On Al-Arabiya, the news bulletin came out at 10 p.m. while I was having dinner last night. “High tension has marked the first day of a meeting of Iraq's political and religious leaders to discuss plans for a future reconciliation conference,” the anchor said. In a speech at the conference, Hareth Aldhari, head of the Muslim Scholars Association showed up and said, "Armed resistance arose as a reaction to occupation. It is legitimate and is not an innovation.”
I chocked. Drinking water, I said to myself what the hell he is talking about? Which resistance is he mentioning, the one that collapsed an apartment building over its residents few days ago? The one he did not even feel sad or condemn. Oh! Of course not, he considers it resistance, I forgot.
Hundreds are being killed in one day and he calls this “resistance”. I just want to meet him and tell him, “SHAME ON YOU”. This man doesn’t deserve to be Iraqi or even a Muslim. I am fed up with these people. When will they wake up to make this country safe and stable? They are disgrace and in the history of this wounded nation.
One day I was at his headquarters to interview one of their spokesman. I was waiting in his secretary’s office because the spokesman was having a TV interview. When I was waiting, a Jordanian man entered the room shaking and begging. “My brother, my brother is kidnapped by the Mujahideen [holy warriors].” I was concentrating to see what would happen. Then the secretary asked him about the name of his brother and when he was kidnapped. “He is a truck driver and was kidnapped in Ramadi few days ago.” I was shocked when I saw this secretary opening a notebook full of names and including the name of the Jordanian in it. “Don’t worry. He would be released within one day.”
Oh my God! What does this mean? They know everyone was kidnapped by the so-called Mujahideen in the last year when these started a scary campaign against westerners by kidnapping and beheading them afterwards. When this campaign started and the Muslim Scholars Association was seen contacting the “Mujahideen” to free them, people started calling this association as “Association of Kidnapping Scholars” and some called them as “Association of Criminal Scholars”. I think this is the very first time an Iraqi blogger says that. I felt I have to say it because I am fed up. I can’t see these people supporting the criminals under the name of resistance and keep shutting my mouth. This is a crime; it’s not less than what the Shiite Badr Brigade is doing. Both of them are working secretly and the victims are the innocent Iraqi people who fell powerless in their hands.
All today’s newspapers mentioned the disagreement between Aldhari and Jafari that was revealed in their speeches in the Cairo conference. However, they claimed that the participants said they would return “hand in hand”, a mark of agreement. I don’t believe that. These people won’t agree. They agreed not to agree as we say in Arabic.
The papers also quoted Jafari saying "We have set a red line; there is no room for Baathists in Iraq.” Come on Dr. Jafari. Let’s not deceive ourselves. There are many Baathists in the government institutions. The disaster is the criminal Baathists are back and those minor Baathists who were forced to join the party are not allowed to return to their jobs.
I don’t know why these people are trying to cover their failure by saying these things. In my own prospective, not all the Baathists were criminals, some of them were forced to join this party to live and have jobs. I know newly graduate students who were forced to join the Baath because they wanted to have the M.A. degree. One of the conditions to be an M.A. scholar was you should be a member of this damned party. So are those not allowed to cross the “red line”? oh no, of course, not. I forgot they are Baathists. SHAME ON YOU too, Jafari.
I chocked. Drinking water, I said to myself what the hell he is talking about? Which resistance is he mentioning, the one that collapsed an apartment building over its residents few days ago? The one he did not even feel sad or condemn. Oh! Of course not, he considers it resistance, I forgot.
Hundreds are being killed in one day and he calls this “resistance”. I just want to meet him and tell him, “SHAME ON YOU”. This man doesn’t deserve to be Iraqi or even a Muslim. I am fed up with these people. When will they wake up to make this country safe and stable? They are disgrace and in the history of this wounded nation.
One day I was at his headquarters to interview one of their spokesman. I was waiting in his secretary’s office because the spokesman was having a TV interview. When I was waiting, a Jordanian man entered the room shaking and begging. “My brother, my brother is kidnapped by the Mujahideen [holy warriors].” I was concentrating to see what would happen. Then the secretary asked him about the name of his brother and when he was kidnapped. “He is a truck driver and was kidnapped in Ramadi few days ago.” I was shocked when I saw this secretary opening a notebook full of names and including the name of the Jordanian in it. “Don’t worry. He would be released within one day.”
Oh my God! What does this mean? They know everyone was kidnapped by the so-called Mujahideen in the last year when these started a scary campaign against westerners by kidnapping and beheading them afterwards. When this campaign started and the Muslim Scholars Association was seen contacting the “Mujahideen” to free them, people started calling this association as “Association of Kidnapping Scholars” and some called them as “Association of Criminal Scholars”. I think this is the very first time an Iraqi blogger says that. I felt I have to say it because I am fed up. I can’t see these people supporting the criminals under the name of resistance and keep shutting my mouth. This is a crime; it’s not less than what the Shiite Badr Brigade is doing. Both of them are working secretly and the victims are the innocent Iraqi people who fell powerless in their hands.
All today’s newspapers mentioned the disagreement between Aldhari and Jafari that was revealed in their speeches in the Cairo conference. However, they claimed that the participants said they would return “hand in hand”, a mark of agreement. I don’t believe that. These people won’t agree. They agreed not to agree as we say in Arabic.
The papers also quoted Jafari saying "We have set a red line; there is no room for Baathists in Iraq.” Come on Dr. Jafari. Let’s not deceive ourselves. There are many Baathists in the government institutions. The disaster is the criminal Baathists are back and those minor Baathists who were forced to join the party are not allowed to return to their jobs.
I don’t know why these people are trying to cover their failure by saying these things. In my own prospective, not all the Baathists were criminals, some of them were forced to join this party to live and have jobs. I know newly graduate students who were forced to join the Baath because they wanted to have the M.A. degree. One of the conditions to be an M.A. scholar was you should be a member of this damned party. So are those not allowed to cross the “red line”? oh no, of course, not. I forgot they are Baathists. SHAME ON YOU too, Jafari.
During the days of Saddam, joining Al-Baath party was obligatory. It was not done voluntarily. I joined the party in high school. When one of their highest officials came by with papers for all the students, asking them to join the Baath Party. He didn't say it was obligatory. But it was obvious that whoever doesn't sign, might not live to see the morning.
ReplyDeleteInteresting comment Hassan. I wondered just what it meant "to join" and how it was done.
ReplyDeleteThe comments from the Muslim Scholars Association are reprehensible. There is a freely elected democratic government in Iraq right now. It is the most legimate government anywhere in the middle east! Violent resistance to this government is immoral and illegal. If that man conspires to resist the government or actually does participate in the planning, recruiting, or financing of this terrorism, then he deserves to be in prison--not at a diplomatic conference.
If I were Talabani, I would have taken off my belt and hog-tied his hands and feet together right there and told security to haul his butt back to Abu Ghraib to await prosecution.
The line is drawn at violence. You can talk and try to win votes, but you cannot use violence. That gets you thrown in prison.
I share your anger!!
ReplyDeleteJan
hassan,
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly what happened with me at high-school. There was no way you could "NO." So, we all joined. If I'm not wrong, It was called أنغلاق حزبي
-------------
treasure,
I received this news alert from the BBC this morning:
Iraqi president Jalal Talabani tells a meeting of factions in Cairo that he is willing to speak to leaders of 'the resistance'.
I don't know what to say about it.
This is one of the most courageous blog postings I have seen. Truly you "Speak Truth to power." From my cluttered desk, on a comfortable horse farm in California, born as an American, I can only imagine what you risk, and your desire to continue risking. From afar, I can only tell you how much I admire what a brave person you are. Your writing makes your country's hope and conflict come alive. Please do not stop. Without people such as you, the Bastards will have silenced the voices crying out against their plans.
ReplyDeleteBecause I read your words, I can point to a person who doesnt want these people to prevail, despite what my news and some self centered politicians say in my country's capital. You have to keep speaking up, so that the liars can be seen for what they are--BIG LIARS.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
If I lived in the same country with you, I would come sit with you, and follow you around like a body gaurd, with a gun, to protect you and your voice. THATS how important I think you are. You are "worth taking a bullet for." That is not an exaggeration. Each dissident voice is that precious in my eyes, anyway.
I hope this all works and you get to change your world. You deserve to have your dreams of freedom come true.
F
Your problems with the media in Iraq remind me of American media. The media here seems to do everything it can to only show us the bad things happening in Iraq. The only way to get the real picture of what is happening is for us to read the blogs on the internet. I just found this blog todaay. Keep up the good work!
ReplyDeleteHarith al-Dhari needs to be in prison not meeting with "Dr" Ibrahim al-Ja'afari.
ReplyDeleteI have (as some of you know) stopped being politically correct, actually I don't think I ever was. But I have stopped being subtle about my points.
If Harith al-Dhari said that on the same day that over 70 Iraqis were murdered in Khanaqin, then how would he feel if one of them was his son? How would Harith al-Dhari term the violence then? Still resistance?
Okay, how about if a terrorist captured his daughter and raped her, would he still call it "resistance?" These are not make belief scenarios, this happens, terrorists murder and rape people in Iraq every day.
I am sorry to say this but those who are shaking Harith al-Dhari's hand in Cairo are also traitors.
I hate to disagree with you Treasure, but I believe you are making a rush to judgment here. Yes, in a conflict there are always ulterior motives and unjust killing, but the people have the right to resist occupation. I know you are saying that all of it is just insane, but unfortunately the US opened Pandora’s Box and now violence will hunt your country for some time before a solution crystallizes.
ReplyDeleteFor the looks of it, it seems I am the only voice in opposition to the characterization of the resistance as illegitimate. Am I the only one here who supports the right of any occupied people to resist occupation? Is this site American propaganda? How can you all be so simplistic as to judge all resistance in Iraq as “terrorist”? How can you call the elected government democratic or legitimated? All current government officials are stooges selected or supported by the Americans and the infamous elections were held under occupation. What America has done is replace one despot with a brand new set of despots. Of course the people must resist! Is it that the recently discover houses of torture sponsor by the new “democratically elected” government do not count as “terrorism”? Let’s speak real truth to power: Iraq is involved in a low level (not so low by now) civil war in which the US has chosen a side. This is why Iraqis are killing Iraqis.
Be safe my friend. Don't panic. And keep writing.
ReplyDeletewell well well,
ReplyDeletei see u passing the "red lines" way to go.i always wanted u to be involved in politics. i love it because its dirty! and u have to work your ass off to understand what is really going on beyond speeches and interviews.
but also, be careful. u cannot trust your words. be careful.
Hareth Dhari is "messing up with his shit" i hope u get it (its an iraqi proverb" !!!!! Jafari is messing up with everyone's shit. hee. they both went to cairo not to come back "hand in hand" not in a million years. they went there because it is the best place to speak things out, in public. to speak their hatred out and their interests out. the conference wil collapse today. mark my word!! but for them it doesnt matter. they showed the world that, unlike what media says, iraq is going down and fucked up.
as i always insist, iraq will never be a peaceful country again. not in my life time and as long as we have poeple like Hareth Dhari and Ibrahim Jafari, whose interest is to imppose their doctrain!!
guys, i spelt a word wrong. sorry.
ReplyDeleteit is DOCTRINE
Thanks a lot flora for your kind words. It’s really encouraging. I hope I can continue blogging forever. I’ve just emailed Cecile and told her I will continue blogging till as long as hope is inside me.
ReplyDelete-----------------------
Fay, I heard the news on TV last night and I don’t either know what to say about it. I think he wants to end this tragedy. But if Talabani means the criminals, I totally disagree with him. The criminals should be put in the prison not in the government, as Vahal mentioned.
------------------------------
Temo, I don’t know what you are talking about. I want you to come and live one day in Iraq and see how “resistance” is killing the innocent people. Hundreds and hundreds are being killed by this “resistance”. Iraqis are being killed by these terrorists who came from other countries. It’s not for the benefit of the United States to create civil war in Iraq rather than it’s for the benefit of Zarqawi and Bin Laden. America has thousands of soldiers in Iraq and do not want them to be killed. It’s Zarqawi who hates himself in the first place. He wants to create this civil war because he wants to create his own realm based on the killings and torture that was practiced in Afghanistan once upon time. Once, I read an article in the Washington Post about how the armed men gather in Syria and get ready to go Iraq to fight “Occupation”. The paper quoted a leader of an armed group saying they are willing to get rid of the Shiites in Iraq but they don’t know how and when. What do you think of this? Is that possible?? Is it possible to kill 56% of Iraq’s population? Is this the legitimate right you are mentioning?! They didn’t even say they are going to fight the “occupation”.
temo,
ReplyDeleteAm I the only one here who supports the right of any occupied people to resist occupation?
ANY occupation? ANY? Do you really believe that temo? Did the Germans have a right to "resist occupation" in 1945? Did the Japanese?
Unlike Germany and Japan in the 40s, the current "occupiers" only remain at the graces of a freely elected Iraqi government.
What possible legitimacy does any "resistance" have now?
BT, we can see that you're a good reporter by the difficulty people here have in discerning your conclusions from your report of the facts ;)
ReplyDeleteA couple of comments...
First, for the discussion of "legitimate", "free" elections. For most of us, wouldn't that suggest that when I vote for a candidate, I at least know his/her name? When I vote for a law, or a constitution, wouldn't it be normal for me to have an opportunity to have a look at the exact version of the thing I'm voting on beforehand? I think the wording of the ballot was quietly changed to indicate that it was a vote for a "process" rather than for the constitution itself, but what process was voted on? Is there something official in writing, referenced on the ballot?
I certainly agree that civilian death and destruction (and military, for that matter) is terrible. Deliberate targeting of innocents is reprehensible, but can you think of a war where this has not happened? This is reason number one to be sure of your reasons before you attack another country.
Mostly, I'm wondering with whom well-meaning individuals who care for their country should work for peace. Here's what I think I know about a few possibilities:
1) Zarqawi/Qaeda/whatever - kidnap, torture and kill civilians, and blow stuff up.
2) Badr/SCIRI/Iraqi gov - kidnap, torture and kill civilians, and maybe blow stuff up.
3) US/Coalition - kidnap, torture and kill civilians, and blow stuff up.
4) Ex-baathist/nationalist/whatever - I assume they do all of the above, too, tho they seem to be better at keeping themselves in the shadows.
5) Sadrists - kidnap, torture and kill civilians (how else would you characterize their "courts"?).
somebody please cheer me up...
Listen people, you are not hearing me.
ReplyDeleteI must thank Svejk for his honest and frank interpretation of the situation.
For your information Treasure, you should know that I have been mobbed, persecuted, shot at, beaten, tortured, and dragged by bus and by my hair. One of my friends was killed by gunfire and a couple ended up loosing their minds. I have been homeless and narrowly escaped getting raped (possible killed) by a not so friendly Caucasian. I know, I know it sound so unbelievable that I have gone through all those experiences, but indeed I have. Although I have known what it is like to live surrounded by violence and in constant anxiety, I cannot compare my experiences to yours. If I have been to hell and back, you my friend have done so a thousand times and are still in it.
Now, hear me this time. I clearly said, “Yes, in a conflict there are always ulterior motives and unjust killing, but the people have the right to resist occupation.” and I also said, “unfortunately the US opened Pandora’s Box”. In other words, there will be groups that will take advantage of the situation to further their own agenda now that the US has created the perfect conditions for unending vendettas and fundamentalist militancy; a despot’s heaven if you will. Please refer to Svejk’s clear interpretation of the mess. It is barbaric to kill people indiscriminately to further one’s own interests (this includes the US, who, the last time I checked, are the ones who have killed the most civilians). I am not justifying the killing of innocent people or collective punishment. I am saying that the people of an “invaded and occupied country” have the right to resist whether or not they follow rules or civility is another matter.
I also urged all of you not to be simplistic in your views. Take for example Mr. Cmar II who has decided to bring out the “Germany” card. Conflicts are not black and white. They are messy, messy, messy. How many time should I use the word messy before you all understand the situation? I really do not have time to write a volume of biblical proportions to explain why WWII cannot be compared with Iraq. You should do your own ready Mr. Cmar II or perhaps you think that I am so ignorant of the facts that I would be intimidated by your simplistic remarks. I will try to be as brief as possible to clarify matters to you. Unfortunately, brevity leaves so many important factors out, but any way, here we go: Germany had “ILLEGALLY” invaded other countries. These other countries were “RESISTING THE OCCUPATION”. Yes, Germany and Japan had to be occupied because they were not doing what the west expected them to do which was to wipe out the Soviet Union; instead, they turned around and bit their master’s hand, remember? Now, if your want to draw analogies, your comment should have gone something like this: The United States of America “ILLEGALLY” invaded Iraq, therefore Iraqis must “RESIST THE OCCUPATION” and if they succeed in defeating the enemy, they have the right to occupy the country of the transgressor until it is no longer a threat. Remember that the Germans also claimed to be liberating countries. Heck! They were so nice, they even let the French establish a new government in Vichy just like the US has been so nice in allowing Iraqis to elect their representatives under its watchful eye. Good thing De Gaulle was a man of courage and principle and did not allow the Germans or the Americans to turn France into a puppet state. A Charles De Gaul is what Iraq needs, but it seems there are only world criminals and puppets vying for the spoils. Mr. Cmar II please study your facts before you make any comments.
Treasure, I abhor the situation in Iraq as much as you do. I am a pacifist, a conscientious objector with a $10,000 dollar and 5 year prison term on his head, but I cannot deny the right of people to resist an “ILLEGAL OCCUPATION”. Am I abdicating the killing of hundreds of civilians? Not in any form! Are you saying that all the different factions in the resistance are foreigners and extremist wanting to exterminate a give ethnic group? Are you saying that there is no legitimate resistance? Are you saying the world is black and white? Are you saying the American forces are benign? If you see the world in black and white just like Mr. Bush does, I am going to start having serious doubts about you.
I don’t know if I have expressed my solution to the conflict before, but here it goes again:
1) All Iraqi parties involved in the conflict should meet and agree on a multinational force to keep the peace until new open elections are held where the people actually know who the candidates are and what are their policies.
2) All American troops should be removed from Iraq.
3) All American companies should be band from the reconstruction effort.
4) An international panel selected by an international world court made up of well known neutral international organization such as Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, etc, etc. should calculate the amount the US should pay for reparation, oversee a national panel in charge of fund distributions, and oversee the conduct of the international force.
5) The national panel should represent all the different religious, political, and ethnic group in Iraq. The international panel should have the power to release or withheld the funds after reviewing the national panel’s decisions.
6) The new constitution should be abolished and the newly elected government together with the national panel should decide what version of the previous Iraqi constitution should be used and whether or not there is a need to modify it.
7) Once there are no more revenge killings, sectarian violence, and all parties have come to an agreement on how the wealth of the nation should be distributed and/or used, the international panel and the multination force can leave the country.
I now I am missing many details like the constitution and organizational structure of an Iraqi defense force and some other aspects I am sure I don’t know about, but I believe my seven point initial strategy could bring peace to Iraq.
Is it possible to execute such plan? NO. Why? Because there is greed, fundamentalism, and animosity that no one wants to put aside and that is why I said that Iraq will have to endure violence for some time to come until either, a strong man comes to power (i.e. Saddam), the country splits, or everyone gets so tired of fighting that they will actually look for a solution similar to mine. There is also the very real possibility of an unending conflict. Look at the Cubans, the Koreans, and the Haitians. They are still paying for not bowing to the America. By the way, Iraq is in the mess it is because Saddam would not bow to America. And I am not talking about WMD’s. I am talking about all his crazy talk about wanting to deal with Euros instead of dollars and not giving the US that big pipeline contract.
I am tired. I think I should stop now.
Sorry, no cheering up Svejk.
Peace.
Temo,
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing us your views. I do understand you when you said “the people of an ‘invaded and occupied country’ have the right to resist whether or not they follow rules or civility is another matter.” But the problem is that honest and real resistance is gone or at least distorted when the foreign fighters entered the country and continued the mess the American forces created. I do understand what you are saying but it’s not like this now in Iraq. The Iraqi resistance is buried because of these foreign terrorists. They came to fight under the name of Islam and resistance.
As an Iraqi citizen who adores his country, I am one of those who are against the invasion and the presence of the US forces but what if they leave in this time?
Moreover, Iraq has been fighting for years. Let me be more franks with you. Some people in Iraq say, “We don’t care who governs us, even if he is a Jew. We want to live in peace.” This is mentioned in many newspapers.
The only true and real resistance happened in Iraq was the one led by Muqtada Sadr, the radical young Shiite cleric. I’ve talked to many of his militiamen and realized how they were sincere in fighting the occupation. They were against the invaders only. I did not blame them at all at that time because it’s their right. They stopped fighting due to the orders of their religious leaders who realized that this fighting would cause more destruction to the country and increase the bloodshed of the Iraqis.
“Are you saying that all the different factions in the resistance are foreigners and extremist wanting to exterminate a give ethnic group? Are you saying that there is no legitimate resistance? Are you saying the world is black and white? Are you saying the American forces are benign? If you see the world in black and white just like Mr. Bush does, I am going to start having serious doubts about you.”
I am not saying that all the factions are foreigners. I mentioned above the Sadr resistance, which is purely Iraqi. I know very well, that the world is not black and white but I think there is good and evil… I am not like Bush, the clown. He is deceiving the people by his foolish speeches. I always laugh out loud when I hear him saying things like “fighting terrorism”. He is distorting the image of the Americans in the world. I am not narrow-minded like Bush to be like him. Maybe you misunderstood me. What I want is to bring peace back to this country. I am not a military man, but I am a reporter. I want to make any effort, even if it is simple, to make this country become safe. We need to live in peace. The Americans are leaving sooner or later. And even if they don’t they will be staying in their bases, like what is happening in the Arab gulf countries. I am sure you know how prosperous these countries become. Do you know how the United Arab Emirates became prosperous like this? They were united and did not fight. They made the British occupation leave without shooting a bullet. This is the greatest kind of resistance. They became friends now with the British. We need such resistance, Temo, we really need it.
------------------------------------------
“First, for the discussion of "legitimate", "free" elections. For most of us, wouldn't that suggest that when I vote for a candidate, I at least know his/her name? When I vote for a law, or a constitution, wouldn't it be normal for me to have an opportunity to have a look at the exact version of the thing I'm voting on beforehand?”
Svejk, it seems you’ve never heard that the constitution draft was distributed to the people with ration food materials before the referendum and that most of the Iraqis read the draft before going to vote. One more thing, who said the people in Iraq do not know the names of the candidates?!! This was mentioned in every international newspaper, as far as I know and if you come to Iraq, you’d find posters and names of candidates with their photos.
I hope that you and other iraqi will show your anger in the comming election.
ReplyDeleteTreasure,
ReplyDeleteIs it really wise to openly admit that you support violence against American troops when you plan to apply for a visa to enter the USA soon? I mean, the Department of State might not exactly look favorably upon this fact in your visa application. It is OK to call Bush a clown, but supporting violence is a definite red line!
Regarding "resistance." I did not think this really needed to be stated, but here goes: In a democracy, the way you change things is through the ballot box, not with the AK-47 and the IED.
Regarding US forces. On October 25, 2005, your Prime Minister al-Jaafari formally requested that the multinational forces stay in Iraq until the end of December 31, 2005. He reserved the right, of course, to revoke this request and expel the forces at any time.
So, if you don't want the US forces in Iraq, then by all means, vote on December 15 for people who will ask the USA to leave. But if we leave, and your country swiftly reverts to a Saddam-like dictatorship, please understand that we probably will not come back to restore the democracy.
Frankly, I wish the American people and the Iraqi people could develop a partnership along the same lines as Germany, Korean, or Japan. All of these three countries have emerged from postwar situations quite well. The partership has gone on for 50-60 years and has been of mutual benefit (a true partnership, both side give and both sides take).
I meant to say, "On October 25, 2005, your Prime Minister al-Jaafari formally requested that the multinational forces stay in Iraq until the end of December 31, 2006."
ReplyDeleteSee http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions05.htm "S/RES/1637 (2005) -- The situation concerning Iraq"
Original Jeff,
ReplyDelete"Regarding "resistance." I did not think this really needed to be stated, but here goes: In a democracy, the way you change things is through the ballot box, not with the AK-47 and the IED."
It's called the freakin' REVOLUTIONARY WAR - remember that? oh yeah, and why not through in the CIVIL WAR. We don't always change things through the ballot box. How soon we forget our own history ...
Katie
Origional Jeff,
ReplyDeleteWho told you that I said I am supporting violence? Did you read my previous posts? They were all against violence because I am one of the rare blogs that insist violence should stop. Secondly, shall I consider what you said as threat that I won’t get the visa? This is my blog even if I support violence, although I don’t as I mentioned previously. No one has the right to threaten someone based on his opinions.
One other thing, I am one of those who are really against the occupoation but did not say I want the US forces to leave soon because I know this would cause a civil war and the Iraqi army won’t be able to control the country. I know very well Jafari asked for extending the presense of the US forces but do you know he did that by himself without taking into the consideration the permission of neither the Iraqi people nor the National Assembly and he is going to be interrogated for that by the National Assembly??[read the newspapers, please].
I say it loudly that I am against the occupation and everyone in Iraq knows that but I am not suppoorting violence at all. This is the right of anyone whose country is raped but I disagree with fighting this occupation by violence. Let’s think well before judging on someone because I started losing confidence in some of my blog readers.
Treasure,
ReplyDeleteYou say "I say it loudly that I am against the occupation". What occupation? Are you speaking of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank? I am against that too! I favor a two-state solution.
THERE IS NO OCCUPATION IN IRAQ.
The multinational forces are present in Iraq because the democratically elected government of Iraq has asked the multinational forces to stay.
The USA and the other countries are in partnership with the Iraqi government and, by extension, the Iraqi people.
Certainly, if the Iraqi people did not want the USA in Iraq, they would ask us to leave--rather than writing letters to the UN Security Council asking us to stay.
Perhaps you disagree with this policy of your government. This would not be unprecedented. There are plenty of Koreans, Japanese, and Germans who would like for the US forces to leave their country. However, the majority continue to want a US security partnership. This can change at any time. For example, the Uzbeks recently asked us to leave, and we left. Just that simple. The Panamanians asked us to leave the canal zone, and we left. There are many other examples.
I had not heard that al-Jaafari was challenged on his policy and letter asking the USA to stay. That is interesting.
I got the idea you supported violence against US forces when you talked about al-Sadr "I’ve talked to many of his militiamen and realized how they were sincere in fighting the occupation. They were against the invaders only. I did not blame them at all at that time because it’s their right."
I missed the important phrase "at that time" in that sentence.
I must admit that defending Iraq from the US-led invasion was dumb but legitimate. The violent resistance became illegal and improper when Iraqis gained sovereignty. And, certainly, when the elected Iraqi government took office, all violent resistance became illegal and immoral and illegimate.
I am glad to hear you are not supporting violence any more, and so I wish you a great trip to the USA. I would have no earthly idea how to stop you from getting a visa if I wanted to, and I certainly don't want to. I hope and believe you will honestly about your trip, and I like reading both the good and the bad observations of first-time travellers to the USA.
Good-bye, Good-bye
ReplyDeleteThis will be my last post to Treasure’s comment section. In all good consciences I cannot continue reading and individual that clearly is either sectarian or a vehicle of American propaganda.
Treasure, I am deeply sorry to say that I am now convinced that you are either a sectarian Shiite or part of the never-ending American propaganda. You seem to implying that continuous American occupation is the only solution to the current Iraqi dilemma completely disregarding the option of an international force agreed upon by all Iraqi parties involved in the conflict including those that are accused of reprehensible crimes since all parties seem to subscribe to the use of extra judicial killings whether they are Sunni, Kurd, Turk, Shiite, Etc. Excluding any entity for any reason is just a sure way to continue the quagmire. You also seem to imply that the only legitimate resistance to the occupation comes from the Shiites. Am I to believe that no a single Sunni is legitimately upset by the occupation of their country? The Sunni more than any other group should be very angry at the occupiers since they used to be the group in power. Certainly not all Sunnis subscribe to an Al-Qaeda solution for Iraq. Remember that Saddam warned Sunnis not to ally themselves with Al-Qaeda.
Even those that once supported the occupation are now calling for an American withdrawal. American Generals have asserted that the insurgency is fueled by the presence of American troops, law makers in American are now calling for the withdrawal of the troops and most recently a communiqué from Shiite, Kurdish, and Sunni leaders in Cairo are calling for an American withdrawal time table. So it seems that the resistance has done its work and the occupiers have no choice but to leave. Yes, it has been messy, but it is absolutely working. Without the resistance the Americans would have never thought about leaving Iraq. It is just too precious for them. Remember that Kissinger said, “Oil is to important to leave it to the Arabs”. Also remember that all the neocons were schooled by him. If you are not yet convinced of the real intention of the Americans please visit the Project For The New American Century website. With your approach of relaying on American arm forces to bring peace it would have been impossible to bring the country into a harmonious existence and for sure you would have lost all control over your natural resources and social programs. Quite frankly, you are still at risk of losing control of your natural resources and social programs. Controlling you was the reason for the new constitution. Please, before you label the previous constitution as Baathist instrument, remind your readers that without the provisions added by the Baathist your previous constitution was one of the most progressive constitutions in the region if not the most progressive. Also remind them that it protected your natural resources and women’s rights unlike the new one.
I suspect you like the presences of American troops because it is a sure way to keep Shiites in power or if you are an agent of American propaganda; it is what you are supposed to do. So as you can see, your attachment to the American occupation and your opposition to the resistance is very suspicious.
You say you are against the occupation, but it sure does not show. Yes, originally I thought you were a neutral party, but more and more thinks are looking a bit skewed. You want the occupation to continue, you accept your current government as legitimate, you conceder Shiite opposition the only legitimate opposition, and you also accept the new constitution as legitimate. The facts are that you are an occupied country and the elections as well as the constitution took place under the watchful eye of the Americans. None of it can be consider legitimate under such circumstances.
Let me restate once more that I absolutely abhor violence, but I cannot deny people to resist occupiers by any means necessary regardless of how massy it gets.
Sorry for giving you a hard time.
Bye,
Peace
PS Original Jeff has no idea what he is talking about.
One of the problems with being a political moderate is you occasionally get slammed by both sides, and it seems this is what Baghdad Treasure is going through now.
ReplyDeleteThis comment exchange is almost comical - one person is slamming Treasure because he's "supporting violence against American troops", and at the same time the other side is slamming him because he's part of the "never-ending American propaganda."
Come on, folks, give the guy a break.
OK, maybe BT leans a little Shiite. So does Iraq. Some accuse
ReplyDeleteRiverbend of being a Baathist freak, somehow not catching that she
is quite reasonably frightened of being an educated woman in a hard-line
religious Iraq. What are her better choices? Zarqawi? Sistani? Or maybe
an Allawi or a Chalabi. Oops, Allawi is a Baathist thug, too, isn't he?
This blog, along with Riverbend, Najma, and even Baghdad Girl, provides
a view of what actual people actually living in Iraq experience and think.
How can you expect one to feel when a car bomb attacks a hospital just because
American soldiers are handing out candy to children?
Anyway, any Iraqi has a right to consider the elections legitimate, certainly
as much as any Pakistani has a right to consider Musharraf legitimate.
I do believe, only from what I've read, that the 'draft constitution' that
was available to some voters bore no defined relation to the 'real constitution',
which as far as I know, nobody has seen to date, and is subject to revision
by a select few Iraqi politicians, Amercian ambassadors, etc, and I don't think
issues such as the relation of religion to law are clear yet.
I do believe, only from what I've read, that there is not a simple
correspondence between the people on the lists and who is sitting in the
legislature now (or who is president, etc). Only that the numbers were used
as bargaining chips to decide who would be in what office. It's probably
more representative than it would have been without the vote, though.
It's not what I would call "free and fair" elections, but it's a question
of degrees, and there are certainly quite a few in Iraq who do not accept them,
but I don't think we can judge someone to be a propagandist
just because he thinks Iraq is better off with American troops than without.
I want American troops out of Iraq, too, although I am frightened of the
consequences, too. It is not only some in the Iraqi government, but also the
US military who say the solution to the insurgency problem is political (and
they have been having meetings with them for months).
Please keep blogging, BT. You are real, and that is worth a lot.
Ok, I am back (formerly know as Temo).
ReplyDeleteI hear you Mad Canuck and Svejk.
I don’t want to discourage anyone from reporting the situation in Iraq regardless on what direction they “lean”. Unfortunately, sectarianism has been an internal Iraqi problem for centuries and continuing with it is not going to help the country.
All I am saying is that the presence of American troops should not be thought as the only solution. How come the formation of a neutral multinational force never enters the debate? I am sure the majority of Iraqis would be very happy if all the factions agreed on a multinational force to ease the transition into stability. Frankly, I believe there is the real possibility of a worst blood bath if the American leave, but their presence is not a good solution either. I am sure not only the French, Germans, Russians, and the Chinese, but the whole world would be very happy to participate in a neutral multinational force.
Concerning the resistance and the legitimacy of the government: as long as a significant part of the population does not consider the government legitimate, it cannot be considered legitimate. The Sunnis may be a minority, but it is still a significant part or the population, so much so that it has stunned the most powerful army in the world. A legitimate government is legitimate only when all parties accept its legitimacy.
As I state before, I abhor violence and even more that which is directed to civilians or as a result of sectarianism. It is as reprehensible to attack combatants in populated areas, as it is for combatants to put the life of children at risk by giving them candy. When an American soldier gives a child kind, the child is virtually being used as a human shield. War is war and it turns people into heartless monsters; that is why it should be avoided at all cost. Heck, it should be outlaw!
Thanks Svejk for very objective and accurate assessment of the messy situation and Treasure’s “leaning”. I sure hope Treasure is just bias toward Shiites and not part of American propaganda, but we could never know could we?
Treasure pleas keep writing. I am sorry if I come across a little harsh. Unfortunately, I am not as diplomatic as Svejk.
Peace.
"I am sure not only the French, Germans, Russians, and the Chinese, but the whole world would be very happy to participate in a neutral multinational force."
ReplyDeleteHoney, where have you been the entire war? You think very very wrong! They were asked and they refused.
"...for combatants to put the life of children at risk by giving them candy."
Escuse me? What civilized person deliberately attacks troops who are mingling with children?
" not part of American propaganda"
O.K., biting my tongue here, trying to be polite. Don't know if it's working. Puh-leeze! Spare me THAT garbage! That is the pot calling the kettle black.
O.K., I've got to go before I get sick. Sorry Treasure.
Ok, I don’t know why I bother since it seems that some of you have no discerning or critical thinking skills. I will only address one of you previous comment in regards to French, German, Russian, and Chinese refusal to participate in the war because I have no intention in wasting my time with people who obviously lack analytical thought.
ReplyDelete“Honey, where have you been the entire war? You think very very wrong! They were asked and they refused”
THE REFUSE BECAUSE IT WAS AN ILLEGAL WAR OF AGGRESSION! There were no WMD’s and no Al-Qaeda connection before the war and they new it. What I am trying to communicate to you is that if all Iraqi parties involved in the conflict were to agree in a multinational force that they themselves approve and not one that is imposed on them, the possibility of finding solution to the quagmire created by the Americans is tangible. In other words, I believe that not only France, Germany, Russia, and China; but the whole world would be very willing to fix the mess already created by the Americans who would not listen to them in the first place.
Please think before you write!
Peace
PS I really don’t know why I bother.
By "maybe BT leans a little Shiite", I don't mean to provide ammunition to anyone who wants to question our host's motives. I "lean a little Lutheran" even though I haven't been in church for many years; I don't think that clouds my judgment (much).
ReplyDeleteFor Lynette, others were indeed asked to participate in an invasion for which they felt there was insufficient grounds, and others have been asked to participate since, under terms that are increasingly unacceptable to those who went along in the first place. Those who felt there were insufficient grounds have not seen anything to change their minds since.
When armies wipe out swaths of civilians in an effort to get a few insurgents/terrorists/whatevers, they call it "collateral damage", and explain that the enemy was using "human shields", so it was unavoidable. Let's agree to oppose both.
Guppyvara,
ReplyDeleteI was not referring to participation in the invasion. I was referring to the idea of setting up a multinational force after the invasion occurred. That idea was nixed very adamantly by your favorite countries.
"I believe that not only France, Germany, Russia, and China; but the whole world would be very willing to fix the mess already created by the Americans"
Then you are naive. They were certainly not willing to fix the "mess" that Saddam created. In fact they gave a good imitation of using Iraq to further their own economic agenda. As to why you bother, I have often wondered that myself, of people like you.
Perhaps you should think about who is really spreading propaganda before YOU write.
Svejk,
"...others have been asked to participate since, under terms that are increasingly unacceptable"
This is true. Iraq is not for the fainthearted. It is a very dangerous place that takes alot of courage for people to become involved with.
"swaths"
Interesting word. Implying any number of people. The deaths or injuries of civilians are always a tragedy. But to imply that we do not care is about as accurate as saying you and Guppyvara are unbiased and accurate observers of this war.
"Let's agree to oppose both."
I oppose ANY death or injury to innocent people. Those people who attack our forces are, in my book, NOT innocent, btw.
I am rather curious as to how you would oppose a terrorist? Also, how you would have dealt with Saddam?
Dear Svejk,
ReplyDeleteI know you are a very objective and centered individual. I know perfectly what you meant by “maybe BT leans a little Shiite”. Please don’t feel that I am saying that Treasure is an extremist or that I am utilizing your words to justify my points. I am just stating the obvious and the possibilities and you as an objective individual can see that indeed treasure leans a little Shiite (I am restating your statement in the same spirit you made it). We all have prejudices and biases and our statements should be balanced against them. The reason why there are debates concerning different point of view is precisely to find where the truth lies, but if one is quashing decent with name-calling and distortion of truth there is no progress.
I hope no one thinks of you as a radical terrorist supported just because you stated the obvious.
Peace
I'm sorry but this "I had to join the Baath party, I had no choice" sounds eerily familiar. Where have I heard this before? Oh, I know. After WWII, EVERY German said "Oh, I didn't WANT to be a NAZI, I had no choice...." It seems that no one was responsible for anything that happened under the nazis.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say that if a student wanted their masters degree so that they could get a better job and better income, they had no "choice" but to join the baath party, you are not being entirely honest. The student certainly had a choice, eschew the advanced degree and the higher paying job that went with it in favor of, oh, I don't know, how about their conscience?
I just don't buy this excuse.
What America has done is replace one despot with a brand new set of despots. Of course the people must resist!
ReplyDeleteSo, you call a group of armed men going to an elementary school and rounding up half a dozen female teachers and then executing them in front of their students "resistance"? You call a suicide bomber smashing into a crowd of children outside a hospital who are being given food and candy by american soldiers "resistance"?
What is happening in Iraq is murder, it is not resistance.
If the Iraqis want the Americans to go home, the way to do that is quite simple. Elect a functioning government and stop blowing up innocent women and children. Then the American soldiers will leave.
Defending these murderers is despicable.
Dear Lynette,
ReplyDeleteThis idea you speak of I have never heard. If you have articles or websites that supports your statement, please make them public. If such “idea” ever existed, I much doubt the “idea” included the complete withdrawal of American troops and the agreement of all Iraqi parties involved in the conflict. Participating in the Iraq quagmire before or after the invasion with America at the helm is still participating in an illegal endeavor because the invader/occupier is still an aggressor.
How would I have dealt with Saddam? You mean with his WMD’s that did not exist, his al-Qaeda connection that did not exist, or the eminent threat he represented to the United States that did not exist? I would have done nothing about that since none of existed. If you mean the fact that he was a dictator, please read on.
You believe America needs to deal with all the despots in the world or only the once who have oil? If you believe America’s duty is to deal with all the despots of the world there are some that America supports currently. Why is not America dealing with them? We can site the case of Mr. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, former Taliban and al-Qaeda supported (by the way, remember that the Taliban and al-Qaieda were previously supported by the US). Don’t dare to think for a minute that Mr. Musharraf suddenly had a change of heart. The weasel is a survivor and knows when to switch sides. If you recall, Saddam was your man not long ago also. Why didn’t you deal with him when he was attacking Iran in your behave? How about some of the past despots like Pinochet, when did you deal with him? Should I remind you that the people of Chile move on from that dictatorship without the need of a destructive invasion? I am suggesting the creation of a NEUTRAL multination force because the country is so destabilized at this moment, not because I think the Iraqis are so incompetent that they cannot solve their own problems; otherwise, I believe they would have dealt with the problem sooner or later. But if you insist on a none native solutions, how about not helping the despot to assume power in the first place! So you see, the solution to messy situations like the Iraq war is not to create them in the first place. If the international community wanted change in Iraq it would have worked together to change it just like it did to change South Africa. Should I need to point out that murderous sanctions or a massive invasion was not necessary to end apartheid?
It is typical of defenders of aggression to ask a complex question to justify a barbaric solution. Changing political structures does not take place in a day or a three-week invasion. Don’t be simplistic. It took many decades to change South Africa and Chile. You can also count Spain in that group.
Let me state it once again: It was the people of South Africa, Chile, and Spain who changed the system and not an illegal foreign invasion.
Enlighten yourself a bit; go to http://www.fff.org/comment/com0303k.asp. This is an article write before the war talking about your solution to the Iraq problem.
I am sure that if you try, you can find many more websites and articles that will explain to you the “War Logic”.
No, I can not give you a point by point solution to the “Saddam Problem” because as I said before it is a complex problem and complex problems can not be solve in a blogger’s comment section, but I can tell you that it would have taken the sincere will of the international community and the end of sectarianism in Iraq for a change; however, if there would have been a change in government on which all parties agreed on; but that was not favorable to the US, the Iraqis would still in the situation they are now, wouldn’t they?
I don’t have time to address you question regarding terrorism. I would only say that is not so much a case of opposing terrorism as one of alleviating the causes for such a radical stand. Of course, you seem to be one of those that see the world in black and white and for you the answer is very simple: Kill Them All!
Peace
unfortunately the US opened Pandora’s Box
ReplyDeleteSo, you would prefer that Sadaam still be in power in Iraq and obtain the WMD that he was seeking and then use them, the result of which would be a large hole where Baghdad used to be.
Is this what you would have preferred to Sadaam being toppled?
treasure,
ReplyDeleteOkay, so you are against the 'occupation'. Would you prefer that Iraq still basked in the utopian light of Sadaam's gaze?
Okay, you want the US troops to leave. I am starting to agree. Bring the troops home and let the Iraqis kill each other in even larger numbers, which is exactly what will happen. Is that what you want?
Please give us a realistic alternative to what is being done now, and I will be the first to support it.
Please, real suggestions, no more rhetoric.
formation of a neutral multinational force never enters the debate
ReplyDeleteActually, the US begged the Arab world to supply this force and they resoundingly said NO!!!
So, who would you pick to make up this 'neutral, mutinational force'? The Dutch? The hippies wouldn't last five minutes. Some troops of the south american countries, they can't keep their own countries safe. China? Oh, they won't be neutral, they are fighting their own Islamist movement.
Can you suggest ANY countries that qualify as 'neutral' that have a military that won't get torn to pieces the moment they land?
Poetic*Prophecy
ReplyDeleteSpeaking now of the future, there is irony that so many desire to see into the future, when so few bother to look into the past, for it is the thoughts and deeds of the past and present which have and will determine your future.
Speaking now of specifics, one can see the emerging new humanity suffering along side their forebears, as the old ways of fear consume those who can not except the wonderful changes which come.
Although the new humanity suffers only in mind and body, for their heart and spirit has their full strength of soul to guide and carry them forth. They understand the nature of truth and how to continue without fear by choosing the path of love.
Those unable and unwilling to find the tolerance to cooperate and the compassion to understand are now leaving in great numbers, as many as one third or more decide to pursue the suicidal plunge of past fears, leading many more who trust them to join in their suffering and demise.
Nature is the weapon most employed, for the neglect of her warnings, bring season upon season in which she will display her intolerance for those who disrupt the balance and choose to walk the path of ignorance.
As the natural seeks balance and correctness for all*ways, so to will the physical and moral structure of man. False leaders, of which there are many, struggle to deny their quests for power. As each falls prey to the victims of their desires, truth shines forth as a beacon for the weary.
Clearing the ash and rubble of the past from each heart brings opportunity for all to build upon the fresh and fertile ground of change. Growing as one entity, each caring for the other, endless paths of interest and discovery are opened, which before were only dreams held back with fear.
Embracing an Age of Compassion, tolerance and higher purpose, the We*Men Race sets forth in honor of the millions of extraordinary and ordinary souls who choose to disavow fear and allow the purpose of love to direct their efforts of healing heart, home, environment and the family of life.
Speaking now of the future, one has only to embrace the truth for s’he accepts all which accept he’r, poetic justice.
©Bruce Larson*Moore
Love*Rulz (Available on DVD ;)
www.timeless-ink-press.com
Lynette, what do you think of Fallujah, Tal Afar, and a handful of other similar operations?
ReplyDeleteI personally think that targetting a hospital should, and will, have negative repercussions for those who did it, and I admit that I have a soft spot in my heart for the image of American soldiers handing candy to kids (you're right; I'm not unbiased, but who is?). The aforementioned US operations, whatever the truth of them, have caused problems for us, too.
"How would I deal with a terrorist" is a fairly vague question. bin Laden? Ocalan? Arafat? Begin? Saddam? All terrorists, using the weapon of terror in different ways, for different reasons, and all "dealt with" in different ways.
I think the specific "how would I deal with Saddam" is not all that unreasonable a question, and those of us who opposed the invasion should have something to say. "Not invade" is not really an answer by itself. The US was extremely involved in Iraq without the invasion, through severe sanctions, massive oil-for-food corruption, and weapons inspections.
The results? (1) Saddam had no military or weapons of any significant power. During the invasion, the Iraqi army managed to sputter a couple of rockets into the sand of Kuwait. (2) Iraq was hurting for medical supplies, and a LOT of people died (do a google search for "albright sanctions" for her choice quote). (3) Meanwhile, Saddam himself was raking in money from the oil-for-food program.
Just continuing that set of policies cannot be considered a good moral decision, can it? I personally believe they could have been modified to improve the flow of medical supplies, etc, while cutting off the money supply to Saddam, but I admit, there were formidable political obstacles in the way (all of them involving a lot more desire for money than Iraqi well-being).
I left out the "just stop the sanctions" option favored by many, because I'm enough of a neoliberal (same thing as neocon, more or less, but I like the sound better) to think we could have used our power for good, even though it really was none of our damned business, anyway.
FightForYourFreedom,
ReplyDeleteIf you just scroll upwards, you'll find what I wrote to Original Jeff…
"I am one of those who are really against the occupation but did not say I want the US forces to leave soon because I know this would cause a civil war and the Iraqi army won’t be able to control the country."
"I'm sorry but this "I had to join the Baath party, I had no choice" sounds eerily familiar. Where have I heard this before? Oh, I know. After WWII, EVERY German said "Oh, I didn't WANT to be a NAZI, I had no choice...." It seems that no one was responsible for anything that happened under the nazis."
ReplyDeleteLadies and gentlemen, this is the first time in my life I feel compelled to defend anything that happened in Nazi Germany.
fightforyourfreedom, before you voice opinions like the above, please do your homework.
Of course there were people back in Nazi Germany who freely followed the ideology and later claimed they had no choice. And there were those in high positions (academical or otherwise) who did not join the NSDAP, but that was a very dangerous gamble. Because, you see, they were very often killed for not joining the party.
My grandfather was an Ortsbauernführer back when the Nazis came to power. I dunno how to properly translate that. He had quite some land and he was the leader of the farmers of the village. He refused to join the party, but that was only possible because the man in the position right above him protected him. This could not have gone on indefinitely, and if the Russian invasion hadn't "solved" my grandfather's problem for him, he would have had to join the party anyway or pack up his family and get the hell out of Dodge.
Now, I am proud of his refusal to join the party (plus a couple of other things he did), but I could not have blamed him if he had not been willing to gamble the life of his family for his personal believes.
Yes, Treasure's and Hassan's remarks reminded me too of Nazi Germany. Which is why I'll suspend my jugdement until the day I've seen some well-founded information on how likely your survival was if you refused to join the Al-Baath Party under Saddam.
Fightforyourfreedom,
ReplyDeletePut yourself in this situation. You are 15 year old, in highschool. The principle is a high level member of the Baath Party, and the school is called "The school of Dinstinguished Students" meaning I was one of the very best students in Baghdad. Now let us see, one day someone dressed in military uniform comes into the classroom and closes the door behind him. He says that he have forms he wants the students to fill, they are to join the Baath party, he says "I know you all want to join". Now, let us see, will you tell him that you won't join. I do not think you will. Actually one of the students did say that he doesn't want to join, when the man asked him why, he tried to say that his partents wouldn't approve, but the man immediatly asked for his contact information, when the student refused to give them, he said that he can easily get them from the papers in the principal's office, and this was true. Then the poor scared student ended up signing the paper too.
Now put yourself in my place, I don't think, actually I know you would have signed if you were instead of me.
I just don't buy this excuse.
Excuse?? I will not make excuses, not to you anyway. Do you know why, because I am IRAQI. I lived through all THAT and you didn't. I live through THIS and you don't. I will not make any excuses to anyone outside Iraq. I will only make excuses to Iraqis.
Dear Melantryes,
Do you know why Al-Sadr is so famous. Because his father was killed by Al-Baath party. And do you know why he was killed. Beacuse he too refused to join the Baath party. If they dared kill a very well known Shite relegion man, what chances do the Average Iraqis have???
Hassan,
ReplyDeleteI agree with nearly everything you have written BTW.
"Then the poor scared student ended up signing the paper too.
Now put yourself in my place, I don't think, actually I know you would have signed if you were instead of me. "
The USA is there to STOP and PREVENT "any" kind of this oppression. I would hope that normal Iraqis would realize this.
Why is it then, and it's a good question, that certain Iraqis, Najma ("I say it now clearly: I'm with the Mujahid") included, don't seem to notice this position of the USA?
Do they really WANT a return to the "values" of the Saddam days? Or... do they think that the immediate removal of USA forces will result in a nice, comfortable, safe, and new Iraq?
If the USA is there to "support" your freedom, can Iraqis call them "occupiers" even if they are now currently asked by an elected Iraqi congress to stay?
What kind of Iraq do the Iraqis truly want?
That's the question the entire world is asking of you now.
One thing is forever certain. Iraq will NOT become another Afghanistan, a haven state for terrorists. If this happens, you may not like us now, but you surely will not like us then.
Guppyvara,
ReplyDeleteThe withdrawal of all American forces? Of course not. Why on earth would we trust people like
thisalone in Iraq?
This
and
this is what I was referring to.
"the agreement of all Iraqi parties involved in the conflict."
LOL! Yeah, right! You ARE joking aren't you? That's like getting AMERICANS to agree on something!
"You mean with his WMD’s that did not exist"
And what exactly happened to the people of Halabja?
"You believe America needs to deal with all the despots in the world..."
Personally? No. It would be rather nice if the international community pitched in a little.
"Why is not America dealing with them?"
Why are not you?
"Why didn’t you deal with him when he was attacking Iran in your behave?"
My, you really think Saddam did that just for us? I didn't know he was that altruistic.
"but I can tell you that it would have taken the sincere will of the international community"
You are absolutely right. And apparently some of them did NOT have the will to help the people of Iraq. They preferred the status quo, because they had their own agenda.
"Kill Them All!"
No, dear, not all. But I would seriously consider it for those who deliberately target civilians by bombing markets and funeral tents. Perhaps you would be more likely to "kiss and make up", but I admit I would have a problem with that, with those kinds of people.
Peace without justice is not peace.
Svejk,
ReplyDelete"The aforementioned US operations, whatever the truth of them, have caused problems for us, too."
Sometimes you are caught between a rock and a hard place, Svejk. There is a book out by Bing West, "No True Glory-A Frontline Account of the Battle for Fallujah". You may want to think about reading it for another perspective on Fallujah than given in the MSM. No, we are not perfect by any means, but we are not the monsters portrayed by the left-wing media. The problem is that there are two sides to every story and many people don't like to hear both. I admit to being pissed off when I read someone's comment about the US military using civilians(children?!) as human shields. Absolutely ridiculous statement.
"those of us who opposed the invasion should have something to say."
That is your right. But equally, those of us who supported the invasion should be listend to as well. I am not a war lover. But I feel that the removal of Saddam was necessary and that the sanctions were only hurting the people of Iraq and not Saddam. As apparently so do you.
"to think we could have used our power for good, even though it really was none of our damned business, anyway."
LOL! I agree with you on this.
The problem is that there are two sides to every story
ReplyDeleteyes and it is especially a problem when we have a concerted effort to counter any negative news that may not shine favorably on the occupation to create a 'balance' whether it is true or not. this is why our pentagon sets up the rapid response to counter any comments that do not promote a party line. this is not balance, not when the results have an agenda other than the truth.
Sometimes you are caught between a rock and a hard place
and sometimes you are a lying war criminal