I am thinking: Aren’t you, Maliki, the one who has been talking about how “safe and secured” Baghdad has been for the last two months or so? Didn’t your government announced that it was “very safe and security has been maintained” in Baghdad, where the celebration of the Iraqi Army was supposed to be held, and advised the Iraqi refugees to “return to their homes?”
What changed in the last week?
Maliki, wasn’t your government’s mouthpiece, al-Iraqiya TV, air the celebrations of Christmas and New Year’s from “every part of Baghdad and in the streets?”
If the average Iraqis celebrated Christmas and New Year’s in the streets and enjoyed “the achieved security,” like what your propaganda team told the world, why couldn’t you hold the celebration of the Iraqi Army anniversary inside your fortified Green Zone, where it was supposed to take place?
What kind of “security threats” were you thinking about when you asked your press office to write the statement to postpone the celebration? What kind of threats do you have to face in the Green Zone?
I am going to tell you, Maliki, and tell your government and the 275 “parliamentarians”:
The Iraqi Army fought eight years war with Iran. The Iraqi Army killed at least 500,000 Iranians in the 1980s, according to UN statistics. How can you allow the Iraqis to be proud of their army, which defended Iraq against all the threats since 1921? How can you allow that, when it is the same army that failed your Mullahs plans?
The first thing Ibrahim al-Jaafari, you predecessor, did when he was seated was to issue the order to take down one of Iraq’s most beautiful and important monuments, the Martyr Day monument in Palestine Street. That monument depicted the criminal act of the Iranians committed against the Iraqi Prisoners of War in the early 1980s, when they brutally murdered them and mutilated their bodies.
Why did Jaafari issue orders to take that monument down? The Iraqi Army wasn’t Saddam Hussein’s, it was Iraq’s army. And those who were killed by Iranians in that brutal and criminal act were Iraqis and should be immortalized, like it or not.
And what did Jaafari’s government put to replace the monument? A Picture of Muqtada al-Sadr’s father!
What did you do, Maliki, when you first came to power? You issued the orders to take down the Crossed Swords Monument, which is one of Iraq’s most famous and celebrated monuments that depicted the victory of the Iraqi Army against the Iranian Army.
Why did you take the monument down? Was it hurting anybody? It is inside the Green Zone anyway. Why did you take it down? Is it because it was hurting your Iranian breadwinners?
Even if you say “the monument was Saddam Hussein’s delusional victory.” I would say: So? The Iraqis liked it because it is a piece of art that was never repeated anywhere in the world.
If you, Maliki, or one of your government puppets, say “well, we don’t want to have bad relations with our neighbor, Iran, and these monuments remind everybody of the bloody war Saddam Hussein launched against Iran, I will ask you: Did the Iranians take down their monuments from the 1980s period, which depict their war with Iraq?
Every piece of art in Baghdad is going to be taken down, and pictures of turbaned dead men will replace them. The Iraqi art, one of the world’s oldest and most celebrated civilizations, is being replaced with turbans and bearded men.
This is what the Iraqi government is doing now; erase what is left of Iraq’s civilization and history. If anyone goes to Baghdad now, they will never believe that this is the city where civilization started. If you go to Iraq, you would never think that this is the country that is called “cradle of civilization” because you will find nothing but black Abayas and pictures of bearded men in the streets, just like Iran during the time of Khomeini.
This is the new Iraq: A government that has no credibility in the international community and has no friends but the Iranian government, which is committed to destroying what is left of Iraq.
There are more than four million Iraqi refugees outside Iraq, more than two million Iraqis displaced within Iraq, the Kurdish government is totally separate from the central government, the central government has no power to prevent the Kurds from investing in the northern oil wells [which to me is a good thing,] the government has no power to control criminals, insurgents and militias, the government is not taking care of those who were forced to return to Baghdad from Syria and are homeless now, non of the government officials leaves the Green Zone unless in a helicopter, NOT ONE street in Baghdad was paved or renovated since 2002 and early 2003, NOT ONE water plan was renovated since before the invasion. When it rains, Baghdad floods. The ministry of Health is importing suspicious medicines and there is a scandal every week. The ministry of Interior is very corrupt that no one has the ability to start investigating. The ministry of Culture does basically nothing, but it still exists. The ministry of Trade is decreasing the amount of food given to people based on the food stamps and no one is even noticing it. The ministry of Electricity is… well it exists for no reason. The ministry of Oil is exporting oil for five years now, but where is the money? And so on…
What is this government doing there!
But this will not last for longer. Maliki’s plan, and that of the turbaned snakes and poisonous Mullahs in Iraq, Shiite and Sunni, will not succeed. The Iraqis are realizing gradually the mistake they’ve done when they voted for Ali al-Sistani and Harith al-Dhari. They know now that because of their miscalculated vote, Iraq has moved backwards a 100 years.
Islamists will never be able to govern a stable Iraq, nor will Christians. Iraq is a mix of different ethnic and religious backgrounds and it is impossible to compromise, and Iraq is now the evidence. What have we achieved since the Islamists took power in Iraq? Blood baths, men cannot wear shorts even when they play tennis! Women cannot drive or use cell phones in the streets. Women have to wear head scarves, women cannot wear pants, women have to wear Abayas, men cannot walk in the streets with women unless they are relatives, men cannot drink alcohol, university students cannot hold parties and cannot organize trips or picnics. Girls have to wear head scarves inside campuses.
And when I say the truth about Ali al- Sistani and Harith al-Dhari, people call me “sectarian!”
Nothing of what we’ve got from Islamists is useful. Show me one useful thing the turbaned snakes and poisonous Mullahs have given Iraq.
And if you don’t find any, then the question is: Why do we have them in power? And why don’t you like it when I attack them, by logic and evidences?
At 5:18 PM, 
RhusLancia
"Show me one useful thing the turbaned snakes and poisonous Mullahs have given Iraq.
And if you don’t find any, then the question is: Why do we have them in power?"
The immunity law
We have them in power because they are the only ones right now that are willing to put US and its allies interests first, second and third.
I have said it here before; mullahs and turbans or lack of women freedom and torture etc can be a great thing for the super power of the world and its allies just have a look at Saudi Arabia.
At 9:08 AM, 24 Steps to Liberty
Nadia,
Even if what you are saying is true, the question remains: Why do we have them in power?
Is it only you an me who are seeing the failure of this gang, which is called a government? I’m sure most Iraqis realize that this gang, Sunnis and Shiites included, is committed to destroying Iraq and it has accomplished that goal. But they also are committed to not allowing a future in the country.
This is the fruit of the ethnic divisions in Iraq. The poisonous mullahs keep reminding people of Saddam Hussein’s regime brutality and blame it on Sunnis in general, and the poisonous sheikh keep reminding people of the brutality of this Shiite government [the documented massacres of Sunnis committed by the ministry of interior and militias] and blame it on all Iraqi Shiites. The result now is: the Shiites now hate the Sunnis and accept an unqualified and sectarian government just because it is oppressing, abusing and maltreating the Sunnis. And the Sunnis hate the Shiites and don’t want to coordinate with them to find a new government. No matter what people say, that is the bottom line in Iraq now. And we will need generations before we can change that.
"Nadia,
Even if what you are saying is true, the question remains: Why do we have them in power?"
Could it be because they have the world’s most weapon equipped army protecting them day and night?
Could it be because they have the world’s only superpower and all its allies on their side still claiming these people represent human rights and freedom?
Could it be because they and their international allies have succeeded in scaring, silencing, threatening and dehumanizing the healthy peaceful sustainable nationalistic alternative voices?
Could it be because most ordinary Iraqis are so busy and tired with surviving from one hour to another that acting for political change is for someone else to do?
Could it be because many Iraqis use the saying “in shaa allah” and choose to leave it to God to fix; instead of thinking that God help those who help themselves?
Honestly I think it’s a mix of all the above and its all very upsetting and sad. It truly hurts with every heartbeat : (
I agree with you, sooner or later it will all fall apart. That always happens when the foundation is rotten.
By the way all this reminded me of a post I had back in 2006. I'll post it here:
***
What sort of people do criminals surround themselvs with?
I saw a documentary about a Swedish man who had served his sentence in prison for crimes committed. Now afterwards he wants to live a normal life, contribute to society in a correct way.
Once when he was sitting having dinner with friends the filmmaker asked him “aren’t you afraid that criminals/criminal gangs will lure you back?” His friend comes in and wants to answer and says that criminal gangs would not want him in their team. He would be a burden and a threat to them. Because now he has started thinking about what’s right and wrong. And that’s NOT the sort of person criminals want around them.
Bush and the team have acted as a bunch of criminal liars when it comes to the war against Iraq. They sold the war based on lies, deceit and propaganda. So what sort of Iraqis would they surround themselves with?
***
Ad to this: another thing in common between the religious freaks in Iraq, Bush and his supporters they all think they are on a mission from/for God.
It can not last!
At 10:13 AM, 24 Steps to Liberty
The Ministry of Interior, know as the Shiite militia ministry and infamous for several scandals involving the torture and killing of Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites, celebrated TODAY it’s National Police Day in central Baghdad.
So, Maliki postponed the celebration of the Iraqi Army anniversary three days ago for “security reasons,” but the militia-infiltrated ministry of Interior is free to hold celebrations in central Baghdad, with no fears for “security reasons.”
Is there more or stronger evidence that this government is a pure Iranian-influenced gang? Is their more evidence that the real governor of Iraq is the Iranian government and its mullahs?
Why I say that? Because Malliki “postponed” the celebration of the Iraqi Army anniversary because it fought Iran, BUT the ministry of Interior and the Iraqi police DID NOT fight Iran.
And still, there are people who defend this turbaned government, Iraqis and non-Iraqis!
At 1:18 PM, Lynnette In Minnesota
Postponed? What? When? I thought that was the celebration where the explosion occured?
...depicted the victory of the Iraqi Army against the Iranian Army.
What victory? I thought that war was fought to a draw?
At 10:02 PM, 
Actually there were a reasonable number of reports that Shia
areas of Baghdad have had
an improvement in water/sewage/paved roads but that
The Sunni neighborhoods are being neglected.
Hmmm But 35 years of Saddam
led to Shia dominated areas being neglected ... did it not ???
The point being the situation is not good but it is to be expected
after the 35 years of Saddam ...
MOJO (I believe) mentioned in his Blog that al- Hakim had 30 family
members killed under Saddam....
Some element of revenge was to be expected ... again NOT THAT IT IS GOOD OR DESIRABLE ... BUT THAT IT WAS TO BE EXPECTED.
Its how quickly Iraq can move through this period ... that is whats important ... Can this sectarian government moderate
fairly soon and then the next government (which is to be elected
in two years) continue progress ??
That is the question now.
Look at the horror show in Kenya ... these events in other countries should provide a stimulus to Iraqi to reconcile quickly so that the country does not disentegrate and remain
in a constant struggle with itself.
And where does this idea that
the US benefits from Muslim
women being opressed ... I mean
how ??? how does Bush gain
from Iraqi women wearing Burka's
Its absurd.
Bush appoints Condi Rice
to secretary of State ... she has visited Iraq many times ... why would he do this if its in his interest to have Iraqi women
opressed ???
Does not the constitution call for
Iraqi women to be represented in Parliament ???
Is it in the US interest to keep
Afghani women subdued ???
Is it really ??? So why are
US forces fighting the Taliban ???
Make sense please !!!
Omar, Ali, Nadia etc., please answer RhusLancia's question.
What candidates do you support in the provincial elections this year?
Who do you think will win? Will the Baghdad government be able to work effectively with the newly elected provincial governments? How effective will the new provincial governments be?
Nadia, the way to defeat the current dominant political parties is non-violent political activism and the ballot box.
At 3:16 PM,
"Could it be because they have the world’s most weapon equipped army protecting them day and night?"
Maybe I'm taking it wrong but to me this sounds like you believe the way to be in power is to 'take out' the guy that is currently in power rather than through elections, which you had and which actually put these guys in power.
At 10:57 PM,
Don't believe the Americans like Maliki. I'm surprised we haven't got rid of him yet. The war in Iraq is a major drain on us also and we'd like nothing better than to be able to leave, but we have to fix what we started over there. If we pull out now, a LOT of people will have died for nothing. My advice to you is for you and any other intelligent and patriotic Iraqis you know to run for office next time and get the power away from the clerics.
At 9:21 AM, RhusLancia
Parliamentarians share thoughts on debaathification law
Dawa and SIIC are fairly reasonable (as far as this article goes). I wonder what the Sadrists' 20 remarks are? Do you know, Omar? Too bad they don't have C-Span in there...
At 10:52 AM, RhusLancia
The most awesomely awesome thing out of Iraq I've seen all day.
Such racing wasn't allowed under the regime of Saddam Hussein.
What?!?!? What a b*st*rd!! Is there no limit to his repression?
Omar, I know you've got your eye on a future in politics, and that is very admirable & needed, but you could also consider becoming Iraq's Edison Dye.
_
At 6:24 PM, 24 Steps to Liberty
“Such racing wasn't allowed under the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
I cannot believe the CNN would pull such crap! Where did they get this info. from? Or is it just a new “hey Iraq is much better than five years ago” propaganda.
We did not have enough money to buy motorcycles before the invasion. Iraqis were barely able to provide food for themselves, much less they could buy luxury items. Why? Well, go to the UN website and read about the sanctions!
That was the reason why we didn’t have this kind of “festivities.” Not because Saddam Hussein prevented them.
We had car racings, we had horse tracks and racings, we had soccer, we had volleyball, we had basketball and many other sports competitions.
Very disappointed that the CNN joined this crappy propaganda writing style. Very disappointed.
I don't think the next election will be any different from the previous one. Two reasons I spot behind that:
1. The sectarian culture everyone in power in Iraq is spreading.
2. The cheating and bribery involved in the elections.
So Omar,
The folks now in power will remain in power or we will have something similar to "The Autumn of the Patriarch" by Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
What Iraq needs now is a revolutionary solution that would not fit in the American agenda.
And regarding the CNN bullsh*t. I just don't expect anything better from them.
At 6:24 PM,
elections are all controlled so it is irrelevant who anyone votes for. i am away from home and the internet since the first of the year. i was astounded to hear one little line on cnn about 40 thousand tons of bombs dropped on baghdad and then a long speel about new michael jordan tennis shoes for 200 dollars. i don't know how people find anything out about iraq on the tv. it is almost non existent.
they don't want us to know anything. stupid bull crap about elections that are totally controlled. what a farce.
sorry Omar.
annie
Annie, most people in the world live in free democracies. By your definition most democracies have "elections that are totally controlled. what a farce."
Annie, we have a right not to like how voters vote. But we have to respect "how" they vote. We cannot call every time voters in a particular country disagrees with us "totally controlled" and "a farce."
We have to have faith and confidence in the people, and their wisdom. Eventually, they will get it right.
Annie, the ISF and GoI have the right to defend themselves if attacked. Tactical air strikes to support the ISF is one way to do this.
Every other sovereign country retains the right to defend itself by all means necessary. Why should Iraq be any different?
Should the IA and IP declare . . . “We won’t defend ourselves if attacked because Annie disapproves our doing so. Please come and kill us.”
What advise would you give the GoI and ISF if they asked you for constructive suggestions?
Note that the IZAF (Iraqi Air Force) is developing the capabilities to provide their own tactical air support.
I suspect you might have read about the IZAF buying 35 fighter aircraft from Serbia:
http://www.limun.hr/en/main.aspx?id=227475
This is one of only many IZAF purchases in process. I think the IZAF should consider buying the Brazilian B29, one of the best COIN (Counter Insurgency) aircraft in the world.
BTW, is anyone aware if any civilians died in the recent air strikes. (I am not aware of any civilian casualties.)
Omar, under sanctions all Iraqi oil revenue had to be spent on the welfare of the Iraqi people under UN supervision. (Halliday was one of the supervisors.)
Saddam was the one who refused to let Iraq export oil for so long (because he wanted full control over how oil revenues were spent.)
Saddam caused the sanctions by refusing to comply with UN resolutions (about dismantling Iraq’s WMD programs under UN supervision.)
In fact, Saddam maintained the illusion of WMD stockpiles right to the end. Many of Saddam’s top generals were shocked when Saddam told them that Iraq did not have WMD in March and April 2003.
Saddam feared that the resistance would rise against him if they believed that Saddam did not have WMD. So he maintained the illusion that he had WMD.
Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_II
Saddam was obsessed with the Iraqi resistance. He feared them much more than the invading American/British/Australian/Polish forces right up to the fall of Baghdad.
He refused to blow up the bridges that the US army and Marines crossed to enter Baghdad because he was afraid it would make it more difficult for him to fight the Iraqi resistance. (Saddam had great difficulty defeating the resistance in 1991 because so many of his bridges were destroyed. It took him over a month to retake many areas from the resistance (at great cost of life to Saddam’s army and local Iraqi citizens.)
Omar, one man was responsible for the sanctions, Saddam Hussein. He was responsible for the immense economic, physical and emotional suffering of the Iraqi people.
What is wrong about Iraqis choosing to be happy because snow falls? Happiness comes from inside ourselves, not the external world around us. That Iraqis are trying to be happy despite their difficult circumstances is a tribute to them.
People generally don’t think about politics or whether someone was worse or better off 5 years ago. Sometimes thinks are much simpler. Sometimes, it is all about choosing to be happy at the small unexplained wonders of life.
BlogIraqi, a prosperous, successful, democratic and self reliant Iraq is what the vast majority of people, Iraqi and non-Iraqi want.
We have to stop criticizing each other and work together. We need to crush the Takfiri and organized crime bosses together (both inside Iraq and around the world).
The way to have revolution is through non-violent sathya graha and peaceful political activism. Iraqis have had their fill of violent “solutions.”
Anand,
My suggestion of a revolutionary solution does not imply violence by any means. Violence, in my own dictionary, is the opposite of solution.
A dreamy non-violent solution would be as follows:
1. The rise of public awareness in Iraq about the importance of voting in a non-sectarian, non-tribal, objective way. This can occur through non-biased media, which is very rare.
2. Protests against the current electoral committee and demand its change with a one that is FULLY controlled and run by the UN. And the new committee should participate in the electoral education of people.
3. Cut-out all the bad guys off the Iraqi Police and Army. This can happen by appointing non-sectarian ministers and giving them full authority over their ministries. And a better solution would be the one I mentioned before.
I have a wild suggestion although most people won't like it and I would really like to see the Americans leave Iraq.
My suggestion is to hand the ministry of defense and the ministry of interior to the Americans. And the americans should have secular consultants that run the whole show behind the curtains. Maybe six months would be enough to eliminate all the bad apples there. And add the right "Awakening" guys to the security forces in a balanced way.
I know its not going to happen. But I believe its a good way out. If this handover period is run in the right manner, we will not have the battle over power anymore.
Once the Iraqi forces are clean, there will be a real fight of all Iraqi people against terrorism, not a hidden war of sects.
4. When a new non-sectarian government takes over (yeah sure), they should bring to court of justice each and every corrupted official since 2003 until now. And they should be punished with the law's maximum punishment for their crimes. This way, no government official would think that he's above the law.
There are few things on my mind. But I will settle now for these four dreams.
Btw, regarding the air strike in Arab Juboor, I have heard that there were some civilian casualties including one of the Shiekhs of the area. And one more thing, this area is really not that big, I mean 40 tons of explosives probably have erased the whole area to the ground.
At 11:33 PM,
At 5:30 PM, RhusLancia
BlogIraqi, one of the things I think and hope is happening with these "Awakening" and "Concerned Local Citizens" movements is that the moderates are getting off the fence and earning a stake in Iraq's future. I think and hope this will translate into more balanced & moderate gov't in the next provincial & then national elections. That's my thoughts & hopes and I'm sticking to 'em!
At 5:54 PM, RhusLancia
Here's what I posted to CNN re: that motorcycle story:
I love motorcycles, too- especially motocross. This story is awesome. One thing though: I shared this story with a couple of Iraqi bloggers and they dispute the reporter's claim that "Such racing wasn't allowed under the regime of Saddam Hussein." Is there a way to ask the reporter where this came from? These bloggers are NOT Saddam apologists.
I doubt it'll go anywhere, of course.
24, motorcycles are cheaper than cars, so they're not necessarily luxury items. From the pics on the story, it does look like the Iraqis are just racing and showing off on regular bikes, not special racing machines. Here is an American expression: "run whatcha brung". Americans will race anything with a motor- cars, trucks, bikes, riding lawnmowers, etc. And add motors to things like toilets and barstools and then race those too.
Motocross bikes I'd expect to be rare, though. So if you have an entrepreneurial streak in you.... :)
At 5:59 PM, RhusLancia
Rhus,
I would go a step farther in my hope is that the UN actually run the elections and not just monitor it. You can not imagine the tricks that happened in the previous elections and the UN people did the best they could. But, apparently, it was not good enough.
All of these clean-electoral-system hopes are genuinely dependent on the calm security situation which feels like the calmness before the storm.
At 1:59 PM,
anand, you have to be a joke because you can't be fucking serious, did you see those serbian "fighter aircraft" you mention?
http://www.mycity.co.yu/thumbs/18848_tmb_394456083_Lasta95p07.jpg
those belong only in a museum.
you do know that iraq had probably the best air force in the region before it was decimated by both saddam (who saw it as a threat to his regime) and the u.s., don't you?
what a joke you are.
At 3:17 PM, RhusLancia
BlogIraqi: "I would go a step farther in my hope is that the UN actually run the elections and not just monitor it."
That would work for me. I do expect there will always be people who will try funny business in any election and that there will always be people who so dislike the outcome that they believe the funny business carried the day more than the real results. I don't think the overt funny business (ie cheating) carried the '05 elections, but there was a lot of intimidation by some actors and too much manipulation by the clerics that may not have been illegal but was wrong nonetheless. Like you, I hope the next ones go better all around.
On another matter, I saw that you opposed Layla Anwar's open sectarian hatred in a comment to her post here. I'm glad that true Iraqis can see that such vile sectarian hatred is no way forward in Iraq.
But, you also say: "Supporting the real patriotic resistance is a God thing. And I see the right to resist the invaders a human right, and some might call it a duty."
This seems to contradict what you wrote just above about opposing violence, and also your suggestion to turn Iraq's MoI and MoD over to the Americans to clean it out. Have you had a change of heart on this since writing that comment at Layla's?
Pretty dead around here. C'mon, let's blow this pop-stand.
Self-Hatred or Self-Criticism?
You know it sounds more interesting than Omar's daily diet of turbaned snakes, right?
*
America handed over the MoI and MoD to the GoI on 6-04. America will not take control over them again.
Another solution needs to be found. In my opinion an Iraqi solution.
Some of my friends are experts in the ISF. They think the MoD is improving rapidly.
You can discuss it with them here:
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/01/iraqi_security_force_8.php
At 7:09 PM, An Italian.
@ Omar.
Dear Omar, this is getting ridiculous.
We have this snake 'Anand', at your blog and in your face, telling people (YOUR readers and commentators) things such as "We can discuss it with my friends in comments here" and "You can discuss it with them here", asking them to go to some other site. In this case, to the US military propaganda 'blog' by Bill Roggio.
The same that Rat Jeffrey Schuster does: only, this slithering reptile 'Anand' is even more disgusting.
Rhus,
First, there was a typo in my comment there "God thing" is wrong. I meant "good thing".
And resistance is right to any invaded country. And my suggestion for the US to take over the MoI and MoD does not mean that the Americans are welcomed in Iraq. It means that the gang of sectarians that took over are not better than the Americans.
I don't think that anyone can deny the right of resistance in any occupied country, no matter what the reason for occupation was, and no matter what good intentions behind this occupation. Especially when most of what happened after that occupation is destruction and death.
Blog Iraqi, shouldn't people "resist" peacefully through elections and the political process?
Mahatma Gandhi strongly opposed all violence, including against the British.
Mandela similarly opposed violence against the South African government and security forces.
Martin Luther King also opposed violence.
In any case, under international law the GoI is the sole legal and legitimate governing authority in Iraq.
Legally, under international law, now one has the right to practice violence against the GoI, ISF, or any foreign guests that they invite.
This is legally. (Sometimes laws are not moral. But that is another matter.)
The legal way to handle the MNF is for the Iraqi parliament to clearly indicate their preferences with respect to the MNF through legislation.
Morally, in my opinion, fighting should be the last resort.
BlogIraqi, you do understand that keeping American troops in Iraq costs $10 billion a month. Most Americans are itching to withdraw them, and will do so as soon as they are sure it won’t lead to a genocide. American troop levels in Iraq are dropping to 40,000 fairly quickly. This is the Petreaus plan presented to Congress.
Why should Americans sacrifice our most precious blood and treasure for Iraqis if Iraqis fire on our soldiers? This makes no sense. Most Americans will demand the immediate withdrawal of all American support for Iraq if they thought that most Iraqis supported violence against US troops.
At 6:26 AM, Iraqi Mojo
At 6:32 AM, Iraqi Mojo
At 6:37 AM, Iraqi Mojo
At 8:27 AM, An Italian.
@ All (and especially Blog Iraqi), re: 'Anand', 6:21 AM).
What this disgusting snake 'Anand' writes is totally irrelevant, as shown by the fact that he openly LIES once more in BAD FAITH.
Reptile 'Anand' wrote:
"Mandela similarly opposed violence against the South African government and security forces".
This is totally false, since the ANC had its guerrilla arm, 'The Spear of the Nation', founded by the same Nelson Mandela and always supported by him, that kept fighting a (VERY violent) war "against the South African government and security forces" up to the end of the apartheid.
This evil LIAR and snake 'Anand' knows very well that what he wrote is a LIE, since Bruno time ago showed the evidence (at Zeyad's blog) that it is a lie; but the slimy, nauseating 'Anand' keeps repeating it.
So everybody can see that what this 'Anand' writes is of no relevance at all: just a collection of bare-snouted lies spewed by a reptilian imbecile.
Mandela's views on violence changed in later years.
He strongly opposed violence towards the end of Apartheid and during the lead up to the 1994 elections.
He also strongly opposed violence after the elections.
It is time for all groups to renounce violence in Iraq as well, and participate in the political process.
At 8:37 AM, An Italian.
Re: 'Anand', 8:30 AM.
This reptile and LIAR keeps lying.
Nelson Mandela "opposed violence" ONLY when the Apartheid regime was OVER, and when ANC had WON ITS WAR (!!!).
It would have been stupid to advocate "violence" AFTER having won the war, wouldn't it ?
So the sentence slandering Mandela by this stupid snake 'Anand' is, indeed, both a non-sequitur and a LIE, QED.
At 12:03 PM, RhusLancia
BlogIraqi, I wish some day people would see the difference between a perceived occupation and an actual one. The actual occupation of Iraq ended in June, 2004. One of the obstacles for ending the perceived occupation of Iraq is... the "Resistance"! I note that your MoI and MoD suggestion is more towards actual occupation than currently exists in Iraq. On the one hand, you'd like to see an expanded occupation, but on the other you affirm the right of anyone to "resist" it?
Obviously it must be difficult to see foreign soldiers in your country, often destroying things and killing your countrymen. But as you know the MNF faces very determined, entrenched, and often invisible enemies whose intentions for Iraq are hardly noble or just. The MNF would much rather transition to a training and overwatch role, and phase even this out over time.
I believe all parties would benefit from swearing off violence and forging a new Iraq together for all Iraqis. Unfortunately, a very large part of the insurgency in Iraq, in my opinion, has been elements of the former regime using the cloak of "legitimate resistance" to try to re-establish themselves in power. I am not surprised that they found common cause with the jihadis early on, and used them to help undermine any post-Saddam efforts to move Iraq forward.
BlogIraqi: "I do not recall saying ,anywhere, that resistance has to be associated with violence."
That may be so, but if you were to say you support the Iraqi Resistance, or the right to resist, it is common & natural to think you mean the violence the Iraqi Resistance is engaged in.
Also, the blog you made that comment on (Layla Anwar's) is a particular advocate of violence against the MNF as well as Iraqi Shia and Kurds. The only way you'd be able to disassociate violence from the "Resistance" there would be to say so specifically. And, since a non-violent Iraqi "Resistance" does not visibly exist whereas a violent one does, you could be a pioneer in calling for non-violence as a means to help Iraq.
At 2:03 PM, Lynnette In Minnesota
BlogIraqi,
As Rhus pointed out(that man always makes my point before I can get to it...so annoying!), your reasoning is a little contradictory.
You want us to take over control of various ministries, yet you support resistance(whatever kind it may be) to an occupation. On one hand you are encouraging an occupation and on the other you are fighting it. Ergo, contradictory.
And you overlook the little fact that we would have people(such as Bruno) screaming to high heaven that we are infringing on Iraq's sovereignty.
Rhus and Lynnette,
First lets clear things about resistance. Many terrorists have attached their acts on the so-called resistance. And with almost everyone knowing that, we should know better than attaching terrorism to resistance. And again I declare, resistance does not have to be violent, and violence should be the last resort. A public demand in protests and campaigns can be done to request the cleansing of the ISF and even asking to change the electoral committee can be considered a first step.
And if you go through my suggestions to get out of the current situation in Iraq, you will not find any violence-act suggestion in there. But again I would like to state, violence is the last resort, but it is an eligible option when everything else fails.
And regarding my suggestion o give the MoI and MoD to the Americans, I do not consider it infringing on Iraq's sovereignty because Iraq is an occupied country..!!!
And in my simple understanding, Iraq will be independent the day that the last American soldier leaves. And for an occupied country, there is no real independence in decision making in Iraq. So, handing over the ministries to the US for a short period of time can be considered just a part of the occupation, and does not affect the dignity of an occupied country.
And personally, I would prefer the US taking over these ministries over the Iranians that are dominating from behind the scenes.
Don't insult and dishonor Mandela.
He specifically called for sanctions to be lifted, and all violence in South Africa to end a year before South Africa's 1994 elections.
Mandela didn't say "vote for my party or I will use violence."
Mandela renounced the violence of his youth after being released from prison. In fact he publicly admitted that great abuses and wrongs were committed by the ANC.
While Mandela didn't explicitly say that resistance in the 1960s-1980s was wrong, he said that it shouldn't be used any more.
BlogIraqi, the GoI is sovereign under international law. It has full claim to all tax revenue collected by the Iraqi state (about $49 billion in 2008) which it spends however it sees fit.
The GoI controls all its employees, the MoI (with over 200,000 trained and equipped), and the MoD (with over 165,000 trained and equipped.)
The GoI has sole legal claim to all the wealth of Iraq, and all mineral/hydrobarbon/river/land rights that have not already been sold to the private sector.
The GoI has the full right to enter into any treaties and agreements with any government, person, or company it chooses. It can request the MNF-I to leave at its discretion.
Many unanimously passed UN resolutions have certified that the GoI has all these powers, is fully sovereign, and is the sole legitimate authority (government) for Iraq.
This is the legal definition of sovereignty.
There is no way that the US government would agree to take over the MoI and MoD. US troops are pulling out. Petreaus is aiming for 40,000 troops in 2009 (less than a quarter what they were at the peak of the surge.) In fact, current deployment schedules and plans already reflect that. Unless things go much worse than expected in Iraq, this is pretty much set in stone.
There is no interest on the part of any American politician to stay in Iraq any longer in large numbers.
Iraqis have to take the lead in solving their own problems.
BTW, the MoD has improved significantly recently. Are you interested in learning more about the ISF? I could provide you a lot more information regarding it.
BlogIraqi do you unambiguously condemn all attacks against the ISF?
If so, then we agree with each other.
At 3:11 AM, RhusLancia
BlogIraqi: "Many terrorists have attached their acts on the so-called resistance. And with almost everyone knowing that, we should know better than attaching terrorism to resistance."
That is incredibly generous of you, BlogIraqi. Why not hold the "Resistance" accountable for its horrific and indiscriminate violence? Here is an HRW report that may refresh your memory:
"Since the U.S.-led invasion of the country in March 2003, armed opposition groups have purposely killed thousands of civilians—men, women and children. Across the country, insurgents have used car bombs and suicide bombers, like the one in Musayyib, to maximize the number of civilian injuries and deaths. They have assassinated government officials, politicians, judges, journalists, humanitarian aid workers and those deemed to be collaborating with the foreign forces in Iraq. They have tortured and summarily executed, sometimes by beheading, persons in their custody. And attacks against legitimate military targets, such as army convoys, have been carried out in such a manner that the foreseeable loss of civilian life was far disproportionate to the military gain. All of these attacks are serious violations of international humanitarian law—war crimes—and in some cases they are crimes against humanity."
Anand,
Again I say "And in my simple understanding, Iraq will be independent the day that the last American soldier leaves"
I also believe that what I said about the US taking over the MoI and the MoD temporarily is an inapplicable suggestion given the current circumstances in Iraq.
And I can not condemn ALL attacks against the ISF because the ISF has been highly breached by the militias. And those people are misrepresenting the ISF as killing squads. And until the militia people are kicked out, I can not condemn ALL the attacks against them.
Rhus,
I am again asking to discriminate that acts of terrorist from the acts of resistance. Any killing of innocent Iraqis is an act of terrorism, including the massacres done by the militias who were enrolled in the ISF, and the unjustified killings done BlackWater. And again I say that violence should be the last resort for resistance.
I believe we are going no where with this discussion. This discussion is over for me.
At 6:53 AM, An Italian.
Re: 'Anand', 11:52 PM.
This mendacious snake 'Anand' continues in his slandering (and insulting and dishonouring) of Nelson Mandela.
Before the 1994 elections, the Apartheid regime had SURRENDERED to the ANC's demands.
Again, why should have "violence" on the part of the ANC continued ?
What 'Anand' writes does NOT make any sense.
['Anand'] "Mandela didn't say 'vote for my party or I will use violence'".
This is idiotic in the extreme (everybody knew that the ANC was going to triumph: so Mandela would have been an utter fool to say anything of the kind. A grotesque strawman on snake 'Anand's part !).
['Anand'] "Mandela renounced the violence of his youth after being released from prison", etc..
This is, quite simply, TOTALLY FALSE, as this LIAR and snake 'Anand' knows very well. PRECISELY the OPPOSITE is true: as soon as he was free, Nelson Mandela did PRAISE the fighters of the ANC 'Spear of the Nation'.
Again, this revolting reptile 'Anand' LIES most disgustingly, and in PERFECT BAD FAITH; he seems to be a compulsive LIAR.
Find one quote from Mandela in 1993 where he recommended violence in the present (rather than tipping his hat to people for events from the distant past.)
South Africa’s elections happened in 1994. And the results of those elections were far from clear in 1993. The Zulu parties may have done well in South Africa’s next elections when Mandela condemned violence. The Zulu parties violently attacked the ANC in 1992 and 1993, and Mandela asked the ANC to absorb the violence and not strike back. He similarly asked the South African people to absorb the violence from the South African government and security forces without lashing back violently.
By tipping his hat to people who had fought the South African government violently in the 1960s through 1980s, Mandela was gently thanking them for their service and requesting that they continue the good fight in a non-violent manner.
Mandela was trying to end the violence and Apartheid. He abhorred both. He was trying to coax the violent elements in the ANC to give up violence.
De Klerk has spoken about Mandela’s struggle in 1992-1994 to turn off the violent elements within the ANC and other black violent movements. De Klerk similarly struggled against violent Africaaner movements.
Mandela had a hard road. And it was far from clear that Mandela would win the first elections. (Many of his political opponents tried to attack him as an uncle Tom for trying to end the violent resistance.) Mandela was a good man who tried to do the right thing.
Notice how nice he was to the Africaaners in 1994. I wish the UIA had followed Mandela’s lead in Iraq.
Don’t dare try to malign Mandela.
At 8:13 AM, Lynnette In Minnesota
BlogIraqi,
I believe we are going no where with this discussion. This discussion is over for me.
What?! Wait a minute. I should at least get a chance to respond a little. I'm not here all the time, so can't always be timely...
I do not consider it infringing on Iraq's sovereignty because Iraq is an occupied country..!!!
I understand the antipathy Iraqis feel to having foreign forces on their land and basically seemingly able to do anything they want at any time.
But we can't help you in dealing with terrorists or outside threats if we are not physically there. You see? We are stuck, until you can deal with these things on your own. We don't want to be an occupation force. Even though some of our behavior is less than stellar at times, we are trying to bring Iraq to a point where you can stand alone.
And I would point out that there are other countries that have US forces stationed there, who by no means, would anyone consider occupied.
As for the influence of Iran, I realize this is a problem. We can try to deal with their activities in funneling weapons into Iraq. But their influence in politics is something that Iraqis really have to take a stand on within the political arena. If you want to call that resistance I suppose you could. But really it is just standing up for your beliefs and being counted. I support that.
At 11:55 AM,
Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa has refused to renew Washington's lease on the Manta air base, set to expire in 2009. U.S.
"We'll renew the base on one condition: that they let us put a base in Miami -- an Ecuadorean base," Correa said in an interview during a trip to Italy.
"If there's no problem having foreign soldiers on a country's soil, surely they'll let us have an Ecuadorean base in the United States."
So why not set up 737 international military bases in the US an see what folks over there think about having them there. I mean we can use the same crap the US uses, its a bad person incharge, its a country that threaten other countries, its a country that attacks other countries... The list can go on for ever.
Non one US adminstration is looking our for what is best for Iraqis. Its main focus is what is best for the rich and mighty to get even richer and mightier. For god sake million of US kids are not getting the health care and school education they need in the US start there before tring to tell people abroad oh gee we are really there to help you.
At 12:55 PM, RhusLancia
Nadia, helping Iraqis is in the US' interests. If it was ever about hegemony, empire, or 'control', wouldn't you say those aspirations have been tamped down? Good job, 'Resistance', you've prolonged a US 'Occupation' that we were never interested in having in the first place.
On the other thing: where I worked until recently I could look out my window and oftentimes see airmen of the German Air Force coming and going, and occaisionally airmen from the South Korean Air Force. The Luftwaffe! Can you imagine? They are stationed nearby for training. The South Koreans visit for training, too. I have a very hard time getting upset about it.
Yes, I know Iraq's situation is different because there is a perceived (albeit not 'actual') occupation, and MNF forces are engaged in combat & security operations in Iraq whereas they are not in Equador, nor is the Luftwaffe here in the US.
I am willing to respect BlogIraqi's difference of opinion with me on the perceived vs actual actions of the 'Resistance'. However, if the discussion were to continue I would ask him what he thinks about the UNAMID occupation of Darfur since he's presently in Sudan. This has a closer (but not exact) parallel to the role of the MNF in Iraq.
At 1:36 PM,
RhusLancia, sorry to say it but really the USA has no what so ever interests other then what is good for itself getting richer and more control. Just look at Bush's trip in the region hugging one dictator after another.
Not one single USA administration and its allies should be trusted as long as they hug dictators and do business with them. Because then it really is just like the old days. Some dictators are bad some are good. What's the definition? Well the good one is the one who put US's and its allies interests first, second and third.
So how much weapons has he sold during this trip? How much input have people had in these deals?
So RhusLancia you are fooled either by nativity or you choose to.
At 2:00 PM, RhusLancia
Nadia, upon taking office, each US President is given two coupons redeemable for overthrowing repressive regimes. Bush already used his. Just kidding, but what would you have Bush do differently with the dictators? Topple every one? How? Some dictators are worse than others, and they have a long history of threatening or bad internal & external behavior. Raise your dead hand, Saddam. Even though KSA, for example, is a cess pool breeding ground of jihadi idealogy and prime exporters of jihadists, there is little evidence that the regime there is a direct sponsor of terrorists/-ism. Bush's efforts there are better spent urging reforms and better handling of the jihadis, don't you think? Of course, it's not likely he'll make much progress in those regards. We simply don't have the influence we are accused of having. Until there is some real internal or external pressure for change that has influence & traction, those dictators are safe.
nadia: "Not one single USA administration and its allies should be trusted as long as they hug dictators and do business with them."
Really? What other countries are handling them better, and are to be trusted? I'm reminded that many of the world's countries were doing all they could to do business even with Saddam, even knowing his internal & external behavior, even under the sanctions that were supposed to contain him. Those are to be trusted... why? Because it's like the old days?
At 3:51 PM, An Italian.
@ 'Anand', 7:12 AM.
[Buffoonish Snake 'Anand'] "Don’t dare try to malign Mandela".
Now, comical LIAR, it is ME telling YOU that, you reptilian clown and imbecile 'Anand'.
And in a few hours time a South African will expose your disgusting, grotesque LIES in greater detail, BTW.
[@ All: and think, folks, that the Anti-Iraqi American 'Mojo' introduced this incredibly inept and incompetent LIAR 'Anand', the snake, as 'the most intelligent person I ever met' at Zeyad's blog ...
which actually tells a lot about the 'intelligence' - or lack thereof - of that sectarian Rat 'Mojo' !]
[anand] "Mandela similarly opposed violence against the South African government and security forces."
Anand is a proven liar and an untrustworthy source of information. Even after being shown the error of his ways, he persists in perpetuating his lies.
Therefore, he will have to be embarrassed yet again:
"It was during this time that he, together with other leaders of the ANC constituted a new specialised section of the liberation movement, Umkhonto we Sizwe, as an armed nucleus with a view to preparing for armed struggle. At the Rivonia trial, Mandela explained : "At the beginning of June 1961, after long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I and some colleagues came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be wrong and unrealistic for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force.
It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe...the Government had left us no other choice." In 1961 Umkhonto we Sizwe was formed, with Mandela as its commander-in-chief."
http://www.anc.org.za/people/mandela.html
"Our resort to the armed struggle in 1960 with the formation of the military wing of the ANC, Umkhonto we Sizwe, was a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid. The factors which necessitated the armed struggle still exist today. We have no option but to continue. We express the hope that a climate conducive to a negotiated settlement will be created soon so that there may no longer be the need for the armed struggle. I am a loyal and disciplined member of the African National Congress. I am therefore in full agreement with all of its objectives, strategies and tactics."
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/mandela/1990/release.html
Bruno, provide one quote from Mandela that advocates or encourages violence after the September 26, 1992 “Record of Understanding” between the ANC and the government. {This dealt with a constitutional assembly, an interim government, political prisoners, hostels, dangerous weapons and mass action and restarted the negotiation process after the failure of CODESA}
Find just one quote where Mandela calls for violent attacks against the South African government or the Zulu parties, that were attacking and killing ANC supporters, after September 26, 1992.
The elections took place on April 27, 1994; almost two years after Mandela’s campaign that strongly denounced violence.
Many South Africans strongly disagreed with Mandela, whom they regarded as an Uncle Tom.
When the Multiparty Negotiating Forum (MPNF) gathered for the first time on April 1, 1993, Mandela’s hold over the ANC was shaky. He had many powerful rivals.
The ANC also had powerful black opponents, including the Zulu parties, that strongly disagreed with the ANC, and even violently attacked it. Before April, 10, 1993, it was unclear if the ANC would be able to get a majority of the vote. The ANC was almost certain to get a plurality of the vote. But many other factions including the Zulus, and factions that were considering splitting off from the ANC, might have also gotten many votes.
Whites + Indians + Coloreds were about 20-25% of the population back in 1993.
The April 10, 1993, assassination of Chris Hani, leader of the SACP and a senior ANC leader, by white right-wingers, transformed South Africa. Mandela’s handling caused his popularity to surge within the ANC, and among South Africans more generally. Mandela brought South Africans together as one people and in the process greatly increased the popularity of the ANC among South Africans.
Mandela’s crusade against violence, including all retaliation against the Zulu parties, Africaaner extremists, and all South African security forces, was an act of great courage. Mandela risked losing popular support and being sidelined to do what he believed was the right thing to do.
Today South Africa is a relatively safe secure country with only 1500 violent deaths a month, or the per-capita equivalent about 800 Iraqi violent deaths a month.
But South Africa was far more violent in the early 1990s. The Zulu parties were killing enormous numbers of ANC followers. There was immense pressure among the ANC rank and file to take the gloves off and teach the Zulus a lesson. Most members of the South African resistance 1992-1994 were more committed to smashing the Zulus (or in the case of the Zulus taking out Mandela, the ANC, and its allies) than fighting the South African police and army.
Read De Klerk’s comments praising Mandela, and describing how hard it was for Mandela to stop Black extremists from committing violence 1992-1994. (De Klerk was probably referring to 1990 – 1994, but I am being very conservative in this piece.)
Mandela took the hard path, and risked his entire political career to reduce the violence. This is why the world honors Mandela as the hero that he is.
Bruno, please do not slander Mandela again.
Omar and Ali, do you admire Mandela as much as I do? Mandela was a living example of non-sectarianism. Omar, consider running for office in Iraq as the Iraqi version of Mandela. Iraq needs you.
Mojo is another good example of a Mandela style non-sectarian.
At 4:08 AM, An Italian.
[Sorry, Omar: one of the effects of 'Anand''s grotesque posts is that people confute them, instead of discussing the content of YOUR post.]
Re: 'Anand', 11:38 PM.
It is interesting to see that this imbecile reptile 'Anand' not just lies continually in bad faith, but then, idiotically and stubbornly, tries to reiterate his lies.
As above:
[Snake 'Anand'] "Bruno, provide one quote from Mandela that advocates or encourages violence after the September 26, 1992 'Record of Understanding' between the ANC and the government".
The imbecile reptile 'Anand' does NOT realise that the 'Record of Understanding' marked the VICTORY of the ANC, precisely.
Why should have Nelson Mandela (or anyone else) advocated or encouraged violence ?
So 'Anand''s sick, vapid rhetoric makes NO SENSE at all.
And then the buffoonish, comical act by the Snake continues: the slithering and coiling thing slanders Mandela, but grotesquely writes: "Bruno, please do not slander Mandela again" !!!
The cheek of this reptile !
Then the slimy creature ridiculously tries to seduce Omar and Ali, LOL !!!
Like if they were two brainless idiots, and were prepared to fall for such a childish ploy !
But the maximum of the idiotic grotesqueness of this LYING snake 'Anand' comes at the end:
['Anand'] "Mojo is another good example of a Mandela style non-sectarian" !!!
LOL LOL LOL
Every regular reader can see how 'credible' (LOL !) is our 'Anand' ...
At 5:47 PM,
it doesn't require a 'regular reader' to identify propaganda troll snakes peddling reality reconstruction.
speaking of worthless propaganda artists check out White House balks at question : Did the surge set back Iraq's plan by five years?
i read in wapo today the US escalated airpower in iraq last year by 5 times! bomb lots of civilians (bombing takes such courage!), call it a 'surge', claim success and announce it may take another 20 years for iraqis to be able to provide their own security.
"Across this calendar year you will see a reduction in U.S. forces, so there will be fewer troops to support Iraqi forces. One would expect a continued level of airstrikes because of offensive operations, and as U.S. forces begin to draw down you may see even more airstrikes."
the joke anand say US airstrikes are the ISF and GoI defending themselves! ha!
Every other sovereign country retains the right to defend itself by all means necessary. Why should Iraq be any different?
you tell me. iraq is different because it isn't a soveriegn nation, the US isn't occupying iraq to 'defend it'. it is using this bogus excuse to extend its presence. and iraqis are not the same as the occupiers nor do they control who the occupiers attack. thats why it is different.
Should the IA and IP declare . . . “We won’t defend ourselves if attacked because Annie disapproves our doing so. Please come and kill us.”
since when do US airstrikes constitute IA and IF 'defending themselves'???
this is just an excuse to commit genocide.
annie
At 6:02 PM,
JPMorgan is heading a consortium set to make billions as Iraq's economy recovers from the war spearheaded by Mr Blair and U.S. President George Bush.
It was chosen to run the new Trade Bank of Iraq, which has raised billions in trade guarantees by mortgaging future oil production and will make huge profits from the deals.
Blair accused of taking blood money over £1m job with US bank profiting from Iraq war
i'm so shocked.
At 6:06 PM,
At 6:12 PM,
oh, one more thing. my friend melissa told me last night she sat across from a soldier on leave during her train ride from vancouver(wa) to seattle last weekend. he said this wasn't his fathers war and it was horrible. he said they are shooting 13 year old combatants. kids he said, everywhere. he says everyone there wants to come home. he was on his way to go back, he dreads it, just counts the days till he can come home for good. god help us gor what we have unleashed on iraq. saddam sounds better and better everyday.
annie
At 6:16 PM,
At 6:44 PM, RhusLancia
annie: "since when do US airstrikes constitute IA and IF 'defending themselves'???"
Since today, for example:
BAGHDAD - Violence left nearly 50 people dead in two major southern cities Friday when members of a shadowy, messianic cult attacked police and fellow Shiite worshippers, authorities said, a year after Iraqi and American troops foiled a similar plot during Shiite Islam's most important holiday.
Some 36 were killed in the clashes in Basra, Iraq's second largest city, and at least 10 in Nasiriyah, about 200 miles southeast of Baghdad. The violence began around midday and was continuing into the evening, as U.S.-led coalition jet fighters and helicopters were seen opening fire on a Nasiriyah police station seized by cult gunmen.
U.S. military spokesman Maj. Brad Leighton said the Americans had approved an Iraqi request for air support in the area but he could not confirm airstrikes.
Maybe the ISF should have left the overrun police station in their hands and the Shia worshippers under attack, annie?
At 7:30 PM,
rhus, that is not an example that explains how US airstrikes constitute IRAQIS defending THEMSELVES.
from your article
And Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the head of parliament's largest Shiite political bloc, accused Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government and legislators of allowing "personal whims" to delay national unity. He urged them to pass stalled legislation on provincial elections and the distribution of Iraq's oil wealth, seen as vital to bringing Sunnis into the political process and stemming support for the insurgency.
this reminds me of another massacre that came as important legislation was delayed.
wow, these coindidences keep stacking up.
annie
At 7:33 PM,
At 8:17 PM,
here's what i think of your article rhus.
the media is the military. you represent bs and lies.
members of a shadowy, messianic cult....Followers of the cult — the Soldiers of Heaven
how is it iraqis were able to totally squash this kind of fanatacism w/out mommy's help prior to the occupation and now iraqis need us????
spare me your illusions.
face it, they are tools, ones we need, to justify our genocide to usher in the days of 'billions in trade guarantees by mortgaging future oil production'.
At 9:11 PM, RhusLancia
annie: "rhus, that is not an example that explains how US airstrikes constitute IRAQIS defending THEMSELVES."
Uh, no. That's exactly what it is. How could it be any plainer? OK, maybe they could have repelled the attack and taken the police station back without air support, at a much greater cost to themselves. Why should they have to? So you can cheer a bloodier day?
At 6:38 AM,
How could it be any plainer?
well, the pilots of the airfraft would have been iraqis. and that is just for starters.
really , cut w/the word games.
invade, insert puppets who couldn't survive w/out you, avoid diplomacy at all costs, bomb away claiming you are 'helping' your puppets. then claim your bomb campaigns are actually iraqi in nature..what are you drinking.
annie
Iraqis asked the MNF for air support to help repel an attack.
if in fact this is the case, then it confirms my point. had the iraqis been defending themselves, they wouldn't have asked for support.
Why should they have to? So you can cheer a bloodier day?
everyone knows airstrikes are more dangerous for civilians and less dangerous for soldiers. this whole 'surgical strike' crap wipes out wedding parties, just like the recent attack by the idf that killed 50 children or some outrageous number as a byproduct of wiping out the interior ministry in gaza. the US uses airpower because risking the lives of their soldiers is not worth the lives of iraqi civilians, i suppose this is true of those who request US assistance in loo of defending themselves. airpower is an escalation of violence, everyone knows this.
you can't have it both ways, to do something yourself is not the same as relying on proxy forces. using proxy forces saves soldiers lives, your own, not civilians or bystanders or innocent people who are caught up in war.
face it, the US is bombing iraq. alot. you can't diminish this fact by claiming they are really iraqis defending themselves. not by a long shot. if you really think the day would have been bloodier without the airstrike you may be right. by the blood of soldiers, as it should be in war, not the population.
granted their may be incidences where airstrikes kill no innocent people, but this is a roll of the dice. anyone knows in the long rung, airpower kills more randomly and causes more civilian death that on the ground combat.
you know this so don't insult your audience w/your attempts @ slander.
Hi Omar,
Going back to the original subject of you post. I was watching "AlIraqiya" TV a while ago, and question popped into my mind.
The government is now bragging about the huge security effort made to secure the Ashura'a ceremonies all over Iraq and especially in Karbala and Najaf. And they said that few million people are participating in these ceremonies. I wounder if they could do like one tenth of that effort to secure the army day celebration???????????
was this monument taken down Omar? this would be horrendous, it is so beautiful.
i reread your post. i must have really been in a fog the first time i read it because i missed so much. you ask
Why do we have them in power?
well, clearly they are a failed experiment but they have accomplished something in the eyes of the occupying power, they wear the mantle of legitimacy and for many pirposes this is much more important than the task of providing security or conditions for iraq to prosper. after all, if it weren't for the support of the US they would not be allowed to exist. ultimately the US holds the responsibility under the laws of geneva to provide for the security of iraqis so the failure of the government legally lies with the invader. why are they still in power? because the conditions must be a certain way for any legal contracts to be enforceable in the future. becaose ultimately the US is not there for 'peace' they are their for 'free trade' (robbing iraq of resources). the US military no longer functions as a defensive body for our country, they perform another task and that is to provide security (paid for by US tax dollars) for the oil interests. this is also what the upcoming africom consists of. as long as influencial forces in the iraq government agree to do legal bidding to aquire these important transactions they are allowed to remain. so far they have not delivered but apparently the ptb feel they have a better chance of their outcome being conceived as moral or legal with them than without them. you see, if they threw them out on their behind and went back to square one, they might be able to accomplish more, but the final contracts would have to be put on the back burner. important agreements like the permanent bases are set to be finalized in a matter of months. the government must be seen as established and legitimate.
the suffering of the people is irrelevant. so is 'art'. the show must go on.
the US cannot even afford to let the iraqi army defend iraq independently because it does not trust them not to turn against them, for they know ,left to their own devices they would reject a foreign occupying power, hence we have the new illusion the US actions are actually 'iraqs'.
there are some interesting pjints about colonizarion in the brief interview The Lessons of the Vietnam War i recommend.
in 1975 you wrote that our nation's "official" opinion makers would engage in distortion of the lessons to be drawn from the war so that the same basic foreign policy goals could be pursued after the war. You felt then that in order to keep the real meaning of the war from penetrating the general public they faced two major tasks: First, they would have to disguise the fact that the war "was basically an American attack on South Vietnam -- a war of annihilation that spilled over to the rest of Indochina".....
Q: What is the current U.S. foreign policy toward Indochina!
Chomsky: Well, towards Indochina I think the main policy is what's called "bleeding Vietnam" Even conservative business groups outside the United States are appalled at what the United States has been doing.
We fought the war to prevent Indochina from carrying out successful social and economic development. Well, I think the chances of that happening are very slight because of the devastation, because of the brutality of war. But the U.S. wants to make sure it will continue. And therefore we first of all of course refused any reparations. We refused aid. We try to block aid from other countries. We block aid from international institutions. I mean, sometimes it reaches a point of almost fanatic effort to make them suffer.
For example, there was one point when the United States prevented the government of India from sending a hundred buffalo to Vietnam. (The buffalo stock in Vietnam had been decimated by American bombing.) We prevented them by threatening to cut off Food for Peace aid.
So in every conceivable way the United States has tried to increase the harsh conditions of life in Indochina. And right now one of the main ways we're doing it is by supporting the Khmer Rouge on the Thai-Cambodian border.
a strong healthy iraq would be devestating for american interest in the region. this is why i think they are in power. the reason the government trolls don't like you insulting them, is because they need them to make iraq weak, weaker, weakest.
oh my.. i just read some interesting news. apparently this 'shadowy, messianic cult' supposedly responsible for all the trouble was airbombed by the US (w/turbaned snake government approval no doubt) last year during the same festivities and they killed 200 women and children. well, thank goodness the US came out smelling like roses this time, eh?
the so-called Army of Heaven led by Ahmed bin Hasan (called "al-Yemeni" in keeping with traditional teachings to the effect a precursor of the coming of the 12th Imam will have that name), which was by some accounts the principal target of last year's slaughter by the government and US forces of some 200 individuals including women and children on the outskirts of Najaf.
hmm. i wonder if the incedences were related? nah. i'm sure they forgot all about those 200 deaths.
Some of these many groups mix political-party activities with their religion, the Al-Hayat reporter says, and he notes in particular the group led by Mahmoud al Hasani al-Sarkhi, which came to prominence during a demonstration at the Iranian consulate in Karbala last year. This is a group known for being critical of the traditional Shiite authorities like Sistani. (who we all no is NOT shadowy in the least, nor messanic, nor cult like in the least, right?
the article goes on to describe some of the groups (cults)
Then there is the Ayatollah Hussein Ismael al-Sadr, headquartered in Kadhamiya, espousing a line known as "political realism" which calls for solution of problems via discussion.
and this
the most important of the Shiite trends, besides that of the Supreme Council, are the Sadrist, the Fadhila (a breakaway from the Sadrists) and the Dawa, which has split into several parts, the main ones being the "Islamic Dawa Party" led by the current Prime Minister al-Malaki,...... The Authority of al-Sistani still enjoys the majority, in spite of the appearance of dozens of new movements...Anxiety over emergence of Shiite movements on the occasion of Ashura preaching beliefs similar to those of the "Army of Heaven"
well, i guess they keep good company. it does appear that the US is 'supporting' (just like last year?) or 'defending' as anand/rhus so graciously inform us one religious fanatic over another.
What is interesting to notice in the wake of the Ashura violence, is that the news reports, all sourced to Iraqi- and local-government sources, refer only to Mahdist groups, and are silent about the political dimension.
oh my i am shocked.
Something very similar happened last year, when misinformation from the Najaf authorities helped conceal the political dimension of what happened (not to mention local suspicions that in fact it was the authorities, not the group in question, that triggered that bloody confrontation).
wel, at least they learned from experience not to let word of mouth proceed the official story. at least in the US anyway. it is horrible pr for the masses when the US is seen to be massacering worshippers. but shadowy cults..bring em on. all accept our favorite turbans that is. bush may invite him for tea in the WH.
At 9:33 PM, An Italian.
@ Omar.
Dear Omar,
going back to your post, I have to confess that I do not understand your position fully.
Of course, I can understand what you repeated over and over again, i.e., that there are nice Americans. Of course there are, on the personal level: and I imagine (and hope) that they may be a sizeable part of the population.
That said, it has very little to do with the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the US government: so that I'm always a bit taken aback when you praise US soldiers in Iraq, or whomever in the US being in charge or in favour of the US occupation.
In the same way, I do not understand why you seem to be surprised by the fact that Iraq is some kind of appendage of the Islamic Republic of Iran, nowadays (with other parts being in thrall to Saudi Arabian Whahabism), and on the whole, a dreadful place ruled over by mad religious fundamentalism: that's just the obvious and inevitable and foreseen result of the American invasion and occupation.
Just in order to avoid such a pro-Persian result George Bush Senior stopped his armies and airforce in February 1991 (which does NOT excuse him for calling on the Iraqi people to rise against the dictator, and then betraying them !).
Now you complain that the fake 'fweedom'n'democwacy' the US invasion brought means a pro-Iranian fundamentalist dictatorship: but, dear Omar, against whom are you complaining ?
I have an Iraqi friend here, and every time we have this same discussion. He starts cursing those American bastards, etc. etc., and then the Persian ones. Then I ask him why he's in favour of the US occupation. He answers that he very strongly dislikes them Apes (and who could like them ? :):):)), but maintains that they have to stay. Every time I meet him, I ask him: 'Why ?'. And he answers: 'Because they are the only ones that can keep in check al-Hakim, al-Maliki, al-Sadr, and the whole of Iran and its Iraqi friends'. And then I retort, 'But you had no Persians and turbaned scoundrels in power there before the 2003 US invasion !'. To which he answers, 'But now that we are in the s**t, we have only to choose between evils ...'.
Now, I do hate to seem in agreement with RhusLancia and Lynnette, but I do feel that this position (of my friend, and yours) is more than a bit contradictory ...
Iraq, now, is an American-Iranian condominium, a co-managed area (whatever the respective propaganda).
Neither the American occupiers keep in check the turbaned snakes, nor the Iranian turbaned snakes keep in check the Americans ...
it is just a co-occupation, with the Americans and Iranians occupying Iraq through their respective local allies and minions ... and having some small tiffs for influence over the conquered country !
So, the Persians are there in power BECAUSE and THANKS TO the American invasion; and I do feel that your position (and my friend's), that the Americans should stay there to prevent the consolidation of Iranian power, is indeed deeply contradictory, and makes little sense. It could actually be a good reason for them to stay in Iraq forever, don't you think ? But with no benefit at all for the Iraqis, since the Iranian-supported turbaned snakes (plus the Saudi-supported bearded snakes) DO rule with an iron rod your unlucky country. The American occupation does just mean more dead Iraqis, not any change for the better ...
Sorry for asking you this troublesome question, dear Omar.
Italian,
Sorry ... dear Omar ... sorry ... sorry ... dear Omar
What a pansy.
Hey, you want to talk about contradictions? How about this? For the first three years of WWII the Italians fought alongside the NAZI GERMANS. Then in 1943 they SWITCHED SIDES and fought alongside the Americans and the British (poorly, of course, just as they had done with the Nazis, which is why Hitler was probably glad to get rid of the incompetent shopwindow fascists).
*
At 11:47 PM, RhusLancia
At 6:43 AM,
speaking of pansys, i get a chuckle our of guttless wonders who would rather attack the messengers then address the topic. wassamada guys, can't handle the topic?
Discontent surges in Iraq
Overnight temperatures since the first of the year have routinely fallen below freezing when normally they only dip into the upper 30s Fahrenheit.
An average household needs at least 1.32 gallons a day to stay warm, which translates into a monthly expense of $150, or half what an average Iraqi earns.
"I have had no electricity for a week, and I cannot afford to buy it from neighborhood generators," said Hamdiyah Subeih, a 42-year-old homemaker from Baghdad's Shiite Baladiyat district. "I would rather live in Saddam Hussein's hell than the paradise of these new leaders."
annie
At 7:39 AM,
an italian, i read this article from the ny review of books and thought of your question. (especially the last 2 paragraphs). As Iraqis See It
At 7:46 AM,
here is a link to the mclatchy journalist's blog (inside iraq) referred to in my last link.
annie
At 10:17 AM,
"The number of signature weapons that had come from Iran and had been used against coalition and Iraqi forces are down dramatically except for this short uptick in the EFPs in the early part of January," military spokesman Rear Adm. Gregory Smith told a news conference.
His remarks came a week after the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, said EFP attacks had risen by a factor of two or three recently.
hmm...interesting.
"It's uncertain again what is happening in Iran that's leading to that occurrence," Smith said. He added, however, that "we don't think that the level of training has been reduced at all. We don't believe that the level of financing has been reduced."
Smith said the U.S. is trying to understand the various ways in which Iran exerts influence inside Iraq, including training of and financial support to militias as well as the smuggling of weapons.
hmm....trying to understand?
"All these are very critical questions that we need to understand ourselves," he said.
well well well, i would imagine so.
Smith's comments underscored the difficulties for the United States in determining the extent to which Iran's ruling clergy is influencing events in Iraq. The U.S. military has never made clear whether it believes the top Iranian leadership was behind the supply of the deadly EFPs. Most of Iraq's top Shiite politicians had lived in Iran for years and continue to maintain close ties with Tehran.
weird, it just stops short of of saying "The U.S. military has never made clear whether it believes the top Iraq leadership was behind the supply of the deadly Iranian EFPs."
one would imagine perhaps the 2 are connected, but of course since our official policy is to support the iraqi government implying or accusing official actors of being the cause of these explosions is off limits.
presumably, here is who does not use deadly explosions.
US military
proxy US mercenaries
Iraqi military
Iraqi government
Iraqi militias connected to the government
all the explosions are al queda or insurgents or 'terrorists' or rogue 'shia militias'.
meanwhile, in the same report (in just in the following paragraph) we have this news
In Sunday's bombing in Anbar province, meanwhile, the bomber detonated explosives in his belt after four guards stopped him at the checkpoint leading to the sheik's farm near Fallujah. The attack killed the four guards and two civilians and injured four people, according to a police official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared reprisals.
The sheik, Aeifan al-Issawi, is a leading member of the Anbar Awakening Council.
soooo...how is this information connected? nobody in the msm ever comes straight out and questions whether this attack might be (iraqi)government sanctioned.
Smith's comments underscored the difficulties for the United States in determining the extent to which Iran's ruling clergy is influencing events in Iraq.
maybe the rear admiral should wake up and smell the roses we have planted and watered and nurtured that have taken root and grown into a thriving bush with strong healthy brambles w/thorns. does the rose smell sweet rear admiral?
wapo
At 3:13 PM,
oh my, not to get too off topic.. somebody is mighty please we invaded iraq.
"I want to thank you for your support of Israel and in particular for waging a war against Iraq," Metzger told Bush, according to the chief rabbi's spokesman.
Bush reportedly answered that the chief rabbi's words "warmed his heart."
Metzger's stand on the Iraqi war, while reflecting the Israeli majority and Orthodox Jewry, is not shared with most US Jews. The American Jewish Committee's annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion, published last year, found that 70 percent of US Jews disapprove of the Iraq war, with 28% backing it.
that about reflects the percentages for the rest of our population even tho you'ld hardly get that impression gauging from the influence of rich rightwing jews and their allegence w/aipac and other unsavory groups such as freedom watch (wapo)
The organization was conceived at a Florida meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition last spring with the initial aim of defending Bush's policies in Iraq and Iran. ....."We're a permanent political operation here in town. We're not going to be Johnny One Note," said Joe Eule, executive director of the expanding group...
And Freedom's Watch will have money -- a lot of money. While initial reports suggested a budget of $200 million, people who have talked to the group in recent weeks say the figure is closer to $250 million,...
Freedom's Watch.. is "doing attack ads by Beltway operatives, financed by billionaires, at the request of the White House,....
The aggressively negative anti-illegal-immigration ads that ran during the Ohio special election race strayed far from Middle East policy, but the ad campaign -- like the group itself -- was bankrolled largely by Sheldon G. Adelson, a Las Vegas casino executive who last year pledged an unprecedented $200 million to Jewish and Israeli causes.
jewish and israeli 'causes'....financing attack ads for our elections...aren't we special..
annie (the last post too, sorry)
At 10:20 PM, An Italian.
@ Rat Schuster, 10:28 PM.
[Sorry, Omar, for not following your advice and answering this Rat; but I promise I won't reply to any further squeak on its part ... the foul animal is just trying to go completely Off Topic in order to prevent your post from being discussed.]
[An Italian.] "Sorry [...] dear Omar [...] sorry [...] sorry [...] dear Omar".
[Jeffrey Schuster] "What a pansy".
Well, I know that for you to show normal courtesy while in the house of somebody else (in this case, at the blog of Omar) is 'being a pansy', LOL !
Yes, being a Rat, you think that the best thing is to invade somebody's else house (like you did with Iraq), and then to insult the owners !
Very nice behaviour, indeed !
[Rat Schuster] "For the first three years of WWII the Italians fought alongside the NAZI GERMANS. Then in 1943 they SWITCHED SIDES and fought alongside the Americans and the British".
And so what, comical sewer rat Jeffrey ?
What has this to do with Iraq, you punkish clown ?
[Jeffrey the Ignorant] "[They fought] poorly, of course, just as they had done with the Nazis".
And here you show your crass ignorance.
While the Italians of Mussolini's army had indeed performed very poorly (like Saddam's Iraqi soldiers in the 1991 and in the 2003 wars), since they had had enough of the dictator, what you grotesquely write about Italian partisans just tells the world that you have NO CLUE AT ALL (and your being WITHOUT A CLUE can be applied to this war as well ! :)).
They actually fought very bravely, and most effectively, oh ignorant and comical sewer vermin Jeffrey.
Interesting to note that Anand seems to think that repeating MANDELA's OWN WORDS constitutes "slander" against him. What a piece of work. As for the electoral outcome in 1994, it was never in doubt, despite your claims to the contrary. It was a question of HOW MUCH the ANC would win by, everybody knew this.
At 3:39 AM,
Omar said "The Iraqi Army fought eight years war with Iran. The Iraqi Army killed at least 500,000 Iranians in the 1980s, according to UN statistics. How can you allow the Iraqis to be proud of their army, which defended Iraq against all the threats since 1921? How can you allow that, when it is the same army that failed your Mullahs plans? "
Wow what an achievment . Are civilians included? at least 500000 iraqis were killed in that carnage , one of the worst atrocities in human histroy , not to mention the destruction of a promising country , and you are taking pride in that? is that what you want for your country and countrymen Mr.24 steps to liberty? Have you fought in a war before? has any of your relatives taken part in that GLORIOUS QUADISIA II? Have you ever asked any of our misfortunate soldiers how it felt to spend 8 years in the trenches or weather he is proud of what he did ? have you ever wondered what it feels for parents to lose their son for nothing , absloutly nothing ? to sacrifice a son or 2 for an everlasting secterian hate of another that has power over them? have you ever felt anything for your 17 year old countrymen who were sent to die in mud and filth after failing their highschool?Are you willing to do the same and carry a gun and face an iranian soldier in battle , face to face , in case iraq was pushed again to fight for others?.
I doubt that very much and am really glad that you and the likes of you ( sadly there are so many of them) are giving themselvs 100% away on the net , so that good iraqis can know who the enemy is and what his plans are.
I see some people here are incouraging you to get invloved in politics and run for office hahahahahah , as if we need people like you who are the promise of a very dark future.
At 5:25 AM,
At 6:59 AM,
Annie,
First , you don't know for a fact that there were no celebrations , its only what the blogger said.
Second
The blogger seems very proud of a sensless war that killed hundards of thousands of his people . You feel sad about your soldiers being in iraq fighting for nothing as you said and you want them home , yet you think me feeling the same about my brothers during the 1980s is wrong , how is that?
I know exactly what is bugging the blogger , but what was it that bothered you about i said to HIM?
At 7:53 AM,
you think me feeling the same about my brothers during the 1980s is wrong
oh really. is that what all your questions to Omar were? i guess i missed that. i also missed the part about me saying it is wrong for you to feel bad about soldiers from your own country. all and all i could not quite understand your point, which is what 'color me clueless' is supposed to mean.
maybe you should try rephrasing your point instead of extrapolating subtext that may or may not be present and arguing it by means of a bunch of accusatory senseless questions.
first you argue against a strawman, then you answer me w/another strawman.
First , you don't know for a fact that there were no celebrations
first? as in "if there was even one celebration Omar is wrong?"
really your entire logic must come from outer space.
The blogger seems very proud of a sensless war
seems? to you? proud of a war? i think maybe what seems obvious to you could very well be lost on the rest of us. let's review what he said.
How can you allow the Iraqis to be proud of their army
get it? there is a difference between being proud of your army and proud of a war. maybe that concept is a little deep for you.
You feel sad about your soldiers being in iraq fighting for nothing as you said
as i said? where did i say this? i know perfectly well the soldiers are not fighting for nothing. who in their right mind thinks the US invaded iraq for nothing? don't ever put words in my mouth. we have a saying here: better to be silent and risk seeming the fool, than to open your mouth and confirm it. maybe you should try this. shall i go on?
what was it that bothered you about i said to HIM?
lol, i already told you, it is senseless and follows no logical cohesive sequence. your questions, how would his answers even be related to proving your point..
anyone could huff and puff and blow that post down.
once again, if you have a point, be clearer. if your post is related to your feelings or your suffering or you feel the iraqi army should not have a day for the population to reflect on the service they have dedicated to their country just be clearer.
personally i think celebrating soldiers during wartime is a tricky business, especially when the war is between brothers. this is not an issue i would normally comment on, but you brought it up in a very attacking way. so if you want to discuss this portion of the post, and after all Omar did ask a question, explain for us maybe in a way we can comprehend your meaning. or not.
annie
At 8:19 AM,
ok, i have an example. just for the sake of argument let us pretend japan invaded the US to save us from the neocons. lots of people were so happy about this the country was divided.
memorial day comes and unlike every year when we have parades and such memorial day is called off because the country is in turmoil.
would you say perhaps that because all those people died in hiroshima we should not celebrate memorial day? one of the worst atrocities in human histroy , not to mention the destruction of a promising country , and you are taking pride in that? what if, to make my point i ask you Have you fought in a war before? have any of your relatives taken part in that GLORIOUS WAR? Have you ever asked any of our misfortunate soldiers how it felt to spend years in the trenches or weather he is proud of what he did ? have you ever wondered what it feels for parents to lose their son for nothing , absloutly nothing ? to sacrifice a son or 2.
hmmmmmm. so really, under the japanese occupation of the US, should we celebrate memorial day? maybe we shouldn't acknowledge the civil war during memorial day, at least not in the south. those reenactments?? lets forget those too.
annie
At 10:00 AM, 24 Steps to Liberty
Mayssam
“at least 500000 iraqis were killed in that carnage , one of the worst atrocities in human histroy , not to mention the destruction of a promising country , and you are taking pride in that?”
What are you talking about? When did I say I am proud of what happened with Iran?
When I said that the Iraqi army killed 500,000 Iranians, I was giving a fact that was documented by the UN and making the point that “Maliki is not going to celebrate our Iraqi Army because his supporters, the Iranian government, lost 500,000 in fighting with that army.”
I don’t like wars. I don’t know how to use a weapon and I don’t want to know how to use a weapon. And I will never fight in a war of weapons. My weapon is my word and education.
Don’t be silly and childish and come to premature conclusions. Next time put the words into their context and then you understand what I mean.
I would like to know how you came to that silly conclusion. I really do. And if you tell me that I included that I am proud of the Iraqi Army, then YES. I am proud of the Iraqi Army and will be until the last breath I inhale. It is my Iraqi Army.
At 1:19 PM, 24 Steps to Liberty
An Italian,
What are you talking about?
I am not complaining, I am not blaming the Americans and I am definitely not surprised that Maliki is an Iranian-influenced poisonous Mullah.
What I write and talk about is an analysis of the situation in Iraq and give evidences that we, or at lease I, already predicted what is happening.
And never forget that it is not me who blames the Americans. I never did and will never do, unless it's accurate. I always blame ourselves, the Iraqis. I always have and will always do until this mess is solved. Because blaming the strangers for what’s happening in Iraq is not going to help. After all they are strangers and will leave any minute. Or they can say “well, it’s your country and even if we did mistakes, you should fix the situation.” And they have said that a long time ago! So, we are only left with ourselves to solve it but we don’t have realy Iraqis in the position of power yet.
[24] I always blame ourselves, the Iraqis.
Well, taking responsibility for your own future is a mature, brave thing to do, yet I have to note that you also said:
[24] "So, we are only left with ourselves to solve it but we don’t have realy Iraqis in the position of power yet."
And who is to blame for that? Why, the outsiders, of course. The same outsiders that are fighting over Iraq like dogs over a bone. Let me put this plainly: ONLY when America, Iran, and the Al Qaedists LEAVE IRAQ will Iraqis be able to determine their own future.
UNTIL THEN, Iraqis are just pawns of whatever power happens to be sponsoring them at a given moment. Until then, you will be killing each other for the sakes of your enemies. Iraqi nationalists need to draw together and reject the foreigners and drive them out, NOT fight each other for them.
At 11:04 AM,
"And who is to blame for that? Why, the outsiders, of course"
Agreed. The pro-insurgency outsiders have left Iraq in a dismal state. People like Bruno, Italian, and Annie, who glorify "resistance" and who distort American efforts in Iraq contribute significantly to Iraq's lack of progress. The propagandists are losing, but their efforts to undermine attempts to help Iraq do slow down the rebuilding and rebirthing process.
At 12:22 PM, An Italian.
@ Omar, 1:19 PM.
[Omar] "And never forget that it is not me who blames the Americans. [...] I always blame ourselves, the Iraqis".
You are being too hard on your people, in my opinion.
And the turbaned and black-clad puppets of the Iranians are there just because of the Americans' demented invasion and occupation of Iraq; and their abysmally incompetent and sectarian al-Maliki Government is supported and defended by the US occupation.
[Omar] "I always have and will always do until this mess is solved. Because blaming the strangers for what’s happening in Iraq is not going to help".
In that case I imagine you'll have to start a blog in Iraqi Arabic instead ...
Your present blog in English addresses not the Iraqis, but precisely the foreigners, and among your readers most are precisely American, I suppose.
So your blaming the Iraqis in here is quite ineffective (since they are not your readers), while blaming the "strangers" could have some political effect instead ...
[Omar] "After all they are strangers and will leave any minute".
NO, Omar, be sure of that: they are NOT going to leave any time soon.
The Iranians will do their best to keep the US forces in Iraq as an insurance policy against any US/Israeli attack against them (hitting them would be their best retaliation); on the other hand, NO US presidential candidate apart from Ron Paul advocates a US total withdrawal from Iraq.
At 12:51 PM,
At 2:45 PM,
At 7:05 PM,
At 5:21 AM,
Omar ,
Every thing you said in your post suggested you were proud and happy with that 8 year massacre , the mention of the figure gave the impression that you were very happy with it , it was as if you liked the sound of it " 500000 men" and got your kicks from it , I found that odious .May I suggest you will be clearer next time?.
I have no problems with celebrating the army day or any other national day , am against celebrating and taking pride in massacres and against associating our army with that event ( the war with Iran) only.
You said you are proud with our army and always will be , that is really nice , I am too . I hope you are proud of what the army is doing now , they are defending Iraq and Iraqis the best they can without being part of an agression.In my opinion , Iraqi Army only defended Iraq twice in its history , that war wasn't one of them.
I still believe you don't have any idea what that war did to Iraq and Iraqis.
Omar ,
Celebrations and big empty words are never a sign of patriotism.
At 8:31 AM,
"i know one of the reasons we invaded was the resources."
Well, everyone knows that resources is "one" of the reasons. The oil is why Saddam was such a threat to the region, the US and the world. Everyone knows that.
Nevertheless, your attempted phrasing of my argument is, of course, deceptive manipulation. You've suggested that the US is "stealing" Iraqi oil without offering any legimitate proof.
Your purpose in suggesting this is to minimize any attempt to assist Iraqi development. Oil revenue, of course, would help Iraq develop...you just don't really get it.
At 4:17 PM,
krypt, as a rule, i don't suggest. i am very straight forward. i have never said, nor will i ever use the term steal. the term i use when referencing this is 'control'. i don't 'attempt' to phrase your argument. i capture the terms you use, and comment on them.
it seems you and mayssam have a lot in common wrt making accusations regarding 'suggestions'.
Every thing you said in your post suggested you were proud and happy with that 8 year massacre
excellent, then you should have no problem grabbing his specific text and demonstrating your reference. for example, by all means show the words that connote 'happiness' wrt a massacre. otherwise please stop these empty accusations. Omar explained clearly what his reference to the amount of dead was. why is that not satisfactory to you? do you think he is lying?
When I said that the Iraqi army killed 500,000 Iranians, I was giving a fact that was documented by the UN and making the point that “Maliki is not going to celebrate our Iraqi Army because his supporters, the Iranian government, lost 500,000 in fighting with that army.”
very clear. this is not a suggestion, it is his impression.
I don’t like wars.
don't you belive him???
What are you talking about? When did I say I am proud of what happened with Iran?
he ask you a question, it is disingenuous to to accuse him again of this 'suggestion' and not answer his question. if you cannot give an example, stop w/these worthless accusations. i do not agree w/everything Omar says, but if there is one thing he is, it is strightforward. there is no evidence he says one thing, and suggests another. if there is, prove it by giving an example w/his words. also, even if this was your mistaken impression, it should be all cleared up now. you are simply arguing a strawman, putting words in his mouth he never said, and debating him. flaky imo
annie
At 4:26 PM,
At 6:31 PM,
The oil is why Saddam was such a threat to the region, the US and the world.
that is very interesting you would say this. since you think it is so can you please expain to me, if this was true, why wouldn't our president list this at the run up to the war as a reason to invade?
it has been established countless times we were lied to ( see Study: False statements preceded war "The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. ") by the admin.... if in fact "The oil is why Saddam was such a threat to the region", why weren't the american people told that, with an explanation of how and why?
obviously they needed reasons to justify the invasion in this illegal war.
annie
At 8:58 PM,
"krypt, as a rule, i don't suggest. i am very straight forward. i have never said, nor will i ever use the term steal. the term i use when referencing this is 'control'."
Control? With respect to what? Output? Price? Ownership? You are, as always, being extremely ambiguous in an attempt to "suggest", yes, that something illegitimate, with respect to Iraq's oil, is taking place, which it isn't.
"that is very interesting you would say this. since you think it is so can you please expain to me, if this was true, why wouldn't our president list this at the run up to the war as a reason to invade..."
lots of reasons - basically, its too sophisticated a concept for your average american to understand. any mention of "oil" brings the retards (you) out of the woodwork and, at the time, there was enough sympathy from 9/11, and because the perceived threat of WMD, that a more sophisticated economic argument was never presented. Nevertheless, if you did a little research, you would find numerous position papers outlining Iraq's vast wealth, and Saddam's intentions to use Iraqi oil revenue to build up his militar and re-establish an Arab empire consisting of what are now the many Arab countries of the middle east.
"it has been established countless times we were lied to ( see Study: False statements preceded war "The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. ")"
Yes, by partisan, prejudiced, illegimate "non profit organziations" who claim ownership of allthat is fact about Iraq. If a Democrat at the time of war were in the white house, the same organizations wouldbe praising his vision. What most don't realize is that Bush had little to do with the decision to go to war.
"if in fact "The oil is why Saddam was such a threat to the region", why weren't the american people told that, with an explanation of how and why?"
See above. But really, do you really expect the CIA to tell the American people everything? I mean, really, you seem to assume that average person is something other than a self-indulgent teenager, with little regard for the world outside his/her own family. You assume human beings are perfect, which they are not, and my great country has always been smart enough to acknowledge that.
[k] "Nevertheless, if you did a little research, you would find numerous position papers outlining Iraq's vast wealth, and Saddam's intentions to use Iraqi oil revenue to build up his militar"
Oh, right, that was the danger. God forbid that Saddam should use Iraqi oil to kill people when America could do so. Clearly, Americans killing people is far better than Saddam killing people.
Therefore, because Saddam kills people, America must kill people.
Brilliant.
There's plenty of research that indicates that America has sought to control the Middle East for decades now and that this war is a consequence of that plan.
At 5:43 AM,
howdy just found your site
well im american and yes yall hate bush but WE realy want to help yall. one problem we realy dont understand yall realy to most americans i say this with all respect and understanding....yall are weird. Heck we like ya yall are ok but you do many things differently we dont understand tribes for one we havent had them for a thousand of yrs.
look yall hate us because some in our government try to dominate the middle east think about it this way china is to africa what we are to middle east. which honestly is in better shape?
men will always try to dominate a resource and each other if we wernt there china or maybe india would be and seriously when china had its glorious revolution some estimate it kill near to 70mil of its own ppls. do you honestly believe theyd be better
im not trying to make excusses for maliki it pisses us off here that he and his ppls cant get his sh&t together ITS OUR FREAKING MONEY!
but i dont know when yalls next ellections are just vote somebody into office who is strong ruthless and who wants to do the best for all iraqi ppls thats the beauty of voting(no democracy isnt the only system that works voting works in other systems nevermind athens was a racist classist cespit..) anyways wish yall luck headin to work
At 6:34 AM,
Well Omar sure have many keepers here.
I read the post more than once and i hold to what said earlier , its very clear , any one can see it , except the FANS ofcourse.Anyways , Omar shouldn't get all worked up over that , he can celebrate the occasion in the U.S. with other iraqis(or Americans) who share the same idea of patriotism.
While reading it again , i also noticed that the blogger's taste in art sucks.
One more thing , why doesn't the blogger seem very happy with iraqis celebrating the New year? is there something wrong with that?
At 6:50 AM,
"There's plenty of research that indicates that America has sought to control the Middle East for decades now and that this war is a consequence of that plan."
Research by who? The Iranians?
There's plenty of research that indicates that IRAN has sought to control the middle east for decades now...
There's plenty of research that indicates the Russians have sought to control the middle east for decades now...
There's plenty of research that indicates Saddam was seeking control of the middle east...
There's plenty of research that indicates te Turks were seeking to control the Middle East...
There's plenty of research that indicates the French, Chinese, Germans, Saudis etc... were seeking to control the middle east.
Really, the only country that doesn't seem interested in controlling the middle east is Israel, and of course they are he ones that have to deal with terrorists blowing up their buses every day...
At 6:52 AM,
At 9:27 AM,
mayssamI read the post more than once and i hold to what said earlier , its very clear , any one can see it , except the FANS of course.
coward. i have ask you repeatedly to copy and paste Omar's words to demonstrate your 'theory'. no one is dense enough to not understand why you repeatedly are unable to do this. bugger off, you are nothing but hot air.
kypt Control? With respect to what? Output? Price? Ownership? You are, as always, being extremely ambiguous in an attempt to "suggest"......without offering any legimitate proof
yawn. we have had this oil conversation so many times ad nauseum it is a tad ingenuous to claim i am being ambiguous or haven't provided 'proof'. myself and others have already link to antonia juhasz several times and whole threads have been eaten up covering production 'sharing' agreements. go ready the archives. there is nothing ambiguous in the least and the whole world knows it you blow hard.
if this was true, why wouldn't our president list this at the run up to the war as a reason to invade..."
basically, its too sophisticated a concept for your average american to understand.
HAHAHAHAHA. well then, this statement of yours is a bit contrary
everyone knows that resources is "one" of the reasons. The oil is why Saddam was such a threat to the region, the US and the world. Everyone knows that.
everyone knows that but at the same time it is 'basically'.....'just too sophisticated a concept'???? what kind of dummies to you hope and wish americans are for god's sake. do you really think everyone is just so dense you can keep claiming black is white???????
any mention of "oil" brings the retards (you) out of the woodwork
ah, how perceptive..in other words the mention of oil was avoided because it was PRECISELY why we invaded and the american public would have overwhelmingly REJECTED this pretext.
and, at the time, there was enough sympathy from 9/11, and because the perceived threat of WMD
and why was it perceived??? (speaking of 'attempted phrasing of my argument is, of course, deceptive manipulation'...your words) you used my preface of the AP link about the administration LYING 935 times preceeding the illegal invasion to claim (naturally w/out any supporting documentation) americans were lied to 'by partisan, prejudiced, illegimate "non profit organziations"(935 times)
hahahahahaha. great, you should have no problem supporting that w/quotes and links.
so let me get this straight. according to you the fact 'everybody knows' which is that 'The oil is why Saddam was such a threat to the region' was not shared w/the members of a 'great country' (who according to you are composed of on 'average'...'self-indulgent teenagers with little regard for the world outside his/her own family' ), because americans 'perceived' a WMD threat that IN FACT did not exist (and i think my link of lies makes very clear why) sooo...' a more sophisticated economic argument' ('that everyone knows')... 'was never presented.'
this is easier than swatting flies. you are a joke.
But really, do you really expect the CIA to tell the American people everything?
it hardly require the cia to inform the world of the most obvious reason we invaded. as you said everyone knows and everyone w/a brain has always known and contrary to you, i do not believe americans for the most part resemble a bunch of self indulgent teenagers. that has been the mistake all along, underestimating the basic intelligence of the masses. you can fool all the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.
obviously. You assume human beings are stupid, which they are not, and my once great country will hopefully someday purge this vernim zionist racist inhuman neocon filth from power.
now, in celebration fitting of those that accompanied the falling of the berlin wall, let's all take a moment to reflect on the hate some people have endured and congratulate them for tearing down an aparthied wall, hopefully they can fill their bellies before their jailers build it again..as the world watches on.
" Blockaded Gazans pour into Egypt to stock up"
annie
At 9:39 AM,
ps, there is an added bonus on the 'hate' link. #12 (12. "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio. (Certainly the FBI's cover-up of the Israeli spy ring/phone tap scandal suggests that Mr. Sharon may not have been joking.) leads to the 4 part FOX NEWS special about the israel spy ring preceding 9/11 that has been scubbed from fox archives.
At 10:26 AM,
"as you said everyone knows and everyone w/a brain has always known and contrary to you, i do not believe americans for the most part resemble a bunch of self indulgent teenagers."
Most of the world in fact, people are just no smarter than your average 8th grader. AMericans are a little bit smarter than, say, people in Italy or South Africa, though -- at least that's the impression I get from this board.
"obviously. You assume human beings are stupid..."
No. Just you.
"will hopefully someday purge this vernim zionist racist inhuman neocon filth from power."
Hmmm...you mean like in a holocaust?
"yawn. we have had this oil conversation so many times ad nauseum it is a tad ingenuous to claim i am being ambiguous or haven't provided 'proof'."
Yawn. You continue to make irrational claims without supporting your arguments. Don't you get tired of lying? Let's simplify - you seem to think some "production 'sharing' agreements" = "america controlling oil revenue..." this is simply a lie.
"go ready the archives. there is nothing ambiguous in the least and the whole world knows it you blow hard."
I beg to differ. You dabble in truth and simply respect anything that conforms to how you would like to see the world.
Those of us who actually want iraq to be a better place look truth squarely in the eye and find solutions to problems...
At 1:27 PM,
Hmmm...you mean like in a holocaust?
you're sick.
obviously. You assume human beings are stupid.
No. Just you. the rest are mainly like indulgent teenagers! ha!
earth to krypt..
AMericans are a little bit smarter than, say, people in Italy or South Africa
what do you drink for heaven's sake. what about iraqis, do you think americans are a little bit smarter than them too?
You dabble in truth and simply respect anything that conforms to how you would like to see the world.
as opposed to you who respects things that do not conform to how you would like to see the world? you keep opening your mouth wider to swallow your foot. pretty soon you will choke on it. here, let's enjoy your lack of logic just one more time.
according to you the fact 'everybody knows' which is that 'The oil is why Saddam was such a threat to the region' was not shared w/the members of a 'great country' (who according to you are composed of, on 'average'...'self-indulgent teenagers ...), because americans 'perceived' a WMD threat that IN FACT did not exist sooo...' a more sophisticated economic argument' ('that everyone knows')... 'was never presented.'
hahahahahahah
loser.
we were lied to instead of being told the 'sophisticated' truth that we already knew because well, everyone knew.
How is America using Iraqi oil to kill people? Please explain this ludicrous theory.
hmm. the biggest user of oil in the US is the US military. the pnac pax americana plan of lillypads all over the globe that just happen to be around the oil regions cannot be supported w/out this oil. you know what we do to make regions 'stable'? we place our military there. the military is not a 'humanitarian' outfit. soldiers carry guns. they kill people. airbombing uses oil. moving aircraft carriers use oil. moving soldiers around uses oil. for the most part their job description is not diplomatic, that is run out of the state department. the state department doesn't rely on oil so much. the military does. militaries have weapons for one reason and one reason only. weapons solve problems w/violence. violence kills.
and that is how iraqi oil will be used to kill people in americas name.
At 1:53 PM,
It seems to completely elude you that I'm being facetious. I don't take you seriously. You are dumb and boring. Nevertheless, its fun to answer your questions:
"what do you drink for heaven's sake. what about iraqis, do you think americans are a little bit smarter than them too?"
Ha ha. I imagine you and i have completely different ideas of what constitutes "intelligence." To me, intelligence is about solving problems. For you, its about whether or not the person hates Bush or not.
Much to your chagrin, Iraqis are plenty capable of solving problems and being intelligent.
"according to you the fact 'everybody knows' which is that 'The oil is why Saddam was such a threat to the region' was not shared w/the members of a 'great country' (who according to you are composed of, on 'average'...'self-indulgent teenagers ...), because americans 'perceived' a WMD threat that IN FACT did not exist sooo...' a more sophisticated economic argument' ('that everyone knows')... 'was never presented.'
hahahahahahah
loser."
I'm not sure how to decipher this. You've pieced together various quotes to, once again, "suggest" i've said something which I did not say. You are a liar. But we already knew that.
If you'd like to believe that average laypeople understand the intricacies of oil wealth and the damage Saddam could have done given his egomaniacal tendencies, then you are a fool. People spend years of their lives studying this stuff, and then they become "advisors" to advisors to advisors of the president. Have you ever read any of the psychological profiles on Saddam Hussein? Really, he was not the saint you make him out to be.
At 5:59 PM,
I'm not sure how to decipher this. You've pieced together various quotes to, once again, "suggest" i've said something which I did not say. You are a liar.
i will challenge you then. you said everything i quoted. you make the claim that everyone knows that resources is "one" of the reasons. The oil is why Saddam was such a threat to the region, the US and the world. Everyone knows that.
then , when i ask you if 'everyone knows this why wouldn't our president list this at the run up to the war as a reason to invade..." to which you answered
lots of reasons - basically, its too sophisticated a concept for your average american to understand.
so which is it. if everyone knows it, how can it be 'to sophisticated?' really, i have caught you in a contradiction so you squirm out of it by calling me deceptive, manipulating, and now a liar.
fyi, it is not difficult at all to understand how an evil person might make use of that oil, one hardly needs to study it for years or be anything other than a layperson to grasp this concept. you think one is a fool to think an ordinary person can't comprehend this morsel of info?? why on earth do you think people are concerned about cheney and the neocons controlling the vast majority of oil?
please, you are slinging around condemnations like they are kernels of popcorn. besides, you yourself said The oil is why Saddam was such a threat to the region, the US and the world. Everyone knows that.
so which is it, does everyone know that? or is an ordinary layperson incapable? don't think you can change the subject by lavishing a new definition (the intricacies of oil wealth) on the topic.
let's check out the end of that paragraph of your quotes. when i ask you why, if everyone knew this, and it was so obvious why it wasn't presented you said there was enough sympathy from 9/11, and because the perceived threat of WMD, that a more sophisticated economic argument was never presented.
i'm not disagreeing w/you. there was a 'perceived' threat of wmd's. there was a serious lack of evidence and an abundance of lying going on to create that perception by the people who wanted to invade iraq. cheney and his cronies used the sympathies of americans after 9/11 to ratchet up the fear and threat from a man who had no connection to 9/11, none what so ever. and they did it w/forethought and intention. (i have provided a link that demonstrate their lies) now you make a claim this thing that 'everyone knew' wasn't shared w/us because it is too sophisticated a concept.
hmm, it seems when you are backed into a corner you lash out and accuse. how cowardly.
he was not the saint you make him out to be.
now who is the liar. you know perfectly well i have never considered saddam (your favorite topic) a threat.
I don't take you seriously. You are dumb and boring.
it certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to make mincemeat of your arguments. you may find it boring but something tells me watching you try to squirm out of this contradiction is funny and amusing to some readers. it is for me anyway. and this illusion it takes an extraordinary intelligence or studying what an advisor to an advisor to an advisor.. to understand the race for control of resources is very much a priority for any world power, china, russia, the US.. well, i think you are being naive. ever wonder why the 'war on terror' just happens to focus on oil regions. really, anyone can see thru this bs, if they look. the concept these elites who run the country are more benevolent and better stewards of the oil than others...
yawn.
fyi, saddam was not a threat to us. what he could have been is another story. but there were many ways to undermine that threat. we didn't have to invade and turn the cradle of civilization into a cinder box. everyone knows this.
At 8:35 PM,
moving aircraft carriers use oil.
there accualy nuke powered but your right jets use oil(or more pacificly jp8)oh and the chinese toldme to tell you they love arabs and would give the furry puppies and rabbits for oil and kill anyone who got in there way for you(darfur anyone?)
ps. we tried using gerbals for the fighters but there performance like all socalist and or communist creatures(yes its true i know it hurts)was in truth abysmal and the little basterds went on strike so we sold them to the Donate a Pet to a Gay Man Fund.(DPGMF)they were happy but the gerbals looked realy depressed.hmmm weird arnt they the THE DPGMF guys said theyd give em a warm dark place to live....hmmmm...anyways
peace love and chicken grease!!
At 8:41 PM,
"so which is it. if everyone knows it, how can it be 'to sophisticated?' really, i have caught you in a contradiction so you squirm out of it by calling me deceptive, manipulating, and now a liar."
Oh gosh - did my paraphrasing throw you off? That's really too bad and I don't care if you got all twisted up by it. Let me specify since you don't seem to get it - its obvious to people who paid attention to Saddam and the Middle East that you had a situation where a hitleresque dictator was sitting on top of a jackpot. It was, well, very scary.
Now, to dummies like you, who didn't even care about Iraq until the war, everythingjust seemed to happen all at once.
"now who is the liar. you know perfectly well i have never considered saddam (your favorite topic) a threat."
Yes, i know. I considered Saddam a threat, and you did not. Brilliant analysis.
Double yawn. Lol...
At 9:25 PM,
double yawn? imitation is the sincerest form of flattery :)
while i don't believe saddam was a threat to the US, what i actually meant to say regarding your lie was 'you know perfectly well i have never considered saddam a saint'.
don't think you can pull the wool over anyones eyes w/some lame 'paraphrasing' excuse. we would have toppled whoever was in power, if he didn't agree to play ball w/the oil. our way or the highway. or the grave.
At 5:53 AM,
lol. you gotta check out this video!
on a more serious note here is a documentary nominated foran oscar
"We were also told they were nothing but dogs," says Sgt. Ken Davis, stationed at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. "Then, all of a sudden, you start looking at these people as less than human.
annie
At 8:38 AM,
"double yawn? imitation is the sincerest form of flattery :)"
really? because my intention is to mock your lame attempts at insulting people who don't adhere to your strict brand of communistic politics.
"we would have toppled whoever was in power, if he didn't agree to play ball w/the oil. our way or the highway. or the grave."
LOL. And you know this because you're an expert in Mideast economic and foreign policy? Then again, if the other "way" interferes with US security interests and is tantamount to belligerence, then of course its "our way or the highway." I expect our government to properly defend our country, not kowtow to the Saddam's, Ahmadinejads, or Chavez' of the world who, by virtue of sitting on top of an oil supply, seem to think they have a right to threaten and blackmail the United States.
At 6:13 PM,
communist? where do you come up w/this stuff for heavens sake. it is as if you just dive into some grab bag of accusations w/no supporting evidence, none what so ever. i would go crazy in a communist society! totally crazy, i would be bolting out of there like no tomorrow.
our way or the highway. or the grave."
LOL. And you know this because you're an expert in Mideast economic and foreign policy?
ahh.. i am very curious exactly WHAT kind of 'threats' or 'negotiations' are going on NOT subject to US senate oversite (check my first comment on the new thread) that would 'inspire' the iraqi government to agree to having over onehundredandsixtythousand private militia members operating in their country divorced from either iraqi or US military laws!!!!
GET REAL. one hardly has to be a communist to notice this is a little strange to say the least!
this is hardly tantamount to US security interests! and it is damn well belligerent. and how prey tell have we ever needed to 'kowtow' to saddam? or chavez? or anybody else for that matter?
you can't justify pre empting what they could do if they were as evil as say... the neocons.
by virtue of sitting on top of an oil supply, seem to think they have a right to threaten and blackmail the United States.
oh really. than perhaps you can document one of these characters threatening or blackmailing us.
you are nothing but hot air. easier than swatting flies. you got nuthin'.
At 6:44 AM,
Oh my god. Are we really arguing now whether Ahmadinejad's threats to destroy israel and america are, in fact, threats? are we really arguing now that Saddam's attempted assasination of Bush, his invasion of kuwait, his refusal to relinguish control during the sanction years, his weapons programs (though fake) were, in fact threats? Are we really still arguing whether Chavez' continued denounciations of the US is, in fact, a threat?
Nothing anyone does to the US could ever constitute a "threat" in your mind, because that would justify US response, which you cannot accept. Thankfully, enough people do see the danger in kowtowing to the idiots who control these oil rich countries...
At 11:53 AM,
no, we are not really arguing any of these. i have ask you to document one of these characters thinking they have a right to threaten and blackmail the United States.
so far, you have not provided anything.
Are we really arguing now whether Ahmadinejad's threats to destroy .... america are, in fact, threats?
let's start w/your first claim.
How do you think the Awakenings will do in the provincial elections? How about the parliamentary ones in '09?