The Associated Press reported that the Shiites’ top clerics opposed a draft law that was supposed to give hundreds of thousands of Iraqis their jobs back. The law, if enacted, would allow the baathists who were excluded by Bremer’s debaathification decree to come back to their old jobs or at least give them a chance to start a new life.
Apparently, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the top Shiite marjiya, or authority, doesn’t think that the Iraqis, who were baathists, should be allowed to make a living anymore. Ahmed Chalabi, who heads the debaathification committee, met with Sistani and other Shiite marjiya and was quoted in the AP as saying “The grand ayatollahs said it is dangerous for the criminals to return to leading posts in the state.”
The debaathification decree affected Iraqis who were in the fifth rank of the party and above. The party had nine ranks [that I can remember.]
But did Sistani ask himself “who those people are?” They are Iraqis. No matter what he and his alike are trying to do, they are Iraqis and will always be Iraqis. How can they provide their families if they don’t have jobs? How can the government blame them if they collaborate with the insurgents to get some money and feed their children?
No one can deny that the Iraqis had to be baathists to get jobs, especially in the ten years before the invasion in 2003. They had to be at least Muayid, or supporter.
In high schools, the administrations sometimes forced students to enroll in baath party. It happened in my high school: one day the principal came to each classroom and ordered all of us to register our names. Of course I didn’t, but that was because I knew the principal. But many others had to register in the party because if not “you will all fail this year,” the principal said.
Many universities and colleges required baath party registration in order to enroll student, like Saddam University, education college, the medical institute, the teachers institute, the fine arts college, the fine arts institute, the military academy, the police academy, and many others. What could students do? And once you register, they will promote you like it or not and I am a witness on that because I’ve had friends who registered in high school and never thought about it until years later they were told that they are three or four ranks higher!
When I applied to The College of Fine Arts to study pottery and ceramics, which is one of my hobbies, my application was denied because I wasn’t a baathist.
The range of monthly salaries of the average Iraqis was between $3 and $6, in the time when the price of a kilo of sugar was 50 cents. And to get bonuses, the employees had to get promoted in the baath party. Each rank had a price. From Muayid you get to be Naseer then Utho, or member, then Utho Amil or active member, then Utho Shu’ba or class member, then Utho Firqa or division member then Utho Qiyada Qutriya or regional leadership member then Utho Qiyada Qawmiya or national leadership member and I think that’s it.
Most of the Iraqis who were baathists were either active members or class members or division members because that’s when they actually got promotions and bonuses. And we are talking about maximum of $20 a month, no more!
Saddam Hussein’s government put the number of baathists in Iraq to seven million members, although “all Iraqis are baathists even if they didn’t register,” Saddam Hussein always said.
When Bremer issued the decree, it affected millions of Iraqis. They lost their jobs and had no income for months. The ministries couldn’t work because they technically lost every qualified person in Iraq. Who had to join the party? Those who had to be promoted because they were over qualified for their old jobs. And who are they? They are the teachers, principals, engeneers, doctors, managers, general managers and others who knew how things worked in every ministry in the country.
When the U.S. administration realized that the decree was wrong, and that happened very very late as usual, they asked the Iraqi government to issue exceptions and to return some of those who lost their jobs back. I interviewed one official in the debaathification committee when I was in Baghdad and I don’t remember the number of the Iraqis who were still affected by debaathification that he gave me, but it was more than 20,000 and less than 30,000. I remember him saying “it only affects …. That’s all. I don’t know why the Iraqis are upset.”
Only 20,000! Do you know how many families this number makes and how many children?
Plus, I don’t believe that Sistani, the Iraqi government and the American administration are that stupid to believe that the high ranking baathists, who had power to hurt people and benefit from the government, are still in the country. Those who should be affected by the debaathification decree are already outside Iraq, either in Syria or Jordan or the UAE or Yemen, and are living the best life ever using the money they stole from the Iraqi banks and government. Those who should be punished are not in Iraq to be affected by debaathification. They have left in the very early days after the invasion in 2003. Why would they stay?
Sistani wants Iraqis to starve to death now. Why doesn’t he want Iraqis to go back to their jobs? They are Iraqis no matter what anyone in the world thinks. When we don’t allow them to work, that means we are adding to the unemployed, to the poverty level, to the insurgents groups and to the uneducated people in the future of Iraq.
When someone like Sistani and other religious figures go public saying “the baathists don’t deserve jobs,” that actually adds to the turmoil in the country. I cannot help but think that such a move provokes more hatred and sectarian conflict to the civil war that’s already on in Iraq.
Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the poisonous snake/Mullah and leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, had already asked the Shiites to massacre the baathists. He asked them in public. I wrote an entry about it.
I cannot understand when someone like this Sistani says “no. don’t give them jobs” what do they mean? So, how shall we deal with this unemployed population of Iraq? because it is not enough to say “don’t give them jobs.” We have to deal with the consequences of this decision. Those are not Iranian or Syrians or Egyptians, who if didn’t get jobs in Iraq can go back to their countries. Those are Iraqis.
But how should Sistani know about unemployment and what it means or how hard it is to not have a job and cannot provide a family. He is unemployed and never had to work, yet he gets millions of dollars a year from other people’s hard work. Convenient! A typical decision-maker, who knows nothing about people’s life and the circumstances, and yet get to decide how people should live!
And hey, Sistani, don’t make me start about who is Iraqi and who is not!
Painting by Iraqi artist Betool Fekaiki
take24stepstofreedom@yahoo.com
At 7:56 AM, 
Treasure of Baghdad
I believe that the Iraqi government and the US administration realize now how important this issue is and how they did a terrible mistake when they first started it.
Many people lost their jobs because of this stupid law. The problem is that those who committed crimes are free, enjoying the money they got all these years while poor innocent people are still in Iraq struggling with the hard life they have to deal with without a job.
At 9:22 AM, RhusLancia
Thanks, 24!
BT: "I believe that the Iraqi government and the US administration realize now how important this issue is and how they did a terrible mistake when they first started it."
OK, but the issue is a bit muddier with the Shia's most respected cleric still being unwilling to move on, isn't it?
I pretty much agree with Bruno's comment, as it's written. I was surprised and a bit saddened to see Sistani's opposition to un-de-Baathification.
On the other hand, Sistani may be tired of making concessions to Sunnis/Baathists and getting nothing in return. Just sayin'.
Oh and this:
bruno: "Punish the guilty, not everybody."
I wish you applied this simple tenet of justice equally to all Iraqis. You've previously wished equal punishment (death) on all Iraqi security forces, regardless of whether they are a Badr or JAM death squadder, or a true Iraqi patriot just trying to protect & serve Iraqi citizens. Same-O, same-O, death to all.
Hey Bruno, what if an IA or IP is also an ex-Baathist? Given 24's stats, that is possible. Do those two cancel themselves out somehow? IA/IP(death no matter what) + ex-Baathist(reconcilliation) = ??
At 9:34 AM, 
24 writes ”In high schools, the administrations sometimes forced students to enroll in baath party. It happened in my high school: one day the principal came to each classroom and ordered all of us to register our names. Of course I didn’t, but that was because I knew the principal. But many others had to register in the party because if not “you will all fail this year,” the principal said.
Many universities and colleges required baath party registration in order to enroll student, like Saddam University, education college, the medical institute, the teachers institute, the fine arts college, the fine arts institute, the military academy, the police academy, and many others. What could students do? And once you register, they will promote you like it or not and I am a witness on that because I’ve had friends who registered in high school and never thought about it until years later they were told that they are three or four ranks higher!”
Hi 24,
When I was in secondary school my principal made all of us members of the party. It started when a high up politician visited us, she called me in as one of the students to show of because I had good grades. The man then asks me “are you baathy?”, need I tell more how afraid I was to answer that question? I was not, “why” he asked, I really do not remember what I gave for excuse at the time. Well the principal on spot then said now all my students are members of the party. I don’t think at all she said that out of support to Saddam, it was out of fear.
In my enrolment interview at Baghdad University many years later the same thing happed.
24 I had no idea that there were different ranks.
At 11:29 AM, 24 Steps to Liberty
Here you go, the fruits of Sistani’s decision have come.
Azzaman newspaper reported the assassination of three former baath party members in Nasiriya yesterday.
Those snakes, the mullahs, have to be undermined and marginalized and that needs jobs, reconstruction and security. People need to see a change and a ray of hope of a better future. Only then they will stop listening to the hissing of Sistani, Hakim and people like them.
At 12:33 PM,
..."that needs jobs, reconstruction and security. People need to see a change and a ray of hope of a better future. Only then they will stop listening to the hissing of Sistani, Hakim and people like them."
Exactly 24!
The UN millennium goals are very clear on these issues. This is a discussion we have on a Swedish forum right now. That no matter how free, rich and developed a society is you will always have people who choose to be criminals, fanatics or racists. That is just the way it is.
But the better life is the bigger the majority will be who choose a life of solidarity and open minds. But the other groups will always be there with us, that is just the way it is.
On the other hand, Sistani may be tired of making concessions to Sunnis/Baathists and getting nothing in return. Just sayin'.
24,
I have a question for you at the end of this...
There might be something to RhusL's statement quoted above. It's as though so many ex-Ba'athist Sunni Arabs have ever conceded that the government that took their jobs was even legitimate to begin with. The Sunni Arab imams were not seeking concessions during the period that Sistani was telling Shi'as quote: "I don't care if they blow up the whole town. Don't strike back." During that time, those imams preached violence against the Coalition and violence against their "puppets" (a.k.a. the Allawi's interim authority and the subsequent Shi'a government) and they encouraged their flocks to boycott the elections. If Iraqi English-language blogs are exemplary of their sentiment, even large percentages of Baghdadi secular Sunni Arabs agreed with them.
Still, even Bremer, who originally implemented the policy, regretted the sectarian manner in which some Ba'athists were purged and others were kept on.
Now here's my question for you, 24,
(playing the Devil's Advocate) Don't non-Ba'athists have a right to have jobs too?? They were kept out of the best positions under Saddam. Should they be forced to give up the jobs they were given after Saddam's fall in order to give it to the the ones who had it under Saddam?
nyt confirms.
“In my opinion, our country is now one led by the clerics, and the new political process in Iraq is made to allow those clerics and religious parties to govern Iraq,” said Salim Abdullah, a legislator from the main Sunni Arab bloc in Parliament. “The Iraqis will feel the consequences of that.”
“The Iraqi government is using wilayat al-faqih,” he said, angrily invoking the term that refers to the style of clerical governance popularized by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran.
Ibrahim al-Janabi, a legislator and senior aide to Mr. Allawi, said today that the lobbying of Ayatollah Sistani by Shiites like Mr. Chalabi “is the weapon of losers.”
“When they feel they might lose out, they go to the ayatollahs to get support to push through their goals,” he said. “This matter should be discussed inside the Parliament.”
nobody should be surprised that iraq ends up w/a government run by religious leaders if the parliament is set up like it is.
people should have been able to vote for individuals.
At 8:16 PM,
At 9:13 PM, 24 Steps to Liberty
CMARII
I don’t get your question. I tried to make it sound like it makes sense or connected to any reality on the ground or anything I said in the entry so I can answer it, but failed.
Anonymous,
Chalabi never wanted an Islamic Iraq. Just so you know, if you go and read some background on him, you will find that he is a secular. But he wants to get the support of religious leaders of Iraq now because basically he has to. Otherwise, he won’t be able to move one step forward or backwards.
It's not as though so many ex-Ba'athist Sunni Arabs have ever conceded that the government that took their jobs was even legitimate to begin with.
ever wonder why? it lacked legitimacy for them because it treated them irrationally. you can treat someone unfairly and then say, hey, lets be reasonable. but don't expect what you offer (which was essentially second class citizenship) to be embraced.
asking a person to conceed what has been stolen from them is legitimately not theirs as a preclusion to resolution reminds me of... palestine.
to move forward it is productive to find resolution instead of justifying reasons to hold onto your position. when you regurgitate
reasoning why sunnis should not be included, you solve nothing. you simply serve to re establish the ways that have led to the failure.
The Sunni Arab imams were not seeking concessions during the period that Sistani was telling Shi'as quote: "I don't care if they blow up the whole town. Don't strike back."
maybe that is because the sunni arab imam's perception was there were shia deathsquads possibly affiliated w/the new government.
once again, when you rehash who did what first, you do not find a solution.
Should they be forced to give up the jobs they were given after Saddam's fall in order to give it to the the ones who had it under Saddam?
i am not sure asking your question in this manner is productive to resolve anything. you mention saddam twice, why? he is dead.
maybe say, is there a way to make room in the ministries and government for these iraqis who are now excluded? one does not have to make an assumption someone will have to give up there job. more jobs need to be created.
this whole privatization plan.. what about some system whereby certain industries would not be opened to foreign ownership (but remain private) with start up funds coming from reconstruction or WB loans or iraqi state, and these industries create new opportunity.
[24] “Only then they will stop listening to the hissing of Sistani, Hakim and people like them.”
It’s really such a pity. You know, for a while I believed that Sistani had the intelligence and moral clarity to look above sectarian and ideological differences and promote an Iraqi-first sectarian-less agenda. I know there were many “Sunni” Iraqis cheering him on and wondering what the heck he was waiting for to issue a fatwa against the occupation. Instead, he decided to play the sectarian game like other misguided characters were doing, and dooming everybody in the process.
I’m not saying this is all his fault. Far from it, I think that the sectarian agenda was promoted by forces beyond his control.
I AM saying, however, that he missed an opportunity to become a national figure of unity and reconciliation, had he only made the right choices in 2004.
Right now he is just another of many sectarian figures ripping the fabric of Iraq, and that’s just a pity.
[rhus] “You've previously wished equal punishment (death) on all Iraqi security forces, regardless of whether they are a Badr or JAM death squadder, or a true Iraqi patriot just trying to protect & serve Iraqi citizens.”
We were talking about justice, not morality, as in: is a guerrilla justified in fighting against Iraqi Army / Police that are trying to find and kill him. The answer as far as I am concerned, is yes, the same as the French collaborators were legitimate targets for French Resistance in WW2.
I don’t doubt that there are people in the IP / IA that REALLY DO think they are doing the right thing.
Heck, I read interviews with some of them that said that if they weren’t in the IA they would be fighting the Americans. On the other hand, your typical guerrilla doesn’t have the ability to read minds and determine whether a soldier is “good”, “bad” or merely looking for a salary. It may well be that an individually “bad” guerrilla kills an individually “good” policeman as often as the opposite is true
This is the horror of the war that has been unleashed in Iraq by the American invasion, where Iraqi kills Iraqi based on what organisation they are in.
It’s yet another argument for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.
I don’t get your question. I tried to make it sound like it makes sense or connected to any reality on the ground or anything I said in the entry so I can answer it, but failed.
I don't think this is all that hard to get, but I'll try again. Axiom: There are a limited number of jobs in the government.
First: Your post expresses great sympathy for unemployed ex-Ba'athists. It does not address the fact that many NON-ex-Ba'athists ALSO do not have jobs.
Second: The idea that *ending* deba'athification will be sufficient is a pipe-dream IMO. You've said as much when you implied that there would be no peace with all the ex-Ba'athists not having jobs. In order to show good faith, the government will have to reverse the debaathification process. That means giving Ba'athists their jobs back. The only way to do that is to fire people who got those jobs during the debaathification process.
So that means laying off non-baathiststs who got those jobs after Saddam fell, and giving them to people who had those just under the Saddam regime.
So my question is this: Why is it more fair for the people who got those jobs under Saddam to have them rather than the people who got those jobs since Saddam fell? Why is it more disruptive in Iraq for ex-Ba'athists to not have top ministry and educational positions than it is for non-ex-Ba'athists not to have those positions?
Perhaps Sistani believes that the people who are causing so much grief to Iraqis while NOT having positions of authority will not be improved by HAVING authority.
My point is that some people talk of debaathification as an unjust process in itself (rather than how it was implemented), and speak of reversing the process as some miracle that will end the hostility between those who were shut-out under Saddam and those who were on the inside. I don't think so. I looks to me like "six of one and half-a-dozen of the other".
As with almost everything in Iraq, nothing is black-and-white. No one is 100% pure. No decisions are entirely good or bad. Every choice bears children: some that will save Iraq and some that will doom it. And Sistani IMO is not *entirely* wrong.
A person should get a job based on their qualifications.
Nadia,
Under Saddam one of the key qualifications for having top jobs was that someone be a Ba'athist and be connected to a Ba'athist party decision-maker. Can we really assume that according to your criteria any Party members who lost their jobs were more objectively qualified than those who replaced them?
some that will save Iraq and some that will doom it.
cmar,do you have any ideas about what may save iraq that pertains to debaathification?
Axiom: There are a limited number of jobs in the government.
try expanding your axiom. using a word like limited when trying to be inclusive is sabatoging your goal.
i have wondered on more than one occasion if switching to privatization might potentially send iraq jobs to outside sources. this outsourcing has really expanded here in the US. i imagine job solutions as an ongoing process for any country.
it seems like this is an initial hurdle. was there coordination w/ the debaathification in an attempt to implement the privatization plan. and, if there was, how much might this have played a role?
of all these jobs that the baathist had and lost, how many of them were government jobs? how many of those government functions are set to be privatized? how many have opened up to foreign ownership or will be when the conflict is over?
are new grateful employees more likely to conform to new bosses (private owners) than old ones?
maybe this is far fetched or irrelevant. i am just wondering how much of a web of contact winds its way thru the governing body and the job assignments. and how much choice do the governing bodies have in who owns these previously state companies?
2 articles come to mind that i think are relevant w/regard to jobs, and government, or privatization..
one from the conservative WSJ (sorry no direct link) outsourcing the governments brain
the reason this is important is because some of the jobs will inevitably end up going to outside contractors even after the war w/privatization, at least they do here in the US. even if these contractors are not 'outside' meaning they are based in america (although even halliburton is moving to dubai) they still have links directly to those in power.
perhaps an important job like sitting on this oil forum, a job that has gone to someone in exxon /mobile.. perhaps this could be replaced by an iraqi thereby opening up another avenue for employment.
this is also about privatization, tho a little OT, i think quite valuable.
interview w/naomi klien
At 8:46 AM, RhusLancia
bruno: "I AM saying, however, that he (Sistani) missed an opportunity to become a national figure of unity and reconciliation, had he only made the right choices in 2004."
In my opinion, he was pushing for unity and reconcilliation in '04, by holding back Shia retalliation against the Sunni-sponsored terrorists and throttling the coalition responses to Falluja I and al-Sadr. But what decisions are you talking about?
bruno: "We were talking about justice, not morality, as in: is a guerrilla justified in fighting against Iraqi Army / Police that are trying to find and kill him. The answer as far as I am concerned, is yes"
I'm not talking about justice and morality as much as trying to see if you believe the 300k Iraqis in the IA & IP deserve to die because of their membership to same. The answer is yes, of course you believe that.
You've already said if there was only one Muqawama left in Iraq you'd support him. Iraq's self determintation, stability, and prosperity are just not important to you. You are willing to sacrifice any number of Iraqis in your own proxy war against America.
bruno: "This is the horror of the war that has been unleashed in Iraq by the American invasion, where Iraqi kills Iraqi based on what organisation they are in.
It’s yet another argument for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. "
It is? How do you figure that? So Iraqi can kill Iraqi on an escalated scale? That's kind of sick, bruno. Maybe you should go buy some plastic army men and call them "Americans", and a propane torch. Then you can take out your proxy aggression against America but nobody else has to get hurt.
another reaction i have had to your post Omar and this entire issue.
sometime in the past when it was explained to me the influence of sistani ( i cannot remember if it was here or where) it was my understanding his position was to make sure shia all stayed together or in unity. that he did not directly make political choices.
this whole thing seems horrible but i think we need to look at the core of what is happening. sometimes in negotiations you come to a place where you find the other side just won't budge. it is then when you see what is really important.
if the implications of this refusal by both sides to back down proceeds, then it seems clear there will have to continue to be a settling of scores until further time.
on the one side we have a group of iraqis that are refusing to be satisfied with the generous offering of the new government for them to starve (and really does not see why it should have to compromise because they want to eat)
on the other side we have a government that offers one segment of its population good jobs (and really does not see why it should have to compromise because of all the reasons cmar mentioned)
so how to solve this? a new constitution? you have these people who were promised certain by the invader for their assistance. now that they are in the new positions they don't want to give up any power. the invader no longer needs their assistance because any iraqi who can make sure the 'benchmarks' are met will do. i think what we have here is a segment of society between a rock and a hard place.
rhus you are such a transparent drama queen w/your 'deserve to die' statements. invade a country and then bitch about who 'deserves' to die?
Sistani) missed an opportunity
But what decisions are you talking about?
doesn’t think that the Iraqis, who were baathists, should be allowed to make a living anymore.
i agree bruno, he missed a grand opportunity.
from chandrasekaran's Imperial Life in the Emerald City:
McPherson wasn't involved in drafting the 101-page plan. But he didn't find anything in it to quibble about. His vision for economic reform in Iraq hewed to the same philosophy. Instead of using government money to create new jobs in an Iraqi version of the New Deal, he favored a supply side strategy: reduce the role of government industry through privatization, eliminate subsidies for electricity and fuel, cut tariffs, lower taxes, promote foreign investment, and enact pro-business [118] laws. Those changes, he reasoned, would draw multinational firms, and even wealthy Iraqis, to set up businesses in Iraq that would create jobs for the unemployed. The key to economic growth, he believed, was "the development of a robust private sector."
"We need to shrink government employment," he said to me in that first interview, "not increase it."
clip
As soon as he arrived, even before asking for the analysis of the state-owned enterprises that Corliss would perform in two weeks, McPherson announced his intention to move forward with privatization. At the Ministry of Industry, Carney, Jackson, and Corliss were still trying to understand how the place worked. On the CPA economics team, everyone was figuring out how to pay salaries to hundreds of thousands of government employees. "Here comes McPherson wanting to talk about privatizing state-owned industries," one member of the economics team said. "It struck us as so irrelevant."
There was also a legal roadblock. Article 43 of the second section of the Hague Convention of 1899-the first set of international treaties that attempted to create laws of warfarerequires an occupying power to respect all the laws of the occupied country except when it is necessary to promote public order and safety. Although the United States had the bless [118] ing of the United Nations Security Council, in Resolution 1483, to promote "economic reconstruction and the conditions for sustainable development" in Iraq, CPA lawyers were generally opposed to the sale of Iraq's industries, on the grounds that such sales violated the Hague Convention. What if a sovereign Iraqi government objected to privatization? You couldn't reverse the sale of a factory. Better to leave it to a future Iraqi administration, the CPA lawyers said.
Even more significant at the time was a practical challenge. There was no way Corliss, Jackson, and Carney could do it by themselves. Financial records would have to be scoured, offers posted and evaluated, financing arranged. When the trio met with a team of Germans to discuss how factories in the former East Germany had been privatized, the CPA team was told that the Germans had eight thousand people working on the project. "How many do you guys have?"one of the Germans asked. "You're looking at all of them," Corliss responded.
The German laughed and asked again. "No, how many people work for you?"
"No, this is it. Three people," Corliss said. "Don't bother starting," the German said.
Axiom: There are a limited number of jobs in the government.
let's start by throwing that right out the window.
screw bearing point. but together an economic team of the top iraqi economic advisors.
At 10:34 AM, RhusLancia
annie; "rhus you are such a transparent drama queen w/your 'deserve to die' statements. invade a country and then bitch about who 'deserves' to die?"
I was thinking about an exchange I had with bruno not too long ago. I had posted an article about insurgents who had raided the home of a policemen and shot & tried to kidnap his family. Bruno, to his limited credit, replied that harming the family was wrong, only the policeman should be shot. I'll look up the exchange if you want.
But to the point, we have over 300k Iraqis in the IA & IP and I believe the majority of these are the true patriots who want to stabilize Iraq and move it forward. Bruno disagrees, as you can see.
What do you think, annie- do they deserve to die for being IA & IP?
At 10:54 AM, 24 Steps to Liberty
CMARII
If you go back and read the entry, you will notice that I was talking about Iraqis. I don’t care what their background is. They are Iraqis. Those who WERE baathists ARE STILL Iraqis.
And by the way, I didn’t show sympathy to baathists. I certainly showed sympathy to a number of Iraqis, who happened to be baathists at some point in their life.
This should answer your question.
At 11:18 AM, RhusLancia
me: "What do you think, annie- do they deserve to die for being IA & IP?"
annie: "invade a country and then bitch about who 'deserves' to die?
rhus, you got my response already to this line of questioning which is a total diversion of the topic. "
That was your response to my question about IA & IP deserving to die or not? From that it looks like you agree with bruno. Oh well. I guess your naked agression towards Iraqi patriots will continue unabated.
what you guess is a reflection on you.
you are an excellent example of the one dimensional mentality that prevents resolution and solving problems. your constant attempts to peel this scab you love so much instead of addressing Omar's excellent post is exactly what trolls are supposed to do.
in this way you are serving your purpose of constant diversion.
Omar, i ask some questions further up i was wondering if you knew the answers to.
specifically..
was there coordination w/ the debaathification in an attempt to implement the privatization plan. and, if there was, how much might this have played a role?
i ask this because i wonder if some rescinding of this may open up a new front for jobs similar to our new deal policy in the US after WWII when we had horrible unemployment.
of all these jobs that the baathist had and lost, how many of them were government jobs? how many of those government functions are set to be privatized? how many have opened up to foreign ownership or will be when the conflict is over?
how many are already privatized?
how much of a web of contact winds its way thru the governing body and the job assignments. and how much choice do the governing bodies have in who owns these previously state companies?
maybe there is a way to create more jobs so the turning back of debaathification does not harm the segment of society that has work at present and they are not in competition but in mutual effort.
And by the way, I didn’t show sympathy to baathists. I certainly showed sympathy to a number of Iraqis, who happened to be baathists at some point in their life.
24,
I believe you are "mis-detecting" an implication in my question that you are "sympathizing with Ba'athists" (ie, a "Ba'athist sympathizer"). I assure that is not the case. Note that I used the term "ex-Ba'athist" quite a bit.
My question is genuine. I don't know the answer to it. Could Iraq have separated itself from the Saddam regime without *some kind* of debaathification policy? I don't think so. Now that it has been misused, can it be reversed without mucking things up further? I doubt it.
So how can the ex-Ba'athists who did not misuse their authority under Saddam gain remediation? Is it possible for purged civil servants to get a hearing to exculpate themselves? I hope so. I don't know. But if they do, and are found innocent, what then? That was my point.
Backgrounds make a difference when discussing reconciliation. People lost their jobs because of their backgrounds. Will they be appeased by the government saying "Starting today, we'll let bygones be bygones" if that means they will still be unemployed.
Also, my point was that Sistani's jaded attitude toward former Party members is not unreasonable (even if wrong in this case). You stated the case well that all Iraqis need to come together and that ex-Ba'athists are Iraqis. But I think Sistani deserves his "props" for his point of view.
At 1:07 PM, RhusLancia
annie: "what you guess is a reflection on you."
Yes, and a keen sense of the obvious.
annie: "in this way you are serving your purpose of constant diversion."
Bruno and I were pretty close to the topic of this thread ("collective punishment" for example), but someone jumped in about drama queens. Who could that be, and what purpose were they trying to serve? Hmmmm.
you crack me up, you blather w/'deserve to die' rhetoric topped off w/ one of your death scenarios (propane torch??) and then chastise me for 'jumping' to call you a drama queen.
besides, having a conversation about legitimate targets and justifiable fighting is a far cry from what you admitted was your goal.. "trying to see if you believe .... ... deserve to die"
then you proceed to answer your own question, do it all over again then call him sick for the answer you provided.
yep, you are a bona fide drama queen.
At 3:18 PM, RhusLancia
annie, don't you think bruno's proxy war against America is a little out of hand? He goes further than you in cheering for the deaths of American soldiers. Do you need links for this? i mean, is it even remotely possible that you do not know this? Bruno has called for the death of IA and IP as collaborators. He has said if only one "Muqawama" remained in Iraq, he would support him. You like to get on me about "obsession" and not being open to reconcilliation, but bruno's obsessing about a US defeat is wide open for all to see.
Why on Earth would you defend him, unless you agree? You sell yourself as being interested in peace and reconcilliation, but you support the "resistance" and one of their most ardent supporters. What's up with that?
I'm saying he could get it out of his system with some plastic soldiers and a blowtorch, and the world would be better for it. Better to sacrifice some plastic soldiers to feed his obsession, than an entire nation.
Anyway, his office hours in South Africa begin in a few hours. Let's see if he has anything to say for himself, shall we?
rhus, i really appreciate you addressing me in a somewhat moderate fashion. i feel really lucky to be able to converse here w/Omar expressing himself, there was nothing like this in the past for regular people to learn, express, communicate.
that said..i do not experience bruno's reality as a 'proxy war'.
the US is opersting as a world superpower, something i am not comfortable with, perhaps becasue i do not experience the global threat as you do.
considering the offensive actions taken in the guise of defense, i think it is entirely reasonable for a person to perciefe events as he does. plus, he is very rational.
it may be more productive and illuminating to learn about his views thru a dialogue that is not quite so competitive. the way you formulate your questions sometimes limits growth. ie:
don't you think bruno's proxy war against America is a little out of hand?
i am not cognizant of a proxy war.
i sense you trying to get at the heart of a matter that will not lead us anywhere. your approach of trying to pin us down, me, bruno, anyone who you perceive as not being aligned w/'your side'. this desire to frame us, and our views supercedes focus on individual issues.
it is a fact of life that people will have widely diffeent views, our strengths come from being able to bridge our positions and find commonality, understanding.
i have heard stories of guys on the front lines hunkered in finding solice w/the enemy. tossing awat the war our leaders sent us into and sharing a cigarette. people aren't that different. each side is human and wants what they think is best. leaders, politicians, they work in ways we cannot always predict, now can we anticipate that we may not condone.
it does not serve resolution to constantly condemn your advisory. especially if your they have valid grievance.
i have learned a lot from these exchanges about myself. it is revealing to accuse you of things i have seen in myself. i have learned more than words can describe from Omar, in very unconventional (for our culture)ways.
we need to find a way to bridge the chasm. if we cannot do it here how do you expect iraqis to do it in the face of real threat. are our principles less or more valid? dp we not all operate from a sense of deep need to prevail, sensing our inner principles?
the tactic of personal accusitory dialogue that may mead to some unlikely cornering erases the opportunity to move forward.
my suggestion is to not ask about me or my motivation, as it is a waste of time. let us all trust that we come from a place that is real for us and aligns w/our principles, what we know to be true, that we come here out of deep concern.
imagine a place where people listened, beyond our omagination, they were listening in and we arrived at some solution, some clarity.
imagine every iraqi of all different stripes has one goal, what would it be? what iraqi loves war? wanted this? we need to find the place every iraqi can agree, not every american, not every african, not all the people who support every which side. every iraqi. we know it is there if someone like shatha can bring so much hope... can we find the commonality and expand?
Omar's post ask some important questions. wgy? what are these people to do? where is the heart? the jobs?
you ask me if it is 'remotely possible' that i see that bruno is 'cheering for the death of american soldiers'.
i say, this is not the conversation that will lead us forward, nor am i interested (for the 1000th time) in addressing this topic.
every thread, evey breath is in proving your point, and then what? we all lie down and submit? not going to happen.
get over it. this is war. every side has a reason they feel is valid. what will bring these sides together? this is a challenge that lives are depending on daily.
stop wasting time fighting what we believe, better to find ways we agree. find solutions.
i am not iraq's enemy, bruno is not iraq's enemy, you are not iraq's enemy, Omar is not iraq's enemy. if we cannot resolve, how can iraq?
[rhus] “I'm not talking about justice and morality as much as trying to see if you believe the 300k Iraqis in the IA & IP deserve to die because of their membership to same. The answer is yes, of course you believe that.”
And the question can be reversed just as quickly to determine whether you believe that the groups of Iraqis (well over 200000) trying to eject the US by force from Iraq deserve to die. And the answer is, yes, of course you believe that.
We’re on opposite sides of the coin, Rhus.
Is that what you’re trying to prove? We already know that.
There’s a very easy way to end the bloodshed: the US packs up and leaves, thereby removing the single largest and most violent player in the game. Your insistence that Iraqis bow down and stop fighting the invader is wrong.
Who started the fight?
The USA.
Who actually lives in Iraq?
Iraqis.
The real question is, why do you think the onus is on the IRAQIS to stop fighting?
You’re trying to make the case I want America to hurt, no matter what the cost to Iraqis, but you are quite wrong. I’m (very) pissed with the US, true, but I’m more concerned about the effects of long term US occupation on Iraqis than in seeing the US bleed.
If my sole motivation of seeing America hurt WERE THE CASE, then why the heck am I arguing for a US WITHDRAWAL, which would certainly put an end to the constant hammering the US army is getting? Heck, if hurting the US WAS MY AIM, then I’d wish another hundred years of occupation on you. Your logic simply doesn’t make any sense.
I’d be arguing that victory is “just around the corner” and that there is “light at the end of the tunnel” when it is very, very obvious that this is not the case. In fact the Muqawama is stronger right now than it has ever been. You’re looking at another four years ( MINIMUM, ultra-optimistic estimate) from now to get the Resistance back to 2003 levels. And then you’re assuming that the “Shia” don’t bite your ass as soon as the “sunnis” are finished off.
My point is: I really DO believe that US occupation is bad for Iraqis and I really DO believe that when Iraqis are in charge of their own affairs things will be better.
PS – Just because Annie and I agree on a lot of things does not mean we are joined at the hip. She can speak for herself (and how! ;) ) so don’t try and lump us together simply because that makes it easier for you to generate your one-approach-attacks-all approach.
At 8:25 AM, RhusLancia
me: “I'm not talking about justice and morality as much as trying to see if you believe the 300k Iraqis in the IA & IP deserve to die because of their membership to same. The answer is yes, of course you believe that.”
bruno: "And the question can be reversed just as quickly to determine whether you believe that the groups of Iraqis (well over 200000) trying to eject the US by force from Iraq deserve to die. And the answer is, yes, of course you believe that."
Where did you get 200k? Highest number I've seen yet was a Saudi minister who said 80k and that seemed high. 200k Iraqis under arms against us would make things a lot bloodier than they are.
Anyway, you're wrong about me wanting to see them die. I believe many of the insurgents are regular iraqis who picked up an Ak, IED, or RPG on the encouragement of a cleric, politician, rumor, dead Saddam, or someone they respect. Or just out of racism and xenophobia. Or encouraged by chaos mongers like you, who desperately want an American defeat at the hands of their struggle. So what happens if one day they don;t pick up their weapon, and get a job instead? Working on the power grid, for example, instead of murdering electrical workers. Well, depending on their past crimes (some are too heinous to forgive, as you must admit) those Iraqis can rejoin productive Iraqi society, live long, and prosper. They can even become police or soldiers and I wouldn't wish death upon them. Or if they want to remain under arms, they can "Awaken" and recognoze their true enemy in al-Qeada, and fight them instead.
So you're wrong about me being a mirror image of you, though of course we are on opposite sides.
bruno: "Just because Annie and I agree on a lot of things does not mean we are joined at the hip. She can speak for herself"
I know that, theoretically, but I'm interested to see if she follows you all the way down the chaos-mongering path, or just a little bit down it.
bruno: "Heck, if hurting the US WAS MY AIM, then I’d wish another hundred years of occupation on you. Your logic simply doesn’t make any sense."
You want an American DEFEAT more than anything. We have to withdraw prematurely for that to happen, so that's what you want. Plastic soldiers and a blowtorch, bruno. try it.
At 9:34 AM, RhusLancia
annie, re: your 8:22 PM post, this is a war, yes, and it is unfortunate that you've thrown your lot in with the enemies of America and a free and stable Iraq.
The heart of the matter, your motivation for pursuing the narrative that you do, is important to the dialogue because there are fellow travellers out there who pursue like minded people to share and exagerate "evidence" which, as it swirls and swirls, gains momentum until it becomes cannonized.
If you were truly inquisitive & concerned for Iraq, you would take a harder look at how and why this happens, and the harm it causes for all sides.
Every day, bruno posts links about the American soldiers killed by his beloved Muqawama on Zeyad's blog, while simultaneously ignoring anything else they do, like today's story about murdered Iraqi electrical workers.
Annie, if you have any rationalism left in you at all, you could recognize that Iraqi electrical workers have a direct and important contribution to make to Iraqi society, and they did not deserve to die. We should be able to find common ground there, even if you ignore bruno's open and pervasive joy at the deaths of your country's soldiers.
as an american who is all to aware that this president and this war has done more to damage america than anything in the history of our once great land i have no respect for whatever your opinion may be about who is and who is not an enemy of america. go look in the mirror as far as i am concerned.
you could recognize that Iraqi electrical workers have a direct and important contribution to make to Iraqi society, and they did not deserve to die. We should be able to find common ground there,
i 'could recognize' they 'don't deserve to die'??
i swear rhus you are totally determined to turn this entire thread into proving some bizarre point. you are obssessed.
I'm interested to see if she follows you all the way down the chaos-mongering path, or just a little bit down it.
start your own blog then and see if anybody shows up.
i have already stated what i think about civilian death. go read the archives. you spouting about reports becoming cannonized is orwellian, especially since the pentagon is engaged in an information warfare campaign.
this makes me very very suspicious, it is almost like we aren't even allowed to discuss the post? you made no comment on any of my ideas of creating more jobs in iraq, or ways to resolve the issue. it is like a constant diversion to this obsession of yours.
war is war, people die. and you want common ground that electric workers shouldn't be killed. whatever for, you will just bring this up again and again. asking me do people 'deserve to die'??
go read the archives.
i am not commenting anymore on this thread unless it is somewhat related to the topic. there , happy now. take a bow rhus.
i'll leave you w/this
Sistani may be tired of making concessions to Sunnis/Baathists and getting nothing in return.
way to go rhus. how helpful.
At 1:07 PM,
"i am not commenting anymore on this thread unless it is somewhat related to the topic. there , happy now. take a bow rhus."
Wow - you promise? You've said this before upon losing an argument, only to show up a couple hours later with more irrelevant drivel about the US enslaving Iraqis and stealing their oil.
"...this war has done more to damage america than anything in the history of our once great land i have no respect for whatever your opinion may be about who is and who is not an enemy of america"
This is wrong. Your propaganda suggesting that the US was unjustified in going to war, or in staying in Iraq now, is what is causing harm to the US. Not only that, but its leading to the deaths of thousands of Iraqis, who are now engaged in a civil war initiated by your propaganda.
In spite of Rhus's patience in discussing these issues with you, you seem to have failed to acquire any new knowledge about any of these matters. You are a truly disgusting, souless human being to perpetuate this violence in iraq.
At 1:15 AM, RhusLancia
kryptonite: "Wow - you promise? You've said this before upon losing an argument, only to show up a couple hours later with more irrelevant drivel about the US enslaving Iraqis and stealing their oil."
On BT's blog she thought she caught me in a lie but cited the Dem's Senate resolution, which backs my point. So now it's Bush's recess appointments and a video of Karl Rove being attacked. All she has to do now is accuse me of straying from the topic and it'll be a trifecta!
bruno: "And the question can be reversed just as quickly to determine whether you believe that the groups of Iraqis (well over 200000) trying to eject the US by force from Iraq deserve to die. And the answer is, yes, of course you believe that."
[rhus] “Where did you get 200k?”
Actually I have seen estimates of 250 000 +. But the number I quote is from the head of the Iraqi intelligence that is working with the US, a man called Shahwani. He claimed a core of 40000 dedicated guerrillas with a pool of part timers making up about 200000. There was a much better source that gave the numbers in a yearly graph that I stumbled over … of course, my luck being what it is, I didn’t save it or I saved it under some improbable name. I will however, try dig it up for you.
An interesting analysis in a concise pdf by a man called John Robb can be found here:
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas//How%20Big%20is%20the%20Iraqi%20Insurgency.pdf
It shows just how big the pool of potential recruits is, and his estimate for a size of the resistance which weighs in at 163 000 members. The key point is that the US claims it has killed about 50000 guerrillas (which would be enough to wipe out the supposed 20000 fighters two and a half times over) yet the resistance is stronger than ever.
Three possibilities present themselves:
(a) Iraqi Muqawama are able to raise themselves from death a la highlander.
(b) US soldiers have been killing 95% civilians and somehow missing all the people shooting at them.
(c) The Iraqi resistance is a lot, lot bigger than people think.
[rhus] “Anyway, you're wrong about me wanting to see them die.”
LOL! Well, obviously if an IA / IP is a double agent I don’t want to see him dead. Obviously if one of these people deserts, puts his weapons down or defects to the resistance I don’t want to see him dead. I mean, this is plain commonsense. As far as I’m concerned our position IS a mirror image.
And of course, I don’t have a hassle with Iraqis killing AQ. Far as I’m concerned, US=AQ in Iraq. (The question of course comes down to who IS AQ and who is not. The definitions game again.)
bruno: "Heck, if hurting the US WAS MY AIM, then I’d wish another hundred years of occupation on you. Your logic simply doesn’t make any sense."
[rhus] “You want an American DEFEAT more than anything. We have to withdraw prematurely for that to happen, so that's what you want.”
Right, Rhus, whatever you say.
You want the US to win so bad, you’ll sacrifice the entire Iraqi population for it. Heck, as long as you have an intact ITM blogger to parade in front of the cameras at the end of the day, and Bush can do his chimp-smirk thing, then things are OK, right? I mean, just so long as you don’t LOSE, right?
Newsflash for you Rhus:
You’re gonna lose in Iraq, and that’s a fact. In 2003-2004 I had my doubts, but now I’m certain. Knock yourself out. If you want to do the hanging – from –the – helicopter skids thing in 2015 instead of withdrawing with whatever tattered honour you have left in 2008, be my guest.
The dead Iraqis and dead US soldiers are on the plate of the USA, which STARTED the conflict.
I’m just pointing out that you can save a lot of bloodshed by leaving sooner rather than later.
BTW, your link on US covert ops killing a bunch of electrical workers just shows how heinous and disgusting the occupation is.
You should be ashamed.
.
.
.
.
.
My point being, of course, that your unidentified “gunmen” could BE ANYBODY, but you reflexively attribute these killings to Iraqi resistance groups.
Sweet, Rhus.
With subjects like you, it’s no wonder the US govt manages to tell you anything and you believe it.
At 5:54 AM, RhusLancia
me: "“Where did you get 200k?”
bruno: "Actually I have seen estimates of 250 000 +. But the number I quote is from the head of the Iraqi intelligence that is working with the US, a man called Shahwani. He claimed a core of 40000 dedicated guerrillas with a pool of part timers making up about 200000."
OK, just curious here. I remember the 250k number from somewhere too, but it was so loosely defined I didn't put much stock in it. Plus the 80k number from the saudi minister is pretty recent. Your pdf was a decent guess too, but just a numbers game.
I actually think even 40k people actively fighting us would produce many more casualties than the two to three per day we are seeing. But as you know, there are a large number of attacks that are ineffective. And of course, Iraqi civilians bear the brunt of the attacks anyway, whether you can accept that or not.
bruno: "Three possibilities present themselves:"
There are more possibilities:
(d) the Muqawama is so loosely defined, with dozens of groups and hundreds, maybe thousands of idealogical, but inactive, members. Sort of like the Jewish resistance to the Romans as protrayed in Monty Python's Life of Brian (the scene isn't on youTube, sorry, but you should know the one i'm talking about).
(e) the Muqawama increases its footprint through financial incentives. I've seen reports of farmers being paid to place IEDs, for example. That makes the farmer an "insurgent" but not an irreconcilable one
(f), (g), (h), (etc.) many more classes and categories
Which is why I think many of them simply have to leave their weapons at home one day and get a job to build the country rather than destroy it.
me: “You want an American DEFEAT more than anything. We have to withdraw prematurely for that to happen, so that's what you want.”
bruno: "Right, Rhus, whatever you say.
You want the US to win so bad, you’ll sacrifice the entire Iraqi population for it."
No, not neccessarily. Yes, i want a US 'win', but i also happen to think that is the quickest and least bloody outcome to Iraq, and the 'best' option for a free and stable country. The best your Muqawama have to offer is a return to Saddam era conditions.
bruno: "My point being, of course, that your unidentified “gunmen” could BE ANYBODY, but you reflexively attribute these killings to Iraqi resistance groups"
The gunmen attribute themselves to be Iraqi resistance. The terrorists do, too. That's another fact of life that you're unable to address.
bruno: "BTW, your link on US covert ops killing a bunch of electrical workers just shows how heinous and disgusting the occupation is.
...
With subjects like you, it’s no wonder the US govt manages to tell you anything and you believe it."
Yeah bruno, gloss over it as usual. With subjects like you, it's no wonder the myth of a patriotic, nationalist resistance that doesn't slaughter innocent Iraqis can grow and fester in the face of facts and logic.
At 6:01 AM, RhusLancia
At 8:43 AM,
I'm an American lawyer. The following is pure "impressions" that I have of the situation.
First, I support de-Baathification. According to "24" it sounds as though 25,000 Baathists are ineligible for government employment. 25,000 is .1% (1 of 1,000) of the population of Iraq. And this is only GOVERNMENT employment. There is no reason they cannot get jobs in the private sector, is there?
Secondly, re. Sistani: It seems to me that Sistani has been remarkably restrained in the face of non-stop Sunni atrocities since 2003. Time and time again, Sistani has preached restraint when he could've poured gasoline on the fires. I've heard that a year or two ago a coalition of 6,000 mostly Christian Iraqi leaders nominated Sistani for the Nobel Peace Prize.
On "religious government": History shows that where there is an oppressive government, it is usually the religious institutions that are the best organized centers of resistance. Think of Martin Luther King (Christian minister) in America, or the Catholic church in Poland during the communist years. Thus, it is no surprised that these "best-organized centers of resistance" will initially get a lot of power after the overthrow of the dictatorship. Just keep on having elections; do not lose faith in democracy or in the Iraqi people.
unless it is somewhat related to the topic
i'm baaaack,
hamilton, rhus posted a link above @9:07 that raises doubts sistani ever said that. when i heard about it, since it wasn't from the horses mouth, that it wasn't true, or was a misinterpretation was a consideration of mine.
i certainly hope this is the case. i have noted before the swiftest way to end a resistance is to eliminate the reasons they are fighting.
i haven't given up hope for the debaathification reversal. trying to frame it in a better light...
There is no reason they cannot get jobs in the private sector, is there?
if this was going to solve the issue it would be a done deal.
this is a huge huge barrier that is either going to be dealt with by negotiations that move the situation forward w/resolutions that address the concerns of all iraqis,
or, it will remain dead in the water and essential end iraq as we know it possibly leading to genocide.
blaming 25,000 iraqis for the implementation of saddams agenda does not lead to resolution, especially when the chances those 25,000 people are at the pulse of the resistance.
rhus
Which is why I think many of them simply have to leave their weapons at home one day and get a job to build the country rather than destroy it.
exactly why debaathification is so important.
exploring options , missing links reports politics in flux
On DeBaathification... Allawi group along with others is proposing an alternative to the government proposal
.....
On the Oil and Gas law,......the Parliamentary president Mahmoud Mashhadani has proposed that parliament sponsor a study session , in Dubai on the seventh of this month, members as supporting the idea of trying to explain the provisions of the law in an environment away from the "various pressures" of the Green zone.
......... witnessing a paroxysm of disputes within [or "among"] the parties and the political blocs..... with respect to oil and gas.....to DeBaathification...Kirkuk proposal, have intensified deep divisions between the parliamentary blocs and within each of the blocs on the one side, and between them and the government on the other.
In a separate piece, Al-Hayat quotes the leader of the Fadhila party, who says his group is still a work on its attempt to find or foster a nationalist program for Iraq that would rescue the country from its current crisis. He said Arab countries in the region have an important role to play in this, describing current efforts as taking place inside and outside of Iraq. He said the parties to any such nationalist program will be bound together not by personalities, but by the program itself, and the ties will not be Islamists but nationalist.
You want the US to win so bad, you’ll sacrifice the entire Iraqi population for it."
No, not neccessarily.
what? NOT NECCESSARILY??
gee, why doesn't that give me much confidence.
i think the alternative to resolving the bebaathification issue are dire indeed.
ps, in the context of the conversation elsewhere, me links were completely on topic. i am not claiming i have any issues w/straying, i just get completely bored w/personalizing the agenda.
At 11:12 AM, 24 Steps to Liberty
Hey “American Lawyer”
Have you thought about how many individuals this debaathification decree affects? It’s not only 25,000. it is 25,000 people PLUS there families.
I’m, not surprised that you would totally ignore this fact, though. That’s how the lawyers who worked for Bremer came up with this wrong decree anyway. They didn’t have the background and were asked to deal with it anyway.
And when you say “And this is only GOVERNMENT employment,” did you know who you’re talking about? It is Iraq. there is nothing but government employment. We don’t have private business because of the security situation.
Again, not surprised. Because your administration did the same wrong assessments of the situation in Iraq and that’s why they did all the mistakes that they admit now.
And by the way, for me it doesn’t mater what percentage they make in the population. Because they are still Iraqis and are still living in Iraq and the country has to respect them and treat them well like any other Iraqis. Because they are not different.
But thanks for your analysis. Seriously. I appreciate that you took the time to comment here. And what I said is just disagreement with what you said and giving you some facts. I welcome you always here.
there is nothing but government employment.
Omar, this is why i brought up the privatization issue earlier. it would seem, that is privatization is a goal for iraq, that perhaps taking these steps increments might be more effective. the US rolled back privatization after WW11 to get america back in shape.
eliminating gov jobs at the same time as eliminating gov workers prior to developing the privatization seems ass backwards.
privatizing an industry w/outside investment w/no guarentee the private company is going to hire iraqs ONLY, leaves the door open for the most lucrative jobs , and the money made from them, could leave the country, which defeats the purpose of developing a strong economy.
it also opens the door to importing cheap labor. the gop here in america hates unions, and has contributed enormously to their total destruction. so unless you have strong unions and guidelines to keep foreign workers out there is nothing to hinder corporations from only offering slave wages (which is making a lot of waves in china right now as the government is coming down on MCdonalds for paying workers less than minimum wage, which is only $1 as it is, they are skirting this by hiring students who are not bound by minimum wage). look at SA/UAE where they import workers. this may work fine for those countries, i don't really know. is iraq rich enough for this?
perhaps there needs to be some syncronized agenda to reconstruct the constitution regarding many of these issues, a rollback of the privatization, then the government would be in a position of offering more jobs for the reconstruction of iraq.
it is a tall order, and it can be done. it has been done in other countries, i think there needs to be an overhaul to restructure all the damage the unprofessional damaging policies the cpa imposed.
this is something under a different US admin could have been implemented. many of those people in our gov't have been sacked. i would imagine, as a result of the war, many of these people have left iraq also, iraq needs them back.
Assalamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullah.
I pray you are in the best of health & imaan. This is a short
message to notify you that this entry has been selected for publishing on Ijtema.net; a venture to highlight the best of the Muslim blogosphere. May Allah bless you for your noble efforts.
Wa’salam,
the Editors at ijtema.net
Hello,
I hope you are having a pleasant day so far. I found your blog through olive branch network. I thought you might be interested in a new site. www.iraqhasavoice.com is a new web site dedicated to collecting open letters from the Iraqi people to the American people. We accept and post all letters. We would love to have your participation.
With peace,
~Josh
Time magazine
Iraq Book Describes U.S. 'Ignorance'
In a rueful reflection on what might have been, an Iraqi government insider details in 500 pages the U.S. occupation's "shocking" mismanagement of his country — a performance so bad, he writes, that by 2007 Iraqis had "turned their backs on their would-be liberators."
....
Allawi writes with authority as a member of that "new order," having served as Iraq's trade, defense and finance minister at various times since 2003. As a former academic, at Oxford University before the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq, he also writes with unusual detachment.
24 ---
You might want to read this on the policy of De-Baathification, it addresses precisely how things occurred the way they did. And, the numbers cited are up to double of the 25000 that you were led to believe:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=142383
“Garner headed immediately to Bremer's office, where the new occupation leader was just settling in, and on the way ran into the CIA chief of station, referred to here as Charlie.
[...]
"'Jerry, this is too deep,' Garner said. ‘Give Charlie and I about an hour. We'll sit down with this. We'll do the pros and cons and then we'll get on the telephone with Rumsfeld and soften it a bit.'
"'Absolutely not,' Bremer said. ‘Those are my instructions and I intend to execute them.'"
Garner, who will shortly be going home, sees he's making little headway and appeals to the CIA man, who "had been station chief in other Middle East countries," asking him what will happen if the order is issued.
"'If you put this out, you're going to drive between 30,000 and 50,000 Baathists underground before nightfall,' Charlie said.... ‘You will put 50,000 people on the street, underground and mad at Americans.' And these 50,000 were the most powerful, well-connected elites from all walks of life.
"'I told you,' Bremer said, looking at Charlie. ‘I have my instructions and I have to implement this.'"
[...]
The following day, Bremer's second in Iraq, the hapless Garner was handed another draft order. This, Woodward tells us, was Order Number 2, disbanding the Iraqi ministries of Defense and Interior, the entire Iraqi military, and all of Saddam's bodyguard and special paramilitary organizations:
"Garner was stunned. The de-Baathification order was dumb, but this was a disaster. Garner had told the president and the whole National Security Council explicitly that they planned to use the Iraqi military -- at least 200,000 to 300,000 troops -- as the backbone of the corps to rebuild the country and provide security. And he'd been giving regular secure video reports to Rumsfeld and Washington on the plan."
[...]
Again Bremer tells Garner that he has his orders. The discussion attains a certain unintended comedy when the proconsuls go on to discuss the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior, which Bremer has also announced he will abolish:
"'You can't get rid of the Ministry of the Interior,' Garner said.
"'Why not?'
"'You just made a speech yesterday and told everybody how important the police force is.'
"'It is important.
"'All the police are in the Ministry of the Interior,' Garner said. ‘If you put this out, they'll all go home today."
On hearing this bit of information, we are told, Bremer looked "surprised"” //end excerpt
Of course, Bremer had a plan, and he tells us about it in his biography:
From the Amazon Books review by Dreyfuss:
“Bremer then turned around and promised Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and commander of the fearsome Badr Brigade, that the Shiites would run things:
[Bremer] "We hoped to draw some of his party’s 10,000-member Badr Corps militia into the New Iraqi Army…. “I promise you this, Sayyid,” I said, using his honorific title. “The commander of the first battalion will be a Shiite.” The Coalition kept that promise."
Indeed they did. Nowhere in the book does Bremer suggest that the leaders of the Shiite parties, all of them exiles (in the case of the Shiites, most had spent years in Iran), were too religious, sectarian or fanatical to run Iraq.” //end
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743273893/qid=1142537529/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-3038519-1381545?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
I think that anybody who knows anything about Iraq will realise exactly where and when the problems started.
[rhus] “The question is this: do you want to see the current Iraqi government fail, along with an MNF withdrawal?”
Sorry, I did see it, but I had bigger fish to fry at the time.
To address your question: the Iraqi “government” HAS already failed.
The government that you believe is in control is a hallucination. Let’s forget the numerous instances of US direct action taken that is against the very parties and structures of the government it purports to be protecting.
Even at a level lower than a question of simple Iraqi sovereignty the government is irredeemably fractured into little competing power blocs wherein entire ministries not only don’t talk to each other but actually engage in running battles. The Ministry of Electricity and the Ministry of Health are one example. The coverup (and probable responsibility) of the mass abduction and killings by the Ministry of the Interior on the Ministry of Education is another.
At an even lower level than that, if we examine whether these Ministries are effective or not, the truth is that obviously they are not. Life in Iraq in nearly every measurable way is worse than under Saddam, and one of the reasons for this is the extreme uselessness of the Iraqi governmental ministries. They are de facto salary dispensing machines, and whatever work they care to bother to do is singularly uninspired.
In conclusion: there is nothing for me to wish to “fail”. I can’t imagine a worse situation than the current one: a government lacking in power, sovereignty, riven by sectarian feuds and unable to organise a piss-up in a brewery. A government where the topics of debate are the length of the holidays the politicians get and the size of their bonuses.
Frankly, if the government was not quite so useless, perhaps there could be some sort of skeleton around which a new government might be formed following a US withdrawal. As it is, I predict a new round of looting followed by swift dispersal to whatever countries will accept them and their ill-gotten gains.
[annie] “In a rueful reflection on what might have been, an Iraqi government insider details in 500 pages the U.S. occupation's "shocking" mismanagement of his country”
Hmm. Must be a précis! :)
At 9:14 AM, RhusLancia
me: “The question is this: do you want to see the current Iraqi government fail, along with an MNF withdrawal?”
bruno: "Frankly, if the government was not quite so useless, perhaps there could be some sort of skeleton around which a new government might be formed following a US withdrawal. As it is, I predict a new round of looting followed by swift dispersal to whatever countries will accept them and their ill-gotten gains."
But they do provide some services, don't they? What if it was all taken away? What if this new round of looting is joined by a free-for-all of violence between the disintegrated security forces, militias, insurgents, and terrorists? How could that possibly be better for Iraq than even having its weak central government in place? Who would emerge out of this vaccuum of power that you predict? The most benevolent? The most nationalist? Or would it be the most brutal & repressive, as often happens when gov'ts fail? And do you really think that Iraqis could settle such a free-for-all quickly, versus the fourteen years and counting of Somalia, for example? Sure, Rwanda took less time and some of the Iraqis' enthusiasm for the Final Solution might match the Rwandans', but still... that is a lot of people who would be caught up in the scenario you envision.
You just don't give a rat's *ss, do you?
And do you really think that Iraqis could settle such a free-for-all quickly, versus the fourteen years and counting of Somalia, for example?
huh? i thought they finally had brought order to the country until ethiopia backed by the US invaded??
maybe it just wasn't the US backed order they were hoping for.
i better brush up on somalia. lots of oil down there, i don't suppose we will be leaving anytime soon.
At 11:57 AM, RhusLancia
annie: "huh? i thought they finally had brought order to the country until ethiopia backed by the US invaded??"
Yeah, if you're into Sharia and p-p-p-p-pirates!
The Somalis picked a government, too. But of course it was weak against the fantacism of the Jihadis, who made gains by their usual methods.
You're just not a fan of representative government, are you? Or do you just not give a rat's *ss for civilian populations, wherever they might be?
oh yeah, i was watching 60 minutes on sunday, or was it 20/20?? anyway, they did a segment on egypt and rice's last visit. apparently the prior time she visited she mentioned democracy about 50 times in one speech, last time... zilch. wonder why? because of the influence of the muslim brotherhood. apparently democracy is only cool if the people want the leaders we support.
or didn't you notice.
hey, i am not against democracy, i just don't happen to think that's what we've got here in the US right now. and here is just one reason why
am i pissed? hell yes. i also think if i were an iraqi right now i would prefer a government that made me safe rather than this so called democracy that has been shoved down their throats, which is why i advocated a coup as preferable to this nightmare. the cia has a history of messing w/what a majority of people want vs what america wants. you know it to, just just love spewing your self righteous rhetoric because you are a bully.
rat's ass? is that your new line, wow rhus, how impressive.
would the US ever mess w/iraq's water supply?
wonder how all the cia/psyops missions are goin'? summers coming up.
At 1:20 PM, RhusLancia
annie: "hey, i am not against democracy, i just don't happen to think that's what we've got here in the US right now. and here is just one reason why"
You think the dems stole the '06 election?
annie: "rat's ass? is that your new line, wow rhus, how impressive."
No, "rat's *ss". I'm looking for evidence that people like you give one about people who are struggling and suffering around the world. I'm not finding it, annie. Here's how you express your concern for Somalia, just now, just above:
annie: "i better brush up on somalia. lots of oil down there, i don't suppose we will be leaving anytime soon."
And that's the first thing you want to do, the first thing that comes to mind- find a link to "oil". Lots of suffering people there too, annie, but you apparently don't give a rat's *ss about them. So go "brush up" about Somalia, and maybe you'll find some Fellow Travellers who can say it's all about American Imperialist Neocon Oil schemes, as per usual.
that is not how i am expressing my concern. that is your impression of my statements. if i say i have to brush up i means i don't know enough about the situation to judge.
we will be 'helping' all the countries on the globe that are in oil regions. of this i am quite certain.
as for the 06 elections, with a country that is leaning 30/70 dems i find it odd the dems one the vote by one lone vote (if you could consider lieberman a dem). i didn't even mention all the horrible mess of ohio, really you don't want to get me started. the amount of people that believe bush was elected legally, fair and square is shrinking shrinking shrunk. 2 election officials were just found guilty of election tampering in ohio 04 race. no wonder karl rove is trying to switch out DA's who will pander to this myth of widespread dems committing voter fraud prior to 08. it's easier for the to stuff the justice department than to make its actions legal. the DA in my city was fired for not prosecuting dems during the gov race, even tho he called in the fbi, they just couldn't find a crime, so they fired him. really karl doesn't care, a scandal is as valuable as the truth if that is all you have to fight back with.
really, how can you trust a voting machine w/no paper trail owned by a GOP front w/a ceo "promising in public to bring home the vote to bush"???
In many ways, a context for the pending strategic role of AFRICOM can be gained from an understanding of the origins of CENTCOM and the role that it continues to provide in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the many "stans" popping up after the implosion of the former U.S.S.R. That context is centered on strategic energy supplies and, explicitly, that of oil. In the petroleum age, these energy stores - along with the territories concealing them -- have taken on great significance in the foreign policies of the industrialized nations, fueled by an insatiable fever for black gold and the seemingly instant wealth and power it delivers to its possessor. The record-breaking quarterly profits reported by the major oil "producers" over the past few years are only one symbol of the power that oil can bring.
....
The Pentagon is currently "the single largest oil consumer in the world." The modern combatant command is an integral component of U.S. national security strategies regarding energy resources, plain and simple. And that is the role which AFRICOM will take up on the resource-rich continent of Africa as the amount of petroleum available globally continues to diminish. This was made clear through the Bush administration's May 2001 National Energy Policy and ensuing governmental objectives.
In May 2001 the Cheney report warned that the U.S. would grow increasingly dependent upon foreign oil in the years to come and recommended that as a matter of policy the Bush Administration work to increase production and export of oil from regions other than the Middle East, noting that Latin America and West Africa were likely to be the fastest growing sources of future U.S. oil imports. ... Three months later, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Walter Kansteiner declared that African oil "has become a national strategic interest." This statement is particularly noteworthy in that it uses the language of the Carter Doctrine in the Middle East, in which President Carter went on to declare that the U.S. would intervene by any means necessary to protect its national interest in Middle Eastern oil. In April 2002, Donald Norland, former U.S. Ambassador to Chad told a Congressional subcommittee: "It's been reliably reported that, for the first time, the two concepts -- 'Africa' and 'U.S. national security' -- have been used in the same sentence in Pentagon documents."
At present the main, permanent U.S. military base in Africa is the one established in 2002 in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa, giving the United States strategic control of the maritime zone through which a quarter of the world's oil production passes. The Djibouti base is also close in proximity to the Sudanese oil pipeline. ... The Djibouti base allows the United States to dominate the eastern end of the broad oil swath cutting across Africa that it now considers vital to its strategic interests -- a vast strip running southwest from the 994-mile Higleig-Port Sudan oil pipeline in the east to the 640-mile Chad-Cameroon pipeline and the Gulf of Guinea in the West."
The December 2006 invasion of Somalia was coordinated using these and other bases throughout the region. While efforts to replace the popular Islamic Courts Union in Somalia with the warlord-led Transitional Federal Government (TFG) appear to be failing, the arrival of AFRICOM may bring more boots on the ground into that unstable, geostrategic nation. Especially now that TFG spokesman Abdirahman Dinari has dangled a carrot before foreign investors: "Somalia has a lot of oil, and our ministers have just approved a key exploration law to regulate how concessions are given out.... But what we need now is international support to restore security and build our nation, and we will be noting who helps us and who doesn't when these decisions are taken."
you can trump AFRICOM as a humanitarian operation all you want. i'm not buying it, not for a sec. terrorists terrorists terrorists..
i have noticed you repeatedly dragging somalia into the conversation both here and at BT's. why? we have flooded the horn w/private security (mercenaries) and lillypads. this is not a place i care to continue a debate about africom or somalia.
PS before i shut up about africa, it is stuff like this that makes me question any and everything i hear. for all i know we funded the criminals just like we put hakim in power.
The current ‘President’ of the US puppet regime, dubbed the ‘Transitional Federal Government,’ is Abdullahi Yusuf. He is a veteran warlord deeply involved in all of the corrupt and lawless depredations that characterized Somalia from 1991 to 2006. Yusuf had been President of the self-styled autonomous Puntland breakaway state in the 1990’s.
Despite US and Ethiopian financial backing, Abdullahi Yusuf and his warlord associates were finally driven out of Mogadishu in June 2006 and out of the entire south central part of the country. Yusuf was holed up and cornered in a single provincial town on the Ethiopian border and lacked any social basis of support even from most of the remaining warlord clans in the capital. Some warlords had withdrawn their support of Yusuf and accepted the ICU’s offers to disarm and integrate into Somali society underscoring the fact that Washington’s discredited and isolated puppet was no longer a real political or military factor in Somalia. Nevertheless, Washington secured a UN Security Council resolution recognizing the warlord’s tiny enclave of Baidoa as the legitimate government. This was despite the fact that the TFG’s very existence depended on a contingent of several hundred Ethiopian mercenaries financed by the US. As the ICU troops moved westward to oust Yusuf from his border outpost -- comprising less than 5% of the country -- the US increased its funding for the dictatorial regime of Meles Zenawi in Ethiopia to invade Somalia.
naturally rhus has god on his side.
At 4:20 PM, RhusLancia
me: "And that's the first thing you want to do, the first thing that comes to mind- find a link to "oil". Lots of suffering people there too, annie, but you apparently don't give a rat's *ss about them. So go "brush up" about Somalia, and maybe you'll find some Fellow Travellers who can say it's all about American Imperialist Neocon Oil schemes, as per usual."
annie: "that is not how i am expressing my concern. that is your impression of my statements. if i say i have to brush up i means i don't know enough about the situation to judge."
And then you go right on out and find an article from a Fellow Traveller about oil, and you copy and paste a major portion of it! Jeez, annie, at least try to act concerned about anything but oil!
When you were googling it, surely you had to pass over dozens- hundreds, probably- of articles about the humanitarian sufferring and the piracy there. You just weren't interested. You were on a mission.
Question: why is it that you don't link to your biased, dubious, anti-Imperialist sources when you cite them? Are you trying to appear objective?
annie: "i have noticed you repeatedly dragging somalia into the conversation both here and at BT's. why?"
Actually, you brought Feingold into this, and it was a cursory investigation into his views that uncovered his astonishing hypocrisy in regards to Somalia & Iraq.
annie, I'm beginning to think you really... wait for it... here it comes... don't give a rat's *ss about the suffering of others, you just want to go on and on about American imperialism and oil.
At 5:21 PM, Original_Jeff
Journalists interested in Iraq may find this story from Borzou Daragahi very interesting.
When you were googling it, surely you had to pass over dozens- hundreds, probably- of articles about the humanitarian sufferring and the piracy there. You just weren't interested. You were on a mission.
once again, this is a case of you making assumptions. i did no such thing. i went directly to a site that had a long thread on africa that i had read a few weeks ago and grabbed a few paragraphs. there are tons of links there as the entire thread is about oil and africa. don't use a discussion about fiengold ammendment to squeeze somalia into the dialogue. and again you did it above. you and your personal assumptions and accusations, really how....
typical.
btw, i did notice how you had nothing/zilch to say about my ideas of solutions of the topic of this post. too busy salivating over our o so humanitarian efforts i presume.
At 11:42 PM, RhusLancia
annie: "once again, this is a case of you making assumptions. i did no such thing. i went directly to a site that had a long thread on africa that i had read a few weeks ago and grabbed a few paragraphs. there are tons of links there as the entire thread is about oil and africa."
Caught me red handed! Yes, I assumed you would do some research, since you again admitted you were not familiar with it, but I was wrong. You just went to a pre-filtered site you already knew, and extracted from it.
Well that's much better.
Your willingness to paste at length about oil in Somalia while ignoring the long and brutal conflict there and the suffering of Somalia's people obviously proves that you give a rat's *ss about Somalia and are not obsessing about American Imperialist oil stealing. Obviously... somehow.
How did I put it earlier? Oh yeah:
me: "And that's the first thing you want to do, the first thing that comes to mind- find a link to "oil". Lots of suffering people there too, annie, but you apparently don't give a rat's *ss about them."
And that's the first thing you want to do, the first thing that comes to mind- find a link to "oil".
i 'want to do'? our leaders are oil men, follow the money. it makes common sense.
Somalia’s warlords began purchasing various types of heavy and small arms form Mogadishu’s main weaponry market place dubbed Irtokte (sky shooters).
According to Associated Press, traders in the market have reported that agents from at least five Somali warlords have been buying more than 300 heavy machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons.
Mogadishu’s warlords, who controlled the capital with their heavily armed militias since 1991 when Somalia’s central authority collapsed were forcefully expelled by the Islamic Courts movement in June 2006.
They came back to their bases in Mogadishu after thousands of Ethiopian troops backing the transitional government defeated the Islamists in ten days fierce battle.
The UN and the international community have warned in the past that if warlords were given the chance to empower themselves militarily, Somalia would go back to square one.
spare me your crap about the US saving somalia from terrorists. it sounds an awfully lot to me that as soon as the 'wrong side' finally brought some order to somalia somebody made sure that order was disrupted.
wonder why? follow the money. you have a lot of gall talking to me about the suffering of Somalia's people
you make me want to vomit.
i never said i wasn't familiar w/it. i said i did not know enough to judge (meaning the strategy), or to go on at length in a debate. but i know enough to smell crap and call you on it. and i know enough to know that our foreign policy is not interested in the horn for humanitarian prospects. our domestic $$$ doesn't hardly cover our own peoples needs.
washington post
The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.
At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration's difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military.
"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,' " he said.
The White House has not publicly disclosed its interest in creating the position, hoping to find someone President Bush can anoint and announce for the post all at once. Officials said they are still considering options for how to reorganize the White House's management of the two conflicts. If they cannot find a person suited for the sort of specially empowered office they envision, they said, they may have to retain the current structure.
big clip... worth reading the whole article
In an interview yesterday, Sheehan said that Hadley contacted him and they discussed the job for two weeks but that he was dubious from the start. "I've never agreed on the basis of the war, and I'm still skeptical," Sheehan said. "Not only did we not plan properly for the war, we grossly underestimated the effect of sanctions and Saddam Hussein on the Iraqi people."
In the course of the discussions, Sheehan said, he called around to get a better feel for the administration landscape."There's the residue of the Cheney view -- 'We're going to win, al-Qaeda's there' -- that justifies anything we did," he said. "And then there's the pragmatist view -- how the hell do we get out of Dodge and survive? Unfortunately, the people with the former view are still in the positions of most influence." Sheehan said he wrote a note March 27 declining interest.
.....
Some administration critics said the ideas miss the point. "An individual can't fix a failed policy," said Carlos Pascual, former State Department coordinator of Iraq reconstruction, who is now a vice president at the Brookings Institution. "So the key thing is to figure out where the policy is wrong."
[rhus] “But they do provide some services, don't they? What if it was all taken away?”
Services? At what cost? The current government is more like a giant leech sucking the lifeblood from Iraq. This is what an Iraqi had to say about the Iraqi government:
http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/iraq/
“As an Iraqi, I feel I cant [can, obviously] be more accurate than any channel because I lived the four years in Iraq. [...] We have even useless ministries which were invented to please some political parties. We have as far as I know 36 ministries while the USA has only 15 ministries. So we have more than double. I couldn’t know almost 30 of them because they don’t show on TV and we have no idea about their work or whether they do some work or not. In fact and as far as I knew, most of them have no idea about the work of the ministries they run. Iraqis never feel afraid of the electric shocks because we have electricity power for only two hours a day or three hours as a maximum. The rest of the day we have to use small Chinese generator that cost something like 100 $ which are not really powerful enough to kill people.”
There are cases, Rhus, where less government is more, and this is certainly one of those times. (Don’t you read the right wing agitprop in the US, the one that says government is evil, LOL!)
[rhus] “Who would emerge out of this vaccuum of power that you predict?”
GEE, MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS IN 2003, DON’T YOU THINK?
Fortunately, there ARE powers in Iraq that are striving for national unity across the sectarian divide. Frankly I can’t predict whether they will be successful, but they are there. Saleh al-Mutlaq is one of these people, for example. I’m holding thumbs. Iraqis themselves believe that national reconciliation will be easier to achieve once the US leaves.
At the worst, you will have a fractured Iraq with each region looking after its own interests … which is what some potentates in the US government wanted to do anyway.
[rhus] “You just don't give a rat's *ss, do you?”
About dead invaders, no.
Course, I do give a damn about the 665000 + dead Iraqis that resulted from your illegal, immoral invasion, whereas you seem to believe that staying in Iraq and killing Iraqis is somehow good for them. Pretty darn twisted, IMHO.
[rhus] “But of course it was weak against the fantacism of the Jihadis, who made gains by their usual methods.”
This morning I heard that US-backed Ethiopian helicopter gunships were strafing the markets of Mogadishu. In Rhus’ twisted world, this represents a great show of compassion for Somali lives. As does the US policy of backing every two-bit warlord in Somalia against each other, so that they had war for the last fourteen years.
Bravo, Rhus, way to go.
That’s real compassion! Show you care!
[annie] “anyway, they did a segment on egypt and rice's last visit. apparently the prior time she visited she mentioned democracy about 50 times in one speech, last time... zilch. wonder why? because of the influence of the muslim brotherhood. apparently democracy is only cool if the people want the leaders we support.”
I don’t know what state the world would be in if there weren’t rational Americans like Annie left in America. How LONG is it going to take for the wingnuts to get up to speed?
(As an aside, I’m not holding my breath … last I heard they wanted mandatory bible classes and were setting up “creation museums” showing Adam and Eve frolicking with the dinosaurs. Seems like they didn’t know what to do about all those “fossil” things, so they incorporated them into their mythology. Oh, and the T-Rex? It had those huge teeth for cracking open coconuts, you see, cause the Bible said that early creatures only ate the “green herb” or somesuch nonsense.)
[rhus to annie] “you just want to go on and on about American imperialism and oil.”
Oh, yeah, that’s right, the US just bombs people cause it loves them, not because they have oil. Trust Rhus to steer the discussion away from the rational into blatant scare-mongering about the awful consequences of the US NOT killing people.
Funny how the US always shows it cares by funding radical groups, terrorists, warlords … always dividing and ruling … and when these lackeys are driven off, it resorts to direct action as per the case of Iraq.
Rhus, the apologist for international terror shows he cares.
Nice, man.
At 11:44 AM, RhusLancia
annie: "you have a lot of gall talking to me about the suffering of Somalia's people"
All I said was that you'd go out and find a link to oil and ignore the suffering. Which you did, of course. I didn't even bait you, or lure you into a trap. I said I thought that's all you cared about, and you fell all over yourself to prove I was right. Except I thought you'd at least research it first, but you didn't even do that.
annie: "it sounds an awfully lot to me that as soon as the 'wrong side' finally brought some order to somalia somebody made sure that order was disrupted."
They brought order to Somalia the same way the Taleban brought order to Afghanistan in their vaccuum of power. How'd that work out for everybody?
And just to remind you, since your perception does not allow even the most blatant facts to penetrate your cave: we were talking about Feingold's not giving a rat's *ss about Iraqis. His amazing hypocrisy with respect to Somalia and Iraq just fell out for all to see (who cared to look, that is).
At 12:09 PM, RhusLancia
bruno: "This morning I heard that US-backed Ethiopian helicopter gunships were strafing the markets of Mogadishu."
The other day I heard the US had used neutron bombs in Iraq. Sometimes people say things because they know there are some Believers out there who are desperately waiting to hear such things. That way, when the Islamic Courts start murdering civilians in marketplaces, these Believers will gloss right over such acts as "resistance".
me: “Who would emerge out of this vaccuum of power that you predict?”
bruno: "GEE, MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS IN 2003, DON’T YOU THINK?"
It was thought about, but the orderly transition of power from the coalition to democratic self-rule has been impeded by those who want to preserve their previous stations, or who want to rule by thuggery and intimidation. The elected government is weak, but getting stronger and getting better. What if it fell?
bruno: "At the worst, you will have a fractured Iraq with each region looking after its own interests … which is what some potentates in the US government wanted to do anyway."
You're talking about the end state. I've been talking about how they would get there. I have no reliable indication that the transition to any end state in Iraq, after a premature US withdrawal, would be anything but a long and horrible bloodbath. You know as well as I do that millions of Iraqis aren't in the fight yet. What if they were drawn in? Rwanda had their war with machetes, and look what they accomplished. Iraq has AK47s, explosives, and religious fanaticism. 2/3rds of your "655k deaths" have been Iraqi vs. Iraqi (or foreign fighter vs Iraqi). You think they'll just reconcile quickly and live happily ever after?
So you jump to the end state, and apparently don't give a rat's *ss about how the Iraqis would really get there, except by hanging on to some remote possibility of peaceful reconcilliation.
do you think if you repeat yourself enough it will make your 'theory' true. go for it rhus, it is a reflection of you.
bruno..Funny how the US always shows it cares by funding radical groups, terrorists, warlords … always dividing and ruling … and when these lackeys are driven off, it resorts to direct action as per the case of Iraq.
reminds me of this report from abc
A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News.
notice how they say 'encouraged' and back down from directly funding.. yeah right.
U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or "finding" as well as congressional oversight.
congressional oversite?? horrors! there was an interesting reference to congressional oversite in the 'czar' link from wapo above. i am still reeling from that article. last night i couldn't peel myself away from the 9 pages of comments, many along the lines of 'war czar, i thought that was the job of the commander in chief!!' it is up to 28 pageviews of comments.. there is something surreal about a president trying to find someone to resurrect a sinking ship and having candidates respond as tho they were just offered a seat at the hague.
for an outsiders view of the way americans regard bush and his disastrous handling of his job, this comment section is a must read.
bruno, wrt my egypt democracy comment do not miss this excellent piece Parties of God: The Bush doctrine and the rise of Islamic democracy.
At 1:55 PM, RhusLancia
annie: "do you think if you repeat yourself enough it will make your 'theory' true. go for it rhus, it is a reflection of you."
Do you think if I predict you will skip right over a nation's suffering and go right for the "oil" angle, and then you skip right over a nation's suffering and go right for the "oil" angle, that it shows you care about the people's suffering therein?
Don't you have 28 pages of comments against Bush to read or something? Run along now, you may miss a new cutesy insult, like "cheneyhito" or "George W. Pol Pot".
rhus, your prediction requires no instinct whatsoever. my point was not to show i care about how people suffer. i am not required to demonstrate what i care about to you or anyone else.
my point was showing evidence your position and that of the PTB in the US as transparently mired in lies and hypocrisy. that the quest to maintain global supremacy thru control of regions rich in energy resources causes untold suffering and will continue to do so is obvious to anyone who is not blind. people's suffering does not block my vision, understanding, or ability to communicate.
you use 'people's suffering' as a shield to fend off my assertions, alluding it needs to be either addressed, dealt with or 'skipped over' prior to making my point. it doesn't.
this is a reflection on you and your obsession, not me. it is also a diversion from a topic worthy of this post.
At 1:21 AM, RhusLancia
[rhus] “They brought order to Somalia the same way the Taleban brought order to Afghanistan in their vaccuum of power. How'd that work out for everybody?”
Yeah, Somalis killing Somalis for the sake of stability – that’s bad.
But US-backed Ethiopians strafing market places and killing Somalis for the sake of stability – that’s good.
Easy to see how Rhus’ mind works. Very predictable.
[Bruno] "This morning I heard that US-backed Ethiopian helicopter gunships were strafing the markets of Mogadishu."
[rhus] “The other day I heard the US had used neutron bombs in Iraq.”
Classic warmonger refuge. “It’s not true! All lies!”
Except for that there are hundreds of bodies littering the place … but there’s progress for you. At least they weren’t killed by other Somalis, right? If it’s done in the name of the US or it’s allies, the people killed are not only less, but also terrorists to boot … if it ever happened, right?
bruno: "GEE, MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS IN 2003, DON’T YOU THINK?"
[rhus] “It was thought about, but the orderly transition of power from the coalition to democratic self-rule
[after banning the Baath party from the electoral process, of course.]
“has been impeded by those who want to preserve their previous stations”
[they were supposed to go home, suck it up, and starve, instead]
“or who want to rule by thuggery and intimidation.”
[the violent invasion of a country and killing of the opposition NOT being an act of thuggery and intimidation, naturally]
In other words, if China or Russia occupied the US through invasion, banned the Republican and Democratic parties, dismissed the top 10% of government posts and implanted its own allies as the “new” government – maybe making a new US Army from all the poor Latinos – that would be just fine.
Americans would sit back, relax, and enjoy the new democratic US, where you can vote for anybody you want except for some people; where the police and army were exclusively from one ethnic or religious group; where Russian bases took up half the real estate in the major cities.
Get real, Rhuslancia. You’re raving now.
[rhus] “2/3rds of your "655k deaths" have been Iraqi vs. Iraqi”
Of course, that tends to occur when a foreign invader pitches up, removes all law enforcement, and pitches groups within the country against each other in a violent sectarian confrontation. That blood is on YOUR hands. (Let’s not even mention the despicable US “flypaper” strategy, whereby Iraqis pay for their lives for a feud between the US and AQ.)
[rhus] “we were talking about Feingold”
Actually, I don’t give a rat’s ass about your tribal American politics, and neither do the rest of us.
(And yes, I said “ass”. God, that cutsey “*” shit gives me the cramps. You’re saying you want to swear for the sake of emphasis but at the same time that you’re much too polite to ever do so, defeating the entire purpose of the exercise.)
[annie] “there is something surreal about a president trying to find someone to resurrect a sinking ship and having candidates respond as tho they were just offered a seat at the hague.”
I also had a good laugh.
The truth is the MILITARY chaps always know when things are heading straight to hell first.
They realise that to turn Iraq into a pro-US utopia, they’d have to kill over 80% of the Iraqis in Iraq. They also realise that there’s no way in hell that they’re gonna be allowed to do that (even if they wanted to, and not even I think the US military is THAT depraved) … which leaves them the prospect of another ten years guerrilla struggle in Iraq while everybody craps on them for the lousy job they’re doing.
Who could refuse an offer like that?
Who wants to be the scapegoat for the failure of George W. Pol Pot’s surge?
Eh, no thanks.
the failure of George W. Pol Pot’s surge?
i guess rhus is good for somthun'! i had never heard this title for george until this thread.
Mission accomplished!
lol, haven't i heard that somewhere before. didn't georgie pol pot say that?
gee rhus, you could have just ask if my purpose in posting was to prove to you i cared about people.
maybe you don't love your wife because you haven't proved it to me in your posts!! maybe we should all join the bleeding hearts brigade and spend all our energy weeping on the sidelines and document it w/photos. if your mission is proving i don't care you have failed miserably, however proving injustice without making emotional pleas is one of my objectives. thank you for confirming my success in this area.
[they were supposed to go home, suck it up, and starve, instead]
and prove how much they cared! who was it upthread that suggested they could all be afforded their day in court to clean there records! thousands of them. hey, at least that would provide many lawyers w/jobs! or perhaps they could have a system like china during the cultural revolution whereby members of the society could be hauled up in front of the public to confess their sins and profess their undying loyalty to the central government, to prove they cared a rat's ass about feeding their family!
maybe the government of iraq should prove they care a rats ass about unity in iraq by including every iraqi in the process instead of funding their private militias..
or maybe proving you care a rats ass about iraq means cordoning it off in little segregated neighborhoods where every iraqi coming in and out has to prove how much they care before they can join their families.
maybe instead of calling these walled off areas prisons we will slap a fancy name on them (like the areas where rich people live in the US), 'gated communities'. all the men from these areas could be rounded up and imprisoned until they prove they care a rats ass about iraq.
meanwhile george pol pot aka mr mission accomplished numero uno (rhus being numero dos) can't seem to find a czar to anoint! hey.. maybe czar rhus... has a certain ring to it. especially since rhus is so proficient in proving who give's a rats ass about who does and does not care.
i am not having a problem . i am glad you are going to comment Omar, we need more sanity on the thread. i confess i have probably contributed to the mayhem.
morning... coffee, the neighborhood cat keeps the rats at bay so their are literally no rat's asses at my abode to give a second thought about.
;)
Dear 24,
This is indeed bad news. I saw the item this morning on the news channels and thought "uh-oh". I think that a heck of a lot of Iraqis still look up to Sistani, and that this statement by him might just be the official stamp of approval of a further collision course between groups in Iraq.
He may well have a point if he points out all the people the Baath was responsible for killing ... on the other hand, as you so eloquently pointed out, most Baathists were normal Iraqis.
Reconciliation, and not confrontation, is what Iraq needs right now. Punish the guilty, not everybody.