When people’s lives, souls and blood have no value in the eyes of their leaders, one should not be surprised by all the slaughter, killings and kidnappings. When all what they care about is fighting each other instead of being united, one should not expect progress. When greed and hatred filled their heart instead of possessing the sense of camaraderie, one should not have any hope any time soon.While reading the always-bad news this morning, I read yet another article about another political group in
We all know that the current Iraqi government is nothing but a piece of rock thrown at people to hurt them. Have you imagined being hit by a rock without being hurt? What kind of democracy is this when every now and then we see one of the “political blocs” announcing boycott without paying attention to the hundreds of innocents killed by day, the hundreds of thousands being displaced, and the millions who fled the atrocities of the war. When we heard of democracy, we thought those who would come to power were supposed to keep our unity stronger, not weaken it by greed and fights which reached the extent of slapping fights at the Parliament headquarters.
The game of withdrawal from the parliament and the government has become very easy as if it is a video game where players sit on their sofas and use the joystick to move their characters as they like. First, there were the illiterate, uneducated, terrorist and fanatic Sadrists. Now we have the terrorist, hateful, insurgency-booster Tawafuq. But our life is no game. It’s reality. It’s people with flesh and blood.
Have all the political blocs seen how seventy people were killed just in
That’s it. I talked a lot about this failure government and parliament, but no one is listening. All the efforts of good people are gone. All the patience and strong will Iraqi possessed gone unappreciated, and all the hopes of a new democratic
For now, let’s count the dead. The number is increasing, the horror became more terrifying and life became miserable for everyone living there. Hopefully, none of the Paradise-seekers-vacationists come back to their seats. If that happened, I would be more than happy to not to look back. I would look straight for the future and for the right people to run the country, and tell those behind me: GOOD RIDDANCE.
Allawi, oh Allawi where fore art thou?
ReplyDeleteHmmm ... I wonder how many of the recent political moves have been to try and scuttle this government in the hopes of starting a different one.
You do know, BT, Iran said it does not recognize Allawi and wants him barred from any political discussions WITHIN Iraq.
Peculiar that Iran would make such a statement unless it knew something.
Will they try and assassinate him?
I'm tellin' ya- Maliki should call a new election for the end of this year.
ReplyDeleteThe provincial elections are due by the end of the year anyway, aren't they?
More and more it seems the solution will come from the bottom up (local to national level).
TAI, you like Allawi?
BT, I agree with your good riddance to the Iraqi Parliament. These MPs are not working to serve their country or Iraqi people. I wish there could be a new election now.
ReplyDeleteI am curious, do you ever watch the British Prime Minister's question time on CSPAN? I have been so impressed for years by the fact that the Prime Minister goes to the House of Commons and answers the questions of MPs. Its like the Prime Minister is directly accountable to the people of England when you hear the questions and answers. It makes me wish that the U.S. President had to face the same accountability! I imagine Bush facing question time and answering with his stupid responses as if he were actually Lil' Bush. It would be a circus!
"by the end of the year"
ReplyDeleteRhusLancia,
Too far! It should be NOW. Seriously. There is no time.
TAI,
I used to be a strong believer in Allawi, but seeing him doing nothing, not even attending the Parliament session to prove his points as a MP, I feel he let me and most seculars down. maybe I am wrong because he is no longer backed by the US adm which is supporting the Maliki's fanatic groups and he fell in the trap of being unable to do anything. I don't know. I am torn. I don't even know who is going to take us to the safe side.
No time ... is right, BT.
ReplyDeleteRhuslancia, yes and no.
I talked with a few Iraqis when I was in Syria and Jordan. Spoke with others in the region. Checked with my family elders, other bloggers.
All came to the same conclusion (most did): Allawi is the LEAST bad of the bunch.
Seriously, I am like BT, a tad torn. I hate Allawi for supporting the invasion and riding in on a tank, but Iraq needs solutions not grievances.
Therefore, I begrudingly support him. If Iran is against him, then there has to be a reason.
He is Baathist (once a Baathist always a Baathist), a secular Shia, has good ties with Sunnis and MAY have the ear of some resistance groups (I will write about this later).
Point in fact, he was "shoed" when he visited Najaf during his tenure.
Tells you something.
Still, he is culpable for the destruction of Falluja.
On my blog, I have documented how Maliki could not assure his security followed a week later by Iran's threats.
Right now, in my support of the Iraqi resistance I also stand firmly against Iran, Saudi Arabia, Al-Qaeda and Islamic extremism.
Why does the US continue to support Maliki? Because he was "democratically" elected?
Not true, no Iraqi ever went to the ballot box to mark yes or no for Maliki (a plebiscite) or mark which candidates they wanted.
Iraqis voted for lists. Tragic implementation of some twisted understanding of democracy.
Can we all agree this track has failed?
I think it is arrogance which leads Bushco to support Maliki. They do not want to admit they made a mistake.
Or that they handed Iraq to Iran.
Frack.
"I hate Allawi for supporting the invasion and riding in on a tank, but Iraq needs solutions not grievances."
ReplyDeleteTAI,
I don't hate Allawi. And also don't think that I would hate because he supported the invasion. He did what he had to do. The invasion was the only way to get rid of Saddam. So I don't really care whether he was on a US tank or even carrying the Israeli flag on his shoulder. All I care about is that he should do something to make Iraqis live in peace, go to school, get electricity and clean water and have some freedom of speech. The fight against Israel and America has brought nothing to our country, but destruction. If we shook hands with America and Israel, we would have been better than Dubai.Look at their friends and compare, simple comparison.
"no Iraqi ever went to the ballot box to mark yes or no for Maliki (a plebiscite) or mark which candidates they wanted."
I totally agree. People did not vote for him. They voted for his slate which deceived people by putting Sistani's picture as if he was God ordering people to vote for them. freaks.
See, we should blame those who voted for these criminals as well. It's people's fault as well. Instead of letting their minds decide whom to vote for, they let it vote for a religions man. They knew nothing about democracy. That's why the elections should have been delayed for a few years. During these years, it was better for the Americans to teach people what democracy means through TV and NGOs. You can't just come and say here you go, take democracy as if it's a piece of candy. It is not, it is a destiny of a country.
Allawi is being interviewed on Aljazeera as I write this BT.
ReplyDeleteHe looks so much more of a statesman than that na3al Maliki.
He just told Iran to butt out of Iraqi affairs.
Leila Shaikhli tried to ask him who he believed Iran's agents in Iraq were. She asked him if Hakim was an agent.
He avoided answering.
He said that if the US is negotiating with Iran over Iraq it means there is serious Iranian influence in Iraq.
He said Iran entered Iraq after the destabilization that was wrought by the invasion.
He said Iran should answer to the UN, not the US, about how it is helping in preventing bloodshed in Iraq. Nice, but not practical.
I do not want to do on the spot translation right now, but will dig up the transcript later.
BT, I don't think I would have supported Allawi even if he carried an Israeli flag. Their are some lines in the sand, as the saying goes, that should not be crossed.
Have you read Faust?
Basically, this German thinker makes a pact with the devil in return for a number of things.
So too Nic Cage in the deplorable film Ghost Rider.
Or in the film Bedazzled.
History and literature are full of examples of people selling their souls for something. And getting duped in the end.
Let us for the sake of argument say that Saddam had to go by any means possible. Does the removal of one entity justify the use of a worse entity?
Saddam has been removed and replaced with ...?
Are we truly better off?
There is a saying: the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
Some say Saddam had to go, others say no, but in the end my quarrel has always been with HOW.
When I was in New York in 2002 speaking with various politicians and commentators, I always raised the question: Why does the US not speak of its post-invasion plan? You are planning for war, but who is planning for the peace? All this money about taking out Saddam this and that, but how about details of how you will rebuild schools and hospitals destroyed by US sanctions for 13 years?
Silence. There was no plan, BT. No plan to reconstruct Iraq at all. Just how to siphon our monies into silly reconstruction projects that never take off the ground but make a lot of US corporations richer and richer, oil companies fatter and fatter.
Today, YET another report about mismanagement:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/31/iraq.equipment.ap/index.html
$19.2 billion in military hardware is "missing" in Iraq. Hello Iran.
Or this: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12418115
The World Bank estimates adequately rebuilding Iraq's decrepit electrical grid will cost about $27 billion. The U.S. has spent $4 billion toward that goal. Baghdadis still only get an hour of power a day.
What inefficiency. What shame.
I am sick of this. The more it continues, the more the US stays in Iraq, the bigger the problems we have to face. Four years ago our bridges were intact. But what the US did not bomb in 1991-2003, their proxies managed to destroy in 2007.
If I were to sit and document everything that needs to be fixed, it would surely take me the rest of my life.
You and I and other bloggers write about various facets of Iraqi non-life. The pains and trials and tribulations, the deaths of loved ones, our frustrations at seeing our country dying.
But what we write is barely 1% of 1% of what is happening in Iraq.
But I do agree with you about the mess the voting system created and the lack of grassroots libertarian movements in Iraq.
These have sadly been trampled by the very politicos who have come to power by way of the so-called democratic process.
Nevertheless, there are thousands upon thousands of technocrats in Iraq who are well versed with democracy and could have explained it to other Iraqis.
It is not hard to tell someone what it feels like to be free.
Tie a dog to a tree for a day and watch it go insane trying to break free of its shackles.
The human condition is such that there is a natural propensity towards freedom and liberty.
(Dogs are freer today than Iraqis, by the way)
(I would rather the European models of democracy than America's - much less fanfare, much more seriousness, much less Hollywood burlesque of the candidates, and a lot less money squandered)
But not at any cost, you are right. And just as the human body and mind take time to evolve and mature, so too must libertarian thinking in a society such as ours.
Unfortunately, fanaticism cloaked itself in the death shroud that democracy became in Iraq.
Your statement about Sistani is spot on. Democracy in Iraq was used as a means to an end, not the end itself.
And the end designed in Tehran and Qum was the systematic, slow destruction of our beloved country, our beloved people.
I do agree with you also about the fight against America and Israel bringing the Iraqis nothing.
That is basically because we stood our ground when others did not.
The Palestinians themselves shake hands with the Israelis as do the Lebanese, the Moroccans, the Saudis, on and on and on.
Which is why Iraq was and always will be the target of foreigners and Arab "brothers".
We are a feared people, BT, you know that. You know the GCC fear us, not because of Saddam or despite him, but because they know how enterprising Iraqis are.
They know that Iraqis are determined, whether in fanaticism (sadly) or science and technology.
Our win at the Asia Cup is not a coincidence but by the sheer determination of young Iraqis willing to prove to the world we are not defeated, despite what has happened to us in the past four years, 17 years, 40 years.
And by the will of God, of course.
Yes, we could have been better than Dubai. No doubt about that. Funny how Dubai only became a household name once Iraq was drowning in the sanctions.
All the regional countries have benefited from our sorrows.
Allawi just said Iraq is worse off now than under Saddam.
ReplyDeleteHe blamed Saddam for the invasion of Kuwait (August 2, 1990).
He criticized Bush for denying that there is a civil war in Iraq.
This is a very insightful interview.
I like that an Iraqi interviewed him.
Fe Aman Allah she said at the end.
BT: "Too far! It should be NOW. Seriously. There is no time."
ReplyDeleteSounds good! But there would need to be time to plan it properly and to allow for campaigning and so on. Just announcing it "now" would help some.
Thanks, TAI. I'm not "against" Allawi or anything, but I've heard other bloggers call him a "plotter" and I was a little surprised at your support since he's "our guy".
TAI: "Can we all agree this track has failed?"
The "Elections" track? Or this particular government? Actually I would disagree on both counts, but more strongly on the first.
First, Iraqis increased their participation with each successive ballot in 2005- from the initial Sunni boycott to the very good turnout in December. Now we have some new parties like the "Awakening" and even the insurgents. Let's have another election.
Second, Maliki's lackluster performance is due to several things not entirely in his control: continued attacks on innocents, gov't employees & security forces, infrastructure; bickering, infighting, and posturing in the political arena; and lack of wide support from the populace. The last is what we're seeing here. He's no magician, and he has some serious obstacles to what he needs to do. Of course I wish he'd do better, and do "the right thing" as far as I see it. But I emphathize with what he's up against. Even Saddam would need a strong and loyal army who could & would crush dissent while an apathetic world did nothing. All you have now is the apathetic world.
Under similar conditions, a "dictatorship" would not necessarily be any better. Nor would a "tree stump" be any worse.
BT: "It's people's fault as well. Instead of letting their minds decide whom to vote for, they let it vote for a religions man."
I get that impression too. At least to me it seems many Iraqis voted for whomever their imam told them to. The secular parties didn't do so well (ie Allawi). But I think Iraqis are ready to try again, and maybe some real statesmen would emerge. You're due. It's time to try again!
wow, excellent post and comments , there is so much here. getting rid of saddam was a means to and end, but democracy was not, nor has it ever been that end. the 'end' was opening up iraq to free enterprise which is all well and good to an extent but not at the expense of basic necessities that societies need to survive. had more attention been placed on the well being of the people, to get themselves secure and balanced after the invasion then a healthy society can and may choose this system. but democracy was force fed and done in a way that only allowed the kind of democracy accepted (the 'free enterprise' kind).here is an article about latin america and the results of decades of force fed 'democracy'.
ReplyDeleteanother important article US officials:Militias main threat to Iraq
Despite President Bush's recent insistence that al Qaida in Iraq is the principal cause of this country's violence, senior American military officers here say Shiite Muslim militias are a bigger problem, and one that will persist even if al Qaida is defeated.
da. this is where america gambled and failed miserably. they were so determined to eradicate the baath party they unleashed and allowed this cooperation w/iran that is a much bigger threat.
If we shook hands with America and Israel, we would have been better than Dubai
really? do outside foreign interests control dubai? has dubai ever had the resources of iraq ? iraq COULD be better off than dubai, but not w/the deals set in place by bearing pt, the US/IS was asking more than just 'shaking hands', much more indeed. me, i tend to agree w/the threat article. george cannot admit we have been supporting the iranian influence via the government in iraq, , he cannot admit this to the US public so this excuse of AQ being the largest threat to iraq when the largest threat is really the one we helped bring to power that i don't even think maliki could control if he wanted to.
there needs to be some sort of plan, lke the new deal we had here after WW2. but first there has to be a way to eradicate the threats harbored in the government forces aimed against the people, and lastly the AQ threat, which i think would melt away once a strong central government was formed, but it would have to be a government that wasn't against a threat to the people..
i don't think elections can solve anything right now because people are not unified except in their grief. i hope the parliament never comes back. i hope their is a coop. if allawi could bring stability i would be more than satisfied for now. beggars can't be choosers, and i am a beggar wrt iraq. i want the killing to stop.
It's time to try again!
ReplyDeletewhy this overwhelming faith in democracy? if i was drowning in a swimming pool would you be offering me democracy? no, you would hand me a rope and pull me out. the US has no use for democracy when the people do not want what we have to offer so it is totally hypocritical to frame any legitimate solution in the guise of democracy. we have overthrown democratic governments in the past and we will do it again at the drop of a hat if 'the people' don't do things 'our way'.
iraq needs security, food, electricity, jobs, a whole score of things. 'democracy'/bush style is just another word for corporate takeover (i recommend this second article The Big Enchilada, sorry i wish i could link to the whole harper's piece but it is not available on line).
i don't think iraqis are in any position to be making these kinds of choices right now, for one thing there is probably great threat and fear in voting , second, their is nothing NOTHING, that can guarantee those elections would be fair, third, there is no guarentee a democratic result would be respected, forth, if iraqis wanted the US to leave, we wouldn't anyway so why pretend there is a choice?. iraq should hold elections when the results can be considered valid.
I was a little surprised at your support since he's "our guy".
until he isn't. then he is dead for sure. before he is 'ours' he is iraqs, let's hope anyway.
rhus But the book was written before Bush invented the rift for his own evil corporate designs!
ReplyDeletethis is a bit of rhus's snark from another thread that was not political so i did not want to comment on it there.
bush did not invent a 'riff' the 'riff' was there the way any scar from a wound is still around. the state department made very explicit warnings about the results that would likely occur from messing w/the stability in pre invasion iraq, so it is quite clear to everyone there was already a 'riff'. but, like an old scab the bremmer crowd exploited this 'riff', peeled back many layers and ignited, instigated and exacerbated a situation that could very well have been avoided. you know this, everyone knows this, why even the incoming chairman of the joint chiefs of staff knows this.
5. Pursued a de-Baathification process that proved more divisive than helpful, created a lingering vacuum in governmental capability that still lingers, and exacerbated sectarian tensions.
anyway, leave it to you to trivialize the contribution you and yours made to this fiasco and use this tension that has existed between sects and written about in the kite runner (70's afghanistan)to prove some point about a much more secular iraq in this century.
just saying Don't be fooled!
by you? never.
what an excellent book!
interesting, i recommend
ReplyDelete“Leila Shaikhli tried to ask him who he believed Iran's agents in Iraq were. She asked him if Hakim was an agent.
ReplyDeleteHe avoided answering.”
First flaw. If he really wants to rule Iraq, he should point out who the enemies of Iraq are.
“He said that if the US is negotiating with Iran over Iraq it means there is serious Iranian influence in Iraq.”
Total BS. We know pretty well that Iran and the US are long time enemies. They have been holding meetings since a long time ago and nothing has been achieved.
“He said Iran entered Iraq after the destabilization that was wrought by the invasion.”
Iran has entered Iraq from day one the US decided to invade. They had prepared for that with Hakim and Jaafari parties since then.
“He said Iran should answer to the UN, not the US, about how it is helping in preventing bloodshed in Iraq. Nice, but not practical.”
U what? UN? Oh! Is it still alive? Is it still there? I totally forgot it’s functioning. Maybe because they don’t deal with Iraq anymore.
“this German thinker makes a pact with the devil in return for a number of things.”
If my country’s interest lies by shaking hand with the devil himself, I am more than happy to do it.
“Saddam has been removed and replaced with ...?”
I think Saddam is something that we should not talk about anymore. He is one page in our one-thousand history book. We should think of how to fix whom to replace him with.
“Are we truly better off?”
We are not, but thinking about this at this time is no use. We should think of how to make ourselves better without him.
“Why does the US not speak of its post-invasion plan? You are planning for war, but who is planning for the peace?”
I think even right-wing Americans agree now that there were no good plans for the post-war Iraq.
“No plan to reconstruct Iraq at all”
Well, I wish my father were here to talk about it. He told me there was no electricity for five days in a row, there was no fuel to fill the generator. All what people did was sitting in the shitty hot weather in their homes.
“I am sick of this.”
Likewise.
“You and I and other bloggers write about various facets of Iraqi non-life. The pains and trials and tribulations, the deaths of loved ones, our frustrations at seeing our country dying.”
It’s gone useless, my friend. No one even cares anymore and even those who do, have no one to listen to them. Even here in America, American people are no longer being listened to by their leaders. The administration does what it only wants. As for our horrible government, nothing is good for them. Nothing fills their filthy tummies. Who cares?! Writing about what’s happening? Who cares? Speaking on TV? Who cares? Hold demonstration? Who cares?
“Nevertheless, there are thousands upon thousands of technocrats in Iraq who are well versed with democracy and could have explained it to other Iraqis.”
Who’s going to let them have it? Ha? Mino? Those whose religion is above their people?
“First, Iraqis increased their participation with each successive ballot in 2005- from the initial Sunni boycott to the very good turnout in December.”
Well, the elections succeeded and failed at the same time. It succeeded technically with numbers of people going out to vote. However, it failed when the wrong people were voted for. It failed when Shiites voted for the Shiite slate. It failed when the Sunnis voted for the Sunni vote. It failed because it was based on sectarian choice. It failed because it did not let people choose individual leaders. Instead, they voted for slates and not all members are good.
“Under similar conditions, a "dictatorship" would not necessarily be any better.”
Oh it would totally would. A new dictator would come to power, terrorize his enemies [insurgents and militias] first, execute them in public, make them a lesson to anyone who wants to commit crime and then ask people not mess up with him. Back to stability, back to schools, back to shopping peacefully without thinking of bombs going off in the street. See? It sounds terrible, I know. But that’s how it might need to be fixed. Maybe when the 2009 election won’t happen.
“But I think Iraqis are ready to try again”
They are not. I assure you. You don’t know what they are going through. Sorry to tell you that reading the news is not enough to know what people go through. It’s deeper than that. The morale of Iraqis, especially Baghdadis has fallen to zero.
“beggars can't be choosers, and i am a beggar wrt iraq.”
Annie, that sums up all what I wanted to say.
“iraq needs security, food, electricity, jobs, a whole score of things. 'democracy'/bush style is just another word for corporate takeover”
Let me put it this way. Iraq needs security, food, electricity, jobs, a whole score of things and then democracy should be implemented.
“there is nothing NOTHING, that can guarantee those elections would be fair,”
A very good point. Who’s going to monitor the elections? The invisible UN? Or the current government that wants the whole cake for them?
“until he isn't. then he is dead for sure. before he is 'ours' he is iraqs, let's hope anyway.”
I don’t think he is a US guy any more. Otherwise, he could have been supported by the US. He is not yet ours as well. We haven’t seen him doing something to help.
Democracy is not the problem in Iraq, annie. I do believe it is part of the solution. Yes I do.
ReplyDeleteannie: "i don't think iraqis are in any position to be making these kinds of choices right now"
Who should make the choices for them then? You? The "strongest" or "most violent"?
annie's cite: "Despite President Bush's recent insistence that al Qaida in Iraq is the principal cause of this country's violence, senior American military officers here say Shiite Muslim militias are a bigger problem, and one that will persist even if al Qaida is defeated."
Your cite makes two separate, distinct assertions. Doesn't it occur to you that both can be correct? Here, to clarify for you:
1) al Qaida in Iraq is the principal cause of this country's violence
2) Shiite Muslim militias are a bigger problem, and one that will persist even if al Qaida is defeated.
BT: "Oh it would totally would. A new dictator would come to power, terrorize his enemies [insurgents and militias] first, execute them in public, make them a lesson to anyone who wants to commit crime and then ask people not mess up with him."
ReplyDeleteHow would he come to power? Who would back him? How would he catch the insurgents and militias? Who would be his soldiers? His police? Would the insurgents and militias fight back, or not?
BT, you're talking about a magician, not a man that exists, or could exist.
"Dictatorship" by itself is not a magic solution any more than "democracy" by itself.
Look at our political situation here in the US, for example. It's a mess, right? So do we need a dictator? No, and no sane people are calling for that. No sane people are killing innocents or American gov't workers or American security forces or destroying American infrastructure. If they were, would we be calling for a dictatorship then? Some would, maybe, but they'd be wrong.
Dictatorship doesn't equal security any more than democracy equals chaos.
Like you say, point out who the real enemies are.
BT: "Well, the elections succeeded and failed at the same time. It succeeded technically with numbers of people going out to vote. However, it failed when the wrong people were voted for. It failed when Shiites voted for the Shiite slate. It failed when the Sunnis voted for the Sunni vote. It failed because it was based on sectarian choice. It failed because it did not let people choose individual leaders. Instead, they voted for slates and not all members are good."
ReplyDeleteDo you agree with my impression that Iraqis' votes were influenced by their imams? I think they'd choose differently now.
Anyway, it would have to be better than a dictator choosing himself, or grabbing power a'la al-Sadr.
Wouldn't it?
Hey! So, i just finished Kid's latest post, which is excellent, and I had an idea:
ReplyDeleteAppoint Younis Mahmoud PM!!
:)
“BT, you're talking about a magician, not a man that exists, or could exist.”
ReplyDeleteI didn’t say there IS such a man. I meant to say, if there is, stability would be back to Iraq. I don’t think there is such a man.
“"Dictatorship" by itself is not a magic solution any more than "democracy" by itself.”
In our case, I think it is.
“Look at our political situation here in the US, for example. It's a mess, right? So do we need a dictator?”
C’mon dude! This issue is incomparable. You have a stable country. You don’t have car bombs, kidnappings and killings for politicians to deal with.
“If they were, would we be calling for a dictatorship then?”
You might be. In our case, Iraqis need a tyrant. I know it’s hard to say it. I know it’s shameful to say it. But I am speaking the truth. Iraqis and Arabs cannot be dealt with unless there is a tyrant suffocating them.
In my opinion, the crappy justice system in Iraq is a mere BS. Don’t tell me you arrested insurgents or militias. Execute them, let others see how their fate will be if they do the same. We need martial laws in Iraq these days. Justice is something that can achieve nothing these days. You can’t achieve it simply because those who are running it are sectarian. OK, whom did they execute from the insurgents? The one who killed Mohammed Hakim. That’s what they care about. The one who killed the religious leader. What about those who killed my neighbor? What about those who killed my best friend’s mother? What about those who displaced all my relatives and kidnapped my uncle?
“Do you agree with my impression that Iraqis' votes were influenced by their imams?”
That’s what I already said! People hold part of the responsibility of the chaos they are facing.
“I think they'd choose differently now.”
How? 2 Millions have immigrated, hundreds of thousands have been displaced, the map of Baghdad is changed from mixed to Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods, fear becomes inside everyone’s heart, roads are barbed with bombs and militias and insurgents.
People were still fresh when they voted for the first two times.
Rhus,
ReplyDeleteListen, some friendly advice. Please understand that BT and I and others understand our situation far, far better than you can.
That is not to insult you. Far from it, it is merely to point out that someone brought up and living in Des Moines is more likely to understand Des Moines than a person from Anah.
I can sense BT's frustration time and again as he explains things over and over.
I happen to agree with what he said about dictatorship. Unfortunately, at the present time, we need martial law. We need punishment. We need a strict regimen like we had during Saddam's time.
Only through a dictator who is willing to enforce the law will Iraq be returned to lawfulness.
It is a sad fact that many view Saddam's time to be far safer than today. Rather than progress and develop, Iraq has regressed.
There is a REAL fear that Iraq will become Afghanistan, with sectarian fanatical freak militias playing the role of the Taliban.
BT wants justice for those who killed his loved ones and friends.
As do I. I want the person who killed my neighbor in Mosul to be brought to justice.
He was killed because he stood in his doorway in shorts.
THIS is the new Iraq.
The more desperate people in Iraq, the more likely they will trade everything for a little security.
And please, no more democracy. That has ONLY worked to increase Iran's influence in Iraq.
I and others warned of this years ago and we were called terrorists, yada, yada, yada.
Only now is it unfolding exactly as we predicted.
BT, I have no idea how Allawi, or someone like him can come into power. Maybe a coup d'etat by way of Saddam's former generals, technocrats, army working with Allawi.
I will post a discussion I had, quite coincidentally, with someone who says he is mid-level figure in the resistance.
He had interesting things to say about Allawi.
BT!
ReplyDeleteToday Allawi talked of a greater UN role in Iraq.
Then you questioned whether he had the support of the US or not.
Then I find this:
The US and the UK have circulated a new draft resolution to United Nations Security Council members giving the UN a more heavyweight role in Iraq.
If adopted, the UN would take a larger role in its political process.
The existing UN mission in Iraq has had a low-key presence ever since a truck bomb devastated its headquarters in Baghdad in August 2003.
Diplomats say a vote on any resolution by 10 August, when the existing mandate for the UN's mission in Iraq expires.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6927106.stm
Say wha-?
... this can't be a coincidence, could it?
Hmmmm ....
BT: "I didn’t say there IS such a man. I meant to say, if there is, stability would be back to Iraq. I don’t think there is such a man."
ReplyDeleteAlright, alright- you can dream. But so can I! But when I discuss things, for the most part I try to be realistic.
BT: "Execute them, let others see how their fate will be if they do the same."
But BT, that is what the resistance on the one hand and the militias on the other is doing. Summary executions. They certainly think they are doing the right thing by this. And the gov't executes you-know-who himself and "some people" pitch a fit. There has to be justice. Like everything it needs to improve, but there has to be justice.
Me: “I think they'd choose differently now.”
BT: "How? 2 Millions have immigrated, hundreds of thousands have been displaced, the map of Baghdad is changed from mixed to Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods, fear becomes inside everyone’s heart, roads are barbed with bombs and militias and insurgents.
People were still fresh when they voted for the first two times."
Exactly, BT- for all the violence, MOST Iraqis want none of it. They are not in the fight. So, I think they'd choose differently now. They wouldn't listen to their imams only. Maybe a Sunni would vote for a Shia and so on, if they thought he or she had the better ideas. I think Iraqis are ready to think for themselves. They've seen the disasters that the power-hungry bring. Also, how can we find the competent statesmen if only one dictator at a time gets the reigns?
OK, if Iraqis got behind a dictator en masse things would improve right away. But if they got behind an elected parliament and PM just as well they would improve just as quickly. Why not pick the better system long-term?
BT: "C’mon dude! This issue is incomparable. You have a stable country. You don’t have car bombs, kidnappings and killings for politicians to deal with."
Exactly, BT! A LOT of people hate our government A LOT more than they hate your elected gov't. The same people cheerleading and apologizing for the violence the Iraqi resistance is causing are NOT advocating violence in the US. Think about it.
TAI: "Listen, some friendly advice. Please understand that BT and I and others understand our situation far, far better than you can."
ReplyDeleteOK, thanks man.
And some back to you: if you complain about the chaos, violence, kidnapping, lack of services, refugee crisis, and so on, but then sing the praises of the 'resistance', whose actual actions are causing these things, in the very next breath, then you can no longer silence your opposition based on your country of origin alone. Then, you are off your pedestal and you have to beat your opposition thru the strength and presentation of your ideas. I wish you luck in this, and crack my knuckles.
TAI: "Unfortunately, at the present time, we need martial law. We need punishment. We need a strict regimen like we had during Saddam's time."
Yet when you are given 160k troops who are non-sectarian and non-Persian and trying to stabilize your country, you turn on them and pee yourself with glee when harm comes to them. What a mind-intercourse.
I also think that new elections asap would be a good idea.
ReplyDeleteOne needs to put the blame where it belongs ...
ReplyDeleteThe individuals behind the violence
and those who give support to them are to blame ... on both sides.
If Shia death squads are being
assisted by the government then this obviously must end ...
But so must the support for this
"insurgency" ... are the Sunni politicians who quit behind the insurgency ???
1) This is not Bush's Democracy ...
Maliki came into power through
A constitution which was ratified by the Iraqi voting public
All this talk and all these viewpoints coming from iraqi bloggers with internet conections
Ok ... but what do the huge masses of people who voted for the "Shia List"
think right now about Maliki??
Do they want him gone ???
I mean these Ashura celebrations
are pretty damn impressive ...
a lot of people involved in them ... are their voices being heard ????
2) Allawi did not receive much support from the insurgents when he was temporary PM ...
Unless there have been secret negotiations that the insurgents
will stop if Allawi is PM then
this is also a wrong track to take.
Iraqi military is not strong enough
for a coup ... all indications
are that the police in major cities
are sectarian ... the army not
much stronger then the police at this point in time ....
And one can not even be sure the military will unify behind
say a couple of decent Generals.
So military rule even if benevolent
to the average Iraqi and if declared as temporary probably will
not work either.
The safest path is still to try and bring peace through the existing government and political process ... yes its difficult
yes too many people are being killed ... but the electoral process needs to be respected to build the future of the country ...
Iraq is just starting this process... to those involved its obviously excruciatingly slow
with many setbacks.
3) What Maliki can do is call the parliament back to work next week ... He needs to be a leader
and now is a good time ....
4) This Sunni party must also
re-join and negotiate in good faith ... simply submitting a list of demands and then quitting
because Maliki does not cave is not
a legitimate political move
5) As I have said before ...
Maliki can float the idea
of new elections say this January ... with his resignation ... BUT he needs to get something back ... and that is an end to the violence ...
Civilian casulaties need to drop drastically ... a deal can be cut
that only Iraqi Army can do
searches and sweeps AFTER the agreement is made ... the idea being ...
a)admit problems of existing government ....
b)Set date for new elections ...
c)limit American military involvement
with Iraqi civilians ...
BUT
d)These insurgent attacks MUST STOP
That would be a fair compromise
at this point in time.
"
ReplyDeletethere. Hopefully, none of the Paradise-seekers-vacationists come back to their seats. If that happened, I would be more than happy to not to look back. I would look straight for the future and for the right people to run the country, and tell those behind me: GOOD RIDDANCE.
"
Dear freind the only problem is
your idea of the "right people"
will differ from others
idea of the "right people" ...
and on and on ... this is the problem in a country with such
diverse views ....
how are the "right people"
determined/chosen ????!!!!
What are the current security restrictions on these Gas tanker trucks??
ReplyDeleteCan gas stations be filled at night
and then tanker trucks banned
during the day time preventing
civilian casualties.
And if gas stations need deliveries
mid day because they run out can there be an organized stipulated
time say Noon- 3PM when gas stations are closed for delivery
so people are not waiting in line when a gast truck pulls in ???
The point being ... These al-queda
types are embedded in Iraq ... they are going to be difficult to deal with for many years ...
Iraqs major cities need to begin
designing long term security
programs which will cut down
on the number of people killed.
Say requiring that all trucks
be parked in designated areas
and searched and secured and guarded every night ...
Same for mini-busses this ugly threat will be with Iraqi for many years ... there is no silver bullet
to eliminate people who will simply
bomb innocents ... long term security strategy must be undertaken and implemented soon
how are the "right people"
ReplyDeletedetermined/chosen ????!!!!
well, they obviously are not chosen by elections.
The same people cheerleading and apologizing for the violence the Iraqi resistance is causing are NOT advocating violence in the US. Think about it.
huh? why don't you check out bill o'reilly's comment section if you want to hear about people inciting/advocating violence. or ann coulter. the pillars of the gop advocate violence and the right wing make heros out of those advocating harsh punishments for dissidents.
if you complain about the chaos, violence, kidnapping, lack of services, refugee crisis, and so on, but then sing the praises of the 'resistance', whose actual actions are causing these things, in the very next breath,
still got the same drumbeat? rhus, you need to get a grip w/the blame. many 'actual actions' have caused these things, you fail to see the contribution of those you support in this participation. you are so bent on being right you cannot see the forest from the trees..you don't belive me? let me give you a little lesson in democracy ...
remember chiquita? formerly the United Fruit Co., which with the help of its former lawyer, Sec of State John Dulles, and his brother Allen Dulles’ CIA overthrew the democratically elected president of Guatemala, Guzman, in 1954. Colombian Nobel Laureate Gabriel GarcÃa Márquez wrote in his classic “One Hundred Years of Solitude” about the 1928 Santa Marta massacre of striking United Fruit banana workers: “When the banana company arrived ... the old policemen were replaced by hired assassins.”
anyway, back to the present..washington post today has a story about chiquita paying terrorists for 'protection'. cough. you can hardly tell by the headline the gist of the story..
On April 24, 2003, a board member of Chiquita International Brands disclosed to a top official at the Justice Department that the king of the banana trade was evidently breaking the nation's anti-terrorism laws.
i'm shocked. shocked. but reading further you find out this was 'voluntarily' disclosed only after the columbian government intervened. prior to that our justice department turned a blind eye, natch.
Chiquita, Hills said, would have to pull out of the country if it could not continue to pay the violent right-wing group to secure its Colombian banana plantations. Chertoff, then assistant attorney general and now secretary of homeland security, affirmed that the payments were illegal but said to wait for more feedback, according to five sources familiar with the meeting.
oh my! wait for more feedback? can you imagine... big oil company gets caught funding AQ who it pays for protection and the AG who has to 'wait for more feedback' gets promoted to head of homeland security???
the Bush administration was pulled in competing directions, perhaps because its desire to avoid undermining a newly elected, friendly Colombian government conflicted with its frequent public assertions that supporting a terrorist group anywhere constitutes a criminal offense and a foreign policy mistake.
in other words, we support terror when it works in favor of our economic (cough, national) interests.
the cash was going to a violent South American group helping a major U.S. company maintain a stabilizing presence in Colombia.
yeah, when we do it, it is 'stabilizing' An Organization of American States report in 2003 said that Chiquita participated in smuggling thousands of arms for paramilitaries into the Northern Uraba region, using docks operated by the company to unload thousands of Central American assault rifles and ammunition.
Iguaran, whose office has been investigating Chiquita's operations, said the company knew AUC was using payoffs and arms to fund operations against peasants, union workers and rivals. At the time of the payments, AUC was growing into a powerful army and was expanding across much of Colombia and, according to the Colombian government, its soldiers killed thousands before it began demobilizing.
this is what iraq has to look forward to when our troops leave. the blackwater/titan mercenaries and their affiliates will be operating on the behalf of our corporations to bring a 'stabalization' to iraq.
how are the "right people"
determined/chosen ????!!!!
some board members right now are mulling over that. it has nothing to do w/democracy.
Your cite makes two separate, distinct assertions. Doesn't it occur to you that both can be correct?
ReplyDeleteoh my god rhus, the chips are all falling into place! thank you for illuminating w/such clarity. ok, so AQ is the most violent, shia miltias constitute the biggest threat, and according to you the 'actual actions' of the resistance are the cause of' the chaos, violence, kidnapping, lack of services, refugee crisis, and so on, '
phew! ok, the cause is the resistance.....the violence is AQ, and the lasting greatest threat are the shia militias.
thanks rhus, i couldn't have figured this out all by myself. without your skillfull framing we might all be wallowing in reality.
Hey BT,
ReplyDeleteI know where you're coming from and i tend to agree with you on most of what you are saying. But one of the biggest problems iraq is facing is the evil militias which have not yet been disbanded, but rather are a legal part of the country's police force. One of Tawafuq's reasons for quitting Maliki's gov't is his failure to demand the disbanding of the militias. By quitting the gov't , they are saying, we are not responsible for the deaths that occur b/c of the militia's existence. Rather, they are trying to force him to remove this evil.
I'm not optimistic that their demonstration will lead to much, but I do hope things don't continue to descend to hell on earth.
Hi Fatima,
ReplyDelete"By quitting the gov't , they are saying, we are not responsible for the deaths that occur b/c of the militia's existence."
Yes, but this is running away from the problem rather than fixing it. They know pretty well that the Shiite politicians would dance chobi when they see Tawafuq leaving. So this is not a solution. there should be other ways to demonstrate, not by quiting. This is a big responsibility. People went to polling centers and defeated danger to vote for them. So is that how they are rewarded? Seeing those whom they voted running away from the government?
3azizti, militias will never be disbanded unless there would be a huge war between them on one hand and the Iraqi and American forces on the other. They need to be crushed, not dealth with politically. These were thugs whom Saddam crushed by his security forces. We need power, a huge one, to get rid of these militias and insurgents and anyone who thinks of breaking the law or hurting civilians.
[Anonymous] how are the "right people"
ReplyDeletedetermined/chosen ????!!!!
[Annie]well, they obviously are not chosen by elections.
[Me] The UN should announce emergency martial law, bring someone who is at least secular, athiest is more preferable, disband all the politicians in the parliament and government, start huge battles against Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias, bring security, restore electricity and water, teach people through TV. radio, newspapers, and schools what democracy means, AND THEN hold elections. By the time elections time come, people are safe, know the definition of this term, and become able to know whom to vote for.
i totally agree w/you BT. excellent proposal. as far as learning anything about democracy i think the american people need a little refresher course because this place is looking less and less like the democracy i was raised in all the time. did you here about the latest from our dictator?
ReplyDeleteFor Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 17, 2007
Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:
Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,
....
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
did you get that????
It's that B clause that concerns me -- and should concern all of us who blog, comment, organize, write letters, and otherwise exercise our rights to agitate against this unholy war. "Undermining the efforts" is a term that can be defined very, very broadly. And since those of us opposing this war have been told repeatedly, from the beginning, that our efforts to change our fellow citizens' minds were in fact treasonous acts that undermined the war effort, emboldened America's enemies, and harmed our troops, it's not unreasonable to believe that those warnings are now being backed up by official action. "At risk of committing significant acts of violence" is more overbroad weasel-speak: How many of us have said things that could be construed (at least by the certifiable paranoids in the White House) as a threat of violence against the Bush Administration?
This government has now asserted -- without so much as a by-your-leave from Congress -- its right to take away our houses, cars, savings accounts, the stuff of our lives, on the say-so of the President and his Treasury Secretary. They are not kidding. What we do here, what I am doing right now (unless I choose my words very carefully) is being done in defiance of the Law According to George Bush.
Nightmare on Main Street: More on Bush's Anti-Dissent Order
We wrote recently here of Bush's new executive order granting himself and his minions the arbitrary power to seize the entire assets of any American citizen – without warning, without any criminal charges whatsoever – solely by declaring that their victim somehow poses an unspecified threat to "the peace or stability of Iraq" or else is "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq." In other words, Bush now claims the power to strip you of your assets if you oppose American policy in Iraq.
more
"Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order ... there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order."
In other words, the first you might hear of this, is after they've done it to you.
Essentially, in this Executive Order the President is assuming unbelievably vast powers to simply sidestep normal criminal or civil procedure, and to operate quite explicitly on the basis of guilt by anticipation, guilt by pre-emption, guilt by association and guilt for any reason in the mind of the decider. There is literally no limitation on authority, except that the person's actual physical being is unaffected.
However, a person so designated by this Order could be rendered into a non-person literally instantaneously. They could be stripped of every asset, have every financial or commercial opportunity denied to them. Worse, this literally creates a power to shun. Anyone who employs this person, who hires them, who pays them for work, lends them money to tide them over, who rents them an apartment, or allows them to sleep on the couch, who drops them a few coins as they panhandle would be liable to becoming subject to this order. The only protection would be to fire this person, to not hire them, to not pay them, to not lend them money, evict them from your apartment, kick them off the couch, and look away if you see them begging on the street.
$1.8 million study finds electronic voting machines in California easy to hack.
never would i think this could happen here, and hardly a peep from the press.
Me: "Your cite makes two separate, distinct assertions. Doesn't it occur to you that both can be correct?"
ReplyDeleteAnnie: "oh my god rhus, the chips are all falling into place! thank you for illuminating w/such clarity. ok, so AQ is the most violent, shia miltias constitute the biggest threat, and according to you the 'actual actions' of the resistance are the cause of' the chaos, violence, kidnapping, lack of services, refugee crisis, and so on, '"
Well it's quite possible you have no idea who the contributors are to the violence in Iraq. Or that your persistent view of the noble resistance as cudly Ewoks who can do no wrong in the good fight against the evil empire clouds your judgement as usual.
I would explain it to you, but there's a strong possibility I'd get back some mumblings about bananas instead of a clear and well-reasoned reply.
BT: "The UN should announce emergency martial law, bring someone who is at least secular, athiest is more preferable, disband all the politicians in the parliament and government, start huge battles against Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias, bring security, restore electricity and water, teach people through TV. radio, newspapers, and schools what democracy means, AND THEN hold elections. By the time elections time come, people are safe, know the definition of this term, and become able to know whom to vote for."
ReplyDeleteOK, but the UN typically doesn't install dictators or start huge battles. It usually does the opposite, or tries to.
However, have you seen the UNAMI resolution going around the UNSC? What do you think of that?
RhusLancia,
ReplyDelete"OK, but the UN typically doesn't install dictators or start huge battles. It usually does the opposite, or tries to."
Well, the UN does nothing, concerning Iraq. From 1991 until this very day, Iraqis has not witnessed ANY help by the UN. Instead, the UN imposed sanctions making Iraqi people suffer for 12 years, instead of punishing Saddam himself. Doesn't that count as keeping the dictator in his post? Did these sanctions make Saddam less than a tyrant? Of course, not.
OK let's suppose what you are saying about the UN is true, when I said impose martial laws, I didn't mean to bring a "dictator". I meant someone who would lead the country for a few years, crush the terrorists, and bring security back to the country. This leader should be chosen by a "neutral" organization like the UN. When the country is stable, this leader should dissolve his position and announce free elections in a secure, safer, and stabilized Iraq. Does that make this leader a "dictator"? I don't think so.
RhusLancia, I don't understand why there are people don't understand that it's not the right time for democracy now. We love democracy. We wanted it and we still want it, but it's not the right time to do it. It won't be achieved in this chaotic situation.
I hope the UN gets more involved in Iraq to help Iraqis. At least it can clean up the bad history it left in the hearts of Iraqis.
ReplyDeleteWe suffered because of the UN. period. It's not easy to trust it again. You don't know how we lived during these 12 years of sanctions.
These were thugs whom Saddam crushed by his security forces. We need power, a huge one, to get rid of these militias and insurgents and anyone who thinks of breaking the law or hurting civilians.
ReplyDeleteHear, hear!
I hope the UN gets more involved in Iraq to help Iraqis. At least it can clean up the bad history it left in the hearts of Iraqis.
ReplyDeleteWe suffered because of the UN. period. It's not easy to trust it again. You don't know how we lived during these 12 years of sanctions.
Clap, clap.
Hey guys,
ReplyDeleteOff-topic. I updated my post about the victory of the Iraqi National Soccer Team by adding two video clips showing people of my neighborhood taking to the streets to celebrate this great victory. Thought you might be interested in seeing it.
BT, thanks for posting the new excellent celebratory videos. i left a comment on the other thread.
ReplyDeleterhus..Well it's quite possible you have no idea who the contributors are to the violence in Iraq.
but not probable..at all! especially since my views do not contradict 'senior American military officers'
(which i have been saying for the last few years!)
your persistent view of the noble resistance as cudly Ewoks who can do no wrong in the good fight against the evil empire
lol, since according to you this is my 'persistent view' you should have no problem backing up your (totally bogus) assertion with a quote or two. (except you can't!)
meanwhile... back in the land of reality..neither can you back up your own flawed illogical claims the 'actual actions' of the resistance (which the US military is now courting and supporting)are responsible for everything wrong in iraq.
plllease
BT, could you please tell me a little about the graphic next to your name?
ReplyDeleteBT: "These were thugs whom Saddam crushed by his security forces."
ReplyDeleteWell if you crush everyone, you're bound to get the thugs too.
BT: "Instead, the UN imposed sanctions making Iraqi people suffer for 12 years, instead of punishing Saddam himself. Doesn't that count as keeping the dictator in his post? Did these sanctions make Saddam less than a tyrant? Of course, not."
The UN sought to protect the status quo in the name of "peace". That's what they do. They thought they were reducing Saddam's power and in fact they were more successful in reducing his WMD than we thought. They saw the suffering and implemented OfF, which Saddam quickly circumvented for his own gain, with the help of many countries and individuals.
I don't think there's any precedent or authority for what you describe. In fact I just toured the UN a few weeks ago and they stressed they were not in the business of replacing gov'ts. But they have had much success in de-colonialization, for example, since WWII. A bigger role in elections and so on thru UNAMI could help.
re: Dictatorship (or "Strong Appointed Leader") I think we are at an "agree to disagree" moment. If Iraqis got behind a "Strong Appointed Leader" you could get back on track. But if Iraqis got behind a (newly) elected gov't... you could get back on track. Why the former but not the latter? Realisticly, any revolutionary changes to put a strongman in power are going to alienate somebody, so they will respond with violence. True, or no? Also, in my opinion, anyone who comes in to clean house in a manner you're describing would almost certainly crush more than those who deserve it. If you are willing to accept that, why not accept the current approach, which will at least leave you with a representative gov't?
Me: "your persistent view of the noble resistance as cudly Ewoks who can do no wrong in the good fight against the evil empire"
ReplyDeleteAnnie: "lol, since according to you this is my 'persistent view' you should have no problem backing up your (totally bogus) assertion with a quote or two."
Let's see, should I go find where you said "Long Live the Iraqi Resistance" or some such, or one of the many times you've sugarcoated their violence with a glib "war is war"? How about I leave you to your delusions and Flat Scorched Earth fantasies among fellow-travellers? Yeah, that.
But speaking of quotes...
Annie: "neither can you back up your own flawed illogical claims the 'actual actions' of the resistance (which the US military is now courting and supporting)are responsible for everything wrong in iraq."
That's not what I said. This is:
"if you complain about the chaos, violence, kidnapping, lack of services, refugee crisis, and so on, but then sing the praises of the 'resistance', whose actual actions are causing these things"
Chaos? check
violence? check
kidnapping? check
lack of services? check
refugee crisis? check
and so on? check
Whoa, dude! Have you seen Nibras Kazimi's post today about the politics in Iraq? You should read it, BT, it complements what you say pretty nicely. Here are some excerpts:
ReplyDelete"Ayad Allawi’s candidacy [for PM] is a non-starter for everyone involved, except for Ayad Allawi himself and a host of Gulf-based regional patrons and the media networks they control.
...
For now, it’s great for me to watch the Islamist parties fumble, with no dominant ‘leader’ emerging. Everyone is being forced to play politics within the rules of the game; no more military coups, no more ‘Great Leaders’.
...
The best case scenario would be early parliamentary elections in six months, with Maliki acting as a care-taker.
...
An even-better scenario would be to turn parliamentary seats into district representations rather than slate-backed, but again, the current lack-lustre MPs would refuse that.
...
Congressional critics and the western media may want to play up this political confusion as a sign that Bush is not making progress in Iraq, and they predictably will. But a fairer analysis would conclude that these are all healthy signs of the re-introduction of politics into Iraqi life. It may not even be as pretty as sausage-making, yet it puts to rest the Middle Eastern instinctual impulse for a short-cut to power through violence and tyranny."
Sorry to post almost the whole thing, as others are wont to do for off-topic propaganda reasons, but dang I like his take!
there will always be resistance to occupation, as there should be. long live the resistance is neither a claim they are 'cudly Ewoks' or that they ' can do no wrong' .
ReplyDeletecheck! so go out there and huff and puff and you will never find anything i have said to prop up your bogus claim. the only person who makes these stupid sentences is you because you cannot argue w/out your faithful strawman by your side propping you up. you want to make a point, big shot, don't fabricate words or thoughts i have never said. we have been thru this time and again. i have made enough statements here for you to use as examples if you choose to, but no, you resort to make believe. why, because your claims are founded on fallacies.
when I discuss things, for the most part I try to be realistic.
righto, except i have never heard you acknowledge the US has played any part in the disaster which is iraq. you are in constant defense mode wrt iraq. i remember back arguing w/you the debaathification plan was a terrible precedent to set, you held steadfast. now, it is roundly acknowledged as being the beginning of the end of what could have been unification.
if you complain about the chaos, violence, kidnapping, lack of services, refugee crisis, and so on, but then sing the praises of the 'resistance', whose actual actions are causing these things, in the very next breath, then you can no longer silence your opposition based on your country of origin alone.
what?? so according to you, if someone supports the resistance they cannot claim to know their own country and their own countryman w/more authority than you, or anyone??? this is throwing an obstacle in the argument that is only designed to prop up your assertions based on what?? on what?? by knocking someone off what you claim as 'a pedestal'?? it is not a friggin pedestal! it is reality. you aren't iraqi. you do not have relatives/family/friends suffering thru the nightmare of iraq. this topic which was referenced was about democracy vs a strong leader by other means. it was about a country devastated by years of sanctions and then invasion and totally botched plans that led YES LED (at best) to gross incompetence that has been largely recognized as being the seeds that led to the resistance to begin with. so what is your response to a very polite request you back off and RESPECT people who MIGHT KNOW THEIR OWN COUNTRY BETTER THAN YOU?? to tell them that by supporting the resistance their viewpoints , their 'pedestal' nationality has no bearing. this is your form of argument. to say your views are equal because you support who? the occupation? oh please.
it's quite possible you have no idea who the contributors are to the violence in Iraq.
whose 'actual acts' , the one's you mention specifically have not caused the things on your check list????
all of those incidence happen in war. many of those incidents have absolutely happened as a result of the invasion perpetrated by the US. they have all resulted in response to actions by the occupation and other foreign fighters, the resistance, the shia militias, members of the iraqi army, iraqi police, sunni insurgents, AQ, iranian influence inside and outside the government on and on. for you to ignore a simple request you acknowledge and respect an iraqis understanding of his own country based on his own experience based on blaming the acts of war on a source he supports, the resistance, is nothing more than a shoddy attempt to place yourself and those you support on a pedestal that eradicates them of all complicity.
how hypocritical of you to lecture anyone here about how they should beat your opposition thru the strength and presentation of your ideas when you yourself dismiss others w/such blatant recklessness.
you don't fool me for a second.
Nibras Kazimi ??
ReplyDeleteVisiting Scholar at the Hudson Institute in Washington DC. I also write a weekly column on the Middle East for the New York Sun, and a monthly column for the
the hudson institute and the new york sun?? he's a likudnik thru and thru
this one's for you special lancia
Thanks RhusLancia for mentioning Nibras Kazimi's post. It's a good analysis. I kind of agree with most of what he said. He just did not mention the issue of the militias and how it plays a big role in shaping the destiny of the country and the politics played behind it. But over all, he mentioned important stuff that most Iraqis agree on, like dying Hakim trying to make his son be his successor, Hashimi not willing to leave his position, etc... good points.
ReplyDelete[annie] “without your [rhus] skillfull framing we might all be wallowing in reality.”
ReplyDelete:lol:
[bt] “Instead, the UN imposed sanctions making Iraqi people suffer for 12 years”
BT, the UN imposed sanctions targeting the weapons Hussein was trying to make / was alleged to be trying to make. The devil in the details was the US, which held a veto vote on the board controlling Iraqi imports. The American representatives vetoed everything from generators to milk formula to lead pencils, alleging that these items had some nefarious “dual use”. The US went a step further and said that whether Iraq complied or not with the weapons controls was irrelevant as far as it was concerned as to the duration of the sanctions, and that the sanctions would remain for as long as Hussein was in power.
My point is: the sanctions had a legitimate use and scope. The USUAL suspect, the US, perverted this institution into something it was never intended to be. The truth is, two UN overseers resigned in protest when they witnessed the disaster the US was creating in Iraq. If you doubt my word, I will be very happy to back it up with reams of factual information.
[bt] “We love democracy. We wanted it and we still want it, but it's not the right time to do it. It won't be achieved in this chaotic situation.”
BT, frankly I think that it’s the type of democracy that is the problem. People voting for “slates” wherein half the candidates are unknown, and based on sectarian policies was never going to work, it was always going to end up as a disaster.
I think that a grassroots, REGION-based system would work far better, where people are elected as representatives of particular localities. This has been mentioned before. I’d envision a system where a city elects its own government, and then from those elected officials, a new, higher election is held for a province from all the cities, and then from the provinces another for the whole country. In that way the power flows from the bottom up, and not from the top down. The entire approach to this “democracy” (gag) in Iraq was all wrong to begin with. It’s just too easy to manipulate and influence this monstrosity of a system that has been inflicted on Iraq.
"Maliki should call a new election for the end of this year."____But not with those damned "slates". If you don't have elections by district, you will simply get the same Parliament again. The slates are IMO the biggest mistake made by anyone in Iraq since the invasion. I can't think of a single functioning democracy that uses this system. It is guaranteed to make trouble.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Washington Post:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202617.html?wpisrc=newsletter
"The problem is none of them have any sense of governance and how a government should function and run," said a senior Iraqi official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he works closely with Maliki.
Some Dawa party figures concede they are inexperienced. "None of us have run a government before," said Haider al-Abadi, an influential Dawa legislator. "We cannot deliver miracles."
"Some special intelligence units," he explained, his voice lowering during an interview at a coffee shop in the U.S.-protected Green Zone. "They have their own plan. That's what frightens us. People want to wreck the whole thing without any alternative."
Hey Annie,
ReplyDeleteThis post clarifies what the picture in my profile stands for.
http://baghdadtreasure.blogspot.com/2005/09/treasure-in-baghdad_11.html
Annie, the fact that TAI is Iraqi cannot make up for when he is wrong, or being purposefully deceptive, or simply deluded. TAI seems like an OK guy from time to time BUT his propagandizing and bloodlust cannot be overshadowed either by his citizenship or your vigorous agreement with what he says.
ReplyDeleteAnnie: "you aren't iraqi."
Hurray! You got something right!
Annie: "you do not have relatives/family/friends suffering thru the nightmare of iraq."
Of course I do. This is among the dumbest things you've ever said, and your dumb statements have a lot of company. My relatives/family/friends are the ones trying to stabilize Iraq in the face of many forces trying to tear it apart, INCLUDING the so-called 'resistance'. And they are the ones who, when something bad happens to them, "some people" squeal with delight.
Bruno,
ReplyDeleteYou are talking facts and politics and I am talking about the misery Iraqis had to go through. When you said the sanctions were “legitimate”, I took this as “screw Iraqi people. We don’t care about you. We care about stopping Saddam.”
No one can ever feel what we went through during these times. It’s enough that people give execuses to these sanctions. Do you remember this BH Madeleine Albright? Do you remember her justifying the death of hundreds of thousands of children saying that it was worth it? Do you know how much we despise her? Do you know how much we wish seeing her being unable to get food and medicine and suffer to death like those whom she described as worth dying?
Iraqis, especially the ones who were affected by the sanctions, will never ever forgive the international community for making them suffer for 12 years.
I don’t want PDF documents, I don’t want quotes, I don’t want anything to prove that the embargo was legitimate. It was not.
Thanks for that link, BT (and your 12:36 PM comment). Here's another:
ReplyDeleteGood news from Baghdad at last: the oil law has stalled
This is an article "against" the oil law that Bruno has already endorsed on Zeyad's blog. Here's a money excerpt:
"The main reason is not that the Iraqi government and parliament are a lazy bunch of Islamist incompetents or narrow-minded sectarians, as is often implied. MPs are studying the law more carefully, and have begun to see it as a major threat to Iraq's national interest regardless of people's religion or sect.
This is the second bit of good news from Iraq. Civil society, trade unions, professional oil experts and the media are stirring on the oil issue and putting their points across to parliament in the way democracy is meant to work. The oil unions have held strikes even at the risk of having leaders and members arrested.
The pervasive outside image of Iraq as a country in free-fall where violence on a mass scale is an ever-present threat is not wrong. But it can mask the fact that "normal life" and indeed "normal politics" are still possible."
Is Washington's interest in the Oil Law really just a smokescreen to jump-start political debate in a soon-to-be healthy, established democracy? You heard it here first...
re: Bruno, Don Cox, and others on "Slates" vs "Districts". I agree, and hope they move that way.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the only practical & timely way to do it right now would be by province, maybe by city too. Establishing districts is better long-term, but it is another contentious divisive issue that takes time to set up in any case. Here in Arizona our state legislative districts have been in court for five years, no end in sight.
BUT, I do see that part of the UNAMI's mandate will be to facilitate a census, wich is an important precondition to establishing districts.
This is an impressive debate. I hope that I don't lower the tone!
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, a fresh General Election in Iraq might produce an even worse result than last time. (1) Those who have left the country are likely to include a high percentage of those with the resources available to make such a move. These may include a higher than normal proportion of those who voted for the Secular List. (2) What happened in Northern Ireland indicates that although the bulk of the people want an end to terrorism, in order to protect themselves they vote for the political extreme in their own communities to protect themselves from extremists in neighbouring communities. It was also a trend in the break up of Yugoslavia.
On alternative to elections isn't easy, however. It is to try and use legitimate internal and external pressures on the existing politicians to deliver. A lot of brave people try this, including Iraqi Trade Unionists who press for the lifting of the bans and prescriptions which the Government operates over them. The international Trade Union Movement also presses the Iraqi Government fully on this matter.
Harry, as long as you don't post something about Neocon monkey smuggling or a video of some righty clipping his fingernails this debate should be fine! (even then, it probably would be).
ReplyDeleteFor your concerns about elections, those are valid risks. On the first hand, I think as long as expats & refugees could vote (like in '05) they would be mitigated. In fact, the Iraqis in Syria and Jordan may know as well as anybody that putting their faith in JAM or the 'resistance' to protect them would be a mistake. But still, you have a point.
As a former Infantryman, who has served twice in Iraq. I am EXTREMELY frustrated with the Iraqi elected government. You're totally right, these people are totally unable to legislate at all. They all keep taking vacations and fiddling while Baghdad burns. Sadly, we're in a really tough situation. At this point really, the only solution is to fire the government and put in a new one, or have elections again. Unfortunately, such a decision would really piss off the Shias and we would lose alot of our troops lives in the process, but maybe it is the only way to fix it. This administration would never consider it.
ReplyDeleteRhusLancia, a problem with expat and refugee votes is that technical and other problems normally result in poor turnouts by these. There must also be a danger of Shia lists producing a majority, which would enhance general extremism. It is a question of having to work on what we have got - even on Noecon monkey smugglers.
ReplyDelete"you do not have relatives/family/friends suffering thru the nightmare of iraq."
ReplyDeleterhus Of course I do.
no, you don't. we don't. ok, a very few of us do.. but it is nothing NOTHING compared to iraqis. sure, we have soldiers there. they suffer, their families suffer. 3000 plus deaths.
This is among the dumbest things you've ever said,
actually rhus, you have shown your total blindness. in my worst nightmares i cannot imagine the pain of what iraqis are going thru. compare our 3000 to their 1 million it must be by now. really, your insensitivity is astounding.
No one can ever feel what we went through during these times.
these times. god, i am just so so sorry we brought this hell down apon your country. no words can ever .... the shame....the sorrow..
thank you for the link to the monument of liberty
late night.. emotions. i hope Jawad Salim's incredible art survives the slaughter.
anon...the only solution is to fire the government
ReplyDeletelol, before iraqi's fire their own government, could they please fire ours, because apparently we can't.
Annie, the fact that TAI is Iraqi cannot make up for when he is wrong, or being purposefully deceptive, or simply deluded. TAI seems like an OK guy from time to time BUT his propagandizing and bloodlust cannot be overshadowed either by his citizenship or your vigorous agreement with what he says.
ReplyDeletebla bla rhus you are such a hypocritical bonehead.
Is Washington's interest in the Oil Law really just a smokescreen to jump-start political debate in a soon-to-be healthy, established democracy? You heard it here first...
lol, your delusions are unsurpassed. as if iraqis needs washington to jumpstart discussions about oil...in iraq!
'soon-to-be healthy democracy'?
pollyanna couldn't have framed it better.
"I don't understand having separate bathrooms. It seems to go against everything that the United States stands for."
ReplyDeleteracist
TAI---We are a feared people, BT, you know that. You know the GCC fear us, not because of Saddam or despite him, but because they know how enterprising Iraqis are.
ReplyDeleteTB--These were thugs whom Saddam crushed by his security forces. We need power, a huge one, to get rid of these militias and insurgents and anyone who thinks of breaking the law or hurting civilians.
me---how about the fearsome and enterprising Iraqis doing something for themselves for once? Blame Saddam, the UN, the US, the Iranians, the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and endless list that includes anybody but the man in the mirror. Most Iraqis with some notion of liberty and modernity in a secular society have fled. Now it appears they are ready to abandon all responsibility for Iraq's security to another strongman who will unify them as victims once again. There is no place like home, huh?
Annie----read your own link. The discrimination is not racist, it is for the reasons given. "Marquez cited security. "We are at war, and operational security (OPSEC) and force protection are critical in this environment," Marquez wrote. "We screen all our local nationals working and living in the FOB, however, you can never know what's in their mind."
ReplyDeleteNow, if you have evidence that American contractors and soldiers are banned from using the facilities based on race, then your idiotic accusation would have some basis. But, just like most of what you claim, you got nuthin'.
By the way, the policy was enacted after an Iraqi dressed as a soldier entered the dining hall in Mosul and blew up dozens of people, including 24 Americans. Yet, they still feed Iraqis, just ask them to wait for screening first. How awful!
Other soldiers traced the regulations to what they called cultural differences between the Iraqis and the Americans.
"We've had issues with locals," said Staff Sgt. Oscar Garcia, who mans Warhorse's administrative hub. "It's not because we're segregating."
Garcia said some Iraqis squatted on the rims of unfamiliar American-style toilets or had used showers as toilets, forcing private contractors who maintain the facilities to clean up after them.
Another soldier at the administrative hub who declined to give his name or rank cited conflicts over hygiene habits. "We can't accept people washing their feet where I brush my teeth," he said.
"It's to keep problems from happening," said Army Capt. Janet Herrick, a public affairs officer. "It's a preventive measure . . . so no one gets belittled."
I am never let down by the sheer arrogance of so many who come here.
ReplyDeleteIt seems they don't read and digest what BT says. They merely come here to talk in abstracts.
Abstracts as in they have no family in Iraq, they have no real connection beyond the self-deluding contrivance established as an occupying force in the past 4 years.
A foreigner comes to this blog pretending he has the right to tell Iraqis how they should think and how they should act because of his military presence there.
They call that imperialism, colonialism and racism. You can't escape it. The non-Iraqi north american views Iraqis as lesser beings.
After all, did the UK military not criticize the US military for viewing Iraqis as unter-menschen?
It is only when non-Iraqi north americans see an Iraqi face to face (as in BT and 24's experiences there) do they realize that Iraqis do not live in tents, do not ride camels and do not have weird sacrificial rituals.
When they meet Iraqis face to face, they usually discover (with shock) how bright and modernized these Iraqis are. How educated and well-mannered they are. And only then do they begin to learn!
But until they sit across the table from an Iraqi and realize that we are humans with human emotions, they will continue to talk in abstracts.
They believe they are informed because CNN told them so, or because some other western media propaganda tool told them so.
Or Hollywood. Yesterday, I watched The Transformers on pirated copy. Absolutely propagandistic drivel.
I was shocked senseless when they showed Qatar as a wasteland and a young Qatari boy dressed in traditional Arab garb which is more akin to Jordan in the 1920s than a modern Middle East state.
He flees to his family home where he is met by a camel or two and his father who lives in a mud hut with no modern appliances nothing.
The valiant US character saves this downtrodden Arab.
What does this serve? It is propaganda, more Hollywood propaganda disguised as a sci-fi movie to show that Arabs are backward. To show that Arab countries are backward.
It is this type of propaganda that allowed Albright to get away with what she said.
It cheapens the value of Arab life.
3000 die on 9-11 and the world must reel in agony. 3000 die in Iraq in just 6 weeks and no one cares. 1.7 million die to sanctions and no one remembers them.
And this is what fuels the arrogance and ignorance of some who come here professing to care.
They cannot and will not ever know the depth and gravity of what we talk about because they aren't the ones who had to bury their loved ones in Iraq. They aren't the ones who had to abandon Iraq because they would have surely been killed.
They aren't the ones who suffered through 13 years of sanctions. They aren't the ones who saw their grandmother wither away because crucial medicines were barred by the embargo.
They aren't the ones who no longer recognize their streets, their neighborhoods.
They aren't the ones who have nightmares about Iraq. They aren't the ones whose children pee on themselves and cry uncontrollably every time there are gunshots and the sounds of mortar shells.
They aren't the ones who must walk their children to school circumnavigating around dead corpses in the streets, sights children should never see.
They aren't the ones who receive SMS, emails, and phone calls in the dead of night telling them a colleague has been murdered or someone has been kidnapped.
No non-Iraqi could ever, ever feel what we Iraqis feel. And some of us Iraqis have it worse than others.
My relatives/family/friends are the ones trying to stabilize Iraq in the face of many forces trying to tear it apart, INCLUDING the so-called 'resistance'. And they are the ones who, when something bad happens to them, "some people" squeal with delight.
Your vermin associations Rhus are the CAUSE of what WE go through. They ride in Humvees, packed with expensive weapons, carrying bottles of water everywhere they go. Clean water.
They shoot at everything that moves, including women and children.
They ride in helicopters. They ride in tanks. They hunt in packs.
They are the occupier, the oppressor.
The people BT and I worry about are our families. They do not carry rifles, they cannot even go to school. They wait in line for hours to find petrol for their cars which they must drive carefully lest they be shot at by the occupier, the oppressor.
They have no water, they have no electricity. They do not live in air conditioned military camps. They live in homes which are violated by US and Iraqi patrols regularly because when they search for this and that - they take out an entire neighborhood.
They cannot leave Iraq for vacation and come back and everything is A+ fine.
They can't even drive a car to see their old Shia or Sunni friends.
You have learned nothing from coming here. You came to BT's blog with pre-conceived barbaristic arrogance. And you leave exactly the same way.
You do not come here to be enlightened but to ensure that your platform is intact.
You congratulate us on our football victory but you could never understand how bittersweet it is. It isn't a game, it isn't a tournament but the efforts of an oppressed peoples to say "look we exist and we are not only survivors, we are winners, achievers".
how about the fearsome and enterprising Iraqis doing something for themselves for once?
I am sick of non-iraqis supporting the invasion, destroying our infrastructure, eradicating our middle class, killing off our intellectuals and then telling us to do something.
Get out of Iraq then. And we will show you what we can achieve.
Till then, try and be a little more humble when coming to our blogs. Understand that our knowledge of our people, our crises far outpaces yours.
BT, thanks for this:
Do you remember this BH Madeleine Albright? Do you remember her justifying the death of hundreds of thousands of children saying that it was worth it? Do you know how much we despise her? Do you know how much we wish seeing her being unable to get food and medicine and suffer to death like those whom she described as worth dying?
Iraqis, especially the ones who were affected by the sanctions, will never ever forgive the international community for making them suffer for 12 years.
You know I have her in my header, because she is heralded as one of America's brightest, and yet she has no heart.
You are right about the int'l community. But I would like to add another. I will not forgive the Arab community for abandoning us during that time. And abandon us they did.
No Arab League SG visited Iraq to check on the humanitarian disaster between 1991 and 2001. It was Esmat Abdel Meguid, former Egyptian Foreign Minister who got Arabs to join in the embargo in exchange for the US and Paris Club forgiving Egyptian debts to the order of $13 billion.
BT, the figure in that famous Albright quote is 500,000.
The total number of dead was 1.7 million. Mostly Shia from the south.
I never remember hearing Rhus or anyone else complain at the time.
In fact, almost no one at the time gave a crap about Iraqis. 1.7 million of them killed systematically.
To the Anonymous Infantryman:
Thank you for saying this: Unfortunately, such a decision would really piss off the Shias and we would lose alot of our troops lives in the process, but maybe it is the only way to fix it. This administration would never consider it.
You are the first person I have ever read who has the courage to say what needs to be said. I wish your Democrats and your GOP had more balls to say the needful.
They ride in helicopters. They ride in tanks. They hunt in packs.
ReplyDeleteThey are the occupier, the oppressor.
Being a robot means you never have to say you're sorry.
"The high-tech future for the Army"
an interview w/Thomas Killion, Chief scientist/US army.
"There are now literally thousands of little ground robots, primarily things like PackBot and so on that our soldiers are using in theater, both in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that's important for several reasons. One, because the robots allow us to do tasks without putting soldiers at risk.
Second, it gets people comfortable, it demonstrates the capability of the technology, what can be done with robotics, and as robotics evolve even more will be done with it. And certainly last but not least is that we're growing a generation of soldiers who see robots as part of their normal way of doing business, and that's how we're going to conduct our business in the future, with a mix of manned and unmanned systems. The degree to which our soldiers are comfortable with and see the benefits of utilizing robotics to do their job, it lowers the barriers to implementing that vision in the future."
what kind of barriers might that be???? A CONSCIOUS MAYBE??
I assume you meant 'conscience', Annie? You are right, the US soldier should go into the streets in their underwear and slingshots.
ReplyDeleteYou are right, the US soldier should go into the streets in their underwear and slingshots.
ReplyDeleteso, this is the alternative to using robots (totally unaccountable to geneva)to kill people? having soldiers in underwear?
congrats anon, you have taken the strawman to a whole new level. your choice to counter this topic w/this absurdity ('you are right', as if i ever have implicated arming the military w/underwear and slingshots) shows the utter desperation of defending the atrociousness of the future means of US warfare.
using robots (totally unaccountable to geneva)to kill people
ReplyDeleteIf not a straw man, then what is that ? What is being deployed are no different from the unmanned Predators that have been in the air for years. They are not autonomous 'robots' that fire without someone making that command decision. If anything, it could make for fewer errors as the instinct for self preservation will not be a factor. If a soldier's life is not at stake, I think it likely that more restraint could be used. For those of you who think US soldiers are unaccountable bloodthirsty killers, you know there will be digital accounts of every incident in which the robots are used, so it is highly unlikely they will be used wantonly. Also, the ability to see and hear and identify threats will be greatly enhanced so that firing on innocents could likely be reduced. The robots in and of themselves are morally neutral as are all weapons.
the ability to see and hear and identify threats will be greatly enhanced so that firing on innocents could likely be reduced.
ReplyDeletelikely?? or not. they could very well likely escalate because a warm body is a warm body. maybe they are programed to look in a persons eyes and tell if he has a good heart.
They are not autonomous 'robots' that fire without someone making that command decision.
maybe you didn't read everything the good army scientist said.
"The FCS [Future Combat Systems] program is demonstrating semiautonomous vehicles where they can do a lot of planning and execution on their own and they really only have to essentially call home to a soldier that's controlling it when it needs additional guidance."
iraq still doesn't have laws in place that hold private contractors accountable for crimes. who becomes accountable when a robot goes bizerk in a crowd? a robot 'planning...excecution'. you are telling me this 'likely could' lessen civilian casualties?
no wonder you post anonymously. maybe you are a robot.
using robots (totally unaccountable to geneva)to kill people
ReplyDeleteIf not a straw man, then what is that ?
go look up the definition of a strawman. this is not a straw man. did you go to the link? did you see the photo? obviously one of the functions of these robots is to kill people. you cannot punish a machine, or hold it accountable.
of course the military thinks we need more robots, because they american people don't like their soldiers dying and is having problems w/recruitment. also, a robot you don't have to take care of medical, funerals, ptsd, pensions.. maybe china will decide to attack us w/robots. would you trust the chinese robots rolling down our streets to judge which of us was a worthy target?
BT, I am sure this will not be news to you, but I had no idea things were so bad! I just read this article:
ReplyDeleteIraqi power grid nearing collapse
So many people's lives depend on a functioning electrical grid! This article talks about Baghdad having very little electrical generating capacity and needing to import power from the other provinces. But now, the provinces are cutting Baghdad off because they need the power for themselves. I am reminded of ancient Rome that drew most of its water from far away places through aqueducts. When Rome's enemies destroyed the aqueduct system, the city rather quickly became a ghost town. If Baghdad has no power, how can it survive? This is very troubling news!
Anonymous (infantryman): thank you for your service.
ReplyDeleteAs for new elections, I don't think it's our (the US) decision. There are a number a ways that they could go down where we would have no say in preventing it. And besides, why would we object? I don't think it would increase US casualties unless we "pulled the strings" to make it happen.
Harry Barnes: "RhusLancia, a problem with expat and refugee votes is that technical and other problems normally result in poor turnouts by these."
ReplyDeleteTechnical and/or logistical problems are not deal breakers. I think the millions of Iraqis in Jordan & Syria would dance in the streets like they did after taking the Asian Cup, if only they had a chance to elect a better gov't. This is just my impression as a dumb American though.
Harry Barnes: "There must also be a danger of Shia lists producing a majority, which would enhance general extremism."
I agree with this, and it would definitely be a tougher nut to crack. We can expect shenanigans and allegations of shenanigans no matter what. In fact, unless and until "Saddam Hussein" is elected with 100% of the vote (and 100% turnout), "some people" will reject the results. And if that did happen, sane people would reject the results. So we, and really I mean UNAMI probably, would have to go all-in on making the elections as free and fair as possible.
Harry Barnes: "It is a question of having to work on what we have got - even on Noecon monkey smugglers."
Yeah, and I wish we could. Or at least I wish the Iraqis could. My best advice to BT some time ago, if he could deign to accept some from an American, was to "hold his nose and back the government". If Iraqis united behind a loaf of bread, that loaf of bread could lead them to stability. It's the unity part that's the p*sser.
TAI: "A foreigner comes to this blog pretending he has the right to tell Iraqis how they should think and how they should act because of his military presence there."
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that you bring up thought control, being such a fan of the "old ways" as you are. Not used to being challenged, are you?
Had you been paying attention, you would know that BT and 24 and I have pretty good exchanges, we talk about our views from time to time: sometimes agree, often disagree. I respect them for their experiences and their dialogue with me and the world. That's my impression anyway, BT is free to say differently.
You, sir, are a propagandist. Even so, I'll put my ideas against yours and we'll see who foams at the mouth and begins spewing distortions and half-truths first.
TAI: "I never remember hearing Rhus or anyone else complain at the time."
I wasn't blogging then.
If you'd like to know, I think we should have gone all the way in '91. Yes, I know the UN didn't authorize that, and also that Bush 41 was a cold, pragmatic, realpolitic'er, and most of the coalition at that time was content leaving you-know-who in place. Then, I think we should have backed the Shia and Kurdish rebellions.
All sanctions did was prolong the suffering and postpone the inevitable. Oh sure, the UN tried to band-aid the humanitarian problems with oil-for-food, but how long did it take your benevolent ex-leader to figure out how he could manipulate these for his own benefit, assisted by international apathy of course?
And so if you'd like to know: I was "against" this invasion before I was "for" it. And in fact I believe this is the most shameful admission I can have. I should have been for it all along.
Obviously the US has made mistakes, and very high among these is not realizing that scorched-earthers, such as yourself, will stop at nothing, and I mean NOTHING to make sure majority rule and representational democracy fails in Iraq.
OK, TAI, let's try something else.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you educate me? Leverage your superior knowledge and persistent positive view of the "Patriotic Resistance" (hereafter: "PR"), and answer a few questions for me. OK? Obviously these are loaded questions, given my almost-completely-opposite opinion of them compared to yours. But these are questions that need to be answered if you think "your side" has the best solution for Iraq.
So take me to school.
1) Does the "PR" care about the suffering of Iraqis?
2) Why does the "PR" continue to sabotage infrastructure and target reconstruction projects?
3) It is almost impossible to deny by now that some of the "PR" has spun off from its original mission of attacking the US, and is working with us instead to fight al Qeada. The view from over here is that this happened after AQ began attacking them. OK, so... why did they wait?
4) Is it possible that the "PR" has approved, or at least "not opposed", all along of AQ's attacks on (mostly Shia) innocent civilians, as evidenced by #3 above?
5) The Islamic Army, generally thought of as a group within the "PR", recently fought AQ in Baghdad but then made up with them. Their spokeman said of this (paraphrasing, link on request) "we want to return to the early days of jihad, where we were very close to those [AQ] brothers". What did he mean by that, TAI? Could you perhaps call him from your speed dial and ask?
6) The Guardian ran a story about the "PR" uniting to form a political front. Have you read the main "planks of their program"? Doesn't that sound like a plan that has already been tried before? What would they call their new gov't: the Muqawama Provisional Authority?
TAI, obviously my view is that the "PR" wants power for themselves only, and they are fully willing to fill whatever graves necessary to make it so. Just like the good ol' days.
7) Aren't you proud of your contribution to their effort?
RhusaLancia, you have a sound point about the expat/refugee vote. I might be influenced by the fact that I am normally opposed to expat voting rights and favour people having votes in the nation in which they are residents. This view doesn't fit very well for Iraq with its large number of refugees and with many expats who might return if it moved to peace and hope. On the other hand, some refugees were carrying posters with Saddam's photo on it when Iraq won the Asian Cup - I hope that these were just a tiny minority.
ReplyDeleteTAI: "A foreigner comes to this blog pretending he has the right to tell Iraqis how they should think and how they should act because of his military presence there."
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that you bring up thought control, being such a fan of the "old ways" as you are. Not used to being challenged, are you?
Er ... Rhus, not talking about thought control at all. Talking about your racist arrogance. Coming here and on other Iraqi blogs to implement your agenda, to force down our throats the Bushco manifesto.
I am sorry if you misunderstood. I was just trying to imply in a nice way that you are extremely ignorant on Iraq and Iraqis and yet come here to continue to "inform" us, "educate" us, tell us what is good for our people, how we should live and how we should think.
That is a mixture of racism (this is how the Brits dealt with India, for example) and arrogance (which is typical of those who are ignorant and with chips on their shoulder).
Challenge? I have yet to be challenged - everything that has occured in Iraq has been as I predicted. I stood against the elections, NOT the idea of elections, because they were rushed to please Bushco and boost his standing.
Because the way they were designed would ensure the chaos we see today.
I stood against the invasion because I knew it would unfold this way. And because I knew that Iran was just itching to egg America to do its dirty work for it.
Where were you four years ago?
You can say what you will but at the end of it all, I write about MY country. You write about a country you have INVADED.
I write about my people, those I share a common language, tradition and culture with.
You consider us aliens, foreign. Did you take time to understand Iraqis in the 1980s or the 1990s as you were bombing us to death?
Or did you not have a computer then? Or did you not have books then? Or did you not know how to read then?
TAI: "I never remember hearing Rhus or anyone else complain at the time."
RHUS: I wasn't blogging then.
So, that excuses your clear racist absence of conscience does it?
I wasn't blogging then either but I was active. I went to the Arab League in 1996 and nearly got tossed out of the building because I challenged Esmat Abdel Meguid, the Egyptian dog, to visit Iraq and see the humanitarian disaster himself.
You never heard of writing your congressman or congresswoman? Petitions? Demonstrations? Protests? Phone calls? Ah, no.
Nice excuse, Rhus, but you are condemned for it nonetheless, you and everyone else who continues to support this war.
RHUS: And so if you'd like to know: I was "against" this invasion before I was "for" it. And in fact I believe this is the most shameful admission I can have. I should have been for it all along.
Of course, RHUS, again you talk in abstracts. You are for an invasion in a country you have never been in, probably couldn't locate on a map even with an Atlas in your pocket, a people you did not know and continue to misread.
800,000 Iraqis have died because of YOUR invasion. Good lad, continue to support genocide.
You're a good piece of sheep carcass, Rhus. Bushco and the neocons need people like you to keep them in power.
I feel sorry for you. When this is all over, my people will start from scratch and rebuild as we have always done. This is who we are.
Your soldiers return home limbless, lifeless, brain damaged, or with such PTSD that they use their sniper training to take out their wives, or kill their children, or hang themselves.
You are broken.
Yes, go invade countries that never posed a threat to you, never threatened you. Oil and corporate greed. Glad you support the wholesale murder of Iraqis.
RHUS: Obviously the US has made mistakes, and very high among these is not realizing that scorched-earthers, such as yourself, will stop at nothing, and I mean NOTHING to make sure majority rule and representational democracy fails in Iraq.
Scorched earth? Heheh ... I am actually raising funds and working with many Iraqis (former schoolmates) to rebuild my school which was burned down on April 10, 2003, which to this day remains gutted. We are preparing a curriculum.
I am also looking into the possibility of starting a school to teach English in Mosul.
But of course, you consider these lies, because the truth of it all would be too much for you to shoulder.
I support such projects. You support invasions.
Typical.
The day the US animals in uniform leave Iraq, I will return to my house in Jami3a to share with my neighbors in the toil and hardship of rebuilding brick by brick, to clean the streets, to purify the air of your stench and filth.
Shia, Sunni, Turkmen, Kurd, Christian, Jew, Sabaean, Yazidi - side by side building a common future. This is my hope.
Yes, I will stop at nothing to ensure Iraq has been cleansed of the occupier. Enough. Four years of your meddling, murdering, marauding is driving Iraqis clinically insane.
Representational democracy? Majority rule? The majority do not rule in Iraq right now, Rhus, or haven't you read some of the comments BT just made. There is no representational democracy in Iraq. There never was and never will be.
There is Iranian theocracy in Iraq thanks to you and your racist ilk, little children who are for invasions in foreign countries they neither understand nor seek to understand.
You are here simply to ensure that the official line on Iraq is maintained.
I am here to shut your pro-war propaganda up.
As for your questions, it is no good answering them because you have already prepared your propaganda to reiterate the Bushco line and sinker.
You do NOT want to be educated.
I mean sheesh, you already tell me as much:
Obviously these are loaded questions, given my almost-completely-opposite opinion of them compared to yours.
So, what's the point? I won't take anymore space here. You want to sincerely get answers, then go to my blog and pose the questions. I will answer them there.
But I just want to add that resistance comes in many ways.
Iraqis resist simply by surviving with the odds and a brutal military stacked against them.
We are invaded by a nazi military, have an even worse enemy in Iran and Saudi (Yes, Rhus, I hate them far, far, far more than the US military. I believe the US military can still be persuaded to do the right thing - help patriotic nationalistic Iraqis take on Al Qaida, Islamic extremists, fanatical militias, and Iran. Will the US help us take out the Saudi presence? No, because we know they have you by the balls.)
We are surrounded by enemies and we have enemies transplanted in our midst. And yet we survive, and we win, and we make our presence known. The Asia Cup win is peanuts.
Go to Dubai, Qatar, Yemen, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi. Our intellectuals have dispersed throughout the Arab world. It is our scientists, our technocrats who are there putting their skills and expertise to good use.
Blogging and writing is another form, so I join with people like Baghdad Dweller, Riverbend, Zeyad and BT in resisting the lies which have brainwashed you and your ilk. We may all differ in methodolgy but we all have one purpose. We all want a unified, free, and somewhat democratic Iraq.
'I feel sorry for you. When this is all over, my people will start from scratch and rebuild as we have always done. This is who we are.'
ReplyDeleteReality check--- why do you does Iraq find itself in a constant state of 'rebuilding from scratch'? Do you really take that as evidence of victory? It seems to be more evidence of dysfunction and delusion that victory. That is why Iraq will start over from scratch and 'rebuild' as they have always done and will no doubt do again when they manage to bring about its destruction once more. Hardly seems a thing to take pride in, but maybe that is a cultural thing.
To "Reality Check" Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou know nothing about destruction. You never owned a country that was entirely destroyed by another country. Iraq was at its best when America gathered forces to destroy its infrastructure in 1991. Do you know how many days it took Iraqis to rebuild Iraq? 60 days. Now, with your glorious "contracting" companies and the blessings of the illiterate fanatics your country brought from abroad to rule us, nothing is rebuilt yet. Foreign companies did nothing since they came here, and please don't give me PDF files and documents to pove there is reconstruction because I don't buy it. There is nothing tangible. No electricity, no water, no security. period.
If Americans gave Iraqi contracting companies the responsibility to rebuild Iraq, we would have been in a far better shape than depending on American and other foreign companies whose main job is to steal money on the account of Iraqi people and US troops.
It's interesting that you bring up thought control, being such a fan of the "old ways" as you are. Not used to being challenged, are you?
ReplyDeleteinteresting you bring up thought control when your condescending /bullying is so transparent. ("Not used to being challenged, are you?", "Had you been paying attention","
You, sir, are a propagandist", "we'll see who foams at the mouth and begins spewing distortions and half-truths first.", "scorched-earthers, such as yourself"," Could you perhaps call him from your speed dial and ask?"). you flatter yourself imagining anyone here is under the illusion you could challenge TAI with spin. your verse is continually laden w/ syrupy degrading speak ("Leverage your superior knowledge", "and persistent positive", "(hereafter: "PR").... what would you do without you usage of condescending to 'set the tone'.... ("So take me to school. ") and you accuse others of mind control? lol
using the accronym for propaganda (public relations, hereafter: "PR") to address the resistance? cute. but you don't traffic in mind control?
But these are questions that need to be answered
1) pulling the 'care' card are we? we invaded iraq because we 'care'? yet the question that NEEDS to be answered is nothing more than your obvious attempt to start off your 'inquiries' w/...spin.
2) before you make requests for 'explanations' about destroyed infrastructure and reconstruction projects you i suggest you keep in mind we are not blind to the history of the US in destroying these very things in their false flag tecniques thruout the cold war, lating america, years of lead, etc.
3) It is almost impossible to deny by now that the invaders have spun off from its original mission of attacking the resistance, and is working with us instead to fight al Qeada. The view from over here is that this happened after they got it thru their sculls they couldn't control the government forces. OK, so... why did they wait?
4) is it possible US has approved, or at least "not opposed", (in many cases participated and inflamed) all along attacks on innocent civilians, as evidenced by #3 above?
5) The Islamic Army, generally thought of as a group within the "PR", recently fought AQ in Baghdad but then made up with them.
lol. 'generally thought'??? you wish. i don't think anyone could read your list of questions as anything more but another opportunity for you to do a little faming in the guise of 'curiosity' taking every opportunity at failed attempts to continually insert implications "Could you perhaps call him from your speed dial and ask?" and you accuse others of mind control? oh please. speaking of "Doesn't that sound like a plan that has already been tried before?" th US is left w/rehashing over and over any and all propaganda to frame the same continued failed occupation in a new light, w/new reasons but i am not alone in recognizing things just keep getting worse and worse. you even post Nibras Kazimi who, like the other neocons filters in the propaganda lies mixed in w/current events.
NK, last year.... "the insurgency is tanking and breaking down,"
NK, this year...... The wider Sunni insurgency — the groups beyond Al Qaeda — is being slowly, and surely, defeated.
cheney....05 ...."Iraq insurgency in 'last throes,"
rhus..., obviously my view is that the US wants power for themselves only, and they are fully willing to fill whatever graves necessary to make it so. Just like the good ol' days.
7) Aren't you proud of your contribution to their effort?
do us all a favor, try being genuine. your snarking, degrading form of communication, statements posed as questions, is boring, old and as easy to refute as fishing in a stocked lake.
anon why do you does Iraq find itself in a constant state of 'rebuilding from scratch'?
you have to ask? iraq has something everyone who wants power needs. therefore it will always be, and remain, a target. until another source of energy is discovered, or iraqs resources are depleted, they will be a target. obviously they would not be in a constant state of rebuilding if they weren't in a constant state of being attacked.
So Iraqis have learned to pile up the rubble. Practice makes perfect, I suppose. I'm impressed. Iraq was at its best in '91 when it decided to rape Kuwait? Took all of a couple of weeks to have Iraq on its knees. They could have avoided all that by just going back across the border, but they 'can never be defeated', right?
ReplyDeleteIraqis are so gifted and talented, they remained under the thumb of a brutal tyrant while '1.7 million' of them died due to sanctions, and thumbed their noses while leaving themselves helpless in defense. Then, in a surrender campaign that made the French jealous, they proceeded to kill one another out of 'national' pride? How much pride do Iraqis take in those particular victories?
I keep hearing how educated, civilized and industrious Iraqis are, but I have yet to see any evidence. If blame shifting were a product, they would lead the world.
Iraq is not the only country blessed with great oil wealth, but they are by far the most dysfunctional. If the US is to be blamed for that, then you must admit that the society is incapable of living outside of a totalitarian regime. I have come to that conclusion myself. They have come under attack because they can not be trusted with the power they can purchased with that wealth. the evidence of that is plain enough, and the power available for purchase only gets greater as time passes.
Iraq has seen more years as the attacker than they have been attacked. We thought Saddam was insane when he declared Iraq the victor in the gulf War and after the Iraq- Iran war, but apparently such thinking passes for reality in Iraq. which came first-- the delusion or Saddam?
TAI: "Er ... Rhus, not talking about thought control at all. Talking about your racist arrogance. Coming here and on other Iraqi blogs to implement your agenda, to force down our throats the Bushco manifesto."
ReplyDeleteRascism is in the eye of the beholder. You think I am a rascist. Fine. I think you are. Because by "not being Iraqi" I have two choices: agree with you or shut up. Yes, TAI. Tell Me What To Think. It Is Not Mind Control If You Tell Me It Isn't.
But being "Iraqi" isn't enough, either, is it? I remember when you had your blogroll classified by "Heroes", "Patriots", "Paid Iranian Agents", "Paid US Agents", or similar. So even Iraqis need to agree with you or else.
Or else you pontificate.
TAI: "But I just want to add that resistance comes in many ways. "
Yes, and if you only wrote letters or demonstrated or sought to increase the understanding of outsiders, or backed certain political parties, or "resisted" through other peaceful means then you would deserve a lot more respect even from people who hold opposing views.
But that's not what you do, is it? It's not just that you carry the insurgency's water, but you actively advocate violence and contribute to the forces directly responsible for destroying Iraq's infrastructure, preventing its rebuilding, and making sure common Iraqis suffer like they've never suffered before.
I wish you luck in building that school. I also wish that type of endeavor were ALL you're up to.
TAI: "You want to sincerely get answers, then go to my blog and pose the questions. I will answer them there."
Yes, I would sincerely like answers. I've posted the questions onto your blog entry about BT's post.
annie, I didn't ask you. But thanks for not answering anyway.
ReplyDeleteHarry Barnes: "On the other hand, some refugees were carrying posters with Saddam's photo on it when Iraq won the Asian Cup - I hope that these were just a tiny minority."
ReplyDeleteKonfused Kid, another excellent Iraqi blogger, was there on the streets of Jordan, and said this about it:
"that's when this black 4x4 came in out of nowhere, somebody was standing on top of it, and he was holding a picture of Saddam Hussein, he was shouting at the top of his voice only for one thing: "our blood, our soul, we sacrifice to you Saddam" (which is hugely ironic, since "we" are still alive and chanting), a few chimed in this, but i believe most did not, and in fact it generated a counter-chant (our blood, our soul, we give to you Iraq), I was revelling with disgust and I really considered hurling a shoe at the picture of the man who was the only one sacrificed so far"
He's a really good, very incisive writer, and that particular post is a standout. You should have a look.
You think I am a rascist. Fine. I think you are.
ReplyDeletethat might pack more of a punch if you could back it up, like he did about you.
you actively advocate violence and contribute to the forces directly responsible for destroying Iraq's infrastructure, preventing its rebuilding, and making sure common Iraqis suffer like they've never suffered before.
you actively advocate occupation that creates violence and contributes to the forces directly responsible for destroying Iraq's infrastructure, preventing its rebuilding, and making sure common Iraqis suffer like they've never suffered before.
annie, I didn't ask you. But thanks for not answering anyway.
lol, you wish. it is too easy refuting you rhus. i might leave you comments alone if you could cut all your propaganda. but you can't, so i won't.
I'm impressed. Iraq was at its best in '91 when it decided to rape Kuwait?
ReplyDeletei'm not sure rape would be the right verb. wasn't kuwait the one doing the slant drilling?
Me, to TAI: "You think I am a rascist. Fine. I think you are."
ReplyDeleteAnnie: "that might pack more of a punch if you could back it up, like he did about you."
Why do I have to back up what my opinion of him is? Fine. Like I said, he feels that, since a) I'm not Iraqi and 2) I don't agree with him, then I must be racist. here you go, annie. OK, since we are not talking about him being "Arab" versus me being "Caucasian", that does not fully apply. However, if he wants to apply the term to me then I can apply it to him, and it fits.
Of course you wouldn't find the invasion of Kuwait to be rape. Those Kuwaitis who did get raped or who were taken into Iraq to never be seen again might disagree with you, but they are not blaming Bush for what happened to them, so they don't matter, do they? Same thing with the Kurds to the North. They are thankful for liberation and are largely thriving, so who cares?
ReplyDeleteSome reading material you might find enlightening: The Rape of Kuwait: The True Story of Iraqi Atrocities Against a Civilian Population---- Jean Sassoon
Notice the author doesn't attribute the atrocities to Saddam as is the fashion. Iraqis did these things, along with countless others within their own borders. I know Iraqis we find online love to hide under Saddam's skirts when they Iraqi sins are brought to light, but they bear some of the responsibilities and consequences, whether they are willing to acknowledge them or not. Why should they when so many let their own partisan hatreds turn them into enablers in the effort to avoid fault. Saddam did it and Bush made him do it!
Rhus, I called you racist because you think WE (the Iraqis) are below you.
ReplyDeleteSo do most of your other friends who come here and patronize us about OUR own country. OUR own people. OUR own lives. OUR own families. OUR own livelihood. OUR own futures. OUR own children.
The UK military said the US military consider Iraqis untermenschen.
US officers have said they consider all able-bodied Iraqi men terrorists.
It is because you talk down to us. You berate us and reprimand us when we say "NO, it isn't like that".
I do not preach to you about your country, your people, your streets, your future and your livelihood. I have nothing to do with America. It doesn't concern me.
Beyond the fact that it has illegally invaded and occupied my country, decimated every hope my people had.
Racism according to wikipedia: Racism is a belief or concept that differences in physical appearance between people (such as those upon which the concept of race is based) determine cultural or individual achievement, and may involve the idea that one's own 'race' is superior.[1]
And that is exactly what is at work here. You are superior, we are inferior, you have the solution, we are the problem. You came to liberate us, we were caged. You failed at your mission, ergo it is our fault.
On and on and on and on.
You might not realize it, but your tone is demeaning and patronizing. As if we need to be taught about our own country.
Which is why I call you ignorant and arrogant. Ignorant because you have not spent a single day of your life in Iraq (those who served post-invasion don't count, you came on tanks and could never share in our culture as equals) and yet you come here to argue with us as if you are well-informed.
You do not speak our language, you do not know our jokes, our miseries, our songs of joy and those of sorrow.
You cannot understand, for example, why we cry when we hear Kathim Al Saher sing about Baghdad.
Nor can you understand why we miss the very pavement our neighborhood streets are made of. It is there we played with friends and relatives, soccer, d3boul, and the traditional ramadan games children play into the early hours of the morning.
Arrogant because despite your shortcomings you still believe it is your duty to correct us. We can correct each other, thank you. We know one another. You do NOT know us.
Yet, I do not engage in any of these approaches with you. Particularly not when it comes to your own country. Even though I lived among you for many, many years, I could never fully understand the US like someone born there who spent his entire life there.
There are many things I do know. But many more things I don't.
Because you fail to acknowledge that you are at a disadvantage when it comes to understanding us, and because you consistently refuse and resist everything BT, 24 and I tell you, there has to be a complex somewhere.
And that is racism. You believe yourself to be better than us.
How many times has BT been told to get out of the US and go back to where he came from because he had the courage to air his opinions, which were in stark contrast to many of the pro-war crowd?
The people who talk to him in this way and some who have even threatened him are all afflicted with the same disease - racism.
Et voila! From Wiki: In Portraits of White Racism David Wellman (1993) has defined racism as "culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities,” (Wellman 1993: x).
This is exported abroad, trust me.
Why can't you be like this guy, a true American hero?
The Abu Ghraib whistleblower's ordeal
By Dawn Bryan
BBC News
The US soldier who exposed the abuse of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison found himself a marked man after his anonymity was blown in the most astonishing way by Donald Rumsfeld.
PS I will answer your questions on my blog within the next day or two, if I can pull myself away from these constant distractions!
a) I'm not Iraqi and 2) I don't agree with him, then I must be racist.
ReplyDeleteactually that is not at all what he said. as much as TAI may disagree w/you he does not 'talk down' to anyone.
I was just trying to imply in a nice way that you are extremely ignorant on Iraq and Iraqis and yet come here to continue to "inform" us, "educate" us, tell us what is good for our people, how we should live and how we should think.
That is a mixture of racism (this is how the Brits dealt with India, for example) and arrogance (which is typical of those who are ignorant and with chips on their shoulder).
he gave an example. you on the other hand, not only resort to arrogance, you essentially accusing him of terrorist actions.
this is a war. we are the invader, and yet here on this thread we have continued examples of the denegration of iraqis, the accusations they are dysfunctional, helpless, incapable.. they are to blame for not righting the wrongs that an empire global superpower force bent on global domination. your constant use of snark and over exaggeration i have demonstrated above. it is a highly disrespecting form of argument. you also continually demonstrate an insensitivity toward the citizens of iraq, which you have done here on this thread by implying you suffering, or those of your friends or relatives somehow compares. it doesn't.
for you to say you think i am racist, i think you are racist.. just won't cut it. i don't know what illusion you are operating under that allows you to prfess to understand what the mindframe of a society suffering under the conditions set about by this invasion. you seem willfully arrogant and stubborn and do not allow for the very natural course of emotions to resist an occupier. you also completely avoid any comparrisons w/history and common sense by ignoring the obvious. that being false flag clandestine operations and the goal of the invader to control iraqs resources and permanently remain as an occupying force in the country, albeit one less present than the current level but nonetheless present by hook or by crook. also, even if many of the troops leave they will be replaced by mercenaries or 'security' if you prefer that work independently for corporations whose interests in iraq we wish to guarentee.
iraqis are not stupid. this constant harping about who is and who is not responsible for the infrastructure... well, who destroyed it to begin with? it is obviously a tactic in war, and used recently in palestine. so don't give me some bull that all that is wrong in iraq is a result of the resistance. it isn't. that is just hogwash and it is insulting for you to continually browbeat you onesided pov laden w/accusatory exaggeration by peppering your comments w/this meme of TAI being a terrorist.
now, if you want to accuse him of being racist you will have to do more than offering up that you are american while he is iraqi which is essentially, all you have done.
if he wants to apply the term to me then I can apply it to him,
no, you can't, it doesn't work like that and you know it.
well, i was typing while TAI was answering, he does a much better job than me.
ReplyDeleteTAI: "Rhus, I called you racist because you think WE (the Iraqis) are below you."
ReplyDeleteReally? I think Iraq can pull off a modern, inclusive government, that Iraqis can reject violence, rebuild and prosper, that Iraqis are too smart to listen to their imams only and will make wiser choices at the polls next time. You reject all that, and say you need a tyrant and only a tyrant. But not just ANY tyrant- one who was like the old one, who can brutally suppress this or that group... just like it was.
And you call ME racist? Can one be racist against one's own people? Or are you just so committed to the historical minority ruling class regaining power that the irony of your position escapes you?
TAI: "How many times has BT been told to get out of the US and go back to where he came from because he had the courage to air his opinions, which were in stark contrast to many of the pro-war crowd?"
I don't know, TAI. But I can tell you with certainty how many times I have told him that. Zero.
annie, one thing that TAI has over you and me for certain, based on his location, his langauge skills, his contacts, his deeply-felt beliefs, AND his country of origin is or SHOULD BE a clearer view of who the insurgents are and what they are doing to his country. He should not share your delusion that they are cuddly ewoks battling this evil neocon empire, and that the really bad bombings are actually false flag ops or some other nonsense.
ReplyDeleteBut given his ideological stance, I must say that yes, you caught me. I suspect he does more for the insurgency than just spew propaganda for them. Here is an "artist's conception" of what one of his mornings may or may not be like:
7:05 AM- sit down to breakfast
7:06 AM- read paper, see article where a power transmission line was blown up
7:07 AM- write blog post saying occupation and current puppet Iraqi gov't cannot provide power & security, and that Iraqis suffer for it
7:08 AM- fill out check:
Pay to the Order of: Mujahedin Infrastructure Wrecking Brigades...
It is almost impossible to think he can be so committed to his cause and ONLY contribute propaganda, and to a school. I could be wrong, but this is just an impression he emits.
I know it irks you to no end, but the opinion of the American people regarding Iraqis is of the utmost importance to the future of Iraq. You resenting it changes nothing. In your blog entries, I think you do well in bringing some reflection and understanding. in your comments, you reinforce most of the negative perceptions that Americans I know have of Iraqis in general. And I long ago separated the Kurdish people from my own understanding of what an Iraqi is. I find their outlooks and dispositions to be much different as a rule. No, that isn't racist, it is identifying cultural differences.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but I am confused. I thought Iraqi was a designation identifying nationality, not race. To speak in generalities about Iraqis does not make one racist, does it? Iraq is largely populated by Arabs, with Kurds and Persians making up some of the minority remaining? So that 'racist' accusation seems to be false on its face.
That goes back to the ludicrous accusation of racism by Annie that the Military was 'racist' by segregating bathroom facilities in Iraq so that US troops and contractors did not share facilities with non-US persons. Does that mean that Arab Americans or any other American of any shade were also banned from using the facilities? I bet not. That was largely due to the tendency of some of the citizens of other cultures working and living in Iraq to take a dump in our showers and wash their feet in out sinks. Maybe objecting to that makes us elitists, but not racists. If so, print up an 'Elitist' T-shirt and I will wear mine. It's all relative.
Do many of us, most of us, think that some cultures are superior/inferior in some ways to others? If we have a brain, we must. That is hardly racist. Realist is more correct.
I think Iraq can pull off a modern, inclusive government, that Iraqis can reject violence, rebuild and prosper, that Iraqis are too smart to listen to their imams only and will make wiser choices at the polls next time.
ReplyDeletereally? then why do you support an occupation? don't you mean w/the help of a 1/2 trillion dollars, special agents, clandestine operations, US airpower (don't let iraqis fly those planes), mercenaries, blackwater, oil draft laws and a constitution authored by friends of cheney then maybe iraq can accomplish something the neocons could work with?
face it, if you really believed in iraqis you would support letting them do it, without us propping up our cronies, who ushered in death squads and militias. you would have supported elections without our interference determining who could and could not run for office.
rhus..He should not share your delusion that they are cuddly ewoks
ReplyDeletei noticed the last time i challenged you to back up this assertion you couldn't yet you continue to use it attributing it to me. an ewok is a fictional character, it is also not human but an animal. own your disgusting words, they say a lot about the way your mind works.
anon..I know it irks you to no end, but the opinion of the American people regarding Iraqis is of the utmost importance to the future of Iraq. You resenting it changes nothing.
who said anything about the mind of the american people. rhus doesn't speak for me, or most americans.
you reinforce most of the negative perceptions that Americans I know have of Iraqis in general.
this says a lot about the nature of 'americans you know', and nothing of iraqis.
Do many of us, most of us, think that some cultures are superior/inferior in some ways to others? If we have a brain, we must. That is hardly racist. Realist is more correct.
jesus, superior cultures? what kind of inferior culture produced cheney/bush?
Obviously you read my post Annie. I suppose you choose to pass over the obvious fallacies or your rants that I pointed out.
ReplyDelete'superior cultures? what kind of inferior culture produced cheney/bush?'
Are you intentionally hypocritical for comedy's sake or just oblivious to your hypocrisy? And you selectively misquoted me, just for the record. But that happens a lot here, especially by the host. I think I said 'superior/ inferior in some ways' which would suggest I recognize value and deficiencies in all cultures. But obviously, some are on the whole superior to others. I don't think even you would argue otherwise. The culture you would pretend to think is superior would no doubt be questionable....
And my comment about the perception of Iraqis by Americans did not exclude you or any other leftist blowhard who shares citizenship, Annie. To say that the perception of Americans, positive or negative, is of no importance is proclaim yourself devoid of common sense.
anon you selectively misquoted me, just for the record.
ReplyDeletethe italics were copy and pasted from your post, directly. just for the record some of your claims are simply not worthy of response. like this...
That was largely due to the tendency of some of the citizens of other cultures working and living in Iraq to take a dump in our showers and wash their feet in out sinks.
get it? statements like these speak for themselves and do not warrant response, certainly not from me.
To say that the perception of Americans, positive or negative, is of no importance is proclaim yourself devoid of common sense.
thanks for another excellent example of a strawman. no wonder you don't quote me directly.
obviously, some are on the whole superior to others. I don't think even you would argue otherwise.
you think wrong. time will tell won't it. the 'superior culture' we are living in may lead to the extinction of the species. one persons version of civilized is another's hell.
To speak in generalities about Iraqis does not make one racist, does it?
that would depend on what one spoke.
I suppose you choose to pass over the obvious fallacies or your rants that I pointed out.
another opportunity to blather about what is 'obvious'. you are hardly worthy of a rant from me. water seeks its own level. there are some levels i simply ignore because they are worthless to argue. my time would be better spent describing colors to a blind person than continuing discourse w/the likes of you.
touche
7:08 AM- fill out check:
ReplyDeletePay to the Order of: Mujahedin Infrastructure Wrecking Brigades...
just for the record rhus i wanted to highlight a misconception of yours..
"I could be wrong, but this is just an impression he emits."
actually, i think what you mean is "this is just the impression i perceive". as always, your perceptions says more to the audience about who you are. but thanks for the clarification, sometimes i find you very... entertaining, in an absurd sort of way.
No, annie, I meant "emit". Kinda like a radio station "emits" a signal and it comes across loud & clear.
ReplyDeletea radio station "emits" a signal and it comes across loud & clear.
ReplyDeletewell, then you would have no reason to make up pretend fantasy scenarios about what you imagine he does in the morning. you could simply copy and paste his real clear words that in fact do come across loud and clear right here on this very site. but that is not what is happening is it? no, what is happening is you have made it abundantly clear you perceive TAI to be contributing to funding for the purpose of damaging the infrastructure of iraq.
but, instead of taking responsibility for your perceptions you are pretending ( without evidence or quotes) that TAI is "emiting', loud and clear.
prove it. if it is so clear he is writing checks to blow up infrastructure.. prove it.
you are a coward. TAI is a threat to the illusion of your 'superior' twisted logic. so, you resort to making false allegations, totally unfounded and ascribing false attributes of 'real'or 'clear'.
you are making a fool of yourself. your little recreation of his supposed morning is from your mind. the reality it reflects is yours, for us all to see from your own words.
RhusLancia, I admit that all I was drawing from were 2 photos and a video from here -
ReplyDeletehttp://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/3762/Iraqis_in_Jordan_Celebrate_Football_Victory
[bt] “You are talking facts and politics and I am talking about the misery Iraqis had to go through. When you said the sanctions were “legitimate”, I took this as “screw Iraqi people. We don’t care about you. We care about stopping Saddam.”
ReplyDeleteYou are right, the sanctions certainly did kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. I have never denied this. Nor have I made excuses for the devastation that they wrecked.
What I AM doing, however, is pointing out that the actual, original INTENT of the sanctions was to TARGET (read: target) only the WMD capabilities that Hussein might be developing. Seen in strictly that light, the sanctions might have some grounds for justification.
But of course, they were never applied selectively, as they were intended, were they?
No.
As you pointed out, they devastated Iraq, through denying the Iraqi state the means to function.
Why?
Because the US perverted and manipulated the sanctions in order to do things they were NEVER meant to do. It’s like you hire somebody to get rid of termites in your house, and instead of fumigating, they burn it down to do so. The same applies to Iraq. The original mandate was to stop NBC weapons production – ONLY THAT – but the usual somebody - read the US - decided to burn the country down instead.
I suggest you research the actual machinations behind the sanctions.
I am aware that as an Iraqi you lived through those terrible times. There’s nothing I can tell you on that score, rather, you could tell me about the hardships. All I’m saying is: perhaps you should find out WHY they were that bad. WHO was really responsible for those times? There are some surprises in store.
You excel in bluster, Annie. Reason and fact be damned.
ReplyDeleteRacist. (just trying to find your level out of courtesy)
From the NY Times:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/world/middleeast/06jordan.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Saleh al-Mutlak, a senior Sunni leader in Iraq’s Parliament, is spending his summer vacation here [Amman] at a well-appointed apartment that his wife and son moved into last year.
--
“Our people are suffering,” he said. “We should not be enjoying ourselves.”
Why is he there having a vacation then? He's contradicting himself. If he really cares about people suffering, why isn't he in Iraq helping them?
Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and several members of Congress have already expressed disappointment with Iraq’s 275 lawmakers for recessing when roughly 160,000 American soldiers are enduring Iraq’s blast-furnace summer to secure the country — ostensibly to make political progress possible. It did not help that the need for a break was among the only things that the factions could agree on.
Why is Gates surprised? Who cares about the Iraqi people and US soldiers? Isn't the vacation was the most important issue they agreed on, not to mention the diplomatic passports they were dying for.
“The Iraqi government has proved it’s a failure, but the Americans insist on supporting it,” said Mahmoud al-Mashadani, the combative Sunni Arab speaker of Parliament who is likely to be replaced soon. “I don’t understand it.”
I don't understand it either. Oh! You are still in office?! Maybe because the rest of the legislators are on hiatus. hehehe
“When a vase like this breaks into many pieces, it’s very hard to put back together,” he said. “Pieces will be missing. It will never be the same.”
So, you have to replace it with a new one!
BT, I spent 3 whole weeks watching Sharqiya, Iraqiya, Baghdadiya, Al Furat, and a few others.
ReplyDeleteIn that week, all I heard about from the first three were the political infighting between all these so-called politicians.
They would be seen joking and laughing with one another and then would make singular statements against each other.
Laughing!? BT, picture Talabani sitting with Sunni bloc reps and heaving his stomach up and down as he laughs.
While Baghdad burns.
In between the jocular, the TV announcer would interject with news of 15 bodies found here, another 30 there.
And then cut to images of people in parliament.
As for Al-Furat, ugh, for a whole week I had to listen to the deification of Hakim.
If you ask me, all the channels are worthless. The politicians serve the people ZERO and the Iraqi media ... I have no idea what to say anymore.
AND to add to this insult, Gates says the US military will stay in Iraq to SUPPORT this government?
WE IRAQIS DO NOT WANT THIS GOVERNMENT. No Iraqi does.
So, if true democracy were to apply, its we, the people, right?
But as BT mentioned, who cares about Iraqis?
Certainly not the racist, white hoods who come here.
Too bad some of the racist pro-war crowd here don't understand Arabic, they could have watched for themselves.
I am willing to teach Rhus and the others, tho.
One would think with all the care they have for Iraq and sitting down describing my mornings in a most amusing SNL way, they would better dedicate their time to learning our language, our culture.
Or is our language substandard for them?
After all, Iraqis are untermenschen to the great white north, no?
OK, BT, you claim to wish to make the thoughts of Iraqis known and understood by the illiterate US citizens (which makes blogging a pointless excercise, but I'll not quibble) So I ask you these questions as one of the aforementioned who finds the complaining wails of Iraqis like yourself to be hollow...
ReplyDeleteWho to blame for the effects of the Sanctions? Why don't we start with the Iraqi people? Which nation started the war with Iran? Which nation used WMD in an attempt to rid itself of a troublesome ethnic minority and was furiously developing more? Which nation invaded Kuwait. Which nation refused to abide by the terms of surrender post removal? Which nation continued to violate the terms of surrender after economic sanctions were applied as a consequence? Iraq, right?
Didn't the Iraqi people have a choice throughout the decades of suffering: endure the consequences of Saddam's rule or endure the cost of his removal? Leaving Saddam in place and unchecked was never an option from the US standpoint. That Iraqis have no unifying leaders among them with the interests of the nation at heart and value their own continues existence above all else can hardly be laid at the feet of the Coalition, or can it?
That 100's of thousands of their fellow Iraqis died, and continue to die, is ultimately on the heads of the Iraqi people. If you accept the notion that an unchecked Iraq with Saddam as its head was not an option, then isn't that what we are left with? It all could have ended with a revolt of sufficient numbers and people within Iraqi government, but they chose to stay with the status quo. Was that due to lack of numbers, courage, or self destructive, bull-headed 'pride', or all of the above? Has anything changed since?
In retrospect, that should have told us what more and more Iraqi blogger's like this one are telling us: the nation is incapable of anything short of totalitarian rule. I find it hard to summon great empathy for that.
Petraus should find some Iraqi generals to participate in an iron fist crackdown and elevate the most acceptably secular among them to run a military coup. Have him make vague promises of future elections in the style of Musharaff, shake his hand, give him some nice weapons and redeploy home and to bases in Kurdistan from which we can keep him reasonably 'honest'. I see signs of that happening, or hope I do. there are reports of Petraus having very 'frank' discussions with Maliki and engaging in missions with Iraqi military against his expressed orders. I hope some of the Iraqi generals are on board.
When even some of the most 'enlightened' of Iraqis admit that liberty and democracy are beyond the grasp of their own, at least for now, we should listen.
“OK, BT, you claim to wish to make the thoughts of Iraqis known and understood by the illiterate US citizens.”
ReplyDeleteI don’t recall claiming that. Secondly, if you call Americans illiterate, that’s up to you. I completely think that most Americans are educated and most of them know what is going on around them, but have no power to do any change exactly like any other nation. Maybe American citizens were not aware of the amount of horror the war caused at the beginning, but with the internet they are no longer than this. I have a lot of American friends who some of them are republicans. They always check out the news and always support our cause as a nation destroyed by theirs.
So, bring me a line that proves I said what you have written. Don’t assume things and then accuse me of doing them.
“So I ask you these questions as one of the aforementioned who finds the complaining wails of Iraqis like yourself to be hollow...”
Well, if you consider our cries for help hollow wails, that doesn’t change our cause. We are a nation that was destroyed by an illegitimate occupation and a series of mistakes done by that occupation. We are human beings who are calling for their rights that are raped by force.
Even though you were rude in asking your questions and providing your viewpoints, I am still going to answer them, being the fact that I am going to be the bigger one here.
“Who to blame for the effects of the Sanctions?”
Kuwaiti government, Saddam, the US, and the United Nations.
“Why don't we start with the Iraqi people? Which nation started the war with Iran? Which nation used WMD in an attempt to rid itself of a troublesome ethnic minority and was furiously developing more? Which nation invaded Kuwait. Which nation refused to abide by the terms of surrender post removal? Which nation continued to violate the terms of surrender after economic sanctions were applied as a consequence? Iraq, right?”
Iraqi people had nothing to do with all what you said. Saddam did.
He started the war against Iran through America’s blessings against the new rulers of that nation. It was Saddam who used these weapons against the Kurds. And it was Saddam who invaded Kuwait after he was provoked by the Kuwaiti government.
So Iraqi people had nothing to do with that. I did not go as a citizen and invaded Kuwait and burned its oil wells. It was Saddam and his forces. He was the president and he had all the power. Just like Bush. He invaded Iraq by ignoring his people. Should I say American people are the ones who invaded Iraq? Of course, not.
“Didn't the Iraqi people have a choice throughout the decades of suffering: endure the consequences of Saddam's rule or endure the cost of his removal?”
No, they did not. The decades of suffering are equal to one day of suffering under the American “liberation”. We were in a far better shape before than these days. We didn’t know that the superpower with all its FBI and CIA can’t get rid of a bunch of bearded filthy men. We believed in movies, and that was wrong. But it was a lesson, not for us only, but for the rest of the world.
“leaving Saddam in place and unchecked was never an option from the US standpoint.”
Oh very obvious. That’s why the US did not help the revolutionaries during the 1991 uprising!
“That Iraqis have no unifying leaders among them with the interests of the nation at heart and value their own continues existence above all else can hardly be laid at the feet of the Coalition, or can it?”
Iraqi are always loyal to their country. But thanks to your country who brought the thugs and fanatic Muslims from exile to rule us. The US removed a tyrant and brought a hundred tyrants instead.
“That 100's of thousands of their fellow Iraqis died, and continue to die, is ultimately on the heads of the Iraqi people.”
Does that include those who were killed “by mistake” by US forces? Or does it also include the rape of the undreaged girls in Mahmoodiya and the 25 family members in Hadeetha and those slain civilians in weddings in Kirkuk, Ramadi and Samaraa? Just wondering!
“In retrospect, that should have told us what more and more Iraqi blogger's like this one are telling us: the nation is incapable of anything short of totalitarian rule. I find it hard to summon great empathy for that.”
Well, you don’t have to because we don’t care about what you think. We care about those who try to help us be in a better situation than the one your party supported causing all this carnage and hatred against your country around the world.
“When even some of the most 'enlightened' of Iraqis admit that liberty and democracy are beyond the grasp of their own, at least for now, we should listen.”
You don’t have to if you don’t want to. No obligations here.
BT, from start to finish, beautiful, warda inta.
ReplyDeleteDespite our nation being targeted and people being killed it is always encouraging to see Iraqis stand up for what is right.
You and your blog fill my heart with joy that in ways is able to somehow overcome the darkness that surrounds me because of what our people are going through.
Fe Aman Allah.
Shukran 3yooni TAI... Itha i7na ma nogef lil iraq, minu la3ad? :D
ReplyDeletei agree, really beautiful BT. makes my heart proud to know you.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it wasn't you who made the statement about illiterate American readers of Iraqi blogs. I thought it was funny and it stuck with me, but if you don't recall making such a statement, then I will apologize for connecting it to you.
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking the time, but you could have just written this one line and been done with it:
"Iraqi people had nothing to do with all what you said. Saddam did."
You want to cover all sins of Iraq with that one simple statement? A country of 20+million absolve themselves of all the actions done in their name of their nation by just saying 'Saddam did it'?
Logically and rationally explain how a nation of 20+ million were helpless, blameless victims of their nation's government for 20+years? Who were running the government? The military? The police? The universities? Were they not Iraqis? I assume the number of Iraqis used to keep Saddam in power were a significant percentage of the population, assuming the majority were in at least passive opposition as you would have us believe and not willing participants. There is only one logical conclusion: The Iraqi population preferred the consequences/ benefits stemming from the rule of Saddam's regime to the sacrifices required to remove him! True or False? What other conclusion should one reach?
We shouldn't ignore the culpability of the Iraqi people themselves for what happens within their own borders. Assigning and acceptance of blame is important only because I think it goes some way towards explaining the inability of Iraqis to reform and unite towards a positive, common purpose. If they will not realize their past mistakes, they will repeat them. There are examples of rogue nations being defeated and occupied, only to be reborn into world leaders. But there was very little finger pointing, just resolve to fix the things that led them to their demise. I don't hear anything like that coming from Iraqi sources. In fact, you yourself seem eager to put Iraq right back under the thumb of tyrant. But then, would you feel absolved of all of 'his' bad acts?
You blame US for not supporting the 1991 rebellion? The vast majority of Iraqis didn't support that revolution either, did they? Or take actions when the retaliatory massacres took place. So who bears the greatest guilt for failing to support those who rose up, Iraqis or Americans? I suppose had you been of age, you would have been on the front lines? Again, common sense and review of your words and reported acts would lead one to think otherwise.
'Does that include those who were killed “by mistake” by US forces?'
ReplyDeleteI think there is enough blame to go around. But yes, ultimately it was the action or inaction of the Iraqi people that brought war.
I just read more of your comments on this thread and you seem to be saying as much--- 'If we shook hands with America and Israel, we would have been better than Dubai.Look at their friends and compare, simple comparison.' A quite sensible admission of failure that recognizes that choices made have consequences. Nations or persons cant have self determinism without accepting accountability for their choices.
anon, Perhaps it wasn't you who made the statement about illiterate American readers of Iraqi blogs.
ReplyDeleteI just read more of your comments on this thread and you seem to be saying as much-
seriously, why don't you take a little time and read thru some of the archives before you start jumping to conclusions about our host.
i find some of your remarks/accusations stunning in their assumptions.
A quite sensible admission of failure that recognizes that choices made have consequences.
how often?? every thread?? every moment of every day. why? why bother? we have the presencs of posters like you here shoving this information down our throat continually. if you want sensible admissions of iraqs failures you really don't have to look very far.
get a grip and quit trying to manipulate peoples responses to satisfy your sadistic nature. where did you even come from? you are like a pox on this thread!
“A country of 20+million absolve themselves of all the actions done in their name of their nation by just saying 'Saddam did it'?”
ReplyDeleteExactly!
“Logically and rationally explain how a nation of 20+ million were helpless, blameless victims of their nation's government for 20+years?”
Well, logically and rationally, when people are executed just by the mere simple joke against the government, many people had been able to stand against the tyrant because he would have executed the entire family, if not the tribe just for thinking to do so. However, there were people who did so and were executed because they stood against the tyrant.
Our situation under Saddam was kind of similar to that of the Jews under Hitler. The Jews then were unable to defeat Hitler because he was a powerful tyrant who not only executed but used people for experiments. So if I think the way you think, I will be like Ahmadinajad who believes that the Holocaust was an exaggerated myth! He put the question like you did, is it logical that millions of Jews were helpless, blameless of their nation’s government for XX years?
“Who were running the government? The military? The police? The universities? Were they not Iraqis?”
They were all Iraqis. But all those who persecuted the Jews under Hitler were also German. Should we consider what happened against the Jews was done by ALL Germans or a specific number of military German?
“I assume the number of Iraqis used to keep Saddam in power were a significant percentage of the population, assuming the majority were in at least passive opposition as you would have us believe and not willing participants.”
We don’t have time for assumptions here. If you want to know real stuff without assumptions, I advise you to read “The Republic of Fear” so that you don’t have any more doubts and assumptions.
“The Iraqi population preferred the consequences/ benefits stemming from the rule of Saddam's regime to the sacrifices required to remove him! True or False? What other conclusion should one reach?”
And what made you reach this conclusion bela za7ma [If you don’t mind]?
“We shouldn't ignore the culpability of the Iraqi people themselves for what happens within their own borders.”
Back to inaccuracy! No one is trying to run away from responsibility. I think you read my blog with prejudice. Otherwise, you could have seen clearly how I talked about IRAQIS and how this IRAQI government and parliament have failed in bringing progress to Iraq and keep it unified as it used to be. So we are not ignoring this fact. On the contrary, we are saying that our rulers have let us down!
“If they will not realize their past mistakes, they will repeat them.”
See you don’t look to the farther meaning of this very entry. To bring it closer to you, I am using the part of freedom that I got to reform the new tyrnical government and parliament by writing about their defects. So that means we learned from our mistakes in the past and we are trying to avoid the same mistake by speaking out loud that these people do not represent us anymore. And most Iraqi blogs are like mine. So it means there is no problem in what I am saying, but there is a problem with what you are saying! It’s not logical that the majority are wrong and you are the right one.
“You blame US for not supporting the 1991 rebellion? The vast majority of Iraqis didn't support that revolution either, did they?”
See, it seems you have no idea what history wrote about that uprising. Iraq was almost liberated but the Shiites were not supported by US as promised. So Saddam with his power was able to crush them and their families alive. Instead, the US helped the Kurds only in bombing Saddam’s troops when tried to take over the Kurdish region again.
“So who bears the greatest guilt for failing to support those who rose up, Iraqis or Americans?”
Oh it so the Americans!
“I think there is enough blame to go around. But yes, ultimately it was the action or inaction of the Iraqi people that brought war.”
Hahahha. That’s the funniest comment I’ve ever heard. No wonder why people laugh at the Holocaust deniers. Hahahahah
Oh, and apology accepted!
Again--thanks for the reply. As a pox, I don't supposed I deserve it. Just a few retorts:
ReplyDelete"Our situation under Saddam was kind of similar to that of the Jews under Hitler."
Let's follow that logic for a moment. You think that the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany is in any way comparable to the fate of Iraqis as a whole in Iraq? Comparable to the Germans in Nazi Germany perhaps, with the Kurds being comparable to the Jews. In fact, that analogy fits pretty well.
'Should we consider what happened against the Jews was done by ALL 'Germans or a specific number of military German?' ---I think most in the Western world, including Germans, think that the German people as a whole were culpable in the Holocaust and the invasion of its neighbors. Are all guilty of specific crimes, of course not. They certainly didn't spend the years under occupation declaring themselves innocent and victimized by their occupiers, did they? And they certainly suffered terrible consequences for their unwillingness to support a rebellion when it became clear where Hitler was taking them. They actively or passively participated in what followed and seem to have accepted responsibility for that as a reborn nation.
"The Iraqi population preferred the consequences/ benefits stemming from the rule of Saddam's regime to the sacrifices required to remove him! True or False? What other conclusion should one reach?”--And what made you reach this conclusion bela za7ma [If you don’t mind]? "
Well, the fact that Saddam remained in power until forcibly removed by coalition forces was the first clue that led me to that conclusion. That is pretty obvious on its face isn't it? You may take the position that Saddam was so entrenched in Iraqi society that such an organized revolt was not possible, but apparently some found it possible in '91 and the rest of the nation let them be crushed, didn't they? Why? Because the US didn't do it for them? Hard to keep up with all the permutations of how the US is to blame. I suppose the Shiites weren't supported because it was feared that if Saddam fell, the Shiites would take revenge on Sunnis and Sunnis would try to hold onto power by killing the Shiites and then we would have to commit American blood and treasure to prevent carnage of biblical proportions and then take abuse for occupying Iraq while all the sects and tribes of Iraq tore each others throats out and the country completely collapsed. Hard to imagine that such a thing could happen, but I suppose anything is possible.
Why do I assume that a large percentage of Iraqis were vested in keeping Saddam in power?--- because if it is as you say, only telling a joke about Saddam could bring death, there must have been many ears working for Saddam and willing to deal out punishment to keep rebellious Iraqis in line. Either there were a lot of Saddamists keeping the 'brave rebellious' Iraqis in line either out of loyalty, selfishness or cowardice, or there were few brave rebels. Which is it? Either way, a lot of Iraqis were to blame for Saddam. They own him and everything that goes with it, every bit as much as Germans own Hitler.
Name this country: used its wealth to obtain the strongest military in its region, declared itself the rightful owner of its neighbors territory, invaded its neighbors in brutal warfare, attempted to eradicate a troublesome ethnic minority under its control, was defeated by a coalition of world powers, was occupied by the US. Now to make it easier, which nation reformed and rebuilt its society during that occupation to become a world cultural and economic power while under that occupation? OK, Japan OR Germany would be acceptable. Iraq, too busy declaring their victim hood to accomplish anything just yet.
Now, if you don't accept the concept of criminal indifference, then there is no point in this discussion at all and you can allow yourself to think Iraqis are martyrs without fault. Maybe that is where we lose each other.
Name this country: used its wealth to obtain the strongest military in its region, declared itself the rightful owner of its neighbors territory, invaded its neighbors in brutal warfare, attempted to eradicate a troublesome ethnic minority under its control
ReplyDeletethe US?
Anon, you lost the minute you began to type your arguments.
ReplyDeleteJust answer me this, have you spent one day in Iraq?
Do you not think a presence in the country you persist in accusing, demeaning, insulting is necessary to validate your argument?
Or you happy being stateside, reading the NYT, CNN and all the other propaganda regurgitated by an ignorant mass media?
Just one question, please. Have you been in Iraq?
Yes?
No?
Aha ...
John McCain has been to Iraq. So has Hillary Clinton.
ReplyDeleteDisclaimer: I don't fully agree with anon, but TAI's "Day in Iraq" test is a non-starter.
ReplyDeleteHa! You made me smile that time, Annie. Selective quotation is your forte, but you actually made a point this time in the process. An irrelevant point, but a point nonetheless. You know, the US has a history of removing invaders and restoring nations, with a Mexican War and the settlement of the West being 'complicated' exceptions. Reason and facts be damned! Stay with what makes you so special. By the way, why are you bothering with a 'pox'?
ReplyDeleteBT--- thanks for the book recommendation, by the way. I have just ordered a lightly used copy and will read it as you suggested. I would honestly appreciate any others you think might give me some insight. You may not believe this, but I truly am trying to come to some understanding of why the Iraqi people appear to be so hell bent on self destruction and willing to squander so much potential. I recommended 'The Rape of Kuwait' earlier. Have you read it? Do you really think they were asking for it?
Rhus, it is a non-starter because you can't start it.
ReplyDeleteIt is a starter for us.
When your mangy mutt US forces leave, you won't care an inkling about Iraq.
We will be left with the mess in the aftermath.
Which is why it is a starter.
From my comment on 24's:
Tsk, tsk Rhus you are getting so desperate. You enjoy taking me on when am not there.
Kind of like the cowardly US military you so wholeheartedly support and whoreship which prefers to blow Iraqi and Afghan villages from the sky.
You don't get it. You will never get it.
But I enjoy the fact that I irk you so much, you feel you need to let of steam about me.
They have a word for that in the US: therapy.
I support the resistance. Not the "insurgents" - a name fabricated by US media.
Because if it were to use the term "resistance" it would imply there is an occupation and to imply there is an occupation is to imply an illegality.
An illegality the whole world realizes and condemns.
But you.
Re-read BT's latest set of comments.
He called the occupation and the invasion illegitimate.
Well, if you consider our cries for help hollow wails, that doesn’t change our cause. We are a nation that was destroyed by an illegitimate occupation and a series of mistakes done by that occupation. We are human beings who are calling for their rights that are raped by force.
RESISTANCE. Git? Not militia, not criminal gangs, not those parading in the name of the Baath or Awda or Islam or Shiism or Sunni crap.
The people who seem to have managed to kill nearly 3700 of your gang. The people who manage to take out hundreds of the mercenaries who are in Iraq for the sporting kill and money.
The people who manage to shoot down your planes, your copters, blow up your tanks, blow up your humvees and send 29,000 of your young men and women limbless, eyeless. And so on.
These are the people I support. Not Badr, not Sadr, not Al-Qaeda, not any Islamic fanatic, not any extremist, not the gangs kidnapping for money (hey, erase iraq's employment status and you create a legion of hungry, able men who will have no choice but to resort to crime).
Kidnapping is the byproduct of an invasion that had no post-war strategy. You can thank your uncle Bremer for that one.
You come here trying to compare us. My God, you have no idea how so many of us bloggers ADORE one another.
I say this time and again. We may disagree, we may fight, we may walk away upset, but what unites us is our common heritage.
Our common goal. We want a FREE Iraq.
Free of dictatorship, free of tyranny (let us start with the Maliki govt, then the sadrists, the badrists, the saudis, the qaidas and the US).
We as Iraqis know that in the short term what is needed in Iraq is something akin to dictatorship to stamp out the crime, the gangs, the militias.
We need a strong government. Like what we had before and unlike what we had before.
We want the crime removed from our streets. And when that is accomplished, when the Qaeda and sectarian gangs have been squashed then and ONLY then can we start to build a democracy.
That is what BT and I and others were trying to explain before y'all jumped us and said "if you want a dictatorship then you are inherently evil blah blah blah".
I would like to see you cowards dealing with 1/100th of what our families have to deal with each and EVERY day.
If the power goes out for 6 hours because of excessive AC usage, you all crumble into a mass of whining harlots.
You pampered, childish bullies.
You all drink bottled water, while more than 70% of Iraqis have to drink unfiltered water.
You turn on your computers, you watch your TV, you go to gas stations, you buy food in the supermarket.
In Iraq, every son worries when his mother goes to market. Every mother worries when her son goes to work.
Because they will get killed.
Iraq is a killing field created by the likes of you. And you dare to come criticize us.
We want our children to be happy and not wet themselves every time a bomb goes off.
We want our women secure. Our schools, our mosques, churches, synagogues.
But you can't stand it that we shut you up EACH AND EVERY TIME.
Because WE ARE IRAQIS. It is as simple as that.
YOU ARE NOT.
Look at Krypton, one of the most ignorant, racist and cowardly commentators I have ever seen.
Look at how he attacks Omar. Why?
Because Omar says something you don't like? And YOU, YOU are supposed to come from a democratic country which practises the principles of free speech - the forum of free ideas expressed freely.
And you CLAIM that is what you want for Iraq, but you want it on YOUR terms. The lowly Iraqi untermenschen cannot and will not speak unless it is to say YES Masta.
THAT is why you are racist. I keep getting critiqued for this word but in that very criticism by the simple-minded lies the instrument of their foot-in-mouth maneuver.
You are weak. And you know you are.
You know you have no moral standing. You have no conscience. So you cover it up by attacking people you do not even know.
You are saying these about 24? My God, I personally know how many times this young man has risked his life to get YOU and the World the news.
And you dare to come here and attack him.
But, I am not surprised. This is your moral fiber. And we have ours.
BT on his blog mentioned to one ANON ignoramus that he will be bigger and better than him by maintaining his demeanor.
Even tho ANON was clearly rude and obnoxious.
BT is far more restrained than I am.
I have no qualms about shoving my literary foot in your mouth.
Again and again and again.
Which is why you can't stand me.
So keep coming here and so will I, and I promise you, I will spare no effort in standing up for BT, for Omar, and for all Iraqis EVEN those I disagree with.
John McCain has been to Iraq. So has Hillary Clinton.
ReplyDeleteDid they walk in the streets of Iraq without guards?
Did they take their children to school?
Did they go to the morgues in search of their sons and daughters.
McCain returned saying security in Iraq was great and Iraqis were out and about!!
And we all tore him to shreds for saying that.
Your answer to my question is that your politicians have been to Iraq?
Jesus, you are far, far less intelligent than I could have ever wagered.
THIS is the pro-war crowd? THIS??!?
Hahahahahaha ... ya rabi! Hay shinu? 7UTHALAAAAAAAAAT. That is what you are.
Qashmar!
Speaking of books, one of my commentators recommended this:
ReplyDeleteWeb of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush
I recommend this:
The Future of Iraq: Dictatorship, Democracy, or Division?
by Liam Anderson and Gareth Stansfield (Palgrave MacMillan 2005, 288 pp, Updated Version ISBN: 1403971447)
Anonymous,
ReplyDelete“You think that the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany is in any way comparable to the fate of Iraqis as a whole in Iraq?”
I said, “kind of”! I used this example as a metaphor and I hope you understood it.
“Comparable to the Germans in Nazi Germany perhaps, with the Kurds being comparable to the Jews. In fact, that analogy fits pretty well.”
So? That’s what I am trying to say! Kurds prosecuted under Saddam were Iraqi.
“Are all guilty of specific crimes, of course not.”
So?!
I am not here to talk about the Nazis and the German. I was taking what happened their as an example.
“Well, the fact that Saddam remained in power until forcibly removed by coalition forces was the first clue that led me to that conclusion. That is pretty obvious on its face isn't it?”
No, it’s not. Let’s go back to the Jews under Hitler. Why didn’t they resist him and get rid of him? Simply because he was a tyrant who crushed every single thing, not only person, standing against his will. Iraqis were not able to resist him. However, they did on some occasions. Take the assassination attempt in Dujail in which Saddam ordered a masscare afterwards. Take the uprising. These were efforts by Iraqis to get rid of him. So that makes your assumption inaccuarate because Iraqis DID resist Saddam, but he was powerful enough to terrorize them under the supervision of the US and the eyes of the international community which kept silent for years until he threatened to use his fake WMD.
“I suppose the Shiites weren't supported because it was feared that if Saddam fell, the Shiites would take revenge on Sunnis and Sunnis would try to hold onto power by killing the Shiites and then we would have to commit American blood and treasure to prevent carnage of biblical proportions and then take abuse for occupying Iraq while all the sects and tribes of Iraq tore each others throats out and the country completely collapsed.”
So why did the US then support the Shiites after the 2003 invasion? Isn’t what you presumed happening nowadays? Why didn’t the US learn from these assumptions? It leaves to the conspiracy theory that the US did that intentionally to start a huge war in the ME so that it keeps it’s beloved doll Israel safe and bring the terrorists to our land to keep them away from yours.
“Why do I assume that a large percentage of Iraqis were vested in keeping Saddam in power?--- because if it is as you say, only telling a joke about Saddam could bring death, there must have been many ears working for Saddam and willing to deal out punishment to keep rebellious Iraqis in line.”
You really should read “The Republic of Fear”. There were minders and spies among students, taxi cabs, restaurants, every hospital, every school, every street, and everywhere.
“Either way, a lot of Iraqis were to blame for Saddam.”
America to blame as well. It created him. It supplied him with weapons and it made him provoke its first enemy Iran!
“They own him and everything that goes with it, every bit as much as Germans own Hitler.”
Well, at least Iraqis had a better life then. No one can argue about this. Your country’s war destroyed the normal life Iraqis had. Very simple, very obvious and every one in the world is witnessing it.
“which nation reformed and rebuilt its society during that occupation to become a world cultural and economic power while under that occupation?”
Iraq, shortly after the complete destruction of the infrastructure in 1991. three months! Your country has been in Iraq for almost 5 years and nothing was rebuilt!!!!
“BT--- thanks for the book recommendation, by the way. I have just ordered a lightly used copy and will read it as you suggested.”
Any time.
“You may not believe this, but I truly am trying to come to some understanding of why the Iraqi people appear to be so hell bent on self destruction and willing to squander so much potential.”
Iraqis don’t want to waster so much potential. We trusted the US. We welcomed the US. We wanted it at some point to get rid of Saddam. We welcomed democracy. We took to the streets to vote defeating death. But the US policy let us down by keeping supporting the failed government and by ignoring the voice of Iraqis.
All what we want is a normal life where we can go to school, work, restaurants and raise our kids in a safe and normal atmosphere kind of similar to the one we already had and didn’t appreciate.
“Do you really think they were asking for it?”
You mean Kuwaitis asking for “Saddam’s invasion”? If yes, I don’t think so. Kuwait was a state that had its sovereignty and I think Saddam did a terrible mistake by invading it whether they provoked him or not. He hurt his people in the first place than the Kuwaitis.
Annie,
ReplyDelete“the US?”
You pulled the words out of my mouth.
RhusLancia,
“John McCain has been to Iraq. So has Hillary Clinton.”
They were in the Green Zone, not Iraq. I hope you don’t think the GZ is part of Iraq. TAI means the “Red Zone”, where we live and suffer.
Oh and yes, Shorja Market is in the red zone, but you remember the whole story of how "safe Baghdad was" that was made up by him making the whole world laughing.
ReplyDeleteTAI---- have I ever been to Iraq. No. I do know at least a dozen who have been or are there now and they have generously shared their experiences with me. I bet they have seen some places in Iraq you have never seen or would ever acknowledge ever existed. Some of those I know have much lower opinions of the place than I do, but what is your point? There seems to be a great diversity of opinion among Iraqis who are lifelong residents, even in the blogoshere. I even know a real life by gawd Iraqi who lives within 100 yards of me at this very moment and who would probably spit on you given the chance--- I try not to get into too deep of discussions with him on the subject of his former nation that disgusts him so thoroughly. So having actually lived there hardly guarantees that my opinions would be the same as yours, does it?
ReplyDeleteI freely admit I am no authority on the everyday life of Iraqis now or in the past. I am completely at a loss when it comes to comprehending the Iraqi mind. But, frankly, if you are an Iraqi and lived there through Saddam's regime, I probably know more about the responsibilities of liberty and as much or more about Iraq's interaction with the rest of the world than you do. What has Iraq's short history taught you about the responsibilities that come with liberty?
Where did you get your info about Iraq's conflict with the world? Baghdad Bob? You seem to have adopted much of his style. 'The US Army lies gutted, baking in the desert sun! There are no US tanks in Baghdad...ooops, gotta run..remember, Iraq will never surrender!" You aren't him in drag, are you?
You may console yourself with the thought that outsider's opinions do not matter and that only being Iraqi is important, but that is plainly not true, isn't it? Otherwise, why bother? I can only form opinions based on sources available and trying to draw conclusions based on events. That's why I sometimes bother to argue with some of you, to try and get at core beliefs and to see if there is some basic agreement among us or to find some inkling of understanding. Sure, I like to express my opinion for my own indulgence, but I do listen, too. I refuse to pity Iraqis and fight not to despise them as a group. When I find Iraqis such as yourself and TB advocating more tyranny for Iraq, the fight becomes more difficult. (you really need to look up the true meaning of 'racist'--- it simply makes no sense in the context you so dearly love to toss around--- you too, Annie) Sorry you take me as rude, I know it is more in your tradition to smile and compliment one another while inserting the knife, but I prefer to be blunt.
'No, it’s not. Let’s go back to the Jews under Hitler. Why didn’t they resist him and get rid of him?'
ReplyDeleteThat is why it is such a poor analogy--- the Jews were a tiny minority! Why didn't the Germans overthrow Hitler is a better question. Sure, Hitler had his secret police, spies, informers, Hitler youth. But had enough of the German people truly desired, they could have hung him from a lamppost and saved themselves and the world a lot of grief. They didn't and they paid dearly for it.
Question: do you think that had the Iraqi people been able to foresee the current events as they are now back in '91, would they have joined the rebellion and paid the price and saved themselves and the world a lot of grief?
Why did the US decide to overthrow Saddam now instead of '91? I honestly don't know. I really think that the younger Bush was more idealistic (naive?) and thought that Iraqis would welcome the opportunity and overcome the divisions quickly. I think he thought it worth that risk because he viewed the region as rapidly being left behind by the modern world and much of the younger generation being persuaded to turn to radical Islam. Radical Islam is viewed as a genuine threat post 9-11 and in the increasingly widespread availability and lethality of potential weapons that could be used against the West. I think that those who are serious about securing our nation think that the Arab Islamic world must reform or be destroyed for our own long term survival. We believe what Osama and his ilk have to say about the future. I think that Iraq was a noble but terribly flawed effort to head off that eventual region wide, maybe worldwide, conflict. Like TAI says, It isn't over yet! I increasingly doubt that the worst of it is over yet.
"beloved doll Israel"
ReplyDeleteI have heard Israel called many things but never that!
Hahaha ... nice one, BT.
I do know at least a dozen who have been or are there now and they have generously shared their experiences with me.
ReplyDeleteIf you mean US military or civilan personnel since 2003, then it is garbage upon garbage.
Like I said before, those who came in on tanks, hauling heavy weaponry and such could never, EVER comprehend Iraq the way we would have loved to show them.
As our equals, as people who genuinely are interested in our culture in our history in our rich diversity.
In our cuisine, in our music, in our art.
Iraqi artists were and are the BEST in the Mideast. That is FACT, not fiction.
But they did not come as our equals, they came as our oppressors.
Your statements, if that is what you were alluding, are about as serious and as enlightened as that of Rhus saying I read my morning paper and write a cheque out to the mujahididi.
Hahaha ... the parade of fools supporting the war, defending their racism, and continuing to lambaste me and other Iraqis is a work of art.
More.
Oh, and yes, the invasion of Kuwait, whether they asked for it or not, was the single most stupid thing Saddam did.
ReplyDeleteI hardly think anyone, any Iraqi could deny how stupid and egotistical that was. Whether they were drilling in slants or not.
As BT said, we ate nadam (regret) over that. I remember my uncles were visiting me on August 2nd in a neighboring Arab country and the first thing they said was how stupid and idiotic he was to do that.
It was such a rash act that even the first wave of tanks which entered Kuwait were not armed. No ammo. Stupid rash, ego-driven mania.
And we the Iraqis paid for it for 13 years.
But as BT said, the infrastructure was entirely rebuilt after 1991. And had the sanctions not existed, so many Iraqis could have been saved.
Oh by the way, since all the racists who come here do so out of ignorance, here chew on this:
http://uruknet.info/?p=m35062&s1=h1
I know of Iraqis, some of them bloggers, who worked on reviving our telecom infrastructure among other things.
But the invasion of Kuwait as one of recent history's biggest blunders has competition: Bushco's invasion of Iraq.
Funny how invasions turn to blunders.
We will rebuild. It is our destiny. Today, tomorrow, 10 years from now.
Every one of us WILL rebuild. Take that to the bank.
The destiny of the pro-war, racist crowd, however, is the trash bin.
Radical Islam is viewed as a genuine threat post 9-11 and in the increasingly widespread availability and lethality of potential weapons that could be used against the West.
ReplyDeleteAl-Qaeda had no clout before the US invasion of Iraq. None. They use YOUR invasion of my country to justify everything they do.
Just like bin Laden justified his hatred on the US occupation of Saudi.
Thank you for fuelling their fire.
And why on earth did you not wipe the Taliban and Alqaeda out when you had the chance?
Instead you went to Iraq which had nothing to do with Alqaeda (every assessment that has come out since has shown that Bushco lied, lied, lied about every justification they had for the war).
You took a modern state with a modern educated middle class, a secular state for the most part, where fanaticism was squashed by Saddam's iron fist, and killed it.
You brought Alqaeda. Just remember that. Every Iraqi blames you for this.
History will condemn you for it.
'Iraqi artists were and are the BEST in the Mideast. That is FACT, not fiction.' doesn't that fit your definition of 'racism', TAI? You may want to look up the definition of 'fact' on the way to ''racism', by the way.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure they would have rather seen the Iraq you remember, too. They didn't come as oppressors, the came first as conquerers and then as liberators. When your fellow Iraqis fired on them, you turned your backs like good little Iraqis always do and let others pay the price for the liberty you demand, right? Now you resent them for not treating you as equals and oppressing you? You don't ask for much, do you? Incidentally, some of them have had very good relations with Iraqi families and Iraqi soldiers, but I don't dispute your characterization for the overall situation.
Saddam's Iraq---Glory days for many, no doubt. But that is all relative and has nothing to do with anything except your bitterness, does it? I do find it puzzling how Iraqis can talk of the terror, spies, secret police while living in the Saddam regime that prevented them for securing their own freedom. Secretly yearning for liberty, passionately waiting for the chance to rebel, yet you seem to think of your oppression fondly, as if it was something of which you are immensely proud. Had to be there, I guess. It almost sounds like you were comfortable and willing to ignore what your government was doing to others while you enjoyed life as a slave. As long as you were a good little Iraqi, life must have been sweet! You just didn't think the bill would ever come, did you? Now you want to stiff the ones who served you your opportunity you sullenly sent back because it wasn't to your liking. Freedom isn't free is one of those lines silly Americans like me always try to remember. What are some of your favorites?
Jesus Christ, what the hell are you on about?
ReplyDeleteI am bitter because I have no country left.
Ask BT why he is bitter.
I lived under Saddam's time and it was hell. But guess what, as BT says here again and again and again, it was far, far, far better than now.
Far better. We don't long for dictatorship that exist, we long for how much better our lives were even then as compare to now.
You don't get it. What is wrong with all of you. Have you all taken a course in cultural ignorance?
At the very least, Iraqis did not have to worry about their children dying when a suicide bomber from your ally Saudi Arabia rams into their bus.
Or mortar shells falling in their schoolyards.
Or Iranian militia (the US and Iran are discussing Iraq - funny!) killing their teachers.
Glory days? Yes, we had electricity despite the persistent bombing of our facilities. We had somewhat clean water. We had hospitals which did their best despite YOUR sanctions and the prevention of vital medicines coming in.
Under the sanctions Iraqi doctors were NOT allowed to attend international conferences.
Why on earth would the US ban Iraqi doctors from increasing their expertise? Why if not to destroy the Iraqi people.
The Iraqi embassies around the world begged Iraqis to smuggle in new medical texts so that Iraqi hospitals could keep up with the newest technologies and research.
Why did the US ban them? Would Iraqi doctors form a human pyramid that launches itself into a missile that strikes the US?
Tell me why?
We had business which tried to survive. We had children play in the street. We had Shia visit Sunni and Sunni visit Shia.
In fact, we didnt care about our sects. We were and are still brothers.
BT is Shia I am Sunni, but I don't give a flying frack. I didn't when I lived in Iraq and I don't now.
I judge him by his character, by his values, by who he is and what he says. Not by his faith.
I had Sabaean friends from Basra in my school in Baghdad. They fled to Australia. They speak Iraqi like I do and they yearn for a day to return.
I have Christian friends who have disappeared. I worry about so many people in Iraq.
THIS is the carnage you created. So writing nonsensical diatribes will not excuse the fact that you are a war supporter.
As for Iraqi artists, go ask. Just go ask the art critics in the Middle East. Go ahead.
Iraqi art has been celebrated in the Middle East for generations. As has literature and poetry.
Iraqi fashion has also been celebrated throughout the Middle East.
Some of the most popular singers in the Middle East are Iraqi.
One of the best young oud players in the Middle East is Naseer Shama.
Have you heard him play? He runs a school to teach oud in Cairo.
So, please. You have no idea what you are talking about, honestly.
Give up. Go read one of the books mentioned here. Then visit the Middle East, find an Iraqi family and live with them for a week or so. Make sure you apologize that they are now living in squalor.
Let's see what tune you will play then.
BT..
ReplyDeleteYou pulled the words out of my mouth.
;)
anon..You may console yourself with the thought that outsider's opinions do not matter and that only being Iraqi is important, but that is plainly not true
you have repeated a variation of this earlier in the thread. why? no one here is arguing others opinions 'don't matter' (w/relativity please) yet this theme seems to keep coming back and always w/impression you are responding ('You may console yourself').
a persons views are always relative to his/her position or context. sometimes the form a person communicates says more than the thoughts or words they say, yourself included.
for example , a person is standing on a corner looking totally disheveled w/their privates hanging out, does it really matter what they say? this is an extreme example but you catch my drift.
I can only form opinions based on sources available and trying to draw conclusions based on events.
of course. that is why our defense department spends so much energy w/the perception of the war rather than the reality.
That's why I sometimes bother to argue with some of you, to try and get at core beliefs and to see if there is some basic agreement among us or to find some inkling of understanding.
my suggestion then (not trying to imply you will take it) is you may want (metaphorically speaking) clean up your act.
maybe you don't understand that the way you address a foreigner will teach them more about who you are (and the culture you were raised in)than the ideas you are trying to present. for me personally, i feel i know more about iraqis from hearing the way they communicate, than what they say. there is a commonality between them. can you hear it?
that said, the representatives we have here from the pro everything neocon crowd also have attributes in common.
I even know a real life by gawd Iraqi who lives within 100 yards of me at this very moment and who would probably spit on you given the chance
(like anyone is going to believe this)
I refuse to pity Iraqis and fight not to despise them as a group.
big of you. this is your idea of discourse in the same post as telling others your opinions matter? you sound as crazy as the looney on the corner w/his pants down.
Ok, Iraq was not a center of Islamic fanaticism, but it was in the center of the region breeding fanaticism and it was effectively at war with the US. That Iraq seemed secular and educated and relatively modern in its thinking is exactly why it seemed the ideal place to present a modern alternative to radical Islam in the ME. I don't think we had any idea just how deep the sectarian divisions were. I don't think Iraqis has any idea, either. From what I am told, the subject was almost as forbidden as a Saddam joke. Was it a mistake? So far, it certainly appears it may have been, but without a working crystal ball, I don't know what the alternative was. The question should be, is there a way for the US and the majority of Iraqis to reach the goal of a secular and wildly prosperous Iraq selling oil and blowing the money in Universities, Vegas, cars, trucks, phones, DVDs, MRIs and the like? I wish, but I doubt it. Iraqis are not what we thought they were--- I don't think Iraqis are what they think they were, either. The iron fist of Saddam you spoke of may have kept them from themselves too long.
ReplyDeleteyou seem to think of your oppression fondly, as if it was something of which you are immensely proud..... It almost sounds like you were comfortable and willing to ignore what your government was doing to others while you enjoyed life as a slave.
ReplyDeletei am starting to think we're being bluffed. maybe this is some homeschooled xtian reconstructionist working thru the heritage foundation or something. peole don't really talk like this in the real world do they?
matbe what we have here is a character out of the mind control division trying to assert his dominance or something.
really, it is becoming a threatre of the absurd.
Ok, Iraq was not a center of Islamic fanaticism, but it was in the center of the region breeding fanaticism and it was effectively at war with the US.
ReplyDeleteYes, we know that this is YOUR military approach. Spot a terrarist in Qandahar or Ramadi and blast the entire neighborhood.
You basically adhere to that principal. The terrarists came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, key US allies, so why not invade Iraq?
Oh God, you're really sinking here.
Fast.
That Iraq seemed secular and educated and relatively modern in its thinking is exactly why it seemed the ideal place to present a modern alternative to radical Islam in the ME.
Say what? Why would you want a modern alternative to radical Islam in Iraq when it NEVER existed there? You torpedoed your own statement.
Go to Egypt, look at what the Muslim Brotherhood has planned. But hell no, US officials are secretely negotiating with them.
Go to Saudi Arabia, why did you not invade it. Listen, Iraqi women were the ENVY of other women in the ME.
Saudi women dream about having the liberties that Iraqi women had. So what did you do?
You invaded and set up a government that has seen to it that Iraqi women now have FAR LESS rights than even Saudi women.
Iraqi women no longer drive, very few of them work, those that do are donned in black robes from head to toe.
Christian women are forced to veil. Iraqis who are known to drink are forced to hide the fact.
Iraq, which had a wine industry, my God you don't know so much.
My uncle is afraid to drink in front of other Iraqis OUTSIDE Iraq, lest they go back and let it slip and then AQ will come for him.
The question should be, is there a way for the US and the majority of Iraqis to reach the goal of a secular and wildly prosperous Iraq selling oil and blowing the money in Universities, Vegas, cars, trucks, phones, DVDs, MRIs and the like? I wish, but I doubt it.
REMOVE THE DAMNED GOVERNMENT YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT IN BAGHDAD.
Remove AQ, remove Sadr, and remove Badr.
One former US soldier here said the US should take on the aforementioned but couldn't because it would suffer too many casualties.
SO instead, you allow us to die!
Iraqis are not what we thought they were--- I don't think Iraqis are what they think they were, either.
You didn't think. PERIOD. You just went in guns blazing.
We know exactly who we are. Get out, keep Iran at bay, take Sadr and Badr, AQ and Saudis with you. Then we will rebuild.
Annie--- don't play such a smarmy sycophantic sleaze. Yes, I have noticed that when Iraqis are calmly 'discussing' they are oh so polite and courteous, but that is only to take away your attention from the knife they will gut you with as soon as you dare challenge them. I haven't said anything nearly as vicious as some of what I have read by TIA, TB, and YOU.
ReplyDeleteShould we learn something of their culture? Glad to and I have made some effort in that regard. I have read several books by Fouad Ajami and others and am looking for more.
There is a lot about some of their thinking that I am completely unable to fathom or respect and that is no doubt something they and I have in common. That likely has to do with our wildly different cultures. Foremost, the willingness to give up any hope of freedom rather than actively sacrifice and risk all for security is not something I will ever get my mind around. Give me liberty or give me death? He who will sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither? You know, they just don't get that. They don't value liberty and freedom or respect the incredible sacrifice that others have made to secure those things. They spit on it. I am not speaking of all Iraqis, because I know there are many who understand those things all to well and deserve as much respect as any who have made those sacrifices. How many of them exist, I don't know. I do know you just won't find them posting here.
Give me electricity and I'll take tyranny! must translate better, huh? Aren't we sharing and learning a lot tonight? I've had my fill, thanks for the time. next time I feel hopeful, I'll stop by to see if you can disabuse me of such silliness.
“Iraq was not a center of Islamic fanaticism, but it was in the center of the region breeding fanaticism.”
ReplyDeleteIraq was the most secular country in the ME region where religion came after everything else. What breed you are talking about? The Saudi Bin Laden? Or the Jordanian Zarqawi? Or the Egyptian Zawahiri? Please check facts before accusing Iraq of being the breed of fanaticism or terrorism. Before the invasion, women were free to work, drive cars, go out unveiled. Liquor stores were everywhere in Baghdad and most of the cities except the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala.
Breed of fanaticism. What a joke!
“it was effectively at war with the US.”
Saddam was a good friend of the US for a long time until the US’s business with him was over at the end of the war against Iran.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
“I don't think we had any idea just how deep the sectarian divisions were.”
Most of the sectarian division came when the occupation came.
“The question should be, is there a way for the US and the majority of Iraqis to reach the goal of a secular and wildly prosperous Iraq selling oil and blowing the money in Universities, Vegas, cars, trucks, phones, DVDs, MRIs and the like?”
Yes there is. When your country’s administration stops supporting the sectarian government and focusing on supporting the seculars who it ignored, things will be so much better.
“Iraqis are not what we thought they were--- I don't think Iraqis are what they think they were, either.”
We are who we are and we are proud of it. Whatever you think of us does not matter, because we are confident of ourselves no matter what others say. We went through several wars. We triumphed and survived. This time is no different. Everything takes time and we are patient.
Thanks TAI,
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned good and accurate stuff. appreciate it my friend.
You are too quick and have left me things to answer.
ReplyDeletebut I tire, so I will leave with this: If the Iraqi people TRULY wish to be rid of their government, flood the damn streets! Organize! Let the US military know of your intentions and do it peacefully--- I am certain that Gen Petraus is as disgusted with your government as you are. I have read accounts of him berating Maliki for refusing to relase food aid and military equipment to Sunni regions that are coming around. A huge act of civil disobedience demanding new elections would be greeting warmly in Washington and among the American people. We love that shit! DO SOMETHING besides bitch and reminisce about the good old days as a slave of Saddam! Jesus Christ, were does such helpless whining come from?
Good luck
'Breed of fanaticism. What a joke!'
ReplyDeleteYou missed my meaning. geographically speaking, Iraq is in the center of the region breeding fanaticism. I am not under the notion that the fanaticism began in Iraq or was thriving there. Surely you recognize that a thriving, secular Iraq is the fundamentalists' nightmare? You don't thing the headcutter's are in Iraq to bring freedom, do you? Zawahiri himself stated openly that the fight for the future of Islam as the radicals see it is going to be won or lost in Iraq.
“that is only to take away your attention from the knife they will gut you with as soon as you dare challenge them.”
ReplyDeleteOh! So we are the bad guys now. We are the ones who invaded your country, brought our knife and raped an underaged girl, abused your prisoners, and burned a house with people in it.
Annie knows that I sometimes don’t agree with some of what she says. But we always discuss this in a civilized way. We don’t need knives. If we used knives, you would never hear of any of your troops alive. But until this very day, we believe that some of these troops are there to help us and the majority know very well that they are there carrying out orders.
“I haven't said anything nearly as vicious as some of what I have read by TIA, TB, and YOU.”
See, this is the problem with some republicans. When someone disagrees with them, they call him/her vicious.
“There is a lot about some of their thinking that I am completely unable to fathom or respect and that is no doubt something they and I have in common.”
Well, if that bothers you that much. Feel free to take your cart and sell your food somewhere else. We have a variety of diverse readers who are willing to share their ideas freely without being bothered.
“Give me liberty or give me death?”
Well, so far your liberty meant death. So we don’t want it.
“They don't value liberty and freedom or respect the incredible sacrifice that others have made to secure those things.”
You don’t even know what you are talking about. Iraqis sacrificed themselves and took to the streets to vote and establish a free democratic Iraq, but your country’s failure in providing security all the time since their feet were set in Iraq was part of the reason why we are in this shape now.
You know, I really hope that you go through what we are going through. When you wake up every day on sounds of explosions and death, seeing your children cry, seeing dead bodies everyday, having the fear of being killed any moment, then let’s see how you are going to welcome this scary “freedom”.
Saying you can be 'vicious' doesn't indicate I think you are a bad guy--- but that is your style that you share with others here. Just don't pretend to be polite and proper and feign shock and insult when challenged. That is phony.
ReplyDelete'You know, I really hope that you go through what we are going through. When you wake up every day on sounds of explosions and death, seeing your children cry, seeing dead bodies everyday, having the fear of being killed any moment, then let’s see how you are going to welcome this scary “freedom”.'
TB--I don't have to experience these things because my ancestors did it for me. My relatives have fought in every major war in US history, from the Revolutionary War to this one. My fellow citizens, some of them very close relatives, sacrifice daily to help keep me and mine safe today. I pay my share of taxes to support them and I try to support them in other ways as well. That is something I try to pay respect to every day. And if called upon, I would gladly do the same should the need arise, just as I did when a much younger man.
Like I said, you just don't get it and neither do I. What is ironic is the fact that I think we basically want the same thing for Iraq. You just are unwilling to pay the price and would throw away all that others have already contributed. I won't be polite and pretend to respect that.
7abeebi BT, check this article on Huffington Post.
ReplyDeleteMethinks you will like it:
Joseph A. Palermo: Michael Ignatieff "Getting Iraq Wrong"
Anon 11:57, you are a murderous rogue.
ReplyDeleteYou want BT to accept the price?
THE PRICE?
You just are unwilling to pay the price and would throw away all that others have already contributed. I won't be polite and pretend to respect that.
You ignorant, vile racist murderer.
800,000 dead Iraqis is not enough for you?!? You think because you lost 3700 scum that means we have to bend over backwards and thank you?!?
Your scum contributed nothing but to open the doors of Babylon for the Iranian militia to come in and destroy everything we ever built.
That is what they died for. That is their contribution.
Enjoy.
Be appreciative? No. Not on your life. Not ever.
Your army has laid waste to my country. THIS is what you are paying for.
For the militias who are governed by the sectarian government YOU installed, YOU support DESPITE the protests of the Iraqis.
You are filth. And your army is filth. I won't be polite either.
Or the statement about "Iraqis take to the streets and protest".
You ignorant, vile racist murderer.
Do you know what happened to those who protested because they had no jobs? They were shot and killed.
Do you know what happened to those Shia and Sunni who went out hand in hand, shoulder to shoulder and protested the first bombing of the Askari shrine?
29 of them were kidnapped and their worm-infested carcasses were found in ditches and gullies.
They were killed by the militia YOU armed. Your tax dollars.
Killed by the AQ who now make a base of operations of our homes.
You have rendered the Iraqi people helpless. First with 13 years of sanctions, then with this sectarian government. First you starve and debilitate us. Then you create sectarian strife.
Don't be polite, you never were polite when you launched this racist war.
800,000 dead Iraqis mean nothing to you. THAT IS RACISM. Our lives are cheap. Cannon fodder for you.
You DO need to experience what BT is saying.
You need to have your children kidnapped, maybe returned in peace, or in pieces.
You need to see your neighbor carried by his friends after a bombing. But they have no idea where his legs are.
You do need to sleep on the streets of Mexico or Canada, not knowing what has become of your home. Not knowing if it has been emptied by thieves.
You do need to lose your businesses, your workplace. You do need to be isolated by concrete barriers from your friends and relatives who live on the "other side" of the bridge.
You do need to be woken up in the middle of the night by a cousin or parent telling you they are okay.
You do need the sounds of gunfire and shells piercing the dead of night.
You did not experience that, sorry.
Europe did. Which is why "OLD" Europe stood against you in this war.
But you brushed them aside. What do they know.
YOU know it all.
Perhaps then, when you have experienced what we have, you would grow a human heart.
Perhaps then you will bend down in sorrow and wash the feet of every mother who has lost her child in Iraq.
And wash the feet of American mothers who lost children in Iraq because THEY WERE LIED TO AND MANIPULATED.
Until then, like the rest of your military and your halliburtons and your bechtels, you are vampires feeding on the blood of my people.
You can't possibly take yourself seriously with your self-serving, self-indulging tirade, can you?
I mean your arguments are about 4 years too late. Where have you been? Wrapped in the US flag?
TAI, to anon: "Just answer me this, have you spent one day in Iraq?"
ReplyDeleteMe: "John McCain has been to Iraq. So has Hillary Clinton."
and
"Disclaimer: I don't fully agree with anon, but TAI's "Day in Iraq" test is a non-starter."
TAI: "Rhus, it is a non-starter because you can't start it."
and
"McCain returned saying security in Iraq was great and Iraqis were out and about!!
And we all tore him to shreds for saying that.
Your answer to my question is that your politicians have been to Iraq?
Jesus, you are far, far less intelligent than I could have ever wagered." etc.
BT: "They were in the Green Zone, not Iraq. I hope you don’t think the GZ is part of Iraq. TAI means the “Red Zone”, where we live and suffer."
and
"Oh and yes, Shorja Market is in the red zone, but..."
Well I'm surprised I lost you both on this. The point was "spending a day in Iraq" is not a valid test. McCain has been like a half-dozen times, in various places, but if he goes and doesn't report what you want to hear, it is rejected and he is ridiculed. That's why I chose him for an example- because "going there" means nothing by itself. And I also said Clinton had been there, to provide balance and also because her prior opinion did not change either.
So you apply the "day in Iraq" test, but should someone meet that standard, you move the goal posts. I'm bummed you did it too, BT. Oh well.
And so take someone like Michael Yon, who has spent 18 months in Iraq, all over the place, and read his latest dispatch about problems- and solutions- in Iraq, and what do you say about him? Don't bother- I can guess with near certainty!
Ah, but wait! Annie has not been to Iraq either, yet you don't reject her on that alone. Why?
Because she agrees with you, TAI. And vigorously. So that leaves us where we started: as non-Iraqis, we can believe your every word, or be silent. Oh, but that's not thought control, because you say it isn't. Nor is it "racism" or us as "untermenschen". Oh no, not a bit.
So where does that leave us non-Iraqis, if we really want to know the "Truth About Iraq"? We need to use multiple sources. MSM, new media, good Iraqi bloggers like BT and 24, milbloggers, talking to friends and family who have been, and so on.
TAI, you are not an honest broker, and to use you as a sole source would be to our peril.
TAI: "REMOVE THE DAMNED GOVERNMENT YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT IN BAGHDAD."
ReplyDeleteHey wait a second...
TAI, since when are you OK with the US removing a cr*ppy Iraqi gov't?
Since we installed it with the help of 12 million CIA agents? But BT said earlier you-know-who was created by Americans too..!!
ME' You just are unwilling to pay the price and would throw away all that others have already contributed. I won't be polite and pretend to respect that. '
ReplyDeleteTAI--you ignorant, vile racist murderer.
See?
Actually, I find it disgusting that you would throw away the suffering of your own and condemn them to more slavery. I'm sorry the road taking Iraq from one of the world's greatest police states into a modern, thriving liberated country wasn't paved with cake and cookies. Many have suffered throughout American history to secure freedom here within our borders, and elsewhere. So have many other Western nations. Do you think we haplessly found liberty under our feet the way you Iraqis find oil? WE PAID the price and will continue to. It is a staple of our country that we honor that willing sacrifice. THAT is something you have absolutely no understanding of and nothing in your own history to relate it to. Perhaps that is why you throw it away and are unwilling to risk your own security for something you really have no appreciation for. I suppose if I had lived as you had and seen all the generational suffering that was only in the name of more tyranny and more suffering, I may very well share your defeatist attitude and disguise it with bull headed, self destructive pride as you do. But I would rather be dead. I hope you get over that someday.
When you declare that the Iraqis 'triumphed' in the Iraq-Iran War and the Gulf War, you are coming from a mindset I can't and won't go.
At least you serve to make the Iraqis that do continue to struggle for a place where individual potential can be realized without being 'good' little subjects of one tyrant or another all that more remarkably honorable and noble, so thanks for being you and making me appreciate them even more.
Enough, but really.... if you can't appreciate what true liberty is all about and all the sacrifices that brought it to the people that you now envy, at least learn the meaning of the word 'Racist'. You cheapen it when you use it so sloppily.
rhus,
ReplyDeleteAh, but wait! Annie has not been to Iraq either, yet you don't reject her on that alone. Why?
this isn't about rejecting you solely on your not being in iraq. you don't seem to be incorporating the current circumstances or the voice of iraqis into your 'plan' for resolution. in other words, you aren't listening.
others have tried to tell you this politely and instead of LISTENING, you are trying to compete and there will never be a level playing field between reality and ideology.
read the post again, then review the build up to this argument.
"by the end of the year"
Too far! It should be NOW. Seriously. There is no time.
But I think Iraqis are ready to try again, and maybe some real statesmen would emerge. You're due. It's time to try again!
why this overwhelming faith in democracy? if i was drowning in a swimming pool would you be offering me democracy? no, you would hand me a rope and pull me out.
Let me put it this way. Iraq needs security, food, electricity, jobs, a whole score of things and then democracy should be implemented.
Democracy is not the problem in Iraq, annie. I do believe it is part of the solution. Yes I do.
Listen, some friendly advice. Please understand that BT and I and others understand our situation far, far better than you can.
listen..no one is throwing democracy out the window. no one has rejected democracy as a goal. what i am hearing, all indications point, that the situation is desperate. following your 'plan' would be to ignore the immediate crisis.
if you are standing in a burning house you do not advise to put out the fire after the town council has elected a new fire chief next tuesday.
this is common sense. the residence in the house are burning and they need to be rescued now. you are standing on the sidewalk outside advocating for the election next tuesday.
"But I think Iraqis are ready to try again, and maybe some real statesmen would emerge. You're due. It's time to try again!"
can you hear what i hear? this conversation started w/talk of allawi. here is something BT said..
I don't know. I am torn. I don't even know who is going to take us to the safe side.
can you hear this rhus???? when people are burning maybe it is not the time to have the debate about democracy.
it is not that everyone rejects democracy. you are responding with a lot of snark. the conversation could have gone in many directions but instead it has turned into a flame war about the voice of the people on the sidewalk being just as relevant as those in the burning house, or not. it just so happens i agree with the people in the house we should not wait til next tuesday to come to resolution.
i really don't know who can put this fire out. i am not gang ho on allawi. choose your battles. this "have faith in elections next year" position you are taking is just not cutting the mustard. i am not being rejected because i am listening.
this discussion would have been more interesting had it been about allawi or other characters. instead it was diverted into how to best implement a change over.
frankly i think people would embrace a coup. face it, wouldn't you if it lowered the temperature.
choose your battles rhus. if you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
"Just don't pretend to be polite and proper and feign shock and insult when challenged."
ReplyDeleteI've never insulted anyone on this section. If you think when people disagree with you means they insult you, it's up to you.
I don't pretend being polite because I know I am polite.
TAI: "REMOVE THE DAMNED GOVERNMENT YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT IN BAGHDAD."
ReplyDeleteHey wait a second...
TAI, since when are you OK with the US removing a cr*ppy Iraqi gov't?
you've got a point there rhus. the US shouldn't be the one to remove the government. but they should quit supporting it, step aside, and watch it disintegrate w/out the essential support they provide.
Since we installed it with the help of 12 million CIA agents?
oh please. it didn't take scores of cia agents. just enough along w/the propagandists making people believe the outcome was real. just like our last few elections here in the US.
if the designers of iraq had faith in real democracy ballots would have had real names. even then the elections would have been scewed, but it would have been more difficult to control the balance of power in the parties.
no, i think it was designed w/a preordained outcome.
The American notion that the US could ignore the power of tribes was born of foolishness and ignorance. It would seem to have little to do with democracy, but establishing a modicum of stability is a prerequisite to developing law and order, which, in turn, must precede democracy. Unfortunately, it would seem Iraq has returned to Ottoman realities.
ReplyDeletei recommend
TAI, BT, annie, Bruno, and any others:
ReplyDeleteOK, you believe the proper thing to do right now is to replace the current gov't with a strongman who will clean house and restore order. OK?
So let's suppose that happens.
* Suppose a strongman is installed.
* suppose he is installed in whatever manner you deem appropriate, whether by resignation, coup, intervention, thru the UN, or thru the 'resistance'. OK? Whatever you want.
* suppose this strongman is whomever you want. Allawi or someone else, or someone who exists only for the purpose of this excercise.
If you know where this is going, please hold your answer 'til the end, OK?
* now suppose this strongman cleans house using whatever methods or techniques as you envision.
* suppose this strongman has exactly the level of support from teh Iraqis as you might expect him to have, based on your knowledge and impressions.
* suppose the US plays whatever role you think it should, be that assistance, support, or going away completely.
* suppose the regional players behave exactly as you expect them to in the best case.
* suppose the oil law, constitutional changes (or revocation), reconcilliation, Kirkuk, regions, de-Baathification, etc. are all handled in the manner yo uthink appropriate.
Are you with me still? So we have the future of Iraq's gov't and all the issues being handled in a manner of your design, with a strongman of your choosing at the head.
Did I forget anything? Probably, so fill in the blank along these lines. However, please be somewhat realistic in this model. Relocating Iraq to the Southern Hemisphere would not be realistic, for example, nor would emplacing a large contingent of peaqcekeepers from New Zealand. OK?
* now, imagine an appropriate amount of time passes. Whatever interval you think is good: days, weeks, months, years.
* suppose at the end of this interval, Iraq continues to fail, despite everything you have done under the best of conditions.
Sit down, sit down. I know you think it unlikely that your plan could go awry with such a tight design. But suppose it did. You must know that in any prediction of the future there is a chance for failure, even if it's small.
And we could go on and on about why it might fail. Rogue JAM may not cede their territory & power, or may not like to be purged or imprisoned so much. Or what have you.
Let's not get distracted. Just suppose it failed for whatever reason.
OK? Then what would you say? would you say "well, the strongman failed, so let's try a monarchy!" or "how 'bout an Autonomous Collective?"
Would you maybe say the idea was sound, but it had the wrong strongman, or not enough time, or he was too brutal/not brutal enough, or he was undermined, or what have you?
At that point, in the midst of a failing strongman, if you believed doing it another way could cause incredible pain and suffering, would you still advocate doing it another way? Or would you want to fix what you can, and work to improve matters? Or give up?
I know a lot of Iraqis and others think a strongman would work. Maybe it would. Really it depends on what you think "work" means.
But democracy can work too. Maybe not this democracy, but I still think Iraqis can pull it off without regressing to a strongman.
I guess you can call me a racist untermenschen for thinking Iraqis can pull off a higher form of government than the one they had. Que Sera, Sera.
rome wasn't built in a day.
ReplyDeletei can only speak as an american. personally, i think for a minimum of the length of this war thus far (5 years aprox), we should spend the equal amount of funds we have spent making war... on reparations to the iraqi people for the rebuilding of their country, their military, their infrastructure.. unrestricted. i know that seems absolutely outrageous but face it. they need to build up a military, hospitals, utilities.. etc. we should not be making decisions about either their elections, their candidates, when they have elections or if they do.
as for humanitarian efforts we should support global organizations that can be trusted and if we want to contribute only do so as individual subordinates.. to some other entity affiliated a country other than the US. if nother country wants to sponser an american citizen so be it.
once our (US) house is in order, meaning we have our own constitution back, once we have a wildly popular president, i may reconsider americas role outside our borders. until then everything we touch seems to turn out bad.
whatever happens in iraq should not include pressure from the US, only reparations. therefore it really doesn't matter what i think if the 'experiment fails', tho that is a radical concept, one that should have been considered by the pentagon before we invaded. it is really interesting that the failure of the experiment would be your first querie to us wrt this scenario..considering our past. one wishes the pentagon had been so prescient.
i have enough faith in the global community that if a genocide occurs in iraq there are most likely capable people outside our borders who could be of assistance. i don't think america is in any position to 'lead' anything right now. the world community should probably place sanctions on us as a deterent from 'liberating' any more countries to teach us a lesson.
until the neocons are purged from the face of the earth, i think we are in no position to use our military for anything but defense inside our borders (which doesn't include israel, tho that may surprise many of our representatives who have been know to say israel is out first priority given christ is supposed to be arriving shortly and we are, after all, gods children).
you ask. i am only speaking as an american. but just out of curiosity BT, omar, and TAI. what do you think iraqs role should be if we can't get bush out of office? what part should iraqis play in helping america w/her domestic political problems. do you have any suggestions how we might harness our rapture crowd? what about the dominionists? AIPAC? what about roe vs wade? what part do you think iraqis should play in our problems w/the 48 million children w/no health care? what do you think about our elections and the political operatives working within the justice department to ensure the republicans are secure in stealing a few more? what do you think we should do about the spying, about guantanemo? perhaps when and if a new parliment forms, perhaps iraqis could have a special committee to deal with our domestic issues.
rhus, i should have included you in those questions. how much involvement do you think iraq should play in american politics. advisors only, or should we let them build some bases here just for our own security?
ReplyDeletemaybe an army of 160 thousand moderate muslims plus an equal amount of muslim mercenaries (we will ignore the radical islamic ceo who runs the company) would be a stabilizing force to deter the zionist and fundemental members of our society. we could designate about 100 acres in the middle of nyc, or DC for their embassy.
ReplyDeletewhere do you think the other bases should go? montana? miami? houston!
OK, annie. Thanks for your feedback.
ReplyDeleteOK? Then what would you say? would you say "well, the strongman failed, so let's try a monarchy!" or "how 'bout an Autonomous Collective?"
ReplyDeleteWell, it depends on the situation. This is more like a specific thing to describe. Specific things can be mentioned according to the time of the situation.
Would you maybe say the idea was sound, but it had the wrong strongman, or not enough time, or he was too brutal/not brutal enough, or he was undermined, or what have you?
That would also have to do with the situation. If you have noticed, we did not mention bringing a strong man three years ago. We were entirely pro-elections and democracy. But the situation now made us think of bringing a strong man to rule us at the meantime. So if this man fails to stabilize Iraq, then we’ll have to see why that happened.
At that point, in the midst of a failing strongman, if you believed doing it another way could cause incredible pain and suffering, would you still advocate doing it another way? Or would you want to fix what you can, and work to improve matters? Or give up?
Bloodshed will be the same even when this strong man comes to power. That’s why he is going to use force and this will take time and effort to stabilize the country.
But democracy can work too. Maybe not this democracy, but I still think Iraqis can pull it off without regressing to a strongman.
Who said no. but at the meantime, this democracy is not working. If you go back to my previous comments, you’ll see that democracy should be taught through NGO’s, schools, teachers, media etc and when the country is stabilized by the strong man, democracy can be happily chosen as the best choice to run the country since people will become more aware of its meaning and how to apply it.
I guess you can call me a racist untermenschen for thinking Iraqis can pull off a higher form of government than the one they had. Que Sera, Sera.
No one can call you a racist. You are welcome to share your viewpoints. And I appreciate it.
"I've never insulted anyone on this section. If you think when people disagree with you means they insult you, it's up to you.
ReplyDeleteI don't pretend being polite because I know I am polite."
Fair enough, TB. I was referring more to your cohorts, Annie and TAI, who I find to be caricatures, anyway.
If you want to limit the examination of your demeanor to this 'section', you have a good case. You have been known to let your hair down, though.... haven't you?
You went through a period of 'moderating' comments for a reason, didn't you? Didn't you go so far as assigning unfounded criminal behavior, failure and stupidity to the daughter of one poster? He had the temerity to suggest that while his daughter was honorably serving her third tour as a combat medic in the US Army in the Iraq you 'pledged your life' to, your penchant for criticizing her Army and mission while enjoying the life she gave up as a college student seemed cowardly to him? Especially since you were doing it from the security of the US she really did pledge her life to with action and not just words? Remember deleting a post, mis characterizing it and leaving vicious criticism by yourself and others in place? Remember outright lying about a post you received later from that person and eliciting sympathy for the unfairness of it all from your two minions? Remember how you did manage to selectively publish the angry and vulgar response to your lies without the parts that would have explained such a reaction? Surely you remember that? That seemed 'impolite' at the time, but you did get your cage rattled and you gave as good as you got. Lying about it was....in keeping with the whole discussion, I suppose. It resembled domestic aviary byproducts, to put it politely. I just mark it up as a bad day all around, but let's not play like it didn't happen.
Anyway, thanks for the time and 'discussion'. I think I have gotten about all I can from 'discussing' here, but I will appreciate your posts and the occasionally interesting discussions they elicit.
Any ANON comments from here on out may be assumed to be from some other, so don't unfairly jump on them immediately. I didn't use my login on this thread for obvious reasons, thinking you might delete them without reading them first. See what you would have missed?! Just think of me as the 'POX' that has passed--- Annie, you are so funny in a predictable, hateful, venomous way!
"If you want to limit the examination of your demeanor to this 'section', you have a good case. You have been known to let your hair down, though.... haven't you?"
ReplyDeleteI have very short hair :D
Oh, and yes, I did do what you said, but I never insulted that person who might be you. I just said what Americans think here of some soldiers joining the army. I am not American and it's not my right to give my opinion about people whether they want or don't want to continue school. It's your country, your people who say that. I was just referring.
"Anyway, thanks for the time and 'discussion'. I think I have gotten about all I can from 'discussing' here, but I will appreciate your posts and the occasionally interesting discussions they elicit."
You are welcome! Any time :)
"Any ANON comments from here on out may be assumed to be from some other, so don't unfairly jump on them immediately. I didn't use my login on this thread for obvious reasons, thinking you might delete them without reading them first. See what you would have missed?!"
Knowing a name of a poster is not a big deal for me. It's what they say that counts.
OK, BT. If you won't take responsibility for your own words, I can't make you. But thanks for the otherwise magnaminous response.
ReplyDeleteI came across this and wanted to see if you or others have some opinion or information that might shed some light on the strategy. You want the US military to stop working with the Iraqi government? How does this strike you?
From Iraqslogger: The US military is conducting “accelerated” operations to arm Sunni tribes in the areas surrounding Baghdad, according to a report in an Arabic-language news source.
Iraqi security officials have informed al-Melaf that the US military is proceeding with a plan to arm Sunni tribes in areas surrounding the capital, enrolling them in special brigades that report directly to the US military.
The agency reports that the tribal fighters earn “good salaries” as a “first stage” in the enlisting of the tribesmen to support the police forces.
According to the report, the leadership of the tribal forces have been granted military ranks without the involvement of the Iraqi interior ministry.
The authorities of Babil province have expressed their objection to the arming of the tribes in the northern areas of the province, on the outskirts of the capital, but the plan to arm the tribes continues, and security officials say that the number of tribes armed by the US forces has rapidly increased.
While the US has touted its policy of arming tribal fighters as key to its strategy of fighting the Iraqi insurgency, missing from most Western reporting on the US policy of arming Iraqi tribal forces has been the bitter controversy in Iraqi domestic politics over the creation of predominantly Sunni Arab tribal militias outside the control of the elected Iraqi authorities.
Citing US officials, USA Today reported recently that the number of Iraqi tribesmen who had pledged to work under arms with the Americans stood at 25,000.
OK, BT, that's a good answer.
ReplyDeleteI do disagree a little that the transition would cause the same amount of violence. I can imagine a number of scenarios where it could be even worse than now. Suppose whoever it is believes they have a mandate or authorization to pull a Saddam. That's kind of what the implication is for what would happen, or what needs to happen. brrrr.
OK, now in light of what b will derd has just said, how about this:
What if Petraeus is the strongman? That is, that he continues to implement a non-sectarian strategy for protecting Iraqi civilians and developing services from the ground up, instead of top-down as was previous (& faltering)?
And so, Maliki remains, but the parliament is pretty much irrelevant for the time being. Sure, let 'em have their salary. Heck, some guys think it's a puppet gov't anyway. Maybe just make it official? Would that be worse than now?
And so then, when security & services are improved, let the UN and NGOs run the best & fairest elections possible... as soon as possible?
b will derd's last, combined with yours to me, just made a little lightbulb go off, plus I've been reading a lot about US/Iraqi cooperation in local gov't & services. It seems to have promise, actually.
What do you think?
Here's a related interview of an Iraqi 'terp who works with the Army.
ReplyDelete[rhus] “TAI, BT, annie, Bruno, and any others: OK, you believe the proper thing to do right now is to replace the current gov't with a strongman who will clean house and restore order. OK?”
ReplyDeleteNo, don’t speak for me. I disagree with TAI, BT and the rest over a strongmen solution. Mainly because – WHO would such a person be? As a abstract idea it seems viable. But how would such a person achieve power? Through the US? The US is the only force in Iraq capable of installing a single ruler right now. Uh – no thanks. We (you) might just get Hakim. We might just have another Saddam, too.
I can understand the utter urgency of the situation. But I can also see this situation get even worse, particularly when foreigners that don’t understand the forces on the ground start stirring the pot.
Check this out:
“U.S. commanders are offering large sums to enlist, at breakneck pace, their former enemies, handing them broad security powers in a risky effort to tame this fractious area south of Baghdad in Babil province and, literally, buy time for national reconciliation. American generals insist they are not creating militias. In contracts with the U.S. military, the sheiks are referred to as "security contractors." Each of their "guards" will receive 70 percent of an Iraqi policeman's salary. U.S. commanders call them "concerned citizens," evoking suburban neighborhood watch groups.
[…]
But in a land of sectarian fault lines and shifting tribal loyalties, the strategy raises concerns about the long-term implications of empowering groups that steadfastly oppose the Shiite-led government.”
[…]
"The only thing I know is my experience with Fadhil," said Balcavage, referring to Youssef. "I'm trusting my gut. I could be horribly wrong in this situation.”//end
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080302322_2.html
Except for, of course, the Americans on the ground don’t really know if they are helping out genuine Iraqi tribal resistance, or Al Qaeda. But screw it, let’s go with our gut, right? And if it turns out they armed Zarqawi’s brother-in-law, too bad, right?
THIS is why I think the less foreigners have to do with Iraq, the better.
[annie] “rhus, i should have included you in those questions. how much involvement do you think iraq should play in american politics. advisors only, or should we let them build some bases here just for our own security?”
:lol:
OK, Bruno. What do you think about early elections, say- supervised by the UN under their new mandate? Have you already weighed in on that?
ReplyDeleteOr how 'bout Petraeus as the strongman?
“Or how 'bout Petraeus as the strongman?”
ReplyDeleteRhus! Are you serious? Installing an American officer will be like bringing Maude again. Haven’t this war told the world that Iraqis don’t want occupation or any non-Iraqi authority? If an American is installed, the war will be fiercer, and instead of him bringing stability, he’ll bring more and more destruction because even peaceful people will be against him. More Iraqis may die, and American troops may see what they haven’t seen yet. Haven’t you heard of the British occupation and the Revolution of the 20th? Haven’t you heard of how Iraqis despised Maude and destroyed his statue?
When the strong man is Iraqi, Iraqis won’t have any excuse.
“And so, Maliki remains, but the parliament is pretty much irrelevant for the time being. Sure, let 'em have their salary.”
No way. If we don’t remove Maliki, his government, and the parliament, it means we have changed nothing. Why make them stay and get salary for doing nothing? Don’t the abused children found in the orphanage deserve this money? Or colleges and universities that were destroyed by bombings? Or the miserable roads that were destroyed since the war started due to tanks driving on them and bombings exploding everyday?
This money should go to the right people.
Don't worry. They are going to be kicked out of the government, soon. Finally someone is listening to us. And this time it is the secular Iraqis.
ReplyDeleteI hope so, Omar!
ReplyDeleteWhat if Petraeus is the strongman? That is, that he continues to implement a non-sectarian strategy for protecting Iraqi civilians and developing services from the ground up, instead of top-down as was previous (& faltering)?
ReplyDeleteoh my goodnesss, why didn't i think of this. this is just brilliant rhus, and i really think it is an idea all iraqis could embrace. what a novel idea, we could put an american in charge!!
And so, Maliki remains, but the parliament is pretty much irrelevant for the time being. Sure, let 'em have their salary. Heck, some guys think it's a puppet gov't anyway. Maybe just make it official? Would that be worse than now?
perfect, in other words ...don't change a thing because everything is going so swimmingly, right? only now it could be officially going swimmingly and we could all acknowledge what we all know anyway.
oooookay! golly rhus, we need some minds like your down at the pentagon.
i have a question, seriously.
ReplyDeletehow much influence do you think the US administration should have in making these choices we have been discussing?
if there is a strong man, should he be chosen/approved by the US administration?
with the likelihood no authority could emerge without the approval of the US without a continuation or worsening of the situation, once one is approved or chosen (or 'elected' tho we know none could be elected w/out being vetted by the US, as before) once one is in power, how much influence do think the US should have over the decisions and actions taken by this new leader? it stands to reason that any person aiming to lead iraq will at some point break w/the choices of the US administration. when and if that break occurs what would be the difference between opposing the US now, tomorrow, next week or next year?
what is the likelihood one could find a new leader that did not oppose any US plan? What would be the difference between a leader for iraq that agreed w/all US plans, and a puppet?
what would be the difference between an Iraqi leader who agreed w/the US neocons about everything and an american neocon?
what qualities would you look for in a leader for iraq that is something you don't think an american could satisfy, besides birthright.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile all the talk about what should be done is going on, things are being done in a markedly different way than had been done before. I am admittedly naive and great hope for progress may be clouding an already foggy opinion, but....
ReplyDeletePlease, BT and any other reasonable commentator, read the two part series wherein Micheal Yon describes what has happened in the city of Baquoba. Now that the city has turned against Al Qaida with the aid of Iraq and US troops, leaders among the citizens like the mayor and a heroic truck driver went to Baghdad and demanded the fuel and food supplies they have been denied for 8 months. He also filmed parts of the events with long conversations between the people of Baquoba and the government bureaucrats without any of his own commentary, in case you think him a propagandist and dismiss his own words outright. The unfolding events gave me some hope that if 'regular' Iraqis are put face to face with more than their own power at stake, they can make the government largely irrelevant and bring relief to those who need it.
Am I really just being naive to at least find hope in that approach that seems to be part of a new strategy of the US forces? I see many reasons to think that a decision has been made to bypass the leaders of a feckless government, which is what many of you are asking for, is it not? That government is being put into the position of blatantly denying services to the citizens, to their faces, in front of US Commanders and video cameras, and they did the right thing. I'm not sure if the bureaucrat did the right think against orders or not, but he did the right thing. And they talked in the process and seemed to be happy to be able to do so. Is this something you can support and maybe, if such a thing is possible, find some hope in?
B Will Derd.
ReplyDeleteThe US is arming and strengthening the Sunni tribes. Four years after it armed and strengthened the Shia militia (including Badr, who are fiercely loyal to Iran and no other).
Many of the US-trained police and army recruits dumped their uniforms (or kept them) and took their newly-acquired weapons and hooked up with the militias.
Particularly Sadr.
The US strategy of arming tribes while AT THE SAME time supporting the government these tribes are opposed to - what does that tell you?
Is this is not a recipe for ensuring all out civil war in Iraq?
[By the by, the US armed, supported, aided both Iraq and Iran during the 1980-88 war. Remember, Iran-Contra?]
Iran arms the militias and the security forces. The US supports the security forces and the government but supplies its enemies with weapons.
Come on, wake up to the big game in Iraq.
The new strategy as you call it is doomed to fail. It is simply another chapter, another scene in the great US-Iran parlay over Iraq.
The US lost 190,000 pieces of weaponry in Iraq so what do they do? They distribute some more.
Step one for any US strategy to work is to remove the support for the current Iraqi government.
The people of Iraq do not want it.
Rhus, I called you a racist, because the way you package your questions, your curiosities are such that you have already demeaned the person you are asking.
Once in a while you perk up and ask something reasonable. As soon as the answer runs counter to your mood or affiliations, you turn hostile. You become condascending and patronizing.
I didn't call you racist because you believed Iraqis could pull of a higher form a government.
If that is your true intent, then more power to ya. But you wrote that to appear the downtrodden, the poor little pussycat that has been wronged.
When you have been coming here and wronging us day after day.
I called you a racist because you view us as lesser than you, which is why you come here to dictate to us, preach to us, guide us along like we are your sheep, like we do not care about our country and our people, but you do.
You have the best intentions of Iraq. Not me. Your family is at risk in Iraq, not mine. Your relatives have been shot and killed, not mine.
See where this is going? You attempt to try and erase my experiences as an Iraqi BECAUSE you do not like what this Iraqi says to you.
Other commentators have been doing the same to BT and other bloggers.
It is a very old tactic, but one that is meaningless, because again and again, you simply are not Iraqi.
As has been seen recently, and if you read Zeyad's post on how Iraqis are sleeping on the floors, we are all beginning to realize (if we hadn't already) that no country BUT OUR OWN will welcome us.
Which is why each and every Iraqi has a vested interest in seeing to a stable and peaceful Iraq.
I would also like to remind you of the form of racism the British used in Africa and India and it how it fuelled their imperialist whims.
They believed (or in typical self-delusion convinced themselves) that the "savage, the heathen" could not mind for himself and therefore needed western white man imperialism to teach him how to walk.
It is the same racism which led Maude to enter Iraq and "civilize" us. Show us the way forward. And he failed.
The term untermenschen as you have used it, is wrong.
I was always referring to the British military criticism of US military tactics and how they deal with the Iraqi people.
According to The Telegraph's Sean Rayment, a British officer “who agreed to the interview on the condition of anonymity, said that part of the problem was that American troops viewed Iraqis as 'untermenschen' – the Nazi expression for ‘sub-humans’.
“They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life in the way the British are. Their attitude towards the Iraqis is tragic, it's awful.”
"When US troops are attacked with mortars in Baghdad, they use mortar-locating radar to find the firing point and then attack the general area with artillery, even though the area they are attacking may be in the middle of a densely populated residential area."
“They may well kill the terrorists in the barrage but they will also kill and maim innocent civilians. That has been their response on a number of occasions. It is trite, but American troops do shoot first and ask questions later. They are very concerned about taking casualties and have even trained their guns on British troops, which has led to some confrontations between soldiers."
You can read the rest of this article here.
And bear in mind this article was published October 4, 2004. Nearly three years ago.
And American media never picked up on it. Which is why you still don't understand what it means and why I am referring to it.
It is poignant too, since Hitler used the same term - "untermenschen" meaning transliterated "under human" - Sub human.
And referring to someone as subhuman is part and parcel of racism.
ved
TIA--- I thought I asked the opinion of reasonable Iraqis and commentators, but thanks for sharing anyway. I would hardly ask you to contribute anything remotely positive to a discussion. With all you have written long before I ever addressed you, you must be delusional if you think I would ever be polite and respectful towards you. In fact, i think I was of guilty of taking my disgust with you out on BT because I incorrectly associated some of your vile comments with his.
ReplyDeleteYes, cowards firing from behind the skirts of women and children can result in tragic consequences--- that is the whole point, isn't it? But even though the US military is already fighting with one hand behind their backs much of the time, you would tie the other to their feet so your heroes could cut off their heads in safety.
Yes, your quote is three years old. some of that Brit's criticism is likely valid. In the interim, the British fighting troops either adopted the same tactics or retreated to their bases while the most vicious of the Shiite militias had free rein. The first days where they walked the streets without armor and helmets glad handing the citizens didn't last long. But don't let facts get in your way now.
No doubt there is some truth to the statement that some US troops have viewed Iraq men in particular, as suspect or less than real men. That sort of goes with the job and the experience of war. I know that some of them have a hard time believing that young Iraqi men are neutral amid all the violence and injustice around them. They are not the kind of men and women who could be. So, if you are not fighting with them or against the insurgents and terrorists, you must be among those cowards who hide behind the women to attack them and innocents as soon as you feel safe.
That isn't necessarily true of all Iraqi men, obviously, and they know that, but that is hard to remember when you are cleaning up the body parts of children from a street in Mosul as a crowd of Iraqi men watch and just days after an Iraqi suicide bomber walked into your dining tent and blew himself up along with 27 Americans. That was my daughter's first interaction with Iraqi men. For their own self-preservation, they have to think any male not in US uniform could be the enemy. Seems like common sense and a rudimentary understanding of human nature would tell you that much. I also know for a fact that many US troops have developed some warm relationships with Iraqis they serve alongside and have had the opportunity to meet. I have evidence hanging on my wall beside me as I type.
You call Rhus (and others including me here and elsewhere) a 'racist', because you have no idea what the word means, apparently.
YOU:"And referring to someone as subhuman is part and parcel of racism."
NO, referring to a race as subhuman is racist. Ascribing superior or inferior traits to a person based solely on their race, is racist. Referring to Iraqis in general with having innate superior or inferior traits is not racist, because Iraqis are not a race, they are a nationality composed of several races as are Americans on a MUCH larger scale. If THAT was racist, you would be their queen.
Ethnocentrist is what you may mean, I think, and I would plead to being guilty of that to some degree as are most, if not all, of my fellow human beings. Sorry, but I honestly think that being American is preferable to being Iraqi. That does not mean that being an American makes any individual superior to any individual Iraqi based only upon that distinction. But if one of each were drowning, and those were the only things I knew about either of them, I would save the American first and hope the Iraqi could tread water. Still, if taken at your word, I think I have a higher opinion of Iraqis potential than you do.
I read about the Iraq truck driver who volunteered to stay overnight in Sadr territory, UNPROTECTED, and inspired many others so he could bring back food to his city and I think him a hero worthy of any nation. You must think him a fool or traitor. I read many inspiring stories of noble sacrifice among Iraqis and have been told first hand accounts of others. NO, they weren't the same Iraqis that you find so heroic. That is just part of what makes us so different.
Since you are unwilling to consider sources outside of uruk.net, I doubt you will ever hear such stories. I would cut and past it here, but it is long and excerpts would not do it justice.
Take deep breaths and go to Yon's account and videos and tell me all the evil you find there.
TIA--'You have the best intentions of Iraq. Not me. Your family is at risk in Iraq, not mine. Your relatives have been shot and killed, not mine.'----
I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. If you are making the case that none of my family has been at risk in Iraq or been injured, you are wrong. One daughter, one son-in-law, two cousins with 2 purple hearts and 8 years and counting in Iraq between them. No, I don't think that makes our experience in any way comparable and never have made that claim. Thankfully, I live in a country where my fellow citizens have made the sacrifices and endured the hardships to put me in a place where I may never really know life the way you know it.
I am not you and you are certainly not me. I know something of the sacrifice of the Iraqi people and more about the sacrifice of the US military, and I think it is an unacceptable choice to throw it all away because it has become too complicated and 'hard' (as if any option available isn't going to be be equally or more tragic).
Again, we are different.
TIA--- I thought I asked the opinion of reasonable Iraqis and commentators, but thanks for sharing anyway. I would hardly ask you to contribute anything remotely positive to a discussion.
ReplyDeleteTsk, tsk. Of course you wouldn't ask. But hey, this is a PUBLIC forum. And since you asked it in a PUBLIC forum, you got the PUBLIC to answer. Besides, it is MY country we are talking about, no?
And you are teaching us democracy?
Honestly, when will you wake up and smell the coffee.
You classify me (as you would other people you deem to be lesser beings) as unreasonable because you don't like what I have to say.
Ergo, the fact I am Iraqi and shoving what I say down your throat displeases thee immeasurably.
You therefore attempt to remove reason out of it.
Not gonna happen, daddy-o.
With all you have written long before I ever addressed you, you must be delusional if you think I would ever be polite and respectful towards you. In fact, i think I was of guilty of taking my disgust with you out on BT because I incorrectly associated some of your vile comments with his.
Yes, yes. Thank you for proving you can't stand what I am cooking. See, when you eat something that does not sit well with your system, you are disgusted.
I am glad I disgusted you. Although I would have hoped to teach you a little about Iraqis and their culture and why we say the things we do.
To teach you that we are an occupied peoples.
But alas ... Get out of the kitchen. I have a solution for you, if you don't like to hear what I am saying, get out of Iraq. Pack up your coffins and leave.
You think you can shut an Iraqi up because you are the aggressor and the illegal occupier.
No.
Of course you won't be polite to me. I just posted an article which reveals how you and your scum army deal with Iraqis you deem unreasonable.
Only problem is you believe all Iraqis unreasonable.
Yes, cowards firing from behind the skirts of women and children can result in tragic consequences--- that is the whole point, isn't it?
Show me where that happened. All of Iraq is occupied, all of Iraq has been made a battlezone. Where would you prefer they fight you?
In Iran? You wouldn't stand a chance against the Iranians. They would cut you down like the scurvy you are.
You brought YOUR war to our homes. Do not cry to mommy if we defend our homes.
But even though the US military is already fighting with one hand behind their backs much of the time, you would tie the other to their feet so your heroes could cut off their heads in safety.
I see. So when they killed an entire family of 26 they were fighting with one hand behind their backs? Or when they raped Abeer Al Janabi then shot and killed her family, then shot her in the chest and head, then burned her corpse, that was with one hand too?
I would hate to see what you would do with two hands.
THESE are the statements you deem unreasonable because YOU HAVE NO DEFENSE.
None of you do. So you classify us as good and bad Iraqis, Shia and Sunni, tribes and blah blah blah.
You continue to lose the argument but by persisting in your racist arrogant ways you only demean yourselves.
In the interim, the British fighting troops either adopted the same tactics or retreated to their bases while the most vicious of the Shiite militias had free rein. The first days where they walked the streets without armor and helmets glad handing the citizens didn't last long. But don't let facts get in your way now.
Coming home to roost, buddy. YOU put those militia in that position. YOU allowed Basra, one of the most beautiful cities in Iraq to turn into a veritable battlefield for militias as the Brits begin to pack up and leave.
Thanks for the mess you created.
, if you are not fighting with them or against the insurgents and terrorists, you must be among those cowards who hide behind the women to attack them and innocents as soon as you feel safe.
Yes, yes you excel at qualifying and classifying people as you see fit.
For their own self-preservation, they have to think any male not in US uniform could be the enemy. Seems like common sense and a rudimentary understanding of human nature would tell you that much.
Not good enough. YOU are the occupier. YOU are the aggressor. WHAT ABOUT IRAQI SELF-PRESERVATION?
Seems to me an Iraqi life in Iraq is worth far, far more than GI's life. After all, it is not your country.
Or do you s'pose it is?
NO, referring to a race as subhuman is racist. Ascribing superior or inferior traits to a person based solely on their race, is racist. Referring to Iraqis in general with having innate superior or inferior traits is not racist, because Iraqis are not a race, they are a nationality composed of several races as are Americans on a MUCH larger scale. If THAT was racist, you would be their queen.
This coming from a nation that STILL persecutes the african-american minority in many states.
Tsk, tsk. Seeing someone as substandard for whatever reason is racism.
You see us that way because we are either Arab and Muslim or we are Muslim.
Again, read the article which you seem to have so grossly overlooked.
Fine, you don't like the word racist? Okay, you are bigots. How is that? Holier-than-thou bigots.
Wait, I take it back, racist still applies. Because you do not understand or want to understand our language, our customs, our traditions and our culture, you demean, insult, denigrate them.
That makes you a racist.
Ethnocentrist: The tendency to evaluate other groups according to the values and standards of one's own ethnic group, especially with the conviction that one's own ethnic group is superior to the other groups.
Racist: 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
My, my how they overlap.
Sorry, but I honestly think that being American is preferable to being Iraqi.
That does not mean that being an American makes any individual superior to any individual Iraqi based only upon that distinction. No? Then what the hell does it mean.
But if one of each were drowning, and those were the only things I knew about either of them, I would save the American first and hope the Iraqi could tread water.
This is where we differ. I would save the person who has the highest chance of surviving. In such a situation, I view both equally - both are in dire need of help. Both are in a desperate situation.
Still, if taken at your word, I think I have a higher opinion of Iraqis potential than you do.
Of course you do. You are an American who cares more about MY family then I do. You are an American who misses his Iraqi friends in Iraq he has not heard from in years more than I do.
It is YOUR house in Jamia'a you miss. It is YOUR friends there, the eatery where YOU used to add popcorn to your ice cream.
It is YOUR family in Mosul who are caught in the crossfire between Mosul's police and AQ.
Like I said earlier, you ARE racist because you believe YOU know better than I or other Iraqis who disagree with you what is good for us.
Exactly like Maude. It seems what I say never sinks in. That is another facet of the racist. What the untermenschen say is meaningless compared to the divinely gifted message you condone.
Tsk, tsk.
My God, how contradicting could you be.
Yon again. Yon. He is former special forces trying to give his buddies in the military a clean wholesome granola bar image.
He has taken part in gunfights. Sorry, I would take the word of ANY Iraqi over his. He is not there to give objective reports, he is not a journalist, and he even says so.
But he is White. He is American. He is Christian. He is former military. And he has nice veneers. the wholesome look of a typical, red-blooded American. Which is why you value him above all we have to say.
Fine. Go read Imad Khadduri's blog. Oh wait, some of it is in Arabic. But you are an expert at my language right? Nevermind, skip to the English text.
Yon? Pffft ... Just like all the contractors in Iraq.
TIA--'You have the best intentions of Iraq. Not me. Your family is at risk in Iraq, not mine. Your relatives have been shot and killed, not mine.'----
I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. If you are making the case that none of my family has been at risk in Iraq or been injured, you are wrong. One daughter, one son-in-law, two cousins with 2 purple hearts and 8 years and counting in Iraq between them.
Invaders. Occupiers. Aggressors.
I am sure in the US they are fine young men and women. But in Iraq they are Invaders. Occupiers. Aggressors.
They ride in reinforced trucks, have clean water, ACs, carry guns, point them at terrified children.
And you want me to sympathize?
Pffft ... you can't be serious? They were misled, I will give them that. They were lied to. They were manipulated.
I am not you and you are certainly not me. I know something of the sacrifice of the Iraqi people and more about the sacrifice of the US military, and I think it is an unacceptable choice to throw it all away because it has become too complicated and 'hard' (as if any option available isn't going to be be equally or more tragic).
I never said "throw it away" where on earth did you get that. I am URGING YOU, PLEADING WITH YOU to learn from the mistakes you have made. Used our country as a laboratory and our people as guinea pigs.
We are telling you again and again YOUR POLICIES have failed at the order of 800,000 dead Iraqis.
Have you no compassion at all, man?
Or do you only come here to lay blame and revel in our deaths and our losses?
If you TRULY care about the fate of my people. LISTEN! LEARN!
BT, 24, and I and many, many others have tried to tell YOU the individual what we need. How we need it. When we need it.
But you REFUSE to acknowledge the horrific amount of mistakes made, because that would make you fallible. And to make you fallible you can no longer use your superiority to deal with us untermenschen.
Admitting you are wrong would bring you down to our level and it would mean we were right you were wrong.
Your arrogance would never allow it.
I am telling you, the US soldiers died in vain because they did not die protecting you. They did not die bringing democracy to Iraq, nor did they die bringing us freedom.
They died to bring us chaos because their elders failed.
Read what Plato had to say about this: Armed forces abroad are meaningless if there is no correct counsel at home.
BT wrote several, several times about how Iraqis rebuilt after the 1991 bombing campaign and the air force's policy of taking out Iraqi water filtration plants.
Scroll up and read it. Every Iraqi knows how fast, how diligent and how dedicated the Iraqi construction companies were in the aftermath of 1991.
BT used that example to refer to how the US companies that came to Iraq have built nothing in four years whereas Iraqi engineers were marvelous at the reconstruction.
None of you addressed this. Not one of you. Why? Because you have no answer.
So, yes, if I irk you so much I take pride in being "unreasonable".
To be labeled such by you is an honor for me.
Me: “Or how 'bout Petraeus as the strongman?”
ReplyDeleteBT: "Rhus! Are you serious? Installing an American officer will be like bringing Maude again."
I just cam e back and there's a lot of stuff said below your comment, but I wanted to respond to yours before going through theirs.
OK, I said that because of what b will derd posted, that is, that Petraus is doing things on the ground that may be helping security but they are making Maliki nervous. So from a practical standpoint, Petraeus would not need to get a crown and sceptre, he would just need to continue helping Iraqis on the street even if it ran contrary to what Maliki wanted. But the US is not alone in this. My racist sources keep saying the Iraqi army is getting better and has many brave soldiers committed to Iraq, and they would help. Iraq wouldn't be any more occupied than it already is.
Yes, this is a challenge to Iraq's sovereignty. But if it works on the street, would Iraqis on the street forgive Petraeus, or would they side with Maliki all of a sudden? Probably a mix of both...
BT: "No way. If we don’t remove Maliki, his government, and the parliament, it means we have changed nothing."
ReplyDeleteYeah, but that can be done with a vote of no confidence, or by Maliki calling new elections. If I'm not mistaken, to do it differently you'd have to revoke or seriously alter the constitution. In other words, I don;t know what mechanism, short of a coup or uprising, could get a strongman in power officially instead of a new parliament by new elections. These are just technical questions. Do you know the process by which it could happen other than that, or is that what you had in mind?
BT: "This money should go to the right people."
Yes, of course. But you know the people at the top would get their hands on it anyway, or whine so much until they got their salaries. It'd probably easier to just pay them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTAI: "When you have been coming here and wronging us day after day."
ReplyDeleteYou know, BT and 24 can speak for themselves when I offend them or wrong them. I know this from experience. And they know I don't mean them any ill will by it. You, on the other hand, are a special case.
TAI: "But he [Yon] is White. He is American. He is Christian. He is former military. And he has nice veneers. the wholesome look of a typical, red-blooded American."
Watch those goal posts move.
Yes, to be American and understand Iraq, one must arrange an interview with a prominent Sunni politician and travel into the Red Zone to meet him with your Iraqi friend and translator. THEN the real "resistance" will show you exactly who they are and what they do, without any apologism, cheerleading, sugarcoating, rose-colored glasses, or delusions about them being anything beyond what they are. Only then.
TAI: "BT used that example to refer to how the US companies that came to Iraq have built nothing in four years whereas Iraqi engineers were marvelous at the reconstruction.
None of you addressed this. Not one of you. Why? Because you have no answer."
I have an answer. Because in 1991 nobody was working as fast as they could to sabotage and undermine the reconstruction efforts. Take it from an untermenschen racist, if you will, there are people in Iraq- some Iraqis included- who would rather deny Iraqis critical services and a decent quality of life, than to see the power in someone else's hands.
The following comes from McClatchy:
ReplyDeleteSuicide attacks more than doubled each year from the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 to 2005, Pape said. In 2006, he said, they jumped just under a third. The American military has reported more than 1,400 since January 2004 . Before the U.S.-led invasion, there had been no suicide bombings in Iraq.
...
There's widespread agreement that Saudis are represented more heavily than any other nationality among the bombers, said Assaf Moghadem, a research fellow at Harvard University who studies suicide bombers' motivations. Insurgent groups sometimes recruit Saudis because of their relative prosperity, he said.
Everything we have written about, no?
Furthermore, "If we stay, that tends to encourage people to flock to Iraq ," Hafez said. "Leaving will mean genocidal violence for the Iraqi people. It will mean a failed Iraqi state. The jihadists will declare, `We drove out America.' "
Knowing that then, the US should support the secularist factions in Iraq. And they are many, likely the majority of Iraqis.
The first step, as BT and 24 have called, is for the US to remove support for Maliki, ALLOW Iraqis to revamp the constitution (not have it drafted in DC) and LISTEN to what Iraqis are saying about when and in what format new elections should be held.
That is, if the US is serious about helping Iraqis stand up for themselves.
Rhus, you continue to purposefully misunderstand the meaning of my words:
Yes, to be American and understand Iraq, one must arrange an interview with a prominent Sunni politician and travel into the Red Zone to meet him with your Iraqi friend and translator. THEN the real "resistance" will show you exactly who they are and what they do, without any apologism, cheerleading, sugarcoating, rose-colored glasses, or delusions about them being anything beyond what they are. Only then.
I am not asking you to spend time in the red zone. I am URGING you to LISTEN to Iraqis.
You refuse and play some word game like this is one whole big joke to you.
It is clear you believe our lives are a joke to you.
You continue to use the term untermenschen incorrectly.
You should be calling yourself an ubermenschen racist, not untermenschen.
Please read the articles I have posted.
And they aren't from URUKNET. Hehe ...
TIA---OK, just for kicks..... how can one be an ' ubermenschen racist'?
ReplyDeleteAre you really a student of Nietzsche's works, or did you just hear someone say that and thought it made you sound smart? It has been a few decades (two actually), but I recall the term from a philosophy class and the reading of 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra'. I just did some reading to see if I remembered the basic concepts correctly. The term ubermenschen racist seems to be contradictory or nonsensical at best, but maybe the term has undergone some alternate meanings since it first appeared? If so, I admit ignorance.
I'm not trying to enter into a deep philosophical discussion for which I am ill equipped. The whole 'will to power' was remembered only long enough to pass a test then soon forgotten. Just wondering if you think you really know what the hell you are labeling people? I already know you can't properly get your mind around the term 'racist'. I'm wondering about your use of the term 'ubermenschen'. Word's interest me, and it is curiosity only that prompts the question. If you don't know, that's OK. I'll just add it to the long list of things you say without substance.
B Will Derd,
ReplyDeleteFirst off its, Truth About Iraqis, or TAI for short, not TIA, the amusing little nickname your buddies use for me because they fail time and again to dent any of my arguments.
Since I use the name you sign off with, I would presume you can afford me the same level of respect. Failing to do so, indicates the platform you support and also envision i.e. non-iraqi vs iraqi dialogue.
(Ridicule what you cannot overcome)
As for Nietzsche, he was indicating humanity's essential aspiration for the perfect human.
In that regard, the ubermenschen is one who believes he can repeatedly influence history because he believes himself to be of a higher form.
However, I concede how it may be viewed as contradictory. Indeed, it is not the best term to use, particularly for those who do not comprehend the historical implications of the original context and how it was used in later German literature - particularly in the rise of the Nazis vis a vis their treatment of "lesser" social groupings.
So in that regard, you are right, I should have used a term which would have been easier for you to understand and which does not dwell too long in European history.
I reprimand myself for not sticking to the type of discourse and diction referenced in US media and the current education system.
Forgive me, I should have known better and will from now on dumb down what I have to say so that it is clear to you, B Will Derd.
However, I was merely pointing out the phrase "untermenschen racist" is itself incorrect. Highly contradictory.
It is a racist who views others as untermenschen and therefore cannot himself be a party to that nomenclature.
In fact, no such term exists.
However, the terms ubermenschen and untermenschen are not chosen here by coincidence. They both reference a time when Germany saw the rise of the Nazi party, an extremely racist and Aryan (incorrect depiction, but nonetheless)-centric entity which viewed itself as the ubermenschen and Jews, gypsies, blacks, Muslims, turks and others as untermenschen.
In fact, Germany at the time attempted to live up to Nietzsche's ideals of the ubermenschen by creating the uberfolk. Blond, blue eyes, etc ...
Those who did not fit into the uberfolk ideology, which itself stems from the ubermenschen platform, were sterilized, used for menial labor, etc.
They were unlike the proud German race, as the literature went, and therefore were insignificant to the progress of the 1000-year Reich.
(It is no mistake, either, that the Nazis would choose to sing the merits of Deutschland Uber Alles as they marched through Europe. It was not about geopolitics nor territorial gain, but, they saw in themselves the appropriate mechanism to bring about change)
Again, Nietzsche spoke of ubermenschen in the context of that perfect human which could effect change.
If memory serves me correctly, from my history classes, he was also profoundly moved by Napoleon's vision to unify Europe on his terms and under his banner.
Hitler, more than 120 years later, sought the same thing believing the 1000-year Reich had been chosen by divinity, or destiny, to bring about similar change.
In fact, Hitler was so influenced by Nietzsche, that he continuously referenced him. Even became a patron of the Nietzsche Museum.
The entire Nazi propaganda machine refered to Nietzsche as the father of weltanschauung. I will explain this for you in simple terms.
Basically, it means that the Nazis believed the world should be designed in their image. Therein lie the roots of the 1000-year Reich.
Now, the pivotal change the Nazis believed was demanded of them required of the ubermenschen to remove the untermenschen as in the removal of all races and peoples considered inferior.
The principle of ubermenschen, therefore, is akin to manifest destiny.
And, you will find much of that ethos dominating the discourse about the war on terra and the present war in Iraq.
The phrase "we can not leave Iraq to terrorists" and "we are creating a safer world" are both part and parcel of the ubermenschen ideology.
The Bush administration has even spoken of "a new Middle East", particularly at a time when its proxy, the Israelis, were pounding Lebanon back into the Middle Ages.
As has occured in Iraq.
Again, part and parcel of the ubermenschen ideology.
Thank you for raising Nietzsche (who I do not extol because I do not like his scathing criticism of Judeo-Christianity).
But I am an avid history buff, and the rise of the Nazi party by manipulating the media and bringing the use of propaganda to its most incredible level.
I am fascinated that so many could allow themselves to be so lied to.
Kind of like how you were misled about the Iraq war.
You have done me credit by allowing me to further accurately describe my position, and in doing so, further torpedo what you have to say.
Please, do not make the mistake of thinking we Iraqis are illiterate, or uneducated. Or because English is your native language, you can hope to play word games here.
We have high schools, too. And we had the best universities in the Middle East.
Do not think you can pull the wool on our eyes so easily.
Nice try. Try harder.
You should try to let down that chip on your shoulder sometime. You mistake a typo for intentional insult, though you are incredibly arrogant to think you are deserving of my courtesy considering all the slander you sling. Sometimes a typo is just a typo, but now you have me curious what the alternate stands for.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't playing games, I really was interested in your use of the term. I realize you are not illiterate (more of the reasoning) and your education level is evident enough (maybe beyond your capacity and maturity) ---your insistence on using the word 'racist' in a plainly inappropriate context I will just have to overlook.
You clearly studied Nietzsche more deeply than I did, and no doubt more recently. My recollection was that the term referred to the protagonist of Nietzsche's work who strove to effectively transcend human nature, thereby making himself superior to all other humanity in the cause of enhancing all humanity. I found the whole thing tedious, but maybe it was just beyond me. Also, those who took pleasure in those topics always appeared to be stoned, and usually were. But I will defer to your explanation.
I am familiar with the use of the terms untermenschen and uberfolk in the Nazi ideology that was so admired and emulated in the Baathist Party, and remains so. I don't find it surprising that you would be intimately familiar with it.
Anyway, its been an entertaining diversion while waiting for others more pleasant to get time online to chat, but we're now done. Let your literary knives fly! I'll have to catch them later.
TAI: "You continue to use the term untermenschen incorrectly."
ReplyDeleteIt has a nice ring to it.
But it's clear to me you are the one with an uber/unter-menschen problem. You claim to speak for all Iraqis, even to be the caretaker of the "Truth" About Iraqis, and you reject all opinions from non-Iraqis unless they agree with you.
But you know that there's a broad array of Iraqis out there with different opinions from you. And the spectrum of opinion is not simple and linear, it is more star-shaped or something. Your position on the star of Iraqi opinion is almost as far out on one of the tips as you could go. But for Layla Anwar you'd have the outermost point locked down.
If you had been listening to me, you know- the racist untermenschen American that I am, you would see that I've been listening to BT's opinion on this subject just as I have on many others we've discussed in the past.
Your position on the star of Iraqi opinion is almost as far out on one of the tips as you could go.
ReplyDeletethis reminds me of the gop tactic of trying to keep moving the democrats further and further to the right. they claim the left is way way far out when in fact the left is where the majority of people in the country are.
anyway, nice try rhus.
me: you don't seem to be incorporating the current circumstances or the voice of iraqis into your 'plan' for resolution. in other words, you aren't listening.
this "have faith in elections next year" position you are taking is just not cutting the mustard. i am not being rejected because i am listening.
rhus: If you had been listening to me, you know- the racist untermenschen American that I am, you would see that I've been listening to BT's opinion on this subject just as I have on many others we've discussed in the past.
sounds like you have been listening a little to me too :)
has all that listening you have been doing had any effect on your opinions? i noticed how you had a suggestion about a strongman (petreas) after i mentioned you weren't listening. is this your idea of incorporating all the info you have been assimilating thru your listening?
I take in as much as I can, annie. Whether it shows or not is a matter of perception, or preconception. I even read TAI, because his position as a blind-faith "resistance" supporter who believes he speaks for all Iraqis is interesting, to a point. And so is B Will Derd's comment that TAI is a caricature.
ReplyDeleteMy point about Petraeus was the blending of the Iraqi need for a strongman with the current situation on the ground, especially how the US is trying to reinforce local security and local control, even if the gov't has issues with that. This idea was quickly rejected, of course, but that's OK.
TAI I am URGING you to LISTEN to Iraqis.
ReplyDeletehe's getting he lingo down anyway. i just don't see any movement.
BT If we don’t remove Maliki, his government, and the parliament, it means we have changed nothing."
rhus Yeah, but that can be done with a vote of no confidence, or by Maliki calling new elections.
do you think iraqis might elect petreaus?
So from a practical standpoint, Petraeus would not need to get a crown and sceptre, he would just need to continue helping Iraqis on the street
(is that what we call air raids now?) let me try to understand what you are saying. by crown or sceptre do you mean, as opposed to electing him.. iraqis could sort of appoint him? is that your way of getting around..
I'm not mistaken, to do it differently you'd have to revoke or seriously alter the constitution. In other words, I don;t know what mechanism, short of a coup or uprising, could get a strongman in power officially instead of a new parliament by new elections.
so by saying you wouldn't need a crown, do you mean he cold sort of be the defacto strongman but not really there for we could bypass the elections?
Watch those goal posts move.
i'm just trying to understand how you have modified your original thoughts about elections by listening and becoming more flexible. the US probably wouldn't need a coup or a major uprising from iraqis to support petreaus, and the US probably would agree to pass on an election to install him.
but, i've been listening to iraqis for awhile and there is just no hint anywhere thus far that this idea, tho original, would fly w/anybody outside of neocon central. it is very creative tho.
as for all that listening.. try harder.
Iraq wouldn't be any more occupied than it already is.
looking on the bright side!
Yes, this is a challenge to Iraq's sovereignty.
hmm, i'm not sure 'challenge' is the appropriate term. but in general i'd have to agree w/you on this point.
But if it works on the street, would Iraqis on the street forgive Petraeus, or would they side with Maliki all of a sudden? Probably a mix of both...
hmm. i'm not so sure we are limited to an either/or here rhus. i don't think there is much chance at this point iraqis are going to suddenly embrace maliki. of course if there was anything, anything in the world that might make this a possibility, it would probably be a coup installing an american as president of iraq. with or without the crown.
i'm not so sure all that listening you are doing is having the desired effect. it seems like you are moving in reverse.
This idea was quickly rejected, of course, but that's OK.
ReplyDeletesorry, i hadn't read this when i posted my last comment. those were remarks you made after your idea was rejected so i wasn't quite certain you comprehended the rejection.
because i have to hand it to you, your persistence is admirable. in this regard you are very much like george himself. i just wish you had a little more to work with in terms of options. have you considered thinking from an iraqis perspective? i think if you tried doing that you could eliminate some of these ideas before typing them.
for example, i think suggesting anyone except an iraqi for a new leader is a non starter.
common sense rhus.
TAI, i was reading your sanctions link about the document "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," from the Defense Intelligence Agency '91 following the source link they provided back to the government website where the entire report is available. it was originally prepared for centcom.
ReplyDelete"Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline," the document states. "With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease."
Iraq's rivers "contain biological materials, pollutants, and are laden with bacteria. Unless the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur."
(their caps) CURRENT IRAQI EFFORTS TO
OBTAIN CHEMICALS AND MEMBRANES AND THE INSTALLATION OF A
PIPELINE TO OBTAIN PURE KUWAITI WATER SUGGEST THAT THERE WAS
NOT ADEOUATE STOCKPILING PRIOR TO THE INVASION OF KUWAIT. SOME
CHEMICALS ARE DEPLETED OR ARE NEARING DEPLETION, AND OLDER
MEMBRANES ARE NOT BEING REPLACED ON SCHEDULE. CONSEOUENTLY,
IRAQ PROBABLY IS USING UNTREATED OR PARTIALLY TREATED WATER IN
SOME LOCATIONS. FULL DEGRADATION OF THE WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
PROBABLY WILL TAKE AT LEAST ANOTHER 6 MONTHS.
obviously children are always the most vulnerable to disease. many of those children who died in the 90's would be military age today. they probably considered that too. for some reason the last sentence of the report bothers me terribly. the way they say 'at least'. full degradation of the water...at least another 6 months. as if that was a goal , i guess it was. i really didn't know about it at the time. tho i wasn't actively political then and fairly clueless to world events i knew there were sanctions, but i just thought it made people poor, not dead. how cruel. i'm certain they must have known saddam would be drinking good water.
annie: "so by saying you wouldn't need a crown, do you mean he cold sort of be the defacto strongman but not really there for we could bypass the elections?"
ReplyDeleteannie, the reasonable Iraqis like BT and 24 are saying they need a strongman right now to get the security situation under control. The unreasonable ones like TAI want a strongman to "prove" Saddam not only should not have been toppled, but should have been allowed to do what he did best, which is kill and intimidate Iraqis. Of course, TAI is hitching onto this "just a strongman for now, until, umm, things get under control then we'll have elections" bandwagon because to him the end justifies the means. Or maybe not, but that is how it appears.
So my whole point about Petraeus as the "strongman" is that he can improve security in Iraqi cities, assisted by the true patriots in the IA, IP, and even "awakening" ex-insurgents. He can do this even if it is contrary to any sectarian motives the Malkiki gov't may be using in its reluctance to provide services. He would never have to be crowned anything, or appointed anything more than he is. That way, security would be established from the "bottom up" instead of "top down" in a truly non-sectarian manner. Then the gov't would be pushed into finding lasting solutions on the legislation it needs to consider, as the overall condition for Iraqis on the street quickly improves. The pressure would not be Petraeus dictating to the gov't, but their own self-preserving insticts which are common to all politicians anywhere would make them want to get on board this sea change and turn it into political advantage for themselves. Can you imagine Iraqi politicians trying to "out-reconcile" and "out-rebuild" each other? I can.
OK, here is a milblogger talking about an interview with a US general*:
"What the general points to here are local, often tribal attempts to urge the central government in the direction of reconciliation, and to commit to reconciliation in their own areas. This is what we would call a grassroots movement, if we saw it in America. Such movements, properly organized, can become powerful even against entrenched interests willing to use violence against them -- we can look at the start of unions in America, for example.
If that proves to be the case, a grassroots movement of this type would provide very strong and stable foundation for a national political reconciliation. It is, obviously, too soon to assert that is what will happen; but it is soon enough to notice that there is movement in that direction, in many areas across Iraq."
* I know. Just save it, OK, and read at least my excerpt.
IF a grassroots Iraqi + MNF movement helps to establish security and push reconcilliation, the valid calls for a strongman would necessarily decrease. And that would leave only those who wanted a strongman all along still calling for one. These could be quickly identified and marginalized, where they belong.
Sincerely,
RhusLancia the Left-Handed Racist Untermenshen
i'm here rhus, i read all the posts, it isn't necessary for you to give me your interpretation of what the guys think. your 'personal degrading spin' is unnecessary.
ReplyDelete"What the general points to here are local, often tribal attempts to urge the central government in the direction of reconciliation, and to commit to reconciliation in their own areas.
what a briliant idea. i suggested it months ago over at 24's. he suggested it too. so now hat the general suggests it, you think it is a good idea? in other words, now that many of the shieks have been doing just that, you think the general should urge it. that is called going w/the flow.
could you answer a question for me. in iraq, right now, who is in charge of peatreaus? isn't he already the top dog there. what do you want, him to be more of the official top dog? he already ignore maliki when it suits him.
So my whole point about Petraeus as the "strongman" is that he can improve security in Iraqi cities,
well, if he could do that, why hasn't he?
He can do this even if it is contrary to any sectarian motives the Malkiki gov't may be using in its reluctance to provide services.
yeah, and this is something new?
He would never have to be crowned anything, or appointed anything more than he is.
i guess i am just not seeing what is different about this than what is happening, supposedly.
Then the gov't would be pushed into finding lasting solutions on the legislation it needs to consider, as the overall condition for Iraqis on the street quickly improves.
unless it doesn't rhus. the government is already being pushed into finding lasting solutions. they are called benchmarks.
The pressure would not be Petraeus dictating to the gov't, but their own self-preserving insticts which are common to all politicians anywhere would make them want to get on board this sea change and turn it into political advantage for themselves.
love the framing rhus. where's the sea change and what is going to happen differently? is everybody just supposed to see the same ol peatreaus in a different light. this sounds like a propaganda campaign to prepare people for the US sayiing it is taking over, instead of the 'stand by and help' image of before. but practically speaking, it isn't any different.
i just don't think people are this stupid rhus. maybe you are, but not me.
Me: "So my whole point about Petraeus as the "strongman" is that he can improve security in Iraqi cities,"
ReplyDeleteAnnie: "well, if he could do that, why hasn't he?"
He's working on it. It's an uphill battle against the scorched--earthers in AQ and the remaining "resistance", as well as teh Shia militias. But he's getting traction.
Me: "He can do this even if it is contrary to any sectarian motives the Malkiki gov't may be using in its reluctance to provide services."
annie: "yeah, and this is something new?"
The counterinsurgency strategy he's working is new, actually. It focuses on protecting the Iraqi population moreso than force protection as before. Even Dems are seeing some successes there.
i notived you did not address my questions.
ReplyDeletecould you answer a question for me. in iraq, right now, who is in charge of peatreaus? isn't he already the top dog there. what do you want, him to be more of the official top dog? he already ignores maliki when it suits him.
aside from using this as a platform to promote your pet(reaus)
The counterinsurgency strategy he's working is new yawn, as if working w/tribal leaders is a radical new concept in iraq, cough...whatever. could you answer the question please.
how exactly in anointing him 'strongman'(crown or not) going to be any different than what he already is. please tell me who exactly has more power in iraq anyway, besides dick cheney and all hos aipac cohorts.
[rhus] “IF a grassroots Iraqi + MNF movement helps to establish security and push reconcilliation”
ReplyDelete“MNF” and a grassroots movement will accomplish nothing.
Why?
Because “MNF” aka AMERICA has its OWN agenda that will at best coincide with the “grassroots movement” UNTIL their respective interests diverge, at which point the “grassroots movement” will revert to being “terrorists, deadenders and gunmen”.
Since the US came to Iraq to occupy (1% of Iraqis support the idea of a permanent US presence) and rob (the draft oil legislation is a good case in point) Iraqis, its hard to see how their interests converge.
TAI, I’ve really enjoyed your responses in this thread, thanks.
Annie, that link on Iraqi water hit the spot, thanks.
HERE is some news that I was expecting for a while:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20070810-9999-1n10haditha.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2146122,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12
Yes, It’s the HADITHA MASS MURDERERS, aka “marines” that got off because, you see, they were really stressed, and as everybody knows, stress makes you kill innocent women and children. Also, we have to consider the fact that Iraqis are natural-born liars and therefore unreliable as witnesses. Furthermore, Iraqis might concoct further massacres, because, you see, they might want their relatives to die for the money.
Unbleievable?
It’s all there.
Read it.