not the price to be paid for anything. But it is what the people in Wichita died for they died so Iraq can be a failed state.
Thank you.
Bottom line. Iraq is not an extension of Wichita. People of Wichita are welcome in Iraq if they come in good faith and as guests. We will welcome them with open arms, we will throw them grand feasts and we will talk about each others' lives.
But if they walk in carrying guns, they will be fought with guns.
If they walk in to oppress, they will be suppressed.
Yes, I blame the US policies for what has happened in Iraq.
Almost every Iraqi I know blames the US for what has happened in Iraq.
You only think of Saddam. You only talk of Saddam. You only bring up Saddam when it is convenient. That is all you can do. That is your only government.
"Heck boy, Saddam killed ya off, sees, so we git to do the same. Semper fi and land of the brave and you have democracy now!"
But who do you think favored Saddam when he fought Iran for you?
Who do you think favored Saddam when he hunted down, murdered and hung communists from the lampposts in Iraqi cities?
Who gave Saddam loan guarantees in the 1980s and trade incentives?
Live in your own hole filled with lies. At the end, Iraqi is for Iraqis. And like the body fights a virus to dispel it, the foreign occupier will be ejected.
Or both body and virus will die together.
And don't send me rosy emails as if you are genuinely interested in debate and discussion.
You have no inkling of how to debate.
US foreign policy is not built around debate and discussion.
Iran has repeatedly called on one-to-one talks with the US only to be rebuffed. Watch the US administration rebuff Ahmadinejad.
The US media has labelled him a devil and so now the premise is "How can America deal with the devil?".
In the 1990s, Iraqi officials called on the US repeatedly for one-on-one talks to be rebuffed every single time.
And then US leaders stand up and say they gave diplomacy every change they did. Lies.
North Korea has asked for one-on-one talks with the US but the US has refused.
Why? Ask yourself why. Go back and study the past 50 years of US foreign policy.
Sorry, but Iraqis are being raped and murdered far, far more than before.
And now foreign intelligence units are involved. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Israel. The list is endless.
But then again, I don't expect more from you.
This is how it works. An invading army destroys a house and then asks the occupants to rebuild it. But it shoots and kills the workers.
It also allows people from a neighboring house to steal your materiel.
You have no home, you are exposed to thugs and gangs.
But still the invader blames you for letting your house "fall". Blames you for not protecting your materiel. Blames you for not standing up to the thugs.
So you pick up a gun to fight the thugs, but the thugs have convinced the invader you are a terrorist and bang, you're taken out like in a video game.
The thugs also convinced the invader that your children are terrorists, so, bang, bang, bang the invader takes out your kids as well.
I think it is the epitome of arrogance to ask me and other Iraqis what we will do.
The onus is on you, not us. You want us to build a just society? Get out then. And stop supporting dictatorships.
If you are so high and mighty about Liberty, I would like to call on the US military to invade the following countries:
Saudi Arabia which tortures maims and beheads its citizens on a nearly daily basis. The most basic of freedoms are denied its citizens. Women in Saudi Arabia are tossed about as political fodder and must be clad in Darth Vader outfits to hide their faces and skin. They cannot even drive.
No, instead you invaded Iraq where Iraqi women were the most liberated in the entire Arab World.
Invade Bahrain where a Sunni minority kingship has ravaged the Shia majority for 32 years.
32 years! You are so big on protecting the Shia, right? So go ahead. Send the boys and girls of Wichita to protect the Shia who have endured horrific human rights abuses.
Yallah 3ad! Do it! Protect liberty wherever it is stifled.
I call also on the invasion of Tunisia for similar reasons. And an invasion of Jordan, because the secret police there is one of the most merciless in the world.
What of Egypt? Egypt just gave you the finger, why not invade it? It has rolled back 20 years of democratic development (lack thereof) and practically made Gamal Mubarak the Son-God or Sun-God.
No, no my fellow Arabs. I do not rightly call on the invasion of any countries because I am tired of seeing mothers weep. But I am trying to show the hypocrisy of those who come to the Iraqi blogs pretending they understand the Middle East, Islam, rah, rah, rah.
Their veil of fighting in foreign lands for liberty is an illusion.
Why no invasion of Saudi Arabia? The house of Saud il mal3oun have been the US strategic allies for 70 years and the oil just keeps flowing.
Bahrain has opened its arms as base of the US navy. If true democracy were applied in Bahrain, the Shia would come to power and ask you to leave.
So, nope, no liberty for Bahrain, status quo fits us fine.
Egypt and Jordan? Why heck, dontcha know they have ties with Israel? If true democracy developed in both nations, the people would vote to cut of relations with Israel until at the very least the Occupation of Palestinian land is resolved.
So, why was Iraq the only country to be invaded? Is it the only country with a dictator? Is it the only country lacking democracy in the Middle East?
Why is it when Iraqi officials in the current government recently rebuffed Israel, the US government cried foul?
Ah ....
We did not invade and litter your home or destroy your heritage (see damage in Babylon and elswhere).
You invaded ours. You want an answer to your questions, get out and let us rebuild.
As my brother Baghdad Treasure said. Get out. Go home.
The virus will be ejected.
Actions have consequences Truth about Iraq.
Unfortunately you seem to know very little about the truth nor have regard for it.
For example you deny Iraq having elections. This is an obvious lie.
I understand you are upset about the state of your country. That does not justify your lies.
You have been given a gift few people in this world ever have a hope of. You are throwing it away. Shame on you for it.
At 9:28 AM,
Misneach –
I appreciate the response. This is certainly a passionate debate and you seemed to work hard to do it in a respectful way.
It is fairly obvious by now that people’s perception of what is going on in Iraq is driven primarily by their feelings towards the United States and specifically about their feelings about the justification for war.
Folks who didn’t think the war was justified believe that the US is a marauding hoard led by a group of neo-con war mongers who invaded Iraq for oil or Halliburton or even some less conspiratorial reason. Basically if the US launched an unjust or “illegal” war against Iraq then the US and Coalition soldiers can easily be labeled invaders or even crusaders. In which case - it follows - the Iraqi’s have every right to blow them up and shoot them, even if it means they martyr a few of their own people in the process. After all it is the honorable thing to do. One must resist an occupation; especially an illegal one. (see, I have been listening to the other sides opinion!)
Now folks like me believe that the war was justified. Saddam was not only a brutal dictator (you are quite right to point out that there are lots of those in the world) but he was an avowed enemy of the US and the West who refused to follow the agreements he signed to end the Gulf War. So our options were then reduced. Keep the sanctions going and hope that he eventually allows the UN to verify that he does indeed not have any WMD’s. Take the word of this brutal dictator and simply lift the sanctions. Or, invade the country and take him out.
(It should be noted that the same post-war Volker report that cleared Iraq of possessing WMD’s clearly stated that Saddam’s intentions were to restart his weapons programs as soon as the heat was off. While he may not have had the weapons he maintained the means to reconstitute them quickly. So, we could have kept Iraq under the crippling sanctions. Sanctions that Saddam was making worse by failing to take advantage of the provisions allowing him to purchase food and medicine for “his people” - he never missed a chance to line his own pockets though!)
Perhaps one day Saddam would decide that he would comply with the agreements he signed, but after 10 years of having the chance do we really think that was going to happen? The other option was to take his word for it and disregard his support for terrorism and hope that he had no weapons and hope that he would not give them to terrorists. We would then simply tear up the agreements he signed, say “aw shucks, forget it” and call it a day. Again, this seems a bit of a risky venture.
So the coalition, with America taking the lead, invades Iraq and takes Saddam out. The coalition stays and tries it’s best to create a civil society with a representative government thereby decreasing the chance that we would have to turn right back around and re-invade Iraq should another truly war mongering dictator, or worse, extreme Islamic government fill the void left behind by Saddam’s removal.
This is obviously easier said than done. Iraq is made of tribes and ethnic groups and religions that have zero experience with a representative government and, in particular, the concepts and responsibilities that go along with it. There were no governments in exile and there are no civil organizations in Iraq by which to hand over power to. The MNF was forced to work with the only organizations that exist, religious groups, resistance groups, tribes etc. Not exactly the Labour Party, Green Party and the Tories!
So here we are trying to fix this country so we can leave without it falling into absolute chaos. A chaos that could cause untold death and destruction in Iraq and beyond. A chaos that could have God knows what outcome. We certainly do not want the one or the other religious parties taking over, whether it is the mullahs or the Muslim Brotherhood (ie : the noble resistance).
That’s mine and a few other peoples take on it. So if you are asking me to understand or sympathize with a person celebrating the deaths of American soldiers it ain’t gonna happen. Especially since it was very likely that this “Crusader” was simply a 19 year old kid who was trying to do his job and go home. There is a good chance too that this job had something to do with rebuilding Iraq.
Furthermore are we to believe that these soldiers and marines are willfully and indiscriminately terrorizing innocent Iraqis - murdering, beating and – *gasp* - humiliating? No. No these folks have a job to do and they want to leave. They are not cruel monsters that feel like exacting some sort of revenge on people they don’t even know. Does this exist? Sure. War is nasty and sometimes nasty people take advantage of it. The idiots at Abu Ghraib for example and, perhaps, these marines in Hadatha. There have been somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000,000 troops deployed since 9/11. There are bound to be a few a**holes in the bunch.
Again I am not going to sympathize with some guy blowing off the legs of a 20 year old kid because his cultural norms dictate that he “resist” occupation. These troops just want to come home and every di**head who sets off an IED, blows up a power grip or goes on some other murder spree is just pushing that time farther back.
I do not expect you to agree with any of this just as I do not plan on agreeing with many of the people on this blog. (For heaven’s sake please do not bother linking to some Mother Jone’s article or provide yet more examples of a conspiracy by the American military industrial complex) As you said it is important to hear all sides of a debate. That is why I come to the blogs, read the NY Times, listen to the BBC and write lengthy diatribes to anonymous people. Understanding the other side of a debate is an important part of understanding your own opinion. But someone is always right and someone is wrong. I believe I am right and I imagine you disagree with me, but having convictions is important.
I really hope that Iraq succeeds. Not because I like George Bush but because I don’t like the idea of people dying and I want it to stop. Despite a small minority opinion to the contrary, if the MNF left tomorrow, it would not stop. Very likely, it would much worse.
As loathsome as I find it, folks are well within their rights to advocate their position that the solution to this whole mess is a resistance. Perhaps the best way forward is to reject the political process, reject the Iraqi security forces and do nothing but bitch and moan about all the problems that exist (of which there are certainly no shortage).
As for me, the solution for peace that I advocate is for the Iraqis to begin to take control of the situation. Let the security services continue to grow in size and quality with the support of the MNF. Let the political process go forward as rough and dirty as it may be. And for God’s sake let the troops come home when the mission is complete. Is it going to be pretty? Are there going to be mistakes? Are people going to get killed? Yes, but the alternative seems far less palatable.
You are right that this is easy for me to say, because it is! I am not in the middle of this, I don’t have car bombs blowing up in my street nor are my friends showing up in ditches with bullet holes in their heads. I don’t pretend to know what that is like (which is why I read these particular blogs). But as I said before, there is a right answer and a wrong answer no matter what part of the globe you like on.
At 9:42 AM,
well, I said it way back when Raed was allowing comments on his blog. If the sunni-supremists did not lay down their weapons after the December elections then ultimately there will be swath of destruction burned through the heart of the sunni community. The price of killing will be made personal and more than the wealthy are willing to pay. The price of support through silence will be made more than the community is willing to bear. It is tragic. Something the western mind can not comprehend, but apparently the bullies and thugs will never stop until they are first beaten into submission. It appears inevitable now. The first step in the process will be the joining of militia under one umbrella.
blame america if it makes you sleep better at night. the real blame lies at the feet of those who approved through silence when they had many opportunities to speak. now the time for speaking has passed. if you gave the terrorists your silent approval then the real blame is yours.
At 1:56 PM,
tex, you're so full of crap w/you la di da attitude of blaming iraqis, claiming we will leave when "mission is complete" oh but of course we will just leave the largest 'embassy' in the world behind, right (and our permanent bases to further implement of ME imperialist plans). just to hang around and guarentee our 'rules' are obeyed and so what if babies are getting their heads blown up because you are so sure from your safe little perch that it would be so much worse if we weren't there to oversee the carnage and give it a little shove once in awhile w/our negroponte death squad trainers fresh of the boat from the school of the americas. really, you make me ouke you pompous ass w/you 'i so appreciate the respectful bla bla', and then you go on the completely disregard every point make. go puke.
maybe the iraqis should all take their soma and embrace the benevolent powers that have come to rescue them from the evil dictator. get current, sadam is past . it carnage you're friggin liberators have left in its wake, carnage, fear, disorder and destruction.
At 6:42 PM,
ha! thanks for the reminder, sometimes i get so blown away by the sheer stupidity of these neocons i just have to let off some steam. oh well, life goes on, we will all adjust i'm sure. i guess i can just thank my lucky stars i will be watching from the sidelines and not suffering from an occupation i cannot control or direct. although blood will be on my hands as an american, i won't have to watch my children or neighbors spill blood. i can go to the market w/out fear, sleep thru the night w/out disruption. and easily purchase numerous kinds of coffee beans, including decafinated!
plus, my neighbors (scientists) will be around in the morning. educated members of my society are not threatened w/death, oh.... i must remember not to get so silly and excitable, after all, it's all the way over there, and these people, i don't know them, they aren't really 'real' , are they?
please excuse my lapse of sanity
[ugly American] “For example you deny Iraq having elections. This is an obvious lie.”
Taken as a literal fact, yes, Iraq did have elections.
But then, Saddam Hussein also held elections. And that’s a fact, too.
The mere fact that people voted on something does not a democracy make.
[ugly American] “People in Whicita Kansas have sons, and daughters, husbands and wives dying for your freedom "Truth About Iraqis". That gives them a right to have their say.”
Yeah, the Russians died for the freedom of the Chechens. And the Spanish died for the freedom of the Incas and Aztecs. And Chinese died for the freedom of the Tibetans. And Germans died so that Jews could be free.
I see no difference between these events, save that you package your “truth” more sweetly and gaily than these other peoples. Deep down though, you are all the same.
[lynnette] “Instead they focus on an "occupation" that could be dealt with in non-lethal ways.â€
[Bruno] Pray, how would that be?
[lynette] Make no room for an "occupation" to continue. By that, I mean start taking over the jobs performed by those "occupiers" and the responsibility for your country. […] It is those who, for their own selfish reasons, do not want to participate in that process that jeopardize that process.
In other words, participation in the political process. The same political process which has been so pummelled and tweaked and manipulated by the US that it bears no relation to a genuine democratic movement. I just love the way that every time an Iraqi says something which would be along the lines of your “taking responsibility for the country” he is rapidly corrected by the US. Why, only the other day Maliki (the newest incarnation of the rotating Punch & Judy show that is the Iraqi leadership) stated that by 2007 US troops could leave. Boy was he swiftly corrected by the Americans, and was told that the US would leave when “conditions on the ground were right”. In other words, “we’ll be the judge of that”.
The “evil insurgents” have offered to lay down their arms and participate in the process. Their main condition was that the US set a timetable for withdrawal. The Iraqis were thrown out on their ear. Quite obviously, US troops in Iraq are a not-negotiable item for America. And as long as they are there, there will be violence. Does it get any simpler than that?
[tex] “Now folks like me believe that the war was justified.”
That’s because you believe in the inherent goodness of the USA. Quite simply, you have been brainwashed, the same as the ardent young Communists who believed that a world under the USSR would lead to a human utopia. Boy, ever tried to argue with one of them?
You make several statements that are easily disproven or disputed by events. I have run into these statements over and over (eg- Saddam did not allow inspections and that he kicked the inspectors out) and when I follow them to their final conclusion, I am right and the pro-war nut is wrong.
Yet, I don’t shift the war-supporter one iota.
That’s because the idea of “America” is a religion, NOT a rational idea. A rational idea can be disproven through logic and discussion. America the Religion is BELIEVED. And if the facts happen to contradict what America says, the little demon inside your head whispers to you “Ach, America may have been wrong on THAT specific point, but in the end, it means well and everybody knows that the ends justify the means.” With this almost unconscious spasm of doublethink, you dismiss the world of rationality and logic and slip back into the abyss of cave-man groupthink beliefs.
That’s because America is not a logical set of ideals, it is a BELIEF.
That’s why it is pointless to argue with you lot and hope to actually change your minds. Ever tried to argue with a fanatic?
The ample contradictions offered by American foreign policy seem to glide by you in the wake of this doublethink. At this very instant that you deride the evil Hussein, you support twenty others that are as bad as him. Once upon a time, Ghadaffi was evil incarnate. Now he his is a US ally. The only thing that changed? He shifted from defying the US to accepting its hegemony over him.
You must be blind to see the rotten hypocrisy that is built into your system of values, but we are not. When you say “liberate” we hear “put under our boot”. When you say “rebuild” we hear “profiteering”. When you say “security forces” we hear “death squads”.
You point out all the difficulties in Iraq as excuses for the utter failure to make something of the country (and I’m being generous and assuming a genuine intent to help). You say: [tex] “Iraq is made of tribes and ethnic groups and religions that have zero experience with a representative government and, in particular, the concepts and responsibilities that go along with it”.
Yet this was known before the war. All the difficulties were known. All those who knew pointed out the disaster it would become. Yet now that this has happened, a typical American reaction is to blame the Iraqis. Just look at the comments of the aptly named Ugly American. Really, doesn’t your conscience ever trouble you at night? I wouldn’t be able to sleep if I were you, that’s for certain.
[m99] “If the sunni-supremists did not lay down their weapons after the December elections then ultimately there will be swath of destruction burned through the heart of the sunni community.”
Ah, just Moron99 salivating at the prospect of mass murder.
Another patriotic Ameican.
Another budding little death camp commander.
One day somebody will burn a swath of destruction through your people, and they’ll tell the Texan-supremacists that if only they would put their weapons down and take it up their asses like men, the fighting would stop. Then we’ll see how reasonable your words sound.
[m99] “if you gave the terrorists your silent approval then the real blame is yours.”
No, I CHEER every patriot who resists foreign occupation. The same as I’d have cheered for the American Revolutionaries against the British, I cheer for the Iraqi patriots against the Americans. May they be blessed with success! This month has been good. May next month be better!
Tex, (and other interested parties)
I don't have time to read your post at the moment or respond, as I'm just on my way out the door (I only had time to add a small bit on my blog about the media), but in response to your statement about Reunion being my home, I should note that you can't always believe what you read, especially in any (wether on blogger or elsewhere) online profile. Maybe that's where I'm from... maybe it's not.
I like anonymity, to a certain extent. (At least until I feel that Freedom of Speech is actually a legally protected right)
bruno,
"The “evil insurgents” have offered to lay down their arms and participate in the process. Their main condition was that the US set a timetable for withdrawal. The Iraqis were thrown out on their ear. Quite obviously, US troops in Iraq are a not-negotiable item for America. And as long as they are there, there will be violence. Does it get any simpler than that?"
Hogwash. There always has been and always will be an american timetable for withdrawal. But it is tied to milestones rather than dates. The insurgent offer was to tie the american withdrawal to dates rather than milestones. The reason is simple. When the milestones have been accomplished they will not be able to carry out a coup. If withdrawal is tied to dates then the overthrow option remains on the table. That was their real goal and everyone knew it. I suspect that even you know it but prefer the propaganda spin to the truth.
But you don't stop there. You spin me as salivating over possible carnage when I am in fact deeply troubled and saddened. It is ironic because in the very same post you cheer those who actually commit the carnage. I can not decide if you so deeply hate america that you do not care what happens to the iraqis .... or if you so strongly cheer for an authoritarian regime that you see Iraqis as disposable ... or if you simply subscribe to the notion of a ruling class by birthright. Either way, you remain blind to the real dynamics inside iraq. Not the day to day dynamics that make the newspapers and blogs. The larger dynamics that will be written in history books. As always, the best way to see these dynamics is to look back in history and seek things that have transpired all nations, cultures, and languages. These are the base dynamics of the human condition. These are the controlling factors in Iraq. They exist with or without the americans. Whether I like them or not, desire or despise, cheer for or fight against ... it changes nothing. It is what it is. The wise man sees even the things that he does not want to see.
Inside Iraq there are four powerful groups that seek to achieve control of the government. Three of them wish to be masters of the people and one wishes to be a servant. A fifth group seeks to avoid becoming involved and fights instead to maintain their independance (should the results turn out poorly). These four groups are at war with each other. The US presence makes them hide their war from public view and causes them to make statements about how much they want the war to end. In reality each of them wants the war to continue until their group is victorious. The largest indigenous group is split internally between the master and servant models and we are thus left with four opponents who are fairly equally matched. Iraq will continue to have this war and its atrocities until all of Iraq is of one heart.
The question that people like you will never answer is which of the four do you want? And if they emerge victorious what will they do for the common Iraqi citizen? You never answer because you do not want it to be known. It is you who is the mongerer of war. You have said so quite clearly. "I CHEER every patriot who resists foreign occupation" Only an idiot believes that they are fighting for anything other than control of Iraq. That means that you do not want war to end unless it is your side that is victorious. No amount of word-smithing and propaganda can change that. You are the true war-mongerer.
At 12:33 PM,
" Iraq will continue to have this war and its atrocities until all of Iraq is of one heart."
what a joke! all this bloodshed and you think iraqi's will all speak w/one 'heart'. over 80% of iraqi's want the occupation to leave, what? not the kind of 'heart' you're wishing for?
" Only an idiot believes that they are fighting for anything other than control of Iraq."
only an idiot believes the occupation is fighting for anything other than the control of iraq. notice how the original iraqi constitution was completely scrapped? the one that allowed the natural resources to go to the iraqi people? oh no, it had to open up to foriegn investment whether iraqi's liked it or not. how's that for free will?
"That means that you do not want war to end unless it is your side that is victorious. "
ah, and what's the difference between this and
" There always has been and always will be an american timetable for withdrawal. But it is tied to milestones rather than dates."
iraqi's want a timetable, as in 'time' the kind you can measure, the kind we all relate to w/clocks and calendars, y'know TIME. but 'our side' says time means 'when we think we are victorious' as in when the 'other side' is defeated. how convienient. this isn't slippery of you, it's completely transparent.
the goal post can constantyly be moved. what doesn't move is who says it's complete. the iraqi's can't say. it's when we think its ok, which we all know is never. or when all iraqi's have the same heart. oh, you mean like all americans have the same heart. thats some standard.
also, lets all just pretend that the constant drumbeat of 'america hater' coming from the right, the right that supports the option of torture, spying, pre emptive war, unchecked executive power, sounds pretty america hating to me. maybe you should take a break and go read what our founding fathers had top say about pre emption, or would you like a little lesson from someone w/a brain .
as an american and a patriot i know who the greatest threat to our nation, our constitution and our freedoms are, and they aren't in iraq, thay have invaded the halls of justice right here at home, and the majority has taken off there blinders.
At 3:17 PM,
not to get too carried away here in fantasy land, but am i the only person who thinks those permanent bases might come in awful handy if we decide to launch another 'liberation' in iran? or syria? what about a launching pad for protecting that little oppressed nation full of nukes called israel?
the continued occupation of iraq serves many purposes for the global dominance crowd, all in the name of freedom and democracy (of course).
all w/the blood sweat and tears of both our nations soldiers and patriots. way to go america, lets chalk another up for diversity.
in the name of fighting terroism we've done a commendable job of securing a foothold in the middle east. if you got lemons, make lemonaide, american ingenuity at its finest (not)
yes, all wars end because those who are willing to continue fighting are "of one heart". I did not say that they willingly changed their minds, or even that they remained alive. Only that they are of one heart.
The occupation is fighting today for the same thing it has always fought for. If you don't understand by now then your mind isn't willing to see.
At 7:25 PM,
At 12:14 PM,
" However, it is fairly obvious who it won't be. "
you mean like in vietnam?
"The occupation is fighting today for the same thing it has always fought for."
always as in since we occupied iraq, or always like all american soldiers have always had god on their side and we always fight for freedom and democracy as opposed to other soldiers w/allah on their side?
is this thing we have always fought for ( which i don't understand by now because my mind isn't willing to see ) justified in all cases including pre emption. is it a coincidence we have chosen a country to fight in that just happens to be strategically located and rich resources? how come we are not battling these undemocratic forces w/the same vigor in afghanistan. how come we supported this same dictator when he was fighting iran?
since you are so confident we will succeed in our mission, what do we have going for us now we didn't have going for us in vietnam. were their terrorists more powerful than the terrorists in iraq?
"all wars end because those who are willing to continue fighting are "of one heart"."
""until there is only one left standing""
in vietnam there was not only one left standing. we left. do you think we should have stayed until there was only one left standing. what do you think of the situation now in vietnam? the country survived without us and our continued leadership. many died.
but their conflict for the most part ended without our participation. why couldn't ths happen in iraq?
communism was going to spread like cancer and land on our shores. it didn't. 9/11 had nothing to do w/iraq. is iraq going to land on our shores if we leave? do you feel at all guilty for turning iraq into a hotbed of tabilan where they did not have a foothold there before.
since you are so convinced i am 'not willing to see'
you can easily dismiss my questions. won't make them go away just because god is on your side.
1) god is not on my side. he would have to care in order to take sides.
2) The long-term goals will be achieved with or without victory in Iraq. Which has always been to trigger a renaissance of thought and to propose an ideology that effectively competes with fundamentalism. The mid-east is screwed. They have more people than they can feed without oil money. If the US achieves their short-term goals then maybe Iraq can show the others a way out of the mess. If not, then there will be some big wars that spill over into Europe and international terrorism will get much worse than anything before. Either way, the muslim middle ages will come to an end within my children's lifetime. It can be relatively easy or it can be extremely bloody. It all depends on how much money they have to buy food when the oil runs out.
At 6:26 PM,
A lot of these posts seem awful callous towards the US Military. I mean I understand if you don't like war or Bush but most of these soldiers are just kids. I can't believe anyone would shrug their shoulders over their deaths. Obviously a lot more Iraqi's have died than Americans in Iraq but let's not forget that it is just as tragic.
I got this e-mailed to me today because it is Memorial Day in the US. Maybe this will help some of even the most vicious America haters to understand that all death is tragic.
[url]http://www.talkmilitary.com/bobby.wmv[/url]
[url]http://www.bobbywarns.com/bobby.html[/url]
[m99] “There always has been and always will be an american timetable for withdrawal. But it is tied to milestones rather than dates. […]When the milestones have been accomplished they will not be able to carry out a coup.”
I agree 100% with you. The milestones being the entrenchment in Iraq of a pro-US puppet regime complete with the security apparatus that can crush any popular dissent through terror and violence. That is precisely the US modus operandi that you describe, and precisely what you did in Iran and other places. Iraqi patriots, I suggest to you, are not interested in being American bootlickers and are interested rather in genuine freedom.
In any case, if all your “milestones” are accomplished, the US troops would never leave, since the Iraqi vichy government would simply offer them a nice SOFA to rest on. And boy, America can never resist a nice SOFA, can it?
[m99] “Either way, you remain blind to the real dynamics inside iraq.”
Actually, I understand the inner dynamics very well. I understand that Iraqis are sick of being dictated to by all manner of people, yourselves included. I understand that the prospect for domination of Iraq by any single “sect” or “group” are limited, now that a central authority with an organised army has been removed. I further understand that the groups inside Iraq are less likely to enter into genuine negotiations with each other for as long as they think they can use the US to prop them up.
[m99] “ The question that people like you will never answer is which of the four do you want? ”
I’m not interested in ANY of the groups becoming triumphant. I’m interested in a genuine dialogue between all Iraqis on a national level for national problems and on a local level for local problems. YOU simply want to do what the old Americans always do : pick a group that can best give you what you want, and put them in power. And if a few massacres occur along the way, well, tough, it’s just them natives at it again.
Do you actually understand how arrogant and well, let’s not beat about the bush, EVIL you sound?
[m99] “You have said so quite clearly. "I CHEER every patriot who resists foreign occupation" Only an idiot believes that they are fighting for anything other than control of Iraq.”
We have had this discussion before. It’s fairly obvious that Iraqis would like to control their own country.
And, see, that’s where you and I diverge.
*I* want IRAQIS to run Iraq.
*You* do not.
‘nuff said.
You are a conflicted individual Bruno. What you want is what the americans are trying to accomplish ... and yet ... your hatred of america is so deep that you are unwilling to accept what you want. Must suck to be you.
Personally, I really don't care about whether this group or that holds power. That is for the Iraqi people to decide. I only care that they are allowed to make the decision of their own free will and are guaranteed the right to change their minds in the future. Most, if not all, of the groups that you openly cheer for wish to take that right away from the Iraqi people. I think it is wrong. God gave man a mind to think with, a mouth to speak with, and a will to express himself. No man should take away from another what God has given freely at birth.
Your hatred of America drives you to support those who would commit such an injustice for the duration of their power. Your argument that it is more efficient and/or more productive for a government to have control over these inalienable rights is disproven each and every day that america remains strong. I think this is the core of your hatred. You do not believe that the state should be subserviant to the people and america's success proves the failure of your ideology. Consequently, you believe that america's failure will prove the validity of your beliefs. Again, it must suck to be you.
[m99] “What you want is what the americans are trying to accomplish ... and yet ... your hatred of america is so deep that you are unwilling to accept what you want.”
Um, no it’s not. America is using the ideals that I speak of as a smokescreen to accomplish a rule-by-proxy, which makes it doubly angering. You accept American intentions as genuine, whereas I do not. And, given US history on these matters, I’m basing my case on a proven track record of US subversion.
[m99] “Personally, I really don't care about whether this group or that holds power. That is for the Iraqi people to decide. […] Most, if not all, of the groups that you openly cheer for wish to take that right away from the Iraqi people.”
LOL! So … Iraqis who resist FOREIGN occupation are, in the world of M99, actually taking the right of Iraqis to decide their own future out of Iraqi hands? Man, my head hurts when I read your stuff. Do you take special classes to learn this logic, or is it natural?
[m99] “You do not believe that the state should be subserviant to the people and america's success proves the failure of your ideology.”
You could not fail more completely in your understanding of my position. Completely wrong. If you have actual quotes by me that are to this effect, I’d like to see them. FYI, here is a recent exchange I had with Rubin, which lays my basic stance out very clearly:
****
[rubin] “ The trend I see as the brightest ray of hope is the "self governance" that is springing up in neighborhoods in Baghdad. What I mean by self governance are NOT Iraqis who are relying on the militias, criminal gangs or just waiting for the new government to make them safe, but Iraqis who are taking control of their own block/street, organizing, sharing and combining resources with each other. If neighbors who have been living together for generations can help and protect each other regardless of party or religion etc. then Iraq's future is bright indeed. ” //end rubin
I checked outside to see the sky, and nope, it is not snowing.
Although it should be, because Rubin and I finally agree on something.
I have said all along that the first step to liberation is the banding together of streets and neighbourhoods and the formation of local self defence groups for protection. This is the bottom-up solution which I have said would always be the key to freedom.
Rubin, of course, does not understand that the American control of Iraq rests fundamentally on the hierarchical control of the country via a pyramidical, top-down power structure. In other words, Iraq is run thusly: Bush tells Khalilzad who tells Maliki who tells Jabouri who tells the police / militias who tell Iraqis what to do. A bottom up scheme reverses this process and works directly against US designs for the control of the Iraqi land and people.
Rubin does also not understand that such schemes will inevitably be pro-Resistance. This is because he does not understand that the resistance to occupation springs directly from the Iraqi people themselves, demonstrated in poll after poll after poll. As long as the people of the neighbourhood are able to secure themselves, their power as neighbours and Iraqis means that they have no need of foreigners for protection. They have no need for Americans or Iranians or Salafis to shield them.
Once Iraqis stop fearing each other, the occupation and all its attendant evils is doomed.
****
That, dear M99, is my position on popular power. I’m all for it. Now, please, try and spin that into me supporting a state that is not subservient to the people.
so, your entire position is based upon the false assumption of "rule by proxy"?
Interesting. That means that you still don't understand the politics of the cold war. It's no wonder that you do not understand the 21st century. You are basing your understanding of the 21st century upon a misunderstanding of the 20th. So, actually, that makes two false assumptions. Your first false assumption is that the cold-war intent was power for the sake of power. Your second false assumption is that we are still living in the 20th century.
Update your thinking and you will realize that "rule by proxy" is counter-productive to American interests in the region. Our enemy is no longer the soviets. It is fundamentalism and jihadism. We do not need an economic, political, or military beach-head. Our goals are best served by creating an ideological beach-head that directly confronts the foundation stones of fundamentalism. Establishing a non-jewish state that is governed by popular consent is exactly such a beach-head. Again, American goals are what you state that you want. But your hatred of America is so blind that you will not accept what you want. When I want something, I accept the gift and say "thank you". You prefer to shoot santa claus and then complain that you didn't get any presents.
[m99] “Update your thinking and you will realize that "rule by proxy" is counter-productive to American interests in the region. […] Establishing a non-Jewish state that is governed by popular consent is exactly such a beach-head.”
I see. Which of course explains all the overwhelming US pressure on countries like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Pakistan, UAE, Lybia, Azerbaijan, Khazakstan, Tajikistan etc etc to stop their disgusting system of one party rule and institute a system based on rule by consent, right?
Ah, but those are strategic US allies. The rule doesn’t count for them. It only counts for countries that are “bad” … ie – opposed to the US. THOSE are the ones that must be dealt with.
Your facile hypocrisy is SO easily refuted.
As is your bullshit about your enemy being “fundamentalism and jihadism.”
Because if these were truly your enemies, one could ask for no better ally than Saddam Hussein. Half of the people he exterminated were religious fundamentalists. The man specialized in sniffing out and liquidating these religious subversives. There is a reason why bin Laden, the Iranians, Sadr and Hakim and the rest of that gang hate Hussein. He was an equal – opportunity liquidator when it came to the fundies.
Again, I repeat, your claims of wanting “democracy” are rubbish.
Your claims of fighting “fundamentalism” are rubbish.
The spin simply does not fit the facts.
And Santa is a man in a black facemask driving a white Toyota with a Glock in his belt.
Damn right I’d shoot him.
It is ironic, almost everything you say you would like is what the US is trying to accomplish. Your hatred has made you blind. That's not a good thing for your mental health.
I think there is a story in about how one of the ancient mideast leaders took compassion upon the people under an enemy leader. He sent bandages, food, and water to the people. But they threw the water and food upon the ground claiming it was poisoned and burned the bandages convinced that they were infected. You remind me of that story.
At 6:57 PM, BobGriffin
I've read through a number of the comments, and scanned the list, and I find no mention of the Assyrians. Interesting. Part of this community has dwelt in Iraq for ALL of recorded history, another part returning during the 20th century from refuge in the Hakkiari mountains of Turkey and the Urmiah region of Iran.
They are Christian, not Muslim. (Their ancestors became Christian when the Germans, Irish, and Scots were still pagan) They tend to be pro-Western, if not exactly pro-American.
I have watched as American policy in Iraq has increasingly isolated this community, ignoring its existence, ignoring elections violations and repression, ignoring requests for an Assyrian enclave in their traditional territory (claim by the KRG for Kurdistan).
I have learned to expect little or no change of position from those who whole-heartedly support American foreign policy. This is a pity, as only by being open to being affected by new information can we improve our understanding of the world and our actions in it.
So far, I haven't run across any new information justifying current American policy, merely the same old tired excuses which I also get in the investment spam which clutters my email.
So, if this is so, why do I write? I write because as someone skeptical of the pre-war effort and critical of the reasons used to justify invasion, I was willing to back somewhat off of my opposition due to information regarding the Assyrian (and Chaldean) request for American assistance in relieving them of the oppression from Saddam. I watched, skeptically for several months, finally in August of 2003 seeing that American actions appeared to be creating a worse situation than had been faced by the Assyrians (and Chaldeans and Syriacs) under Saddam. Badr's Brigade, the military wing of SCIRI, one of the Shi'ite parties allied with us, was threatening (and killing) Assyrians in Basra. At the same time, Bremer, hardly a representative of anti-Americanism, had reached out to the ayatollahs and mullahs, while apparently completely ignoring the preachers, priests, bishops, and patriarchs of the native (aboriginal) Iraqi Christian community. I would be surprised if the extremists, both Shi'ite and Salafi, didn't see this as evidence that the Americans, while happy to use the assistance of the Assyrians (etc.), had no particular interest in them.
I am not solely concerned with the Assyrian community, but the situations affecting that community over the past 2 1/2 years have been very expressive of either American intentions (or lack of same) or American capabilities.
For more information, see aina.org and/or zindamagazine.com
It is when I consider the plight of the aboriginal Iraqi Christian community that I become most irate with this invasion and its supporters. You, the right wing American Christian community, have shown that you are unwilling to consider the situation of an ancient and established Christian community which isn't in a position of benefiting you. You have been willing to use this community as a basis for the invasion, and then have happily ignored the community as they are targetted by Baathists, Al Qaeda, Shi'ites, common thugs, and worst of all, your Kurdish allies, who want Assyrian land.
The Assyrian community was correct in referring to itself as a 'canary in the mine'. The mine, as we can see from the canary, has become very dangerous, to a degree barely imagined 3 years ago.
I normally close with 'Be Well', but in this case I will close with
May God give us (the whole world) peace and guard us,
Bob Griffin
[m99] “It is ironic, almost everything you say you would like is what the US is trying to accomplish.”
What’s ironic is that I refuted your argument of “what the US is trying to accomplish” with several concrete examples, yet you insist on repeating your story as the truth without taking account of the facts. I suggest that you may want to take note of a concept called “reality” next time.
[m99] “Your hatred has made you blind.”
And your fanaticism has made you impervious to logic.
[m99] “I think there is a story in about how one of the ancient mideast leaders took compassion upon the people under an enemy leader. He sent bandages, food, and water to the people. But they threw the water and food upon the ground claiming it was poisoned and burned the bandages convinced that they were infected. You remind me of that story.”
I think there is a story about how some settlers pretended to take compassion on the natives of a country. They gave them blankets to keep warm with in the harsh winter. The natives believed in the goodness of their fellow man, even though these men were different to them, and they took the blankets. Unfortunately the cloth was infected with a deadly virus, and thousands upon thousands of them died due to smallpox. The strangers then moved in and took the land of the natives they had murdered.
You remind me of that story.
Bob Griffin –
I fear that the fate of the Chaldo-Assyrians is destined to be a grim one. Despite the fact that they have lived relatively unmolested in Iraq since time immemorial, this current wave of fanaticism and violence that is engulfing the ME looks like it is going to overwhelm them. I hope this will not be so, because they had no ability to either assist or deny the events that are overtaking them. In other words, they don’t deserve this.
Bruno,
I can take some examples out of context and use them to prove that Islam is evil. I don't think that it is. But if I were to focus upon a thread rather than the tapestry and limit the context of discussion to only that thread then I could prove that a lie is true. Doing so is your modus operandi. You prey upon people who are willing to limit their perception to your thread of logic. What remains unknown is if you limit yourself to that thread or seek to decieve others.
So what you are actually saying, M99, in your inimitably convoluted way, is that I’m missing the “big picture”.
Is that correct?
If so, let me tell you that it is precisely BECAUSE I see the “big picture” that I see your country’s policies as being forces of evil. The direct evil that Iraqis are experiencing is only a reflection of the greater machinations that are taking place today. “Full Spectrum Dominance” is the ultimate goal of the US, and please excuse me if I don’t feel like being dominated by a bunch of foreigners from across the sea.
I have to in turn wonder what is it that drives you - when you have knowledge of the torment and misery your country has inflicted in the pursuit of its goals – to defend the ongoing tragedy that is US foreign policy. I have to wonder if you are merely a confused sheep, or a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Bruno,
I am simply saying that your point of view is logical and well reasoned because it only deals with a small part of available information. The difficulty arises when information is presented that does not fit into your world view. What is unknown is if your defense mechanisms prevent you from seeing this and you truly believe the things that you say .... or ... if you do see them and make the conscious choice to decieve others.
and - by the way - I don't particularly believe in good V evil. Is Iran evil? I doubt it. Only Allah knows for sure. The mullahs who claim to know that God is on their side are vain beyond belief. They are mere humans who are genetically incapable of understanding such things. Same could be said of George Bush.
Good? The only concept of good v evil that I have is that if we don't get off this rock before the next big meteor then we will become extinct like the dinosaurs. If you want to help us do so, then that is good. If you want to do something that keeps us stuck here longer, then that is bad. If you want to reduce the number of people within our species then that is bad. If you want to do something that increases it, then that is good because then we have more people who can work on an escape plan.
apparently, you are much smarter than me. you have been blessed with the wisdom to know what is really good and evil.
[m99] “The difficulty arises when information is presented that does not fit into your world view.”
LOL! Well, that’s exactly what I would say of YOU, your reaction to my 5:43 post being a case in point. I guess we have more in common than I thought. The difference between us is that if I am wrong, I adjust my POV to suit the facts. It’s the only way to avoid fanaticism. You, on the other hand, conjure the image of a captain on a sinking ship who insists it is not sinking while the crew scramble for the lifeboats.
Is there a hidden question here?
As for the rest of your comments, I agree that leaving Earth is a good idea. I do, however, believe that there are 50% too many people on the Earth right now. I wish that we could control our birthrate somehow. Agent Smith’s analogy of humanity to a virus seems particularly apt.
[m99] "your 5:43 post said, in effect, that unless the US attacks every non-democracy in the entire world then their claims of wanting democracy in Iraq must be false."
Ah, a typical American. Thinks only in terms of bombing and attacking. No, all I ask is that the US stop SUPPORTING its dictator friends to the tune of billions of dollars.
THEN your claims of 'democracy' might ring a little less hollow. You don't have to attack ANYONE.
hmmm. that is rather ambiguous.
You must mean stop economic trading. Otherwise there isn't any "billions". I assume you don't mean stop all food, medicine, disaster relief, and economic aide. If you mean only the unspecified "here is some money, go buy weapons" type of aide then it would not be enough to make any difference. If you want the US to stop the other, humanitarian, aide then you don't much care about the people. I know that you earlier wished for half the people on the world to die but I still don't think you are so callous that you would wish for millions to die in order to overthrow one dictator. On the other hand, you can't mean emabargoes against just a few countries like Iran and North Korea because that is already being done.
So you must mean that unless the US enacts economic embargoes against every dictator then they don't want democracy in Iraq.
Do you believe that?
Dear Iraqis and Americans,
I am a proud American veteran of Desert Storm 15 years ago living in Atlanta, GA; proud of both my countrymen and women and proud of the Iraqi people who have suffered under tyrants before and psychotic murderers since the right, and just, war of 2003. We have both suffered in lives and treasure, but now is not the time to wilt under the enormous pressure that the forces of darkness employ to oppress and terrorize a proud and defiant people and deny them the destiny so rightly theirs to pursue and create. Now is the time for resolute tenacity and unshakeable resolve.
Just words? Just empty and high-handed phrases? Perhaps; but also the truth and the elixir for what ails, what is now, a broken city and fractured national psyche.
To expect primitvie tribalistic behavior to vanish overnight or in three years is, I submit, a somewhat simplistic position. To blame addmittedly ineffectual civic organizations or the benevolent "occupying force" presently stationed in Iraq is, I believe, to deny the past or present and blinds one to the possible glorious future.
Rather than rehash the litany of the past, let us simply agree that Iraq before 2003 was simply an untenable entity; from anyone's perspective. Saddam could not be allowed to pursue his WMD programs, flaunt UN resolutions and mandates and continue to revel in his stature as a force for destabilization in the area. The Iraqi people could not continue to be fodder for Saddam and his minions; embargoes, Oil for Food and one mass grave after another could not continue unabated. America and the West could not continue to placate a secular lunatic based solely on his non-alliance with the Communists. Things had to change; and things did.
Post-invasion has entailed a series of huge mistakes by both coalition forces and the indigenous people of the region. The West was guilty of a too optimistic vision of an oppressed people reveling in their newfound freedom from the yoke of tyranny. The people of Iraq seemed, at times, to be too intent on looting velvet couches from empty palaces rather than forming the basic institutions upon which civil societies based on the rule of law are formed. The coalition forces disbanded some institutions necessary to preserve order and entrusted great responsibility in men who, at their worst, were self-serving, vacuous and hollow. The Iraqi people chose to let murderers such as Sadr and his band of thugs retard the development of civil society and wasted precious time and resources in a vain glorious attempt to instill an honor that has never existed.
The point is, folks, that there is enough blame to go around for everyone. Mistakes have been made, but let us not lose focus of what is at stake and what is possible. For every misstep made by coalition forces, the Iraqi people or brutal and animalistic terrorists, much progress has been made, and continues to be made. Let us not forget that Iraq is a country and does not consist solely of Baghdad or a half-dozen other cities where violence and lawlessness dominate.
People are dying, yes. But people have been dying by the trainload in Iraq for the last fifty years. The time is now to reverse the trend and chart a new direction for the country. It will be tough and hard slogging, but the rewards will be reaped by the generations to come.
I am no friend of Islam and consider it a cult of darkness and death warped by Ibn Wahhib and Quotb over the last 150 years, rather than the religion of peace image the media espouses relentlessly. But, I personally do not care if one worships a trash can, and will defend one's right to worship said trash can, as long as worship does not devolve into institutionalized violence, murder, rape and oppression.
It is time, Iraqis, to take charge of your desiny. If you think America, and Americans, want to stay in your country one minute longer than is necessary you are sadly mistaken. After the tired litany of excuses as to why we are there such as imperialism (we are trying to set up a sovereign nation), oil (the price of oil is at record levels), women (we have plenty, thank you) or any other hollow reason the sheiks and imans blather, realize that we are there to help you build a stable and vibrant country. We do not care if you have a McDonald's on every corner and we do not care if you wear jeans or listen to rock music. We care about the futre of your country and your children and we hope that by your sacrifice, other Arab nations will heed the call to free will and individualism which is, after all, the natural state of all men.
Such work will be tough and, at times, brutal; but is there anything worth fighting for more besides one's destiny and one's country? We will stand with you, fighting and, at the same time, building.
As long as human beings exist, lawlessness and savagery will exist right alongside. But to not struggle against the darker forces of humanity means the beginning of the end of virtue. Brutality and murder are not American inventions and Iraq was not the garden spot of Mesopotamia prior to 2003.
Iraq, and Iraqis, have a chance, unique in history, to put the past behind them and virtually re-invent their country. Rally around this opportunity! Become countrymen and women! Become citizens! And, when you are old and gray and watching your grandchildren play and frolic in relative peace and prosperity, then look back and either curse or praise America and the West. But now is not the time.
We are there. The tools are there. The will is there. Ask yourself if your minds and hearts are there. Not as Sunnis or Shias or Kurds; as Iraqis. The time for tribalism, if there ever was one, is long gone and over.
Do we have all the answers and are we perfect? No, not in the slightest. But we are there and we are with you.
But what to do? How to change things for the better? Use the tools at your disposal, for starters. You now have the beginnings of a free press. Use it! You now have the beginnings of a market economy. Use it! You now have hundreds of rebuilt and functioning schools. Use them to teach your children something useful and practical in the world of today! If your police are corrupt and part of the problem, use the political process to replace or imprison them! Elect competent public officials based on their expertise rather than their allegiance to today's sheik-of-the month. Embrace reforms, technology and the liberalizing aspects of representative government. Teach the next generation, which will be here soon enough, that just because someone disagrees with you or is a Christian or a Hindu or a Jew that that alone does not make them your mortal and eternal enemy worthy only of your contempt and death.
I can not believe that in the 21st century men are afraid to shave their beards or wear jeans. Do not cower to the brutes who try to impose such neanderthal dictums. Fight them! Through civil institutions if possible; if not, in groups of men who oppose them and their "ideas." If you have information helpful to the arrest or destruction of savages, share it with the proper authorities, even if they are coalition infidels in your eyes. Yes, some of you may die, but if you stand up to bullies, psychopaths and goons eventually they begin to fear you. Form civic organizations and watch groups. Become more involved, not less, in the face of savagery and murder. Help each other make it through each day and night. Weapons do not make a man; words, thoughts and actions do. Forge an Iraqi male identity that says "Enough already! We have had enough of you and your kind!"
You have an opportunity to become a beacon of enlightenment and courage for the rest of the Arab world or devolve into darkness for another thousand years. Seize this opportunity.
Much of your cynicism and pessimism is warranted, but what is needed now is a secularization of society where "religion" is seen as a right, not as a pathology. Forming a civil society based on the rule of law is hard work, but it is far from impossible; especially when the battle of ideas has been won, and won convincingly. From what I read courtesy of Iraqi bloggers, most Iraqi people reject the medieval theocrats. So, in essence, we must defeat their brutality. This can, will and must be done!
Rise up as men who choose to live by the rule of law. Protect your women and children from thugs as men should do. Demand accountability from your government. Encourage education and enlightenment.
Do all of this, however, through the institutions of representative government, not through street riots or sectarian violence. Pick your battles wisely and do not waste time foolishly. Form your own opinions based on fact, not hysterical pandering or mindless "religious" blather. Demand respect, but realize respect is earned and is mutual.
Who can predict the future? Certainly not I. Iraq may break up into three distinct and autonomous regions or it may find and forge a national identity. Either is preferable to the past, or is anyone really comforted by the thought of President Uduay?
Seize your opportunity! Just words? Perhaps. But we are with you. Help us to help yourselves. We stand with you and consider you brothers and countrymen in this long and uphill battle. But the stakes are too high and the future too precious to waste debating whether or not a country of proud people should be ruled by the whim of 8th-century theocrats.
Rise as one! Rise as Iraqis!
Best regards,
Sam Haldi
Atlanta, GA
At 10:45 PM,
Dear Iraqis,
For god's sake, will you please begin to act like men? The rest of the world is tired of your corruption, whining, brutality and utter inability to advance beyond the 7th century. Wake up you idiots!
Or, continue to show the world that Arabs are hopeless and pathetic and that Arab civilizations belong on the trash heap.
Begin to, finally(!), act like men for once in your miserable lives. Enlightened men grow tired of your childishness and we have other Arab brutes to neutralize and destroy/reform.
Wake up you idiots.
Best regards,
Sam Haldi
Welcome to the “NEW IRAQ”… Welcome to the Talabanization of Iraq!!! There will be one day in which we regret the day we wanted the liberation of Iraq. At least women were able to do almost whatever they want but now, they have to sit at home and be oppressed, not by their husbands but by strangers.
This situation reminded me with the book I am reading now. “The bookseller of Kabul” is a clear mirror of how life looked like in Afghanistan under Talaban era.
This morning, I was carrying two DVDs of American movies. When I was walking in the street, many things came to my mind. I may be killed if an insurgent sees them in my hand.
It is funny that the U.S. occupation forces announced in “documents” that Al-Qaeda in Iraq is in its "last breath". Well, hell yeah! Obvious… If Zarqawi is weak, things like these happen. What if he is strong?!