Thanks for telling us.. My parents voted against too.
Why?
Zeyad
Why? Could you explain? I really would like to understand your decision.
That is the beauty of Democracy. Yea or nay the people of Iraq determine their future.
Thanks for telling us Zeyad. It is good to see you post-- I have missed your voice. May all be well with you.
And you wouldn't have had the right to vote were Saddam still in power.
That's what I would have voted too. I really didn't like the whole religous veto thing, it put too much power in unelected hands. The beautiful thing though is people are voting instead of killing each other in a civil war. Lets hope that democracy works and disagreements will be settled through voting instead of bloodshed.
Malik Hameed, voting in it self does not make life better it is what happens afterwards that determine the events. Do the leaders follow the promises they made to the people, do they follow human right and international law, do they work for the people or do they work for themselves to get richer. Don’t you remember on the top of this government list during the election was having a set date for the occupation troops to leave Iraq, have the Iraqi government done anything about that? Oh yes they said NO date for withdrawal of troops after the election during a visit to Bush. So you see in Iraq it’s what happens afterwards that really determine what outcome we will have.
I would love to hear your reason why. Please consider updating your post.
It was good to hear from you again. I always read your posts. I would like you to tell us your reasons for voting no. I was a little surprised. I would think that this constitution was a beginning point, and that it would be better to go forward from here, rather than have to start again. But that is democracy, and starting over might be the best way to go forward.. We'll see.. Good luck to you, and please start posting again!!
Hey Zeyad, man, welcome back! Where have you been? What's up? You haven't updated this thing in months! Come on back and give us the lowdown on what's Baghdad like these days. You're the best, man. We've missed you.
Good Decision.
It heartens me to know you voted your conscience.
I want to believe the provinces of Baghdad and those to the north and to the west of Baghdad cannot be marginalized. These communities represent the entpreneurial class of Iraq. They are Iraq's backbone. Although there is concern that provinces to the south and north of Baghdad will benefit at the expense of central Iraq, the financial capital, the prestigious educational institutions, the technology sector and the commercial sector will more than likely continue to reside in central Iraq. Perhaps a central Iraq freed from an oil-based kleptrocracy will truly shine.
I'm looking forward to the day US troops are drawn down. I know we have brought grief and sorrow to your family. I remain ashamed. I so wish it could be otherwise.
Does lose hope Zeyad.
I meant don't lose hope.
Congratulations on your vote. You realize of course that this may lock you into the process. You may find yourself under a bit of an obligation to make your voice heard -- to turn this constitution into something for which you can vote "yes". Go for it! I applaud your vote.
P.S. Where and how have you been?
Thank God you are fine, Zeyad.
Democracy in action, the opportunity to vote yes or no.
I am sure you are involved in the process of getting the Constitution just about perfect.
Congratulations!
Najma,
Did you know that no American voted for or against their Constitution? Only our Representatives. For your parents to vote as individuals against your Constitution is a great thing. Now, as someone pointed out, you are obliged to make your Constitution into something you can vote for. That is the way Democracy works.
Zeyad,
Good to see you posting again. Congratulations on being able to vote!
The constitution is an offensive joke to any half-educated Iraqi. You'd have to be a dim-wit to vote 'yes'. Sistani says 'yes'....need I say more....
Why can't nay-voters make a well reasoned argument for their choice? Is this simply nay-voting for its own sake?
Nadia,
You're right, and were the Bathists still in power, your point, and mine would be moot. None of the 'dim-wits' would have had the opportunity to vote.
And yes, how Iraqi's implement the constitution, should it pass, is of paramount importance. After all, we live in a physical world, not a theoritical one, and that implementation can take time. America's constitution wasn't implemented (1789) until six years after it won its Independence from Britian (1783).
Good to hear from you Zeyad. I have missed your writing.
"America's constitution wasn't implemented (1789) until six years after it won its Independence from Britian (1783)."
And then it had to be ammended to give rights to all WHITE MEN (not women and blacks)... that came much later.
Nadia, you should be very proud with where you are right now.
Original Jeff, I couldn't help but ask, why didn't you ask Zeyad why he didn't thank the Americans..?
I don't want to speak for Zeyad when I say his reason for voting against. But I think you can pretty much anticipate that, but are afraid to believe..
There happens to be some patriotic Iraqis, who want the best to Iraq, which is certainly not to be found in a quickly-build, wrongly-based constitution.. A constituiton is not a game, it should be thoroughly thought.
Hopefully, Iraqis will know the best for them before it's too late. I don't think I can stand Iraq if it goes any worse..
Good to hear from you, Zeyad, and congratulations on the vote. I hope your country can move forward now.
It's nice to hear your voice again, Zeyad. If only to let us know how you voted.
Take care.
Welcome back...I always enjoyed reading your comments. I don't know how I would have voted. I would want something permanent but the constitution has too many religious overtones (and I am a religious person). Hope you post from time to time. All the best Zeyad.
Congratulations on voting to get the Constitution you want. Having the ability to shape your country's future is a wonderful thing.
Please let us know more about your life and the reasons for your vote when you get a chance.
Best wishes,
Pat
Malik Hameed, just because Saddam or the Baathists are not in power today doesn't mean that Iraqis have to be like sheep and go out in droves voting "yes", just as the Bush adminstration and the Iranian Ayatollah would like to see.
Najma
It's wrong for you to slander your countrymen as not patriotic, because they don't hold the same opinion as you. You have to learn to be more tolerant of differences in opinion for democracy to work.
Congrats on voting. Hopefully you'll continue getting the chance to vote.
Great to see your post and know that you are ok Zeyad. It is also good to see that so many voted there and that the election was fairly peaceful. I hope that this is another step forward in Iraqis taking charge of their country again. If this constitution is voted down then the process must go forward until one that satisfies the majority and represents all fairly is approved...if that is the case so be it and I continue to wish all there the very best!
Good to hear from you Zeyad. It's great to see that you voted and made your voice heard. That is what it is all about. These are sad and exciting times.
I hope your country will be peaceful once again. You are a great, proud people.
"Malik Hameed, just because Saddam or the Baathists are not in power today doesn't mean that Iraqis have to be like sheep and go out in droves voting 'yes',"
Agreed.
"And then it had to be ammended to give rights to all WHITE MEN (not women and blacks)... that came much later."
Richard, if you keep judging everything from a utopian perspective, you're going to be sorely disappointed when things don't live up to your expectations. America's history is full of mistakes, but then again, whose isn't?
Though after giving Iraqi's the power to vote for the second time, I'd say invading Iraq wansn't one of them. Something tells me you're going to disagree, Rich.
I think that I understand your vote, Zeyad. I hope that you can reject this one and create another that will offer your country a more stable foundation.
I have been very worried that something had happened to you. I am glad to see that you are well, although I still find your silence ominous.....
Be well and take care.
Najma,
I have no need to ask Zeyad why he is not thankful for the American invasion of Iraq. His writing shows that he understands that Iraq today has the potential for a brighter future that it did not have prior to March 2003.
The only problem with a "no" vote is that it might encourage the violent elements of your society and the foreign fighters to continue with their violence.
Unfortunately the U.S. controlled Iraqi government has made it almost mathematically impossible to defeat the constitution. For the constitution to pass only requires more than half of "actual" voters to vote "yes." For example, if only 20 people voted in all of Iraq and 11 voted "yes" the constitution would pass because it is based on "actual" voters, not "registered" voters. In order to defeat the constitution two-thirds of "registered," not "actual," voters must say "no" in at least three provinces. For example, if 599 people went to the polls in a province and everyone who voted said "no" but there were 900 registered voters in that province it would be still counted as a "yes" vote because two-thirds of the "registered" voters in that province did not vote "no." Welcome to "democracy", American style. One might call it the new dictatorship.
Sunni anger at Iraq vote change
Colleen,
You are behind on the news...
Under UN and US pressure, the Govt of Iraq officially backed away from the interpretation you mention above. Now it is "actual voters" for both the majority requirement and the 2/3 requirement.
"A move by the Shia-dominated Iraqi parliament last month to make it harder to reject the constitution - by counting only votes from registered, as opposed to actual voters - was reversed after criticism from the UN and the US. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
4337200.stm
Glad to see you're still around Zeyad.
I hope all is well.
Colleen's point seems to be that if you count "only" actual votes, it's not democracy.
Boy is that asinine. Colleen can you explain how, in your mind, one goes about counting the votes of people who don't vote?
More generally, you appear to be quite worried that a silent majority of registered voters will disapprove of the Constitution but not vote, thus not be counted, thus allowing the Constitution to pass against their wishes.
Question: If all these hypothetical registered-voter non-voter people are so opposed to the Constitution why don't they just *go vote against it*, like Zeyad did?
And if they can't be bothered (too busy?) to go vote against this Constitution they supposedly dislike so much, if they're so apathetic in their opposition, then why would we insist that their voices carry the day in the first place? Is your view of "democracy" that the fate of a group of people is decided by the most apathetic and lazy among them?
Spare me your crocodile tears for the poor oppressed Iraqi non-voting registered voter. This whole concern of yours is not just silly, it is illogical. I can't help but think it is driven by something other than genuine concern for the Iraqi people.
Original Jeff
I read the link and I stand corrected. I see the two-thirds requirement is now based on actual.
...doesn't post for months, and all we get are three words?
...well, at least you voted..
Zeyad
I am glad you were free to vote your conscience. I probably would have voted the same as you because I don’t like laws of the land based on any singular Identified Religion.
IF I am not mistaken, Islamic doctrine (and Islamic clerics) will have veto power over all future laws proposed by soon to be elected officials come December regarding this Constitution and its amendments. ( that may still be one of the sticking points, along with fair representation & equitable sharing nationally thru Federalist independent Provinces.
On the other-hand, this constitution is only the framework document (at this point) delaying key critical points to be amended by duly elected officials of the people come December.
I think this vote is a great step forward and your NO vote will be part of the reminder that this CONSTITUTION needs a great deal more work to be fully acceptable should it pass.
In either case “yes or no outcome” your elected officials (representatives) come December will have much on their plate to complete this document to the satisfaction of the people of Iraq.
Thank God you are now free to voice your opinion and vote your conscience.
Tex
I would have voted against it. The constitution gives no rights whatever to gorillas and other apes. Nor is there is a timetable in it for humans to give up eating meat.
I'd been wondering.
Miss ya, Z.
Almost two years ago to the day (Oct. 18, 2003), Zeyad wrote about the fall of Baghdad in a blog entry entitled "A little something about the war":
Our area was one of three areas in Baghdad that witnessed the bloodiest resistance against American forces. My uncle was so proud of that fact. But there were still no Americans to be seen, only a couple of helicopters. The next day however, a long convoy of American vehicles stormed through our street. I stood in front of the house watching, M1 Bradleys, Humvees, Abrams tanks, APC's. I was impressed. Most of the Americans were so so young. They waved at us, and I waved back. Everyone in the street looked happy.
After they left, I was surprised to find my uncle standing at the door, his face violet red with rage, he was plucking his hair from his head and shouting, I didn't at first realize what he was saying, his mouth was frothy and he was shaking his fists at me, he was so ashamed and enraged about the fact that I was waving to the 'invading' Americans. I thought he was having a fit or something, because he looked like someone losing it. 'Wait and see tommorrow when they will come into our houses and rape our women! You wouldn't wave then, would you', 'How could you dare to wave to zionist imperialists in front of my house?!', something like that. We almost got into a fight, but people seperated us. I felt so humiliated for being shouted at in front of everyone from our neighbourhood. I haven't talked to him to this day, although he lives next door.
For a look at the fall of Baghdad through the eyes of other Iraqis, check out this from Iraqi Bloggers Central:
War and Its Discontents.
*
This constitution isn't that great. The best reason to vote "yes" was to try and speed up the process of creating stable government.
Voting "no" would force the whole process to start again. The Sunni would have another chance to get involved in the process. The voters would have a chance to reconsider voting for the clerics. The result would be more inclusive and created by an electorate that has more experience with democratic choice.
But voting "no" could deligitimize the process and encourage the bombers. That is the rub.
In my survey, I have found a surprising number of Iraqi Bloggers feel the same as Zeyad:
Roll Call: Iraqi Bloggers Sound Off On The Constitution And Voting
Congratulations, Zeyad.
But now they (both US-puppets and Iran-puppets) will rig the results, as usual, I bet (it has begun from the start: no ballot boxes in Qaim and in many other 'NO' areas).
Voting 'No' will in no way deligitimize the process, in fact the act of voting down the constitution and winning the 'no' vote will substancially enforce the democratic processs in Iraq and deal a heavy blow to the people who do the bombings. It would be a tremendous psuchological and moral boost to the average iraqi who will finally understand that through democratic means the nation can say 'no' to its government. But this argument is moot, as we all know that the vote has already been preordained as a 'Yes'.
What makes me really sad is that all you Yanks are cheering this outcome believing your naive stupid press that you have somehow achieved a victory here. The fact of the matter is that the 'Yes' vote on the cnstitution is the worst possible oucome ever, especially as it is obvious that most Sunnis voted in large numbers against. This is so gonna antagonise the Sunni population that its gonna push them further and further away towards the insurgence and all that we are gonna see is further bloodshed. A truely sad day for Iraq if the vote came back as a 'yes'. watch and see.
okba,
Listen, if this constitution gets a YES vote, don't despair.
On December 15 ALL THE SUNNIS can make their voices be heard by VOTING for their representatives to take seats in the Parliament. If you don't like what your representative do in the Parliament during that term in office, then you vote him or her OUT at the next election.
See? Representative democracy. It works. As over a hundred countries around the world understand.
*
okba,
Many who oppose the constitution seem to fear the federal system of government. They talk about "breaking up of Iraq." Can you explain this? Many successful democracies, including Canada and USA, have such a form of government. I don't consider the USA to be "broken up!"
A "yes" vote simply causes the election in December to be for 4 year term rather than for a 1 year term. In both cases--yes or no--the constitution is subject to being rewritten--either from scratch or by amendment.
It looks like it will be Yes, but I can also understand voting the other way. And I, too, would be interested in you doing an indepth analysis as to why that was your decision (athough many of us can speculate as to your problems with it). While we non-Iraqis can read the document, we are woefully ignorent of the cultural and social aspects involved. Continue to impart your wisdom in these areas, so we may all understand.
Original Jeff,
What worries me is not the 'yes' or 'No' of it all. The Constitution itself and the fact that it can and probably will be ratified is not the issue here. My concern is that it is blatantly clear that the Sunnis have gone out in vast numbers to reject this Draft. If the Government plays with the results and announces that the Sunni Governates have actually accepted the draft then the Sunnis will be so outraged and disellusioned with their new found belief in the democratic process, that there won't be a December ellections because the Sunnis will see no point in participating in it.
It will be a disaster.
Do you understand my point now?.
okba,
I don't see the government/polling authorities "playing" with the results at all. Each polling station had national and international monitors. Right now it looks like the Anbar and Saladin governates will reach the 2/3 threshold, but that's only two.
Am I missing something here?
Everything I've seen and read points to a well-run referendum.
Well?
*
okba,
If Sunnis think that the democratic process means that THEY WIN and THEY GET ALL THEIR FORMER AND POWER BACK, then that's a different story.
My prediction: Sunnis have gone to the polls now and they will have no problem getting in line on December 15 to get their representatives into the Parliament.
I could be wrong, but letting Zarqawi lead the Sunni "resistance" -- which many commentators have acknowledged -- is not an option, is it?
*
okba,
Yes, the current government must do their best to have a fair referendum--absolutely. As I understand it, there were many hundreds of observers of the process, so we should know if there is any vote fraud going on. Also, don't forget that the current government did indeed reverse course of the interpretation of "actual" versus "registered" voters. That means they are sympathetic to being fair and honest. Also, they agreed to put the thing up for amdendment immediately--another good sign.
But, most of all, they have not simply wholesale slaugtered former-Baathists by the tens of thousands--that is perhaps the best sign of all!
I fully expect at least one province--Anbar--to reach the 2/3 rejection requirement. This seems likely since voting was so heavy in the Marine-protected enclave of Falluja. Whether 3 will reach the 2/3 level will be interesting...
I have no problem with a "no" vote. "no" would also allow you to have several more early elections. These elections and interim periods give Iraqis a better feel for the process and for what type of leaders and government they want. It is kind of like have a trial period for leaders! You tried Allawi and his group of seculars. You tried the Jafarri shiites, etc.
Iraqi WirePress Report (translated from Arabic),
the Governor of Mosul(Niniveh province) denied reports of involvement of the militias loyal to the religious shia Sciri party in Mosul and Tal-Afar. And when asked about the closing of polling stations in districts of Hasnooky, Kadisia, and Mallayeen he said that those area are not currently lived in due to the recent fighting in those area. as for the vilages and area surrounding the city then we Don't have any centers in them , but we have set up senters in areas close by where voters can be bussed to if they so wished.
From the WaPo:
=-=-=-
Perhaps the most important question Saturday was whether their turnout would bring them into a political process they have so far eschewed or, if the constitution is approved, deepen their alienation. Without exception, voters said they planned to cast ballots in elections in December to choose a new parliament.
"God willing, we have to secure the future of Iraq," said Wissam Faiz, a 22-year-old who voted no. "With a new election, we can elect a better government."
Could a better government exist with the occupation? he was asked.
Frowning, he shrugged. "Without an occupation," he said, somewhat ambiguously, "we would have never witnessed any of this."
=-=-=-
Huh. See Rich, even your average Iraqi gets it.
Oh, and Okba,
"with the results and announces that the Sunni Governates have actually accepted the draft then the Sunnis will be so outraged and disellusioned with their new found belief in the democratic process,"
Um, just wondering, but doesn't the majority rule? The Sunnis might be a bit perturbed, but let's face it, they cast votes today, not bombs. Which begs the question: what impetus caused Sunnis to vote and not boycott?
Generally I believe they realize they're not well represented in the Parliment and want to change that legitimately. And if they want it changed legitimately, why then would they suddenly, after the vote doesn't go their way, believe they'd be any more represented by the insurgency?
Bottom line, if they can't accept the will of the majority, then they, the Sunnis, have deeper problems requiring a greater degree of introspection.
Zeyad,
Great to see you posting again, even if it is only 3 words. Unfortunately the 4-5 million Iraqis abroad were not allowed to vote.....I wonder why!!! All my family would have voted against it too.
You have been missed hope you post again soon.
Good to hear from ya again Zeyad. Take care.
A lot of good could come of the constitution being voted down. A lot of good the other way too. I'm just happy to see so many Sunni Arabs voting this time. Even if the Constitution passes, a large turnout next time means they will be properly represented in the new government.
Um Ayad,
Get involved with your favorite political parties NOW. If it's YES, then there are parliamentary elections just around the corner on December 15. Let your voice be heard. Vote for your representatives and hold them responsible and accountable for their actions once they're in office. If you don't like what they're doing, vote them OUT at the end of their term.
*
Yes or No, or even why is not an issue. Voting is the key, and blessings to you for taking part.
I am an American Marine deployed to ar-Ramadi. I would like to link to this blog from my own. I am intrigued to read the thoughts and views of the citizens of Iraq during this period of conflict.
If you disapprove, contact me immediately and I will remove the link.
Thanks and God be with you.
"Unfortunately the 4-5 million Iraqis abroad were not allowed to vote.....I wonder why!"
Could be because last time the expatriate vote was difficult, expensive, and not very many actually voted.
Zeyad,
Great to see an update, even if brief.
I would have voted against this draft too and I think starting over on a new draft wouldn't have made the existing problems any worse. Iraqis would have had a second chance to correct any election 'mistakes' made the first time (and I think there were a bunch of mistakes the first time). I don't like the talk about a yes vote is a step forward and you'll just fix later what is wrong with this draft. A step forward is when people vote on content compared to personal values, not because of battle fatigue (though understandable) and not because it can be changed later. I doubt many in the US would ever think to vote in favor of something they can't personally support with the thought that they can just change it later. Changing it later is NOT easily done.
My best to you Zeyad,
Check out the most recent version from Wednesday October 12. The religious stuff is not so havy-handed any more. Yes it still declares that Iraq is a country of one particular faith, but it is unequivacal in it's protection of other religions. The composition of judges is up for the next Council to outline. It has a good bill of rights..EXCEPT... It looks like it might be saying, injuring/disfiguring people is how crimes will be punished. If that's true, I agree this is a very bad constitution. If I've read that part wrong, I think the rest of it lays down a good foundation.
The things that are to be decided by the new Council are the things best delayed till a second round of candidates, who have been through Iraq's experience of the last 8 months.
Lee C.,
I read somewhere a few days ago that the expense of the out-of-country polling stations was indeed a key factor in the decision. Especially, I imagine, because they have to foot that heavy bill again in two months for the parliamentary elections.
You might want to take a look at this, if you haven't already:
Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq.
But, really, there's an easier explanation: Karl Rove. All right, Lee, I'm just joking around. You know me. I always go for double helpings of snark -- against doctor's orders, I might add -- in the cafeteria line.
Nice to see ya.
Hey, Kris, nice to run into you here too. I remember you were one of the first commenters over at Iraqi Bloggers Central. I've seen you popping up here and there on the comments pages again recently.
Okay, later.
*
Turner,
Did they take out the part about the right to use a religious court to decide family matters or did they add more guardrails to restrict the autonomy of the various regions? Once this stuff is in the constitution, not sure how it gets taken out in the future.
Hi Jeffrey. I've taken some long breaks from the blogs. Honestly, once Zeyad stopped posting, it lost some of its draw, but I show up at ITM occassionally when I'm in the mood for a good debate. Usually easy enough to find since my politics are to the left of most commenters left there. When I'm around, I often check your site just for the roundup, see if I missed anything big. That's how I found out The Religious Policeman was posting again. So I hope you keep blogging too. Take care.
Ohthankgod Zeyad - you posted and that means you are still out there somewhere!!!! Do you know how worried I've been about you? Geez, I sound like a mother.....Anyhow, please please please email me soon. I need to hear from my favorite Iraqi dentist! 
I've missed you sooo much! Hugs.
To everyone asking Zeyad why he voted no - have you not read the draft (or one of the countless variations) yourselves?
Why do you need Zeyad to explain his decisions to you? It sounds like you're polling to find out what lies to justify a yes vote. Sorry, I am so over certain parties vetting free political analysis in the comments of blogs.
Go read the thing yourselves, read everything that everyone else was writing about it weeks, even months ago. Then come back and tell us what you think.
migratory visitor
The purpose to ask zeyad his reasons is simple. Maybe he'll shed light on something we've missed. I read the constitutiion and can't discern what it is that zeyad doesn't like. So it may be plain to you what he doesn't like, it is not plain to us. Regards
@ Jeffrey Schuster, 'Original Jeff' et al.
"Each polling station had national and international monitors."
"many hundreds of observers of the process".
What are you talking about?
Any CREDIBLE international observers, or just the US troops?
Who were these supposed 'hundreds of observers'? How is it that nobody knows of their very existence?
Or, maybe, you just invented them out of your fertile imagination?
US troops were not inside the polling stations you ignorant turd. Representatives of all the major Iraqi political parties and the Iraqi electoral commission were there. These people were filmed during the voting by CNN.
The Mayor of Bayswater,
He has a lovely daughter,
And the hairs on her dicky-di-doe,
Hang down to her knees.
She married an Italian,
With balls like a fucking stallion,
And the hairs on her dicky-di-doe,
Hang down to her knees.
She divorced the Italian,
And married the stallion,
And the hairs on her dicky-di-doe,
Hang down to her knees.
Wow. Look at the feeble arguments being put forth by the International Left. I wonder if Saturday's vote was as demoralizing to the insurgent terrorists?
@ Jeffrey Schuster, 'Original Jeff', 'Malik Hameed' and all assorted US warmongers.
I stand corrected: there is at least ONE 'international observer' put in charge by the UN in Baghdad, a woman.
This very morning she declared to the journalists that all fake tallies of the referendum vote and of the YES/NO percentages province by province (that you liked so much) are quite simply FALSE, since they had just started the count of the votes, and most ballot boxes were still unopened.
Now I wonder, I do wonder...
how is it that the Italian State TV (TG3) showed her statement (that gives the total lie to your beloved cobra Condy Rice, among others), while there has been a deafening silence up to now by the AP, and all American media, that already declared instead that the NO hasn't got a 2/3 majority in Ninevah (clairvoyants, no doubt)?
Are they trying to hide something from you warmongers... or to please your Ape in Chief... or to prepare you to a fraudolent, manifactured result?
Anyway, do keep quiet, dear Apes, instead of jumping up and down out of joy: possibly the games are not over, and the UN chief of observer will be able to prevent the predictable fraud by the US and the pro-Iranians.
And the declaration of referendum results is going to take place no sooner than Wednesday...
Dear friends, I wonder if An Italian realizes he/she did more to damage his/her argument, using those callous invectives, than help it?
"He who yells the loudest usually has the weakest argument."
What I don't get is how can some people not understand that one can vote NO even though you are NOT a sunni, anti democracy or for having us Iraqis living in hell for always? This is very stange indeed. Why can not some people just not lift their heads from these stupid thoughts and see that we Iraqis who are as any other people on this earth have differnet views too, just becouse you don't agree to one of them does not make that person or people anti democracy.
Zeyad,
I thought you would vote against. Well, it is certainly not an ideal constitution. I think the question is, how or when can you get the constitution you want? Is it a good idea to wait?
I am not sure if a constitution would be better the next time, if this one is voted down. The religious parties will not disappear, and the Iraqi Islamic Party seems to be popular among Sunnis, it doesn´t sound very secular to me.
Federalism is nothing worse than say, Switzerland, Germany or the US have got. It is not a disaster.
It seems to me that getting a more secular constitution will take several decades, for the simple reasons that many, perhaps most Iraqis vote what their religious leaders tell them to vote. And this will take decades to change.
Anyway, good to hear from you again, even with a short post!!
Lee C,
"Could be because last time the expatriate vote was difficult, expensive, and not very many actually voted."
This time the situation is different. Last time it was voting for a "Puppet Regime" this time it is for the constitution. A time for Iraqis to agree or disagree on the future constitution of their country, many would have liked to vote on that. Besides their are more Iraqis leaving now due to the intolerable situation.
Jeffrey,
"Get involved with your favourite political parties NOW. If it's YES, then there are parliamentary elections just around the corner on December 15. Let your voice be heard."
Yes, I am aware of that. I know they have said Iraqis abroad will be able to vote..... We will wait and see!! But, I am sure their will be vote-rigging, already there are many reports of voter fraud..... the number of ballots just do not add up, some very odd results.
"This time the situation is different."
None of the differences you claim change the fact that not enough expatriates voted last time to make it worth the expense and effort. No reason to assume that'd change this time. As I recall, you didn't vote last time, and while you claim you'd have voted this time, that's easy said, but may not be true when it come time to make the actual effort.
And, you'd have voted "against" I gather if you'd voted, but there was no provision for rejecting the constitution except by majority vote, or by ⅔ in three governates, and you aren't voting in any of the governates that might have rejected it. Basically, it'd have been a wasted vote as the expatriate vote would never have been sufficient to overcome the overall majority.
So, you're complaining about something that doesn't make any real difference anyway, as the expat vote would never have defeated the overall majority. It would have been an exercise in expensive futility.
"What I don't get is how can some people not understand that one can vote NO even though you are NOT a sunni, anti democracy or for having us Iraqis living in hell for always? This is very stange indeed."
You get that impression because most of the persons posting here are Americans, fervent supporters of G.W. Bush, and the Bushies have determined that they need to show some "progress" in Iraq to overcome the general American electorate's notion that freeing Iraq was probably a good idea, but the current set of clowns has pretty much botched the job.
The Bushies need the "yes" vote for Bush's domestic political fortunes. That's what they're about. They want to wave the "yes" vote as a sign of success (they don't want to live under it though--that's for you Iraqi to suffer through).
Personally, I'd have voted no too, if I were an Iraqi; I don't think much of that constitution. But, do I think just getting the vote done without heavy violence is some evidence of progress. I'd like to see it voted down and have a new crew start again.
I recognize there are some good arguments for accepting a defective constitution just now. I don't buy them totally; they don't convince me enough that I'd have wanted to see this pass, but, truth is, I'm not sure I'm right--it's a judgment call, and I've got an opinion, but I'm not sure. And my opinion don't count for much on this anyway; this is for Iraqi to decide.
Zeyad, I am thankful you are well. Congratulations on your vote. I have full faith that you, and your brave people will find the right path forward within a democratic framework.
I'm so glad you're OK and pleased you took part in the progress of your country. I wish I was privy to the inevitable debates you have with your contemporaries. Do post some more, we need to hear more intellectual thoughts about the Iraqi process towards "democracy". P.S. The invitation (Canada) I extended to you is always open.
Lee C,
"So, you're complaining about something that doesn't make any real difference anyway, as the expat vote would never have defeated the overall majority. It would have been an exercise in expensive futility."
Glad to hear that you don't think much of the constitution either. But it would have sent a loud message if expats could have voted. "The Bushies need the "yes" vote for Bush's domestic political fortunes." That seems like a very good reason to vote NO, definitely don't want to help Bush's or Blair's domestic political fortunes. They try to block anything that could be detrimental to their "political fortunes" like at the Labour Conference when Mr Wolfgang, 82, from London, was physically removed from the Brighton Centre for shouting "nonsense" during a speech by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
Also....
"Iraq envoy's tell-all memoir blocked"
"The Foreign Office has effectively killed the publication of a controversial fly-on-the-wall memoir of the Iraq war by one of Britain's most senior diplomats, which would have called the conflict politically illegitimate."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/
S...1593440,00.html
"That seems like a very good reason to vote NO, definitely don't want to help Bush's or Blair's domestic political fortunes."
Seems to me to be a fairly horrid reason to vote "NO". You obviously care about Bush's political fortunes as much as the Bushies do; you just have a different wish, but not much an apparently different level of of concern for Iraq. But then, you haven't lived in Iraq in a long time have you? And no intention of going back?
Personally, I'd vote against the constitution, if the vote were mine, because I consider it a poor effort and I'd like to see another set of Assembly men (and women) picked to give it another try in hopes they'd come up with something better.
I don't give a damn what it does for Bush or Blair or their political fortunes.
well said Lee c. this is not about Bush or Blair. It's ultimately about Iraq and its peoples future and democracy.
Zeyed, good to hear from you even if it is only those few words.
My sixth sense tells me you have altered your previous positive positions....is that so???
Dear Zeyad,
on the evidence of fraud and rigging of the referendum results, see this post by American journalist Christopher Allbritton, titled 'Curious numbers in Ninevah':
http://www.back-to-iraq.com/
arch...ous_numbers.php
On the issue of your previous post, the situation in 'liberated' Basra, this piece by the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
4347636.stm
Found them through the comments to the 'Free Iraq' blog.
Now I'm amazed by the incredibly brazen necks of these US warmongers, who keep coming here giving lessons to you and all Iraqis (all their blathering about 'democwacy', or about 'your previous positive positions', like this shameless JJ does).
Is this the 'Freedom & Democracy' you brought to the Iraqis, oh Americans?
A referendum that was a farce and a FRAUD from the start, completely rigged and preordained by your puppets (and the puppets of the Ayatollahs)?
What is the substantial difference between this referendum and the referendums that Saddam arranged from time to time? Oh, yeah, the only difference is that in this case (provided an Iraqi were living in an area relatively uninfested by your wonderful allies, the Kurdish mafia gangs and the militias of the Ayatollahs) one could openly express him/herself in favour of a 'NO' vote...
But what is the real difference, since in both cases the results were PREORDAINED?
The US Administration and the Teheran Ayatollahs (both followed by their Iraqi puppets) did agree for once: this Iraq-destroying 'Constitution' just had to come into force. Whence the fraud and the wholesale rigging of the vote.
Do you call this 'democracy', oh Americans?
In the meanwhile, in Al-Anbar, your beasts-at-arms murdered, in retaliation for the rightful cull of five of them at the hands of Iraqi patriots, some dozens of Iraqi civilians...
thanks for telling us zeyad. i would have voted against it myself.
Italian,
I couldn't have said it better.
Thank you.
If this Fraud is blessed by the American administration, then it will be a slap to every peace loving and honest Iraqi who ever believed in the honest intention of bringing true democracy to Iraq.
I feel like a fool for ever standing up in support of this war. My heart breaks. To hell with Bush and every stupid American who buys into his bullcrap. Not me. Not ever again.
Iraqi.
Lee C. Wrote:
"And, you'd have voted "against" I gather if you'd voted, but there was no provision for rejecting the constitution except by majority vote, or by ⅔ in three governates, and you aren't voting in any of the governates that might have rejected it."
For your info, votes were gathered in 20 contries outside Iraq. Are those a standby "Yes" vote to top off wherever it is needed?
"Italian,
I couldn't have said it better.
Thank you."
For your information okba, the Iraqi "patriots" to whom An Italian refers are the insurgents and foreign Jihadi types, who just happen to be killing Iraqi citizens at a ratio of 10 to 1 over every Coalition soldier they kill. If you think that is a good thing then you will find my position is very much at odds with yours. I notice that you once supported the war to topple Saddam. I still do. My complaint about my government is that they have pretty much botched the job from day one; they got Saddam out of Baghdad all right, but much more was required and they did not seem to understand that nor were they ready for it, and Iraq has descended into chaos as a result of their incompetence and poor preparation for the aftermath. The quick run to Baghdad is a testament to the strength and competence of our military men (and women). The chaos Iraq descended into afterwords is a testament to the incompetence of our political leaders.
But, even though I cannot give the political leaders good grades, I cannot support the killing of Iraqi at a ratio of 10 to 1 just to embarrass them.
Most Americans honestly supported the effort to "bring democracy to Iraq", that's why Bush had majority support to begin this war. Most Americans do not believe they've done a good job; rather, the majority opinion over here is that they've screwed up an otherwise good idea. That's why Bush's numbers are so low now; not because it was a bad idea, but because it was incompetently handled.
But, I cannot support the killing of Iraqi at a ratio of 10 to 1, nor the killing of Coalition soldiers who are still trying to bring some semblance of order out of the chaos, just to embarrass some politicians whom I think have done a poor job of handling the aftermath of the fall of the Ba'athi.
I must wonder how you, as an Iraqi, can support that?
"For your info, votes were gathered in 20 contries outside Iraq."
I do not believe that is true. I suspect you've been listening to some false propaganda, quite simply, I think somebody's been lying to you again, but I am willing to hear you out and to be convinced that you are right and I am wrong.
Do you have any information on this other than just some rumor? What are these "20 countries"? Where were the voting stations in these countries?
Do you have any information at all other than this rumor, which I believe to be false?
www.valvolamitralika.splinder.com
look to the linck
Hi, Zeyad. Often think of you and your family.
Lee C. wrote,
"Do you have any information on this other than just some rumor? What are these "20 countries"? Where were the voting stations in these countries?
I was not accurate, my aplogies. The news item indicated that the 20 countries will have voting stations for the Dec 15 voting phase.
Yet, the question remains, how those outside votes are going to be incorporated in the local results without any political bias? Do you expect the votes for Iraqis in Iran will be against Al Hakim?
I think that if I were an Iraqi, I would probably have come down in the yes column, but I agree with Lee C…it’s a very close call. My yes vote would have been based on two hopes:
1. That the new assembly elections in December will result in a much higher level of representation for the secular Iraqis, whether they be Sunni, Shia, Christian or atheist, and
2. That the federalist structure will give considerable “breathing room” to people who might otherwise be oppressed under a strong central government composed of Islamic fundamentalists.
But it is a leap of faith. We'll know in a few months if the former is realistic. The latter will take longer.
Lee C,
"You obviously care about Bush's political fortunes as much as the Bushies do; you just have a different wish, but not much an apparently different level of concern for Iraq. But then, you haven't lived in Iraq in a long time have you? And no intention of going back?"
I showed your comment to my English work colleagues they said...." this guy obviously knows nothing about you or the tears you have wept for Iraq and the depression you have suffered."....For your information I was in Baghdad just before the invasion and my husband has returned several times since for various reasons, including repairing the damage to our home caused by the invasion. I find your remark that I have no intention of going back rather strange...How can you know or assume what my future plans are? I see no reason to tell you or anybody, except those close to me, about my plans. I might return sooner than you think but frankly that is none of your business. I will not announce a date for my return here. I comment on Bush and his cabal as I believe they are the reason for the deaths and suffering of so many Iraqis and the destruction of a country I love. Please refrain from making unfounded assumptions about me.
Lee C[ercopith]. ― U.S.A., 10.18.05 - 5:20 am.
Dear Cercopith Lee,
You just keep being a fantasising LIAR.
You write: “the Iraqi ‘patriots’ to whom An Italian refers are the insurgents and foreign Jihadi types, who just happen to be killing Iraqi citizens at a ratio of 10 to 1 over every Coalition soldier they kill”.
1) Can you provide a single one of my posts to Zeyad’s comments pages, in the thirteen months I have been posting here, where I hailed ANY “foreign Jihadi types” (who are, BTW, as genuine as Luis Posada Carriles, do google it)? Or, for that matter, even any IRAQI “Jihadi types”, like the glorious Shiite militias of the ‘Interim Government’ the US are backing? You are just a shameless liar. But I do support instead the Iraqi patriots, who sent homeward to think again almost 2,000 of your mighty soldiers up to now (well, the two thousand of them in boxes; plus 20,000 of them still alive, but with some paws missing).
2) That Iraqi patriots are “killing Iraqi citizens at a ratio of 10 to 1 over every Coalition soldier they kill” is another ludicrous LIE. Why would ANY member of the genuine Iraqi patriotic resistance (that is strengthening and spreading more and more, BTW) want to kill ANY Iraqi civilians? What would be the interest of such a criminal action? On the part of anybody truly fighting the US foreign invaders it would be completely self-defeating, wouldn’t it?
So our mindless US propagandists (like our monkey Lee), in order to spew this lie, lump together all Iraqi casualties (civilians, members of the puppet ‘troops’ & ‘police’, militiamen, insurgents), regardless of who killed them. As for the Iraqi civilians (who are only a part of the casualties), who are the perpetrators of their killing? At least 37% of these civilians have been murdered by the official US forces; the second bunch of murderers of civilians are the ‘mysterious’ (oh so mysterious, this Zarqawi the Ghost, just as mysterious as Luis Posada Carriles!) ‘al-Qaida’; the third group of murderers of civilians are the gangs of common criminals (there is no law & order in ‘liberated’ Iraq! It is a ‘homo homini lupus’ situation); the fourth in these past few months have been the puppet forces and the sectarian militiamen (the same people, either in their ‘official’ uniforms or not); the Iraqi patriots come as a very distant fifth cause of death among civilians (mortar shots going amiss and landing where they were not intended to, and the like). You US propagandists are just shameless LIARS.
But you cannot fool all the people all the time: and most Americans, thanks be to God, are starting to see through these lies.
Let me just add,
Many in Iraq are furious that no one is paying attention to the Iranian Suicide squads operational in Iraq. Many of whom have already carried out operation in Iraq which the American media nievely or otherwise continue to attribute to the Iraqi resistance..
Read more
http://memri.org/bin/media.cgi?ID=140605
Thoughts Fuzzy Moral Math
"Please refrain from making unfounded assumptions about me."
The comment to the effect that you have not lived in Iraq for years is not unfounded
The observation that you appear more interested in Bush and Blair's political fortunes than those of your people in Iraq is not unfounded either. I have your statements above.
The speculation that you don't intend to return to Iraq to live there, was just that, speculation, a question, (one for which I think I have a basis, but still a question), as the question mark should have shown to your "English work colleagues", who should have explained that to you if your English was insufficient to enable to you to grasp the subtlety on your own.
Dear Cercopith Lee,
You are a friggin’ troll; surely you don't expect me to take you seriously just because you think you're good at it? Save that for the Bushies. They tend to bite at any phisher. As for me, if I decide to screw with the likes of you, I'll surely let you know. It'll be all over ya.
"Many of whom have already carried out operation in Iraq which the American media nievely or otherwise continue to attribute to the Iraqi resistance."
Naively I suspect; our media is not doing a real good job of reporting on this. It's a function of the merchant economy. Our news has to "sell" and a lot of people don't want to hear about Iraq nowadays. Also, the Administration doesn't want it in the news either, so they're downplaying things in Iraq so much as they can (they do want that yes vote on the constitution though), and there's other stuff going on getting ready for our mid-term elections next year. Our media is not doing much on Iraq unless one looks on the back pages for it.
Dear An Italian,
You are a fine example of the extremism and socialistic fascist mentality that is often produced by the monolithic ignorance on Eurabia. You sir, are a shame and a disgrace.
It feels so good to be on the right side of history. I wonder if the critics of Lincoln in the fight to free slaves from bond-ship ever omitted their intellectual fallacies as you and your global socialist cronies should. To actually argue that freeing people from the iron grip of oppression is wrong. My, these poor lost soles. Now, finally that your feeble brainwashed minds have realized that being the intellectual darlings of tyrants and terrorists makes you look bad, you switch to bigotry, character assassination, and ignorant conspiracy theories. You create diabolical schemes grounded in the reasoning that the oil industry is secretly behind the call and cause of freedom, you know ‘evil capitalism‘. Even though the Iraqi constitution guarantees that the wealth of the countries oil will be dispersed and shared by all Iraqis. What is so terribly idiotic about your perspective is that free market capitalism reflects the very nature of freedom and liberty. That anyone can make it if they only work hard, (for many that is asking to much).. The natural dynamics of capitalism reflect the random chaos and diversity of nature. The evolving attributes natural selection mirror the effects of growth and change in free markets. With checks, balances and corruption laws that toss crooks in jail, we can assure equality of opportunity, while not slipping into a socially Darwinistic atmosphere. Within this consortium people have the opportunity to live free moral lives apart from the intrusive temperament of government. The nature of capitalism is this. Power; rather than being controlled by a central authority, is managed by the consumer, or the people, (this is why socialists, like you silly liberals, always attempt to prove that the average person is stupid, in need to be ruled by the wise aristocrat). All people in a Americanized system are equally free to establish consumer based businesses, improving standards of living, pursuing happiness and buying the products and services they wish. It works great, the proof is every where you look. BUT, propagators like yourself want to convince people that this system is inherently problematic and discriminates. You propagates the Immiserizion thesis of Marx, standard leftists strategy to attempt and persuade folks that misery is everywhere else in the world and it is caused by us working folks . You are fear mongerors, preaching your socialistic religions apocalyptic tail of mass misery and global catastrophe. The sadist thing of all is when you pathetic socialists really have the chance to change the world, you instead oppose freeing the good people of Iraq, and argue for the status quo, in favor of terrorists and tyrants. You socialists are these pathetic miserable feeble minded fanatics who are fearfully clinging to a failed philosophy, and because of your weak and mindless mentality, you spew a regurgitated acidic venom of self fright and nihilistic doubt, terrified that if you lose your grip, you will fall far into the unknown.
An Italian fascist in the likes of Mussolini, editor of Avanti, a socialist newspaper.
There ya go Italian.
You weren't even phishing for the likes of him but caught one anyway.
Now we get to scroll by a couple of nutcases from either end of the western spectrum having at each other.
With any luck ya'll will keep each other busy; rest of us will have to scroll across, but, at least ya'll both be busy and scrollable.
LeeC, what’s up. Lee here is a classic example of a self absorbed nihilist. He believe in the religion of socialism and self worship therefore suffers from depression.
"Lee here is a classic example of a self absorbed nihilist. Etc."
And you're an idiot; don't know what half those words mean; although you have learned to repeat them and spell them (warning ‘bout the Italian; he's a hell of a lot smarter than you are--no less crazy, hardly less vicious, but a lot smarter--that's all the warning I'm gonna give ya).
No wonder Zeyad quit posting; crazies taking over all the comments places and hangin’ here still waitin’ to be crazies again.
LeeC, why are you so mean, I didn't call you names, I only made fun of your dumb belief system.
oh, I see this is where all the leftist have gathered to vent their rage.
"LeeC, why are you so mean, I didn't call you names…"
Well then, you missed your best chance to at least call me a a self absorbed nihilist…suffering from depression.
Damn, and you had the chance too! And there you went and blew it.
that is an observation.
Who is this Italian Nazi that posts here?
Post Script:
Italian doesn't need to convince me that the "resistance" of which he writes glowingly ain't killing mostly Iraqi rather than Americans.
He needs to convince the Iraqi, and I think they know better.
Several Iraqi have posted; let's see him take that up with them.
Well LeeC, I'm glad you don't agree with a Nazi.
Yes, perhaps the Iraqis can address this statement,
"Why would ANY member of the genuine Iraqi patriotic resistance (that is strengthening and spreading more and more, BTW) want to kill ANY Iraqi civilians?"
Zeyad,
It's okay with me if you voted no. It's your vote. It does matter that your voice is heard, that you have an opinion, and you can vote for your own future, and the future of your country, and the future of your goverment.
That's what matters. That's what it's all about.
"Do you expect the votes for Iraqis in Iran will be against Al Hakim?"
I do not know. I understand the suspicion.
What is the solution? Should Iraqi still in Iran be forbidden to vote next time?
Should Iraqi in America or England or anywhere in The West be forbidden to vote next time?
I think there should be one rule; universally applied. I do not think Iraqi in the U.S. should vote, but Iraqi in Iran should note.
I think the question should be, should expatriate Iraqi be allowed to vote?
I am not committed to my opinion on that question. Either way is good for me so long as the rule is universally applied. What the rule should be should be decided by the Iraqi people (I lean towards the decision be made by Iraqi IN Iraq, but that's only my opinion.)
"Well LeeC, I'm glad you don't agree with a Nazi."
He, Italian, is a dedicated anti-American troll, might well be a socialist, or communist, or might well be simply dedicated anti-American in all phases, regardless of other ideology.
You are closer to being the Nazi. I don't agree with either one of you.
So what do we have here?
1. An Iraqi, who votes against a badly written Constitution.
2. An Italian, who imagines a stagnant, putrid, genocidal Iraq is far better than one meddled with by Americans.
3. And Lee, who imagines there is no intellectual argument here worth mentioning.
I have a tendency to agree with the first point. Click...(changing the channel)
I have a tendency to agree with the first point. Click...(changing the channel)"
"Click--change channels?" Was that the first point or the third point, or do you really know?
Ugh. Lee needs validation.
OK, fine. Everything you say Lee is pure genius. It is an incredible stroke of luck to actually be in your presence. Your comment that expatriates should be entitled to vote or not vote was awe inspiring. I’m having your comment laminated for my billfold.
There. Can I go now?
"There. Can I go now?"
You mean you're still here?
It's ok. We rejected our first constitution too. Ever here of the articles of confederation?
-- Richard Zeien
Zeyad,
Thanks for posting. Glad you're alive and well enough to vote. Congratulations ON voting. Best wishes for you and Iraqis.
Where is this punk An Italian. I love beating on these thug socialists Nazis. LeeC, why do you call me a Nazi, Us Americans are the ones who killed all the Nazis. These silly liberals never make any sense. LeeC, I am sorry people picked on you as a kid, it wasn't me. You should vent your rage at the enemy, not your fellow county-men.
Lee C,
I think my English is sufficient to enable me to grasp the subtlety on my own..... after all I was educated in the UK. How is your Arabic? I think it is time to stop this banter between us, you are obviously insinuating I have no knowledge of what is happening in Iraq now, despite the fact I am in constant contact with friends and family there and my husband's account of the situation. Give it a rest.....I am tired of this exchange which is going nowhere and getting boring, believe what you want if it makes you happy...... your opinion is of little consequence.
Um Ayad, don't mind LeeC, he has a mental disorder called liberalism. He is a ego-maniacal self worshiper.
"you are obviously insinuating I have no knowledge of what is happening in Iraq now…"
No, I was rather explicit on what I meant. And I did not mean anything I did not write. You are too interested in Bush's political fortunes and not enough interested in Iraq's. Busting on Bush is NOT a good reason to vote against the Iraqi constitution. That it's not necessarily good for Iraq would be a good reason, but you didn't list that one; you listed busting on Bush and Blair.
"LeeC, I am sorry people picked on you as a kid…"
Them that tried learned quick enough to not try that again. The rest of your spiel makes no better accomodation to reality than that did. But, there's no point in taking it apart phrase by phrase; you're not worth the effort.
Hello, glad you are still with us, Z.
I shall read these many comments in depth later, so forgive if I repeat others' comments.
Iraq now has the opportunity to use that grand old tradition, the amendment. Some disparage the US constitution as assuring rights only for white men. Not so! It assured rights for all, even if the US failed to live up to that for quite some time.
Slaves were apportioned the 3/5 status for taxation and numbers of representatives (Art. 1, Sec. 2, Clasue 3), but that was dimissed with the 14th and 16th amendments.
The US constitution, and many others, lays the groundwork for liberty for all, not just white, male, land owning gentry. Our Euro friends did not catch up for many many years.
Hopefully, Iraq may amend this constitution to be more equitable and secular, or, like our Articles of Confederation, perhaps it will be replaced at some later time. Peacefully, I hope. At this moment, I am visiting in northern Virginia. The area is still red with the blood of Americans who fought horrible battles in our Civil War. May it never come to that for Iraq!
Zeyad, I believe this article is about your cousin Zaydoon.
http://select.nytimes.com/previe...&
pagewanted=all
@ Dear Dixiemonkey Lee C. ― U.S.A., 10.18.05 - 10:44 pm & 11:31 pm.
“You are a friggin’ troll; surely you don't expect me to take you seriously just because you think you're good at it?”
Now, my dear Cercopith Lee, in my previous post I was just humbly pointing out a couple of little lies of yours.
I do understand from this answer of yours that you have conceded my point.
Differently from most US warmongers, who do lie knowing what they are doing, when you are in your maniac phase weird lies come out of you just in the heat of the moment, with no awareness and no guile on your part. So you are fully pardoned.
And I thank you, and I’m deeply moved by your compliments [“(warning ‘bout the Italian; he's a hell of a lot smarter than you are--no less crazy, hardly less vicious, but a lot smarter--that's all the warning I'm gonna give ya)”]; but, on my part, I humbly feel I do not deserve them at all. You see, any human being (i.e. ‘a rational animal’, according to that definition by 4th century BC Greek philosopher Aristotle) is for sure “a lot smarter” that any animal deprived of reason instead (i.e., just an animal), like any US warmongering ape or monkey is. So I cannot claim any undue credit.
“crazies taking over all the comments places”.
Hear, hear!
My heartfelt regards,
@ Dear ‘buffalo slayer’, 10.18.05 - 10:54 pm & 11:58 pm.
My dear ‘buffalo slayer’, I do strongly suspect that you are just a buffalo, instead, not a ‘buffalo slayer’. Like a male buffalo, with no knowledge at all of the environment, when you just feel you saw red, you blindly charge.
But I’m truly impressed by the skills of American genetic sciences: it seems that they managed to mix up the genes of a buffalo and of a specimen of US warmongering ape (Americopitecus Bellicus); and so we have, in your person, a four-handed buffalo! A first for genetic science!
My lovely hybrid, if you were not a newcomer to Zeyad’s comments pages, you would have known that the most stupid of your silly allegations (“fascist mentality”, “An Italian fascist in the likes of Mussolini” “this Italian Nazi”) do not wash with me. You see, my Buffalo, in most places outside the US of America blood is thicker than water; and with a Jewish granny on one side of my family, and a WW2 partisan mother on the other, I couldn’t have become a Fascist or a Nazi even if I had wanted to…
But your further funny ideological labels are most revealing of the ignorance of Americans about any reality outside of the illogical rants of their Administration and ‘opinion makers’.
So, for instance, my mooing friend, to allege that in “Eurabia” (a funny ideological construct of yours by itself) there is some “extremism and socialistic fascist mentality” is something that would make any European (right, centre and left) laugh most heartily; and, BTW, what the heck is a “socialistic fascist mentality”?
And you got even better further on: putting together, in the same breath, ‘socialists’ and ‘liberals’. Now, dear American friend, if you had any inkling at all about the history of political thought, you would know that your present US use of the term ‘liberalism’ is absolutely grotesque. Outside the US the term (invented in England and in France in the early 19th century) does mean about the OPPOSITE of what you claim. ‘Liberal’ (not ‘Libertarian’) outside the US means, in political terms, somebody who is strongly against ANY State intervention in the economy, who is strongly in favour of property rights, who is strongly in favour of ‘capitalism’; i.e., somebody quite strongly RIGHT wing.
Instead you make a nice stew, where these evil ‘Eurabians’ are at the same time ‘nazi/fascist’, ‘socialist’ and ‘liberal’. Is Jacques Chirac a ‘fascist’? Is he a ‘Leftie’? Boh…
Now, you wonder of genetic engineering, my apish Buffalo: these comments pages are read by people from all corners of the Earth, not just by Americans: do not make yourself ridiculous. Do get some good history of political doctrines or political thought (preferably not written by an American), do study it, and do become a wee bit more knowledgeable about what you mindlessly write.
(continued…)
(…continued)
As for your further silly allegations, my mooing four-handed critter, each one is more grotesque than the next.
Did I ever utter a single word about ‘capitalism’ (“evil” or otherwise)?
No, I never did, as Zeyad (and all readers) can tell.
Did I ever say anything about ‘oil’ as the reason for your criminal invasion of Iraq?
No, I did not.
Did I ever argue on the basis of those rather lame 19th century Marxian arguments you accused me of?
No, never.
So, this is just baloney (or the s**t of a male buffalo with four hands, LOL); and one can attribute it to your bottomless ignorance.
But there are things even you Buffalo/Ape beast should be aware of: for instance, me prodigy of genetic science, when you accuse me (and all the anti-war people) of arguing “that freeing people from the iron grip of oppression is wrong”, or when you claim that we “oppose freeing the good people of Iraq, and argue for the status quo, in favor of terrorists and tyrants”.
Now, you buffoon born out of an unholy mixture of a bovid and a primate, do you think that you have ‘freed’ the Iraqis from oppression, you fool? And who is “in favour of terrorists and tyrants”, like the SCIRI/Badr, the Dawa, the Sadrists, and the two Kurdish gangs of mafiamen? We, who opposed from the beginning your Iraqi criminal invasion, or YOU beastly warmongering Americans?
Did you see the RIGGED ‘Constitution’ referendum, you fool? ‘Fweedom & Democwacy’ INDEED!
Now, you clown, keep mooing (‘mooooo’… ‘moooooo’… ‘mooooooo’) and jumping up and down.
@ Tiny Sails, 10.19.05 - 1:24 am.
You wrote:
"So what do we have here?
1. An Iraqi, who votes against a badly written Constitution.
2. An Italian, who imagines a stagnant, putrid, genocidal Iraq is far better than one meddled with by Americans.
3. [Etc]."
Oh my dear thing, your sails are about as wide as your brain.
You seems not to register that this bloody 'An Italian' is in perfect agreement with Zeyad, and for precisely the same reasons.
"And I thank you, and I’m deeply moved by your compliments…"
When you come to know Buffalo Slayer better you'll realize that was not necessarily a compliment. Most folks are smarter than he is.
@ 'buffalo slayer', 10.19.05 - 3:00 pm.
"Where is this punk An Italian. I love beating on these thug socialists Nazis. LeeC, why do you call me a Nazi, Us Americans are the ones who killed all the Nazis. These silly liberals never make any sense".
Now, me wee slayed apish Buffalo, about your political confusions, this shows how much my above post is founded.
As for the rest, US critter, for sure you are let's say uh... slighty unfamiliar with political sciences, but for sure you'd be a good psychiatrist maybe...
Dear Zeyad,
now you see the truth (that unfortunately you knew already) in our friend Rickvid's comments:
"Slaves were apportioned the 3/5 status for taxation and numbers of representatives" (Rickvid in Seattle, 10.19.05 - 8:10 pm).
Uhm, nice!
A pity this referendum on the Iraq-destroying US-Iranian 'Constitution' was completely rigged by the Shiite fundamentalist and Kurdish mafia gangs... (i.e., a complete FRAUD).
Ain't it proper Ahmehwican 'Fweedom & Democwacy'?
And you are complaining!!!
You NASTY, ungrateful one!
PeteS, come back and visit for a bit.
"BTW, what the heck is a “socialistic fascist mentality”?"
Dear An Italian,
A fascist is a radical left wing politician. The socialists have always been the vehicle of fascism. That is just common knowledge, you folks from Eurabia, are always trying to distort your history of fascist control.
Dear An Italian
"with a Jewish granny on one side of my family"
Are you one of those jews who hates his own people like Noam Chompski?
Dear An Italian
"Liberal’ (not ‘Libertarian’) outside the US means, in political terms, somebody who is strongly against ANY State intervention in the economy, who is strongly in favour of property rights, who is strongly in favour of ‘capitalism’; i.e., somebody quite strongly RIGHT wing."
You are only demonstrating your ignorance of our more evolved culture.
A liberal in the USA is a socialist, A libertarian is always on the republican side.
‘By definition’, Maurice Cranston rightly pointed out, ‘a liberal is a man who believes in liberty’ (Cranston, 459). In two different ways, liberals accord liberty primacy as a political value. First, liberals have typically maintained that humans are naturally in ‘a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions…as they think fit…without asking leave, or depending on the Will of any other Man’ (Locke, 1960 [1689]: 287). Mill too argued that ‘[T]he burden of proof is supposed to ith those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition…. The a priori assumption is in favour of freedom…’(Mill, 1991 [1859]: 472). This might be called the Fundamental Liberal Principle (Gaus, 1996: 162-166): freedom is normatively basic, and so the onus of justification is on those who would limit freedom. It follows from this that political authority and law must be justified, as they limit the liberty of citizens. Consequently, a central question of liberal political theory is whether political authority can be justified, and if so, how. It is for this reason that social contract theory, as developed by Thomas Hobbes (1948 [1651]), John Locke (1960 [1689]), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1973 [1762]) and Immanuel Kant (1965 [1797]), is usually viewed as liberal even though the actual political prescriptions of, say, Hobbes and Rousseau, have distinctly illiberal features. Insofar as they take as their starting point a state of nature in which humans are free and equal, and so argue that any limitation of this freedom and equality stands in need of justification (i.e., by the social contract), the contractual tradition expresses the Fundamental Liberal Principle.
"do you think that you have ‘freed’ the Iraqis from oppression, you fool?"
Dear an Italian,
See, we try, you don't.
An Italian,
I am unimpressed. Besides the creative insults you have demonstrated nothing except the ‘feeling’ that you know the political philosophical beginnings of different ideologies and I don’t, (which is wrong.) The only thing you demonstrated was you posses complete ignorance to Americas political culture, and an unbridled obsession with the belief that fighting to free the oppressed people of the world is some how wrong.
These socialist fascists like An Italian are a true threat to the freedom of humanity.
"A pity this referendum on the Iraq-destroying US-Iranian 'Constitution' was completely rigged by the Shiite fundamentalist and Kurdish mafia gangs..."
AN Italian
This is just dumb. What a hateful tyrant this man is.
So An Italian, What do you think of the Jews?????????
Welcome back. I hope it means all is well with you.
An Italian Fascist,
Socialists are fools who’s minds have been poisoned by a venom that consumes the simple mind. It is so obvious, but yet they are so blind to it, all they see is fire. It is funny , but sad. How hard life must be to live in such darkness, such despair, such negativity. I pity you socialists. I wish you were happy. But feeding the false ego, only makes them more lustful. They lust for tragedy and failure of our troops, our sons and our daughters. They do this to support and perhaps be antidotal to their feeble world view and perspective, their cancer of the mind.
"O monks know that all things are on fire. And what are they that are on fire? The eye, the forms, the eye-consciousness, the impressions, and whatever sensation, whether pleasant, unpleasant or neutral that arises from the impressions received by the eye, they are all in fire.
"And with what are they on fire? I say with the fire of lust, of aversion, and passion (raga, dvesha and moha); with birth, with old age, with death, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, they are on fire.
"Similar is the case with the ear, with the nose, the tongue and the sense of touch. The mind is also on fire. The thoughts are on fire. The mind-consciousness, the impressions received by the mind and the sensations that arise from such impressions, also are on fire.
buddha
"In The Antichrist, Curse on Christianity (Der Antichrist. Fluch auf das Christentum, September 188, Nietzsche expresses his disgust over the way noble values in Roman Society were "corrupted" by the rise of Christianity, and he discusses specific aspects and personages in Christian culture -- the Gospels, Paul, the martyrs, priests, the crusades -- with a view towards showing that Christianity is a religion for weak and unhealthy people, whose general historical effect has been to undermine the healthy qualities of the more noble cultures.
Nietzsche Contra Wagner, Out of the Files of a Psychologist (Nietzsche contra Wagner, Aktenstücke eines Psychologen, December 188 is a short, but classic, selection of passages Nietzsche extracted from his 1878-1887 published works. Many concern Wagner, but the excerpts serve mostly as a foil for Nietzsche to express his own views against Wagner's. In this self-portrait, completed only a month before his collapse, Nietzsche characterizes his own anti-Christian sentiments, and contemplates how even the greatest people usually undergo significant corruption. In Wagner's case, Nietzsche claims that the corrupting force was Christianity. At the same time, Nietzsche describes how he truly admired some of Wagner's music for its deep expressions of loneliness and suffering -- expressions which Nietzsche admitted were psychologically impossible for he himself to articulate.
During the 1930's, aspects of Nietzsche's thought were espoused by the Nazis and Italian Fascists, partly due to the encouragement of Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche through her solicitations with Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. It was possible for the Nazi interpreters to assemble, quite selectively, various passages from Nietzsche's writings whose juxtaposition appeared to justify war, aggression and domination for the sake of nationalistic and racial self-glorification."
"Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) over the course of his lifetime went from Socialism - he was editor of Avanti, a socialist newspaper - to the leadership of a new political movement called "fascism" [after "fasces", the symbol of bound sticks used a totem of power in ancient Rome].
Mussolini came to power after the "March on Rome" in 1922, and was appointed Prime Minister by King Victor Emmanuel.
In 1932 Mussolini wrote (with the help of Giovanni Gentile) and entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism.
Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....
...The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after...
...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....
After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....
...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....
...iven that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....
...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....
...For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it."
"The perfect man uses his mind as a mirror. It grasps nothing. It regrets nothing. It receives but does not keep."
"He who knows he is a fool is not the biggest fool; He who knows he is confused is not in the worst confusion."
"Flow with whatever is happening and let your mind be free. Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing. This is the ultimate."
"Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words."
"Easy is right. Begin right and you are easy. Continue easy and you are right. The right way to go easy Is to forget the right way And forget that the going is easy."
"Cherish that which is within you, and shut off that which is without; for too much knowledge is a curse."
“Rewards and punishments are the lowest form of education."
“Do not struggle. Go with the flow of things, and you will find yourself at one with the mysterious unity of the Universe.”
Attn: FREE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD.
Folks Beware of the Global Socialists like An Italian. These hatful propagators of global rule, are the darlings of the fascists. They are the intellectual sword of the ruling aristocracy of Eurabia. They profess the rape of the working man, extorting all profits from our pockets. He is a brutal and lustful activist, who is driven by the lure and lust of the fire in the minds eye. Reigning in the power of the central government in support of their socialistic overlords. An Italian, is the very face of evil. Apologist of terrorists and tyrants. An ego-maniacal self worshiper on a crusade to replace the religions of the world with the tyrannical religion of socialism. ‘Beware of the apocalypse global warming’ they will preach. ‘Let us rule you, to save the earth and humanity‘. The lairs of man speak with forked tongues. These double speakers are to be feared.
All Hail the Global Socialists, masters of the universe. To what will our benevolent leaders grant us feeble worker bees. Perhaps, healthcare? Union Jobs? Retirement? Welfare? Please my lord, I appeal to the compassion of our socialistic masters.
Zeyad didn't have to tell us anything. A secret vote is a secret vote. Therefore, Zeyad is being generous simply by informing us that he voted at all.
PeteS, come back and visit for a bit.
Go raibh míle maith agat a Bhríd (i.e. ta very much). You, as always, are the soul of moderation in the midst of a sea of loonies. Perhaps Zeyad shouldn't have posted in the week of a full moon. It seems like some have unwrapped their Hallowe'en fruitcake early. 
Oíche Shamhna shona duit go léir, gan fiú na h-ialtóga torthaí!
Yes, my lord PeteS, we poor working folk are but loons in comparison to our benevolent Eruabian superiors. Please I beg you, the great global socialists to grant us, your poor intellectual subjects of America, your servants, us monkeys of men, some dignity.. Perhaps you will provide us with ghettos to raise our children, perhaps you will provide humanity with a world government of un-elected officials, a world aristocracy, to regulate free market capitalism. Please save us from the inevitable disaster which awaits us all, please protect us dumb-monkeys from the catastrophe global warming. It is all around, I see it, your greatest scientists have demonstrated that ice melts in heat. Please the humanity. I ask and beg that our socialistic superiors protect us feeble minded monkeys form the melting ice. You are heroes of men. The envy of terrorist and tyrants, please my lord, bless us with you infallible wisdom.
Lee C,
I am so sorry I did not know I had to give you a list of good reasons to vote against the Iraqi constitution!!! This argument is getting quite ridiculous. I would have thought it was obvious that it was not good for Iraq and I am sure the future of Iraq is more important to me than you... it will not effect you and your family but it will effect me and mine. I guess you need it spelling out for you.... I care more deeply about Iraq than you will ever know. If you care to check back on this thread you will find my comments were in response to your reply to me when I made it clear that expats would have liked to vote on the constitution, "busting on Bush and Blair" (not words I would use..... must be an American term) was NOT more my FIRST concern, it was you who brought up "Bush's political fortunes" not something I had first thought of but I agreed because I would not like to contribute to their political fortunes. I would like to see them charged in an International Court for the illegal war and crimes against humanity. Yes, I know it will not happen but I can dream. Please check back on my post of 10.17.05 - 4:03 pm
buffalo slayer, I will out-capitalist-pig you any day of the week. Apart from that your mock inferiority complex is unwarranted. (Except ... could you please stop it raining in New England. I can have that at home any day of the week. Fall bloody foliage indeed!)
Rickvid,
Your experience in Nothern Virginia is one that I think many Americans have shared and could share. I had read a lot of Civil War history before I ever visited the South. I remember my first visit to Williamsburg, then driving back up the Peninsula, past Richmond, to the Washington, D.C. area. As I drove up the Peninsula on the Interstate, every other exit sign was something like Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, Fredericksburg... I had goose bumps off and on during a couple of hours of driving.
Let's hope Iraq avoids the worst forms of civil war. Most of our Civil War was indeed a War Between the States, with regular armies. The worst case of violence between neighbors in the night was in Missouri. If civil war expands in Iraq, I am afraid that Quantrill and Jennison's Jayhawkers--i.e., gangs of psychopathic killers--in Missouri will be the analogy, rather than Lee and Grant in Virginia. (Even Sherman's devastation was of property, not people.)
Um Ayad | Email | Homepage | 10.20.05 - 7:41 pm | #
How sad it is that an expat, would not fight for his/her own peoples freedom.
PeteS!!!!! I figured you'd still be checking in from time to time. Your good humor and intelligent comments are missed, and not just by me. Kris from Seattle remarked to me recently in another comment section how much she enjoyed reading your stuff.
I briefly cherished the hope that Zeyad was entertaining the idea of returning to us, but there's entirely to much bs.
Um Ayad, I'd like to ask you a question, if I may. One of the main objections to the constitution seems to be because of the federalist structure. Yet I see the federalist structure as one of the most important mechanisms for protecting those who are in the minority. I would think that a strong central government would be feared by the minority. Is it all about control of the oil wealth, or what else is at work here?
Yes, good to see you PeteS. I still laugh when I remember that link you posted that would convert comments to hiphop slang.
I too would be interested to hear Um Ayad's comments on the federalist structure defined in the constitution. Its funny Bridget, the two reasons you mention as to why you would've supported the draft are two of the same reasons I list for my opposition to the draft. I have others reasons also, but your two are duplicated on my list, with a different opinion as a result. I'm glad you posed the question.
"Zeyad didn't have to tell us anything. A secret vote is a secret vote. Therefore, Zeyad is being generous simply by informing us that he voted at all.
Solomon2 10.20.05 - 2:10 pm"
Zeyad would also appear to have an advanced grasp on making maximum political impact with minimum keystrokes (and minimum votes).
This particular ballot is plagued by vote fraud allegations. Posting a vote by blog when there's every indication that the real life vote has been lost in the fog is a smart move.
Thanks Solomon, for exacting some sanity back into the cesspitt that buffalo slayer aka an Italian, Lee C et all have been mulching.
Yes PeteS, us pigs are capitalistic working men. Perhaps the working monkeys of American will forfeiter our profits so are beloved socialistic superior elitists, who bless us with their art and journalism, will provide an idealistic perfect point quintessential bliss. Oh wise ones, who needs to be free, when we have our benevolent social autocrats to provide us lay folk with the essentials. We thank you so much for your giving’s. God bless our socialist masters…
Buffalo, you are an idealistic social elitist.
Stop kidding the people, unless you like it when the office working class bite back.
Oh wise one. I am what you say.
And I suppose you think everyone will think you're being sarcastic now. Oh how cleverly cloaked the pearly drops.
Even Lee C disguises "him" self better then that.
From age 15 to 22 in was a janitor. I went to college and mowed 30 laws a week, cleaned windows occasionally, and cleaned a building every night. I worked at a bar on the weekends. While all you fucking rich kids where out partying, I was working. I got my first job out of college at 12 bucks an hour and worked 70 hour weeks traveling. I bought my first house at 22 and rented all the rooms out. My second at 27. Now, you fucking despicable spoon feed socialists want to stick it to me. I despise you people. You know nothing about the poor. Fuck you very much.
But back too Iraq...
Guardian's Irish Journalist liberated
Buffalo, if this were a weep for me competition I'd tell you all about...
Except I'm not sure telling everyone how I paid my way through college would be considered gentile.
Zeyad, I consider you an old friend and respect you beyond measure. I hope all your dreams come true. May God bless and protect you and your sweet family as free human beings.
Deepest regards,
"I would like to see them [Bush and Blair] charged in an International Court for the illegal war and crimes against humanity. Yes, I know it will not happen but I can dream."
I see you're back to worrying about Bush and Blair again.
All Hail the Global Socialists, masters of the world. To what will our benevolent autocratic leaders grant us feeble worker bees. Perhaps, healthcare? Union Jobs? Retirement? Welfare? Please my lords, I appeal to the compassion of our Socialistic Masters.
Yes my lords, we poor working folk are but humble ignorant hillbillies in comparison to our benevolent Eruabian and superiors. Please I beg you, the Great and Nobel Global Socialists to grant us, (your poor inferior intellectual subjects of America), your servants, us monkeys of men, some dignity.. Perhaps you will provide us with ghettos to raise our children, perhaps you will provide humanity with a glorious world government of un-elected officials, a world aristocracy, to regulate the ‘evils’ of free market capitalism. To control the freedoms and man. Please save us from the inevitable disaster which awaits us all, please protect us, (as your great socialistic religion teaches us), from the catastrophe global warming. It is everywhere, I see it and fear it, your greatest scientists have demonstrated that ice melts in heat. Please my lords the humanity of it. I ask and beg that our socialistic superiors protect us feeble minded monkeys from the melting ice. Please I beg you to pass more laws protecting us lay folk for ourselves. You are the true heroes of men, the wise apologists of tyrants and terrorists, please my lords, bless us with you infallible wisdom.
Yes my lords, us ‘pigs,’ who are capitalistic working men, are but your humble servants. Perhaps us working monkeys of American will forfeiter our profits so are beloved socialistic superior elitists, who bless us with their art and journalism, will provide us with an idealistic perfect point of quintessential bliss. Oh wise ones, who needs to be free, when we have our benevolent social autocrats to provide us lay folk with the essentials. We thank you so much for your giving’s. God bless our socialist masters…
Lee C.,
You wrote:
For your information okba, the Iraqi "patriots" to whom An Italian refers are the insurgents and foreign Jihadi types, who just happen to be killing Iraqi citizens at a ratio of 10 to 1 over every Coalition soldier they kill. If you think that is a good thing then you will find my position is very much at odds with yours. I notice that you once supported the war to topple Saddam. I still do. My complaint about my government is that they have pretty much botched the job from day one; they got Saddam out of Baghdad all right, but much more was required and they did not seem to understand that nor were they ready for it, and Iraq has descended into chaos as a result of their incompetence and poor preparation for the aftermath. The quick run to Baghdad is a testament to the strength and competence of our military men (and women). The chaos Iraq descended into afterwords is a testament to the incompetence of our political leaders.
But, even though I cannot give the political leaders good grades, I cannot support the killing of Iraqi at a ratio of 10 to 1 just to embarrass them.
Most Americans honestly supported the effort to "bring democracy to Iraq", that's why Bush had majority support to begin this war. Most Americans do not believe they've done a good job; rather, the majority opinion over here is that they've screwed up an otherwise good idea. That's why Bush's numbers are so low now; not because it was a bad idea, but because it was incompetently handled.
But, I cannot support the killing of Iraqi at a ratio of 10 to 1, nor the killing of Coalition soldiers who are still trying to bring some semblance of order out of the chaos, just to embarrass some politicians whom I think have done a poor job of handling the aftermath of the fall of the Ba'athi.
I must wonder how you, as an Iraqi, can support that?
I tip my hat to you, Lee. That's a very even-handed assessment.
When I first read it, I recall nodding to myself and saying, "Hey, that's pretty good."
I am less convinced of the charges of incompetence than you are, about which I could easily be wrong, but I agree with the general tenor of your comment.
*
Forgot to close the italics. Let me try that again.
Lee C.,
You wrote:
For your information okba, the Iraqi "patriots" to whom An Italian refers are the insurgents and foreign Jihadi types, who just happen to be killing Iraqi citizens at a ratio of 10 to 1 over every Coalition soldier they kill. If you think that is a good thing then you will find my position is very much at odds with yours. I notice that you once supported the war to topple Saddam. I still do. My complaint about my government is that they have pretty much botched the job from day one; they got Saddam out of Baghdad all right, but much more was required and they did not seem to understand that nor were they ready for it, and Iraq has descended into chaos as a result of their incompetence and poor preparation for the aftermath. The quick run to Baghdad is a testament to the strength and competence of our military men (and women). The chaos Iraq descended into afterwords is a testament to the incompetence of our political leaders.
But, even though I cannot give the political leaders good grades, I cannot support the killing of Iraqi at a ratio of 10 to 1 just to embarrass them.
Most Americans honestly supported the effort to "bring democracy to Iraq", that's why Bush had majority support to begin this war. Most Americans do not believe they've done a good job; rather, the majority opinion over here is that they've screwed up an otherwise good idea. That's why Bush's numbers are so low now; not because it was a bad idea, but because it was incompetently handled.
But, I cannot support the killing of Iraqi at a ratio of 10 to 1, nor the killing of Coalition soldiers who are still trying to bring some semblance of order out of the chaos, just to embarrass some politicians whom I think have done a poor job of handling the aftermath of the fall of the Ba'athi.
I must wonder how you, as an Iraqi, can support that?
I tip my hat to you, Lee. That's a very even-handed assessment.
When I first read it, I recall nodding to myself and saying, "Hey, that's pretty good."
I am less convinced of the charges of incompetence than you are, about which I could easily be wrong, but I agree with the general tenor of your comment.
*
"Even Lee C disguises "him" self better then that."
Shadam de goyem.
Lee your a fucking joke.
Yes LeeC, now that we (the heroic armed forces of America) have achieved so much in such a short period of time. This creation LeeC says ‘I actually support the war just not the people who accomplished the feet.’
You sir are a shame, a pathetic hypocrite of the lowest form. Your are a creation of men. A true weasel. How low can one man go. You found the little crack in the surface of your smug discussing persona and philosophy where you can now weasel your way out the corner that you created for your self. You sir are a disgrace.
I see you found a few fools who will give you an ounce of respect only because they followed your foolish DNC leaders down the same dead end road. Now they cheer you for finding a path out of the woods.
All Hail the Global Socialists, masters of the world. To what will our benevolent autocratic leaders grant us feeble worker bees. Perhaps, healthcare? Union Jobs? Retirement? Welfare? Please my lords, I appeal to the compassion of our Socialistic Masters.
Yes my lords, we poor working folk are but humble ignorant hillbillies in comparison to our benevolent Eruabian and superiors. Please I beg you, the Great and Nobel Global Socialists to grant us, (your poor inferior intellectual subjects of America), your servants, us monkeys of men, some dignity.. Perhaps you will provide us with ghettos to raise our children, perhaps you will provide humanity with a glorious world government of un-elected officials, a world aristocracy, to regulate the ‘evils’ of free market capitalism. To control the freedoms and man. Please save us from the inevitable disaster which awaits us all, please protect us, (as your great socialistic religion teaches us), from the catastrophe global warming. It is everywhere, I see it and fear it, your greatest scientists have demonstrated that ice melts in heat. Please my lords the humanity of it. I ask and beg that our socialistic superiors protect us feeble minded monkeys from the melting ice. Please I beg you to pass more laws protecting us lay folk for ourselves. You are the true heroes of men, the wise apologists of tyrants and terrorists, please my lords, bless us with you infallible wisdom.
Yes my lords, us ‘pigs,’ who are capitalistic working men, are but your humble servants. Perhaps us working monkeys of American will forfeiter our profits so are beloved socialistic superior elitists, who bless us with their art and journalism, will provide us with an idealistic perfect point of quintessential bliss. Oh wise ones, who needs to be free, when we have our benevolent social autocrats to provide us lay folk with the essentials. We thank you so much for your giving’s. God bless our socialist masters…
Zeyad,
I just finished re-reading your four-part series, Iraq's Tribal Society: a state within a state.
Go here for links to all four parts:
Iraq's Tribal Society: a state within a state.
In part four you began to talk about the re-emergence of tribal influence in Iraq today.
I'm assuming you've worked up some notes for a Part Five. Have you thought about posting what you have? Reasoned speculation would be interesting too.
*
Lee,
It is strange how you seem to attract all the junkyard dogs along the railroad tracks. "Buffalo Slayer" is just the last in a long line of yapping mutts.
Heh heh.
You deserve much better, Lee.
*
@ Bridget, 10.20.05 - 7:56 pm.
Dear Bridget,
I do hope that Um Ayad (and other Iraqis, even, maybe, Zeyad himself…) will answer your question about federalism in the Iraqi ‘Constitution’.
In the case of Iraq there are many forces (or so the Iraqis by now suspect) that would love to have a fragmented Iraq, with or without a state of permanent internal warfare. Apart from the Israeli Likhud and the US Neo-Cons more aligned to them, there are the Kurdish parties (KDP & PUP) who see as their essential aspiration complete independence FROM Iraq; then there are the Teheran Ayatollahs and the Iraqi Shiite religious parties, who would like to impose their tenets over the whole of Iraq (and make of it an Islamic Republic of the Iranian brand, allied to Iran), but who are prepared to settle instead for the largest extent of land they can control. It is not so much about “control of the oil wealth” by itself, as about getting control of the people and of the territory.
The “federalist structure” as established by this Iraqi ‘Constitution’, far from being “one of the most important mechanisms for protecting those who are in the minority” is the recipe for the break up of Iraq; and in each of the resulting fragments absolutely NO ‘minorities’ would be tolerated (as the Shiite religious parties have shown in this referendum, making up Saddamite ‘majorities’ of 99 % in the areas they militarily control). Apart from that, do you think that Zeyad, or any secular Iraqi of whatever denomination by birth (Sunni, Shiite or Christian) could be in favour of a ‘Constitution’ where religious control is put into force from its very ‘Preamble’?
@ PeteS, 10.20.05 - 6:38 pm.
Happy Halloween to you as well, Pete, but your Irish is getting more and more difficult! (and, besides, dem fairies are telling me that the proper lenition of ‘ialtóga’ should be ‘n-ialtóga’, not ‘h-ialtóga’).
Thank you for your kindness in wishing us all to be spared by vampires even that night (if I got it correctly), but I don’t know how it goes down with Zeyad and all Iraqis, since, as you know, following the glorious US ‘liberation’ they are currently being sucked dry all nights (and all days) by no end of vampires (some of them, it is rumoured, of the four-handed variety).
@ ‘buffalo slayer’, from 10.19.05 - 10:21 pm to 10.20.05 - 11:09 pm.
Dear Buffalo,
From all these ranting posts of yours, I do suspect that you suffer from an advanced case of the mad cow disease (BSE), to the point of incontinence (spreading your incredible manure all over Zeyad’s comments page).
You should truly show a wee bit of respect for our host Zeyad, don’t you think?
Now, OK, we ‘Eurabians’ are all ‘Global Socialists’ (and ‘Nazi/Commie/Liberals’ as well): Jacques Chirac, Her Sovereign Majesty the Queen of England, PeteS, and me. You forgot to mention that we are all in league with the UFOs as well.
“I went to college and mowed”: no, you just mooed.
Now, dear Bovine, even if I’m not precisely a fan of the US of America, I think that it would be quite unfair to the US and their inhabitants to ascribe your delirium to US “more evolved culture” or “to America[’]s political culture”; it’s much safer to attribute your rants to the mad cow disease.
For once our Lee C. (10.19.05 - 9:16 pm) was right: not just “folks”, but most animals (including apes & monkeys) are for sure ‘smarter than you are’.
pathetic.
Zeyad,
Welcome back - we sure missed you and worried about you. We feel for you and your countrymen. Ignore the irrational rantings.. please write again. How is the dental business? And the family? Be well. Good luck and may God bless you, guide the nation. There is a long, hard road ahead, but will be worth it. The next generation will thank you.
"and in each of the resulting fragments absolutely NO ‘minorities’ would be tolerated "
But in some of them, the "minorities" will be the majority.
"Lee,
It is strange how you seem to attract all the junkyard dogs along the railroad tracks."
Now Lee C., he's trouble
And he stands about six feet four
All the downtown ladies call him: "treetop lover"
The studs they call him: "Sir"
(Yeah) He's bad, bad Lee C.,
baddest man in the whole damn town
Badder that old King Kong
and he's meaner that a junkyard dog.
Bridget, 10.22.05 - 2:33 am.
"But in some of them, the 'minorities' will be the majority".
Yeah, Bridget: but there'd be NO Iraq left.
Scroll the troll, An Italian apologist to tyrant and terrorists.
Muslim schism
In early Islamic history the Shia were a political faction ('party of Ali') that supported the power of Ali, son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammed and the fourth caliph (temporal and spiritual ruler) of the Muslim community.
Ali was murdered in 661AD and his chief opponent, Muawiya, became caliph. It was Ali's death that led to the great schism between Sunnis and Shias.
Caliph Muawiya was later succeeded by his son Yazid, but Ali's son Hussein refused to accept his legitimacy. Hussein claimed the right to become caliph and fighting between the two resulted.
Hussein and his followers were massacred in battle near Karbala in AD680.
Both Ali and Hussein's death gave rise to the Shia cult of martyrdom and sense of betrayal.
Shia has always been the rigid faith of the poor and oppressed waiting for deliverance. It is seen as a messianic faith which awaits the coming of the "hidden Imam", Allah's messenger who will reverse their fortunes and herald the reign of divine justice.
Today, they make up about 15% of the total worldwide Muslim population.
No one holds or claims the position of caliph today. The caliphate was abolished in 1924 by the secular government in Turkey after the demise of the Ottoman Empire.
A central element of the radical ideology is the goal of establishing a single
great Islamic empire -- an Uma Islamiyya -- encompassing all "Muslim lands"
and guided by a strict adherence to Shari'a. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the
spiritual and political leader of Iran's Islamic revolution, envisioned a
revival of the Islamic Caliphate that swept across much of Asia, Africa, and
Europe in the seventh century. Khomeini understood that efforts to re-
establish the Islamic empire placed radical Islam, led by Iran, in direct
confrontation with the West, led by the United States (which Khomeini called
"the Great Satan"). He predicted an inevitable "clash of civilizations" with
the West, a confrontation which Islam was divinely ordained to win.
It is seen as a messianic faith which awaits the coming of the "hidden Imam", Allah's messenger who will reverse their fortunes and herald the reign of divine justice.
Hidden? Khomeini was an Authoritarian ruler who pronounced himself the Islamic Caliphate creating nothing more than an religious autocratic class level society. His decisions supported nothing but the continued survival of the ‘forest of turbans,’ or the aristocratic ruling class.
Shia has always been the rigid faith of the poor and oppressed waiting for deliverance. It is seen as a messianic faith which awaits the coming of the "hidden Imam", Allah's messenger who will reverse their fortunes and herald the reign of divine justice.
When people take the liberty to choose and submit themselves to God in a free society, it is at this very point, that a simple personal choice is made to be moral. Morality which is fashioned through the creation of character and the personal aptitude necessary to achieve comfort of consciousness. It is within this consortium where the collective will of the compassionate society is fostered. Morality apart from authoritarian governance and the so called will of oppressive power regulators. It is at this point the messenger (the free people of the world), will reverse the Shia fortunes and herald the reign of divine justice.
"Now, OK, we ‘Eurabians’ are all ‘Global Socialists’ (and ‘Nazi/Commie/Liberals’ as well):"
An Italian Fascist.
You Eurabians, (not all my fair minded fascist), a simple (generalization), will not fight for human freedom, most of your monolithic leaders and news propaganda outlets support appeasement of tyrants, glorification of terrorists , and unbridled anti-Americanism. Is this just for pride of the ego or are you eurabians commi socialists? If it is for the pride of the ego, that you people lustfully hate the diverse and free people of America, you should know being a Jew, that this was the sin of Moses, as he was condemned to perch upon Mt. Nebo only to gaze upon the bountiful fruits of the promises land below. If you are in fact a Socialist, you should pay more respect to ‘liberals’ like LeeC, because Americans like him worship the socialistic religion as well . Hitler was a socialist, in fact the head of the national socialist movement. Mussolini was a socialist and a fascist. Why do Eurabians forget their past so easily. Stalin was a socialist. Now you modem socialists say, no we are different, trust us, ‘federalism is bad because it creates a weak central government’. We must centralize the powers of man so we can control all aspects of society‘. I swear to God you socialists will never learn, I wonder who the next tyrant will be that you un leash upon humanity.
My Lord an Italian, O great one, our benevolent Global Socialist.
Please bless thee with thou wisdom of the ego and lust. Teach us free people of America of ‘idol worship’ and the nihilistic philosophical belief in the self. Please free us from the tyranny of free people; please my Lord, free us from the controlling hope of the majority. O an Italian O wise one. We must destroy these so called patriots of freedom and rein in the era of the lustful social aristocrat who will save us all from the apocalypse Global Warming. O bless thou an Italian our socialistic Lord of us American working man. We gladly forfeiture or profits for the schemes of the Global Autocrats. O appeasers of tyrants and terrorists, bless us free monkeys of America, with your monolithic art and journalism.
An Italian,
If the secular Iraqis are indeed in the majority, they will have an opportunity to amend the constitution and modify the more objectionable provisions.
If the secularists are not in the majority, and Islamic fundamentalists are, then a strong central government would be quite likely to result in the sort of religious control that they fear.
What choices do the secularists have?
A. They can attempt to seize control of the country by force and impose their will on the majority, (which is what I believe to be the goal of the insurgency),or
B. They can take refuge in a federalist system under which they have a great deal of latitude to form a society and system of laws and government more to their liking.
I don't think it necessarily follows that the country will break up. In Iraq, the whole is much greater than the sum of the parts. I believe that is probably already clear to most Iraqis, and will become even more clear if they can learn to trust each other.
I don't know about you, but I would have a great deal of difficulty learning to trust someone who was controlling my life in ways I didn't like. Trust needs to be built up over time, from a comfortable distance at first, and based on mutually agreeable and beneficial transactions.
Hello Zeyad,
I haven't checked your blog recently. I am glad to see a new post from you. I agree with your no vote. The Constitution, as currently written, doesn't represent all Iraqi people. I am worried that if it passes, the violence will only increase. The reports of vote fraud are disturbing, and I think that they will only encourage the Sunnis to believe that the vote was rigged against them if the Constitution passes.
I hope that you will return to blogging more frequently. Your voice has been one of reason, and it has helped me to understand the situation in Iraq much more clearly than the reports in the U.S. media alone would have allowed.
Take care
Italian is not Italian!! He's an arab muslim pretending to be European.
AN Italian, is a sham and a disgrace. A true traitor to freedom in the ME.
http://
www.thereligionofpeace.co...ult.htm#Attacks
"Behold the Peace of Islam: Picture of the Week"
@ Bridget, 10.22.05 - 7:19 pm.
You wrote: “If the secular Iraqis are indeed in the majority, they will have an opportunity to amend the constitution and modify the more objectionable provisions”.
This is not going to happen. As you might know, now they say that the results of the constitutional referendum will be released not earlier that next Tuesday (i.e., fourteen days after the actual referendum!); I wonder how they’ll try to sell that the ‘NO’ votes didn’t reach the threshold of 2/3 in Niniveh (where the numbers quite simply do not add up).
This delay (together with the Saddamite percentages of 99 % ‘YES’ in some Shiite provinces ruled by the religious parties, and with the fact that Condy Rice was able to know the ‘results’ of the referendum two hours after the vote stopped) shows that the referendum was a COMPLETE FRAUD.
If they were prepared to rig the referendum, just imagine what they are prepared to do to ‘fix’ the next elections! So, no way the secular Iraqi patriots (mind that the Kurdish parties are secular as well, but do not feel Iraqi) will get any proper representation. Nice ‘Freedom & Democracy’!
As for your two choices for Iraqi secularists, in the present situation both have a thing in common, i.e., the use of physical force. The ‘federalist’ Constitution implies very clearly (from what I have read; Zeyad could give us the real interpretation) that the only areas where Islamic laws might be not applied are the Kurdish ones. So, in order to spare themselves from the imposition of religious law, the inhabitants of any prevalently secular area would have to take up arms, and kick back the fundamentalist militias (i.e., by now, the Iraqi ‘Army’ and ‘police’).
And, anyway, there is another point that you seem to miss. In the most unlikely case (there is a famous Sunni shrine right there) that our Zeyad were able to create a ‘Secular Iraqi Republic of Adhamiya’, of course women there would be able to wear a mini-skirt or jeans, and men to be without a beard, without immediately being brought in front of the clerical kangaroo court, OK. But what would happen in all the other entities of such a loose ‘federation’?
You wrote “I don't think it necessarily follows that the country will break up”. Now, if in parts of the country are allowed – and enforced by law - some things that are considered as abhorrent by the other parts, it is obvious that that is not a ‘country’ anymore.
Look the part that the ‘peculiar institution’ (slavery) had in the split that brought your Civil War 1861-65. Freedom, you see, is indivisible.
And this ‘federalist’ & religiously fundamentalist ‘Constitution’ precisely does not guarantee any freedom. It enshrines into law, instead, powers and fiefdoms “controlling [all Iraqis’] life in ways [most Iraqis woul]dn't like”, like in the prevailing situation created by US actions. Fifty or sixty Saddams (but many in clerical garb) instead of a single one.
This is for all the old-timers like Lee C. who remember all the discussion we had around the drowning death of Zeyad's cousin, Zaydoon Fadhil.
Dexter Filkins has a very long and complete story in today's NYTimes.
Zeyad, I'm assuming you've read it already.
If not, that's the link and my condolences once again on the death of your cousin. I remember how torn up you were about it. I'm sorry our soldiers were responsible for the death of such a nice young man as Zaydoon.
*
An Italian. Spoken like a true Nazi..
My dear beloved Global Socialist An Italian, I follow your religion of equality, I do, I am but a humble servant of your autocratic leaders, a meek devotee of the great Eurabian model . I fear the apocalypses global Warming. Your great leaders of a strong central government are a true testament of the power of fascist philosophy. A true testament of our time. An Italian, are brilliant Global Socialist, is it Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Hussein or what great leader of your glorious religion do you praise allegiance to. Do all the little darlings of fascists hate a deplore liberty as you do? Is federalism such a crime, it only assures independent rights to the province rather than a forced subject of the state. Will this model destroy Iraq or will it destroy the hopes and iron grip of authoritarian rule.. Why An Italian do you fear the will of free men? Why do you cling to the nihilistic religion of the ego?
That was a very worthwhile and sobering read Jeffrey. Highly recommended.
I could paste a dozen different excerpts for special note, but the shortest and most Zeyad-relevant one is this..
Sgt. Carl Ironeyes, the squad's leader, told Marwan and Zaydoon they could go; he gave them as stern a warning as he could manage without knowing any Arabic. The Iraqis got into their truck and drove off.
This happened just a few days after I found this blog. It was tragic then. Reading today how close they actually came to escaping with their lives brought back that same sense of dread and sadness. That article covers a wide range of the human impacts of the war.
Go read it now. I'll even give you the link again...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/2...ml?
pagewanted=1
Dear Zeyad,
an even better link (one page) is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/2...?
pagewanted=all
And, Zeyad, you'll see from the article that those foul and cowardly murderers ('American Heroes, indeed) of Zeydoon are still proud of their action.
psyco
The only coward is see is you.
Send our prewritten letter now:
http://www.demaction.org/dia/
org...mpaign_KEY=1385
*********************************
Citizens for Fair Legislation
For Immediate Release
October 20, 2005
********************************
CFL ALERT: OPPOSE THE TORTURE OF DETAINEES IN IRAQ: ASK YOUR
REPRESENTATIVES TO SUPPORT THE MCCAIN AMENDMENT.
TALKING POINTS:
*In a 90-9 vote the U.S. Senate has voted to block torture and
prisoner abuse by the U.S. government. Please take a moment to send
our prewritten letter to your representatives and ask them to support
the McCain Amendment.
*The McCain Amendment prevents the government from telling soldiers to
ignore the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogations and it
reinforces the ban on torture and the use of cruel, inhumane, and
degrading treatment and prevents the abandonment of the Constitution
and the rule of law. Senator McCain's amendment is supported by key
members of the armed forces, including two former Chairmen of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili and former Secretary
of State Colin Powell.
*In July, Vice President Cheney met with Republican Senators who had
publicly expressed frustration about the administration's failure to
hold senior military officials responsible for the abuse and torture
at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. At that meeting Cheney stated his
opposition to congressional intervention regarding the treatment of
detainees at either Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo. Later the White House
issued a statement stating that President Bush would veto a $442
billion defense bill if representatives continued to attempt to impose
restrictions on what the military can and cannot do to detainees.
*Ask your representatives in the House to hold the government
accountable for its detention policies at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo by
supporting the McCain Amendment and by asking them to make sure it is
in the Defense Department appropriations bill. This amendment
reinforces clear and well-established procedures on the interrogation
of
prisoners and detainees.
===============================
EMAIL AND OR CALL THE WHITE HOUSE
WHITE HOUSE COMMENTS LINE: 202-456-1111
WHITE HOUSE SWITCHBOARD: 202-456-1414
WHITE HOUSE FAX: 202-456-2461
===============================
Citizens for Fair Legislation is a grassroots organization committed
to encouraging a fair domestic and foreign policy with an emphasis on
the US/Arab world.
www.cflweb.org
Dear Zeyad,
I suspect you have read it already, but since the US pro-war commentators kept quoting absurd Iraqi opinion polls, here are the results of the latest one, paid for by the British Ministry of Defence, and then leaked (‘Tony, Tony, get us out of here, we had enough!’) to the Tory paper, «The Telegraph» (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/
news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml):
“The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. It reveals:
• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;
• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.
The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq”.
What do our dear US warmongers have to say?
Maybe the Iraqis see things slightly differently than Americans do, don’t they?
Why don’t you just pack up your troops and go home?
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee are so pleased with reports that Leakgate prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is about to indict senior White House officials that they want him to lead an impeachment investigation into whether President Bush lied to Congress about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
"The CIA leak issue is only the tip of the iceberg," House Judiciary Democrat Jerrold Nadler complains in a message posted to his web site.
In a letter asking the Justice Department to expand the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation, Nadler says: "We now have reason to believe that high crimes may have been committed at the highest level [and] wrongdoing that may have led us to war and imperiled our national security."
If there is evidence that Bush or Cheney authorized aides to deliberately mislead lawmakers, Nadler told Congressional Quarterly: "That would be an impeachable offense.'"
The Manhattan Democrat is asking Acting Deputy Attorney General Robert McCallum to direct Fitzgerald to probe efforts by the White House to discredit critics of the Iraq war like former Ambassador Joe Wilson.
Nadler wants Fitzgerald to determine whether attacks on Wilson were part of a "broader conspiracy knowingly to mislead Congress into authorizing a war."
Even before leaks from Fitzgerald's investigation indicated he planned indictments, Rep. Maurice Hinchey let slip the Democrats' plan to impeach Bush for alleged Iraq war lies.
In quotes picked up by the Ithaca Journal, Hinchey said in August: "My greatest hope is that all of these things will be revealed, they will be revealed in a very direct and legal context, and that in 2006 a Democratic majority will be elected to the House of Representatives, and in February of [2007] impeachment proceedings will begin."
Omar, an Iraqi blogger in Baghdad, explains why the poll quoted by the Italian dung beetle is shite:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com...ly-on-
them.html
We ain't leaving until the Iraqi government asks us to, Spaghetti-face, which won't be until your jihadi buddies get their asses well and truly kicked as they did Afghanistan.
ZZ, the Iraq the Model blog is US black propaganda. It has nil credibility.
@ 'ZZ', 10.25.05 - 7:58 am.
Dear mendacious Ape 'ZZ',
you forget that the poll was ordered by the British military in order to know how much safe were their asses; so be quite sure that it is quite reliable (definitely not "shite", my cretin beast).
To quote 'Iraq The Minion' as a reliable source, able to "explain" anything at all, is just comical. The two Iraqi fellows involved in that US psy-op don't seem to be the best judges of Iraqi public opinion (like it was shown last January, when they stood at the elections and got... 1,500 votes out of 8 million!).
"We ain't leaving until the [puppet] Iraqi government asks us to".
Do you truly believe this crap, 'ZZ' animal?
Do you remember Vietnam?
Both you and your local puppet 'government' got thrown out eventually...
And you organised plenty of 'elections' (=electoral frauds) in Vietnam, just like this latest rigged referendum in Iraq: but to no avail (the Iraqis, like the Vietnamese, are not as gullible as the average American).
Today the number of American beasts that got well-culled in Iraq reached 2,000 (plus other 20 thousand repatriated minus some paws).
Are you waiting for their number to reach the 58,000 (like in Vietnam) before conceding defeat?
Do you think most Americans agree with you?
Oh God.
Here I thought I'd take a peek at Zeyad's comments section and who do I find? Italian! Still doing the "Ape" sobriquets too! Can't you think of anything else to say?
Rachel,
How on earth can you believe ITM is US propaganda? We are just not that good!
Italian -- I wasn't talking about vampires. I was kinda inventing íaltóga torthaí for "fruitbats" ... first cousins (I guess) of íaltóga gealaigh - moonbats... as a term of affection for the all the old reliables popping up at the first sign of life on Zeyad's blog.
PeteS,
We're more akin to the spadefoot toad, which estivates for months at a time during dry spells, emerges briefly when it rains, and then goes into another extended period of torpor.
Bridget,
I had to look up "estivates". But on doing some further research I realised you are bang on the money, and I quote:
"the toads can breed several times at the same site"
"When handling spadefoot toads, many people experience strong allergic reactions"
@ PeteS, 10.26.05 - 10:31 am.
“I wasn't talking about vampires”.
Sorry for my mistake, but I was telling you your Irish was getting too difficult for us…
Bridget's allergenic spadefoot toads seem to be a good picture of us posters, anyway...
@ Lynnette in Minnesota, 10.26.05 - 9:48 am.
Dear Beast in Minnesota,
Don’t you think you should have addressed Zeyad’s post instead, and what happened with the referendum?
Before the ‘constitutional referendum’ fraud became all too evident one of those naive American posters, some George, hopefully wrote above: “That is the beauty of Democracy. Yea or nay the people of Iraq determine their future”.
Now all the people of Iraq know for positive that this scam and fraud, this US-imposed ‘Freedom & Democracy’, does not mean that they can in any way “determine their future” through the ballot box.
The results of these grotesque ‘electoral’ scams (voting without knowing the candidates, saying ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to a document very few were able to read) are arranged in advance by the US Administration and by their uncomfortable allies, the Teheran Ayatollahs; nothing to do with the will of the Iraqis.
BTW, Beast in Minnesota, are you proud of this wonderful sectarian religious Iraqi ‘Constitution’, that puts the Ayatollahs in control? And that takes away the last formal rights of women (the actual ones they had had for the past fifty years have been taken away already as a brilliant result of your glorious ‘liberation’) ?
PS: “How on earth can you believe ITM is US propaganda? We are just not that good!”
That’s precisely why you had to hire two Iraqis to sell it…
Good God. Here's one Americanism I've definitely never come across before:
"On damp summer nights, spadefoots often emerge from their burrows. When rainfall is extensive, their call, a short explosive "wank," like the call of a crow, may be heard".
!!!
Bridget's allergenic spadefoot toads seem to be a good picture of us posters, anyway...
My Lord, O great one, our benevolent Global Socialist.
Please bless thee with thou wisdom of the ego and lust. Teach us free people of America of ‘idol worship’ and the nihilistic philosophical belief in the self. Please free us from the tyranny of free people; please my Lord, free us from the controlling hope of the majority. O wise one. We must destroy these so called patriots of freedom and rein in the era of the lustful social aristocrat who will save us all from the inevitable apocalypse Global Warming. O bless thou our socialistic oligarchy of us American working men. We gladly forfeiture or profits for the schemes of the Global Autocrats. O appeasers of tyrants and terrorists, bless us monkeys of America, with your art and journalism.
I thought this An Italian was smart..
Not only is he a Nazi, he is a simjple minded cookie cutter socialist. I could tell you what he says before he even says it.
Pathetic...
Iraq Starts Flights to Lebanon, Iran and Bulgaria
(Al-Ittihad) The first Iraqi Airlines plane landed in Lebanon's airport on Monday for the first time in 24 years. The airliner is scheduling regular flights to Lebanon on Mondays and Thursdays. Beirut is the fifth Arab capital Iraqi Airlines flies to regularly; the others are Amman, Damascus, Cairo and Dubai. The Iraqi transportation minister, Salam Al-Maliki was on board the first flight that arrived in Beirut. An official source from the ministry of transportation told Al-Ittihad that Iraq will resume its regular flights to a number of friendly countries like Iran, and European countries such as Bulgaria as well as Britain.
(Al-Ittihad is published daily by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.)
2
Artifact thieves arrested in Nasiriyah
(Azzaman) Nasiriyah's police arrested men in two networks active in carrying out terrorist acts, killing people, stealing cars and breaking into houses. A source from Dhiqar police headquarters told Azzaman, "A tip off to the police led to the arrest of these criminals and some other suspects. They belong to terrorist networks that carried out the thefts, terrorist acts and break-ins." With the help of multinational forces in the province, Nasiriyah police arrested two people who had seven artifacts from the Sumerian age. Twenty-six others thieves were also charged with the theft and fined.
(London-based Azzaman is issued daily by Saad al-Bazaz.)
2
200 Million Euro Grant from EU to Iraq
(Al-Sabah) Iraq and the European Union discussed ways to assist Iraq in supporting the government and protecting its citizens. They also discussed developing mutual relations in terms of economy, finance and trade. The Iraqi delegation included the ministers of foreign affairs, finance, trade, and the state minister for civil society affairs. After the talks, Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari told reporters that the ministry of justice will receive the EU grant for 2006. He also said the EU gave Iraq a 700 million euro grant since the fall of the former Iraqi regime in 2003 and that the grant will expire at the end of this year. He added that the new 200 million grant will be spent next year.
(Al-Sabah is issued daily by the Iraqi Media Network.)
Prisoner Memorial Being Removed in Baghdad
(Azzaman) Baghdad's municipality began removing the prisoners' memorial under the supervision of the de-Baathification commission. The memorial consists of a number of statues for Iraqi prisoners tortured during the Iraq-Iran war. They included some propaganda from the former regime. Nasir al-Sa'di, a member of the national assembly and its media and education commissioner, said, "These claims that Iraqi prisoners were tortured in such a terrible way was a lie. It was fabricated to mount public opinion in favour of the regime's unfair war." The move was part of an initiative to remove remnants of the former regime. According to Kamil al-Zaidi, a member of Baghdad's city council, another memorial will be built at the site honouring those martyred by the former regime's apparatuses. The municipality will keep parts of the prisoners' memorial.
(London-based Azzaman is issued daily by Saad al-Bazaz.)
2
525 Abu Graib Prisoners will be released
(Al-Ittihad) The Iraqi acting minister of human rights Narmin Osman stated that 525 prisoners will be released from the Abu Graib prison for eid. She said the prisoners will be released in two phases next week. The human rights minister also said the released detainees are innocent of the charges levelled against them. She told the Iraqis' news agency on October 25 that efforts are underway to make final decisions for cases of other innocent detainees.
(Al-Ittihad is published daily by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.)
Chalabi due in Washington to discuss rebuilding operations in Iraq
(Iraq al-Yom) Iraqi National Conference leader Ahmed al-Chalabi is to visit Washington in November amid speculation that Americans officials consider him a good choice for the prime minister's post in the forthcoming election (to be held on December 15, 2005.) The American treasury spokesman stated that Mr. Chalabi, who is currently deputy prime minister, will meet US treasury secretary John Snow next month to discuss achievements in Iraq's economic redevelopment. Chalabi was considered a likely candidate for Iraq's presidency after the 2003 invasion because he had closer ties to Washington than any other Iraqi politician. The Iraqi national conference had provided intelligence information to the Americans on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which later led to the invasion of Iraq.
(Iraq al-Yom is a weekly newspaper issued by Isra Shakir.)
The most dangerous terrorist cell discovered in (Babul-alsharqi)
(Al-Mada) The Iraqi interior minister, Baqr Jabr Sulagh, announced authorities discovered of one of the most dangerous terrorist cells in al-Babulsharqi, in central Baghdad. The cell (was believed to have) carried out several explosions and killings in the capital. The minister also said authorities found large amounts of ammunition and several car bombs that were ready to be planted. He said the cell had supervised all terrorist activities in Baghdad through communication facilities in a hideout. He also said some documents were found that showed al-Qaeda and other militia networks entered Iraq in 2000. The documents also revealed a connection between the terrorist groups and the former Iraqi regime, including how the (terrorist organisations) were provided with weapons and explosive materials, and their distribution methods in various Iraqi governorates.
(Al-Mada is issued daily by al-Mada Institution for Media, Culture and Arts.)
Deadline Set for Candidates' Election Applications
(Al-Taakhi) The International Electoral Commission of Iraq announced on October 23, 2005 that "under no circumstances will extensions be given" for applications for candidates' lists in the upcoming elections. The elections are due to be held on December 15, 2005. The commission set October 28, 2005 as the deadline for receiving applications. Commission spokesman Farid Ayar said in a statement that any requests to postpone the deadline would be rejected because it would force the commission to change the date of the elections.
(Al-Taakhi is issued daily by the Kurdistan Democratic Party.)
2
Amr Musa: All Political Parties Will Participate in Talks
(Al-Iraq al-Yoom) Iraqi foreign minister Hoshiar Zebari said he told a visiting Arab League delegation, led by secretary-general Amr Musa, that "they will see a new Iraq that is different from the scenes of terror covered by the mass media." He said the Iraqi government supports the Arab League initiative (to hold an Iraqi accord conference) and that it needs the support of Arab countries. Musa said after talks in Baghdad, there is a consensus (to hold the conference.) Musa has met with Kurdish, Sunni and Shia leaders in his visit to Iraq. He also said that he agreed with the (foreign) minister on national consensus issues and said a preparatory committee will be set up soon for the conference.
(Al-Iraq al-Yoom is a weekly newspaper issued by Isra Shakir.)
Barzani begins trip to the US and Britain
(Asharq al-Awsat) Kurdistan region president Massud Barzani on Sunday travelled to the United States, where he will hold talks with US president George W. Bush concerning the situation in Kurdistan and the rest of Iraq. He is also scheduled to meet with the British prime minister, Tony Blair, in London. Barzani told reporters at Erbil airport, "The purpose of our visit to Washington is to meet the US president George W. Bush and members of congress." He said he hoped the visit would be useful. Barzani emphasized that this would be the first time that Kurdish (leadership) is formally received in the United States. After the visiting the United States, Barzan will travel to Britain to meet with Blair in London for talks on the Iraqi situation.
(London-based Asharq al-Awsat, a pro-Saudi independent paper, is issued daily.)
Iraqis to take over security in all governorates within a few months
(Al-Ittihad) General Donald Alston, spokesman for the multi-national forces in Iraq, said Iraqi forces will take over security in several Iraqi cities shortly. Iraqi forces will assume control of security in all Iraqi governorates in the next few months. During a press conference at the convention centre in Baghdad, Alston said Najaf and Karbala are now being protected by local forces, but Iraqi forces have not yet assumed sole responsibility for security in the cities. US forces are still stationed outside of both cities, which are located south of Baghdad. Military bases are being turned over to Iraqi forces after they proved capable in protecting security and performed well.
(Al-Ittihad is published daily by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.)
UP UP UP UP
NO TO THE YANKEE-IRANIAN TOILET CONSTITUTION.
"Dear Beast in Minnesota,"
Oh, you sweet talker you. Be still my heart,*sigh*, it feels just like old times.
"Don’t you think you should have addressed Zeyad’s post"
Ahem, actually I did. It's earlier in this comments section.
"BTW, Beast in Minnesota, are you proud of this wonderful sectarian religious Iraqi ‘Constitution’, that puts the Ayatollahs in control?"
Dear, I would have voted "no" like Zeyad if I lived in Iraq. But since I would have lost I would be out there working my a** off within the legal system to change the things I dislike about it. That means electing people that represent my thinking in the next elections.
Buffalo Slayer,
Thanks for the news clips. One step at a time.
@ Lynnette in Minnesota, 10.27.05 - 3:28 pm.
“ ‘Don’t you think you should have addressed Zeyad’s post’
‘Ahem, actually I did. It's earlier in this comments section’ ”.
If that (Lynnette in Minnesota, 10.15.05 - 5:11 pm) was a ‘comment’ addressing anything at all, then you’re being a bit over-generous with yourself.
“Dear, I would have voted ‘no’ like Zeyad if I lived in Iraq. But since I would have lost I would be out there working my a** off within the legal system to change the things I dislike about it. That means electing people that represent my thinking in the next elections”.
Dear Minnesotan Animal,
It seems you completely miss the point.
The constitutional referendum results were completely rigged, which means that the referendum was a FRAUD.
So, why should Zeyad be trying “electing people that represent [his] thinking in the next elections”, since it is quite obvious that the results of the next elections will be rigged (and a fraud) as well?
Of what use would it be?
Is that (elections ‘fixed’ beforehand) the way ‘Democracy’ works?
Is that the new US-provided Iraqi “legal system”?
The ‘constitutional referendum’ has shown beyond doubt that for any Iraqi to “be out there working [one’s] a** off within the legal system to change the things [one] dislike[s] about it” would be a fool’s errand: NO way at all to change things “within a legal system” that, like the referendum fraud has shown, does not exist!
Interesting confessions here:
http://grouphug.us/search?q=iraq
I sniff an anonymous Bruno-like Diablo Dog, posing as a romantic.
Good Morning Faithful.....
sNIFFER,
quack quack????
quack quack quack
Zeyad, I am so glad to see you posted again and had the opportunity to vote. I hope you are well and that you will continue to post and give us your insights. I continue to pray for Iraq and an end to the mayhem and suffering of the innocents.
Zeyad, welcome back! Looking forward to hearing more from you.
Zeyad,
Yes, the chance to vote does empower you. I hear that though the Constitution was approved, they have purposely left out some portions so that all can have more imput into what the final version of the Constitution will be. So no matter what your reasons for voting "No"...the good thing is that it is not locked into finality in regards to the wording and the final version. Maybe you could explain what type of Constitution you would have approved, so that many in Iraq who read your blog might see some of what you see and start to think along your lines. So Post away...you really do have a wide audience.
I am just glad that it did go through and now the political process can start so that you guys can rework it so that even more can support it. It took our forefathers 10 years to get to our current form of a Constitution. Hopefully, your road to the final version won't be so long. Good to hear your "voice" again.
sNIFFER, you think it's the same one?
You fucking Yankee ladyboys are responsible for all this mess. Saddam Hussein, despite all his faults, kept the country together and stood up to the Iranian filth.
Now, you've just fucked up big time, the Mullahs are gonna take over and you will soon have to deal with both the Ayatollahs of Iran and their brethren in Iraq.
NO to Yankee filth, No to Persian scum
Welcome back! Great to hear your voice. I would have voted no too if I had the chance.
Zeyad,
I heard the exodus of educated Iraqis has been really massive in the last few months, even in areas supposed to be quiet like Basrah. Is it true? I'd like to hear from you about that if possible.
Thanks
Zeyad,
I am glad you are back. I had missed your comments, and had thought the religious nuts had hurt you.
Did you vote against because of the Sharia paragraph? Because of the federalism? Something else?
Please post again.
You're a wuss Zeyad...Grow a back bone!
Fuck off sucka! I am glad Zyad is realising now that the Yanks are as bad as the Wahhabi and Ayatollahi Iranian Islamicky vermin. The sooner these two set of murdering, blood-sucking cretins finish off each other, the better.
To hell with the Irani-Yank goblins.
"If that (Lynnette in Minnesota, 10.15.05 - 5:11 pm) was a ‘comment’ addressing anything at all, then you’re being a bit over-generous with yourself."
I thought it's brevity was commensurate with Zeyads. I don't like to run off at the fingers like some people.
"The constitutional referendum results were completely rigged,"
Baloney. What is your proof, Italian? Before you can overturn an election you at least need some substantiated proof of massive fraud. Do you really believe all the observers were a party to that?
Were the elections perfect? Probably not. But they were a start. Democracy is not static. I still think giving it a try, rather then changing governments by the gun is a better option. As someone said earlier in this section, the US didn't develop it's constitution overnite.
Monkey Bush will hand the reins of power to the Ayatollahs and their militias to finish off what the ladyboy Marines started (He needs to get them home as soon as possible. Apparently, they are missing mummy). That is: turn this country into an Ayatollah-worshipping heard of sheep.
Judging by the latest stand-off between the Wahhabis and Muqty's Mahdy sheep, the likes of Zarqawi can have a field day with these "sitting ducks" (20-0, was it?). No easy way out for the Yanks, no way whatsoever for your average Mohammed (Allahouma illa al mahdjar).
p.s. How do I insert Arabic writing?
You see the Yanks talking about a "way out" for them and their granny-murdering ladyboys in Iraq.
They cam in, bombed the "rag heads", abused the "rag heads", stole the "rag heads" money and oil, invited wahhabis to participate in their "kill the rag head" game"...
...
...
and now they are talking about a way out for "them".
This is Yank democracy!
Sunni MO,
You must be bushlied in disquise. Such nonsense. Such a spin of pure concoction. Such horseshit (that is a texan saying but oh so applicable here).
Most of zyead's american commentors here have the utmost respect for him and for his fellow countrymen...incouding Sunni's who chose to put down their weapons and seek unity through the political arena. We americans are one huge melting pot. There is an article of startling truth in a recent NY times paper (startling because there is usually so much nonsense in that paper). We humans can now have our DNA mapped to see what ethical or racial backgrounds we come from. The results can startle many. For what our grandfathers and great grandfathers have told us is not the whole picture and we often find that there are strands of other races in our veins that we knew nothing about.
Mankind is a curious creature. When Pride gets in the way of rationality, we do bristle at anyone who seems too different than ourselves. But when we can put the pride down and really look at our fellow human being...we begin to see ourselves as if in a mirror. We are not all that different.
You spout a lot of nonsense about who we americans are. Pure cow pies. But take a look at yourself and then at the Shites and then the Kurds. Do you really think you are all that different...even when it comes to looking at your DNA?
If the bible is the ultimate word in truth (and I, as a Christian, think that there are major truths in it amidst many a story and parable and icon and similie)...then we are all actually mesopotamians. And as in the time of babylon, we were scattered by God and given different tongues so that we would be confused and at each other's throats so that we could not strive to become like Gods. You may seek to be your own God. Too much Pride. Not me. I strive to find that common ground with Zeyad and Alaa and Omar and Muhammed and with others that I have gotten to know. You can spout off with all of the hate and lies you want to. But God is telling me that you too were once a child and that you need to lighten up and seek more of the common ground with the other peoples of your country. Enough of the nonsense about what you think Bush was and is about. He is a Christian like myself and one of the most ecuminical of all christian Presidents. He seeks real democracy for you guys. But as to if you can achieve that? Well, that is up to you and you alone. We can lead you to water. But only you can drink of it. Die of religious furvor and self pride all you want to. Or drink of cooperation and a shared future for your great nation. It is solely up to you.
Nothing like digressing on the subject matter, eh Randy boy?
But please don't let the facts sway you from your God (Jay-Zus, Dubya, The Chief in Command) given right to
mumble whatever misguided half truth you'd like to pass off as intelligible today.
Let me share some "truths" with the rest of your follow half-breed redneck Yank vermin:
1- You invaded.
2- You killed and maimed.
3- You destroyed everything that was once standing.
4- You will soon leave after having empowered the Iranian-loving filth.
"Sand niggers"/ "rag heads" obviously aren't humans by Yank standards. Rest assured that the sand nigger feels that if the rest of the Yank vermin were rubbed of the face of the plannet, then the
world would be a better place.
Now to the Iranian-Yank vermin!
What about:
2.1 - You removed the merciless tyrant Saddam, the scourge of Iraq.
?
What about
2.2 The merciless tyrant Saddam, scourge of Iraq, was about to topple himself through ineffectuality just like certain other un-named vermin are about to.
or
2.3 The merciless tyrant Saddam, scourge of Iraq, was very nearly toppled by his own disgruntled people when Iraqis almost got wind he didn't have any WMDs or anything else much left to threaten civilians with bar the removal of body parts which everyone was getting used to if inconvenienced by and less afraid of.
An insurgency takes on the entire US army, gosh golly gee it can't have taken a budding resistance under Saddam too much longer to figure out that they might have been able to take on their own practically un-armed oppressors.
What can you frighten the people with when having scared them half to death with every other trick they begin developing immunity to fear? The US aren't fighting anti-Americanism in Iraq, they are fighting people who've had it up to the ears with being bossed about for several decades.
So, what about:
2.4 In his attempt to convince Iraqis that he did have WMDs or something else to threaten civilians with, he managed to actually convince Western intelligence and/or Iranian stooges, leading to his downfall and the current sad state of his former fiefdom.
I was concerned about you since you had not posted in a long time. I am happy to see you are still there. Hope all is well. Glad you voted.
How about:
2.5 Somebody "WMD" Bush's ass with a long-range projectile hardened with depleted uranium.... from Niger?
Tick tock tick tock
The clock is ticking on the Vermin Republic of Iran & the United Scum of America...
Haha, "Sunni" Mo my ass.
@ Lynnette in Minnesota (10.31.05 - 10:31 am) & @ All Other US Warmongers making themselves ridiculous by blathering about the ‘Democwacy’ they brought to Ey-rak.
“‘The constitutional referendum results were completely rigged’. Baloney. What is your proof, Italian? Before you can overturn an election you at least need some substantiated proof of massive fraud”.
Dear Minnesotan Critter, “substantiated proof of massive fraud” is under the eyes of anybody having even half a brain. Here are the three outstanding elements of proof of the total fraud that the referendum was:
1) Let’s see the referendum “results” as announced by the “Independent [LOL!] Electoral Commission of Iraq” or IECI, starting from the 12 provinces completely controlled by the Shiite sectarian militias and by the Kurdish peshmerga:
ARBIL 99.36 % YES
BABIL 94.58 % YES
BASRA 96.02 % YES
DEHOK 96.96 % YES
KARBALA 96.58 % YES
MEYSAN 97.79 % YES
MUTHANNA 98.65 % YES
NAJAF 95.82 % YES
QADISSIYA 96.74 % YES
SULAIMANIYA 98.96 % YES
THIQAR 97.15 % YES
WASIT 95.70 % YES
Now, dear Lynnette, don’t such percentages look to you a wee bit not just strange, but impossible?
Especially in the case of Basra, where there are some thirty percent of educated, secular people?
It’s the same sort of percentages the regimes of the Soviet Block and, in Iraq, Saddam Hussein himself, used to get at THEIR referenda; which were, precisely, regarded as TOTAL FRAUDS by the rest of the world…
Let’s see the other 6 provinces (in two of them, Anbar and Salahedeen, Shiite militiamen and peshmerga are definitely not welcome; Baghdad is a leopard skin; in the other three the Kurdish peshmerga do control some parts, but not the whole province):
ANBAR 96.96 % NO
BAGHDAD 77.70 % YES
DIYALA 51.27 % YES
KIRKUK 62.91 % YES
SALAHEDEEN 81.75 % NO
NINEVAH 55.01 % NO
Of course in Anbar, where the ‘insurgency’ (i.e. patriotic resistance) is almost in control, some vote rigging may have been operated in favour of the NO (whence the Saddamite proportion of the NO vote, like the Saddamite proportion of the YES vote in the 12 provinces controlled by the pro-Government militias). But in Ninevah (Mosul), the third NO province that everybody expected would have dumped the ‘Constitution’ with a two/thirds NO, a check with the known demography and with the results of the January elections shows that the numbers for a 44.9 % YES vote just were not there…
(continued…)
(…continued)
2) Precisely in Ninevah there are plenty of confirmed reports that, especially in Mosul city and in Turkmen areas, gangs of peshmerga made the original ballot boxes ‘vanish’, substituting them with ‘their own’… and that they saw to it, like last January, that most Chaldeo-Assyrian villages could not vote.
3) Your cobra Condy Rice (plenty of different critters in you zoo!) declared that the YES vote had carried the day, and that the ‘Constitution’ had passed the referendum, less than TWO HOURS after the closing of the polling booths (and the counting took instead 14 DAYS!). How could she know? She couldn’t, unless, precisely, the referendum result was ‘preordained’…
“Do you really believe all the observers were a party to that?”.
Who were the “observers”? The members of the Iraqi political parties backing the occupation. There was, as far as we know, only ONE ‘international observer’, a woman from the UN staying in the ‘Green Zone’ (and she gave a rap on the tail of your cobra Condy for her untimely and all too transparent statement…).
So you say that such a referendum was “a start. Democracy is not static”? Now, dear Critter in Minnesota, you are quite cheeky in spewing this piece of baloney…
Let’s see if you have the courage to admit the facts, or if you instead go and hide your snout in shame in your woods and forests…
EYETIE,,...you are getting trampled by history happeneing right between your eyes.
It's STILL like this...better Saddam? or Better this vote? Or is it just Orwell's quote rattling around in that brain.."If america can be insulted, it must be insulted"
It was clear to him at the moment his 'progressive' friends looked for justification for Stalin squishing countries, and it is true of critical progressives today.
SO please go on whining. Iraq had their vote, plenty voted no and had all kinds of reason for doing so, but enough voted yes.
Democracy is a messy business and we're just a few years in. It took the USA from 1781 to 1789 with the useless articles of confederation.
America haters are two bits a dozen. Whining about america acting rather than being euro-ditherers, always excusing inaction by never having a perfect solution has displayed for all history how irrelevant a continent which is so decadent it doesn;t even had the moral fortitude to reach replacement level reproduction and is circling the drain. I never thought I would live to see the day of such stark difference making it plain that europe is SPENT.
Iraq is enroute to having it's people decide what's going to be. Next up a vote for reps. There will be problems, there will be setbacks. That's life in an open society. No doubt that will have you whining even louder with conjured up criticisms. If you look over the rail on that deck you're so busy with the deckchairs, on, you will see this:
TITANIC
Adios muchacho
BTW, zeyad...you created a frankenstein, just let us know you're alive once in a while if you just don't feel like posting..I thought you were dead and The Religious Policeman hauled off.
Stay safe. Stay loud
An Italian,
So good to hear your anti american diatribe again. As a fellow Catholic, I am inclined to totally disagreee with you. Ninevah? Mosul? Go read www.Michaelyon.blogspot.com and read the real truth. He was there. You weren't. You continue to spout lies about what is going on over there as if lying about evil stuff will make it become good stuff. The mindless ones who stream into Iraq to blow themselves up and kill innocent women and children because they are from a rival islamic sect are NOT the good guys. They are filled with hatred. HATRED. Do you remember any of your catecism? Hate comes from Satan. Love comes from God. They have no love...only hatred. It is their mantra. They say we are the Satan. What a laugh.
Hatred is Satan's mantra. To bring us ever closer to his goal of getting revelation to come into play. He tried the Nazi's. Then the communists. And now the Islamofascists. There is a definite link between this hatred and the Third Reich. Google "Hitler's Mufti" and see who was closely linked to Nazi Germany and then who exported the hatred for the jew back into Palestine to rekindle old death rivalries. And his nephew...Arafat...continued it until his recent demise. And now the islamofascists of Zarqawi continue the fight for "insanity" (to kill others with no real plan for the future) and to bring hell into view for a worldwide government. I know you did not support the Nazis in WWII. So why now? Why do you chose to put the blinders on and act as if this islamofascist way is the right way? Why? Plenty of hate there to dispell that notion.
Me? I want to stay free and I want my new Iraqi friends to also experience that peace...for their children as well. Too bad you don't get who the bad guys really are.
Your old sparing partner...Randy G.
We guess that Zeyad has been threatened by the terrorists to stop writing for his blog. This message of his of voting against is to placate those terrorizing him.
This post might be deleted or there might be a rejoinder. But we understand Zeyad, after all you have to survive for the sake of your family.
Anyway thanks for all the good work in the past.
Bye
Webmasters
http://www.waronjihad.org
waronjihad,
You are a seditious fraud. Stop inciting or he will never come back ever. More's the pity. This is what happens when people have to proove how dangerous it is in real life to blog through war - they go on strike.
Do you remember any of your catec[h]ism?
Randy G ... it's more basic that that. If George Bush was Satan incarnate and Condy Rice was the Beast of revelations, revelling in the deaths of U.S. soldiers would still be unconscionable for any Catholic.
Totally uncalled for our kid. Have they taught you no manners at school?
Oh well, care in the community has a long way to go :-(
Ahma-Dick-Najad, Dubya: Ceux qui se ressemblent, s'assemblent.
@ Zeyad (Re: ‘waronjihad’, 11.07.05 - 6:15 am).
Dear Zeyad,
I see that these three criminal ‘Webmasters’, who - as anybody can see - run a site committed to the incitement and spreading of sectarian and national hatred, now try – not too subtly - to blackmail and threaten you in your own blog (“We guess that Zeyad has been threatened by the terrorists to stop writing for his blog. This message of his of voting against is to placate those terrorizing him”).
Let’s see if any of your US warmongering commentators has the decency of condemning these cowardly vermin (unfortunately everybody knows, by now, that ‘US warmonger’, and ‘decency, honour, truth’, are terms that are mutually incompatible).
Do consider if it isn’t by now the time to close your comment pages, like other Iraqi bloggers (A Citizen Of Mosul and Truth About Iraqis being the last two) have done. You gave all the Americans (and all other non-Iraqi readers) who honestly wanted to understand more about Iraq the chance to do that. Most did.
But some did not; as in the sentence by Jonathan Swift you put as a preface to your blog, "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into".
@ PeteS, 11.02.05 - 6:46 pm.
Dear Pete, what about:
2.1 - You removed the merciless tyrant Saddam, the scourge of Iraq, and put in his place fifty other tyrants even more merciless than he was. ?
It would fit nicely with the four other points (that nobody can deny) ‘Sunni MO’ made:
1- The US invaded.
2- They killed and maimed.
3- They destroyed everything that was once standing.
4- They will soon leave after having empowered the Iranian-loving filth.
Apart from that, if I were to free you from your toothache, but giving you terminal cancer in exchange, would you be happy and grateful?
So you see that what you wrote doesn’t make much sense to most Iraqi readers.
@ ‘epaminondas’, 11.06.05 - 9:15 pm & - 9:19 pm.
“better Saddam? or better this vote? Iraq had their vote, plenty voted no and had all kinds of reason for doing so, but enough voted yes. Democracy is a messy business and we're just a few years in. Iraq is en route to having it’s people decide what's going to be. Next up a vote for reps. There will be problems, there will be setbacks. That's life in an open society”.
Oh clever ‘epaminondas’, “enough voted yes”? Well, if you believe it, I just happen to have a stock of Saddam’s WMDs, and I could sell them to you!
Dear fool, next December the tactical allies of the US (but real allies of Iran), the Shiite sectarian religious parties (the SCIRI/Badr, the Sadrists, the two different Dawa parties and 12 other parties in the United Iraqi Alliance, plus the Fahdila party with its own list) will get more than 50 percent at the Iraqi ‘elections’, and will establish their Iranian-style Islamic Republic of Iraq. An “open society” indeed, you fool!
And then you have the incredible cheek of telling Zeyad: “Zeyad... you created a Frankenstein” !
Oh, yeah, it is all the fault of them Eyrakians! The US invasion and occupation has nooooooothing to do with such a brilliant result!
BTW, you wrote as well: “It took the USA from 1781 to 1789 with the useless articles of confederation”.
And as a result you had one of the most bloody civil wars in history. Or you just forgot it (1861-65), my Ahmehwican genius?
“[Europe,] a continent which is so decadent it doesn’t even had the moral fortitude to reach replacement level reproduction”.
Oh my, where did I hear this precise sentence already… Oh yes, stupid of me: it was Hitler and Mussolini and their propaganda. They kept obsessively repeating it (against France and England, then) in the decade leading to WW2.
And then, when we say that you US warmongers are the present-day Nazis and Fascists (New World Order, indeed!), you have the incredible brazen face of complaining!
“Euro-ditherers, always excusing inaction by never having a perfect solution”.
Better to be ‘inactive’ than to commit, without a reason, abominable crimes and mass murders like the US do, leaving in their wake – like in Iraq – an atrocious mess.
And, BTW, with hurricane Katrina we Europeans (and the Iraqis, and everybody else in the world) have clearly seen what the United States of America really are: a Fourth World rogue State, that couldn’t care less for its own citizens (and such beasts want to rule the world, LOL!).
Dear ‘epaminondas’, to adopt the name of a Greek military leader from the 4th century BC is quite improper on your part, since the Greeks (both ancient and modern) always had, differently from you, only one pair of hands…
@ Randy G, 11.07.05 - 12:33 am.
Oh poor Randy, I see that these last few months haven’t made you any cleverer, or less gullible and confused.
“Ninevah? Mosul? Go read www.Michaelyon.blogspot.com and read the real truth”.
Oh yeah! A paid, embedded propaganda agent would be “the real truth” in your book? Goebbels, Zdanov & Saddam’s Minister of Information were the ‘real truth’ as well, then!
“You continue to spout lies about what is going on over there”.
Poor Randy, I do hope Zeyad and the Iraqi readers will be able to forgive you in their hearts, knowing only too well that you are more than a bit simpleminded…
“The mindless ones who stream into Iraq to blow themselves up and kill innocent women and children because they are from a rival Islamic sect are NOT the good guys”.
My foolish friend, where and when did I ever say that they are the “good guys” ?
As everybody (apart from the American public) knows, this brand of Wahabi fanaticism comes from the greatest Arabic ally of the US, Saudi Arabia; and as a terror network (Bin Laden & Co.) it was organised and trained by your CIA, starting from the late Seventies. They are a danger only in some parts of the Islamic world; everywhere else they are just a minor problem the police and the intelligence services can easily cope with. They did not exist in Iraq before the brainless US invasion and occupation. The “mindless ones” blowing themselves up in Iraq for the “Islamo-Fascists of Zarqawi” are deluded youngsters, mainly from Saudi Arabia; but one can suspect that those leading them kept their old, friendly links with the US…
The Iraqi patriotic resistance, that targets the Americans (2,050 of them stiffed, 20,000 severely wounded up to now) and their puppets, has very little to do with those criminal loonies.
And there are indeed some ‘Islamo-Fascists’ threatening all secular and progressive Iraqis like Zeyad, ‘Islamo-Fascists’ who are indeed on the verge of ruling Iraq (after the December next – rigged – ‘elections’), and of transforming it into an Islamic Republic, Teheran-style. Oh, do tell me, Randy dear, who did put them in control?
It was the United States of America with their glorious invasion and occupation, wasn’t it?
Be sure that if the threat of these ‘Islamo-Fascists’ tactically allied to the US occupation were not there, Zeyad would be able to “Post away...”, as you wrote (Randy G, 10.28.05 - 10:47 pm).
(continued…)
(…continued)
“As a fellow Catholic”, I have to tell you that, precisely, “Hatred is satan's mantra. He tried the Nazis. Then the communists. And now the” American Neo-Cons, who crazily “kill others with no real plan for the future”, as your Iraqi adventure has shown even to the blind, wanting to enslave the world, bringing, precisely, “hell into view for a worldwide government”. They are the present day Nazis, and a danger to everybody.
“Why do you chose to put the blinders on and act as if this islamofascist way is the right way?”.
Are you hallucinating, my friend?
Dear ‘Catholic’ friend, “Too bad you don't get who the bad guys really are”. Possibly, like PeteS remarked about some spadefoot toads, when you see your Ape in Chief, who “is a Christian like [yourself]self” (LOL! Randy G, 11.01.05 - 2:21 pm), you cannot refrain from having immediately an “explosive wank” (PeteS, 10.26.05 - 6:57 pm) …
But do remember: lying about evil stuff (even out of ignorance and gullibility) “won’t make it become good stuff”.
@ PeteS, 11.07.05 - 12:51 pm.
“‘Do you remember any of your catec[h]ism?’ Randy G ... it's more basic that that. If George Bush was satan incarnate and Condy Rice was the Beast of revelations [well, ‘of Revelation’], revelling in the deaths of U.S. soldiers would still be unconscionable for any Catholic”.
Dear Pete (or should I call you ‘Your Sanctity’, or ‘Holy Father’, instead?), maybe I’m mistaken, but I do not remember you, for the best part of these past two years, coming out so strongly against those many who were gloating and “revelling in the deaths of” Iraqis, day after day, in these very comments pages…
And they weren’t just revelling in the deaths of ‘insurgents’ (who, for the most part, were anyway people defending their country against unjust and arrogant invaders, nothing to do with Zarqawi the Ghost), but in the deaths of Iraqi civilians, women and children as well (‘It’s a war, shit happens’, when not ‘They deserve all they get’, ‘Nuke’em’).
And, BTW, most US soldiers that die in Iraq are not ‘innocent’ at all; they are not compelled to go to Iraq by a lying Administration, like those of Vietnam. Most of them are warmongering fanatics who chose to be there and to murder people who had never done them any harm. They die? So what? Good riddance! (and it is the only way to make the American public come to their senses and impose the end of the criminal venture, by the way).
Did you agree with the (mainly) US posters doing the above, Pete? Or a bit of double standard on your part?
If not, there are anyway the sins of omission, you know (‘what I failed to do’…). Wasn’t your omission “still unconscionable for any Catholic” ?
Maybe, Pete, before preaching to others you should do a bit of housecleaning…
An Irish Prayer
May those that love us, love us;
And those that don't love us,
May God turn their hearts;
And if he doesn't turn their hearts;
May he turn their ankles
So we'll know them by their limping
Need a little ice for your ankle, Italian?
But to answer your post to me.
Do you honestly believe that the corruption and simple cheating that was learned under Saddam can be overcome in one election, or two, or three? Was there fraud? Probably. But was there enough to overturn an election? That is my question. The governate that seems critical is Ninevah. It was the swing vote.
"the third NO province that everybody expected would have dumped the ‘Constitution’ with a two/thirds NO,"
Indeed, and just WHO is everyone?
"Of course in Anbar, where the ‘insurgency’ (i.e. patriotic resistance)"
Shall we talk about your "patriotic resistance"? What exactly is their vision for Iraq after they remove the "foreign invaders" from Iraqi soil? What is their plan to pay off the huge debt owed by Iraq from Saddams day? How are they going to deal with potentially hostile neighbors? What kind of government do they plan on setting up and how?
"Democracy is not static”? Now, dear Critter in Minnesota, you are quite cheeky in spewing this piece of baloney…"
We are all changing all the time, Italian. What might have been acceptable behaviour 100, 50, 10 years ago may not be acceptable now. As you say we fought a civil war. A bloody long civil war that to this day people still feel the affects of. But it was fought so people in our country could be free.
"Most of them are warmongering fanatics who chose to be there and to murder people who had never done them any harm."
Most of them are kids doing their jobs. Most of them have families they miss. Most of them are doing those jobs and missing those families because they are trying to give the people of Iraq a chance to live in that freedom that we have fought so hard for and died for.
Unlike some people who only know how to sit back and criticize. Those who can, do, those who can't....?
Apart from that, if I were to free you from your toothache, but giving you terminal cancer in exchange, would you be happy and grateful? So you see that what you wrote doesn’t make much sense to most Iraqi readers.
I was just filling in a bit of the history that Sunni MO seemed to have rather one-sidedly forgotten about. It wasn't a comment on what Iraqis should or shouldn't be grateful about.
... the Beast of revelations [well, ‘of Revelation’]
You are right, of course. I stand corrected.
Dear Pete (or should I call you ‘Your Sanctity’, or ‘Holy Father’, instead?)
Well, you're the one with the expert bible knowledge.
maybe I’m mistaken, but I do not remember you, for the best part of these past two years, coming out so strongly against those many who were gloating and revelling in the deaths of Iraqis, day after day, in these very comments pages
Yes, you are mistaken. Firstly, I did comment on numerous occasions about such language. (Fairly hypocritically, I'll admit, given some of the language I used myself).
Secondly, some of the people who talked about "turning the middle east into glass" etc. were fools, no more to be reasoned with than the local village idiot. Others were just temporarily hot under the collar. You'll be pleased to hear that I don't reckon you're the village idiot (which even Lee C. agrees with judging by earlier comments). However, two years is a bit long for "temporary hot-under-the-collarness". So I don't place you in either of those categories. Tell me if I'm wrong.
Thirdly, there wouldn't be much point in citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church to most people here, now would there? Or at least, I have no way of knowing whether there would be, other than for myself, Randy G., and you. You may remember I suggested to Randy G., that his apparent religious providentialism as applied to the U.S.A. might not be compatible?
Fourthly ... am I really coming out strongly? Randy G. brought up the catechism. I merely added the obvious. Maybe I'm overreacting. Or maybe (just a suggestion) you're underestimating how immoderate your language comes across. I'll admit that I have a good old laugh from time to time at some of the "four-handed beast" stuff. But then a) I'm not American, b) I appreciate zany humour, c) I give you the benefit of the doubt that you are being mischievously humourous rather than blatantly hate-filled. Part c) gets a bit harder to believe you start sounding happy that people (anyone) are getting killed.
most US soldiers that die in Iraq are not ‘innocent’ at all; ... Most of them are warmongering fanatics who chose to be there and to murder people who had never done them any harm. They die? So what? Good riddance!
That's complete balderdash. But even if it wasn't, what difference does it make to the argument? What distinction are you making between yourself, who is happy to see "vengeance" wreaked on U.S. troops, and, let's say, an American who wants to lash out at anything that moves in the middle east because of 9/11? Which bit of your Catholic morality are you drawing on there?
Did you agree with the (mainly) US posters doing the above, Pete? Or a bit of double standard on your part? If not, there are anyway the sins of omission... Wasn’t your omission still unconscionable for any Catholic?
Are you really asking why I wasn't utterly opposed to the war in Iraq, as you are? I've been trying all along to understand how Catholic moral teaching should be applied to the situation. I'd be the first to admit I'm not sure of the answer. I certainly don't row in easily behind prominent American Catholics like Neuhaus, Novak, and Weigel. I also don't fall for European pacifism parading as Christianity when it suits it. I'd be happy to listen to any pointers you have. In the meantime, are you asking me not to point out the obvious (which to be honest shouldn't need a Catholic catechism) -- that people getting killed in a war is an evil no matter who kets killed or does the killing?
Maybe, Pete, before preaching to others you should do a bit of housecleaning
And maybe even with a whole forest of logs in my own eye I'll refuse to get down off the soap box on this one.
An Italian,
Yes...so good to hear your diatribe of hatred for Bush and his administration again. But that is all it is. Hatred. Not well founded nor even well rooted. Slander is what you use towards someone you don't understand or know. There were great evil forces in the time of our parents and there are today. But again...you get the good guys and the bad guys mixed up. And then you go and act as if Zeyad and the other Iraqi bloggers are agreeing with you. So I am not worried about being the one who is halucinating...you are doing a fine job at that.
Remember the post from our Iraqi hosts where they said that Saddam himself was THE Weapon of Mass Distruction? I guess you missed that one. Or chose to ignore it. We came to remove him and we did. And then the foreign terrorists and the displaced Sunni Baathists began their warfare to both drive us out of Iraq and to put the shia back in their place (actually, if you read Zarqawi's letter, to kill them). But lo and behold...the US is staying till we make sure the new government is up and stablized. And the Shia are taking their rightful place as the majority of Iraqi citizens and the ones who...by the vote... can best affect their own future and the future of the new Iraqi government. And that is reality. You can go and paint a picture of puppets and opressors but there are just too many who read these blogs who know the truth to ever think that even some will buy into your concoctions and outright lies. I am a Christian first...then a Catholic. Bush is a Christian first...and then a Methodist. You say you are a Catholic...but you talk like a lying terrorist yourself...same language as the terrorists...same dillusional concept of what is going down in Iraq and what is being built up in Iraq. You go on about killers being our soldiers. Sorry...they are of the same caibler and fiber as the ones who landed in Italy and saved your parents asses. You just have too much pride to admit that what was America still is America. We were never Imperialists and never will be. That is one stupid commentary that we usually expect to read from the evil enemy. We have never taken over another country and we are not about to now. We did not come to take over Iraq and when we leave, that will be clear to all. But we did come to drain the swamps of teachings of hatred towards us and towards the Israelies and towards any who value freedom. We came to put an end to the brainwashing of the young to turn them into mindless human bombs who hate because they were fed on hate. And we came to plant the seed of freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan and so we have. And you can rail all you want to... but you, my fellow Catholic, will never be able to stop it. For it has a power all it's own...and once it begins to take root...nothing on earth can stop it.
Satan does try and affect the outcome of what is going on in Iraq. But not from the vantage point of through our President's eyes. For he (Bush), like me, reveres Jesus Christ and not the devil (whose name means slander). And all your rantings that are but slanderous lies just go to prove that you yourself have let hatred come into your heart and thus are being affected by hatred and by the devil himself. I think I will have to get Pope Benedict XVI to send over one of his special priests and have him practice an exorcism on your body so we can rid you of your satan's hatred towards fellow Christians. You just don't get it (who is Good and who is Evil). and you think I am the one who is naive? LOL. May the Lord shed some real discernment down upon your heart. Have a nice day, El Italiano.
Pete S,
Maybe what you are missing is that God never said "Thou shall not kill"...what he really said was "Thou shall not murder (an innocent person)". God had no problem with the killings when it was necessary for Him to protect his chosen people. When the Israelis were led back into their land (after 40 years in the desert) that He was giving them He told them to kill all living creatures within as they did take each city. That may sound horrible. But the stench of the sins of those people in thoise cities had angered Him enough. They were worshiping other gods and sacrificing their own first born children in the process and that was what He wanted eradicated and to not effect the Israelies.
And so it has always been true. When evil men to rise up and begin to take over other people and opress them and kill them by horrible means (the story of dissidents being lowered alive into giant paper shredders by Saddam's sons comes to my mind as an example), then God will grant an army of righteous warriors (righteous in His names sake, not for themselves) the job of ridding the earth of the evil ones. And so we have this conflict.
Get the book "A Table in the Presence" By Carey H. Cash, W Publishing Group, 2004 and read about the battle on April 10, 2003 and know that it actually happened and that it was a miracle (actually a series of miracles) as big as any military miracle in the bible. And it came about because many of our Christian soldiers asked for four legions of angels to protect them in the ambush they knew they had to drive through. And that is EXACTLY what they got. God did weigh in in that battle. No denying it.
There are evil men in this conflict and all you need to do is find the link between Hitler's Nazis and the Grand Mufti of Palestine and then you begin to see that we really didn't get all of the ones who wanted the final soultion to come to fruition in WWII. Do you really think that God want's his chosen all killed by being driven into the sea? And are we suppose to sit by if and when any army marches on them? And do you not understand that we are now also on the hit list by the islaomfascist terrorists? We americans? And did you not understand that we knew that no matter where we went in the middle east with a military force, we would draw the evil ones to us like moths to a flame? I am sorry for the Iraqis that it had to be their country but then, there were many good reasons for going into Iraq and there is a solution and it is working far better than the media is telling us about. And we need to see it through. Or the Iraqis' children and our own chiuldren will know no peace. This is good versus evil and all I have to do is watch one of those evil beheading videos and I know which side I need to be on. Not the one where Satan wields the sword and kills an innocent man like some sort of beast of burdon. No. God loved that victim and He even loves the terrorist...but He also realizes that they (the terrorists) have been given over entirely to the dark side and power and lust for power and hatred now rule their hearts and so they have sealed their fate. War sucks. But being forced to worship something you don't believe in is worse. That's why our forefathers created America.
They (the islamofascists) took the fight to us. Now it is our turn to finish what they started. And God hears all of our prayers...and He will always stand for Good and Love and kindness and an absence of evil. Period. May the Lord shed some real discernment down upon you on this in regard to your fear of or opposition to war. It is not done lightly and we sacrifice much to bring freedom to this Land.
This is our first instalment to flame the Italian Muslim-Commie's ass:
Idle Minds are a Devil's Workshop, but in France we are dealing with Devils’ minds!
"Idle Minds are a Devil's Workshop". This old English adage is today being used by Les Progressives in France to justify the mayhem wrought every night by the descendants of North-African immigrants of Islamic extraction. But the mayhem in France proves the failure of the second appeasement by the French Government. And this appeasement brings to mind the first failed attempt at appeasement by the Anglo-French entente of the Nazis, which failed as miserably, albeit much more spectacularly resulting in a bloodbath from 1939 to 1945.
What we see in France today is a battle against those who do not patronize education, but want the best of jobs, those who have no skill or talent, but want wealth, those who do not pay taxes, but want to enjoy all social security benefits, those who give nothing to society, but want anything they ask in return, those whose madrasas (seminaries) teach them to intimidate and murder.
If they find the conditions unfavorable in the West, why don’t they try their luck in the countries of their origin. They do not because they know they would get fifty lashes, might be stoned to death or even be beheaded.
Photo Credits: globalfire
_____________________
The second failed appeasement of the French has been with the Islamo-fascists. And imagining what lies in store for the French and for Europe at large as a result of this appeasement gives us gooseflesh.
The French government has been singularly steadfast in wooing the Arabs as no other, and has been pressurizing Israel all international fora to surrender to the Palestinians. It is an irony that Les Arabės are now starting to become the nemesis of the contrived multi-culturalism heralded by the French with their philosophy of La Difference.
Les Français may today try to whitewash the mayhem by saying that the rioters mayhem is a natural response to venting their anger the accidental electrocution of the two thieves, or that the rioters are underdogs (under….dogs), or that they have legitimate grievances, or that they are just letting out their pent up rage against the Hijab law.
All this expected chicanery apart the fact remains that what the new sans culottes (the scum as Sarkozy calls them) are doing, is giving the French an foretaste of the shape of things to come. The Arabės do not want anything less than the Islamification of French society. Some days back the Arabės had roughed up French students during a demonstration in Paris. Then the incident was hushed up. Amongst themselves the Arabės who now constitute eleven percent of France refer to the French as White Cheese to be chewed up at the right time.
What we are witnessing on the streets of French cities is a Ghazawa – a Warning raid which forms part of Islamic tradition from the days of their murderer prophet Mohammed. What is happening in France has already eclipsed the London and Madrid blasts on the scale of mass participation, if not in terms of casualties - as yet at least. But the first death from the mayhem has been reported, and there is worse to come.
With Churches being torched as also schools and housing complexes, the Arabės have made their intentions very clear of intimidating the French. But for all that we as English speaking Americans, and more so our cousins from England would have against the French, it remains to be seen how the French show their steel and they have ample of it as seen in Napolėon, De Gaulle, Jean d’ Arc, and not to be forgotten the French Knights during the Crusades and the lion of all of them Charles Martel the hero of Tours, who turned back the Arabės for the first time in Europe in 732 in the Battle of Tours (Poitiers)
What the French need to do it to take off the gloves and move from rubber truncheons and water cannons to helicopter gunships (as the Israelis do) and targeted aerial bombardment using non lethal gas and then if the mobs still do not disperse, then lethal gas (as the Russians had done during the Nord Ost theater siege in Moscow). If Messieurs Dominique de Villepen, Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy (of Hungarian and Russian Jewish descent) do not realize this then the only hope the French would have to is to elect Le Pen of Le Front Nationalė (The National Front) to lead the fight against Islamization.
The Arabės understand the language of blood and death – only when the French learn to speak in this language will the mobs be pacified. No amount of appeasement will work for the Jihadis – as it did not for the Nazis.
What the French are confronting today, what the British are already accustomed to, to a lesser degree at Leeds, Bradford. Manchester and London. This is also what the Germans will soon face with the hordes of Turkish immigrants who have made their own exclusive beehives in Hanover, Hamburg, Cologne, Düsseldorf, Berlin, Bonn and other German cities. Other EU states like Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Italy are all lined up for the same mayhem, unless they flex their muscles and emasculate the Arabės by compulsory repatriation of illegal immigrants and internment of all those on whom the shadow of suspicious activity hovers.
The Europeans have to realize that the Arabės do not want equal opportunities, they want to Islamize Europe. They have said so in as many words that Islam is not here (in America) to be an equal Christianity. It is here to displace Christianity and become the dominant and then the ONLY religion of America. Same holds true for Europe. In fact Europe is the beta-testing battleground for the Arabės who if they succeed there (unlikely), will then move for the kill against the USA. But we in the New World are not sitting idle, Afghanistan and Iraq are our forward positions in this civilizational battle. A battle against those who do not patronize education, but want the best of jobs, those who have no skill or talent, but want wealth, those who do not pay taxes, but want to enjoy all social security benefits, those who give nothing to society, but want anything they ask in return, those whose madrasas (seminaries) teach them to intimidate and murder.
If they find the conditions unfavorable in the West, why don’t they try their luck in the countries of their origin. They do not because they know they would get fifty lashes, might be stoned to death or even be beheaded.
If we continue to give alibis for their murder and mayhem, we would be soon singing the swansong of our way of life. To survive we need to give a new meaning to Libertė, Egalitė, Franternitė. Liberty Equality and Fraternity which are supposed to be our strengths will end up becoming our weaknesses if we do not give ourselves the liberty to annihilate those who want to destroy our way of life, if we do not exercise equality in matching the paranoia of Les Arabės with a steel will to crush them into surrender, and the Fraternity amongst ourselves as Frenchmen, Britons, Americans, Spaniards, Germans to rise up against the common adversary of all of us – Les Arabės.
@ Zeyad (& All).
Everybody remembers the US ‘conquest’ of Fallujah, in November last year; and one remembers that many Iraqi voices (and that of at least an American un-embedded anti-war journalist, Dahr Jamail) did state that the US had used against both ‘insurgents’ and civilians chemical weapons, including white phosphor and napalm, and fragmentation bombs.
In December the US Command officially denied any such reports.
Every reader of Zeyad’s blog will remember as well the scoffing and scorning rebuttals by our US warmongering posters, discounting such reports as ludicrous ‘pro-terrorist’ propaganda.
Yesterday the Italian State Television (RAI) put online a documentary (titled ‘Fallujah, the hidden massacre’), that conclusively proves (with testimonies by US Marines who were there, and who photographed the lot, and the charred corpses of the victims) that such weapons were indeed used. One can download & watch the documentary (either in Italian, or in English, or in Arabic) and see the rather grisly photos at this address:
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/
ran2...lt_02112005.asp
So, the US Command DID LIE (oh, surprise! That’s so uncommon…), and weapons forbidden by the 1980 UN Convention were indeed used by the US forces to subdue Fallujah.
So, the warmongering US posters here have got more egg on their snouts (and their Pinocchio-like noses have grown by another inch).
@ The Three Rats of Waronjihad, 11.08.05 - 6:10 am.
"the Italian Muslim-Commie's ass".
This was a nasty revelation for me!
So, the first time I had to go to the loo after reading this, I gave my ass a stern & proper dressing down: 'How did you dare, you ungrateful s**thole of an ass, to turn Muslim-Commie (indeed!), and without even telling me beforehand!'
My ass was duly ashamed, & promised me it would renounce its evil ways...
Pete S, Maybe what you are missing is that God never said "Thou shall not kill"...what he really said was "Thou shall not murder
No Randy G., with respect, I didn't miss that bit of Christianity 101. As I said, I am trying to think with the Church (
Oops. Screwed the first attempt up.
Pete S, Maybe what you are missing is that God never said "Thou shall not kill"...what he really said was "Thou shall not murder
No Randy G., with respect, I didn't miss that bit of Christianity 101. As I said, I am trying to think with the Church (sentire cum ecclesia). You will see that 3.2.2.5 of the CCC opens with the fifth commandment which you quoted. However if you look at paragraphs 2307 to 2317 is is clear that the justification for war is not a simple matter of determining that an evil has been committed.
God had no problem with the killings when it was necessary for Him to protect his chosen people.
It is problematic to say that God does or doesn't "have a problem" with anything. That aside, let's remember the dangers of being over-inclusive about who the "chosen people" are in an Old Testament context. Even among the Israelites, God has stern words for "obstinate people who pursue their imaginations". Anyway, let's see who you are trying to relate this to...
And so it has always been true. When evil men to rise up and begin to take over other people and opress them and kill them by horrible means ... then God will grant an army of righteous warriors ... the job of ridding the earth of the evil ones.
Have you read the imprecatory Psalms? They are full of questions about why the wicked prosper while the just perish. So, what you say has "always been true", has in fact never been true. In any case, it's an age-old tactic for people to claim God is on their side in a war. I obviously don't rule out that it may be so. But I'm not so credulous as to accept at face value, let's say, the Bishop of London in 1914: "This is a Holy War. We are on the side of Christianity against the anti-Christ", while Kaiser Wilhelm was telling his troops: "Remember that the German people are the chosen of God... On me, on me as German emperor, the Spirit of God has descended. I am His weapon, His sword and His visor." There is, of course, such a thing as idolatry of the state.
In fact, war is always evil. Period. That is not to say that it is never justified. But it puts paid to picture of God "not having a problem with" some troop of righteous warriors crusading for the kingdom. The kingdom is "not of this world", remember?
Do you really think that God want's his chosen all killed by being driven into the sea? And are we suppose to sit by if and when any army marches on them?
Is this a reference to the State of Israel? That is surely somewhat tangential to the current conflict.
This is good versus evil and all I have to do is watch one of those evil beheading videos and I know which side I need to be on.
That is also tangential to whether there should be a war going on.
War sucks. But being forced to worship something you don't believe in is worse.
I agree. But again, it presupposes a dilemma which may not have existed at the outset.
God hears all of our prayers...and He will always stand for Good and Love and kindness and an absence of evil. Period. May the Lord shed some real discernment down upon you on this in regard to your fear of or opposition to war.
Agreed, and thank you. However, as a Catholic my view on this is not coloured only by prayer and personal discernment.
According to WarOnJihad (and RedNeck filth like him at JihadWatch and the like):
Aids in Africa? Islam and Arabs
Bird Flu Virus? Arabs and Islam
Earthquakes, Floodings, Fucking Avalanches? Those nasty rag heads and their Islam
Hurricane Katrina, Wilma, Ass? Arabs and Muslims
Global Warming? Arabs and Islam
I am actually thankful this sort of specimen posts in here. Brother Zeyad can see for himself there is no marked difference between our own Jihad types (once again, bred and sponsored by the Number 1 Terrorist Nation on this Planet) and the backward ass redneck nazis called neo-cons.
NOOOOOO to IRI & USA
@ All.
The direct address for the download of the documentary of the Italian State TV on ‘Fallujah, the hidden massacre’ (in English) is:
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/
ran2...allujah_ING.wmv
Today, of course, most Italian daily newspapers reported on it.
@ Lynnette in Minnesota, 11.07.05 - 5:10 pm.
Dear Lynnette, thanks a lot for that wonderful Irish prayer, which I’ll fervently pray from now on (I didn’t know it; unfortunately it was not on the wall of my parish church…).
BTW, I strongly suspect that in you our PeteS has eventually managed to smoke out a fourth Catholic…
Lynnette, I’m always quite astonished at the image most Americans have of the present situation in Iraq, in this age of ‘global information’ and of Internet links. It might have something to do with the fact that most Americans know no language apart from their own (I, for instance, cannot read Arabic, of course, but I can read most Neo-Latin languages); but this does not adequately explain the huge information gap between what most people in the world know about what’s happening in Iraq, and the ideas most of you American posters seem to have (it’s almost like if you were living on a different planet… oh, sorry, I didn’t remember… the Planet of the A…).
What you wrote shows that quite clearly: “Do you honestly believe that the corruption and simple cheating that was learned under Saddam can be overcome in one election, or two, or three?”.
Dear Lynnette, what we are discussing about is NOT simple electoral cheating and corruption ‘Tammany Hall’ style, or ‘Chicago in the Twenties’ style (there is that as well), but a completely different situation. When you have percentages of more than 97 % on average in 13 out of 18 Iraqi provinces (12 for the ‘Yes’ and one for the ‘No’), it is definitely NOT just a matter of ‘corruption’, but of wholesale control of the vote. If it were just a case of “corruption and simple cheating”, then I would agree with you.
And this control of the vote works in two ways.
At the central level of each province and of their ‘electoral commissions’ (composed by the ‘Yes’ parties) in covering up on, or in putting the official seal on, electoral fraud (like the wholesale substitution of ballot boxes), or in directly perpetrating the same.
At the ground level, more unpleasantly, it works on the massive intimidation of the voters. The only Americans that might have any idea of such intimidation are, maybe, the blacks of some of your Southern States, where similar situations were present in the years between 1877-1964 (but there aren’t many blacks among US posters here). Now, where organised armed militias control both the area and official State security, like it happens all throughout the Shiite South and in some districts of Baghdad on the part of the Shiite fundamentalist militias (& the Badr Brigades have since last April the complete control of the Ministry of Interiors, including the Mukhabarat, the police and the ‘National’ Guard) and in parts of the North on the part of the Kurdish peshmerga, they come to be informed about the political leanings of the different families.
(continued…)
(…continued)
So, just imagine that you live in Maysan (controlled by the Sadrists) or in Nasiriya (contended by the Sadrists and the SCIRI/Badr), or in Basra (controlled by the SCIRI/Badr, the Sadrists, the Fadhila and the Hizbullah) and you wanted to vote ‘No’ to the ‘Constitution’ (of course, nobody there was suicidal enough as to openly campaign for a ‘No’ vote). Some armed gentlemen would pay you a visit, telling you how it would be very unwise on your part to go near any polling booth on referendum day. Imagine you’re prepared to be a martyr rather than give in. Those gentleman would kindly make you change your mind, telling you in detail what could happen to your daughter, or your mum, or your husband, in the case of defiance.
And, look, such ‘gentlemen’ do appear to be gangsters and thugs to those on the receiving end, but not in their own eyes! Because they are the Upholders of Most Noble Causes (in the case of the first ones, of the divinely ordained Beards of their Ayatollahs and mullahs, in the case of the latter, of Kurdish Nationhood).
So, when you say “Was there fraud? Probably. But was there enough to overturn an election? That is my question”, the answer is of course Yes! The ‘fraud’, here, is structural and permanent, systemic, and will be repeated at the December elections, when the Shiite fundamentalist parties will get an ample majority, and establish their Islamic Republic (and the two Kurdish ones confirm their de facto independent Iraqi Kurdistan). So, in the case of ‘liberated’ Iraq, your observation that “Democracy is not static” is quite lame. Nobody is going to “be free” through the present ‘political process’ (unless you believe that the Iranian ‘democratic model’ means ‘Freedom’…).
About Ninevah, the “everyone” meant everybody who cared to check the data about the elections of last January and to check the numbers concerned, knowing that those who had abstained in January all went and voted ‘No’ this time.
"‘patriotic resistance’? What exactly is their vision for Iraq after they remove the ‘foreign invaders’ from Iraqi soil? What kind of government do they plan on setting up and how?”.
They did have some political meetings and issued some interesting resolutions (see the latest ones downloadable from the ‘Free Iraq’ blog by Imad Khadduri). But, yes, on the political front the resistance still pays the legacy of 35 years of Saddam’s dictatorship (it is difficult to be able to debate and agree politically, when it was forbidden for such a long time).
As about the US troops, be they murderous fanatics or naïve kids (they comprise both kinds), outside of the US most people know as a fact that they are brilliantly dying not in order “to give the people of Iraq a chance to live in” freedom, but on behalf of two regional powers (namely, Israel and Iran) that just wanted to destroy Iraq, and managed to use the US Administration to their ends. Which was quite easy on their part, through Ledeen and Chalabi respectively, exploiting the strange mixture of mad readiness to homicidal violence, of ignorant arrogance and of extreme gullibility that characterises you critters up to your highest levels.
Still limping,
Pete S,
Thanks for your reply to my comments. You have given me much to ponder on. I am still of the mind that we did something in Iraq that God did not have a problem with...for we created Saddam and we then needed to go in and take him out again. That I will always stand by. As for all wars being evil...amen to that. But when you see the miracles of April 10th, 2003 that I spoke of or hear about them and their validity, it does make you see things in a different eye.
Israel is still the land of God's chosen. Are they all faithful to him? Not in a heartbeat. Some are and many have fallen away. But God does love us all, the ones who try to stay sinless and the ones who sin a storm up. He just can't abide by the sins and that is the eternal rub for us mere humans. We either give our will over to him and do the best to clean up our act and stop sinning to the best of our ability (which gets so much easier when infilled with the holy spirit)...or we ignore it all and spend our lives careening towards that fatal encounter with our Lord and Savior. None will escape the final judgement. None. I just know that all I can do while still on earth is to continue to give my will over to his will and to stand for the righteousness of his WORD and for justice and freedom in the world. and so I stand against beheaders and killers of children and liars and slanderers and people who try and make others out to be what they are not and against anyone who follows Satan and his proud walk...no matter if they know they follow him or not. I do realize that those of the muslim faith are as diverse a group as us christians and that there are good and bad muslims...just as there are good and bad Christians. That movie "Kingdom of Heaven" was just strewn with pearls of wisdom in regards to both Christianity and the Islamic faith. Whould that we the good of the Christians and the muslims can and do find common ground...and stand against Satan wherever he shows his influence.
@ PeteS, 11.07.05 - 5:19 pm.
Your Holiness Peter (the II, one presumes),
You got already the best and sharpest answer to your sanctimonious homily through the combined posts by our Randy G and by those fellas at Waronjihad; Randy representing American eschatology, the three Rats representing instead American scatology; but the two American approaches are convergent, aren’t they?
Incidentally, I do hope that you realise (but one wouldn’t understand that, from the tenor of your answer to him) that if our Randy is a ‘Catholic’, then both you and me are Hindus…
Anyway, first things first. The parents of the last Palestinian child murdered by the Israelis, who yesterday donated his organs for transplant to six Israeli patients, are, no doubt, much better Christian Catholic and much more charitable than I am (even though, AFAIK, they are actually Muslim. And, Holy Father Peadarín, since double standards have some relevance to our discussion, do please note how we have not been deluged, in this case, by US posters pointing at that incident; strange, ain’t it? Especially in such places as Little Green Footballs, Free Republican Forum, Iraq The Minion, or the site run by the three Rats mentioned above, not a single day the Lord made may pass without such momentous news as ‘Man caught for peeing in the public park: he was a MUSLIM!’).
And, yes, I do not come across as very charitable (especially towards some transoceanic critters); and, yes, I know that you might quote St. Paul about charity being the most important thing.
But you seem to completely forget that there is a thing called ‘justice’ (I wonder if you ever heard of it) and another called ‘truth’, and that they are quite important as well.
If you forget about them, then I’m afraid that your apparent ‘charity’ gets null and void… And those who keep silent in front of the injustice done to others are NOT charitable at all. “However, two years is a bit long for ‘temporary hot-under-the-collarness’”, you wrote; nay, Most Seraphic Highness Pete, if the injustice goes on, a Catholic (well, any man, actually) should keep being ‘hot under the collar’. If one does not, maybe his/her moral fibre is a bit faulty…
I was not mistaken about your double standards, Your Holiness Peter: when did it happen, for instance, that you pointed to the possibility that the US forces in Iraq might have been driven by some ‘mad-bastard-hood’ (like you did for the Iraqis opposing the occupation)? Go and watch the RAI documentary about the US war crimes in Fallujah: they did them, and then lied about it; mad-bastard-hood anybody?
And, anyway, about your third point, I do not comment on Iraqi blogs because I’m a Catholic: I comment because I’m a man. That I’m a Catholic came out quite incidentally months ago, because of the delirious statements of our Randy G. I was (and still am – think of it, before recognising our loony Randy as a fellow ‘Catholic’) afraid that some sectarian madman from the Iraqi Muslim side could use them as a justification for attacking Iraqi Christians (who are Catholic in their majority). I do hope that such fanatics do not read English.
(continued…)
(…continued)
As for the Iraqi Christians, some of them are engaged in the patriotic resistance (yes, Randy, that is the case); and when they manage to kill American soldiers, first they rejoice (yes, Pete, they ‘revel in their deaths’) and thank the Lord, and only later they pray for their souls. First things first…
And, Pete, when last year in February and in March six American preachers who were trying to ‘convert’ the Iraqis to the same brand of sectarian & mindless ‘American Christianity’ of our Randy G got killed by the insurgents, all Iraqi Christians (including those who were politically in favour of the US occupation) thanked the Lord, and this was told me by an Iraqi Christian (Catholic) who was there (and who, incidentally, was then politically in favour of the occupation). As an Irishman, I’m quite sure you understand that this sort of evil US soupers, vermin that tries to buy your soul, are not welcome (to use a considerable understatement) to the Christian Churches of Iraq, most of which have been there for the past two thousand years…
“some of the people who talked about ‘turning the middle east into glass’ etc. were fools, no more to be reasoned with than the local village idiot. Others were just temporarily hot under the collar”.
No, Pete, you are being rather disingenuous about it. Some were, but most were not. Ever had a peep at the Iraq The Minion comments pages? Or at any US political forums? And, anyway, occasionally I have a look at Italian and Irish forums and blogs: how is it that you don’t find there such an incredible abundance of your ‘local village idiots’? Any idea?
“Are you really asking why I wasn't utterly opposed to the war in Iraq, as you are? I've been trying all along to understand how Catholic moral teaching should be applied to the situation. I'd be the first to admit I'm not sure of the answer”.
Yes, let’s take the bull by the horns, dear Pete. Being a human being (not necessarily a Catholic) is more than enough in order to know that, since 1945, any war of aggression or ‘pre-emptive war’ (LOL! Nice name, like the ‘collateral damages’, etc. etc.!) is widely regarded as immoral and forbidden. Add the grotesque and Hitleresque lies that anybody minimally informed about the situation knew for what they were, and that seems to be more than enough for any human being outside of Iraq to conclude that this US war was unjust, and an abomination (in Iraq, to the contrary, most just hoped in the end of the dictatorship and of the sanctions, having no idea of what would be, instead, the dreadful result). And now it’s more than two years and a half later, and most people outside the US know what tragedy has been happening in Iraq (‘Fweedom & Democwacy’ me ass)… Your trying, instead, “to understand how Catholic moral teaching should be applied to the situation” (remaining “not sure of the answer” as an obvious result), does recall, Pete (I’m very sorry about it), the most disreputable activities of the allergenic spadefoot toads as described in the article you brought to our attention…
(continued…)
(…continued)
As for the Apes “stuff”, you know very well, dear Pete, that it is not my invention. I’d love to take the credit, but I cannot: in most countries outside the US, in their many different languages, the Americans are very often referred to as, precisely, ‘apes’ and ‘monkeys’ (and not, say, ‘rhinoceros’ or something else). And you should (but they should even more) wonder why (and you, Pete, do indeed know the why, don’t you?). In a European island you might have visited, for instance, once I had the bad idea of meeting an American PhD student at my local, telling my native pals beforehand that this was not an American like most, but rather a ‘European intellectual’ type. The guy came, and did something most objectionable according to local standards, and unconceivable on the part of somebody who had been living there for about a year. For a couple of weeks after that, according to their custom, the natives made fun of me: “An’ ye swore to us tis was not an ape, X… Next time ye wanna bring along such a ‘European intellectual’, ye kin git one straight from Phoenix Park!” (the local zoo).
Of course, usually people across the world don’t welcome Americans calling them apes or monkeys; that would be very impolite and against all manners! And, besides, it wouldn’t be good for US investments and tourism! So our poor Americans have no clue about how most foreigners see them. In those situations where Americans instead get openly called like that, like once in Vietnam and today in Iraq, that’s the very least of the things thrown at them they have to worry about…
Now, Pete, I’m actually doing a favour to your US friends by revealing this little open secret; maybe the most intelligent among them might start to wonder why people all across the world think of them as apes and monkeys… Is it because ‘them are all eeeevil’, or because ‘they envy us our fweedom’? Hardly likely…
“What distinction are you making between yourself, who is happy to see ‘vengeance’ wreaked on U.S. troops, and, let's say, an American who wants to lash out at anything that moves in the middle east because of 9/11?”.
Dear Pete, if you truly are unable to see the basic MORAL difference, then I truly cannot help you…
“Which bit of your Catholic morality are you drawing on there?”.
Not so much my Catholic morality (apart from the sense of justice, which is central to it, dear Pete, in case you forgot…), but common human nature!
Oh so cruel of me, you say, to rejoice because nearly 2,060 US soldiers, who had laid waste to, and invaded another country, and who had no more right to be there than the Nazi soldiers had in, say, Poland during WW2, have been finally sent to the place where the wicked cease to give trouble!
If there is an evil bully who has been terrorising the neighbourhood for decades, committing unspeakable actions, and then he gets his due, who wouldn’t be happy?
(continued…)
@ PeteS, 11.07.05 - 5:19 pm.
(…continued)
“the obvious - that people getting killed in a war is an evil no matter who gets killed or does the killing?”
Well, Pete, this is quite obvious in ‘spiritual’ terms. In practical and more mundane – or historical - terms, you can either be an absolute abstract pacifist, or you have to morally choose your side, choosing the lesser evil; and then you have to side with your own. In this unfortunately very concrete situation, the only way the US public is going to wake up, and to compel its Government to dump this crazy and dangerous global adventure (driven by the fanatical plans of the Neo-Cons), is through a steady increase in the number of their soldiers coming home in star’n’striped boxes. The Iraqi patriots, by killing more and more US troops, are saving the whole world from worse horrors. And you know very well that unfortunately that is the only thing that matters to the Americans, apart from a very small moral minority of people like the valiant Susan/Dancewater; till the dead are of ‘the others’, civilians included, they cannot give a damn. Then the flag-waving American mommas start getting their kids back home in said boxes, or with some limbs missing, and then, and only then, they start to care and to get reasonable, and vaguely …human. So the US go home, and keep relatively quiet for a generation or so; and then, unfortunately, they start giving trouble again.
“I'll refuse to get down off the soap box on this one”.
Peadarín, you are already slipping down; your soap box was slippery with that special Irish Catholic soap, what’s the brand, ah, oh, ‘Hypocrisy’ (our American friends are unable to spell it, most of them, because they are unable to recognise it in themselves… and innocently so! ).
Vote in favour
Dictatorship should be removed from any country.
Noe remove it from pakistan
regards
Ravish Kumar
http://tradealaon.com
Testing, is this working today?
I just hate that when a comments section bombs out. I have to start all over again.
Italian,
You're welcome. I thought the prayer was rather nice.
I must say that post you wrote was well thought out and presented the facts as you see them, minus most of the name-calling you indulged in, in the past.
I watched your video. It was a very slick presentation. They showed some real war footage from a decades old war as an intro to their white phospherous and napalm(or it's clone)
usage accusations with current war footage and intermixed innuendo and rumors for good filler. The one thing I didn't see was "the other sides" story. But maybe that isn't necessary when selling "journalism" in Italy. The killing of civilians in Iraq has most certainly happened. It is a war and in war civilians are the ones who suffer.
Here is an excerpt from an article regarding recent fighting in Husaybah.
"The U.S. military reported Wednesday that some Iraqi civilians were killed in Husaybah when a U.S. jet attacked a house used by insurgents last Monday, not realizing noncombatants were also inside.
A Marine statement quoted a local Iraqi as saying insurgents forced their way into the home, killed two residents and then locked remaining family members in a room.
"The group then used the home to launch an attack against Iraqi and U.S. forces clearing the area," the statement said. "Subsequently, the house was destroyed by coalition aircraft."
Five bodies were found in the rubble, the statement added. A man and a young girl were rescued and evacuated for medical treatment."
Who is at fault? The snake that bites or the one who pokes the snake?
"But, yes, on the political front the resistance still pays the legacy of 35 years of Saddam’s dictatorship (it is difficult to be able to debate and agree politically, when it was forbidden for such a long time)."
And it would not be difficult to hold clean and fair elections without coercion after learning such behavior in "35 years of Saddam’s dictatorship"?
"The ‘fraud’, here, is structural and permanent, systemic, and will be repeated at the December elections,"
"So, in the case of ‘liberated’ Iraq, your observation that “Democracy is not static” is quite lame."
So sad. Your implication being that the Iraqis really can't change. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I don't believe that is the case. They aren't stupid, Italian. There are alot of people in Iraq, yes including Shiites, who do not believe in a government patterned on Iran. They have been free of Saddam for a little over 2 and a half years. Not much time in the scheme of things. They have a ways to go. Give them a chance.
"The parents of the last Palestinian child murdered by the Israelis, who yesterday donated his organs for transplant to six Israeli patients, are, no doubt, much better Christian Catholic and much more charitable than I am"
It is people like this that give me hope for the world.
"in most countries outside the US, in their many different languages, the Americans are very often referred to as, precisely, ‘apes’ and ‘monkeys’"
Unlike these. Whether true or not.
"Still limping"
I've heard elevation works too. But you have to be careful that the blood doesn't all rush to your head. It can make thought processes even more muddled than they already are.
Drat, I knew I'd forget something. Just wanted to say that the homepage thing was rather clever. Gotta get in as many none too subtle digs as you can! Right?
here the heart of online trading it's tradeAloan.com
try it now ...
Italian 11.09.05 - 5:24 am-7:54 pm, that is quite an extensive amount if hand-waving you engaged in there. If you want to appeal to Scripture, Tradition, or Magisterial teaching to demonstrate the rightness of revelling in the deaths of U.S. soldiers I am all ears (but you didn't). Given that you are an intelligent bloke, I will assume its wrong and you know its wrong.
those who keep silent in front of the injustice done to others are NOT charitable at all.
Yeah. (I notice when I don't keep silent its a "sanctimonious homily"?). You know that bit in your bible where Jonah says: "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned, you four-handed beasts who are going to die and good riddance to you" ... how do the Ninevites react in your version?
Incidentally, I do hope that you realise (but one wouldn’t understand that, from the tenor of your answer to him) that if our Randy is a ‘Catholic’, then both you and me are Hindus
He mentioned he was a "Christian first and a Catholic second".
I do not comment on Iraqi blogs because I’m a Catholic: I comment because I’m a man.
Are you a "Catholic second" too? Happy Diwali.
As for the Apes stuff, you know very well, dear Pete, that it is not my invention.
On the contrary, I have never ever encountered it except from you (ok ... and these low-paid programmners).
If there is an evil bully who has been terrorising the neighbourhood for decades, committing unspeakable actions, and then he gets his due, who wouldn’t be happy?
Should one be happy because the oppression is lifted or because the bully is dead?
[people getting killed in a war is an evil no matter who gets killed or does the killing]
Well, Pete, this is quite obvious in ‘spiritual’ terms.
Then it is equally obviously wrong to rejoice over evil.
An Italian,
You said "As for the Iraqi Christians, some of them are engaged in the patriotic resistance (yes, Randy, that is the case); and when they manage to kill American soldiers, first they rejoice (yes, Pete, they ‘revel in their deaths’) and thank the Lord, and only later they pray for their souls."
Sorry to inform you but to be a christian means that you need to be Christlike and follow his teachings. I seriously doubt if you could find even two Iraqi Christians that are involved with supporting the Baathists or Al Zarqawi's deadly bombaholics. Most Iraqis are fed up with all of the killings. You want to create some sort of altered "Iraqi Christian Militia" who want to kill Americans (fellow christians for the most part) then go right ahead. But don't expect any of us to take you seriously.
I did look at your link to the Falluja and White Phosphorous misuse that you posted...not sure why they want to tie it in with the Dresden, Germany bombings...but hey...when you have leftist wierdos trying to find conspiracies galore...hey...any link to any atreocity will work. As our President has said, we deny using that weapon in Falluja. I think your italian newspapers are still pissed off about the journalist getting killed when his car approached a US military checkpoint at excessive speed (a tragic event, no doubt...but not one that was premeditated).
And I am still a Roman Catholic...I have even been invited to join the parish council. Sorry if you just can't grasp the significance.
An Italian,
For the record...any references I make to my religion or to teachings of Christians are not intended to be twisted around by any in Iraq, nor do I believe for a millisecond that they might incite someone to make any violent moves towards Iraqi Christians. And as you have observed...they are warriors anyway (NOT).
I an fully aware that Zeyad is a secular Iraqi who is from the sunni group. In reading his blog posts I am confident that he grasps why we did enter Iraq and that he gets that I as well (as a commentor) want to see a new Iraqi government rise up like a phoenix to reclaim the pride that is unique to Iraq. Though there has been such a history of warfare and feuds among the many Iraqi groups, I think I share the belief with Zeyad and the vast majority of Iraqis that there is hope for a peaceful future in which Iraq will become stable and it's citizens will get back to a normal life. And I think that he and the majority know that that will never happen if they capitulate to either the Baathists "insurrectionists" or al Zarqawi. And so they should all work towards finding that common ground that will allow the pride of being an Iraqi overshadow the pride of being of some particular sect or clan. For only in finding the common path to achieve a peace will they all come to know peace. And in my mentioning of my faith, I am never trying to suggest to anyone that they should think of switching religions. God above will make that desire be kindled in any he so choses...none of us humans can really do that. No. I think that there is wisdom in each religion and if we can all find the common ground that each one has that can be shared, then things will get better. For instance...Jesus said that one must love one's neighbor and that that was one of the main tenants of Christianity. Seems good advice and if heeded, it would go a long way towards ending strife. And no one has to become a christian to get it or practice it. It is just really good advice. So enough of your trying to use my faith to make me out to be something I am not or someone who should not speak up when I think I can offer something.
Bit by bit, there is more light at the end of the tunnel. For that I am grateful.
An Italian,
LOL...you crack me up...you really said..."And, Pete, when last year in February and in March six American preachers who were trying to ‘convert’ the Iraqis to the same brand of sectarian & mindless ‘American Christianity’ of our Randy G "? You think that? You know something I don't know? You ever read the bible? Or is being a catholic mean that there is some other sort of text that you are to follow? This nonsense is a hoot.
American Christianity? How about just plain old "Christianity"?
An Itallian...I am emailing the pope tonight because satan has demons encased in your frontal lobe. Sad to see your ramblings. Sad indeed. And war does suck...in case you didn't know that I understand that as well. And someday I hope you could introduce me to a "Neo-con"...a real live one so I can ask him what he thinks of the world. Dillusional or possessed? What be ye? Hmmmmm
RandyG --
I have seen with my own eyes the clip showing clusters of WP being shot into the city. Your President, as if you had to be reminded, is a pathological LIAR. And if he denied the use of WP as a weapon in Fallujah, he JUST LIED AGAIN.
An Italian - Hi! In form as per usual, I see.
@ Poor Randy G (11.08.05 - 1:17 am to 11.11.05 - 12:49 am), and @ All.
“then you go and act as if Zeyad and the other Iraqi bloggers”, “our Iraqi hosts”.
Sorry, Randy, here we have just ONE Iraqi host, and he is Zeyad, and nobody else. If you were able to read (instead of being deaf and dumb), you would have read his posts (including the last before this one, about what your beloved Shiite militias were doing in Basra just before the establishment of THEIR Government in April; and since then they have been doing much worse).
“the one who is halucinating [sic! = ‘hallucinating’]...”.
Poor Randy, as everybody can see by what you write, you are hallucinating big time.
“We came to remove him and we did”.
Who gave you the right to do that? Mickey Mouse? Or the ‘divine’ principle of ‘might is right’?
“if you read Zarqawi's letter”.
Poor Randy, and you do believe in the fictitious ‘Zarqawi letters’? Not even your fellow warmongers believe in them anymore. They come one dime a dozen, like the ‘Zarqawi’s top aides’ who ‘get caught’ every single day…
You aren’t even able to spell your own language, but you can evaluate the reliability of some text written in Arabic, don’t you? All old readers of Zeyad’s blog for sure remember when, out of your asinine but arrogant ignorance, you blasphemed the Arabic name of the Lord.
“the US is staying till we make sure the new government is up and stablized [sic! = ‘stabilized’. Unless you meant ‘thrown into the stables’: and in that case Zeyad would surely appreciate your intention…]”.
The US are staying till 1) the Iranian Government wants them to stay, as an insurance policy against aggression and as a needed prop to their satellite Islamic Republic in Iraq (i.e., up to January 2009 ); or, instead, 2) because of the increasing losses the American population gets angry at the moronic enterprise, and compels your Administration to a speedy withdrawal.
“the Shia are taking their rightful place as the majority of Iraqi citizens and the ones who...by the vote [and above all by murder and intimidation, Randy dear]... can best affect their own future and the future of the new Iraqi government”.
Randy, oh genius, it is not “the Shia”, but the fundamentalist Shiite religious parties allied to Iran, who want to impose an Islamic Republic on every Iraqi (and many Shiites do not relish the idea). Do you think our Zeyad agrees with you about the desirability of this development?
“there are just too many who read these blogs who know the truth to ever think that even some will buy into your concoctions and outright lies”.
If the ‘truth’ about the present situation in Iraq were your ignorant rants, by now even in the US only the severely mentally retarded share it. And, please, do point out just ONE “outright lie” (i.e., a ‘lie’ that all readers can immediately check, not something based on your doped beliefs) on my part…
“I am a Christian first...then a Catholic”.
Thanks God for small mercies.
But you are not a ‘Christian’; you (and your Ape in Chief) are instead ‘American Christianists’.
(continued…)
(…continued)
‘American Christianism’ is a cult (a death cult, some would argue) that has as little to do with mainstream “plain old Christianity” as the ‘Bin Laden’ one has to do with mainstream Islam. Yes, both can claim some generic link with some marginal and rather extreme brands of mainstream Christianity and Islam, respectively (‘American Christianism’ with the radical Calvinism of the XVI & XVII centuries and with some later ‘ecstatic’ sects, like the Pentecostal Baptists; ‘Bin Ladenism’ with the Wahabi/Deobandi school).
BTW, as far as your American English spelling is concerned, your “dillusional” should be ‘delusional’; “caibler” should be ‘caliber’; “Israelies” should be ‘Israelis’; “opress” should be ‘oppress’; “want’s” should be ‘wants’ (3rd person singular); “burdon” should be ‘burden’; “whould” should be ‘would’; “atreocity” should be ‘atrocity’; “choses” should be ‘chooses’; etc. etc. etc.
Yes, I know that it is quite impolite and uncharitable of me to remark on this, but you should become aware of your obvious cultural limits.
“We were never Imperialists and never will be. That is one stupid commentary that we usually expect to read from the evil enemy. We have never taken over another country and we are not about to now”.
Randy dear, I know that your schooling was poor, but… Apart from most of the States themselves (what about the Native Americans?), didn’t you “take over” more than half of Mexico (1836-53) ? Did the US give it back to the Mexicans, ever? And what about Guam and Puerto Rico? And didn’t you slightly overstay your welcome (189 in the Philippines?… It seems you are big time into “outright LIES” (aren’t you?).
“But we did come to drain the swamps of teachings of hatred towards us and towards the Israelies and towards any who value freedom. And we came to plant the seed of freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan”.
Are you crazy or what? (yes, I know you unfortunately are). That’s called a WAR OF AGGRESSION, and it’s IMMORAL.
“your satan's hatred towards fellow Christians”.
Again, poor deluded Randy, you (& those like you) are NOT “fellow Christians” to me (or to most Christians in the world). You are just a bunch of ‘American Christianists’, a mad and fanatical sect, the precise equivalent of ‘Bid Laden’ & ‘Zarqawi’.
“the story of dissidents being lowered alive into giant paper shredders by Saddam's sons comes to my mind as an example”.
Poor moronic Randy, this is just an “OUTRIGHT LIE”, shown to be such already two years ago. The story of Saddam’s shredder was just a propaganda invention (like the killing of Kuwaiti babies in incubators back in 1990, like the ‘rescue’ of Jessica Lynch, like the imaginary ‘rape’ of prostitute Hanna, like the WMDs). BTW, you claim you’re a biologist, right? You possibly should know that you cannot put a man into a “giant paper shredder” without it stopping immediately…
“God will grant an army of righteous warriors the job of ridding the earth of the evil ones. And so we have this conflict”.
I imagine your most ineffectual critic PeteS will have to see the absolute identity between ‘American Christianism’ and ‘Bin Ladenism’ here…
(continued…)
(…continued)
“the book ‘A Table in the Presence’ By Carey H. Cash, […] four legions of angels”, etc.
Poor Randy, we know you are deaf and not quite there (maybe too many ‘acids’ – LSD - when you were a kid), but we (including our PeteS) already answered to this at length in the past. Why didn’t you listen?
If any Iraqi patriot is reading these comments page, I suggest that they get that book and spread through all Arabic news channels what our Randy says (with the title ‘Baloney the Americans believe’); it will be an effective counter to that most unfortunate blunder of the ‘giant spiders of Fallujah’.
“I seriously doubt if you could find even two Iraqi Christians that are involved with supporting the Baathists or Al Zarqawi’s deadly bombaholics”.
You won’t find ANY Iraqi Christians supporting ‘Zarqawi the Ghost’, but you’ll find some supporting the Iraqi patriotic, non-sectarian resistance against the beastly and mindless US invaders and their ‘puppets of convenience’.
What’s that, Randy, invading countries is “Christ-like” in your “Whom would Jesus kill” sort of satanic ‘Christianism’, while resisting the invaders is not?
“As our President has said, we deny using that weapon in Falluja”.
Your own military have by now admitted it (white phosphorus, and napalm): ergo, your President is a LIAR, like Bruno remarked. Any questions?
And, Randy, do please learn to listen to what people answer to your arguments. That would prevent you from posting over and over again ludicrous things that have already been debunked (like the ‘human shredder’ and the ‘miracles of 10 April 2003’, LOL!).
And again, dear Randy, do please show me just ONE “outright lie” on my part.
Being there (quite properly!) an anti-spam filter, so that one cannot post more than three times in a row, I wasn’t able to answer to Lynnette’s and to PeteS’ posts (I hope to do it tomorrow).
In the meanwhile, ‘benvenuto, Bruno!’.
An Italian,
You said "And again, dear Randy, do please show me just ONE “outright lie” on my part."
Your lie that the "insurrectionists" (known as terrorists by all freedom loving peoples) are actually patriots of Iraq would be the best place to start. You are on some sort of parrallel planet, me bucko. Way out there, man...way out there. Try reading about any of the hundreds of bombings of innocent citizens of Iraq by this murderous and power hungry bunch of evil types and then make them out to be patriots. You are so busted.
And April 10th happened...sorry to inform you on your parrallel planet.
An Italian,
You said "We have never taken over another country and we are not about to now”.
But what about Ethiopia?...Oh yeah...I forgot...they defeated your Goose stepping Mousollini and his fascist forces with spears and arrows. Yeah...you guys are so tough. Course if I were to go back to the days of Rome...well...you did take over just about every nation in the western hemisphere. There is a new series on HBO in AMerica cronicling the Roman empire...lots of sinful, lustful debauchery going on there. Oh yeah...your country is just full of a saintly past.
Go read Bush's latest speech...he is right on and you, my friend, are all wet.
An Italian,
You said I said..."“God will grant an army of righteous warriors the job of ridding the earth of the evil ones. And so we have this conflict”."
Sorry...I never said that. I know that God is involved over in Iraq but as for righteous warriors...well...you slander me with that comment. Some of our soldiers are Christians...some are jews...some are Muslims...some are hindu's...some are secular. So as for an army of righteous warriors...that sounds more like a Al Zarqawi line. I keep praying that God would shower some discernment down upon you...but so far He has chosen not to...maybe that is because Satan has your ear right now. You think that killers of children are "patriots"...you are on that parrallel planet again. And sorry for my spelling but there is no spell check and it's late and I am sorry if my misspelling offends you.
An Italian...
Oops...looks like I quoted one of my lines (about taking over any other country) and thought it was your line. It's late and though I do enjoy sparring with you, I will wait till I am rested again before continuing. You give me so many laughs with your "It's been debunked" and disproven. Yeah? By whom? Al Zarqawi? Go get the book (A Table in the Presence" and read it for yourself and stop with the "it didn't happen"...for it did and every soldier in that convoy knows it and no "It didn't happen" will ever snuff out the truth. That's the trouble with you slanderers...so busy spreading lies that eventually you loose sight of what the real truth is and find entry onto that parrallel planet. So nighty night. I'll come back to play tomorrow. Meanwhile, read Bush's speech...its on most of the other blogs and it is real and it is what we are all about. God Bless a free and soveriegn Iraq nation and God bless it's innocent people.
@ Lynnette in Minnesota, 11.10.05 - 11:03 am & 12:01 pm.
The point of the RAI video, dear Lynnette, was not the US “killing of civilians in Iraq”. Outside the US of America, everybody knows that you have been killing plenty of Iraqi civilians. The point was that the napalm ‘clone’ and white phosphorus were INDEED used last November in Fallujah, something that your officials – and even more vehemently US warmongers in these blogs - have kept denying ever since (but, surprise, an article from a US military paper admitted that much).
“It is a war and in war civilians are the ones who suffer”.
No, Lynnette: it is not considered a “war” by any State or international organisation (UN included), not even, at least formally, by the US Government. The war ended the 1st of May 2003. It is an occupation; and, according to the Geneva Conventions, the occupiers are not supposed to kill ANY civilians, nor to damage their properties.
The Husaybah example is a very good one of what is NOT tolerated on the part of an occupying power by the international conventions. Some ‘insurgents’ take over a house, allegedly killing two residents; what does anybody in charge of law & order do, according to the Geneva Conventions? They send forces to apprehend or kill the ‘insurgents’, taking care that the ‘hostages’ are saved. What do the US do, instead? They just destroy the house from the air, killing the civilians as well! You cannot even image how such news are taken in any place outside the US.
“Who is at fault? The snake that bites or the one who pokes the snake?”.
And who is the “snake” in Iraq, sweet Lynnette? Is the Eyrakian Army, by any chance, occupying the US after a war of aggression, and after having burnt alive the people of Milwakee, Syracuse, and a dozen other cities and towns? Who’s the biting ‘snake’ in Iraq?
For sure this American snake has to be poked.
“There are a lot of people in Iraq, yes including Shiites, who do not believe in a government patterned on Iran. They have been free of Saddam for a little over 2 and a half years. Not much time in the scheme of things. They have a ways to go. Give them a chance”.
Well, Lynnette, it has not much to do with the Iraqis. Your occupation created the basis for the Shiite fundamentalist parties (allied to Iraq) to take control of most parts of Iraq. The US were searching for local forces to fight the ‘insurgents’, and the Shiite militias filled the bill.
Now they are entrenched in Government, and they won’t let go; the elections are irrelevant. The Iraqis like Zeyad who will care to vote in December will vote for the secular Allawi list (with al-Yawer, the Communist Party and Pachachi), keeping their noses shut about some of the candidates, but to no avail whatsoever.
(continued…)
(…continued)
Apart from electoral fraud and intimidation, every day some secular, educated Iraqis are found dead, handcuffed, and often with the signs of horrible tortures (electric drills etc.; like in Iran, where the tortures of the Savak of the Shah got re-hired by the Vevak of the Ayatollahs, Saddam’s torturers have been re-employed by the Shiite militias/‘official’ Iraqi forces). They had been abducted by policemen or ‘national guard’, i.e. the moonlighting Shiite militias. Yesterday it was 27 corpses, near Qut. Don’t you get this sort of news in America? Once the powers that be have established their Islamic Republic, the (unelected) Hawza will decide, like in Iran, which candidates are ‘godly’, and which are ‘ungodly’ or not ‘godly’ enough… hail ‘freedom & democracy’!
But I do give the Iraqis a chance: the patriotic resistance may still win, through the armed struggle. And, anyway, whoever will win (the Iranians, with the Islamic Republic; the Israelis, with a non-State Iraq divided into no end of warring fiefdoms; or the Resistance, with a secular, unified, independent Iraq), all the world by now know who are already the losers: the United States of America.
A war on behalf of Israel and Iran. Are your thousand of dead soldiers worth it? For a small minority of American fanatics and halfwits, here represented by this poor retard Randy G (the critter attributes to me what he himself wrote!!!), if they had died only on behalf of Israel, that would have been OK! But I imagine that to loose some thousand soldiers on behalf of Iran, as it is precisely happening, should not make many Americans happy… wasn’t Iran part of the ‘Axis of Evil’?
Your answer to mine “in most countries outside the US, in their many different languages, the Americans are very often referred to as, precisely, ‘apes’ and ‘monkeys’” was so very predictable, that I had indeed predicted it: “them are all eeeevil”. Wouldn’t it be a bit more intelligent to wonder why such image is so widespread, dear Lynnette? You know, I put as my homepage a portrait of a young female specimen of Americopithecus Bellicus (the All American Girl for the Year 2004) just because, if I had put instead an elder male specimen of the species (i.e. your Ape in Chief), I was afraid that you would misunderstand my meaning… after all, you voted him in!
@ PeteS, 11.10.05 - 10:25 pm.
Your Holiness Pete, there are many levels in reality. Among them, there is the ‘vertical’ dimension, and there is this valley of tears. If one is a ‘fundamentalist’, all the levels conflate into one. The ‘fundamentalist’ can choose to operate in this world politically, applying his religious creed (as he sees it) to mundane realities. So have done too many fanatics in the past. Now, not being a fundamentalist (differently, I suspect, from you), I do tend, instead, to keep the levels or spheres of reality, or activity, well separated. I do not think that any good ever came from mixing one’s being a Catholic (or a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Jew) with political realities; and this regardless of the means the fundamentalist uses, holy war or politicking (yes, of course the Fundie out for holy war, like our idiotic Randy, is much worse than the ‘peaceful’ one, like I suppose you to be).
This does not mean that the non-fundamentalist is a "Catholic second"; as a – simply – Catholic, he’s a ‘Catholic first’ in the proper sphere, the one regarding the ‘vertical’ dimension and his personal life. When confronted with unpleasant political realities, a believer has got to make one’s own moral judgements. Of course they are going to be influenced by his faith, hopefully (well, Grand Ayatollah Pete, what about that great part of the European Catholic clergy that most unfortunately sided with Nazi-Fascism during WW2, or were not against it? An example to follow as Tradition & Magisterium? Didn’t they perceive that such an ideology was, quite simply and quite openly, satanic and evil? Maybe you are following in their steps…). To try and comment on the Iraqi war according to Catholic ‘moral theology’ is, in my opinion, absolutely unsound (and, again, the improper attempt to apply some very abstract “Catholic moral teaching” to the situation is, like your brilliantly confused results showed, just a form of moral masturbation).
Again, I do not comment on Iraqi blogs as ‘a Catholic’ (that only you have the pretence to do, Holy Father Peter II). That I happen to be a Catholic just came out because of the incredible things this crazy Randy says, which aren’t Catholic in any way or form, be the guy ‘Catholic first’ or ‘Catholic second’. Apart from that, the blog of an agnostic Muslim like Zeyad, living in a country rent apart by enemies, is not the proper place to discuss theology, don’t you think?
“If you want to appeal to Scripture, Tradition, or Magisterial teaching to demonstrate the rightness of revelling in the deaths of U.S. soldiers I am all ears”.
I never wanted to do anything of the kind, since the thing does not apply at all. As for Scripture, Your Seraphic Eminence Pete, I could address you to no end of parts of the Bible where one revels in the death of one’s (mundane) unjust enemies (not necessarily ‘the enemies of God’). So what? There is an unjust occupation and a war going on, in case you didn’t notice…
(continued…)
(…continued)
“ ‘those who keep silent in front of the injustice done to others are NOT charitable at all’. ‘I notice when I don't keep silent it’s a sanctimonious homily?’.”
And what “injustice” was done by me, oh Peadarín a chara? To be happy that the members of an army unjustly wreaking a country after having invaded it get killed on a regular basis? That at least some of the bullies get they right deserts? And how is it that you always search for some excuse for the atrocities these US invaders are committing? And how often you do not ‘keep silent’ in front of them?
“how do the Ninevites react in your version?”
In my version, after having been very strongly admonished by Jonas, they do repent, abandon their evil ways, and make penance. Were the Lord to compel our American warmongers to do likewise! I would not object in the least...
“Should one be happy because the oppression is lifted or because the bully is dead?”.
Dear Chieftain of the Scribes & Pharisees Pete, because the oppression is lifted, of course. But the death of the US bullies in Iraq is indispensable for the oppression to be lifted, as everybody knows.
“Then it is equally obviously wrong to rejoice over evil”.
No, Pete: the losses taken by the US aggressors are an obvious moral good, because they speed up the end of the injustice (of course, not ‘the Good’; but we do live in this world, made imperfect through original sin; and if attacked by a bully, you have the right to defend yourself).
“ ‘As for the Apes stuff, you know very well, dear Pete, that it is not my invention’. ‘On the contrary, I have never ever encountered it except from you’ ”.
Careful, Peadarín: your nose is growing…
[‘Hush, shush, Oytalian! Pppsssttt…’ ‘What d’ye mean, Pete, if I luve Ireland? Yes I do. What, Pete… ye tell me I betrayed de Land?’ ‘Oytalian, de Oyrish industry an’ tourism! Yer wee open secret ain’t dat good fer dem!’ ‘Oh sh**e, ye’r roight, Pete! But dere’s nutin we kin do naw! De cat is out de bag!’ ‘No dere is… just copyroight de ting, Oytalian, ’n’denoy anybody else in de world calls dem beasties ‘apes’n’monkeys’!’ ‘Naw, Pete, not even me kin believe dem critters to be so stupid as to swallow dis…’ ‘Trust me, Oytalian, I know dem animals better dan ye do… Dem Americans just luve to believe evvrrybody in de world just luves dem, ’cept de evil Oytalian!’ ‘Ok, Pete, but what if dem billions o’people from all around de world den sue me fer a-stealing de copyroight? An’ dem a-going to testifoy dat dey called dem Americans loike dat when I was still sucklin’ me Ma’s milk…’ ‘Don’t ye worry, Oytalian, cause de Ministry o’Trade ’n’ Bord Fáilte are gonna pay yer lawyers!’]
… and please wash yourself from that special brand of Irish soap… it gives out an awful stench!
An Italian,
El retardo Randy here. You said " The US were searching for local forces to fight the ‘insurgents’, and the Shiite militias filled the bill.
Now they are entrenched in Government, and they won’t let go; the elections are irrelevant. The Iraqis like Zeyad who will care to vote in December will vote for the secular Allawi list (with al-Yawer, the Communist Party and Pachachi), keeping their noses shut about some of the candidates, but to no avail whatsoever."
What you don't seem to get is that the dynamics of this struggle in Iraq is not one that we Americans are totally co0nfortable with. None of us really want to see Iran annex Iraq. As a matter of fact, that is why our illustrious CIA backed a young Saddam many moons ago...but who would or could have suspected that he would grow to become so depraved with his power and quest for more. We did the right thing in taking him out and the initial surge of happiness in Iraq after his forces fell told that story. Unfortunately we did not take the next step, which would have been to fill the political void and begin policing the country until a new government could be erected. That was our fault. And it has lead to much of the miseries since then.
But all the finger pointing in the world will not solve the Problem. I as well wish that a new secular government can be created in the upcoming elections. For Zeyad's and Alaa's and Omar's and Mohammed's sake and for all of Iraq's sake. You can go on and on about how evil Bush was or is...but that does not solve the problem that exists today. Yes, we also get the reports of Sadr's army and yes, many of us have followed his pontificating and murderous ways and many of us have previously posted that they should just take him out. I said that a year ago. But that hasn't happened.
I really don't care if you don't see the wisdom of trying to get a democracy to sprout where there was just fear and total abuse of power. It is a goal worth supporting. It still is. And I think that God above also wants to see it. Sorry if that bothers you, my fellow Catholic...but God is active in all of this and He knows just how evil the terrorists who blow up innocent people are and the Sadrist militia and the same for the Iranian fundamentalists who wish to grow their control of the people and the Sunni and their own fundamentalist desire to grow their own control of the people. Lots of bad guys. And then there are the majority of Iraqi's who just want peace and a chance to raise their children in peace. So how do we get there?
You are so big on criticism. Tell us all how this should go from now. I am saying that I want a secular government that represents all Iraqi groups to come to power. What do you want? Enough of the silly name calling and ape crap. Tell us how you see a way out for the people of Iraq. Here's a chance to be a hero. Tell us, An Italian. What would you have the Iraqis do?
El retardo Randy eating a banana
An Italian,
El retardo here again...you said???"(yes, of course the Fundie out for holy war, like our idiotic Randy"
Sorry Charlie, I never said anything aboutr a holy war. Never. Only said that in one particular battle, many of our solkdiers asked for divine protection by four leagues of angels against an enemy who was going to ambush them...and that is what they got. Simple basic truth. But it has nothing to do with a holy war. We never went to Iraq to convert anyone to any other religion than the one they had. Sorry if you don't grasp that. Again...our soldiers are secularists, Catholics, Eposcopalians, Baptists, Lutherans , Muslims, Jewish, methodists, prespeteryans (spelling), hundus and athiests and no one denomination holds any sway in how the army is run. Man...you are stupid if you can't grasp that basic fact!!!!
Italian, this is going way beyond off-topicness, but I'm really surprised! How can you be so misinformed?
It seems we have on the one hand the somewhat Evangelical-minded Catholic Randy G (btw Randy in answer to your question of 11.11.05 - 12:49 am: "You ever read the bible? Or is being a catholic mean that there is some other sort of text that you are to follow?" ... er, yes of course there is: try CCC 95), and on the other hand we have the secular Italian Catholic who wants to avoid confusing certain "dimensions" (sounds a bit Trekkie-like to me).
If its a choice between a position that tries to understand (however imperfectly) the will of God and act on it, and one that keeps God in His place making sure that the interior life never impinges on "reality", I think I know where I stand. I mean c'mon, really ... is there any point whatsoever to a religious faith that occupies a "sphere of reality" that is utterly disconnected from mundane experience? It's hard to imagine any more Pharasaical "moral masturbation" than that. Perhaps you belong to that school of thought perfected in the U.S. (in spite of, or perhaps because of, its more religious leanings compared to Europe) that says "practice your faith in peace my friend, as long as it never makes any difference to anything you ever do or say in public". This is a school of thought that has strayed from healthy pluralism to dogmatic secularism.
I do not think that any good ever came from mixing one’s being a Catholic ... with political realities
Then for 10 bonus points, tell me where this came from (hint - it's paragraph 1886 of a big book published during the JP2 pontificate and the first of its kind since Trent):
Society is essential to the fulfillment of the human vocation. To attain this aim, respect must be accorded to the just hierarchy of values, which "subordinates physical and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones:" Human society must primarily be considered something pertaining to the spiritual. Through it, in the bright light of truth, men should share their knowledge, be able to exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations, be inspired to seek spiritual values; mutually derive genuine pleasure from the beautiful, of whatever order it be; always be readily disposed to pass on to others the best of their own cultural heritage; and eagerly strive to make their own the spiritual achievements of others. These benefits not only influence, but at the same time give aim and scope to all that has bearing on cultural expressions, economic, and social institutions, political movements and forms, laws, and all other structures by which society is outwardly established and constantly developed.
(cont'd)
I will not waste too much time on you labelling me "fundamentalist" (LOL). I am sure you don't mean to associate me with American dispensationalist Protestantism, but are instead using the term in the usual pejorative sense of "anyone who takes religion more seriously than I deem appropriate". As for your dire warnings about the dangers of zealotry -- they don't even make any sense! Do you think a clergyman who sided with Nazism considered his moral theology too much or too little (or maybe not at all).
And so, oh Ayatollah of Apathy, when you say "a believer has got to make one’s own moral judgements" about "unpleasant political realities", what exactly do you mean? You say "they are going to be influenced by his faith, hopefully" (emphasis mine). Don't you know that a Catholic believer is absolutely required to inform himself fully about the Church's teaching on moral matters. (See the CCC article on moral conscience). So when you castigate me for "trying all along to understand how Catholic moral teaching should be applied to the situation", what exactly am I doing that you and I both are not required to do?
Apart from that, the blog of an agnostic Muslim like Zeyad, living in a country rent apart by enemies, is not the proper place to discuss theology, don’t you think?
No I don't, as it happens. I notice that George Bush's theology gets mentioned often enough whenever a bit of U.S.-bashing is in order. What did you think Christian Crusader's satire was all about?
In my version, after having been very strongly admonished by Jonas, they [the Ninevites] do repent, abandon their evil ways, and make penance. Were the Lord to compel our American warmongers to do likewise! I would not object in the least...
Of course the Lord didn't compel the Ninevites. They repented because of Jonah's message. My point, which I'm sure you did not miss, was that his art of persuasion did not involve an endless tirade of abuse.
(cont'd)
...the losses taken by the US aggressors are an obvious moral good, because they speed up the end of the injustice (of course, not ‘the Good’; but we do live in this world, made imperfect through original sin; and if attacked by a bully, you have the right to defend yourself).
I think you are hopelessly confused on this point. War is always a moral evil. That is why the late Pope declared that it "must always be considered a defeat: a defeat of reason and of humanity". In the same way, my killing someone in self-defence is an evil. It may be that I had absolutely no other option, in which case the evil is not imputed to me (i.e. I am not guilty of it), but that does not make the killing objectively good in itself -- it remains an objective evil. Coming back to my original point about U.S. troops: even if their cause was totally unjust it would still be an objective evil for them to be killed, and therefore not something to be celebrated. (Please tell me you "get" this).
Hush, shush, Oytalian!...
A hIodálach, leave the cheesy Oirish accents to Hollywood. Even Julia Roberts as Kitty in "Michael Collins" did better than that ... and that's saying something! I am doing my best to be accepted by my new neighbours in Wexford. Thank God I don't sound like that -- they'd kick the shit out of me 
And anyway, isn't it more a matter of "C'monna now PeteS, donta maka me reada da Catecheesm ... I mighta hav'a da changa my mind!"
Pete S,
Well said, my fellow Christian...well said.
I am indeed trying to learn more about my faith and about God's relationship with all of us humans and I can say with much joy that it is an awesome journey. I do not intend to have others say that I am trying to convert Iraqis to be catholics...for the bible is clear...it must be God's intent for that to happen. But I am not going to be silent about my faith either. Not because I want to rival any other faith or that I wish to bring secularists into the light. But to simply attest to the awesomeness of the light itself.
For the light is the key. M=E/C2 is the origional formula that Einstein came up with in 1905. It is the rosetta stone to proof that God does indeed exist and the light is the key (electromagnetic light, to be exact). For those who read scripture, it is there in many a repetitive phrase or hint or expression. I just never knew it was so literal. Awesome stuff, indeed.
An Italian is an interesting fellow. We have shared some more peaceful bits of information months ago...but for now he just wishes to go on and on about how we have wrecked Iraq's future...when indeed, what we have done was unchain the Iraqi citizens. And now we all can only hope and pray that as a group...they begin to see the larger picture of a new country they can all be proud of someday and that they work towards that fulfillment. Yes, there are the ex-baathists who seem to be unable to relinquish the need to keep killing shites so that they can return to power. But I see many a hint that more and more will seek a political solution and lay down their arms. I pray for that every day. And as for the Al Zarqawi "walking dead", I pray they some of them as well might have a change of heart...such as that young palistinian boy had last year as he walked toward a jewish settlement with a bomb wrapped around his waist. Killing others who never did you any harm and who are innocent is evil in the eyes of God. And so God can and will effect that awakening if enough of us pray for that. That is a good goal. And one attainable. For nothing is impossible in regards to God above. Nothing.
[rg] I really don't care if you don't see the wisdom of trying to get a democracy to sprout where there was just fear and total abuse of power. It is a goal worth supporting. It still is.
Well now, on the face of it that’s a noble ideal. Except for, of course, that there are two problems.
(1) Was / is the US’s goal REALLY to establish a democracy … or were there additional factors? Given that the first thing the US tried to do when they took over was to punt Chalabi as some sort of benevolent dictator, and then, when his lack of support became apparent, foist a dodgy system of hand-picked “caucuses” on Iraq – the commitment to “democracy” was less than evident. (Not to mention the cancellation of the various municipal elections that had been held, because the results were displeasing to you yanks.) As for “alternative” reasons for invasion, there are many. Does it suffice to say “client state” ?
(2) IF we conceded that the main US goal WAS democracy (which we don’t) the question of this being a worthy goal in the CURRENT political climate is more than a bit relevant. Clearly, the Shias will assume control of anyIraqi government. There is no problem in this per se (there were many Shiite Ba’athists as well) except for the fact that SCIRI et al, being the best organised Shiite parties, will consequentially take control, which will further extend the Iranian influence in the Gulf. I hardly consider this as a worthy goal, considering the nature of the current Iranian government.
Solutions: The solution would clearly be to remove the root causes of anger against the US from the arab street. That would mean dealing and resolving the Israeli issue in a fair and equitable manner and reimbursing the Palestinians for the grief and loss that the creation of Israel has caused them. I, as an international citizen, would be willing to donate some small contribution to this end. So would many others. I would NEVER have gone after Saddam Hussein, EVEN if he had WMD up to his eyeballs. I would have, after resolving the Israeli issue, focused on reconstructing Afghanistan in a credible way, and focused on promoting democracy in the ME countries best able to handle it, such as Jordan or the smaller Gulf emirates. (Assuming of course, that we are trying to ‘democratise’ the ME … which is your idea.) IF the NeoCON theory of democratic dominoes was tenable, we would soon see if it spreads or not.
You see, this is the fundamental difference between one such as I and the idiot Bush regime, even assuming our ends were the same. I believe in positive pressure, and leading by example. They believe in violence and force, and hypocrisy. In the end, they will find that such violent methods to be MUCH more expensive in the long run, even if their egos at being big badass muthas are stroked.
[rg] “M=E/C2 is the origional formula that Einstein came up with in 1905. It is the rosetta stone to proof that God does indeed exist and the light is the key (electromagnetic light, to be exact).”
I’ll refrain from the obligatory “ROTFL” and just ask you: What makes you think this, exactly? I’d be interested in seeing how you make the connection between the interchangability of mass and energy, and the existence of God.
I’d be interested in seeing how you make the connection between the interchangability of mass and energy, and the existence of God.
Me too. I can't seem to find that in my catechism.
...light is the key (electromagnetic light, to be exact).
Not to be confused with all those other types of light? (Precious few spring to mind, except maybe at a stretch the electroweak Z boson ).
Bruno,
Israel is the key...but not for the reasons you would put forth. Israel has an older entitlement to the land it now owns than any other group of people. And yet there is a deep seated desire to kill all of the jewish people and distroy Israel. That is part of the problem in the middle east...and the focus is on Jerusalem. Jews and arabs claim it. But God alone will see it to it's destiny. Americans are and have always been a fair minded people. Even if we did not have a strong tie in our religions, we would not want to see arabs killing all of the jewish people in Israel. We would like to see some sort of truce that worked between all of the people there. The Palestinians are used as pawns by the arab terrorists and by most of the arab goivernments. These governments could correct all of the problems with the Palistinians very easily, for they have an incredible wealth via their oil revenues. And yet they don't. Why? so they can point a finger at Israel and say "oh how terrible they are to the Palestinians". Sorry...I don't buy it. I know where the hate lies and I know where it came from and until the arabs deal with their own deep seated hatred for the jews, there will be no peace.
God IS light. He is a light being...as seen again and again in various passages in the old and new testament. I don't need to bring them up. They are there for any to see. God created the universe...with the big bang.
"Let there be light"...and BANG...there was electromagnetic light streaming out in every direction. Then God was able to simply slow the light down to form mass (M=E/C2). I don't have a clue as to how that works...but it does. Thats how he did it all. Even creating our own DNA (no, we did not emerge as an accident from some primordial soup). ANd if we ever discovered exactly how to replicate that...he'd probably have to bring on the end of times. For we would abuse that knowledge. I really don't care if you or anyone else doesn't believe my hypothesis. I know in my heart that it is real. Way too many references to it...the light at the end of the tunnel...going up into the light...God's eyes burned like fire brands...and on and on. God is Omnipotent and created it all. Sadly, we decided to go with self will and sinned and now it means we need to get back up with our spiritual father and put away our sins. Sadly, that is not easily done and we wallow in it. And so we struggle on...moving through time towards that inevitable End of Times when it will all come to a head and God will have to come back so that there will be some flesh still alive to save. We have our detiny in our own hands. ANd yet we are so much more drawn to argueing with each other on these issues and warring against each other than we are in simply loving our creator with all of our hearts and then in loving our neighbors. Sad indeed. I doubt many of you will see any wisdom in what I say. That prideful ego will kick in and each will go with his or her own spin. But God above does answer us when we pray for discernment and he has shown me stuff that continues to boggle my mind. And I am a biologist.
So let fly at me. I really don't care. God is real and so are my new friends in Iraq and so are my friends around the world. We can either discuss these issues as awesome concepts or we can sink to the point of name calling. I wish we could do the former but I fear that it will end up as the latter. So be it.
Randy, caution is advised...
God IS light. He is a light being...
I think we have to be careful here. Judaism and Christianity are full of light-related symbolism. The Psalmist says "In Your light we see light" (Ps. 36). This is remembered with the menorah used during Hanukkah (festival of lights). Our Catholic sanctuary lamp is probably a throwback to Hannukah, but reinterpreting it to commemorate Christ as "the light of the world". But John 1:4 tells us how to understand this -- "In Him was life, and that life was the light of men". See also Ps. 27:1, Ps. 36:9, Pr. 6:23 where light and life are conflated. It's clear that these references are to the life of grace, basically "God's life".
What we can't do is to conflate God's life with electromagnetic radiation - a feature of the created order. That would be Pantheism.
God created the universe...with the big bang. "Let there be light"...and BANG...there was electromagnetic light streaming out in every direction.
It's a minor quibble, but light couldn't go anywhere in the early universe. The mean path between interactions was ultra-microscopic. It took 300,000 years before electrons finally bound to atoms and the universe became transparent to light for the first time.
Then God was able to simply slow the light down to form mass (M=E/C2). I don't have a clue as to how that works...but it does. Thats how he did it all.
It's a curious way to put it, but the equivalence of mass and energy is beyond dispute alright.
...the light at the end of the tunnel...going up into the light...God's eyes burned like fire brands...and on and on
Are there bible references for these? And any direct mention of E=MC2. Of course maybe Einstein got his ideas from the bible in the first place (see Proposed Purpose #10).
Israel has an older entitlement to the land it now owns than any other group of people.
This is such a curious argument. To use a parallel closer to home (for me), the IRA typically want the Brits out of Ireland to restore a perceived status quo from some hundreds of years back. But why not get the Brits out of Britain too? Or at least any of them descended from Angles, Saxons or Normans. Lets have it back for the real Brythons and Scoti (and maybe Picti).
Or even more topically (and indeed biblically), why aren't we driving the Iraqis out of Mesopotamia. (Don't tell me that's what Dubya is really up to). I mean, ok, God may have tossed us out of Eden for bad behaviour, but aren't we allowed to take it back now? ... O certe necessarium Adae peccatum, quod Christi morte deletum est and all that?
Italian - hot off the press... from the Pope's address Saturday to the new U.S. ambassador to the Holy See:
In his Message for the 2005 World Day of Peace, my predecessor, Pope John Paul II, called attention to the intrinsic ethical dimension of every political decision, and observed that the disturbing spread of social disorder, war, injustice and violence in our world can ultimately be countered only by renewed appreciation and respect for the universal moral law whose principles derive from the Creator himself.
Oh, and he invoked "God's blessings of prosperity, joy and peace" upon "all the beloved American people".
Pete S
You said..."Are there bible references for these? And any direct mention of E=MC2. Of course maybe Einstein got his ideas from the bible in the first place"
I first heard this on a christian radio program. The speaker said that when you really get into physics it is actually true that everything in the univers is actually electromagnetric light...just slowed down enough to take on mass. That in itself is a hard thing to get your mind around. But when you do go into the basics of what makes up the mass of a pen...or a stone...or a book...there are electrons and protons and atoms all buzzing about within each of these masses. No one has proven that you can actually slow light down. But nothing is impossible with God. And I do believe that that explains how he did create it all.
DNA...we are taught that it was created in a pool of primitive sea water with some jolts of lightning. I as well used to teach that to my biology students. But when you really get into the absolutely awesome structure of DNA and of even primitive cells, it is astounding to see that there are literally hundreds of millions of parts to each cell and DNA is so specific in how each part has to be either a left handed or right handed molecule to form the double helix that you begin to see that without an intelligent designer there is just no way that it all could have "come together". Chirality (the study of righthanded and lefthanded molecules) also says it never happened by chance. It's like us believing that if you were to take an automobile and cut it up into say a hundred million pieces, each 1 mm cubed...and then you were to throw those pieces into a vat of motor oil and gasoline...and hit it with electricity...that you would ever see a car evolve out of that pool. No way! Not in a trillion years times a trillion years.
When I say that God is light...I mean that his inner core is probably light and that his form is like ours...plenty of references to this in the bible. SOrt of like that alien in Cacoon (the movie). God just IS. He never deals with time like we do. He just always is and he can do whatever he feels he wants to do. And he wanted to create earth and he did. Do I believe that it was in 7 days? Not really. For a day is like a thousand years to God and he did it in his own concept of time. And in the dead sea scrolls bible (the compilation of these parts of the old testament that have been translated..it is very curious to me that after each day in the beginning...it says "a first day" and "a second day"...not "The first day" and "the second day".
I wanted to know more about e=mc2 after hearing that program on the radio. And I was and am still praying for discernment in all of this. So I walk into a barnes and noble bookstore and say "now where will I find a book on "E=MC2"?. I look down at my feet and there by a table is a pile of books on the floor with the title "E=MC2". God is just awesome sometimes. A Priest says that he has heard of bookstore angels helping people find appropriate books. Who knows. Anyway, that book was and is awesome. It tells of the evolution of those three components as we know them...Enegry and Mass and the speed of light. And of how Einstein came to discover that formula and how the scientists just took off with the search for energy in a simple atom...even though his origional formula was M=E/C2. ANd he called God "The Old Man". Ironic...for he bacame one not knowing that that formula was the very thing that he was seeking all of his adult life for...he thought there was some more complicated formula that he could find that would tie together all of the magesty of God's creation. And yet it was there right in front of him all the time.
That was a year ago. I look for the connections and the hints of that formula as I read the bible and other religious literature...and it is there in abundance. Sure it is figurative and talks about light being the truth that God speaks of and darkness being Satan trying to cloak the light with lies and slander. But it is also just as true in reality...at least it is to me. We all know that there is energy that will go on when we die...for energy can neither be created nor distroyed. That energy is light. I saw a silly Ghost hunter special on TV the other night and they actually had this device that showed these little glowing balls floating about in the house...which they said were departed spirits. Hey..who knows...could have literally been some peoples souls. I only know that this stuff is awesome to me and that I find it facinating...the biologist in me comes out here. And I do believe that God has led me to other hints that it is true.
But Enough of this for now. I have an inquistive mind and I will keep delving into it. Maybe frankenstein had it almost right...using lightning to kick start a corpse. But only God has the ability to let us in to heaven or cast us out. And only we hold the key to that entry...in whether we actually believe in God. Not some hijacked God of the terrorist making (for they dress in black and preach hate and give their "prince's" true identity away)...but the real God. The One who made us and the One who loves us. Part of this God's message can be found in each of the great religions on the earth. But I do feel that Christianity calls me the strongest.
Pete S,
Among other ways that the Israelis can stake a claim to Israel is the fact that God did will it to them. Not sure if he did that for Ireland for the Irish or for any ancient group for Mesopotamia. No...I kind of think that Israel is a special case. And Jerusalem is the key. Sad to see so many squabbling about it and over it...and if Revelation is to be believed...it will all come to a head there.
@ PeteS, 11.13.05 - 9:12 pm to 9:19 pm.
Pete, this is indeed “going way beyond off-topicness”, even if you then contradict yourself by alleging that instead it is in-topic all right (“‘Apart from that, the blog of an agnostic Muslim like Zeyad, living in a country rent apart by enemies, is not the proper place to discuss theology, don’t you think?’ ‘No I don't, as it happens. I notice that George Bush's theology gets mentioned often enough whenever a bit of U.S.-bashing is in order. What did you think Christian Crusader's satire was all about?’”).
Now, look: I believe the best way to deal with ‘American Christianism’ (this properly yahoo ‘electionist’ theology of a simian & anti-Christian – not just anti-Muslim - ‘holy war’) is, precisely, satire, like the humorous secular American troll ‘Christian Crusader’ was doing (and notice that the most extreme things the troll was saying ARE, indeed, maintained by the real ‘American Christianists’: for instance, the ignorant blasphemies about the Arabic name of the Lord were indeed propounded in earnest, in this very comment page, by the mindless Randy G). If I’d known that intervening against the mad claims of our Randy would have made you transform Zeyad’s comments page into the ‘Catholic Theology Forum’, maybe I’d abstained… because, indeed, this is NOT the proper place. It does not interest, for sure, our host Zeyad, nor any Iraqi, including the Iraqi Catholics. Do you think, Great Theologian Pete, these last do have any time for your subtle and very specious arguments? Be sure that, busy as they are in just staying alive, avoiding in most of Iraq the deadly ministrations by the many sectarian militias and groups the wonderful US ‘liberation’ brought in its wake (on the basis of ‘divide and conquer’), and in Ninevah the extraordinary kindnesses by the Kurdish bandits of the KDP, they have very little time for the interpretation of Catechism; and that, seeing as they do that their present situation is about one hundred times worse than under Saddam, they have little time for your uncertain application of the Catholic principles of just war… (to chase some spider-webs from your mind, do have a look at the websites of the Iraqi Christians from time to time…). And I think it does not interest most of the other readers, as well.
As for the question at hand, quite simply, I am from Italy, and you are from Ireland. When the British Empire put in place its plan to invent Italy, by forced unification of the peninsula (1860-61), the Piedmont Prime Minister, their ally, was Camillo Benso Count of Cavour, whose motto was: ‘A free Church in a free State’. To deal with arrogant clergy wanting to keep or impose any kind of temporal power on behalf of the Church, some kisses by Madame Guillottine or by a Garibaldian musket resulted most effective in the past (and the same happened in most of Western Europe). Most Italian practicing Catholics are, by now, fully reconciled with the concept; so I am, precisely, a “secular Italian Catholic who wants to avoid confusing certain ‘dimensions’”.
(continued…)
(…continued)
In Ireland (well, two thirds of it), instead, for most of the 20th century the local Catholic Church had an unbridled temporal control; the Pharisaic and grim clergy just did love to endlessly argue about legalistic fine points in the interpretation of Church laws and on “how Catholic moral teaching should be applied”. Every time they got bored out of that inconclusive and unsavoury activity, they’d just go, and rape some of the children unfortunately entrusted to their ‘care’ (is this one below the belt, dear Pete? No, because I believe there is a definite link between the position of temporal power of the Irish Church, that was unique in 20th century Europe, its legalistic propensities, and the abominations without parallel it committed). And you, dear Pete, are a product of the Irish Catholic experience, who confusedly says, grabbing some tome as if it were “religion” or ‘God’s law’, “I know where I stand”…
Given the fruits of the two separate experiences, with the undeniable vibrancy of the Italian Catholic Church in most Italian regions, and instead the - as undeniable - parlous state of the Irish one, I have no doubt, Pete, about who is right between us.
“Do you think a clergyman who sided with Nazism considered his moral theology too much or too little (or maybe not at all)”.
I do think, dear Pete, that in most cases those clergymen did, out of moral cowardice, act precisely like you did in this discussion, trying to stretch things, and rules, and regulations, to that result, and applying double standards all the time; refusing to see the forest and speciously looking at the tree; moreover saying that they were “required” to do that! And, after WW2, to the Catholics, both clergy and laity, who were asking them why they had not opposed Nazi-Fascism, each of them did precisely answer – like you do: “Are you really asking why I wasn't utterly opposed to [Nazi-Fascism], as you are? I've been trying all along to understand how Catholic moral teaching should be applied to the situation. I'd be the first to admit I'm not sure of the answer”.
Congratulations, Pete!
And, on top of that, you have the incredible cheek of laying ‘moral apathy’ at my door!
“My point, which I'm sure you did not miss, was that Jonah's art of persuasion [of the Ninevites] did not involve an endless tirade of abuse”.
It is written (KJV): “go to Ninevah, that great city, and cry against it” (Jon. 1, 2); and Jonah went around Ninevah screaming “Yet forty days, and Ninevah shall be overthrown” (Jon 3,4); maybe Jonah was ‘hot-under-the-collar’, Most Seraphic Pete, don’t you think? His tirade must have been quite hot, since they “turn[ed] every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands” (Jon 3,. And when the Lord forgave the Ninevites and didn’t destroy them, the prophet “was very angry” (Jon 4,1). Now, your beloved Americans haven’t turned (yet) from their evil ways, nor “from the violence that is in their hands”. And up to the time they do (to go back to your “original point about U.S. troops”, whose cause IS “totally unjust”) their deaths are precisely “something to be celebrated”, in order to open their arrogant and thick heads to the desirability of desisting from their evil ways and their violence.
(continued…)
(…continued)
And do remember the ‘prophetic mission’ of the believer: “When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou has delivered thy soul” (Ezek. 33,8-9). And the ‘wicked’, Peadarín, are quite possibly not ‘de evil Oytalian’, but, for instance, those who have destroyed and raped a whole country without a reason, murdering (and causing the murder of) tens of thousands of people, making the life of its inhabitants an unending misery…
You do not want to shine as the stars (Dan 12, 3: “they that turn many to righteousness [shall shine] as the stars for ever and ever”) ? Well, it’s your business.
“I am doing my best to be accepted by my new neighbours in Wexford. Thank God I don't sound like that -- they'd kick the shit out of me”.
Ah ah ah, here the shoneen Pete comes out! (as I darkly suspected). What have you got against the Dublin working class dialect? It is beautiful in my opinion (and it sounds precisely like the Gallo-Roman dialects of my own Northern Italian region, BTW); albeit I admit that if one attempts to write it, it may seem a bit funny... But – like all the comical shoneens - you believe you are ‘better’ than them; an inferiority complex masked as a superiority one! Because, indeed, the Dublin working class is far better than you are, and they are your betters… for instance, most of them knew right away, like most people in the world outside the US, that the American war against Iraq was a criminal, and crazy, unjust enterprise. To reach that conclusion, did they have to loftily ponder “how Catholic moral teaching should be applied to the situation” (ending up “not sure of the answer”, besides)? No, they just were in possession (differently from you!) of moral ‘common sense’! (which was, of course, only strengthened by their religious background). Do learn from them, Shoneen a chara!
Poor Irish middle & upper classes! Once upon a time, aspiring to respectability and wanting to take their distances from the ‘common’ Irish, they did ape the English (and so they got called shoneens); but that was somewhat understandable in a colonial or post colonial situation. These past thirty years, instead, these shoneens looked elsewhere for their models, and, less understandably, started to… ape the Apes!
As for the Wexford people, I suspect that instead of your Dublin 4 accent they would appreciate much more an attempt on your part to study Yola (for those unfamiliar with Ireland, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yol...ola_language)
...
And, Peadarín, get rid of that famous shoneen brand of soap: it keeps stinking more and more!
[italian] "and it sounds precisely like the Gallo-Roman dialects of my own Northern Italian region, BTW)"
Non saresti per caso di Bergamo? Mio padre proviene di li.
(Otherwise, I'm afraid that this is more OT rubbish that is going to follow. Quite how it has strayed from bashing the intervention there, I'm not sure.)
[randyg] “Let there be light"...and BANG...there was electromagnetic light streaming out in every direction. Then God was able to simply slow the light down to form mass (M=E/C2). I don't have a clue as to how that works...but it does.”
Basically what happened is that with the expansion of the universe from the initial big bang, the incredibly high energy density was lessened; when that occurred the weak and strong forces that act within atoms and subatomic particles managed to overcome the energy that kept everything apart. Once subatomic particles were formed, the continued expansion of the universe cooled matter down even further which allowed atoms to form (hydrogen) from these particles.. Gravity then drew the atoms of hydrogen together into clouds of gas, which accreted into suns planets, etc.
The formation of life from a primordial soup is a similar story. It IS NOT just some statistical random chance of life and DNA developing. The laws of chemistry dictate that there are only certain ways that chemicals react … hence the process is a LOT less random than the Creationist nuts would have you believe. If you mix Na and Cl for example, you can only end up with NaCl. Not NaNa or ClCl. Or NaClCl. The chemical behaviour of elements is dictated by the structure of their outer electron shell; there is nothing random about it.
Now, I am an atheist insofar as the Bible and other man-written texts are concerned. I do not say that an ultimate creator is impossible. It could be that such a creator specifically designed the laws of the universe to obtain this particular configuration.
[rg] “No one has proven that you can actually slow light down.”
You can’t. The Michaelson-Morley [spelling might be off!] experiment proved that the speed of light is absolute. What you CAN do is make it lose energy, and lengthen the wavelength at the same time. Ultraviolet light has more energy and a shorter wavelength than infrared light, for example. But the fact is that light does have mass. Solar wind (alright, there’s a lot of crap in it other than light, I know) is a logical example of light exerting pressure.
If you are interested in learning more, try reading a book called “Black Holes and Time Warps” by Kip Thorne. It’s a brilliant, brilliant book perfect for the intelligent layman. Or read Isaac Asimov’s books on physics. Both these men have a unique knack of rendering difficult concepts clear and understandable.
[randyg] “Among other ways that the Israelis can stake a claim to Israel is the fact that God did will it to them. Not sure if he did that for Ireland for the Irish or for any ancient group for Mesopotamia.”
Heh, this is where I draw the line between what is acceptable in religion and what is not.
The “gods” of the ancient Aztecs ALSO “willed” their lands to them, and specified that they should sacrifice people to ensure that the sun rose every morning. The “Gods” of the Egyptians separated land from water in order that people should live there. The “God” of the Christians / Jews apparently, in between incinerating sodomites and advocating the murder of women and children, bequeathed Israel to the Jews.
Funny, isn’t it, the way that religions always seem to follow somebody’s political agenda?
[randyg] “I know where the hate lies and I know where it came from and until the arabs deal with their own deep seated hatred for the jews, there will be no peace. ”
Of course, (heh-heh) the forcible conquest of Israel and the chasing of the Palestinians from their homes has NOTHING to do with this hatred, does it? Fact is, the Palestinians were by far the majority in Israel until this happened. I’ll admit I’m in two minds about the solution. On the one hand, since the land was stolen, if the Arabs chased out the Jews and retook what was theirs, it would be a similar thing as to what the Jews did in the first place. On the other hand, morally, it is not really defensible to destroy an entire nation in order to restore a status quo. I think that the Zinists SHOULD leave the Occupied territories, and that the UN boundaries be respected. And that the Palestinians receive a whole whack of dosh with which to build up something decent. Since the West tried to mitigate its own guilt for the Holocaust by effectively dispossessing the Palestinians in favour of the Jews, the West should help repair that damage.
Myself, though not part of the “West”, strictly speaking, would be willing to contribute to this end.
An Italian, dearie,
FYI, that military leader you find it improper for me to ape, in fact, having seen it would be impossible to DUCK any war Sparta would have witht eh farming nation of Thebes, decided to pre-emptively attack and destroy Sparta and her entire system of dominance whch has lasted for 400 years +.
How did this person do it?
By invading the area the helots lived in and SALTING THE AREAS WITH DEMOCRACIES, AND LEAVING FORTIFIED DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES IN HIS WAKE.
In fact in the end, this so obliterated the societal base for the the Spartan hegemony (and this was after the Peloponesian war), his army never had to sack Sparta. They simply wasted away.
He was history's first 'neo-con'.
And he fulfills the definition perfectly. The only path to security is for men (and their EQUAL PARTNERS, the ladies) to have unfettered free choice, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion everywhere. Each society find it's own way by the people being responsible for themselves.
If you read that previous para carefully, in fact, it's neither right nor left.
Neo-cons simply believe american national security is not best served by Somoza and Mossadegh, but rather with democracies. If that is a curse, so be it.
As for the question at hand, quite simply, I am from Italy, and you are from Ireland
Blah blah and more blah. This has little to do with the question at hand. In spite of being from Catholic Ireland my Catholicism is the result of a later life conversion with influences that are far from Irish. Regardless of all that, how come you are determined to focus on the cultural correlates of religion? As far as I can tell I have been focussing on what the Church says about itself, not some opinionated claptrap about when one should or shouldn't consider what it says.
is this one below the belt, dear Pete?
No, I happen to agree with you entirely on that one.
What have you got against the Dublin working class dialect?
Is THAT what that was? Forgive me for not recognising it ... it sounded like something from Darby O'Gill and the Little People. . The Dublin accent is more like ... "Hey mistawh, d'ja want yer cahr looked aftawh for a quid. [D4 bloke: No you little scumbag - my Alsatian will guard it]. Hey mistawh, can yer dahg put out fires? Har har deadly buzz man".
Poor Irish middle & upper classes!
What a laugh. I CERTAINLY didn't grow up as one of them. However, I also don't have the reverse snobbery about the "Dublin 4 set" that seems to have rubbed off on you, however that happened. You are sounding very much like our snobbish and bitter "buffalo slayer" from earlier.
As for the Wexford people, I suspect that instead of your Dublin 4 accent they would appreciate much more an attempt on your part to study Yola [fixed your link]
Eh, no. I haven't come across any Wexfordites that are as interested in Yola as I am. One or two have inherited a smattering of nouns. For most even their Irish, let alone Yola, is non-existent.
[rg] No one has proven that you can actually slow light down.
You can’t. The Michaelson-Morley [spelling might be off!] experiment proved that the speed of light is absolute.
I beg to differ. The Michaelson-Morley experiment proved that the speed of light did not depend on one's direction in space and therefore disproved the existence of a luminiferous ether. The speed of light is not absolute at all. It's speed in a vacuum is a constant, but it slows down in any other medium (which is one way to think about refraction, and of course the fact that different wavelengths slow by different amounts is what's responsible for chromatic aberration).
In the last 10 years light has been dramatically slowed down using Bose-Einstein condensates. I don't know how things have progressed since this article, but I do remember reading that they had it down to less than walking speed. It always sounds like a bit of a cheat to me ... its more like destroying the light but saving its quantum state, then recreating it later. However, I'm reminded that quantum physics takes to an extreme the old adage that "if it it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, its a duck". If it has an identical quantum state it IS the identical object.
Sorry, that was me.
PeteS -
Hmm. You might be right after all. I'll dig through the ol' physics books and take a look. It's been a while.
An Italian. 11.12.05 - 3:31 am
"The point was that the napalm ‘clone’ and white phosphorus were INDEED used last November in Fallujah"
"Some ‘insurgents’ take over a house, allegedly killing two residents;"
Do I detect a faint odor *sniff* *sniff* of a double standard? The first group of people were tried and convicted without a .......well trial. And the second group of people are automatically given the benefit of the doubt.
"(but, surprise, an article from a US military paper admitted that much)."
That would be interesting to read, Italian. Please cite the source.
"They send forces to apprehend or kill the ‘insurgents’, taking care that the ‘hostages’ are saved."
And in the middle of a battle we have the ability to see through walls and determine that there ARE hostages? You seem to credit us with Superman like abilities.
"Your occupation created the basis for the Shiite fundamentalist parties"
No, my dear, they were always there. The only question was how to deal with them. Saddam used oppression. What happens when someone tells you that you can't do something or have something? Then that becomes the very thing you want to have and do. It is only until you live with it that you may have second thoughts. It is only until the religous parties are exposed to the light of day, and shown for what they are, that people will face up to the fact that they are not the solution.
"Sistani makes a good decision...
In an important step towards more credible and fair elections, senior cleric Ali al-Sistani announced through his office that he will refrain from receiving any of the political leaders running for office in the next elections and will reject the many requests made by many Iraqi politicians.
In my opinion, such steps constitute real support for the coming elections and a declaration on the part of the Ayatollah of his awareness of the previous mistake when politicians convinced the clergy into endorsing their lists which resulted in rendering the clergy liable for criticism from the public and affected its popularity rewarding the clergy with nothing but contempt from the people due to the poor performance of Jafari’s government.
People here are cautious (I mean the liberal people) from the interference of the clergy with the elections like what happened last time and I’ve discussed with many people that the outcome of last time’s experience will make it hard for the clerics to get involved in a similar mess again and tell them that there’s no need to be afraid this time." Mohammed
And so it starts. If you want to read the rest of that you can go to Iraq the Model. Yes, yes, I know they are CIA plants. But you still have to question Sistani's purpose in distancing himself from the political process.
“them are all eeeevil”.
No, no, dear Italian. I would not say that at all (unless, of course, they show a propensity for using large sharp knives to remove innocent peoples heads). No, I would put them on a par with people in my country who would run around dressed in bedsheets and pointy hoods. A ridiculous mode of dress that matched their views.
Oops! Sorry about that, I screwed up the last two italic commands.
[randyg] Among other ways that the Israelis can stake a claim to Israel is the fact that God did will it to them.
[bruno] Heh, this is where I draw the line between what is acceptable in religion and what is not.
I agree. Why should anyone be expected to accept being dispossessed on the basis of a religion to which they do not subscribe! On the other hand, coming to a more pluralist accommodation does require negotiation in which both parties accept certain ground rules. They have to somehow come up with a basic "morality" on which they DO agree. That's why the basis of morality in the absence of shared religion is such a thorny issue (on which point, Bruno, I must leave you a comment some time over on the other nutjob's site ... you know who I mean ).
An Italian,
Mindless Randy here...running on a very broken neuron or two...
Again...you make my day with your "I speak for the Iraqis" diatribe.
You said..."Now, your beloved Americans haven’t turned (yet) from their evil ways, nor “from the violence that is in their hands”.
Jonah wanted Ninevah destroyed. Period. We went inti Iraq to end the destructive practices of the ruler destroying some of his own people (in poarticular the Shia...but also including any who even wispered a slanderous remark towards him)...hardly a similar case to the Ninevah of Biblical times. We do not stay there to kill all who live there. We stay as long as it will take for the scum (that even you admit are scum) to be driven out of the land so that the people can have their own government. Has the plan gone according to plan? Not exactly. But it is evolving...and with Gods help (and I don't care which religious reference we use to explain that concept of God)...it will work.
I asked you to give us your take on how this should all play out. Maybe it is in your reply to Pete S. If not...please enlighten us all with it.
The mindless one awaits your mindful reply.
The religious reference about Israel was followed by God effecting that very decree...in which he lead the Israelies into their land and had them wipe out the residents (who were just this lovely bunch of people who thought it wonderful to sacrifice their own first born children to a "God" of their own misinterpretation) so that the land would be theirs to own. So in reality...they took the land and laid claim to it and there were no others to dispute that. ALl that followed is history (still in the making).
Like I said...God is active in this conflict. Here is the latest post from Michael Yon...you be the judge.
Randy G
Monday, November 14, 2005
Americans Among Us
Walt Gaya
I had yelled goodbye to Walt just before the mission, and some hours later when a bomb tore through the bottom of his Stryker vehicle, every man in it--including Walt--was wounded.
Lying in the hospital, still in Iraq, Walt Gaya was in the United States Army, but he was not an American. Not on paper, anyway: Walt was born in Argentina. He survived the blast, but his new wounds would preclude his flight from Mosul to Baghdad in time to participate in a swearing-in ceremony that would have been his official welcome as a new American.
Sergeant Mark Bush, who was also wounded in the blast, told me that only angels could have saved them. The bomb ripped through armor like it was wet paper. That anyone survived seemed miraculous. Just after the blast, the stunned and knocked-out soldiers came back to consciousness, at first thinking they were dead or dying, but then realizing they'd made it through an attack. Walt Gaya's ears were severely damaged, shrapnel tore through his left eye. Every wounded man actually got out ready to fight.
I speculated that the automatic fire suppression system was a final defense that saved the men, but Mark Bush had other ideas. He told me about the angels of Ben Morton and Adam Plumondore, two soldiers who'd recently been killed in combat. Mark said Ben and Plum had become angels, and had raised their hands to block the blast.
Adam Plumondore
Many American soldiers are not actually citizens of the United States, but the "foreigners" in the US Army I got to know in Mosul didn't fight with any less commitment than those born in the US.
Shortly after the attack, when Walt was in the hospital in Mosul, Robert Prosser, the Command Sergeant Major of the "Deuce Four" battalion, came to check on his men. He found Walt more concerned about missing his citizenship ceremony than losing his eye. Walt had post-war plans to become a photo-journalist. Shortly after the blast, he'd written off that damaged eye, and his camera had been battered; but what mattered to Walt was his citizenship. When they flew Walt back to America he did miss the ceremony in Baghdad.
Antonio Castaneda is a reporter for the Associated Press. I saw him around Iraq from time to time. Tony spends much time on the battlefields of Iraq. He has the courage of a soldier. Reading his articles, I came to respect his work and him. When Tony came to Mosul I told him about Walt, hoping Tony might pick up on the story. Publicity might help Walt achieve his career goal, even with his newly injured eye. Tony eventually flew back to the United States, and from there wrote a story on Walt.
Suddenly Walt was all over the news: the internet, newspapers coast to coast, and even television. In telling an honest story about an interesting soldier named Walt Gaya, Tony also helped a wounded veteran.
Meanwhile, I was still in Iraq, and CSM Prosser and others were still fighting. One day we got into a fight in which the commander got shot down in front of us, and CSM Prosser fought so well that day, nearly getting himself killed in the process, that he was awarded a Silver Star. But LTC Erik Kurilla, who'd now been shot four times in Iraq (three bullets that day), was headed back to the United States, full of new holes. When Kurilla landed at Fort Lewis, he learned that one of his soldiers was still having problems with his citizenship. Kurilla began shepherding Walt through the normal bureaucracy.
Tony Castaneda stepped in again, and wrote another honest story about an interesting soldier, this time saying Walt's citizenship was being held up. Good grief--the power of the press! There was Walt again: on television, on the internet, in newspapers coast to coast. When I flew back to America to see some of the soldiers I had spent so much time with in Iraq, we spent a day to drive to Mount Rainer. I walked into a store and there was Walt on the front page of a Sunday paper!
Walt was everywhere, and people who now felt they knew Walt were angered because he wasn't getting his citizenship. I know the people were angry because some even contacted me about the problem with Walt's citizenship, while others said they wanted to buy him a new camera (it was reported in some places that his Leica had been blown up), and still others offered to hire Walt.
When I arrived at Fort Lewis, I found Walt standing in his commander's office. They were a pair: the commander still on crutches recovering from a few gunshot wounds--but expected to make a full recovery--and Walt with his semi-closed eye, planning for a career in photo-journalism. I asked about Walt's citizenship, and they assured me that the Army had taken control of the situation and there would be no further problems or delays.
Walt said that his very expensive Leica camera was not actually blown to pieces, but just scratched up with some minor internal damage. But he was deeply honored that so many people had offered to help, and he asked that I kindly tell the many people who had come to his defense, "Thank you. Thank you. Thank you." I told Walt that's our way of welcoming him to America.
Thank you, Walt.
posted by Michael Yon @ 6:42 PM
@ Bruno, 11.15.05 - 4:58 am.
“ ‘and it sounds precisely like the Gallo-Roman dialects of my own Northern Italian region, BTW’ ‘Non saresti per caso di Bergamo? Mio padre proviene di lì’”.
Carissimo Bruno, la mia regione è naturalmente la stessa (Lombardia); ma i dialetti della Bergamasca e delle valli bresciane hanno la stessa fonetica generale del Corkonian (il dialetto di Cork), mentre quelli di alcune zone nord-occidentali della stessa regione (il Varesotto e l’Alto Milanese, che è la zona tra Settimo, Saronno, Magenta e la Bassa Novarese) hanno invece proprio quella del dialetto di Dublino (e quelli del Canton Ticino quella di alcuni dialetti dell’Ovest dell’Irlanda).
Non indico la mia città per evitare che i nostri amici d’oltreatlantico (scimmioni o incivili teppisti che siano) la inseriscano nella loro lista di prossimi obbiettivi…
Spero (dalla sua risposta, 7:50 am) di avere convinto il nostro Pietrino ibernico a contenere la sua abitudine al doppio peso e alla doppia misura (e al suo alquanto cavilloso impegno catechetico, decisamente OT!).
Ti pregherei però di non assecondare il nostro scimmiotto Randy nelle sue elucubrazioni mistico-fisiche… può essere divertente, ma certo è più OT che mai (e distoglie dal parlare dell’Iraq)… inoltre, come avrai notato, è fiato al vento, dato che il poverino non è mai in grado di assimilare quanto gli viene detto…
@ Lynnette in Minnesota, 11.15.05 - 10:32 am.
“That would be interesting to read, Italian. Please cite the source”.
The military journal is «Field Artillery», March-April 2005, and the article (‘The Fight for Fallujah’, by Captain James Cobb, 1st Lt Christopher LaCour, and Sgt 1st Class William Hight) is downloadable from its website as a .pdf file (1.3 MB).
Other sources are now pointed at in the Monbiot’s «The Guardian» article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/
0,2763,1642832,00.html).
Going back to the matter of information, how is it, sweet Lynnette, that you US warmongers always seem to get the news only one week or two after everybody else?
“And in the middle of a battle we have the ability to see through walls and determine that there ARE hostages? You seem to credit us with Superman like abilities”.
The point was, dear Lynnette, in case you missed it, that according to the conventions of the civilised world you don’t EVER bomb a house from the air in a ‘counterinsurgency’ operation (unless, of course, you are called Saddam, or Assad, or the US of America… but those cases, of course, you are not civilised…).
“‘Your occupation created the basis for the Shiite fundamentalist parties [‘to take control of most parts of Iraq’, that you omitted]’ ‘No, my dear, they were always there’”.
Of course, Lynnette, only they where not ruling the country and terrorising all dissenters, then…
“Saddam used oppression”.
Well, when the Algerian Government proclaimed democracy, and the Fundies won the elections, and the Algerian Govt. outlawed them and started a bloody civil war, I do not recall that anybody in the West cried ‘Oppression!’.
“It is only until the religious parties are exposed to the light of day, and shown for what they are, that people will face up to the fact that they are not the solution”.
Oh nice idea, Lynnette! A pity that in the meanwhile they use to establish their Islamic Republic, and than what the people think becomes irrelevant…
As for what Iraq The Minion says about Sistani, I’d bet that about a week before the December elections the Grand Ayatollah will let it known that he wants his devout followers to vote for the ‘godly’ ones (i.e., List 555 and the Fadhila list), without any need of naming them explicitly. You know, ITM are not much better than the Americans at predictions…
(continued…)
(…continued)
As for the ‘constitutional referendum’ fraud, go and see at ‘Kurdo’s World’ how it happened that in the three Kurdish provinces the ‘Yes’ got 99 %: “The Iraqi Constitution : As you might have heard that Kurdistan had the highest turnout and people ran to the polling stations to vote. Again Rubbish !! People estimated the number of those who went to vote as about 25-35% . This is because people are very angry at the two ruling Kurdish parties. But what can we do ? Both leaders of the parties are our presidents. 1st Iraqi President (Jalal Talabani = PUK) 2nd (Massoud Barzani = Kurdistan region President = KDP). In fact if you ask anyone in Kurdistan about the results, they will tell you "the observers at the polling stations were part of KDP and PUK. They simply filled out the forms for those who did not attend". It almost became a joke...I called someone asking him if he goes to vote or no on 15th of October..He told me "Oh the observer told our neighbour don't bother to waste your time. We will do it for the whole neighbourhood"”.
Fweedom’nDemocwacy, ain’t it, Lynnette?
And, Lynnette, about most inhabitants of the world, I did expect something better of you, rather than the usual “them are all eeeevil” and like the KKK.
You see, I do not know whether (as I suspect) a new species of apes’n’monkeys was born through inverted evolution ‘from sea to shiny sea’, or instead (like my friend Bruno believes) a nation of ‘uncivilised toughs’: but you are truly different from any other human community (and the spread of Internet has made it only too patent to everybody in the world).
Where on earth three burly cops handcuff a FIVE YEAR OLD girl (like it happened some months ago in one of your Western States) ? And I went to see at the site of that local paper, and it had a poll to see if it was proper to handcuff five year olds (!). And where on earth 69 % of the respondents would answer that it is proper indeed?
Let’s get some human groups that may superficially resemble you, the Americans, as far as fanaticism, aggression, ignorance and gullibility go. So, our Zeyad goes to interview on that question the members of the Mahdi Army, our PeteS goes to put the same question to the Loyalists of Sandy Row, and I go to the maddest in the Northern League and the Nazi-Skins. Maybe I’m mistaken, but do you think that 69 % of any of the three groups would answer that it is proper indeed? I think that all of them would rather ask what pervert would ever handcuff a five year old girl… because, you see, even the worse among the humans are different from the ‘common American’, and their worst failings are not at 360 degrees (and, since the ‘common American’ does at most reach a mental age of five, one does understand why they felt that it was OK).
This is just an example about many, and I cannot make this post too long. But, believe you me, Lynnette, it is in YOUR best interest, as Americans, to understand why the rest of the world perceives you as decidedly DIFFERENT!
I hope to answer Randy & ‘epaminondas’ later on.
[Italian] "Your occupation created the basis for the Shiite fundamentalist parties"
[lynette] No, my dear, they were always there. The only question was how to deal with them. […] It is only until the religous parties are exposed to the light of day, and shown for what they are, that people will face up to the fact that they are not the solution.
Or of course, they may be seen by the populace as bastions of strength and stability within the chaos you have created, and gather even more support than they would have otherwise. Much the way that Bush managed to scare the Americans into rallying around him. Much the way the Iranians rallied around a fundamentalist when there were far more moderate choices. Fact is, the abrupt removal of Saddam has presented the Iranian fundamentalist parties with a golden opportunity, one which they have not been slow to grasp. Thank you Bush. Khomenei must be laughing in his grave at the irony.
[petes] “They have to somehow come up with a basic "morality" on which they DO agree. That's why the basis of morality in the absence of shared religion is such a thorny issue (on which point, Bruno, I must leave you a comment some time over on the other nutjob's site ... you know who I mean ).”
I do indeed. BTW, I’ve nearly finished slowly strangling him, rhetorically speaking, of course. He doesn’t die easy, that’s for sure.
Oh, you were right about that thing on the light, of course. The article I read stated the speed of light was absolute, but I think this “absolute” was meant in the sense of the motion of a body through space not affecting the speed of light.
What interests me is that you obviously seem to be pretty clued up on the ol’ physics. How do you reconcile the obvious inconsistencies in the Bible and physical laws in terms of you being a Christian? (I mean, just look at Genesis, LOL!) Or is your Christianity not exactly fundamentalist?
[randyg] “We stay as long as it will take for the scum (that even you admit are scum) to be driven out of the land so that the people can have their own government.”
The reality is, however, that ANYBODY resisting American rule is “scum” and a “terrorist”. That’s the truth. Civilians are routinely labelled as “insurgents” and tallied as such if they are killed by US troops. Take Fallujah, for example. The US denied killing any civilians there, when it is patently obvious that hundreds of civilians were slaughtered. How can it dare to make such a claim? Easy. If every resident of that city is deemed to be a ‘combatant’ then no killing of civilians is possible. That’s the truth.
A US general recently claimed that the US army had killed 50000 guerrillas. Given that most estimates place the size of the insurgency at 20000, and given that the Iraqi Resistance is still conducting a very high tempo of operations against the US Army only two conclusions are possible: (a) The US Army killed tens of thousands of civilians or (b) the Resistance is HUGE and literally comprises of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who are either active or sympathetic to the aims of the Resistance – which is to drive the US out of their country.
Naturally the US does not want to acknowledge possibility (b) because it implies that Iraqis reject the invasion. All available polls indicate that at least 85% of the population – including Shia and Kurds – want a US withdrawal either now or in a few months. The fact that the US arrested the entire Iraqi administration of Bacquba as possible ‘terrorists’ only goes to show that it is the Iraqi POPULACE that is fighting you, and not some mythical ‘foreign fighters’ or ‘Zarqawi’ or any such faerie tales.
The Iraqi POPULACE is by definition the “scum” of which you speak.
[randyg] “who were just this lovely bunch of people who thought it wonderful to sacrifice their own first born children to a "God" of their own misinterpretation”
Uh, I don’t mean to rain on your parade, but didn’t YOUR God sacrifice HIS first born son? Didn’t he ask Abraham to slay HIS first – born son? And didn’t he keep an Israelite king (Jephtah, I think, but I could be wrong) to his promise to sacrifice the first living thing he saw – which happened to be his daughter?
A great improvement, I must say.
In any case, as far as I can remember, it was Solomon, that guy which the LORD so loved, that also set up a temple to Moloch so that the jews could sacrifice their children. Was he punished for this? Stricken with some disease? Not that I recall.
Face it. Christians and Jews have little to no moral authority with which to judge the Canaanites.
As for the story on the “angels”, thank you VERY much. The next time some redneck brings up the story of “Allah’s Spiders”, I’ll be SURE to mention the “Angelic soldiers” angle.
ROTFL !
>:]
[italian] Non indico la mia città per evitare che i nostri amici d’oltreatlantico (scimmioni o incivili teppisti che siano) la inseriscano nella loro lista di prossimi obbiettivi…
[...]
Ti pregherei però di non assecondare il nostro scimmiotto Randy nelle sue elucubrazioni mistico-fisiche… può essere divertente, ma certo è più OT che mai.
Oops. Troppo tardi; mi spiace. Hai ragione, naturalmente ... dovrei tenere la conversazione concentrata sul argomento piu' importante - cioe' il Irak.
Comunque, il ehm, Pietrino mi interessa - non e' il tipico scimiotto pro guerra, e ha delle idee' interessanti. Gli parlero da un altra parte.
Visto che la CIA fa gia quello che vuole in Italia, (saprai naturalmente l' incidente a cui indico) non indicare la tua citta sarebbe una buona idea. Io me ne frego pero', visto che sono del Sud Africa, propongo che i nostri criminali sono ancora piu' preicolosi della CIA
Complimenti sul tuo buon Italiano; lo terro' in mente come un ideale ... il mio lo ho imparato maggiormente dei Topolini, ah ah!
Dear "An Italian", let me say 2 or 3 things, given your poor knowledge of democracy-
1) Zeyad is not at all an anti-american. Sorry for disappointing you, but he is not. He might have voted against the constitution because it includes too Islamic 'principles' and I have to say that I don't like the constitution so much either.
He has voted against because of this.
2) Yet, a BIG MAJORITY of Iraqis have voted FOR the Constitution, even defying your Al Qaeda comrades
3) The Iraqi elections have been the FREEST in all the Arab and Islamic world , where sham 'elections' are those who end up with '99%' in favor of the local tyrant.
Maybe you are sorry that your friend Saddam is not more and you believe that his 'elections' were genuine...
That is why I tell you GO LEARN A BIT ABOUT DEMOCRACY, given that you don't know what it is about.
Iraqis don't need your 'lessons of democracy'.
Go mind your own business and hands off Iraq!
To all the Italian idiotarian moonbats here:
Your posts show how clearly depressed you feel after seeing MILLIONS of Iraqis in line to vote , despite some calls for boycott.
You must have a very big headache every day, you expected to see Iraqis boycotting because "elections are occupation are illegittimate".
Avete fatto una figura di merda che ora provate solo ad auto-convincervi
You're loosers
Stefania --
[stefania] “2) Yet, a BIG MAJORITY of Iraqis have voted FOR the Constitution, even defying your Al Qaeda comrades.
3) The Iraqi elections have been the FREEST in all the Arab and Islamic world , where sham 'elections' are those who end up with '99%' in favor of the local tyrant.”
Mia cara, I hope that you don’t mind me adding the following RESULTS from the Iraqi Referendum as contrast to your above comments:
Province Yes% No%
Anbar 3.40 96.96
Baghdad 77.7 22.30
Dehok 99.13 0.87
Diyala 51.27 48.73
Karbala 96.58 3.42
Kirkuk 62.91 37.09
Meysan 97.79 2.21
Muthanna 98.65 1.35
Najaf 95.82 4.18
Qadissiya 96.74 3.26
Salahedeen 18.25 81.75
Sulaimaniya 98.96 0.04
Arbil 99.36 0.64
Thiqar 97.15 2.85
Wasit 95.70 4.30
Basra 96.02 3.98
Ninevah 44.09 55.01
Babil 94.58 5.42
Now, don’t you find yourself somewhat embarrassed at endorsing a result where provinces got a 95% + vote as free and fair, and simultaneously deriding Saddam’s results as “sham” BECAUSE he achieved similar results? Isn’t that a little illogical?
The fact is, the Referendum was as rigged as Saddam’s ‘elections’. They were ALL cheating, be it the ‘kurds’ the ‘sunnis’ or ‘shia’. Plenty of reports exist as factual eyewitnesses and as analysis to attest to this.
I find it hard to understand your dual support for the USA and democracy. In the Middle East the vast majority of the US supported regimes ARE DICTATORSHIPS. When they defeated Iraq they restored the Kuwaiti DICTATORSHIP. They provide monetary support to the Egyptian DICTATORSHIP. Bush regularly has dinner with the Saudi DICTATOR.
Fact is, the US is only “for” democracy IF it thinks that it will gain by the process.
[stefania] “Go mind your own business and hands off Iraq!”
Strange, that’s exactly what I think America (and Italy) should do … of course, you talk like you OWNED Iraq, which of course Berlusconi would like to - well, at least a little, oil rich patch of it …
[stefania] “Your posts show how clearly depressed you feel after seeing MILLIONS of Iraqis in line to vote , despite some calls for boycott.”
Hardly. I’m depressed because the carnage in iraq is not nearly finished. IF the ‘sunni’ are ever defeated, which at the moment seems somewhat unlikely, the ‘elected’ government will tell the Americans to sod off because they have no more use for them. Then there will be renewed fighting. The elections are a sideshow, an attempt to give legitimacy to the occupation. Millions of Iraqis were told that if they voted the Americans would be sent home … and yet, they are still there. What a disgusting lie that was.
Fact is, the US is only "for" democracy IF it thinks that it will gain by the process.
Well, duh! That doesn't make democracy "bad". And it doesn't mean well-intentioned people shouldn't get behind the process just because the U.S. is acting in its own self-interest. The U.S. is in it because a) turning airliners into cruise missiles doesn't go down well with the voters back home, and b) the middle eastern oil spigot might suddenly get switched off with all that entails for the U.S. economy and more unhappy voters. (And yes, we know how tenuous the link is with Iraq specifically, but one assumes that the strategists are taking a regional view).
People in democracies everywhere wonder why their governments don't act in a more enlightened, and less self-interested way. Witness the anti-globalisation rallies, the green movements, the anti-war crowd. Those same people are also the first to complain when the "enlightenment" they aspire to hits them in their own pockets. Or maybe its not the same people - maybe there is a mixture of altruists prepared to take the hit for more global fairness, and a bunch of self-promoting sociopaths. It doesn't really matter. Either way, governments are in a bind, dealing with (collectively) schizophrenic demands for better conditions at home and better conditions abroad. But find me 0.1% of the U.S. population prepared to place an embargo on oil imports from the entire middle east until the various regimes clean up their act! (Yeah, pigs will fly and SUVs will do 150 to the gallon). It ain't gonna happen in Europe, China or anywhere else either.
So, with the U.S. up to the same old same old ... but with a potential spin off for democracy in Iraq ... what's not to support? Especially since the "status quo" in Iraq prior to 2003 involved a yet more crippling state of affairs with embargoes on trade with Iraq, not to mention a murderous despot holding the reins.
(None of this is to say that the U.S. has kept its bib spotlessly clean in all of this, or that it mightn't be better off looking at other ways to cure its oil addiction. If you enjoy a bit of chemistry my favourite pragmatic optimist is the guy at http://ergosphere.blogspot.com).
Bruno,
God sacrificed his son for all of humanity... and then he raised him up again...for through Christianity we have eternal life. Didn't happen with the various other peoples sacrificing to other gods. They just killed their children for naught! As for Abraham...he didn't go through with the sacrifice. And as for the daughter...yes God held the king to his preomise...for he had sinned and this was the penalty for his sins.
You go on and on about the elections. They were monitored and tallys were corrected where need be. The fact that some areas yielded such strong results says a lot to me. Very different than your spin. It says that they want the new government because they are fed up with the war and want peace. And Americans did not say that they would leave as soon as the elections were over. You wish. Then if the government crumbled under a renewed assault by the terrorists you could say that we should never have tried to do it in the first place. Something this monumental is worth seeing through. Go ahead and rant on and on about us being the occupiers. Once we do pull out (when the new government has the situation in hand) you will be the one with egg on your face. Something this hard to achieve is worth fighting for. It could reshape the middle east and it already has begun to do so. I don't really care if you or An Italian want to deny it. Or if the terrorists try and stop it. Or if some people who don't trust anyone just continue to say it won't work. Many want it and the seed has taken root and will grow. Sadly, you think that if Americans leave, all will be well. Hardly. And noone is stupid enough to think that a political vacuum won't be filled by those who cut off heads and blow innocent people up if we walk away now. Americans will see this through...even with all of you nay sayers barking away. You just don't get it because you have too much hate to get it.
[bruno] What interests me is that you obviously seem to be pretty clued up on the ol’ physics. How do you reconcile the obvious inconsistencies in the Bible and physical laws in terms of you being a Christian? (I mean, just look at Genesis, LOL!) Or is your Christianity not exactly fundamentalist?
If you mean "fundamentalist" in the classic sense, then no, a Catholic arguably can't really be a fundamentalist (or at least *I* would argue that). If you mean "fanatic", then sure, yes, it's much more fun that way (and pointless otherwise). As for physics, well that's just one of the most fun things God invented so how could one not be interested. And regarding Genesis ... the literal truth of Genesis is, of course, far beyond dispute. That is, unless you read Chapter 2 as well as Chapter 1, in which -- unless you are the most unabashed apologist for creationism -- there is a totally different account of the creation. Couple that with the fact that it was written over hundreds of years based on an oral tradition going back thousands, and somewhere along the way got mixed up with our Iraqi friends' Epic of Gilgamesh. Which is not to say Genesis is not "true", but no, not in the creationist sense (which is a largely American phenomenon).
sNIFFER, if you're still lurking, You really nailed this one!
@ The ‘American Christianist’ Monkey Randy G, 11.12.05 – 1:25 am to 11.16.05 - 11:30 am.
Dear Randy, as you know, I do suspect that the ‘god’ you ‘American Christianists’ (and some ‘bearded cavemen’ here and there in Saudi Arabia & in Pakistan) worship is not the same God that all mainstream Christians, Muslims and Jews worship (Who is the One, and the same for all); and you know that I suspect that instead it might very well be what in mainstream Christian and Muslim theology is called ‘the Ape of God’, i.e., the devil.
Maybe I’m wrong. You claim you are a ‘Christian Catholic’, and you possibly are in good faith: but what you have been doing here is precisely what a staunch member of the Universal League of Militant Atheists couldn’t ever hope to do any better.
By your mindless ‘godly’ rants, by your allegations of comical pro-US ‘miracles’ on a par with the ‘Spiders of Fallujah’, by your “God will grant an army of righteous warriors the job of ridding the earth of the evil ones. And so we have this conflict” (Randy G, 11.08.05 - 1:46 am; yes, it was you who wrote it), and by the like, you constantly pour scorn and ridicule on the good Lord, and you induce to make fun of the Lord all readers who are not strong in their faith.
What purpose does it serve? Please, do abstain from this more than nefarious activity from now on.
You do not trust me? Then ask, please, all the other readers and posters. Would you trust Lynnette? Would you trust Bridget? Well, do ask their opinions.
I do find your ‘godly’ rants to be more and more blasphemous (and in very bad taste towards our host Zeyad, as well); other readers might have a more ‘relaxed’ view, believing that anybody can immediately see that you are just some sort of ‘village idiot’. I would not agree with their view: first, because I don’t believe that most readers have that sort of immediate recognition; second, because ‘village idiots’ and retards are ordinarily not working as biologists, marine or otherwise (at least outside the US of America).
What have the other readers and posters to say?
Apart from that, it is not very good form of you to post while being pig-drunk (we see another strong link between you and your President, here), like you patently did for the length of four posts on the 11.12.05 (1:25 am, 1:30 am, 1:39 am, and 1:46 am). It may well happen; but to come back here to rant again without having apologised to our host Zeyad and to all readers was especially bad form on your part.
And, please, do learn to at least register what people tell you.
@ ‘epaminondas’, 11.15.05 - 5:50 am.
Dear ‘epamindondas’: 1) Epamindondas & the Thebans did NOT decide “to pre-emptively attack and destroy Sparta”; they had been attacked by Sparta, managed to squash their army (battle of Leuttra, 371 BC, where one of the two Spartan kings got killed), and then (369 BC) they invaded the Peloponnesus and helped the helots of Messenia to restore their independence, that had been lost circa 750 BC; 2) Thebes was not a “nation”, but a city-State; the main war aim of Epaminondas was to impose Theban hegemony over the other city-States of Boeotia and over the whole of Greece (but his death in battle in 362 BC prevented this); 3) the clash had nothing at all to do with any ideological struggle ‘democracy versus tyranny’ (and even less, dear Ahmehwican poster, with ‘right versus left’; Epaminondas was NOT ‘democratic’ at all towards the other Greek city-States, be they ‘democratic’ or not (his strongest ally was Jason, the tyrant of Pheres); 4) Spartan society was an oddity in Greek terms, with some parallel only in the Hindu Indian subcontinent; a weird racist ‘nation’ or tribe (the Spartiates) had reduced to serfdom the Greek natives of the area (Laconia & Messenia), establishing a strange, very ‘communistic’ State feudalism; but, by comparison with what you Americans have done to the American Natives, they had been very nice to the helots… 5) in Thebes (like in most of the Greek city-States) women, far from being men’s “EQUAL PARTNERS, the ladies”, like you most ignorantly state, where unfree and regarded as little better than slaves; by contrast, among the Spartiates (an almost unique case in the ancient world), the women were not only ‘equal partners’ to the men, but the ‘dominant partners’; 6) the Spartan system went on as before, though gradually ‘wasting away’, for more than a century after that in Laconia (the region of Sparta); 7) from what precedes, it’s obvious that to represent Epaminondas as “history's first 'neo-con'” is a “definition” so crazy, that only a clueless ape could conceive it.
(BTW, on Sparta and Spartan society it is still enlightening the book by William George Forrest, ‘A History of Sparta 950-192 BC’, London, Hutchinson University Library, 1968. The education of our dear apes and monkeys from the US is always to be encouraged, even if, due to the objective limits of their brain capacity, it rarely has any positive effect on them…).
To go back In-Topic, in Saddam’s Iraq there were no “helots” to be freed; the US ‘liberation’ has made Iraqi women more unequal to the men than they ever were in the past fifty years, throwing them into serfdom; and as for “unfettered free choice, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion”, dear ‘epaminondas’, they do not exist in ‘liberated’ Iraq (and with the establishment of the Islamic Republic after the December election they will exist even less).
As for Mossadegh (an elected democratic Iranian leader), you must be a bit confused: it was the CIA and the Brits who organised the putsch against him, putting in his place the bloodthirsty tyrant, the Shah Reza Pahlavi…
@ Bruno, 11.16.05 - 5:01 am (&11.16.05 - 8:48 am), & All.
Carissimo Bruno, first I have to apologise to Zeyad (and to other readers) for our exchange in Italian (a language Zeyad is not bound to know); most of it was anyway OT (and our mutual friend PeteS was surely able to understand it).
It did serve a purpose anyway, since in every thread of Zeyad’s comments pages at least one Ahmehwican troll (and occasionally some posters, like Lee C. the Dixiemonkey and Rickvid the Ape in Seattle, one would have expected to know better) alleges that I’m either a ‘traitorous’ American, or an Iraqi, or ‘an Eyrakian imam living in Cahleehfowniah’ (! - I kid you not).
“Pietrino mi interessa - ha delle idee interessanti”.
Pete interests me as well, and for sure he’s got interesting ideas, and I have a great respect for him. Our latest scuffle occurred just because he was trying to climb on a high moral horse, the saddle of which seemed to me a bit unfairly balanced and unctuous, and I was very afraid he could badly fall down and harm himself!
[I told Bruno that I wouldn’t pinpoint my town lest our ‘friends’ from beyond the ocean put it in their list of next targets, and he agreed, pointing to the kidnap of an Egyptian by the CIA in Milan in February 2003.]
I have good news about that, Bruno: the 22 international American terrorists involved in that crime and exposed by the investigation have been officially charged by Italian justice some days ago, and the official legal procedures to ask the US to give those criminals up have started. Of course the US, being a rogue, terrorist State, won’t surrender the 22 CIA terrorists; but any armed branch of the Italian State will be duty bound to apprehend them whenever they may be seen (Iraq included), and to shoot them dead if they resist arrest.
(Kat the Beast in Missouri, where are you when we need your intelligent & informed insight?...).
But your answer to the troll-like ‘Stefania’, Bruno, was completely wasted; that honorary monkey just pops up every few months, just taking some especially silly pot-shot (once they used to be entirely in capital letters) and then running away. She doesn’t read most of the comments pages (otherwise she would have seen that that sort of mindless stupidities had been already confronted, including the Saddamite proportions of the ‘Yes’ referendum result), and she never engages in the debate. This Stefania La Penna has got her own crazy blog, and is a very atypical Sardinian (Sardinia, an island, is a proud nation, at present part of the Italian State, where most of the people just hate the US because of the many military bases that prevent them from using their land and that pollute the air, the sea and the soil with nuclear contamination – the US nuclear submarine base, La Maddalena, is there). The poor girl is disturbed to the point of incoherence; she wanted the Ayatollah regime in Teheran overthrown (either by the US, or by a people’s rebellion), but she’s not able to see that the shadow of that very regime is now, thanks to the US, enveloping Iraq… and the cretin even hails the Iraqi ‘referendum’ results, making precisely “una figura di merda”!
An Italian, fatti gli affari tuoi. Lascia perdere il popolo iracheno che non ha certo simpatie per gente come te.
Zeyad non è anti-americano, è filo-americano
Italian --
[it] “an Eyrakian imam living in Cahleehfowniah’ (! - I kid you not).”
Actually, I know of the individual of whom they speak. They also speculate that you, I and he are one and the same. They speculate that he is actually the Iraqi who till but recently struck terror and confusion (rhetorically – only rhetorically, Bridgette, so sit down) into the ranks of the warmongers on these and other boards. They speculate many other things, most of which are wrong. Still, it is kind of an honour to be part of “Team Voltron” where the various commenters combine to form some sort of mythical whole.
[it] “The poor girl [stefania] is disturbed to the point of incoherence.”
I noticed that she claims to be a “Neocon” on that page that is her website. Quite honestly, these people are ALL disturbed, those that I run across, anyway. I can supply you the web address of one such VERY disturbed individual who I suspect would put even Stefania to shame in terms of absolute nuttiness and inconsistency. I’d rather not post the address here, though, since the less attention these madmen receive the better. My “throw-away” address is brunoccs8@yahoo.com. If you like mail me there, and I’ll reply. Or, ask Pietrino. He knows precisely of whom I speak. It might be good for a few laughs. He thinks HE is God … LOL …
[bruno] Fact is, the US is only "for" democracy IF it thinks that it will gain by the process.
[petes] Well, duh! That doesn't make democracy "bad". And it doesn't mean well-intentioned people shouldn't get behind the process just because the U.S. is acting in its own self-interest.
Hmm. Alright. What you say is true. To a certain point.
However, when one examines the depths of the corruption of the American effort, be it in the terms of the barbarous methods they employ (fire doctrine, torture) or be it in terms of their political agendas (divide and rule) or be it in terms of the corrupt ‘reconstruction’ process which has sucked billions of dollars back to “the planet of the apes”, as my Italian friend might term it … then the picture changes somewhat, does it not?
IF the motives of the US were pure in this respect, and they had done a sterling job of it all, and the Iraqis were throwing flowers instead of explosives at them - I might be forced to swallow my lumps and admit that heck, those dumb ol’ yanks had a point and that perhaps I ought to rethink my position.
Fact is, however, that from a purely practical and moral point of few, the Iraqis hate the Americans, and want them OUT. Even Omar, at the “Three Monkeys” (see no evil, hear no evil, you know) blog aka Iraq the Model admitted as much. And the fact is that the ABSURD numbers coming out of the referendum, coupled with the numerous reports of fraud only go to show how broken the “democratic” process is there.
[petes] “a) turning airliners into cruise missiles doesn't go down well with the voters back home”
Suggesting that ‘democracy’ is the solution to middle eastern radicalism is a little far fetched. Rather, democracy might well give the populist parties of any such purported Arab democracies a voice on centre stage instead of the pro-West dictators.which currently preside. No. Addressing the ISSUES which cause that anger might well be a better tactic … such as the Israel-Palestine question. Additionally, pressuring those dictators for gradual reforms might be a better tactic, as well as ceasing military aid to them. It’s kind of hypocritical to rail on about evil dictators while simultaneously arming Saudi Arabia’s King to the teeth. I don’t TRUST the Americans, simple as that. And I feel I have good reasons not to.
[petes] “the middle eastern oil spigot might suddenly get switched off with all that entails for the U.S. economy and more unhappy voters.”
Here we get into the realm of realpolitik.
Simply calculating that such an occurrence would be disastrous DOES NOT translate into MORAL support for military control of that middle eastern oil spigot, which Neocons such as Kristol clearly advocate. It’s like me claiming that if the US suddenly switched off the internet’s main root directories, we’d all be deep in the shit, therefore I’m justified in sending a few thousand South African troops over to ‘secure’ them. That, my friend, is NOT justified and not moral.
Moral would be to invest as much effort into alternative energy as possible, reducing energy consumption and finding ways to wean ourselves off oil. We have to do it anyway, so why not start NOW?
Fact is, even from a realpolitik angle the idea of an indefinite embargo would be a little far fetched. The Arabs are just as dependent on OUR products and money as we are on their black gold. The Americans have simply resorted to the old “might is right” angle and decided to TAKE what they want. (And here I was thinking that that mode of thought had exited with the Neolithic…)
Secondly, from a more specific angle, the invasion of Iraq was ESPECIALLY stupid and dense, because it opened up entire new vistas of roiling shit to plunge us all into. As if the Israeli problem was not enough. The question of the Shia and Sunni. The Iranian influence in Iraq. The Kurds and Sunnis. The question of Mosul and Kirkuk. The Turks and Kurds. The increased Muslim radicalisation that was an inevitable consequence. The new crop of jihadis that would arise. Even the pro west Arab dictators saw as much, and warned us.
Really, this invasion was SO stupid that one must consider that perhaps the Neocons WANTED this result. War ad infinitum, and the world split along religious lines. That way they get to crack heads and reshape the globe as they wish.
Italian,
Thank you for the link for the source document. I printed out the article in the Guardian as well. A publication which is rather reminiscent of our tabloid the National Enquirer. But I will read them both this weekend when I have more time.
"you don’t EVER bomb a house from the air"
Aaah, I see, you just stand there and let them ambush and kill as many of your soldiers as they will. An interesting battle tactic.
"when the Algerian Government proclaimed"
I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing Iraq.
"A pity that in the meanwhile they use to establish their Islamic Republic,"
And who is the seer now, Italian?
"Oh the observer told our neighbour don't bother to waste your time. We will do it for the whole neighbourhood"”. Fweedom’nDemocwacy, ain’t it, Lynnette?"
Certainly not. Why is it that people expect us to be able to wave a magic wand and expect everything to be perfect right away? Freedom and democracy are not free, they have to be earned. Yes, even by the Iraqis. The decades of living under the corruption of Saddams regime will not be wiped clean in a day or a week or a year. How to "play fair", so to speak, has to be relearned. It will take time.
“them are all eeeevil”
Now, Italian, you know you are putting words into my fingers there. I specifically made the reference to the KKK to infer their ignorance.
"Maybe I’m mistaken, but do you think that 69 % of any of the three groups would answer that it is proper indeed?"
I am not familiar with PeteS's group, but since you lumped them with the Mahdi army and Nazi's I would guess that that percentage is too low. Personally I do not think that any 5 year old should be handcuffed and anyone who did that should have his head examined.
"it is in YOUR best interest, as Americans, to understand why the rest of the world perceives you as decidedly DIFFERENT!"
Yes, that is why we have such problems with illegal immigrants on our borders. Because we are DIFFERENT.
Hmmm, no doubt they are simply misguided and would prefer to immigrate to France.
@ Stefania, 11.17.05 - 6:21 am.
Cara scimmietta onoraria Stefania, vergogna della Sardegna, TU piuttosto fatti gli affari tuoi, piccola fanatica malata di mente.
Che ne sai, cretina, delle "simpatie" del popolo iracheno?
E tutto ciò ha poco a che fare con l'essere 'anti-americani' o 'filo-americani'.
@ Lynnette in Minnesota, 11.17.05 - 10:50 am.
«The Guardian»: “A publication which is rather reminiscent of our tabloid the National Enquirer”.
Oh no, greatly discerning & wise Lynnette: «The Guardian» is much more boring than «The National Enquirer»…
“ ‘you don’t EVER bomb a house from the air’ ‘Aaah, I see, you just stand there and let them ambush and kill as many of your soldiers as they will. An interesting battle tactic’”.
The point was (again!), dear Lynnette, that yours is an occupation, officially NOT a ‘war’. There are ‘eeevil terrhursts’? The police takes care of them, without EVER bombing the house from the air with a jet, even if they have to take some losses! This, at least, according to the Geneva Conventions, is the behaviour used by the civilised States of the world…
“ ‘establish their Islamic Republic’ ‘And who is the seer now, Italian?’”
Dear Lynnette, since even before your demented invasion of Iraq I (and plenty of other anti-war people) did on the whole predict correctly what would happen, then I am a reliable seer indeed (and so are they), and you’d better take my predictions in earnest…
The last example of this was my “every day some secular, educated Iraqis are found dead, handcuffed, and often with the signs of horrible tortures (electric drills etc.). They had been abducted by policemen or ‘national guard’, i.e. the moonlighting Shiite militias. Don’t you get this sort of news in America?” (An Italian., 11.12.05 - 3:33 am, addressed to you BTW).
This was some days BEFORE US troops stormed one of the torture dungeons of the Iraqi Ministry of Interiors, wasn’t it? You see that I’m actually a seer!
On another Iraqi blog, when two months ago I mentioned with some detail the campaign of torture and murder of potential dissidents lead by the Shiite militias/‘official’ Iraqi forces (which are one and the same since the ‘purple-fingered’ Govt. was established), some US warmongering poster denied such an ‘absurdity’! The first reports of this (in English) over the Internet were available since May, but our pro-war Ahmehwicans (you included, Lynnette) never ever ever read them! Only now your glorious troops discovered that the reports were true, vainly hoping to damage with the revelation the Shiite parties…
The process of finding information from different sources and of analysing it in its present and future import is called ‘intelligence’, dear Lynnette, not ‘clairvoyance’! Yes, I know that the two words ‘American’ (adjective) and ‘intelligence’ (noun) make improbable bedfellows…
You know what, sweet Lynnette? Let’s make a bet now: I bet that the Fundies will get more than 50 % of the votes in the December (rigged) Iraqi ‘elections’. If what I saw in my prodigious crystal ball comes true, you admit here that you were wrong in supporting this demented war all along, and you start calling for the immediate withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq. Fair enough, Lynnette?
(continued…)
(…continued)
“The decades of living under the corruption of Saddam’s regime will not be wiped clean in a day or a week or a year. How to ‘play fair’, so to speak, has to be relearned. It will take time”.
What are you saying, Lynnette? The Kurdish areas ruled by the KDP & PUP have been Saddam-less since 1991! And those two ‘parties’ have no rivals there… Fweedom’n’Democwacy in Iraqi Kurdistan, indeed! Can you say that with a straight snout?
The “ignorance” of most people all across the world, because they regard Americans as different, Lynnette? Are you trying to be a bit cheeky here?
“Personally I do not think that any 5 year old should be handcuffed and anyone who did that should have his head examined”.
I’m soooo happy to see that you have at least a tiny crumb of humanity in you, oh sweet Lynnette! (it was very cleverly hidden!). Are you anti-American, or just un-American, BTW?
The fact stays that 69 % of YOUR countrymen/women in Arizona, or wherever it happened, did instead approve of it… And people with access to the Internet… Were they… ehm… ‘different’, or not?
Believe you me, dear Lynnette: ALL the three non-US groups I mentioned would share precisely your ‘humane’ opinion. They are not Ahmehwicans, you see…
And, between the three of them, oh – gasp! - soooo vewy eeevil, they killed only about one thousandth of the number of people the US military have killed all around the world in the past sixty years.
“Yes, that is why we have such problems with illegal immigrants on our borders. Because we are DIFFERENT. Hmmm, no doubt they are simply misguided”.
Those who immigrate to the US are usually so desperate and without choices, that they do it DESPITE your ‘difference’.
“and would prefer to immigrate to France”.
As a matter of fact, Lynnette, there are more illegal immigrants to the EU every year than to the US.
@ Bruno, 11.17.05 - 9:07 am (& to Bridget, 11.16.05 - 9:34 pm).
Carissimo Bruno, for sure it is a great honour to be part of a team so feared by our US warmongers (that, as a ‘team’, exists only in their paranoid imagination!). I’m quite sure that we, persistent anti-war people from all over the world, of very different political and religious opinions but motivated by a moral revolt against US aggression and its lies, did on the whole a good job in the comments pages to Iraqi blogs in English. On the one hand, we showed the Iraqi bloggers and readers that most people from outside the US do not agree with the whole criminal war and occupation. On the other hand, I hope that we managed to make a good number of American readers think and reconsider their positions, and realise their gullibility.
Unfortunately it seems that most of those Americans who are still ‘pro-war’ just love to be blind & deaf, and do not possess any use of reason. Abu Khaleel at ‘Iraqi Letters’ (iraquna.blogspot.com) has right now published a post, ‘Five Americans’, that addresses precisely this ‘problem’ (please, US warmongers, go and have a look: he’s asking for your opinions!); he points out five types of Americans, and he argues that the incurable warmongers must amount to about 20 % of the US population.
But, by now, I feel that our task is nearing its end. In the aftermath of the Iraqi ‘elections’ (LOL!) of next December, I believe our mission will be over: any debate with those Americans who will then still refuse to face reality would be useless.
You wrote “Quite honestly, these people are ALL disturbed, those that I run across, anyway”.
This is very true, but only of those of them who are from outside the US; I do feel that our (worldwide) categories of ‘mental disorder’ or ‘mental handicap’ do not apply in the same way to those who live in the US. Our American friends (not just the warmongers) are indeed… ehm… truly different! Barely three years ago, I didn’t know how much different…
Our Bridget, who is among the better sort of our Americans (she is able to engage in sensible debate, and sometimes even shows a sense of humour, which is an indication of… humanity), has apparently a grudge against you. She did allege that you had planned her rape on the blog of some Khadim! From what I know of you and of her, I do suspect that maybe our Bridget was mistaken… but, please, do clear it up with her.
She’s an American, after all. Once, here on Zeyad’s blog, we had a (patently Ahmehwican) porno-troll who was targeting her; being, like most Americans, badly equipped to recognise linguistic nuances, she pointed at three possible culprits, all of them not Americans!
One was an Englishman who was indeed a pervert (but didn’t fit that bill); one was… Rachel! And the third… our PeteS, no less!
I’ll write to you soon,
An Italian,
These posts don't lie. I never said anything about God's holy warriors as you quoted here...
"“God will grant an army of righteous warriors the job of ridding the earth of the evil ones. And so we have this conflict” "
You slander me and my good name. Figures. You need to make me into something I am not. Figures. You need to use hate and lies and slander to paint your own corrupt picture of Americans and why this war is so out of sync with your own concept of peace. You simply don't get that Satan does work on people and causes them to do evil. No matter of what country or religion or lack of religion...he prowls the earth, looking for whom he can distroy. And with your mocking and lying about people in this country you do his work. You, An Italian. You think that peace alone will set you free from Satan's bonds. You think that by calling strangers names they don't deserve, you can make them into the bad guys? Satan means slander and that is what you have done, do and will continue to do with all of these monikers and rediculous names that you pin on people you really don't know.
Holy warriors? I know that that is indeed a classification I won't use. I know that some of our soldiers are christian and know that war sucks but they feel that what they do will help make their families safer. But does that make them into holy warriors?
God knows the human heart...that of each and every one of us. Good people exist in all countries. Many of those good peole do suffer in Iraq. They did so under Saddam's boots. Some continue to suffer through loss of life with ramdom bombs exploded to break their will. And why do the terrorists continue to kill these innocent people? Is it because other people who you call evil have come to their country? Really? Do you really think we are all so stupid to believe that. Transfer of guilt nonsense? Communists use that stupidity. So do fascists. So do islamofascists. Bullshit in my book. He or she that plants the bomb to kill others is the guilty party. Period.
I want to see the Iraqis vote in a government that represents all of the peoples of Iraq. I don't care if it includes Islam or is secular. I think that secular would be safer for them...but it is their call. It is their country and their lives and all I want to see is a coming together of the masses so that they can begin to repair all of the damage and find real peace. Is it a pipe dream? You and I could argue for all of eternity. But it is up to them alone. I have been, am and will continue to pray that they succeed with God's help. I really think that you are dillusional in your attempts to make me into all of the names you have so far called me. You don't know me at all. We share a faith...but I think that we each take a different angle of that faith. That's OK.
This sunday I go to a meeting at my parish to become one of the parish council. We are told to look at the individual gifts that God bestows upon us each...and not to be envious of any gifts that are different that God gives others. For God works differently through each of us. Not in unison but through each to effect His will.
"Kingdom of Heaven" was an awesome film. It covered the second crusade. It made you think. It DID NOT make either the Christians or the Muslims out to be the good guys. It just showed how there are good and bad men in each faith. And the good men of both faiths helped effect a compromise that all survivors could live with. And if you have to say one group lost...in that time in history, the Christians lost. But many of the Good survived. I did not come away from viewing that film in a depressed mood. I would have if you were right. But you are not right. I do not look to Iraq to become a christian nation and I grow very tired of your hints to the contrary. Those are lies. I grasp that the world is stronger for our diversity. Christians and muslims live side by side in peace here in the US. Really. Hard for you and your spin to believe. But we do. It is only those who preach HATE that are the problem. Doesn't matter where they preach it. In the occasional pseudo church or mosque or temple or anywhere on earth. Yes...there are even religious leaders who get it wrong. Thankfully, they are a minority. The ones we fight in Iraq that are under Zarqawi are some of those hate mongers. You have only to read his letters to see how he tires to use hate to spin his power hungry message and how he incites others to commit genocide against a whole other denomination of Islam. Not very peaceful.
Holy warriors is a concept that Al Zarqawi tries to spin...and so do you by trying to put it into my mouth. You are a liar, An Italian. Plain and simple. I don't believe in forcing anyone to become any religion. Period. It doesn't work. Spirituality comes from the heart...not from the brain where Hate festers. We are not to judge others by our own standards. Only through God's eyes. And I don't remember God ever telling anyone to go to Iraq and kill. Sorry to disappoint you, An Italian. But it never occured.
We want the seeds of democracy to take hold in the middle east so that we can share a future of peace with a people who are rich in heritage and religion and knowledge. We have no desire to push any other faith on them. Some have become christians. But that is their own will. We just want them to be able to do what we here can do. Worship whatever title of God we so chose. God is real. He loves all of mankind. Not just the chriustians or the muslims or the jewish people or the buddists. He loves all of us. How we chose to worship Him is our own choice. Sadly you miss that belief in how you see and judge me. Sad indeed.
You have not answered my question, An Italian. Stop with the name calling at me and the lies about me and tell me and all here how you would proceed for the future of Iraq. And don't cop out with the simple answer of "If the US would leave, all will work out". I know you are not that stupid. How would you find a way out for the average Iraqi so that they can someday find peace?
"I voted against."
How about Thank God I have the right to vote at all! Congratulations Zeyad, you've blasted your way right up to an ungrateful western brat.
Record time too...
Good luck
Lawk Salih
http://www.lawksalih.com
An Italian,
Front page story in the NY Times today...looks like some al quaida operatives have been targeting Rome. Seriously. You guys could be on the hit list as well. I will pray that any such attempt is thwarted.
@ The Alcoholic Liar Randy G, 11.18.05 - 11:24 am (& @ All).
You wrote: “An Italian, You said I said..."“God will grant an army of righteous warriors the job of ridding the earth of the evil ones. And so we have this conflict”." Sorry...I never said that. I know that God is involved over in Iraq but as for righteous warriors...well...you slander me with that comment”. (Randy G, 11.12.05 - 1:39 am).
AND you wrote: “An Italian, I never said anything about God's holy warriors as you quoted here... "“God will grant an army of righteous warriors the job of ridding the earth of the evil ones. And so we have this conflict” " You slander me and my good name. Figures. You need to make me into something I am not. Figures. You need to use hate and lies and slander to paint your own corrupt picture [etc.].
Holy warriors? I know that that is indeed a classification I won't use.
Holy warriors is a concept that Al Zarqawi tries to spin...and so do you by trying to put it into my mouth. You are a liar, An Italian. Plain and simple”. (Randy G, YESTERDAY 18th of November, h. 11:24 am).
Randy, WHO wrote the following paragraph (I put the entire ‘incriminated’ sentence in capital letters, so that everybody can see), in a post addressed to PeteS??? (anybody can see it above in this very thread):
“And so it has always been true. When evil men to rise up and begin to take over other people and opress them and kill them by horrible means (the story of dissidents being lowered alive into giant paper shredders by Saddam's sons comes to my mind as an example), then GOD WILL GRANT AN ARMY OF RIGHTEOUS WARRIORS (righteous in His names sake, not for themselves) THE JOB OF RIDDING THE EARTH OF THE EVIL ONES. AND SO WE HAVE THIS CONFLICT.”.
Guess WHO wrote it?...
RANDY G, 11.08.05 - 1:46 am (the 8th of November 2005, NOT two years ago) !!!!!!!!!
WHO is the LIAR, Randy????? And a LIAR “PLAIN AND SIMPLE”?????
You are a terminal ALCOHOLIC, Randy, and a liar.
I do see the strong similarity with your Great Leader Bush: when pig-drunk or having delirium tremens, you have the ‘VISIONS’ and the ‘MIRACLES’, and ‘the Spirit’ (i.e., the spirit of alcohol) speaks to you; then you say and do strange and insane things (like invading Iraq or burning Fallujah with white phosphor, or, in your case, writing idiotic posts to Zeyad’s blog); then you forget altogether about them!!!
And I do understand where you disappeared for six or seven months: in some institution where you tried to ‘get dry’, but without success! You indeed USED to be a marine biologist…
Here I strongly renew, Randy, the call I made on you in the last post: do apologise to Zeyad and to all readers & posters, and be gone in shame.
[@ Zeyad & All: maybe we are all wrong in believing that the US warmongering posters are ‘different’ – insane retards, unreasoning fanatics, or apes’n’monkeys. Maybe they are simply sick: US alcoholics in the last stages of their disease, who come here and on the other Iraqi blogs as a form of ‘therapy’… whence our misunderstanding…]
'Anonimous' above was, of course, me.
I’m quite sure that we, persistent anti-war people from all over the world, ... motivated by a moral revolt against US aggression and its lies, did on the whole a good job in the comments pages to Iraqi blogs in English.
Italian, I wish it were otherwise but as far as I can see you have made little effort to show the morality of your argument. I for one would have been listening if you had tried to do that, but you always seem to be too busy abusing your fellow commentators. And your comment that "the losses taken by the US aggressors are an obvious moral good" -- whether wilfully ignorant or motivated by antipathy -- was plainly wrong.
On the one hand, we showed the Iraqi bloggers and readers that most people from outside the US do not agree with the whole criminal war and occupation. On the other hand, I hope that we managed to make a good number of American readers think and reconsider their positions, and realise their gullibility.
Unfortunately, I think you alienated most of your potential audience with your approach. (The old Beatles song Revolution springs to mind). Also, you never addressed the crucial question of the morality of the situation before the invasion. Saddam himself was fond of highlighting the problem, with the staged multiple burials of children killed by sanctions. And finally, you seem to accept the tactics of Iraqi insurgents (which appear to overwhelmingly target completely innocent non-combatants) as somehow morally justified.
This may be a "revolt against US aggression", but I am not convinced it is a moral one.
An Italian,
LOL...you again do not cease to amaze me. I did say
" then GOD WILL GRANT AN ARMY OF RIGHTEOUS WARRIORS (righteous in His names sake, not for themselves) THE JOB OF RIDDING THE EARTH OF THE EVIL ONES. AND SO WE HAVE THIS CONFLICT.”."
But what you don't seem to even have a clue is what I meant by it. Nowhere does the phrase "holy warriors" show up. You think holy and righteous are the same? You don't seem to get my historical reference for the former (holy warrior) and God's actual will for the latter (righteous warriors). The former came to Jerusalem supposedly to free the holy lands which were taken by Islamic forces that were only in existance 700 years after Christ lived and died. They wanted to convert the heathens to christians or so they said. But many were just out for profit and plunder and they proved to be no better than the worse part of some of the islamic groups of fighters. There were good and bad men in both the christian and islamic camps. Period. I really don't care to argue that point...for common sense and history dictates that it was so.
Today is a far different matter. We did not send our forces into Iraq to conquer the land or to take it over or to convert it to a christian nation. If you think so then you are just about the most ignorant man on these posts. I hate to say that but if I am indeed an apeman...then you are an ape's ass. But seriously, I have no real desire to trade insults. What I meant by righteous warrior is explained in the ( ) section. It does NOT apply to all US or coalition forces, for there are good and bad men in our forces as well. Why would I say that? Because I am as disgusted as you and all others over the abuses at Abu Grad prison and I am embarrassed as an American that it even happened and I personally apologize to Zeyad and all fellow Iraqis that we could have let such a stupid thing go on. And the reason it happened? Not because it was sanctioned by our own officers or forces. There has been a thorough investigation into that and it was NOT sanctioned. Unfortunately, it points to a serious problem that exists in our own country...a slippage of morals amoung some of our youth. The very seepage of relativism into our culture that we should have been more on guard against. But it did occur and it was grotesque to have to see. And if I can lay the blame at any one aspect of our country's culture, the booby prize would go to MTV. A TV company that has gone off the deep end in regards to moral code and normal decency. Unfortunately, the homoeroticism that was seen in Abu Grad (where all sorts of indecent things were practiced on prisoners (most of whom were not even considered to be of intelligence value) is a fairly regular feature on MTV. Sickos do skits on it to music and some of our young troops on the night shift just decided to have some fun and try and replicate some of the stupidity and indecency as seen on MTV and then they filmed it and sent it to friends...and the rest is history. Did they get punished? Damn straight. Personally, I think they got off with not enough of a sentenceing. For they were not told to do any of this and they just decided to "have their own fun" and no army can claim to be a good one with such twits on board. So yes, some of our soldiers have problems and issues. But what I am talking about is the sins of the evil ones who cut off heads and commit wholesale genocide against innocent shites and including children. If you are not familiar with Luke 17:1-4, I suggest you read it and learn it, for it IS God's opinion to bring devestation down upon any who hurt the little ones. Maybe they didn't get thrown in the ocean with a millstone around their necks. But I personally believe that some have met their fate when some of our troops were used by God to blot them out. I don't give a rats ass if you don't agree. You can act like God is just this peaceful God and that he hates all war. What he hates is sins and when the sins get great (as in the sinful slaughter of innocent children), God will take action and use whatever is available to him to effect his just revenge. That has NOTHING TO DO with converting anyone or going against Islam or any other stupid spin you want to put on it. It simply has to do with some of the terrorists being totally evil, with them NOT being representatives of Islam as they claim and with God deciding to eradicate them with what is at hand...both our own troops and some of the new Iraqi troops. Someday this will be history. But for now things still suck in regard to the horrors of war. I don't want to make all of our soldiers into heros, for some have misbehaved. You should also do likewise with "the insurrectionists", for many have misbehaved on their side. And I will never believe that anyone should kill anyone else because they are of another religion. Kill them because they are killers? Yes, God does grant that. But not because he sides with one religion against another. You are still a liar about me and my words in my most humble opinion. And Zeyad knows exactly where I come from and needs no apology from you about me. I want the same thing for him and his family that he wants...an end to this destruction and killing and a secure country in which to live...one where all Iraqis can find peace...not just one group or the other. I saw the Iraqi ambassador to the UN last night on CNN and he said "why do you speakers keep trying to make us about to go into civil war. We are not secretarians and many of us intermarry and most of us do pray for peace for the future". I believe that. Not your nonsense about occupiers. You don't speak for us and you never did.
Now...please send me a bunch of bananas (just kidding)
But i did not use the caps that you put into my sentences...that was your doing.
[Italian] She [bridget] did allege that you had planned her rape on the blog of some Khadim! From what I know of you and of her, I do suspect that maybe our Bridget was mistaken… but, please, do clear it up with her.
I very seriously doubt that I ever said anything of the sort. If she would be so kind as to provide the relevant quote, I will be glad to point out her error. Or, if what I said was ambiguous – and I do try to steer clear of ambiguity – I will clear up the misunderstanding.
(In any case it is somewhat amusing to plan the ‘rape’ of somebody living I don’t know where in the USA, when I live on an entirely different continent.)
Hmm … what IS possible, is that the American who made a habit of ‘stealing’ people’s ‘signatures’ was hard at work spreading discord and posted under my name. A simple confirmation of IP addresses will be enough to clear up the matter IF this was the case. I await your reply, Bridget.
[Italian] “Guess WHO wrote it?... RANDY G, 11.08.05 - 1:46 am (the 8th of November 2005, NOT two years ago) !!!!!!!!!”
POW ! Good shooting, old chap. You managed to bag that warmonger very well. (Though let’s be honest, it WAS on its last legs … )
[randyg]
[randyg] “He or she that plants the bomb to kill others is the guilty party. Period.”
I’m glad to see that at least ONE warmonger admits the culpability of his country’s forces with regards to the destruction of Iraq.
[randyg] “You have only to read his letters to see how he tires to use hate to spin his power hungry message and how he incites others to commit genocide against a whole other denomination of Islam. Not very peaceful.”
Zarqawi is widely regarded as being dead. His latest ‘letters’ are likely fabrications by US psyops or the CIA, in order to perpetuate this myth. Inconsistencies and absurdities such as (a) his purported locations (being in two places at once) (b) his supposed seeking medical aid in IRAN (!) and (c) stylistic absurdities within his letters which are inconsistent with being a die hard Salafi has led many informed and intelligent analysts to this conclusion. Couple that with his ‘top lieutenant’ being captured every time things turn bad for the US (good news, huh? Only for the retarded) … but somehow this one legged Jordanian with 10 million $ on his head always seems to slip away.
Zarqawi is extremely useful to the US as a bogey man with which to scare the Shias and with which to justify the crushing of centres of opposition without arousing too much outrage. And yes, there are radical Salafist elements in Iraq who also like the idea of having an invincible figurehead with which to attract followers, so I doubt that they would dispel this psyops creation either. However, secular elements within the resistance have admitted that once the US leaves, they will deal with these ‘Zarqawists’, ‘Salafis’ or ‘Islamofascists’ on their own terms, which will no doubt be terminal. But as long as the common foreign enemy is in Iraq, that being the US, common cause is the only logical way forward.
[randyg] “And I don't remember God ever telling anyone to go to Iraq and kill. Sorry to disappoint you, An Italian. But it never occured. ”
That’s not what the US Preznit, GW Bush says. HE says God told him to do exactly that. How unpatriotic of you to doubt the Preznit’s word! You anti-American, you.
[PeteS] “And finally, you seem to accept the tactics of Iraqi insurgents (which appear to overwhelmingly target completely innocent non-combatants) as somehow morally justified.”
PeteS, the Resistance, does NOT ‘overwhelmingly target non-combatants’. Take a look at the figures from the US’s own Government Accountability Office (GAO), in this document: REBUILDING IRAQ - GAO - October 2005 - Statement of Joseph A. Christoff, Director International Affairs and Trade. The actual document is pdf. D06179t and it should be available through Global Security.
In the attacks in August 2005, for example, we have just over 2500 attacks for that month. Of those, around 2000 attacks were only against ‘Coalition’ – ie US – forces. That’s 80%. The next biggest slice is attacks on Iraqi military forces and the attacks on civilians are a distant third – perhaps 6% of the total. Please note that these figures are compiled by US organisations. Civilians could encompass collaborators like translators, sub contractors for US companies and other facilitators.
This idea that the resistance is overwhelmingly attacking civilians is completely erroneous and propagated in an attempt to undermine the credibility of the Iraqis fighting for freedom from occupation. I respectfully suggest that if they really wanted to merely “kill civilians” then they could do a lot, lot more damage.
On the other hand, it is true to say that through 2004 at least, the US managed to kill far more civilians than the insurgents:
More Iraqi civilians killed by U.S. forces than by insurgents, data shows
Nancy A. Youssef - Sep. 24, 2004 - Knight Ridder Newspapers
BAGHDAD, Iraq – “Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis - most of them civilians - as attacks by insurgents, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry and obtained exclusively by Knight Ridder.
[...]
While most of the dead are believed to be civilians, the data include an unknown number of police and Iraqi national guardsmen. Many Iraqi deaths, especially of insurgents, are never reported, so the actual number of Iraqis killed in fighting could be significantly higher.
[...]
During the same period, 432 American soldiers were killed. Iraqi officials said the statistics proved that U.S. airstrikes intended for insurgents also were killing large numbers of innocent civilians. Some say these casualties are undermining popular acceptance of the American-backed interim government.
[...]
American military officials said "damage will happen" in their effort to wrest control of some areas from insurgents. They blamed the insurgents for embedding themselves in communities, saying that's endangering innocent people.
Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, an American military spokesman, said the insurgents were living in residential areas, sometimes in homes filled with munitions. "As long as they continue to do that, they are putting the residents at risk," Boylan said. "We will go after them." //end excerpt
Please note the US military spokesman justifying breaching of the Geneva Conventions through the bombing of civilian areas. Using his logic, we could justify many things …
[petes] “Also, you never addressed the crucial question of the morality of the situation before the invasion.”
Fair enough, there was a better case for intervention before the invasion. A better case – but not a convincing one. Simply from a realpolitik angle, the plus of getting rid of Saddam had to be measured against the potential conflict that would be unleashed by his deposal.
I have already mentioned, I believe, the Sunni-Shia, Turk-Kurd, Sunni-Kurd conflict unleashed. This was predictable. The wisdom of providing Al Qaeda with even more outrage to draw upon is also highly debatable. The wisdom of allowing a unified Shiite arc of influence across the Middle East under Iranian control (incidentally covering some of the richest oilfields in the world) is also highly debatable. The fact that the Neocons thought that they could use the influence of Najaf and Kerbala to forment religious unrest in Iran shows just how nuts and removed from reality they really were.
From a humanitarian point, sure, Saddam was a shit.
But if we take the American point of view, which is that the building of infrastructure = morality, then Saddam was a beneficial force for Iraq, given that the Ba’ath under Hussein turned a backwards desert country into a regional powerhouse. And given the American penchant for ‘destroying the village in order to save it’ this swathe of devastation was also entirely predictable.
I have yet to see any evidence that the current Occupation is in any way better than his rule. Given that child malnutrition has doubled (over even the sanctions period) and that under the economic programme that has been imported by the US, the phasing out of food rationing is being considered … one can make the argument that the stability of Saddam was better than this mess.
An Italian, I have your mail; I'll respond as soon as I can, today's a bit hectic.
Bruno,
You can post all of the misinformation about our forces and about the conflict that you want to. I personally believe that in the end, a new and better Iraq will emerge from all of this chaos. If you are saying that the insurgents are the good guys, then where is their plan for Iraq and does it include 80% of the people?..NOT! I am sorry that we did not maintain a true semblence of order once we did topple Saddam...that is where it all began to slide away. I as well see the dangers of Iran taking over Iraq. But you seem to forget that Iraqis as a whole are VERY nationalistic and I doubt if Iran will ever be able to annex Iraq. Sure...they may influence them. But most Iraqi's are praying for peace and a future as their own soveriegn entity. I believe the Iraqi ambassador much more than I believe you.
You make us out to be imperialists. Hardly! You don't live here and you don't speak for us or our troops. You are just someone with a flawed opinion about who our Presdient really is. Sad to see the nonsense you spin about him...and about so called neocons and about americans in general.
Poor Zeyad. I think his comments section has taken on a life of it's own.
Italian,
"greatly discerning & wise Lynnette"
Why, thank you, I try.
I read over the material you supplied regarding the action in Fallujah. Yes, white phosphorous was used in Fallujah. According to your "boring" publication white phosphorous "can be legally used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy. Assuming your "boring" publication is correct in this(I didn't look it up). The After-Action Review states "We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, late in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on the with HE."(HE being high explosives.) " We fired "shake and bake" missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out. That sounds like there was no intent to use WP directly on insurgents. There was no mention in the AAR of firing WP directly into buildings or the use of M77. That all being said, if there was questionable use of either munition than an enquiry should be started. You will be pleased to know that CNN reported on the Italian film that raises this question. Which your "boring" publication called a "turkey", btw. I will not condemn anyone on the basis of what you have given me.
"This, at least, according to the Geneva Conventions, is the behaviour used by the civilised States of the world…"
And this:
"Under the earlier Geneva Conventions, which are more widely recognized, a guerrilla army must have a well-defined chain of command, be clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry arms openly and observe the laws of war. (Convention III, Art. 4, Sec. 2)"
is the behavior expected of your "patriotic resistance".
"horrible tortures"
Excerpt from "No True Glory-A Frontline Account of the Battle for Fallujah" by Bing West
"Suleiman's tribe was trying to buy him back. It sounded like he would be beaten, then released. That had been the punishment meted out to the son of a less powerful sheikh a week earlier. The soles of the man's feet had been beaten to bloody pulps and he would walk with canes for the rest of his life, but he was alive.
Toolan hoped that Suleiman's tribe-the abu Mahdi-would react, but the tribe was cowed by the ruthlessness of Janabi and Hadid. Several days later Suleiman's pulverized corpse was dumped on a road south of the mosque. The torso was burned pink, and the feet and legs were swollen and black. Toolan heard that Janabi and Hadid hadn't set out to kill him. The usual beating had begun-bamboo canes lashing the soles of his feet, then proceeding up his legs. Instead of whimpering and agreeing to a confession, Suleiman had cursed his torturers, who responded by pouring boiling water on his chest. They then propped him up and videootaped his halting monologue that he was an American spy, working for Toolan. Hadid then sawed off his head."
LtCol Suleimann was the commander of the Iraqi battalion in Fallujah.
"The process of finding information from different sources and of analysing it in its present and future import is called ‘intelligence’,"
That's true Italian. Maybe you should practice what you preach. Btw, I knew about LtCol Suleimann from other sources, but chose to give you the excerpt from the book just on the off chance that you might want to do just that. As in, read another perspective on Fallujah.
"Lynnette, there are more illegal immigrants to the EU every year than to the US."
And we see how "warmly" they are treated.
Randy G, 11.21.05 – 1:51 & 1:52 am.
You twice DENIED that it was you who had written “God will grant an army of righteous warriors the job of ridding the earth of the evil ones. And so we have this conflict”, and called me a LIAR.
Now you ADMIT it was indeed you who wrote it, but you still say: “You are still a LIAR about me and my words in my most humble opinion”!
Perfect bourbon-fuelled logic!
You don’t need no “bananas”, Randy; all you’d need is to stay well away from that whisky bottle…
@ PeteS, 11.20.05 - 9:49 pm.
You wrote, from the heights of your rather shaky and unstable pulpit, or soap box, or high moral horse:
“I wish it were otherwise but as far as I can see you have made little effort to show the morality of your argument. I for one would have been listening if you had tried to do that. This may be a ‘revolt against US aggression’, but I am not convinced it is a moral one”.
Dear Pete, it seems to me that YOU should show the morality of your (up to now) rather uncertain argument. Show, for instance, why the US Iraqi adventure was ‘moral’… In regard to things which interest you (and mainly you), we did discuss your four main ‘Catholic’ conditions for ‘just war’, & it was shown that the American war didn’t fulfil any of them (apart from the feasibility – notice, the feasibility, which doesn’t appear to be a ‘moral’ term at all to most people – of downing Saddam’s regime; countered by the unfeasibility of doing anything else the US claimed they wanted to do in Iraq after that). So, even according to your utter confusion between ‘morals’ (which are freely given by God to most people, believers in God, agnostics, pagans and atheists included) and outmoded legalistic ‘Catholic principles’ (about which, in this context, though being a believing & practicing Catholic I couldn’t anyway give a damn), the US war against Iraq is completely immoral, and to oppose it is moral instead.
Anyway, we went on about that issue (and the more reasonable issue of morality) over and over, contrary to what you write. And we determined that, according to your rather comical ‘Catholic teachings’ (that for sure reminded Zeyad of his bearded Ayatollahs), Petain and the French Nazi-Fascists (the collaborators with the Germans in WW2) would have been considered the ‘good guys’, and the Resistance the ‘bad guys’!
Most people in the world understood from the beginning that the US invasion of Iraq was both immoral and evil, while you, according to what you yourself wrote, were “trying all along to understand how Catholic moral teaching should be applied to the situation. I'd be the first to admit I'm not sure of the answer” (LOL!). Maybe that ‘da Catecheesm’ (whatever transcription for Dubliner you prefer, caro Pietrino , and whatever way you try to stretch the poor catechism) is not the proper tool to judge about good and evil, just and unjust, in international politics (especially when even an agnostic - Bruno, 11.17.05 - 9:10 am – can catch you with your pants down: “That, my friend, is NOT justified and not moral”).
When I noticed the possibility of some form of “cultural [Irish] correlates” to your ‘Catholicism’, you were quite indignant (“Blah blah and more blah… influences that are far from Irish… opinionated claptrap”) ! But methinks thy dost protest too much, Pete… Strange coincidence, isn’t it, that a sort of ‘Catholicism’ devoid of any moral and spiritual value, but utterly devoted to the study of rules and regulations (as you were saying, “a Catholic believer is absolutely required”, Peadarín! Islamic law anyone?), flourished in the past couple of centuries only in one land…
(continued…)
(…continued)
that is, again coincidentally, Ireland?! Is it the most troubled souls of Paul Cardinal Cullen and of John Charles Cardinal McQuaid, seeking solace from their present sufferings, that come to you every night, teaching you your Irish interpretation of ‘da Catecheesm”?
And what about your double standards? Do you believe they are ‘moral’? You kept reproaching me because my words towards the perpetrators of this criminal aggression and their supporters were ‘uncharitable’, nay, “unforgivable” and “unconscionable”… but did you ever utter any such condemnation not of their WORDS, but of their ACTIONS? And (differently from some ignorant apes and monkeys) for sure you are a ‘human being responsible to God’, and a very well informed one at that… can you say that the FRUITS of the brilliant US ‘Operation Iraqi Destruction’ are in anyway GOOD? You know about the kingdom of terror, manifold worse than Saddam’s, established by the Iraqi Government and by the US occupiers. As Riverbend says in her last post, “For over a year corpses have been turning up all over Baghdad. Corpses of people who are taken from their homes in the middle of the night (lately they've been more brazen- they just do everything in the light of day), and turn up dead somewhere. That isn't as disturbing as the reports about the bodies- the one I can't get out of my head is that many of the corpses are found with holes in the skull left by an electric drill”.
Common sense and morals were given to most humans as a natural gift by the Lord: but you resort, instead, to some convoluted ‘blahthe[r]ological’ nonsense in order not to take a stand, like a worm wriggling on a hook. Now, Pete, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5,20).
But you say you are courteous, phlegmatic, polite, never ‘hot-under-the-collar’? “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot; I would thou wert cold or hot. So then, because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth” (Revelation 3,15-16).
In my opinion, by now only a formal declaration on the following lines could save you from the taint of having ‘a bit faulty moral fibre’, or of ‘moral cowardice’: ‘Hereby I PeteS, the Great Causidicus Hibernicus, solemnly state that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, and its consequences, are unforgivable, unconscionable and immoral’.
For your other three questions (Saddam, insurgents, and stiffed invaders), more later (if Zeyad doesn’t get too bored).
The only thing I can do for you is to pray the Lord to make a big fish appear on the coasts of Wexford and swallow you whole, keeping you in its belly for three days and three nights like the prophet Jonah. I doubt whether in that way the good Lord would manage to make you, dear Pete, raise your voice against manifest injustice, like any believer is supposed to do. But, at least, I’m quite sure that after your stay in the belly of the fish its stench would decisively overpower the hideous stench of that ‘H’ brand of Irish soap you insist on using…
Bruno, just to catch up on a couple of your points ...
I have yet to see any evidence that the current Occupation is in any way better than [Saddam's] rule. Given that child malnutrition has doubled ... one can make the argument that the stability of Saddam was better than this mess.
One could make that argument, however there is some prospect that the current situation will improve (not soon enough of course), but the "stability of Saddam" was precisely the problem -- years of sanctions were hurting only the innocent and there was zero prospect of improvement.
Fair enough, there was a better case for intervention before the invasion. A better case -- but not a convincing one. Simply from a realpolitik angle, the plus of getting rid of Saddam had to be measured against the potential conflict that would be unleashed by his deposal.
Yes, this is the crucial question. Quite apart from the realpolitik, it's the crucial moral question too. Personally (based on traditional Western philosophy) I don't accept that it is legitimate to commit an evil in order to achieve a good. I also don't believe that the U.S. was sufficiently threatened by Saddam to claim the war was one of self-defence. On the other hand, I never believed Saddam's WMD existed, but Saddam apparently did, or at least he acted like it, so I don't overly criticise the U.S. for this aspect. I guess where I see the moral legitimacy of the invasion is that it was designed to bring to a swift end an unjust situation that had persisted for years in a de facto ongoing low-level war. (I personally didn't like the way this came about though, without U.N. support and without completion of the UNSCOMM job). Another aspect of all this is the degree to which post-war conflict might have been anticipated. While its unfair to expect the U.S. to have had some kind of crystal ball, it does seem that a lot of good and prescient advice coming out of its own State Department before the war about how to win the subsequent peace appears to have been ignored. So yes, there's a lot to be lamented about how things have worked out, and in some areas it seems fair to retrospectively blame the Bush administration. Were they stupid? Moralistic but naive? Was there a sinister plan other than the one advertised? I don't know. The best bet seems to be not to trust them (as you said on 11.17.05 - 9:09 am). However, it also seems (to me anyway - and I am trying not to be your "tipico scimiotto pro guerra") that the morality of the enterprise is far from disproved.
Suggesting that "democracy" is the solution to middle eastern radicalism is a little far fetched.
True, but it's considerably more moral than other possible solutions suggested in these comments such as "turning the middle east into glass".
(cont'd)
The solution would clearly be to remove the root causes of anger against the US from the arab street. That would mean dealing and resolving the Israeli issue in a fair and equitable manner and reimbursing the Palestinians for the grief and loss that the creation of Israel has caused them.
That may be clear to you (and I broadly agree with the aspiration), but it strikes me that there are a couple of implicit assumptions that could be questioned. One is that the U.S. has some easy way of brokering peace that it has not yet tried (ok, let's rule out "solutions" like withdrawing all funding from Israel, threatening it with instant annihilation should it deploy a nuke, and leaving it to the tender mercies of its neighbours). As you said yourself, the creation of Israel was facilitated by a guilt-ridden Europe, and the continuing support of Israel from the U.S. is not unrelated to the fact that a large portion of European Jewry that did not emigrate to Israel post-war ended up in the U.S. This support is bolstered in latter days, of course, by the wacky millenial dispensationalists who see Christian eschatology being intimately linked to the fortunes of the state of Israel. Anyway, for whatever reason, support for Israel is "built in" to the U.S, which is why I actually am quite impressed by the U.S. putting pressure on the Sharon government over various issues.
Another assumption you seem to have made is that "anger against the US from the arab street" is rational and proportionate. But it seems to me there is no doubt that there is a disturbing and deeply ingrained racist antipathy towards the U.S in some Arab quarters that would make even our Italian friend blush. This is not necessarily going to go away along with the Israeli-Palestine conflict. In any case, the legitimate grievances that need to be resolved in that conflict cannot be helped unilaterally by the U.S. Indeed, it cannot be done unilaterally by Israel or Palestine either -- they both need to deal with their hardliners who deny the right of the other side to even exist! If there was an easy solution it would have been found. I tend to be pessimistic but I'm prepared to believe anything is possible in a world where Ariel Sharon can become a nouveau-liberal !!! (On the other hand, if Sharon is a "centrist" it makes you wonder how far right the right is).
Sorry Italian, I am sick and am stranded in narrowbandland (9.6k GSM), so the pulpit wars will have to wait. The two posts to Bruno already gave me a glipse of eternity
[randyg] “You can post all of the misinformation about our forces and about the conflict that you want to.”
RandyG, if you are accusing me of lying, then you had better have backup for that claim. Otherwise it is just more American hot-air whining, added to the towering thundercloud of bullshit that you lot have barfed out in support of this enterprise. FACTS. I post FACTS. Mostly from America’s own institutions. If you don’t have additional FACTS to back up your statements, then STFU.
[randyg] “I personally believe that in the end, a new and better Iraq will emerge from all of this chaos.”
That’s your belief. Cool. I have mine, based on factual data which you have a poor control of, which indicates to me that there is more trouble in the offing. The Americans and Shia are getting on each others nerves. The trouble between the Kurds and Turks has been simmering for a while. It will erupt sooner or later.
[randyG] “If you are saying that the insurgents are the good guys, then where is their plan for Iraq and does it include 80% of the people?”
Statements by important sections and umbrella organisations of the Resistance are online. If you really were interested in them you would find them. Let me add that their ideas are not far off what the US purports to be there for. Here, see for yourself:
From JUAN COLE
“STATEMENT OF THE ANTI-OCCUPATION PATRIOTIC FORCES
In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate
The anti-occupation Iraqi patriotic forces met in Um al-Qura Mosque on February 15, 2005 to discuss the present situation and its implications on all levels. The participants discussed proposals aiming at restoring Iraq's full independence, unity and sovereignty. The participant forces proclaim that they deal with the national reconciliation, which they were the first to call for since the beginning of the occupation, and with the writing of the constitution, on the basis of what follows:
1) A clear, precise, public, and binding under international guarantees, timetable for the withdrawal of the occupation troops from Iraq in all their aspects and forms.
2) Abolition of the principle of repartition according to sectarian, racial or ethnic lines, and adoption of the principle of citizenship and equality in rights and duties in front of the law.
3) Acknowledgement of the principle of the right of the Iraqi people to reject occupation; recognition of the Iraqi resistance and its legitimate right to defend its country and its resources; rejection of terrorism which takes aim at innocent Iraqis, facilities and institutions of public utility, and places of worship -- mosques, husseiniyyat [Shia religious centers], churches and all holy places.
4) Since the elections that took place lacked legitimacy due to the fact that they were based on the Administrative Law [the Bremer-designed TAL, contested by Sistani himself], lacked legal and security conditions, were boycotted by a large number of people and rigged, the administration that will result from these elections does not have the right to conclude any agreement or treaty infringing on Iraq's sovereignty, the unity of its people, its land and its economy, and the preservation of its riches.
5) Adoption of democracy and election as the only option for the transfer of power, and the preparation of conditions and laws allowing the political process to take place in honest and transparent conditions, under neutral international supervision.
6) Affirmation of the patriotic, Arab and Islamic identity of Iraq, and firm opposition to all positions that might lead to the loss of this identity.
7) Liberation of all prisoners and detainees in the jails of the occupation and the provisional government, in particular the women; cessation of the continuous search operations and violation of human rights in all Iraqi provinces; demanding the reconstruction of destroyed cities and payment of just and fair reparations to their inhabitants.
The participant forces call on the other patriotic forces that agree with them on these principles to sign this statement as a service to our patriotic cause and for the sake of regrouping all Iraqi patriotic forces and unifying their position.
The Anti-Occupation Patriotic Forces
6 Muharram 1426 / 15 February 2005
[randyg] “But you seem to forget that Iraqis as a whole are VERY nationalistic and I doubt if Iran will ever be able to annex Iraq.”
Hm, what’s this? A grain of truth aomgst the chaff. Iran does not have to annex Iraq. Through SCIRI and its victory in the ‘elections’ it has already gained what it wanted – authority over Iraqi Shias and the resources of the areas they command. You know, SCIRI – The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq? Encouraging bedfellows you have, RandyG. Iran is very supportive of the democratic process in Iraq, as a matter of fact. I wonder why.
[randyg] “Sad to see the nonsense you spin about him...and about so called neocons and about americans in general.”
Again. Am I lying? If I am, show me where. Please do. The reality is, you are an American who is sad and angry at the flak that the USA is (rightfully) receiving and want to reject such a distortion of the shining image you have of your country. Unfortunately you have met a better prepared and more knowledgeable adversary whose arguments you are unable to refute.
You have three choices.
(A) Remain as you are, ignore my (and other people’s) arguments, ignore the facts and keep parroting your unsubstantiated ‘opinions’. The flipside of this choice is that its easy. The downside is that you keep looking like an ignoramus.
(B) Make a serious effort into shoring up your obviously scanty knowledge on the subject at hand, and return with coherent and logical arguments, and beat my ass. Now, knowing the amount of research I have done into the subject, that outcome is … unlikely … but at least you will be improving yourself. I’m all for self-improvement, even that of an ‘enemy’. Lynette, for example, can be very annoying, but I can pay her arguments more respect given her greater knowledge and thought. Good for her. I’m tired of dealing with babies.
(C) Reconsider the stance that you have taken and the stance of America in this enterprise. Do research into the subject to see if things really are as they are or if there are more sinister agendas at work. (And there are.) Check out the PNAC for example, and think how you would feel if Russia or China had written such a document. If your stance remains the same, well, cool, but at least you will know the background to the decisions that the US has taken and can be held morally responsible for their consequences.
Italian
[An Italian] “In regard to things which interest you (and mainly you), we did discuss your four main ‘Catholic’ conditions for ‘just war’”
Most interesting. See the Church isn’t useless! I also found the guidelines to Just War to be interesting and applicable. Where was your discussion?
PeteS
[bruno] “one can make the argument that the stability of Saddam was better than this mess.”
[petes] One could make that argument, however there is some prospect that the current situation will improve (not soon enough of course), but the "stability of Saddam" was precisely the problem -- years of sanctions were hurting only the innocent and there was zero prospect of improvement.
True. On the other hand we are talking about ‘maybes’. Maybe Saddam would have died and his son Qusay, who seemed a big improvement, would have taken over. Or maybe the situation will NOT improve and the region will degenerate into general unrest, which could have been avoided.
A FACT, however (opposed to speculation) is that the US made it clear that it would use its veto to prevent the removal of sanctions even IF the weapons inspections declared he was in compliance. The US declared that they would remain for as long as he was in power. The responsibility for the continued sanctions rests squarely on the shoulders of the Americans.
[petes] “On the other hand, I never believed Saddam's WMD existed, but Saddam apparently did, or at least he acted like it, so I don't overly criticise the U.S. for this aspect.”
I did believe that he had them. As a consequence of this belief, I thought that the invasion was doubly, triply stupid. Imagine if he really did have a couple of tons of VX lying about. Imagine that he decided, “If I’m going, I’ll take you all with me” and supplied Al Qaeda (his otherwise enemies) with it. Or Hamas. Or the PLO. Given that the US was unable to even stop Scud launches in the first Gulf War, it is highly implausible that such a transfer could have been stopped. So lets say that he supplied them with this stuff. Then what? It gets dispersed all over the globe, and would redefine the TERROR in “terror” attacks. Forget the little squibs of the London Underground. Think of terror attacks in terms of thousands of dead, every time. No, rather keep Saddam under lock and key, keep him responsible for these weapons (which he never had, LOL!) and give him something to lose. Then work out another, cleverer way to get rid of him. Or moderate him.
[petes] “But it seems to me there is no doubt that there is a disturbing and deeply ingrained racist antipathy towards the U.S in some Arab quarters that would make even our Italian friend blush. This is not necessarily going to go away along with the Israeli-Palestine conflict.”
Hmm. I think that it would. Or at least, it would to enough of an extent to make the “kill all the Jews” Arabs fringe elements on the political spectrum. Fact is, before all the “support Israel at all costs” attitude by the US, the Arabs never really had a problem with the Americans. At that time it was the British and the French, what with the Sykes-Picot and later the Suez Canal stories, who were the Bad Guys. The US has willingly taken on the role of “Oppressor in Chief”, and it’s kinda sad to see them bawl when the “Arabs don’t like us”. Gee, I WONDER WHY?
As an American... I am personally offended and angry at the interim govt. in Iraq who has taken the blood of our men and women to free them... and now in the interest of politics... declares that such actions are "legitimate". Was living under a murderous dictator that damn good? Screw you people who take what is so precious to us and make a mockery of it. Up until now, I have been a defender of the war to free you... now I see that you are not capable of governing yourselves in the interest of your people... as you have no moral compass. Go back to making bombs, rugs and breeding camels. You are not worth the blood of my family and friends.
Bruno,
I don't think it is all that hard to see why certain groups within the Arab world hate us. It does go back to the Islaomfascist movement that began before WWII (the grand Mufti of Palestine) and grew in WWII (those shots of arabs and Nazis in the Indiana Jones Movie (the search for the lost arc) were actually quite real and some of the SS even found a new home in certain arab nations after WWII). We do line up more with the Jews as they and we share the old testament and americans have always had a soft spot for the underdog. One would think that for that reason we would support the palistinian cause as well...and many of us do that in the context of getting the two groups to live side by side. But the truth is that the palistinians are kept "as is" by the arab rulers who could solve their problems with a little oil money and land in a matter of a year or two. But they (palistinians) are this "bait" that is used to vilify Israel and to keep the cry of "Death to the Zionists" alive forever. With the advent of the nuclear age, one wonders more and more aloud when this will actually come to a few mushroom clouds. That in itself would be the beginning of what I see as the end of times.
The conflicts in the middle east do move towards what appears to be one final massive onslaught. What many of us see and hope is that with Afghanistan and Iraq moving towards democracy and away from the hate mongers...maybe...just maybe... life on this planet will go on long enough for our own children to have children. You can make our president and us out to be anything you want to on these pages. But we are who we are and that has nothing to do with any "hidden agendas" or "imperialism" or any other fantasy. We just want a wordl where there won't be any fanatics flying jets loaded with people into any more buildings for a cause that is a fig neuton of their own imagination. Hate breeds hate and Love conquers in a way that gives peace to all. Slander is the domain of Lucifer and for all who wish to slander people they don't know, all I can say is the devil is in the details.
"I did believe that he had them. As a consequence of this belief, I thought that the invasion was doubly, triply stupid. Imagine if he really did have a couple of tons of VX lying about."
That was the dillema. Do you throw water on a grease fire?
"No, rather keep Saddam under lock and key..."
The only problem is...how? Sanctions were only hurting the people of Iraq. Not Saddam. How could we continue to punish a people who had been punished enough by their own government? They always deserved a chance to be free.
@ PeteS.
ERRATA: “John Charles Cardinal McQuaid” in my last post should have been, of course, “John Charles Archbishop McQuaid”.
Maybe Saddam would have died and his son Qusay, who seemed a big improvement, would have taken over.
Are we talking about the same Qusay??? I saw his body double on local TV a long while back. Even HE was terrified of him!
Or maybe the situation will NOT improve and the region will degenerate into general unrest, which could have been avoided.
Maybe. My crystal ball is no shinier than yours.
A FACT, however (opposed to speculation) is that the US made it clear that it would use its veto to prevent the removal of sanctions even IF the weapons inspections declared he was in compliance... The responsibility for the continued sanctions rests squarely on the shoulders of the Americans.
Agreed. It's called being stuck between a rock and a hard place. The least worst option was to bring the Saddam regime to a quick end.
I did believe that he had them. As a consequence of this belief, I thought that the invasion was doubly, triply stupid.
Yes it's probably the very worst thing that the U.S. and U.K. could have done. Either Bush and Blair lied (unlikely) or the intelligence people lied (unlikely) or they were duped by Iranian stooges (possible) or between them they mischievously interpreted the scantiest of single-source evidence in the worst possible light (practically certain). Whatever way it happened, they would probably have been better off from a PR point of view if they'd just said "f**k it, we're taking Saddam out regardless".
No, rather keep Saddam under lock and key, keep him responsible for these weapons (which he never had, LOL!) and give him something to lose.
C'mon really! That's like keeping Hannibal Lector on the straight and narrow with a promise of a diet of spuds.
Then work out another, cleverer way to get rid of him. Or moderate him.
How, and how, respectively?
Hmm. I think that [Arab-US antipathy] would [go away along with the Israeli-Palestine conflict]. Or at least, it would to enough of an extent to make the "kill all the Jews" Arabs fringe elements on the political spectrum.
Perhaps you are underestimating the widespread nature of the problem. It is completely rampant. It is tied up in ethnic and nationalist aspirations in many places, not just Palestine.
(cont'd...)
(...cont'd)
Fact is, before all the "support Israel at all costs" attitude by the US, the Arabs never really had a problem with the Americans. At that time it was the British and the French, what with the Sykes-Picot and later the Suez Canal stories, who were the Bad Guys. The US has willingly taken on the role of "Oppressor in Chief", and it’s kinda sad to see them bawl when the "Arabs don’t like us".
You're missing one or two things in your potted history. The first is the biggest event in the latter half of the 20th century -- the collapse of the Soviet empire. The second is the idea that world was all happy and smiley (apart from maybe some nasty Brits and French) during the Cold War. The political polarisation of the world up to 1989 kept the lid on a lot of nastiness that has bubbled up since. The U.S. actively resisted playing global policeman in various conflicts in the 1990's which resulted in several humanitarian disasters, as well as the danger of regional destabilisation by nationalist conflicts. My belief is that the U.S. dropped the ball, big time, for a decade. Of course we all wish no global policeman was required, but we don't like it when the result is that nobody stands up to the genocidal Serb bully boys in Bosnia, for instance. (And of course if we lived in the former southern Soviet states we could see what it's like to have Russia play policeman ... NO THANKS!). So apparently we blame the U.S. for 200,000 deaths in Bosnia because they didn't intervene early enough, and now when they intervene in Iraq we blame them not just for war deaths but for pre-war U.N. sanctions AND for the post-war atrocities committed by the other side too? Sheesh!
Just one other point from earlier about the "overwhelming majority of insurgent attacks" being against Iraqis. I stand corrected. What I guess I should have said is that the overwhelming majority of DEATHS caused by insurgents have been of Iraqis. So we've seen how "The Anti-Occupation Patriotic Forces" are dealing with "national reconciliation". Yet you reproduced their propaganda as if it was completely trustworthy , unlike that of the U.S. which you have said you DON'T trust. Perhaps a more balanced approach would be to at least view both with equal cynicism?
"C'mon really! That's like keeping Hannibal Lector on the straight and narrow with a promise of a diet of spuds."
Italian: Oops, let me just adjust the microphone up here in the pulpit. CALLING ALL ITALIANS! Ah, there we are... oh! ... I see you are over there in your very own pulpit with your very own microphone ... and that amp with the volume control turned up to eleven! Very impressive! Well, let me begin anyway...
Thank you, dear friend, for your attendance today. First of all let me thank you on behalf of our dear bishop MacQuaid. I doubt the bold John Charles gets too many offers of promotion down there in hell file where you suppose him to be. Especially from someone as eminent as your good self, who even purports to be able to decide which bits of Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium will henceforth be authorative for all would-be Catholics. I am sure the Holy See would love you to review their book list and let them know which should be thrown out -- you know the ones I mean: the ones with the "comical teachings" and "outmoded principles".
Tragically it is just a little too late for our recent pontiff Karol W to benefit from your wisdom. You could have saved him the bother of writing Fidei Depositum, the 1992 forward to the Catechism. You know the one where he says "A catechism should faithfully and systematically represent the teaching of ... the Church [taking] into account the doctrinal statements which down the centuries the Holy Spirit has intimated to his Church [and] should also help to illumine with the light of faith the new situations and problems which had not yet emerged in the past". I'm quite sure you would never have been so impolite as to let him know you "couldn't anyway give a damn", but you could certainly have filled him in on the fact that we don't want any steenkin' light shed on new situations and problems. No sirree, we'd much prefer to consign those dusty old books to the scrapheap of history where they belong, and make sure they never intrude on the "real world".
You could have told dear Karol that the Just War Theory of Aquinas et al. had no place in a modern catechism, being nothing whatsoever to do with "morals", but instead being a set of "principles", and an outmoded and legalistic one at that. You could have explained how the "feasibility principle" definitely doesn't appear to be a "moral" term at all to most people. (You could have plugged your ears when he tried to make the pathetic excuse that the feasibility of prosecuting a war relates to the morality of the act of committing suicide. He might also have pointed out that the Sacred Scriptures were much older and in parts much more legalistic than the good Thomas, but whatever).
You could have explained why we don't even need no steenkin' catechism because morals "are freely given by God to most people, believers in God, agnostics, pagans and atheists included".
(cont'd...)
(...cont'd)
You would be right to shut him up when he pointed out that paragraph 1955 of the catechism makes this very point: "the natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid". You would be right because that, of course, is a quote from Collationes in decem praeceptis which -- being written by Aquinas -- is by definition just more outmoded principles. It just doesn't have the same ring as EXACTLY THE SAME THING spoken by the modern day St. Italian of Lombardy.
You could have legitimately demanded the excision of paragraphs 2302-4 which make outrageous claims that (emphasis mine):
By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill," our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.
Anger is a desire for revenge. "To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit," but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice." If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment."
Deliberate hatred is contrary to charity. Hatred of the neighbor is a sin when one deliberately wishes him evil. Hatred of the neighbor is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm. "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven."
Respect for and development of human life require peace. Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is "the tranquillity of order." Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity.
We can't have that can we? That would imply that pre-war Iraq was not, in fact, "at peace" but required the restoration of respect for persons, free communication, and the practice of fraternity. It would imply that your desire for vengeance against Americans is illicit if not "gravely against charity". It might mean that the Lord was not telling the Laodiceans to be "hot under the collar" with anger but to be warmer to the church, as he also told them "Let anyone who can hear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches". (Rev 3:22). As I quoted above already, the poor misguided Karol W and his apostolic constitution Fidei Depositum thought that the Catechism contained what the Spirit was saying to the churches. How little he knew, eh Italian?
[USA CAN] “You are not worth the blood of my family and friends.”
One more in the bag.
[randyG] “You can make our president and us out to be anything you want to on these pages. But we are who we are and that has nothing to do with any "hidden agendas" or "imperialism" or any other fantasy.”
Again, you don’t really have the facts to refute my assertions. You merely FEEL that things are so. The invasion of Iraq was planned long before 911, and the occupation thereof was foreseen by the neocons, also before 911. If you bothered picking choices (B) or (C) you might discover this, and other interesting snippets.
[randyG] “We just want a wordl where there won't be any fanatics flying jets loaded with people into any more buildings for a cause that is a fig neuton of their own imagination. Hate breeds hate and Love conquers in a way that gives peace to all.”
For sure. I agree fully.
Now, the question is: does invading a country full of religious, excitable people (who never really had anything against you) and killing their relatives … does this make you FEEL SAFE? Especially when the REAL nuts, the Al Qaeda types, predicted that this would happen and that the Iraqi invasion is merely a precursor to a new crusade to destroy Islam? Worse, they paint themselves as the only viable defence to this aggression. Don’t you think that this HATE has bred more HATE? Don’t you think that you have just made yourself a whole whack of NEW enemies?
[bruno] “No, rather keep Saddam under lock and key..
[Lynette]."The only problem is...how? Sanctions were only hurting the people of Iraq”
That’s because the sanctions were being manipulated by the US to comprehensively deny Iraq any kind of imports at all. I can go into the details of this if you wish. The sanctions were designed to deny Iraq a weapons manufacturing ability, not to punish it.
Iraqis deserving ‘freedom’ is a whole other argument. In the abstract, yes it would be a good thing to get rid of Saddam. In the real world, you are facing the consequences of that decision, which are hardly 'good' for anybody.
[peteS] “The least worst option was to bring the Saddam regime to a quick end.”
And we are facing the consequences of that decision. In retrospect, not so hot, right?
[bruno] No, rather keep Saddam under lock and key, keep him responsible for these weapons (which he never had, LOL!) and give him something to lose.
[peteS] C'mon really! That's like keeping Hannibal Lector on the straight and narrow with a promise of a diet of spuds.
LOL! Look, I like the analogy, but it is not really accurate. If one analyses Saddam’s life, its clear that his #1 priority was survival. He somehow managed 11 years without freaking out, and I suggest that he may have gone a lot longer. He is hardly some mindless fanatic. He is a very calculating individual.
[bruno] Then work out another, cleverer way to get rid of him. Or moderate him.
[peteS] How, and how, respectively?
Getting rid of him would have been a toughie. He survived literally hundreds of plots to cap him.
Moderation would be easier. First, though, solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem. That would release a lot of the tension from the ME pressure cooker. Then work to isolate him politically. Make it clear that the continued well being of his regime depended on a degree of social reform. I don’t think that, if he thought he could do it without losing power, he would have minded. For example, isn’t it ironic that out of the Turks, Iraqis and Iranians, it was the eeevil Saddam who actually offered them some degree of autonomy in northern Iraq? Like hell that the Turks would even consider it. It’s a crime to even speak Kurdish there.
Look, this may seem a little simplistic. However, it would have been a lot easier, less bloody and cheaper to have tried than the current option.
[peteS] “The second is the idea that world was all happy and smiley (apart from maybe some nasty Brits and French) during the Cold War.”
No, hardly. That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is, the degree of reaction one gets is relative to the degree of interference one extends.
[peteS] “So apparently we blame the U.S. for 200,000 deaths in Bosnia because they didn't intervene early enough, and now when they intervene in Iraq we blame them not just for war deaths but for pre-war U.N. sanctions AND for the post-war atrocities committed by the other side too?”
No, we don’t blame the US for deaths in Bosnia. They had nothing to do with that. They have no obligation to act. The intervention against Serbia (Kosovo) was morally far more just than the Iraqi intervention. I see less ulterior motives there. I don’t see tanks in Belgrade. (Even though the reverse has happened in Kosovo since – Albanians have chased Serbian civilians out)
In Iraq, the US is certainly to blame for the severity of the sanctions, as I have mentioned to Lynette. We can discuss this if you like, I have no problem. There is a reason why the officials in charge of the UN sanctions programme all resigned muttering ‘genocide!’. The consequences of the invasion are largely the fault of the US, yes. If I toss a Molotov cocktail into a furniture store, am I responsible for only the flames caused by the bomb? Or am I responsible for the whole store burning down? (Another crude analogy for your consumption )
[peteS] “What I guess I should have said is that the overwhelming majority of DEATHS caused by insurgents have been of Iraqis.”
Probably you are right. If I were an American war monkey I’d say “freedom ain’t free”. Unfortunately the Americans choose to run their patrols through densely inhabited areas. Given that US soldiers are protected by armoured vehicles, body armour and dispose of the finest medical system available to any army in the world today … and that Iraqi civilians have none of those … its not surprising. Again, though, whose CHOICE was it to invade Iraq? Who’s choice was it to patrol those areas? You tell me.
[peteS] “Yet you reproduced their propaganda as if it was completely trustworthy , unlike that of the U.S. which you have said you DON'T trust. Perhaps a more balanced approach would be to at least view both with equal cynicism?”
To be quite honest, at this point I’d give more credibility to the Resistance at the moment. But of course, this statement was an umbrella declaration, an ideal to be lived up to. (I’m sure that some of the organisations involved might only pay lip service to the declaration.) Still, it represents an admission that morally this is the ideal they have pledged to live up to. Whether they do or not is to be seen. Then I’ll see about sharpening my goose-quill. At the moment though, they are the ones fighting the just fight.
Interesting digression into the ol’ religion, btw.
"If I toss a Molotov cocktail into a furniture store, am I responsible for only the flames caused by the bomb? Or am I responsible for the whole store burning down?"
Wrong question.
Are you responsible for the burning of store if the opportunistic owner, taking advantage of the flames caused by the Molotov, spreads gasoline over the whole thing to make sure it's destroyed so he can collect his insurance.
@ Anonymous, 11.23.05 - 12:59 pm.
So now the Iraqis are the "opportunistic owners" of their land?
And we are facing the consequences of that decision [to bring the Saddam regime to a quick end]. In retrospect, not so hot, right?
It was never "hot". The least worst option was still a bad option. War is bad by definition. The way it was managed may have made things worse.
LOL! Look, I like the [Hannibal Lecter] analogy, but it is not really accurate. If one analyses Saddam’s life, its clear that his #1 priority was survival. He somehow managed 11 years without freaking out, and I suggest that he may have gone a lot longer. He is hardly some mindless fanatic. He is a very calculating individual.
Fanatics are rarely mindless. (Look at Hannibal Lecter. Or me for that matter). Saddam could hardly "freak out". The U.S. shot at anything that moved in the no-fly zones. Can't remember the exact details but towards the end of the Clinton presidency there were "incidents" almost every day for a couple of years. Plus the sanctions were savagely enforced (apart from the "leakage").
Getting rid of him would have been a toughie. He survived literally hundreds of plots to cap him. Moderation would be easier. First, though, solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem...
Quite apart from the sudden change of subject in the last line there, this is rather broad brush strokes isn't it? You seem to be imagining some magic wand that could have been waved over Palestine. From 1993 to 2000 there was: the Oslo Accord, the Washington Declaration, the Hebron Protocol, the Wye River Memorandum, and Camp David II. The U.S. wasn't exactly dragging its heels. But the personalities on the Palestinian and Israeli sides just weren't up to the job. Colin Powell's last ditch attempt with Arafat was an embarrassment, scuppered as it was by the murders of dozens of young Israelis in Tel Aviv and Haifa. Since this was less than three months after 9/11, I don't think any U.S. president (let alone GWB) was going to tell the new right-wing Israeli prime minister that America was going to kick terrorist ass but that Israel should sit down to the negotiating table with their friends from the PLO (who had no control over Hamas anyway). So, interested to know what your grand idea is.
Then work to isolate him politically. Make it clear that the continued well being of his regime depended on a degree of social reform.
Wasn't that what the sanctions were for? Were you thinking more along the lines of "we're not going to do anything bad Mr. President, but please be nice to your cowering subjects". I'm sure that would have had a big impact on Saddam-"I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti"-Hussein.
(cont'd...)
(...cont'd)
I don’t think that, if he thought he could do it without losing power, he would have minded.
The only reason I can come up with why Saddam himself appeared to be pretending he had WMD (otherwise why not throw the doors open wide to weapons inspectors) is that the loss of face in front of his own people would have been intolerable, probably leading to his downfall. So, grovelling to American demands for "social reform" is something that he very much would have minded. It would have been suicide for him.
For example, isn’t it ironic that out of the Turks, Iraqis and Iranians, it was the eeevil Saddam who actually offered them some degree of autonomy in northern Iraq?
When was that? After the Americans threatened to bomb the shit out of anything that moved in the northern no-fly zone. Or earlier, after he realised that the Kurds where collaborating against him with the Iranians but gassing them was generating bad PR.
Look, this may seem a little simplistic.
Yes.
However, it would have been a lot easier, less bloody and cheaper to have tried than the current option.
I don't think that's proven. I'm not sure it's even likely. Even if it's true I'm not sure that it was foreseeable. And if it was foreseeable, I'm not sure there was a more moral option. (I'm not sure of the converse of any of those things either).
In Iraq, the US is certainly to blame for the severity of the sanctions, as I have mentioned to Lynette. We can discuss this if you like, I have no problem.
No there's no need, I agree with you. I also agree with your comments to Lynette about the U.S. setting out "to comprehensively deny Iraq any kind of imports at all". I think I figured it had gone too far when the lead in pencils became a "dual use" material (graphite being used as a neutron absorber in nuclear appplications). On the other hand, I don't believe anyone including the U.S. expected sanctions would ever last as long as they did.
There is a reason why the officials in charge of the UN sanctions programme all resigned muttering ‘genocide!’.
All the more evidence that deposing Saddam was the least worst and most moral option in respect of the Iraqi people. This assumes that a more softly softly approach - such as you suggested above and which I argued against - would not have worked.
(cont'd...)
(...cont'd)
The consequences of the invasion are largely the fault of the US, yes. If I toss a Molotov cocktail into a furniture store, am I responsible for only the flames caused by the bomb? Or am I responsible for the whole store burning down?
That depends. It would be naive of you to think that your petrol bomb would not set fire to the store. Was the U.S. equally naive? That depends on how much they could be expected to foresee. Could it ever have been a week-long stroll to Baghdad, bang-bang Saddam, rose petals for the liberating troops, followed by resumption of business as usual? I don't know. I'm not in possession of the necessary facts.
Unfortunately the Americans choose to run their patrols through densely inhabited areas.
Well I'm guessing there wouldn't be much point patrolling the open desert. That's not where the insurgents are. I also note that Lynette was criticised earlier for her comment (11.10.05 - 11:03 am) that insurgents were endangering civilians by hiding behind them or even taking them hostage. Isn't this criticism of coalition troops a double standard?
To be quite honest, at this point I’d give more credibility to the Resistance at the moment. But of course, this statement was an umbrella declaration, an ideal to be lived up to.
I have to say that the Sunni insurgency has not struck me so far as loaded to the gills with idealism.
Let me lob in another thought. Between the Anfal genocide and the suppression of the post-Gulf-War-I uprising, Human Rights Watch estimated that Saddam had killed 225,000 of his own people. I don't know what the yearly toll of Saddam-sponsored murders was before the Anfal campaign or after the Shia uprising. But based on a pure "calculus of evil" (which I admit is not a good way to do things), it would be worth a lot of bloodshed to get rid of Saddam, and to stop the sanctions which were hurting pretty much everyone in Iraq except Saddam.
Bruno,
you said..."Now, the question is: does invading a country full of religious, excitable people (who never really had anything against you) and killing their relatives … does this make you FEEL SAFE? Especially when the REAL nuts, the Al Qaeda types, predicted that this would happen and that the Iraqi invasion is merely a precursor to a new crusade to destroy Islam? Worse, they paint themselves as the only viable defence to this aggression. Don’t you think that this HATE has bred more HATE? Don’t you think that you have just made yourself a whole whack of NEW enemies?"
I believe that we went into Iraq to take out Saddam and then influence the Iraqis to build a democratic nation. I don't think we went in with Hate. With a mission...yes. But Hate was not in the gameplan. And still is not there. Abu Grad was an unfortunate abberation by some sick puppys who were too addicted to MTV and not mature enough to understand the consequences of their own actions. Poor supervision job we did there. Sure...we can find examples of American soldiers acting badly. But they are few and rare and by and large, our foirces have done a good job of keeping civilain casualties low, of keeping the terrorists in focus and in beginning to make bridges between certain Sunni and Shia camps or tribes in certain cities. Things are getting better...but as the media focuses on the bombings and ambushes only, little of this news gets out.
All in all...I hope and pray that the Iraqis do stand up, begin to take charge of their cities and provinces and we will pull out as we can do so.
Juan Cole lies about outcome of Cairo conference on future of Iraq. Analysis linked below.
http://beirut2bayside.blogspot.c...us-
comment.html
Randy G,
As you have missed the tangible point, you have too missed out on the future litigation we’re going to chase you with, and let’s say for another 12 years, after we send Ally Mcbeal & Co. backpacking. Funny, those years look familiar to me LOOL
PeteS
Your analogies are similar to those of Joe Isuzu! It must be the burnt Turkey weekend!!
You blurt:
(For example, isn’t it ironic that out of the Turks, Iraqis and Iranians, it was the eeevil Saddam who actually offered them some degree of autonomy in northern Iraq?)
When was that? After the Americans threatened to bomb the shit out of anything that moved in the northern no-fly zone. Or earlier, after he realised that the Kurds where collaborating against him with the Iranians but gassing them was generating bad PR
>>Dude, it’s nice to remind us that USA “bomb the shit”, but Saddam – your collaborator in the war against your enemy Iran, has given access to all of his sensitive sights as per the ‘defeat’ agreement he signed with the UN in 1991. And he did so until 1996 when you have implanted a boogie sample of some verve gas to implicate the dictator – a lie is an old habit hard to break, which was tested by third party in Switzerland and was found a faux (if you don’t dig then look it up in French)
Today, the head of your team then writes for Al Jazeera!!
You divulge:
(However, it would have been a lot easier, less bloody and cheaper to have tried than the current option.)
I don't think that's proven. I'm not sure it's even likely. Even if it's true I'm not sure that it was foreseeable. And if it was foreseeable, I'm not sure there was a more moral option. (I'm not sure of the converse of any of those things either).
>> You are NOT SURE. Period
You say:
(In Iraq, the US is certainly to blame for the severity of the sanctions, as I have mentioned to Lynette. We can discuss this if you like, I have no problem.)
No there's no need, I agree with you. I also agree with your comments to Lynette about the U.S. setting out "to comprehensively deny Iraq any kind of imports at all". I think I figured it had gone too far when the lead in pencils became a "dual use" material (graphite being used as a neutron absorber in nuclear appplications). On the other hand, I don't believe anyone including the U.S. expected sanctions would ever last as long as they did.
>> Are you plying the Tweedy Bird?
You utter:
(The consequences of the invasion are largely the fault of the US, yes. If I toss a Molotov cocktail into a furniture store, am I responsible for only the flames caused by the bomb? Or am I responsible for the whole store burning down?)
That depends. It would be naive of you to think that your petrol bomb would not set fire to the store. Was the U.S. equally naive? That depends on how much they could be expected to foresee. Could it ever have been a week-long stroll to Baghdad, bang-bang Saddam, rose petals for the liberating troops, followed by resumption of business as usual? I don't know. I'm not in possession of the necessary facts.
>> You are a Tweedy Bird.
You tell:
(Unfortunately the Americans choose to run their patrols through densely inhabited areas.)
Well I'm guessing there wouldn't be much point patrolling the open desert. That's not where the insurgents are. I also note that Lynette was criticised earlier for her comment (11.10.05 - 11:03 am) that insurgents were endangering civilians by hiding behind them or even taking them hostage. Isn't this criticism of coalition troops a double standard?
>> This is exactly the point. We civilized people, live in communities to build schools for our children, hospitals to look after our sick people, markets for our needs, and institutions for our social roles and cultural entertainment. Only thugs could thing that wars are conceivable in our age.
You whisper
(Let me lob in another thought. Between the Anfal genocide and the suppression of the post-Gulf-War-I uprising, Human Rights Watch estimated that Saddam had killed 225,000 of his own people. I don't know what the yearly toll of Saddam-sponsored murders was before the Anfal campaign or after the Shia uprising. But based on a pure "calculus of evil" (which I admit is not a good way to do things), it would be worth a lot of bloodshed to get rid of Saddam, and to stop the sanctions which were hurting pretty much everyone in Iraq except Saddam)
>>Pete, your softy approach is a bit corny. I am sure you would not like me to go into figures of the dead resulted from your good deeds. But just a bit refreshing, Nixon – Vietnam, Pinoche – Chile, Somoza – Nicaragua, Batista – Cuba, D'Abuisson – El Salvador and the whole graduate team of the school of the Americas. None of the mentioned were trailed or prosecuted for war crimes because simply most of them lived in the USA.
If you are a republican with a political agenda then I suggest you go and dance it off elsewhere. Here there is war against the ugly America. And we are dam busy.
Nader, was there some point in there?
I am neither a republican nor an American, nor do I give a crap what you suggest I go off and do.
@ Lynnette in Minnesota, 11.21.05 - 12:28 pm.
Dear Lynnette, since White Phosphorus shells of the kind used by the US military (as opposed to the smaller canisters used to illuminate the battlefield) have got a 150 yards of lethal effect from the point of explosion, the ‘shake and bake’ expression is to be taken literally; those enemies who were not burned to death or deadly intoxicated by the phosphorus fumes would be ‘shaken’ enough as to abandon their hiding places inside buildings (of course, buildings; it was Fallujah!), being then taken out with HE. The abundant use of Mk77 and of WP in Nasiriya and in parts of Baghdad during the initial invasions had been revealed by German State TV already in Spring 2003; and the usage of them in Fallujah has now been confirmed by a former ‘embed’ working for the BBC, and, last but not least, by your own Pentagon! So what?
Only that the Pentagon stated that they had been thrown on ‘insurgents’ only; but since that very same Pentagon had admitted, at the beginning of the attack on the city in November 2004, that between 50 & 60 thousand inhabitants were still in Fallujah (and the Iraqi human rights bodies claim that at the end the dead were between 4 & 6 thousand, mostly civilians), you see that their claim that WP & Mk77 were used ONLY on insurgents is… ehm… slightly unreliable.
Of course such a use of those chemicals on the enemy goes against the III (1980) protocol of the Geneva Conventions. Now, Lynnette, since the US didn’t sign it (if I’m not mistaken), why didn’t the Pentagon just ADMIT the usage of WP & Mk77 as weapons since the very first day: ‘We didn’t sign it, so we don’t give an eff’? Why instead they lied, and were caught (as usual) in a whole row of lies - lies that by now do not fool anybody in the world, apart from US warmongers such as yourself - is anybody’s guess…
As for the Geneva Conventions and the disregard of them on the part of the ‘insurgents’, of course guerrillas do not abide by the Conventions (going around with a uniform would deny the advantage against a stronger occupier that is precisely the aim of guerrillas). As for torture, I’m very unpleased every time I have evidence that some insurgents practice it, and I find it inexcusable. But, anyway, do remember that in numerical terms such cases are nothing by comparison with what first your puppets (Allawi & the KDP/PUK), and then your-and-somebody’s-else puppets (al-Jaafari-al-Hakim-al-Sadr), have been happily doing all through Iraq for the past two years.
“ ‘Lynnette, there are more illegal immigrants to the EU every year than to the US’. ‘And we see how ‘warmly’ they are treated’ ”.
If yours is an oblique reference to France, then you are mistaken. The rioting youth from the suburbs are NOT ‘illegal immigrants’, but French citizens whose parents or grandparents were perfectly legal immigrants. Personally, I’m dead against any mass immigration or immigration of foreign communities into Europe, either legal or not, since, differently from you, we are not an ‘immigration society’, and we wouldn’t be pleased to end up like your Native Americans (since WE are the natives in Europe).
@ Anonymous, 11.23.05 - 12:59 pm.
So now the Iraqis are the "opportunistic owners" of their land?
Some of them are behaving a most opportunistic fashion, yes indeed.
But the point wasn't made in order to characterize the nature of the Iraqi insurgents so much as it was made to suggest that there is a difference between culpability for the foreseeable consequences of one's own actions and culpability for the consequences of intervening actions taken by others.
If I cause a serious accident while driving drunk, I'm responsible for any death that ensues as a result of injuries caused by the accident. But if one of the people suffers minor injuries and is taken to the hospital, only to be assaulted and killed by a gang member who happens to be in the emergency room....am I responsible for that death?
@ PeteS, 11.20.05 - 9:49 pm.
“Also, you never addressed the crucial question of the morality of the situation before the invasion”.
I do agree with Bruno’s answers to this. I’d add:
1) That the hellish sanctions were not Saddam’s doing, but the US doing (and anyway anybody knew, after the 1930s sanctions against Japan and Fascist Italy, that they do strengthen the targeted regime internally, instead of weakening it).
2) That your constant blathering about the ‘evil Saddam’ is just hogwash, and shows that you bought (rather uncritically) whatever the US propaganda has been serving you since 1990 (Hannibal Lecter, etc.). Far from being some kind of unparalleled monster, a ‘new Hitler’ (or a ‘new Stalin’), Saddam was in case a local copy of our Mussolini; very cunning in outsmarting his internal opponents, merciless with the weak, but very prone to believe his flatterers and to lose control of the wider reality (the two suicidal wars he started); totally incapable in front of stronger enemies. There was absolutely nothing ‘moral’ about his removal by foreign armies, and for most Iraqis (including many who had family members persecuted or killed by his regime) Saddam is by now just old hat, a thing of the past; while they are instead very worried about the dreadful present tragedy brought about by his removal.
Only the unjust invaders still have any interest in blathering on about ‘eeeevil Saddam’. Like that four-handed scoundrel above (AustinIg, 11.18.05 - 7:47 pm) who pointedly added insult to injury towards our host Zeyad, replying to his "I voted against" by calling him “an ungrateful western brat”. But, dear Pete, you above denied any connection: “It wasn't a comment on what Iraqis should or shouldn't be grateful about” (11.07.05 - 5:15 pm). Another wee bit of ‘prophecy’ on my part?
“you seem to accept the tactics of Iraqi insurgents (which appear to overwhelmingly target completely innocent non-combatants) as somehow morally justified”.
After Bruno showed that your “overwhelmingly target [etc.]” was utter baloney that only US warmongers are so ignorant (or so disingenuous) as to believe, you tactically withdrew into an utter platitude (“I should have said is that the overwhelming majority of DEATHS caused by insurgents have been of Iraqis”, 11.22.05 - 10:58 am), adding the extra-silly comment “So we've seen how ‘The Anti-Occupation Patriotic Forces’ are dealing with ‘national reconciliation’”, which makes no sense at all. It was precisely the same in the insurgent American colonies in 1775-83, in occupied Europe during 1940-45, in occupied Vietnam in 1954-75: the ‘overwhelming majority of deaths caused by insurgents’ were of local collaborators, not of occupying troops. Are you more familiar with your catechism than with common sense, dear Pete?
The tactics of bona fide Iraqi insurgents when they target US troops and local collaborators are absolutely ‘morally justified’; they are less justified when they do not take sufficient care about the presence of civilians. But, dear Pete, it is THEIR country and THEIR struggle after all (and their enemies do worse); so, what’s our business in opinionatedly passing high ‘moral’ judgements on them?
(continued…)
(…continued)
“And your comment that ‘the losses taken by the US aggressors are an obvious moral good’ -- whether wilfully ignorant or motivated by antipathy -- was plainly wrong”.
OK, let’s drop the absolute ‘moral good’ (you may be theologically right on that). Are the deaths of these aggressors, quite simply, ‘good’ and the ‘lesser evil’? Yes, they do.
Again, since most of your lovely pals, the Ahmehwicans, do not give a fig for the deaths of Eyrakians (who are in their eyes, anyway, just ‘Hajis’ and ‘ragheads’ and ‘sandniggers’), the only thing that might make them understand that their war against Iraq is already lost, that it is both unjust and crazy, and that it has to stop immediately (with the withdrawal of their troops) is, precisely, the death of their soldiers.
It is only when the warmongering flag-waving US mommas (who were enthusiastic to see their glorious kids go and kill some foreigners in a land they cannot even place on a world map, and for no reason at all) receive those nice star’n’striped boxes with some pieces of their kids, that they start to come to their senses (or in some cases start to regain, through empathy, something of their missing humanity).
My cruel (yeah, wee Pete, you’re the only saint in here…) relish & glee (more than 2,103 US soldiers killed by today, the 24th of November! More than 100 stiffed in less than a month!) is of course addressed to the warmongering US readers and posters, including the parents and relatives of US soldiers. They do fully deserve such scorn.
It was not meant to be addressed to that minority of parents of US soldiers who have seen through the lies of this war, and who weren’t at all happy about their kids joining that glorified mass-murdering street-gang that is the US military. If this proviso was not clear, I am sorry and I do apologise.
Is it uncharitable on the part of all the people who oppose these senseless American wars against the humankind to relish and revel in the deaths of US troops? Yes it is! But if by tomorrow morning, all of a sudden, all the US military were to disappear, either swallowed by the earth or devoured by the giant spiders of Fallujah, most of the world’s population would surely breath a great, glorious, collective sigh of relief! (don’t you try to deny it, Pete: your American pals, as gullible as they are, by now know what is your favourite brand of soap, and wouldn’t believe you… ).
But who is morally responsible for their deaths in the first place, caro Pietrino? Those who kill US soldiers in Iraq? Such US soldiers, anyway, have no right to be in Iraq, never had any right to be in Iraq, and never will have any right to be in Iraq, don’t you agree? Those who are happy because they are dead?
No, Pete, those morally responsible for their deaths are the gang of moronic criminals who sent them to Iraq in the first place, and the much more numerous flag-waving American gullible morons who kept hailing the moronic, pointless and criminal enterprise ever since.
The answer about ‘theology’, Naomh Peadarín mo chara, in case later on. And remind yourself of justice and truth…
@ Anonymous, 11.24.05 - 11:32 pm.
“there is a difference between culpability for the foreseeable consequences of one’s own actions and culpability for the consequences of intervening actions taken by others”.
Of course; PROVIDED that those “intervening actions taken by others” were NOT “foreseeable”.
“If I cause a serious accident while driving drunk, I’m responsible for any death that ensues as a result of injuries caused by the accident. But if one of the people suffers minor injuries and is taken to the hospital, only to be assaulted and killed by a gang member who happens to be in the emergency room....am I responsible for that death?”
But your example does not fit at all.
First, I imagine that your causing “a serious accident while driving drunk” would not be a DELIBERATE action on your part. The Iraq war, instead, was entirely deliberate on the part of the US Administration.
Second, in your example you have no idea whatsoever about the presence of the murderous “gang member”, and of course you are not responsible for that death.
In the case of a post-Saddam Iraq under US occupation, instead, the presence of some murderous ‘gang members’ (the Shiite and Kurdish militias) was absolutely sure and accepted; that of another set of murderous ‘gang members’ (the Jihadis from the Arabic peninsula) was regarded as most likely as a consequence of the invasion, so much so that the acceptance of the ‘Bring’em on/ flypaper’ ‘strategy’ was immediate; and the presence of one more kind of murderous ‘gang members’, the Saddamists, was as well considered as most likely. What, astonishingly, most US policymakers claim they had not foreseen was instead regarded as a sure consequence, and most foreseeable, in the rest of the world: namely, that the very US occupation and its rules (including, above all, the ‘rules of engagement’ of the US military) would inevitably produce a strong patriotic reaction, and then a strong armed resistance.
The interference of other players, above all Israel, Iran, Turkey and Syria, was as well fully foreseeable.
PeteS –
On Hussein –
Look, I’m not going to suggest that you are an ignoramus by any means. However, it does seem to me that your knowledge of Hussein and his actions is, shall we say, somewhat spotty. Hussein was a master at using the carrot-and-stick approach to control people. He on many occasions offered concessions to even political opponents in order to mollify and include them. Your perception of him as an unbending dictator is somewhat misleading, and this is what makes you think he could not be reasoned with. Basically, I think that as long as his own safety and grip on power could be guaranteed, he would have been willing to make many concessions on the HR front.
For example, he introduced many ‘western style’ secular reforms to Iraqi society that are to this day anathema to other Arab nations. A notable example is the emancipation and inclusion of women in the workforce. The Code of Personal Status, reinforcing women’s rights, was also introduced by Hussein & the Ba’athists in order to cement these gains.
The Kurdish autonomy concession was offered in 1970 and was known as the March Manifesto. It had NOTHING to do with American pressure. (Admittedly, the plan was also designed to retain control of the northern oil fields, so it was not quite as magnanimous as it sounds.)
He even tolerated Muqtada Al Sadr’s father, who was an outspoken critic of him, until Sadr went so far as to declare himself under Iranian orders, which earned him a sticky end.
My point is: Hussein, though certainly brutal and bloody, appreciated the use of ‘soft power’ with which to pacify and control his enemies. Heck, he was even conciliatory towards the Ayatollahs of Iran when they first took power. There is no reason to believe that he would have been immovable on the issue of human rights given sufficient incentives and sanctions.
[peteS] “Could it ever have been a week-long stroll to Baghdad, bang-bang Saddam, rose petals for the liberating troops, followed by resumption of business as usual? I don't know. I'm not in possession of the necessary facts.”
Well, at least you admit it. That’s already a BIG step up from the Neocons who were told what would happen, and chose to ignore those (or silence them) who said it. In my mind there never was any doubt that this would be the result. Simply, the US army, which is a fine army as far as military operations goes, simply sucks at guerrilla warfare and peacekeeping under fire. Apart from the Kurds, there is not a single group of people within Iraq that I can think of that could have a reason for welcoming thousands of invading foreigners. It’s just human psychology.
Have you ever tried to straighten out a wife-beater? A good friend of mine once did. His neighbour was slapping his wife around his front lawn in broad daylight. He jumped over the wall and told the guy that if he touched her again he would knock his socks off. THE WIFE nearly attacked my friend and screamed at him that she was going to call the Police and get him arrested for assault and trespassing. So much for that, then. Blood is thicker than water. While I doubt many Iraqis were willing to die for Hussein, they weren’t willing to exchange him for an open ended occupation by some foreign punks either. As evidenced by the current resistance.
[peteS] “But based on a pure "calculus of evil" (which I admit is not a good way to do things), it would be worth a lot of bloodshed to get rid of Saddam, and to stop the sanctions which were hurting pretty much everyone in Iraq except Saddam.”
The amount of people he killed was directly related to the amount of people trying to overthrow him. Much the same way that HE justified the killing of Iraqis so as to restore order and retain the power of the state … the US in Iraq justifies killing Iraqis in the same way. A medical journal called the Lancet published a statistical study last year which gave the results of the excess Iraqi deaths after the invasion as being roughly 98000. It received much flak for this result, because people were simply not prepared to believe this of their country.
Well, other sources claim around 40000 civilians have died (IBC) – using methods that IBC admits are going to result in an undercount. A US general claimed to have killed / captured 50000 insurgents. Given that the current Iraqi prison population is about 11000, that means +- 40000 Iraqi deaths directly attributable to the US. Add the two together and we get 80 000, not far off the Lancet results. If we accept that the invasion is killing roughly 50000 Iraqis a year, it’s not going to be long before Hussein’s grisly ‘score’ is amply exceeded.
The sanctions, as I have said, were not designed to be that harsh. The US made it so. The decision to grind Iraq into the dust was that of the US. Simply by being reasonable and restricting sanctions to obvious weapons related materials would already have alleviated much of the hardship Iraq experienced.
[Bruno] “Unfortunately the Americans choose to run their patrols through densely inhabited areas.
[PeteS] Well I'm guessing there wouldn't be much point patrolling the open desert. That's not where the insurgents are. I also note that Lynette was criticised earlier for her comment (11.10.05 - 11:03 am) that insurgents were endangering civilians by hiding behind them or even taking them hostage. Isn't this criticism of coalition troops a double standard?”
LOL! Well of course the insurgents are in populated areas. The insurgents ARE IRAQIS who happen to form the population OF the populated areas. This is the whole sick irony of the thing.
The Americans are ‘protecting Iraqis from the insurgents’ which actually means that Americans are protecting Iraqis … from Iraqis? Except for that they AREN’T even doing this (IF we were to believe this claim) since their mission is currently more along the lines of ‘force protection’ – which means protecting themselves – from the insurgents. So, let’s see: Americans are patrolling Iraqi areas in order to protect themselves from Iraqis.
DUH.
In actual fact, they are there to draw fire and to kill those Iraqis which have the guts to fight back at the foreign invader
THAT, my friend, is why the US patrols inhabited areas. That is why Iraqi lives are endangered. (If women would just lie still when they are being raped, then they wouldn’t get hurt. SO obviously, it’s the woman’s fault if she is injured during a rape. She must just stop fighting and ‘enjoy the occupation’. That’s an analogy you might want to consider.)
In this chicken – and –egg story, one might do well to ask WHO started the fighting in the first place? The answer is obvious enough. And the answer to stopping the fighting is also obvious enough. GO HOME.
[randyG] “Sure...we can find examples of American soldiers acting badly.”
I can BURY you with such examples.
But the fault is not entirely with the soldiers. The US Army is trained to fight and win conventional wars through massive firepower. The VERY NATURE of the US Army GUARANTEES that it will cause numerous civilian casualties, EVEN when following its extremely elastic ‘Rules of Engagement’, aka ‘License to Kill’. I mean, any car that comes within 100m of a convoy gets shot at? Gee, I WONDER if civilians will die because of this.
And Abu Ghraib policy is not an aberration. It is the result of Neocon policy which has blurred the lines between what is and is not acceptable to such an extent that soldiers believe that they can do whatever they want and think that they are entitled to do so. We can go into the details of the US policy with regards to torture and detainment under the Neocons especially, if you like, dear RandyG. Perhaps it will enlighten you as to what monsters you currently have in power. (Now, admittedly I have always been anti-US foreign policy, but I’d swap Clinton for this lot in a flash. To think that I used to laugh my ass off at him. Oops.)
[Italian] “Again, since most of your lovely pals, the Ahmehwicans, do not give a fig for the deaths of Eyrakians (who are in their eyes, anyway, just ‘Hajis’ and ‘ragheads’ and ‘sandniggers’), the only thing that might make them understand that their war against Iraq is already lost, that it is both unjust and crazy, and that it has to stop immediately (with the withdrawal of their troops) is, precisely, the death of their soldiers.”
Unfortunately, you are right. The American public will not be persuaded by the words which people like you and I employ, but rather by the deaths of their friends and relatives. It’s quite sad to witness this phenomenon.
[PeteS]'Nader, was there some point in there?'
No PeteS, I guess there is no point left there for you. Absolutely none whatsoever!!
Against..
Natural Acne Cures
Stretch Mark Removal
rid of stretch marks
Jon, while you’re at it. Try to look up Libby’s favorite website
http://www.hemroids.us/
Bruno,
"That’s because the sanctions were being manipulated by the US to comprehensively deny Iraq any kind of imports at all."
All the more reason for us to end them.
Italian,
"...you see that their claim that WP & Mk77 were used ONLY on insurgents is… ehm… slightly unreliable."
Excerpt BBC article dated November 16, 2005:
"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.
The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.
BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US.
Col Venable denied that white phosphorous constituted a banned chemical weapon.
White phosphorus is an incendiary weapon, not a chemical weapon
Col Barry Venable
Pentagon spokesman
US military interview
Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance against civilians.
The US state department had earlier said white phosphorus had been used in Falluja very sparingly, for illumination purposes.
Col Venable said that statement was based on "poor information".
The US-led assault on Falluja - a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency west of Baghdad - displaced most of the city's 300,000 population and left many of its buildings destroyed.
Col Venable told the BBC's PM radio programme that the US army used white phosphorus incendiary munitions "primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases.
"However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."
WHITE PHOSPHORUS
Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination
Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh
Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
Protocol III not signed by US
Rai interview
And he said it had been used in Falluja, but it was a "conventional munition", not a chemical weapon.
It is not "outlawed or illegal", Col Venable said.
He said US forces could use white phosphorus rounds to flush enemy troops out of covered positions.
"The combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives," he said.
San Diego journalist Darrin Mortenson, who was embedded with US marines during the assault on Falluja, told the BBC's Today radio programme he had seen white phosphorous used "as an incendiary weapon" against insurgents.
However, he "never saw anybody intentionally use any weapon against civilians", he said.
Stupidity does not a liar make.
"...of course guerrillas do not abide by the Conventions (going around with a uniform would deny the advantage against a stronger occupier that is precisely the aim of guerrillas"
O.K., so it IS all right to not abide by the Geneva Convetions?
As for torture, I am not happy about ANY torture done by ANYONE, no matter the numbers.
"...but French citizens whose parents or grandparents were perfectly legal immigrants."
You are right. Yet they have not managed to assimilate into French society after so many years. So sad.
"We civilized people, live in communities to build schools for our children, hospitals to look after our sick people, markets for our needs, and institutions for our social roles and cultural entertainment."
Guess someone forgot to clue Saddam in that this applies to all Iraqis, huh?
" Only thugs could thing that wars are conceivable in our age"
Tell that to al-Queda.
"Here there is war against the ugly America. And we are dam busy."
I've heard that retirement is a safer activity.
Sorry, that anonymous was me. I'm not sure what happened.
Bruno and An Italian,
It seems to me that soon we will be able to begin to withdraw our troops...for the Iraqi army is growing in strength daily and is doing an amazing job of kicking some "insurgent" ass. You two go on and on about what you know...and it is literally a few bad apples that you wish to make the whole batch rotten with. Sorry but I know many a soldier in our army who says that your nonsense is just that. A fig newton of your own imagination. You can rant and rail all you want to but we will stay as long as necessary to secure the new government and then we will leave. Insurgents continue to kill both our soldiers and iraqi soldiers and innocent civilians...with bombs and by masquerading as Iraqi soldiers to kill innocent people and so on and so forth. But 35 million is a lot of people and most want to see peace coming into view and most don't want us gone until they know that they can sleep at night without terrorists coming to kill or kidnap them or just to take over their towns. You guys want to slander our troops and so you do try. But ours are good and decent people and we came to secure Iraq and kick out Saddam and to see democracy where there once were pools of hatred towards us. You think it gets worse? Why do I hear the thrilling cry of more elections coming from surrounding nations than ever before. This move empowers people in general and though there may be some continued feuding...I do believe that most are very proud Iraqis and once the elections are allowed to take hold, we will see progress made. You guys remind me of people who don't have a clue as to what is really at stake and who America really is. And you wouldn't know a real christian if you tripped over one. Christians are not into relativism and Christians do not coddle up to terrorists and that is all the few who kill by bombs are. Trying to terrify others into following them. Yeah...right...such a good program to follow. Maybe your country will be next, an Italian. Maybe so.
Minnesota. Sup?
I thought you’d be smooching around in your environmentally friendly Hammer around Knots Berry Farm gates in central Baghdad!?
Well I won’t argue with your ‘stoogey’ points. Probably because my reasons are unequivocally clear. Everyday we see people like you J-Walking in our beloved capital and gee man, we bust you good; real good. And if you think you can scare us off with your Al Qaeda Pinto cars - your own HIV creation (refer to Reagan’s freedom fighter speech. Or call Turk Al Faisl desk help. He is your current wahhaby connection in Washington) then you are ‘dead’ wrong. And that shows how sick the ugly America can be in the mind and hear.
We know for a fact, that your delusional effete vision of the world stems from the same reason behind your self steam deficit. For example, I see how you can get away with the idea that only a few thousands of your boys got whacked in Iraq, when compared to your country’s Sopranos’ record of 35,000 annual crime related deaths; while 90 millions of your fellow citizens have no access to Medicare. But then we are not in the business of meddling with US affairs. We have respect for the mainstream America. Libby doesn’t, and neither your ex-wahhaby recruits – your own germs for warfare; but you were dumb or desperate enough to use it while no antidote was ever tested.
When your forces attacked Iraq, we all knew there wouldn’t be any cavalries on your legions to throw in the gauntlets and fight like knights. We knew there would mishmash
of whippersnappers that ‘whisky pee’ in their pants. And they did. I don’t blame them; their boss is chicken. He lied. (Cowards lie and run, Marines die)
We have seen what you had done in Vietnam and Laos. And we also saw what kind of dirty wars you waged in Central America (remember how Oliver North pissed on your Congress?). And we are aware of the numbers of dictators that you awarded honor degrees at the School of the Americas. So no sweat; it’s just another war against ‘you’. A war, that every nation one day may have to fight.
Funny thing is how Saddam is portrayed as the sole reason behind Aniston’s separation with Pitt! But then I recall There was a time when ‘you’ & him spoke of the same smelly Khomeini after Saddam’s shameless Shah’s-hand-kissing-pledge to the US in Algeria in 1975 (Corleone baptizing) And eventually led to the daft late Barazni’s sealing fait of a seven thousand years of Kurdish nation history, and to be archived it into a thin shelved file at the US state department.
There was a time when your fleets were patrolling the Arabian Gulf to insure much needed Petrol flow to finance the one million Iraqi and Iranian Gulf War I victims. And just a little later, to allow Saddam (again!) barged into Kuwait to pluck the first seed of democracy in that country. A democracy, which could have ridiculed AL Sabah family (another pledged Mafia boss) indefinitely. And then how we witnessed an ex-white house ‘whinny’ boss letting Saddam’s units marching south ‘Toll Free’ to quell a Shiite uprising leisurely.
When I look at Saddam’s most sublime atrocities, I see them occurred when he was considered a Southern California babe! At Dujail – similar to your Fallujah’s crimes, he was riding his tempest against your eternal foe Iran. Al Anfal, Ha; one year later he was awarded a generous 2 Billion ‘Agricultural loan’ from Bush senior. And then the Shiites in 1991 – no comments.
Democracy, is societies integrated wholes and therefore qualitatively different from the sum of the parts the compose it
Hasta la Vista Minnesota. Muy cerca!
Randy G (does G stand for the G spot?)
If you are a Prozac Achiever then I suggest you seek professional help. Otherwise, go and ‘evangelical’-hallelujah elsewhere. We have Arab Christians and we totally respect them. They are people and you are not.
Hi, sorry to interrupt you guys here. Check out my new Iraqi blog at http://iraqirebel.blogspot.com
@ Lynnette in Minnesota, 11.25.05 - 4:16 pm.
Dear Lynnette, I’m happy to see that at last (with some considerable delay) you caught up with the news about the US usage of white phosphorous in Fallujah. So your Govt. & military have admitted what they (and all of you US warmongers) kept denying for a year, that it WAS INDEED used as a weapon.
“Against enemy combatants, though not against civilians”? Well, you see: 1) during the Fallujah attack, your propaganda kept repeating (against truth, common sense, and what the very Centcom had admitted) that ALL those who were left in Fallujah were ‘enemy combatants’; 2) when somebody has lied and lied to you, over & over again, you’d be quite stupid to believe that person. It was very ‘stupid’ on the part of your propaganda to keep stupidly lying in this way, indeed; and indeed it ‘DOES a liar make’.
And as a consequence no sane person in the world is bound to believe the word of your spokesmen, that WP was used ‘on insurgents ONLY’.
“O.K., so it IS all right to not abide by the Geneva Conventions?”
I was just saying, my lovely Lynnette, that guerrillas are not able to abide ONLY by that bit of the Geneva Conventions concerning their being “clearly distinguishable from the civilian population” (otherwise, they wouldn’t be ‘guerrillas’ anymore, but would be a conventional army, don’t you think?).
“As for torture, I am not happy about ANY torture done by ANYONE, no matter the numbers”.
Ditto, dear Lynnette: on this I agree with you 100 percent.
But, please, make sure you tell your brave Dick Cheney, the ‘Vice-President for Torture’, as the former Director of your own CIA labelled him…
“Yet they have not managed to assimilate into French society after so many years”.
That’s precisely the reason why I am so dead set against the immigration of foreign communities (as opposed to individuals, who do integrate easily) into the EU. Our European States are not immigration societies.
PS: BTW, dear Lynnette, before I forget, your “dillema” (Lynnette in Minnesota, 11.22.05 - 10:06 am) is actually ‘dilemma’ (from Ancient Greek d…lhmma).
[Now I see that Greek letters do not work with Haloscan - I wonder why Arabic ones do...]
@ PeteS, 11.22.05 - 6:26/6:31 pm.
I’m sorry, dear Pete, that I didn’t look up earlier, in the ‘Acta Sanctorum’, the entry dedicated to you, namely the ‘Life of Saint Peadarín the Quibbler, of Ballytown’. I didn’t know that you had been baptised by Saint John Charles of Cootehill in person. According to that ‘Life’, as soon as the holy archbishop had baptised you, he had a fit (that was, of course, an ecstasy). Once that holy man came to, after bitterly crying about his own unreachable cardinal hat (as was his habit), he prophesised that one day baby Pete would instead get his red cardinal berretta alright, thanks to ‘our friends from beyond the ocean’. Some other information added that you’d become the patron saint of Apes and monkeys, and that some day your image would be venerated not just throughout the US, but even in the dens of the mountain gorillas, in Rwanda…
“the ones with the ‘comical teachings’ and ‘outmoded principles’”.
Yer (future) Eminence, Pete, maybe I didn’t explain myself clearly enough, and there was some confusion. The ‘outmoded’ referred to the ‘conditions for a Just War’ by, precisely, Aquinas (in order not to bore again almost every reader, such ‘conditions’ are so applicable that in WW2 France the partisans would have been the baddies, and the Nazi collaborators the goodies). The ‘comical’ – I’m sorry, oh future Prince of the Universal Church – referred to the way you were speciously cherry-picking among the infinite number of rules, decrees, guidelines, interpretations et alia of the Catholic Church.
Quoting the Fidei Depositum by John Paul II on the importance of the new Catechism, oh wise wee Pete, was not a very intelligent move on your part. Yes, ‘da Cathrick Catecheesm’ ‘should’ (which does NOT mean that it would) “help to illumine with the light of faith the new situations and problems which had not yet emerged in the past”. What about the present international situation? What about the war in Iraq? Does the catechism illuminate it? I do not know: apart from your own rather clumsy attempts, devised to pander to what you perceive as the strongest (your beloved Apeland and the most fanatical or criminal amongst its inhabitants), I didn’t see any other attempt in that direction…
Now, if Zeyad’s blog, instead of being called ‘Healing Iraq’, were called ‘Us Papes ’n’da Wurr’ (or whatever you’d spell it…), I would be only too happy to do my bit in quoting Vatican decrees, and encyclicals, and bullas, and canon laws (’n’ bull!) of our Church through the centuries; including how to torture evil heretics and apostates, and make them recant (‘for the salvation of their souls’, of course: it might come handy with your pal, the alcoholic monkey Randy…), and then burn them alive (the victims would have just loved white phosphorus, I’m sure!). And, of course, your spiritual mentor, the above mentioned archbishop of Dublin McQuaid (and many of his Irish colleagues), would have been even more skilful than you are, showing how, according to the same decrees, and encyclicals, etc. etc. etc., for clergymen to sodomise children is just a “venial sin”… BTW, did you read the report on Abu Ghraib by general Taguba? Well, OK, caro Pietrino: I have to recognise that you are almost as good as your masters, aren’t you?
(continued…)
(…continued)
“the Sacred Scriptures [a]re much older and in parts much more legalistic than the good Thomas”.
Dear Doctor of the Church Pete, I’m so happy that you realised it! So, ye see, if the legalistic parts of the Torah are supposed, ‘feeling with the Church’, to be a bit… uhm… outmoded (and the Torah is most of the Ancient Testament!), maybe you should ponder if ‘legalism’ is at all central to Catholicism… oh, sorry, but you are the holy Quibbler, I forgot!
And, caro San Pietrino delle Scimmie, I’m afraid that it was especially comical (and indecent), on your part, to quote paragraphs 2302-04 of ‘da Catecheesm’. So here we have sweet Pete, seraphically contemplating “other possible solutions [to middle eastern radicalism] suggested in these comments such as ‘turning the middle east into glass’” (mhmm, Pete, but weren’t those ‘village idiots’, in your words? No, of course they were not), and at the same time drawing ludicrous deductions out of that bit of catechism… Oh my silly Pete, so you take those paragraphs to mean that, since “pre-war Iraq was not, in fact, ‘at peace’”, then the American war to destroy Iraq was “required” to restore etc. etc. etc.?
Oh, Naomh Peadarín an Fhairisíneach, and where in Iraq, since the ‘glorious liberation’ of April 9 2003, “safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity” are to be found? Ever talked with an Iraqi Catholic, Pete? And then you have the cheek to reproach me for my anger towards those (your pals, the criminal Americans) who deliberately invaded and destroyed a whole country, precisely ‘desiring vengeance’ for something their own Govt. was actually a party of (9/11), with a “a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbour”? But what you do next is even worse: you see, while whatever I write here is my own responsibility, you claim that it is instead “the Spirit” that drives your hypocritical and more than a bit disgusting baloney… you are indeed very lucky that that One is much more merciful than I am.
Saint Wee Pete the Shameless, where can one find a totally amoral ‘Catholic’? Oh yeah, only in a certain island… Do remember, since you are faking that you are unable to figure it out for yourself, that double standards and hypocrisy destroy both justice and truth, i.e. charity.
And do hurry up to have your American friends lobby their bishops and cardinals to cajole the Vatican into giving you the cardinal hat… hope you do not want to make Saint McQuaid’s prophecy about you null and void. You see, I’d bet that in a few short years Apeland will cease to have any influence (ecclesiastical, or otherwise) in the world…
"We have Arab Christians and we totally respect them"
Do you mean how you muslims totally respect us? You respected us in Lebanon and started a civil war? In 1950 Bethlehem was 80% christian and now it's 80% muslim. Because muslims totally respect us and show it by killing and terrorizing us and forcing us to move. The Coptic Christians were shown alot of respect when 5000 muslims started rioting outside of their church in Egypt. Or how about the Baath party building muslims took over next to a church and then started to harass the christians that went to that church. Sending us letters threatening us. Trying to force our women to wear the veil. Or do you mean that you respect the way we deal with the treatment we suffer from muslims? If you respect us, leave us alone.
this is an essay by Dr Walid Phares about "arab Christians"
For years, the term "Arab Christians" was used to categorize the Christians in the Middle East. However, the concept instead of being precisely defined was intellectually misused and politically abused. Both Arab regimes and "Arabists" in the West attempted to libel all Christians living under the sovereignty of Arab states, as "Arab Christians."
This denial of identity of millions of indigenous non-Arab nations can be equated to an organized ethnic cleansing on a politico-cultural level. Similarly to the Turkish attempts to eradicate the ethnic identity of the Kurds, whom they call "Mountain Turks," and the Assyrians, whom they define as "Semitic Turks."
Arab-Islamic regimes in the region assert that all those Christians who live within the confines of "Arab borders" are "Arab." With Arab nationalism at its peak, and "Arabist" circles at the apex of their political influence in the West, the pre-Arab ethnicities of the Middle East became the real underdogs of the region. The Arab Israeli conflict increased their crisis. Not only the non-Arab ethnicities, particularly the non-Moslem ones, were denied their basic rights, stripped from their ancestral lands, but they were pressured to participate in the general "war effort" conducted by the Arab regimes against a non-Arab nation, i.e. the Jews of Israel.
The gestalt of global Arab strategy in the region was to pit non-Arabs against other non-Arabs, after demonizing those who have formed their national state Israel, and fragmented those who weren't able to implement self determination. The Christians in the Middle East are not just a religious group, nor do they form one single community. The overwhelming majority of the Christians in the region are ethnically non-Arab, and their major common characteristic is their subjection to Arab colonialism and Islamic oppression for thirteen centuries. The Christians in the Middle East are not, as it was portrayed by the Arab regimes and many in the West, the followers of Christian faith among the Arab ethnic group. "Arab Christians" exist in few spots in the region, but they are a minuscule minority within the world of Middle Eastern Christianity.
Prior to the Arab Islamic invasion of the upper Middle East--the term invasion is crucial--most of the peoples of the region, with the exception of the ancient Israelites, were Christianized: Copts in Egypt, Assyro-Chaldeans in Mesopotamia, Nubian Africans in Sudan, Armenians in Asia Minor, Phoenicians (Arameans, Canaanites, Amorites) in Syria, and Lebanon. With the dispersion of the Jews by the Romans, limited number of Christians moved to Palestine from the north and the East. In Arabia, the majority was pagan, a large segment of Arab tribes converted to Christianity, and after the dismantlement of ancient Israel, the number of Jewish centers increased in the Peninsula. Therefore, prior to the Arab Islamic Conquest, the upper Middle East was not Arab, its overwhelming majority was Christian, and many Arabs in the Peninsula were Christians. These are the "Arab Christians."
Since the 7th century the geo-political landscape of the region changed dramatically. The Arab Islamic armies occupied the upper Middle East, the new order implemented an Arabization and an Islamization of the conquered people. The majority of the inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, and Nubia, shifted to Arab Moslem. Numerically the native pre-Arab nations were reduced, and politically suppressed. The defeat, Arabization, and Islamization of the pre-Arab cultures, occurred during the dispersion of the Jews. The pre-Arab ethnicities, most of which were Christians, shrunk to enclaves, or to social categories. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the non-Arab Middle Eastern nations reasserted their historic national claims in many areas of their ancestral lands, which they never left. The Assyrians reclaimed their rights in northern Iraq, and north East Syria. The Lebanese Christians reaffirmed their identity in Mount Lebanon; the Copts attempted to reform in upper Egypt, and the Afro-Nubians called for self determination in southern Sudan. The historic national rights of these native nations were met with radical rejection by the established Arab regimes. Ethnic conflicts exploded in Sudan and Lebanon, while ethnic oppression was implemented in northern Iraq and Egypt. The political suppression of minor Christian communities was also applied in Syria and north Africa.
cont..
What happened to the "Arab Christians?" At the onset of Islam, all of the Arab Christian tribes were military defeated or subdued. Numbers of them converted to Islam for socio-political reasons. When the Arab Islamic armies conquered the upper Middle East, the "Christian Arabs" were erased from Arabia, their Churches destroyed or converted to Mosques. Only few clans survived in southern Iraq, southern Syria, and mainly in north west Arabia -which became Trans-Jordan a few centuries later. After the conquest, some of these Arab Christian clans emigrated to Palestine moving in from the East. They joined the non-Arab Christians who were present in Palestine after the Jewish dispersion, and seven centuries before the Arab invasion. There are two types of Christians in Palestine, and later on within the state of Israel. The non-Arab Middle Eastern Christians, and Arabs who are Christians. The largest Christian nation are the Copts, who number about 12 million. The Egyptian government recognize only 2.5 million. The most concentrated and socially organized nation are the Lebanese Christians (mostly Maronites) who number 1.5 million in Lebanon and about seven million in the diaspora. The Assyro-Chaldeans of Iraq are about 1 million in Mesopotamia, and one million in the diaspora. The Christians of Syria are about a million. Non-Arab Syriacs (Arameans), Arabized Syriacs, and Arab Christians (mostly Orthodox), in addition to Armenians. In southern Sudan the African ethnic nationality is about seven million, Christians and Animists. There are small Christian communities in Iran and Turkey. There are no Saudi or Kuwaiti Christian. The Christian nations living within the confines of Arab states are about twenty million! So who are the "Arab Christians" to whom Arab regimes and Arabists in the West refer? First, they are not recognized as distinct ethnic identities, but rather as segments from the wide "Arab nation" who are "of Christian faith." This indicates the non- readiness of these regimes and their dominant ideologies to recognize the later's fundamental, political rights, and subsequently their rights to "national lands." Second, the Arab-Arabist duo do not admit the real numeric size of these so-called "Arab Christians." In Egypt they are recognized as 2.5 million, in Iraq, 250,000, in Sudan, 2 million, in Syria, 500,000, and in Lebanon, 25% of the population! Not only have the Arab dominant powers subverted the numbers, but they have attempted to subvert the identities of all pre-Arab nationalities in the region, including those who converted to Islam, such as the Berbers of north Africa, and the Kurds.
Where are the real "Arab Christians?" They are dispersed between Jordan, Syria, Israel, and the Palestinian autonomous territories. They are the remnants of the Arab Christian clans who escaped Islamization and more recently the end product of Evangelization. They are estimated to be 200,000 in Syria, a hundred thousand in Jordan and an equal number or more among the Palestinian-Arab populations, including within the Arab--Israeli population. The Christians in Israel are composed of Arabs, Arabized, non-Arabs, and few non-Middle Eastern. Although Arabs and Arabized are the majority (around 70%) the non-Arabs who are the descendants of pre-Arabs are in high numbers. Among them are the Maronites, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syriacs, and Armenians. Ironically many in Israel are not familiar with the existence of non-Arab Christians in their country. This misperception led many to believe that all Christians in the Middle East are "Arabs," and as anti-Israel, as the Arab mainstream in the region. Most of the Israelis, as do most of the Western public opinion simply do not know that there are other "non-Arab" nations in the region, also seeking the establishment of their independent homelands. Many in Israel and the West perceive the Christians of the region as represented by Hanan Ashrawi, George Habash, or Michel Aflaq. Whereas the majority of the Christian nations do not recognize themselves as Arabs. Their causes are not reported, their present or past leaders such as John Garang, Ibrahim Hilal, Bashir Gemayel, Mar Shimun, and others are marginalized. Even the mini-community of Christian Arabs is not at ease with its ethnic brethren. As a result of the surge of Islamic fundamentalism, all the Christians in the Middle East realize that they travel in the same boat. >From the pogroms of Copts in Egypt, the ethnic cleansing of South Sudanese, the oppression of Lebanese Christians, to forced Arabization of the Syro-Mesopotamian Christians, the 20 million non-Arab Christians are systematically targeted. The 0.6 million Arab Christians, including those living within the Jewish state are experiencing one of their most severe choices: Surrender to Islamization, or join the pan-Middle East Christian boat, as a way to survive and maintain their spiritual identity.
Italian,
I fear for your sanity ... or at least for your clarity of thought. Your attempt to distinguish between "moral good" and just "good" (11.25.05 - 12:39 am) is not just legalistic hair-splitting -- it makes no sense at all. Well, at least you finally admitted that your attitude is uncharitable, although in claiming that this is just to highlight the Iraqi cause you seem to be trying to turn lack of charity into a virtue. Very slippery indeed!
I would be only too happy to do my bit in quoting Vatican decrees, and encyclicals, and bullas, and canon laws (’n’ bull!) of our Church...
... except that's exactly what you haven't done. And don't give me this "deference to our host" thing (or was Amicus Cursoribus Paludinum exactly on topic?). I would be happy to debate you "quoting Vatican decrees". But I fancy you will not be very sure of your footing since you "do not know" whether the catechism can even illuminate moral situations, or whether the Torah should be removed from the Catholic canon (you might consult the good Lord quoted in Matthew 5:17-20 before you rip it out).
But to be honest, I should be the easiest person to persuade. I have merely questioned the situation in Iraq before the US led invasion. But for some reason, this seems to imply (in your book) that I have "gone over to the dark side", such is your disbelief that a fellow European might not share your sentimental Americanophobia. The same question to your tag partner Bruno resulted in a recital of Saddam's resumé, recalling what a reasonable guy we was. What's the story here? How come it's so important to exonerate Saddam?
Bruno seems to think I have fallen for some American propaganda about Saddam being an "unbending dictator", evil to the core. On the contrary I am wary of playing down the humanity and rationality of despots -- it does a disservice to history. However, if someone comes to work and "does a postal" I don't whip out their curriculum vitae to check if they can be reasoned with. Saddam KILLED at least a quarter of a million Iraqi men, woman and children (according to Human Rights Watch, not the eeevil Americans). I'm sorry if some piece of Saddamite Kurdophilia from 1970 doesn't exactly strike me as remotely relevant compared to the imperative to get rid of him.
So, with all your charity towards Iraqis, why are you so shy about the pre-war situatation, Italian. Why are you so scathing about the moral imperative to do something about Saddam? Why so dismissive of the idea that "peace is not the absence of war"? (Isn't this exactly the reason why the French Resistance were indeed justified in fighting the new establishment, contrary to your assertion (11.21.05 - 9:04 pm) that just war theory makes them out to be the "bad guys"?) Or would you be as helpful as the Irishman when asked by a tourist how one would get to Tralee ... "well, I wouldn't start from here".
Nader,
You said to me ..."If you are a Prozac Achiever then I suggest you seek professional help. Otherwise, go and ‘evangelical’-hallelujah elsewhere. We have Arab Christians and we totally respect them. They are people and you are not."
I am not sure where you are coming from (maybe the twilight zone) but I can't think of a single thing that you said that makes any sense. When did I say anything about Arab Christians. Seems Anon has clarified their own status and their plight. As well as the non-arab christians found in Iraq. An Italian seems to think that he speaks for that group. I can't remember seeing anything in the news saying that they have hired him as their spokesperson...so for now I guess I will just have to ignore his diatribe on that issue and scratch my head at yours. Prozac? Envangelical Hallelujah? What the heck are you trying to say. I am a christian. Are you? Do you want to be the spokespereson for christians as well? Do you even have a clue as to what the followers of Al Zarqawi are really? Do you? Do you think that it is just fine and dandy for them to be blowing up mosques full of shite muslims during their services? Do you think it is ok for more of the suicide bombers to again target children receiving candy from our troops. How about all of the school supplies and playgrounds that have been built lately in Iraq by oure troops...want to see them blown up as well? Do you have a clue as to what a government is that rules by laws and not by the AK-47 and bombs? Do you want to see that or are you just too busy trying to make me and other decent and caring people out to be evil. Evil by whose standards? The seeds of democracy have taken root and there will be a new nation rising from the chaos...and it will be the new Iraqi nation. And it will be of it's own making. You can support it or try and reverse time and send it back to the Saddam days. But IU don't think that beyond the ex-baathists, you will get many takers. Seems like that is what An Italian wants... and Bruno. Me? I want to see an end to the hostilities and a nation emerge where things are decided by the vote. As we do over here in America. I am so sick of people who want to make other people into something they are not. You guys need to stick to the issues and stay away from the name calling. It really lowers your standings in these debates. Prozac, my ass!
I thought this site no longer operated. And I see the Italian is still here and seems to have made some friends (isn't that special). Too bad he still spills the same vomit of misinformation. But how can "Italicus Exagerratus" (a name once inflicted on him by a more informed member of this forum)ever be anything other than what he is. It also seems that he's taken to himself some pupils. Hopefully the willfully ignorant and sometimes idiotic are few in number. Ciao..
The Washington Times Nov. 25, 2005
Iraq's Red Crescent relief organization found its own way to mark the Thanksgiving holiday yesterday by announcing that it had sent a $1 million "thank you" donation to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
The sum, transferred by wire on Sunday, amounts to 20 percent of the organization's annual budget.
"I wish we could have a billion dollars to give," Said Hakki, the organization's president, said by telephone from Baghdad. "Even then, it is not enough to show our appreciation for what the U.S. has done for Iraq and is still doing."
The donation was made with the approval of the office of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and is thought to mark the first time that Iraq has sent aid to the United States.
Haydar al-Abadi, a senior adviser to the prime minister, said in a separate telephone interview that he was worried that the gesture -- though noble -- could prompt complaints that the money should have been spent on the country's own emergencies.
But Mr. Hakki was adamant.
"Giving thanks is an Iraqi tradition as well as an American one. This is the minimum we could do after the Americans shed their blood in our country, mixing their blood with ours," he said.
He said the overthrow of dictator Saddam Hussein was "a blessing from God, and the U.S. was His tool."
Mr. Hakki left his job as a urology professor at the University of South Florida in Tampa last year to take charge of his country's massive -- and often lethally dangerous -- relief operations.
Those dangers were underlined two months ago when two truckloads of relief aid were captured by Islamic extremists. Their two drivers and two volunteers narrowly escaped being beheaded .
The Red Crescent, which operates in Iraq much as the Red Cross does in the United States, says it has four of its original nine trucks left, the remainder having been stolen by terrorists to be sold or destroyed in clashes. One of its 12 ambulances was destroyed during fighting in Najaf.
Since the overthrow of Saddam's regime in 2003, the Iraqi Red Crescent has been distributing an average of 46 truckloads of medicine, food and water across Iraq every month.
The supplies come mainly from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey and from some Christian organizations. National Red Cross societies and the International Red Cross also have sent supplies.
The flow of trucks was quadrupled during the U.S. assault on rebel-held Fallujah late last year and during recent battles to end insurgent control of Tal Afar and Haditha, Mr. Hakki said.
[randyG] “Sorry but I know many a soldier in our army who says that your nonsense is just that.”
Gee, yeah, I WONDER if the MANY soldiers you know have any stakes in admitting that they have behaved badly or not? I WONDER if telling people that they beat up Iraqis, or massacred them or otherwise abused them MIGHT be bad for their careers?
Really, I’m not going to get into the onerous task of analysing the neocon’s justifications for torture, justifications for killing reporters, justifications for killing civilians, justifications for destroying entire cities … and how that relates to the barbarous behaviour of a large chunk of your soldiers, both within Abu Ghraib, or without, for example, Camp Bucca.
Fact is, the Iraqis know first hand the behaviour of American soldiers. Ask Zeyad, the writer of this blog. His cousin was murdered by what were otherwise all-round American heroes, as good as mom’s apple pie. Not only was his cousin Zaidun murdered, but the US military immediately denied it. The usual tortuous denials, lies and qualifications followed, and subsequently the ‘investigation’ came to a close, because the corpse could not be handled for further analysis … it was deemed ‘too dangerous’ by the Americans to go and exhume it. In fact, the US went so far as to allege that the family had substituted one corpse for another, and that Zaidun was still alive.
Yeah, that’s some RESPECT your system and soldiers have for Iraqis.
[Italian] “"...of course guerrillas do not abide by the Conventions (going around with a uniform would deny the advantage against a stronger occupier that is precisely the aim of guerrillas"
[Lynette] “O.K., so it IS all right to not abide by the Geneva Convetions?”
Lynette, as long as the guerrillas do not use civilians as cover while launching attacks, they are not necessarily violating the Geneva Conventions. The Additional Protocols make provisions for guerrilla armies in that respect. In any case, Iraqi guerrillas typically DO use forms of identification when launching assaults – eg – all black uniforms etc.
[lynette] “And he said it had been used in Falluja, but it was a "conventional munition", not a chemical weapon. It is not "outlawed or illegal", Col Venable said. He said US forces could use white phosphorus rounds to flush enemy troops out of covered positions.”
I refer you to:
George Monbiot, The Guardian:
“In the Battle Book published by US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, my correspondent David Traynier found the following sentence. "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."(5)”
Today In Iraq 22 November 2005
“Last night the blogger Gabriele Zamparini found a declassified document from the US Department of Defense, dated April 1991, and titled "Possible use of phosphorous chemical". "During the brutal crackdown that followed the Kurdish uprising," it alleges, "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam (Hussein) may have possibly used white phosphorous (WP) chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil … and Dohuk provinces, Iraq. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships. ... These reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly … hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas"(6). The Pentagon is in no doubt, in other words, that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon.” //end excerpt
Oops.
[PeteS] “How come it's so important to exonerate Saddam? Bruno seems to think I have fallen for some American propaganda about Saddam being an "unbending dictator", evil to the core. […]Saddam KILLED at least a quarter of a million Iraqi men, woman and children (according to Human Rights Watch, not the eeevil Americans). I'm sorry if some piece of Saddamite Kurdophilia from 1970 doesn't exactly strike me as remotely relevant compared to the imperative to get rid of him”
Aaah, my caro Pietrino. I’m NOT trying exonerate Saddam. I’m trying to lay a basis for the argument that OTHER means could have been used to deal with him. You made the case that he was inflexible and unreasonable. I have merely disproved your case.
(You may be very dashing and fleet of foot when duelling with my Italian spadaccino friend in terms of Catholic literature, but in terms of the real world the earthly clay is sticking to those fine boots of yours. Your footwork is not quite as impressive. )
Granted, Saddam killed thousands of Iraqis. (The exact number IS in dispute though, since the hundreds of thousands who were purported to have been killed have somehow failed to report for mass – grave duty … but anyway, we agree that he was a scumbag.) My POINT is to put a reason behind those killings. To show that he COULD be dealt with, distasteful as it may have been.
Since the US led invasion is very quickly catching up with even Hussein’s grisly total in terms of people killed, in LESS TIME, is it really so unreasonable to make these same comparisons? Is the foreign invader not much the same as the local despot? How, dear PeteS, is it unreasonable to criticise and lambaste the US invaders but quite right to do the same to Hussein?
From where I stand the case is quite clear. Hussein killed tens of thousands in order to retain his grip on power and to ‘restore order’ to the country. The USA is doing the same for much the same reasons. Yet you find the American butchery as acceptable and Saddam’s not. That, my dear sir, makes you a raging hypocrite.
You may well make an argument that the US is in Iraq for ‘democwacy’ as a certain Italian would put it. I can and will certainly put this grotesque rumour to rest with cold, hard FACTS, of which I have many at my disposal.
The fact is, any argument FOR the invasion hinges on the good intention of America viv a vis the Iraqis, and plainly, while they profess loudly and to all that will listen of their magnanimity and good intent, behind the scenes their invasion has been entirely to legally enslave Iraq and to make it a vassal state. That does not strike me as an improvement, or indeed, a difference from Hussein.
While we agree that something needed to be ‘done’ about Hussein, we diverge on the extent that our moral judgement gives us a mandate to ‘do’ something.
(Hussein, were he here, may well turn and say “Well, YOU try and walk a mile in my boots, and see how clean you would be when you finished” And he might even have a point.)
I disagree that such a moral mandate gives ‘us’ omnipotent internet warriors the right to overthrow that Iraqi government and to completely remodel Iraqi society. I certainly disagree that the Americans (hardly the disinterested benefactor types) should be the ones to do it.
However, once the “PeteS Option” – ie – violent invasion and conquest has been chosen, it is certainly immoral for a person supporting such an option to disassociate themselves from the carnage and moral consequences thereof. Particularly if they CONTINUE to stick to their guns in the face of the evidence … right, Pete?
Bruno,
You said..."Fact is, the Iraqis know first hand the behaviour of American soldiers. Ask Zeyad, the writer of this blog. His cousin was murdered by what were otherwise all-round American heroes, as good as mom’s apple pie. Not only was his cousin Zaidun murdered, but the US military immediately denied it."
I was one of the Americans commenting to Zeyad and trying to show him comfort when this happened. and you didn't get the whole story down here. There was a trial and I do believe that some punishment was metted out.
You and An Italian are a couple of idealists who think that by slandering people you don't know that you can get people who read these blogs to believe lies about those people. There are no hidden agendas with Bush, even though you try and try to spin your nonsense. He is a Christian...a born again crhistian like myself and I know his heart far better because of that then you tow will ever know it. Slander is just that. Evil gossip to get your spin across. I have asked for you guys to give us another senario for how to help our Iraqi friends out of the present situation...but like good little liberals...you are way big on slander and criticism and way short on actual logic. Should they all become socialists? whould that make you happy? Or Iranian shia...I know that you both agree with me that that is a bad idea. Or Sunni baathists again? Or is finding a compromise where all groups can put down their weapons and begin to live as Iraqi's with their heads held high. I like the latter gruop and I don't care what form their governemnt takes...as long as it represents all of them. Seems to me that that was just a hopeless dream back when Saddam ruled. And terror was there in every family outside of the Sunni baathists because "getting dissapeared was very real". Sure it is beginning to go on again. Some revert back to old ways while others seek revenge. But many want the peace. Many. You can only breing up bad examples of a few US soldiers and your stupid remarks about Bush to make your points. You guys say you understand Christians but you don't. They can be warriors when need be. But they serve a God who loves all of humanity above all and that is where many of our soldiers do see the Iraqi people and why many do work to better their situation. You can say not, but I know by searching and finding plenty of evidence that when they are not battling Terrorists, they put much energy into doing good for the communities they work with. NOTHING YOU SAY HERE will negate that. NOTHING. And Zeyad knows that as well. You guys are pathetic. Oh...the bad Americans. look at how they do evil. Sure a few do stumble...but the majority do not. You are so lame in your denial of what is really going on over there...both in who the evil enemy is and in what the Iraqis are really standing up for. It aint some concoction of your imaginations...that is for sure.
@ PeteS, 11.27.05 - 10:41 pm.
Dear Pete, I’m very sorry that your having been caught with your hands in the jam jar has pushed you to immoderate and rather illogical reactions.
First of all, as a general observation, I feel that, in giving you the excuse of not being informed enough, or of having done not enough “footwork” on Iraq, our friend Bruno is being overgenerous to you. I know for positive that, far from being an ‘ignoramus’, you are very good at finding out info in any field of human knowledge; and here we are discussing in an Iraqi blog’s comments page. So, how it comes that you know so little, especially about the present conditions of Iraq? One can understand when your friends from Ahmehwica dunno a thing; after all, the poor critters are ‘different’. For them, to find out and connect information sensibly is a daunting task. And, differently from your beloved US warmongers, you are perfectly able to read between the lines (of what our host Zeyad has written, for instance…). Unless you have recently caught some mind-destroying kuru-like disease from “your tag partner” Randy, there is only one conclusion: that in your playing the ignoramus you are being extremely disingenuous (to use an understatement)…
“ ‘I would be only too happy to do my bit in quoting Vatican decrees, and encyclicals, and bullas, and canon laws (’n’ bull!) of our Church...’ ‘... except that's exactly what you haven't done. I would be happy to debate you ‘quoting Vatican decrees’ ”.
It seems you didn’t get it (or, more likely, you are faking you didn’t get it, since it was quite clear). I was just not too subtly implying that that sort of thing is completely IRRELEVANT to a discussion of the matter at hand, i.e., the war in Iraq. And, my immoral Peadarín, you were slightly distorting what I wrote, again, with your “you ‘do not know’ whether the catechism can even illuminate moral situations”: I was denying that the catechism was needed to understand something very simple: that the US war against Iraq is IMMORAL. And (again, indeed! Did you catch that disease from Randy?) the very example you gave us (“trying all along to understand how Catholic moral teaching should be applied to the situation. I'd be the first to admit I'm not sure of the answer”) shows that by itself Catholic catechism (& the decrees, etc.) is NOT the proper tool to analyse the war in Iraq. Precisely, “I wouldn't start from here” !
Your ‘Irish’ approach (which I feel, anyway, to be altogether hypocritical in your case) is, to understate again, rather uncommon in the rest of the post-Vatican Council Catholic Church. A seminarian doing an MA in one of the Pontifical Universities in Rome could study the US war & occupation against Iraq under the angle you suggest, as an exercise: but actually all bishops & priests I know would just laugh like mad at your suggestions…
(continued…)
(…continued)
“whether the Torah should be removed from the Catholic canon”.
Playing the smart aleck again, aren’t you, Pete? I didn’t say anything of the sort; I just said that precisely the fact that the Catholic Church does NOT follow the legalistic parts of the Torah showed that legalism, contrary to what you were saying, has no central part in the faith (well, maybe in yer Cathrick bog, instead, you still send a scapegoat to the demon Azazel every year – Lev. 16, 7-10… but I’m quite sure you do not follow Deu. 25,11-12: given how common brawls are in your island, too many sweet colleens would be left without a hand…).
“And don't give me this ‘deference to our host’ thing (or was Amicus Cursoribus Paludum exactly on topic?)”.
I’ll have to spell it out for you, caro Pietrino, since you are faking your being an ignoramus again. The light banter you refer to was quite concise and rather irrelevant in content, compared to your (fake) ‘theological’ or, better, ‘blatherological’ matters.
Our host Zeyad is an agnostic. If he weren’t an agnostic, he would be anyway a Sunni Muslim, not a Catholic. In Zeyad’s country there are at present some ‘reactionary bearded cavemen’ of the Iranian religious persuasion, who are trying to enslave him and all his countrymen, protected as they are by the weapons of your simian US friends. Our Zeyad, unsurprisingly, does not like them a bit. They just love ‘theological’ debates (in your sense), and rules and regulations, and have no end of catechisms and decrees, just like their Irish colleagues of old (your McQuaid and his happy crowd). Do go & see their sites in English (probably www.al-shia.com is the place to start): I’m sure you’ll find yourself at home! As a consequence, I wouldn’t like Zeyad to – most understandably to me, but it seems not to you - kick both of us out. Actually to get the same sort of ‘theological’ crap as the one by his own ‘servants of God’ served on his own blog, like we have been doing, might be a bit too much for Zeyad and for his patience.
“why the French Resistance were indeed justified in fighting the new establishment, contrary to your assertion that just war theory makes them out to be the ‘bad guys’”.
Being again as honest as Judas Iscariot himself, wee Pete? When we discussed ‘just war theory’ months ago I said precisely the same, demonstrating it (and showing that such ‘theory’ is not applicable to non-State actors), and you didn’t object in the least.
“exonerate Saddam […] Saddam KILLED at least a quarter of a million Iraqi men, woman and children”.
I never did “exonerate Saddam”; only, as Bruno remarked, the brilliant result of the demented US war and occupation is KILLING Iraqis at a much faster rate than Saddam, and it is high time you RECOGNISE it. As for your “Why are you so scathing about the moral imperative to do something about Saddam?”, you are revealing your true colours more and more. The only ones, in case, to whom such a ‘moral imperative’ did apply were the Iraqis, and they tried over and over. Your “the imperative to get rid of him” was NO business of the US of America; the invasion was the VERY immoral exploitation of such ‘imperative’.
(continued…)
(…continued)
In these past four years some armed aggressors from ‘the gweatest’ (and most moronic) nation on earth have invaded a couple of countries and laid both to waste, declaring that they want to invade many more and to impose their power and ‘values’ to the whole world, spewing all sorts of lies in the process. Such unjust invaders had planned their criminal spree since at least the summer of 2000, with the document ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’, where the gentlemen from the ‘Project for a New American Century’ ‘predicted’ 9/11 as a desirable “new Pearl Harbor” (p. 51) and mused about “advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes” (p. 60). Coincidentally, those same gentlemen became the US Administration after the Nov. 2000 elections. But you, Pete, said here that you didn’t find anything especially objectionable in that document, right?
Is it so difficult for a Catholic (nay, for a human being) to understand that such a nice practice and such a nice project are gravely IMMORAL, ‘unforgivable’ and unjust, and are to be opposed by all means?
You aspire to be the ‘most Catholic Catholic’, dear Saint Peter the Small? Since you seem to be “a raging hypocrite”, and a rather immoral one at that, I’m only too happy to leave that dubious honour to you . Possibly valiant Randy could keep being “your tag partner”… (see beautiful post above ).
From now on you’ll be the only ‘Catholic’ poster on Zeyad’s blog, as far as I’m concerned.
@ the Alcoholic Monkey Randy G, 11.29.05 - 2:08 am.
"There was a trial and I do believe that some punishment was metted [sic! ='meted']out".
Yes, a very serious punishment for such a callous murder: a Sgt six months (suspended), a Lt 45 days (! suspended), all the other criminals, including Col Sasseman, acquitted.
Reasons for Iraq War:
1) Put the Shiite Muslims in power in the Middle East at the expense of the Sunni Muslims, whose witch's brew fusion of pan-arabist leftism and Islamic fascism brought about 9-11 and a whole cauldron of danger.
This has been achieved.
2) Implement a Flypaper Strategy: Encourage really stupid Sunni criminals and extremists to come to Iraq to die. Encourage really stupid Sunni Iraqis to expose their true feelings about democracy and die as a result, leaving guys like Zayed alive and in position to move forward. Encourage the world's leftists to encourage the Sunnis to mess up their own backyard (the Sunni Triangle of Iraq) but not bring terrorism anywhere else in the world without serious PR repercussions.
3) Rule #1 in war is to take away your enemy's resources including sources of fuel and income. This was how the Germans and Japanese were beat in WW2. Giving two thirds of the Mideast's oil permanently to the Shiites sure filled that bill in 2003...unless the new Shiite government is pro-Iranian hardliner.
My last sentence, by the way, is a reason why the USA has been playing it nice to the Sunni insurgents. If the Shiites "elect" a pro-Iranian-hardliner government...the USA may have to start working more with the Sunni insurgents. Otherwise, the USA could easily start stepping back and let the new Shiite-led government get a lot tougher on Sunnis who support terrorism.
The leftist above seems to think that only a "disinterested" liberator would be OK for an oppressed people. That kind of nonsense cannot be answered. Also: IraqBodyCount shows that only 7000 civilians have been killed by US forces in Iraq, of which 1500 at the most were women and children.
In war, the only valid civilian statistic is women and children. We have to be sad about 1500 dead women and children killed by US weaponry in this war. But that many have died in one day in many of the world's wars.
Dear Iraqi citizen,
I read your article about the Iraqi girl that was beaten to death by terrorists. The blog made me feel so sad! It is really cruel to beat a teenager to death, especially with no good reason. I also sympathize for the boy that was shot trying to save her and twenty kidnapped girls. Kidnapping a girl for not wearing headscarves and being Christian is horrendous. It should not matter if the girls and boy are Christian or not, doing what these men did is a sin!
I had never heard about the story you wrote in any other type of media, so this is new news for me. Your entry made me feel how horrible war in Iraq really is. Before, it seemed like an unimportant little fight, because I had never heard of all the terrible events this war causes.
@ priyanka,
Now you know why we have to win.
Bruno,
This discussion is all over the blogosphere.
Definition found at Bloggers Central:
"Chemical weapons kill with their toxic properties, such as nerve agents that kill by preventing the victim from being able to breathe.
Incindiary weapons kill by burning. Naturally, incendiary weapons use chemicals, so do high explosives, but they are not chemical weapons."
Here is what Blackfive had to say about this subject.
"Unlike the vast majority of people flapping their gums on this issue, I actually know WTF I am talking about. My bona fides, Special Forces Weapons Sergeant, which means I have trained on and used all US and many foreign weapons from the leatherman pocket tool up to the 120 mm mortar, this includes all munitions used including WP mortar rounds and grenades. I trained with them, used them and have taught many US and allied troops their employment and effects"
" Since our WP rounds are not designed or useful as chemical weapons, the burst and initial explosion rapidly vaporizes into a cloud of irritating, but non-fatal smoke. Someone within a few yards of impact might be killed but the deadly blast radius is minimal compared to an HE round. The particles that didn't immediately vaporize can land on bystanders and cause burns, but once again much less lethal than the rain of shrapnel in a large area around an HE impact. As I mentioned the smoke produced is an irritant, but so is all smoke and it could only kill if a round impacted an enclosed space which contained the smoke causing suffocation, not chemical death."
The question is how we used WP in Fallujah. And there is nothing to indicate in anything we have been shown so far that it's usage was illegal.
As for the Pentagon's statements, perhaps they should look for more accurate spokespeople.
But in any case I am sure that you will continue looking for anything to beat us over the head with.
Bruno,
I’m NOT trying exonerate Saddam. I’m trying to lay a basis for the argument that OTHER means could have been used to deal with him. You made the case that he was inflexible and unreasonable. I have merely disproved your case.
No, I think you are continuing to misunderstand me, and if you have disproved a case it is not one I was trying to make. You are hung up on the idea (since my Hannibal Lecter analogy of 11.22.05 - 10:50 am) that I am suggesting Saddam was unreasonable, when in fact I said quite the opposite. My point is that there is a level of despotism beyond which it is both immoral (and probably naive) to make deals with the perpetrator. My personal opinion is that the line was crossed a long time ago with Saddam, even before Gulf War 1, but immoral American foreign policy of the time dictated that nothing would be done about it. (Contrary to suggestions here I am no huge fan of, nor an apologist for, American foreign policy. Any resemblance to Nutjobs from Oz, living, dead, or otherwise, is purely coincidental).
I believe the U.S. further screwed up at the end of Gulf War 1 by not following that war through to the logical conclusion. Instead they produced the worst of all worlds -- a huge overkill of Iraqi troops and civilians on the "highway of death" to Basra given that the war had effectively been declared over, and yet Saddam's military was not sufficiently emasculated to prevent large scale slaughter by that military in the subsequent uprisings inside Iraq. And all this was followed up by further punishment of the civilian population in the form of sanctions -- 90,000 extra deaths per year according to a 1998 UNICEF report -- while Saddam himself remained relatively unscathed. Meanwhile Islamic fundamentalism was fuelled by the perception that Saudi Arabia was a willing ally of the U.S. (on the same side as Israel, no less!), and paradoxically the Saudi government funded extremism in an attempt to placate its detractors. The resolution of Gulf War 1 was bad in almost every conceivable way. Arguably the war actually continued for another 11 years given the tense standoff between Iraq and UNSCOM/UNMOVIC, the huge number of sorties by military aircraft (more than in the war itself) and the occurrence of bombing practically every other day, as well as sustained bombing campaigns in 1996 and 1998.
(cont'd...)
(...cont'd)
This, therefore is the situation that prevailed at the start of Gulf War II, which was not some unprecedented and out-of-the-blue U.S. belligerence, but a plan to address Saddam's despotism in the new light of America's post-9/11 perception of its own strategic interest. In this regard the U.S. is neither a marauding Tyrannia nor a shimmering Justitia wielding her sword and scales. Democratisation in Iraq is a useful spin-off that could be used to sell the war to the American public, rather than necessarily a primary goal of the intervention. (I think Jim Peterson 11.29.05 - 10:28 am captures this well).
Now to your specific points:
Granted, Saddam killed thousands of Iraqis. (The exact number IS in dispute though, since the hundreds of thousands who were purported to have been killed have somehow failed to report for mass grave duty but anyway, we agree that he was a scumbag.) My POINT is to put a reason behind those killings. To show that he COULD be dealt with, distasteful as it may have been.
Well, if you give me demonstrably more reliable numbers than the Human Rights Watch numbers on the Anfal genocide and post Gulf War I uprisings, and the UNICEF numbers on the impact of sanctions, I will be all ears. Otherwise I will treat this as a quibble designed to minimise Saddam's wrongdoings so as to maximise America's. You can put a reason behind the killings all you like, and that is a valid argument, but it is not, of course, a MORAL one.
Since the US led invasion is very quickly catching up with even Hussein’s grisly total in terms of people killed, in LESS TIME, is it really so unreasonable to make these same comparisons? Is the foreign invader not much the same as the local despot? How, dear PeteS, is it unreasonable to criticise and lambaste the US invaders but quite right to do the same to Hussein?
Well, as I said it is only on your say-so that the calculus of evil is reaching equilibrium. Apart from the difficulty in ascertaining precise numbers, it is of even greater relevance how you apportion the blame for 1) Iraqi deaths due to sanctions, and 2) Iraqi deaths due to insurgent activities. Something tells me that both those counts might end up on different sides of the balance sheet under your and my schemes. Another not-so-hidden implication of your question is the moral equivalence of deaths caused by Saddam in putting down his own people, and those resulting from the U.S. intervention. Unless that assumption is demonstrably true then yes, of course it is unreasonable to make the comparisons you do. Your assumption is NOT demonstrably true since it it equivalent to the following: my neighbour was killed by a thug who, while I attempted to restrain him and save my neighbour, also died; he killed one person and I killed one person therefore we are "much the same" from a moral point of view. Clearly the conclusion is a non sequitur.
(cont'd...)
(...cont'd)
From where I stand the case is quite clear. Hussein killed tens of thousands in order to retain his grip on power and to ‘restore order’ to the country. The USA is doing the same for much the same reasons. Yet you find the American butchery as acceptable and Saddam’s not. That, my dear sir, makes you a raging hypocrite.
"From where I stand" is the operative term there. As you can see from my previous paragraph, I disagree that the case is quite clear.
You may well make an argument that the US is in Iraq for ‘democwacy’ as a certain Italian would put it. I can and will certainly put this grotesque rumour to rest with cold, hard FACTS, of which I have many at my disposal.
No need. I haven't made that argument.
The fact is, any argument FOR the invasion hinges on the good intention of America viv a vis the Iraqis, and plainly, while they profess loudly and to all that will listen of their magnanimity and good intent, behind the scenes their invasion has been entirely to legally enslave Iraq and to make it a vassal state. That does not strike me as an improvement, or indeed, a difference from Hussein.
My argument doesn't hinge on that at all. A sufficiently good spin-off for Iraq REGARDLESS OF American intentions would do the trick, bearing in mind the hideous alternative of keeping the status quo.
While we agree that something needed to be ‘done’ about Hussein, we diverge on the extent that our moral judgement gives us a mandate to ‘do’ something.
Yes, clearly we have a divergence of view. Clearly SOMETIMES there is a moral imperative to act even in a situation where you are not directly the injured party. Remember the Belgian troops who exited a Rwandan village at one end of the street while the slaughter of 2,000 civilians who had implored their help was already beginning at the other end? Some of these guys have suffered severe mental health problems as a result of following orders to withdraw. I contend that Iraq was a comparable situation.
(Hussein, were he here, may well turn and say "Well, YOU try and walk a mile in my boots, and see how clean you would be when you finished" And he might even have a point.)
If this is any kind of argument then it is one that can equally be applied to U.S. actions. I'll discount it mainly because it could be used to exonerate some U.S. actions that I would consider to be unjustifiable (such as Abu Ghraib).
I disagree that such a moral mandate gives ‘us’ omnipotent internet warriors the right to overthrow that Iraqi government and to completely remodel Iraqi society. I certainly disagree that the Americans (hardly the disinterested benefactor types) should be the ones to do it.
Yes, the Americans shouldn't have been left holding this particular baby on their own.
(cont'd...)
(...cont'd)
However, once the "PeteS Option", ie violent invasion and conquest has been chosen, it is certainly immoral for a person supporting such an option to disassociate themselves from the carnage and moral consequences thereof. Particularly if they CONTINUE to stick to their guns in the face of the evidence, right, Pete?
Yes. I don't do it lightly. At the outset I didn't do it at all -- I was completely anti-war. Then I realised that taking an anti-war position meant taking moral responsibility for the status quo, and I found I couldn't do that either. That's where you anti-war people perhaps sanctimoniously wash your hands of any kind of stance, as if there is some kind of morally neutral position that sits above everything else and is answerable for nothing.
(end)
Italian, 11.29.05 - 4:20 am,
First of all, as a general observation, I feel that, in giving you the excuse of not being informed enough, or of having done not enough "footwork" on Iraq, our friend Bruno is being overgenerous to you.
I hope it is clear from my response to Bruno above that, as well as the question of being sufficiently informed, there is also the issue of how to assess the pre-war and post-war situations from a moral standpoint. My contention is that the pre-war situation was morally repugnant. (You may not care, but the Pope strongly agreed).
So, how it comes that you know so little, especially about the present conditions of Iraq?
Well, one problem is that it is very hard to find information from sources that one can be sure have no axes to grind. Secondly, you seem to find it risible that one would confess to uncertainty about certain statistics. However, I willingly admit that I am not sure how many deaths either Saddam or the U.S. was responsible for, as well as a host of other imponderables. Frankly, your seeming certainly about some of these disturbs me because I do not see how such certainty can be arrived at given the aforementioned lack of unbiased sources. Another point is that even if yourself and Bruno are painting an accurate picture, you seem to be taking an absolutist approach to current conditions rather than contrasting them to pre-war conditions. I would guess that is why you characterise the U.S. intervention as evil, rather than as the lesser of two evils.
Unless you have recently caught some mind-destroying kuru-like disease from "your tag partner" Randy, there is only one conclusion: that in your playing the ignoramus you are being extremely disingenuous (to use an understatement)
Nope. I am being straight up. Promise.
I was just not too subtly implying that that sort of thing is completely IRRELEVANT to a discussion of the matter at hand, i.e., the war in Iraq... I was denying that the catechism was needed to understand something very simple: that the US war against Iraq is IMMORAL.
Perhaps I am indeed missing something very simple in which case I will rely on you to set me straight. For the moment I will disagree for the reasons cited above and in my response to Bruno.
And ... the very example you gave us ... shows that by itself Catholic catechism ... is NOT the proper tool to analyse the war in Iraq.
No, once again you are taking me to task for confessing to a degree of uncertainty. The catechism is reasonably explicit, but the lack of certainty about the pre-war conditions and Saddam's culpability make it difficult to apply it. The same would be true if I was trying to analyse the situation using the Communist Manifesto or the manual for my food processor.
(cont'd...)
(...cont'd)
all bishops & priests I know would just laugh like mad at your suggestions
Yes. Many of the current crop of Catholic bishops are not exactly well known for their "spine".
Playing the smart aleck again, aren’t you, Pete? I didn’t say anything of the sort; I just said that precisely the fact that the Catholic Church does NOT follow the legalistic parts of the Torah showed that legalism, contrary to what you were saying, has no central part in the faith
So the Decalogue has no central part in the faith? You are mistaken once again. The normativity or obsolescence of the Pentateuchal Law has nothing to do with "legalism" per se but with its correct interpretation in the light of the New Covenant. We have some help in this regard in the utterances of Christ, and the writings of St. Paul, but mostly we have to rely on exegesis by the teaching magisterium since the long list of laws is not treated exhaustively in the NT.
(well, maybe in yer Cathrick bog, instead, you still send a scapegoat to the demon Azazel every year)
My main attachment to the demon Azazel consists in having watched the movie Fallen three times.
Actually to get the same sort of ‘theological’ crap as the one by his own ‘servants of God’ served on his own blog, like we have been doing, might be a bit too much for Zeyad and for his patience.
Agreed.
Being again as honest as Judas Iscariot himself, wee Pete? When we discussed ‘just war theory’ months ago I said precisely the same, demonstrating [the illegitimacy of the French Resistance] (and showing that such ‘theory’ is not applicable to non-State actors), and you didn’t object in the least.
Yes, I was wrong. The legitimacy derives from the injustice of the situation in which they found themselves. (CCC 2242).
I never did "exonerate Saddam"; only, as Bruno remarked, the brilliant result of the demented US war and occupation is KILLING Iraqis at a much faster rate than Saddam, and it is high time you RECOGNISE it.
As I outlined to Bruno, I don't accept this is the case.
Your "imperative to get rid of him [Saddam]" was NO business of the US of America
Well, if I am Judas Iscariot, then I am very pleased to make your acquaintance, Pontius Pilate. Allow me to offer you this finger bowl and towel, your excellency. Wash all that responsibility to your neighbour right off those sinless hands.
Is it so difficult for a Catholic (nay, for a human being) to understand that such a nice practice and such a nice project [as PNAC] are gravely IMMORAL, ‘unforgivable’ and unjust, and are to be opposed by all means?
I can only direct you to what I said to Bruno about improvement for Iraqis being a welcome if not wholly intentional spinoff, were that to occur in the long run.
Possibly valiant Randy could keep being "your tag partner"
Or maybe you and he could team up and take catechetics together.
Jim Henderson --
Ah, and here we have a fine example of an Americanus Ignoramus. Let’s examine your ‘foreign policy’, shall we?
[jim h] “1) Put the Shiite Muslims in power in the Middle East at the expense of the Sunni Muslims, whose witch's brew fusion of pan-arabist leftism and Islamic fascism brought about 9-11 and a whole cauldron of danger.”
You’ve got the story slightly wrong there. (That’s understatement, for the linguistically challenged.)
No, what you did was remove the secularist Ba’ath party from power, who were keeping the radical Salafist elements OUT of Iraq, and exchanged them for the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Not to alarm you or anything, but SCIRI was founded in Iran by Khomenei - you know, that nice gentleman in black who punted the line ‘barg mar Amreeka’? Not to alarm you further, but Shiites are the people who are fond of beating themselves in the head with iron bars and launching human wave assaults against dug-in machine guns.
You think that the SUNNIS were ‘bad’ … heh heh ha ha ha HO HO HO. (LOL x 3!)
This statement only goes to show how fundamentally STUPID you are. I’ve got nothing against Shias per se, btw, but I’m merely pointing out that from the US point of view, ‘Sunnis’ and ‘Ba’athists’ are infinitely preferable.
[jim h] “2) Implement a Flypaper Strategy: Encourage really stupid Sunni criminals and extremists to come to Iraq to die. Encourage really stupid Sunni Iraqis to expose their true feelings about democracy and die as a result, leaving guys like Zayed alive and in position to move forward.”
In other words, attack a nation that had never done you any harm, purposefully turn their country into a war zone in order to ATTRACT all those Salafi / Wahhabi elements that otherwise would have been unable to reach you. Set your troops up for target practise for them, and simultaneously justify their ideology which dictates that the US is trying to destroy Islam … thereby radicalising a whole NEW bunch of Muslims who, instead of minding their own business, are now fighting you. Oh, Bravo!
But wait!
Like an infomercial, that’s not all!
“guys like Zayed”, thanks to the absolute lawlessness the invasion has brought about, are increasingly the target of criminals which are attacking the educated classes like locusts, driving them from Iraq. Not only that, but whereas before the invasion he was free to be secular, now he is free to be killed by both Shia and Sunni radicals who abhor the kuffar.
3) Rule #1 in war is to take away your enemy's resources including sources of fuel and income. […] Giving two thirds of the Mideast's oil permanently to the Shiites sure filled that bill in 2003...unless the new Shiite government is pro-Iranian hardliner.
Which is exactly why the insurgents have been knocking off Iraqi oil lines at regular intervals, thereby denying the US further pillage and plunder. And, as I have already demonstrated, the new Shiite government IS Shiite hardline.
[jim h] “If the Shiites "elect" a pro-Iranian-hardliner government...the USA may have to start working more with the Sunni insurgents. Otherwise, the USA could easily start stepping back and let the new Shiite-led government get a lot tougher on Sunnis who support terrorism.”
Oh, wait, so you AREN’T really sure that having the Shias in power is such a hot idea. So the ‘American Democrat’ is actually an ‘American Hypocrite’ … as I always maintain … because he is only ‘for’ democwacy if the government elected follows a pro - US line. So now you want to work WITH the ‘Islamic fascists and pan Arab leftists’ to undermine the ‘democracy’ you purport to be bringing. (Gee, after killing all their relatives, I’m SURE the Sunnis will LOVE you)
Uh … or maybe not, as your last sentence shows.
You DO realise that you are a FUCKING MORON, right?
[Jim h] “Also: IraqBodyCount shows that only 7000 civilians have been killed by US forces in Iraq, of which 1500 at the most were women and children. In war, the only valid civilian statistic is women and children.”
Sure. And only 3 people died on 911. Absolute crap.
But please, dear Jim Henderson, keep banging out such BS. Keep demonstrating to the world the absolute ignorance that we are actually dealing with. It is ever so much easier to make a case against you.
Lynette --
And to think that I used to think you were a foaming at the mouth war-radical. Well, “Jim” sure puts paid to that perception in one fell swoop. He redefined the word, I think.
Alright, you said:
[Lynette] “The question is how we used WP in Fallujah. And there is nothing to indicate in anything we have been shown so far that it's usage was illegal. As for the Pentagon's statements, perhaps they should look for more accurate spokespeople. But in any case I am sure that you will continue looking for anything to beat us over the head with.”
First off, your contact is hardly an unbiased source, given his credentials. But, alright, let’s consider his remarks in any case - what he writes may be correct under *normal* conditions.
On the other hand, I have seen the RAI video regarding the WP use. And it is clear that DOZENS of WP shells were fired at a time, in clusters, one after the other, saturating an area. I’m not at all convinced that his benign description of WP would still apply to a concentrated usage of the chemical such as that.
I refer you to the comments of Mabus, Secrets in Baghdad:
“Mabus said...
Anon 3:50 is sort of right, if you were hit buy a cloud of burning white phosphorus it would burn through your cloths as well as your skin. What this man with the Masters in Chemical Engineering seems to have neglected is that when WP burns in air it forms phosporus pentoxide. At room temperature phosphorus pentoxide exists as tetraphosphorus decoxide, which is an invasively deliquescent gas. After it absorbs water it forms pyrophosphoric acid, which is a weak disociator that activates on contact with organic material. This means that after WP burns it forms a cloud that will suck the water right out of your cells (living your cloths intact BTW), and then will form an acid that only reacts to living things. When you see a body that's been turned black with the cloths still on like that, body hasn't been burned. The black isn't ash, it's the phospholidips leftover from when there flesh was basically cured into leather. And those are the real facts. ” //end excerpt
And I refer you to:
Wikipedia – White Phosphorus:
“ Effects of exposure to WP weapons
Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep (second and third degree), painful burns. These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed personnel because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it disappears, in some cases burning right down to the bone. Burns usually are limited to areas of exposed skin because only the larger WP particles can burn through personal clothing.
Exposure and inhalation of smoke
Burning WP produces a hot, dense white smoke composed of particles of phosphorus pentoxide, which are converted by moist air into phosphoric acid.
Most forms of smoke are not hazardous in the kinds of concentrations produced by a battlefield smoke shell. However, exposure to heavy smoke concentrations of any kind for an extended period (particularly if near the source of emission) does have the potential to cause illness or even death.” //end excerpt
The question Lynette, is WHY, if the US is so comfortable with the use of WP, did it lie and equivocate when confronted with the massive use of the agent in Fallujah. Again, only when it is on 4 channel stereo video, will the truth be grudgingly extracted from the US military. The facts are, the US considered WP to be a chemical weapon, [albeit a rather poor one] as I have demonstrated already. That’s the reason for the BS smoke screen.
And I don’t have to “dig stuff up” to beat you over the head with. Your government and military is tripping over its own feet in full view of the public often enough …
[PeteS] “My point is that there is a level of despotism beyond which it is both immoral (and probably naive) to make deals with the perpetrator.”
Ah! Alright then, let’s assume that I have misunderstood your arguments. The fact that Saddam was tainted is beyond dispute. He is probably deserving of a quick bullet to the head. But failing that? We must consider the choices – and they are not a lot. Basically, one either deals with him peacefully, or violently. Now, if it were just his fate in the balance, I would just cap him and move on. But the fact is, he was a lynchpin in a very complex and important knot, and thousands of lives would be affected by his fate. It is not a simple or easy decision to take, yet the yanks made it out to be so.
The violent option has now been taken. The results are clear – chaos and destruction. Simply, it was the wrong option. The fact that America has some serious vested interests in the country only makes it worse.
[peteS]” Well, if you give me demonstrably more reliable numbers than the Human Rights Watch numbers on the Anfal genocide and post Gulf War I uprisings, and the UNICEF numbers on the impact of sanctions, I will be all ears.”
Ah, look, the question is hardly central to our debate, since our assessment of Hussein is more or less similar. My bone of contention is that the US / UK have engaged in their usual exaggeration and lying on the matter. This article is quite informative:
PM admits graves claim 'untrue'
Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor - July 18, 2004 - The Observer
“Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that '400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered.
[...]
In that publication - Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves produced by USAID, the US government aid distribution agency, Blair is quoted from 20 November last year: 'We've already discovered, just so far, the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves.'
[...]
The admission that the figure has been hugely inflated follows a week in which Blair accepted responsibility for charges in the Butler report over the way in which Downing Street pushed intelligence reports 'to the outer limits' in the case for the threat posed by Iraq.
[...]
It comes amid inflation from an estimate by Human Rights Watch in May 2003 of 290,000 'missing' to the latest claims by the Iraqi Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, that one million are missing.
At the heart of the questions are the numbers so far identified in Iraq's graves. Of 270 suspected grave sites identified in the last year, 55 have now been examined, revealing, according to the best estimates that The Observer has been able to obtain, around 5,000 bodies. Forensic examination of grave sites has been hampered by lack of security in Iraq, amid widespread complaints by human rights organisations that until recently the graves have not been secured and protected.
While some sites have contained hundreds of bodies - including a series around the town of Hilla and another near the Saudi border - others have contained no more than a dozen. It is an issue that Human Rights Watch was acutely aware of when it compiled its own pre-invasion research - admitting that it had to reduce estimates for the al-Anfal campaign produced by Kurds by over a third, as they believed the numbers they had been given were inflated. Hania Mufti, one of the researchers that produced that estimate, said: 'Our estimates were based on estimates. The eventual figure was based in part on circumstantial information gathered over the years.'” //end excerpt.
[PeteS] “Apart from the difficulty in ascertaining precise numbers, it is of even greater relevance how you apportion the blame for 1) Iraqi deaths due to sanctions, and 2) Iraqi deaths due to insurgent activities.”
Aha, now we are talking about interesting stuff. Deaths due to sanctions? Well, I hold both Saddam and the US primarily responsible for them. Saddam in the sense that by not living up to his side of the bargain, brought them upon Iraq. The US, because it manipulated and subverted what should have been a targeted process of denying weapons materials into a weapon of genocide. After the US declared it would maintain the sanctions EVEN IF Iraq was cleared of the WMD allegations, the fault was 100% that of America.
Iraqi deaths due to insurgents? Again, not straightforward. The US military likes to confuse criminal activity with ‘insurgent’ activity. Of course, the fact that the US STARTED the war, and that the Resistance is DEFENDING gives the US a measure of culpability in the ‘insurgent – caused deaths as well. An analogy you might consider is the French Resistance attacking a German convoy in WW2, and killing some French civilians in the process. Whose fault is that? The French, who are defending – or the Germans, who are occupying? In a sense, the Iraqi Resistance is even more just than the French, since France was fully able and willing to take on Germany in 1940, but Iraq was helpless and willing to appease the US in order to avoid war in 2003.
[peteS] “Your assumption is NOT demonstrably true since it i[s] equivalent to the following: my neighbour was killed by a thug who, while I attempted to restrain him and save my neighbour, also died; he killed one person and I killed one person therefore we are "much the same" from a moral point of view. Clearly the conclusion is a non sequitur.”
Ha! Nice flourish. Now wait for the riposte …
Taking your analogy as a starting point, let’s also admit that YOU hired the thug and supported him in his thuggish activities. However, the reason you stopped him from attacking your neighbour was not out of sheer magnanimity … it was because ‘your’ thug was increasingly rebellious towards you and not giving you your fair share of the profits of his misdeeds. In fact, you wanted to kill him anyway for this, and replace him with another, better thug … In any case, now that they are both dead, you ransack your neighbour’s house anyway, to take what may be taken …
In real life, this relates nicely to the US attempts to get Hussein overthrown at the end of 1991. However it NEVER intended for the Shia to rise up. What was intended was that ANOTHER Ba’athist general would kill Saddam and prove to be a more pliable head of state. In 2004 this relates nicely to the huge sums of money expended in an effort to get the CIA asset Allawi elected. A man who is guilty of terrorism himself.
The efforts of the US to turn Iraq into a client state are too obvious to be laboriously worked through. Suffice to say, US and British companies have largely displaced French, Russian and Iraqi companies in terms of building the infrastructure of Iraq, and furthermore US oil companies also seem poised to take over the oil sector, at great cost to the Iraqis.
The point is – YOUR conclusion is a non – sequitur. It is a legalised pillage. It is one armed robber over another.
[PeteS] “A sufficiently good spin-off for Iraq REGARDLESS OF American intentions would do the trick, bearing in mind the hideous alternative of keeping the status quo.”
As we can clearly see, the current situation is far worse than Saddam’s rule. Saddam’s rule UNDER SANCTIONS, I may add. It may get better, yes. Or it may get much worse. If the American ‘utopia’ of flowers and milk and honey had come to fruition in 2003, I would probably have had to concede the argument on this score. But clearly, it has NOT happened. So I DO NOT concede that this ‘spin-off’ has been good for Iraq in the least.
[bruno] While we agree that something needed to be ‘done’ about Hussein, we diverge on the extent that our moral judgement gives us a mandate to ‘do’ something.
[peteS] Yes, clearly we have a divergence of view. Clearly SOMETIMES there is a moral imperative to act even in a situation where you are not directly the injured party.
Agreed. This was NOT one of those times.
[peteS] “I contend that Iraq was a comparable situation.”
No it’s not. Hussein was no longer slaughtering people domestically. People whom their supposed ‘liberators’ had cynically urged to rise up in 1991 and left them to rot, like the Warsaw uprising. This intervention is a decade late. I take it that even you will admit intervening now will not bring those people back to life …? Secondly, when the ‘liberators’ were the leading cause of death in Iraq through sanctions, would it be unfair to postulate that they hardly had the well being of Iraqis in mind?
What you are advocating is in fact a justification of invasion and an imposition of a socio-economic system (assuming the spin-offs are good enough – and in whose opinion I may add) in a similar vein to certain Aussie nut jobs. Except that he has fallen off the cliff, and you are teetering on the abyss...
[bruno] (Hussein, were he here, may well turn and say "Well, YOU try and walk a mile in my boots, and see how clean you would be when you finished" And he might even have a point.)
[peteS] If this is any kind of argument then it is one that can equally be applied to U.S. actions. I'll discount it mainly because it could be used to exonerate some U.S. actions that I would consider to be unjustifiable (such as Abu Ghraib).
Mmm. You may well be right. (Of course, Hussein was BORN there and didn’t have as much of a choice as the US, which didn’t have to invade Iraq at all. This moral relativism must be getting you down )
[bruno] However, once the "PeteS Option", ie violent invasion and conquest has been chosen, it is certainly immoral for a person supporting such an option to disassociate themselves from the carnage and moral consequences thereof. Particularly if they CONTINUE to stick to their guns in the face of the evidence, right, Pete?
[peteS] Yes. I don't do it lightly. At the outset I didn't do it at all -- I was completely anti-war. Then I realised that taking an anti-war position meant taking moral responsibility for the status quo, and I found I couldn't do that either. That's where you anti-war people perhaps sanctimoniously wash your hands of any kind of stance, as if there is some kind of morally neutral position that sits above everything else and is answerable for nothing.
Ha! This is an interesting piece of analysis.
So you accept responsibility for what is occurring in the Sudan as well? The slaughter of the Chechnyans is also more blood on YOUR hands? The destruction of the Brazilian rainforests? The high US crime rate as well?
Your shoulders must be broad indeed, to take responsibility for this status quo. Be careful, PeteS! Our Australian friend has fallen victim to this disease of treating every injustice in every country as his personal responsibility … and we all know where that landed him … in the nuthouse.
I disagree that you are responsible for the status quo.
You are logically less responsible for the status quo (since you didn’t do anything to bring the situation about) than for the consequences of your actions.
If a man is on a cliff’s edge, hanging by his fingers, and you walk past, ignoring him … are YOU responsible for whether he falls or pulls himself up? Let’s say you try and help him, and accidentally let him slip, dropping him … how responsible are you THEN? If YOU are gripping the edge of a cliff, trying to pull yourself up, and you see a clumsy oaf coming to help you, hands slippery with grease … would YOU hold him responsible if he dropped you?
I can understand that you would feel tainted by having to deal with one such as Hussein. I can understand the desire for revenge as well. Nevertheless, you must consider the possibility that the tools you are using (the US) and the consequences of his removal might well be worse than his continued rulership. Unfortunately not every dictator receives his just desserts. Stalin died peacefully. (As a Christian, you have the luxury of believing that Stalin is getting his behind prodded by flaming torches. I have no such luxury. )
My argument is that there was a third way between doing nothing and all out war, and that the USA was too tainted with self interest and involvement with Hussein to pursue it.
I really enjoyed looking at your blog and seeing all the things that are happening in Iraq. The pictures helped me vision whats happening over there right now. I was interested in how your broke down the governments into percentages. I learned a lot more from this blog than I did from the newspaper. Now I really know what's happening over there and what might happen too. I thought your blog was very interesting and I really liked your layout. I liked how you told us all the updates that are happening over there, like who has died, otten injured, and other information. I like seeing all the people who are fighting for us in Iraq I also liked to see those animals from Iraq that were unknown to me.
Dear Healing Iraq,
The entry entitled Mahdi Army Beats 2 Students to Death in Basrah makes me feel very sad. I feel awful to think of a student being beaten because of the music they listen to or their beliefs. It is not fair to those children. They did nothing wrong, but yet the price some had to pay was death. I wish those students could have had the chance to live a life like I have. To go to school without being afraid of death. All people are created and should be treated equally, no matter how they look, think, believe or what they say. Everyone deserves to live a life happily, even those students.
Sincerely,
Chelsea Wenos
Bruno,
"First off, your contact is hardly an unbiased source, given his credentials."
That is in the eye of the beholder. But, the accused does have the right to defend himself.
"On the other hand, I have seen the RAI video regarding the WP use."
So has this person:
Captain Robison has over ten years of military service as an officer and enlisted soldier in the Medical Branch, Field Artillery and Signal Corp including the Gulf War and Kosovo operations. Most recently he worked as a contractor for DIA with the Iraqi Survey Group. He graduated with a B.S. Biology (pre-medicine) from the University of Tampa, and has graduted the U.S. Army Field Artillery Officer Basic Course, Signal Officer Advanced Course, Combined Arms and Services Staff School, and Airborne and Air Assault.
Further, in addition to his outstanding artillery and medical background, he is also a video expert, contracted under DIA to provide analysis of captured Saddam regime video, documentation, audio, and computer media. Later, his team analyzed captured insurgent media, and analyzed thousands of videos to determine intelligence value. His team provided support that assisted in the capture of Saddam Hussein and later provided intelligence of insurgent activities.
He had this to say:
"I am a former fire support officer, who was trained to travel with infantry and armor units and be the eyes of the artillery to call for fire.
I read the article from the Italian news source, and let me state unequivocally that what it claims is physically impossible. A white phosphorous round used for illumination is a base ejecting projectile that "opens" in the air and floats down under a parachute. The projectile casing does continue down range, but fire direction officers and fire support officers along with the maneuver commanders clear this impact area as part of the calculations. The projectile casing itself could kill a person, as any bullet would, but it is not possible to use it as a chemical warfare attack.
The flare itself floats down and you would pretty much have to chase after it and position yourself under where you project it will land to even get burned. It is possible although very unlikely that this flare could hit a building and could cause a fire, but the injury wouldn’t be a chemical burn, but a burn from the building fire. I have never seen anything close to this happen.
The flares come down slowly and usually burn out first, but since they are the brightest thing in the sky, it would be easy to avoid one if it landed while burning. I have seen a few flares land on the ground while burning, but this is much different than a chemical attack.
The only way you could purposely harm anyone with this is if you direct fired at a short range. The projectile most likely wouldn't eject the flare (it has a timed fuse) and it really wouldn't matter if you fired Cheetohs at someone at that range, the concussion would kill them.
An artillery unit wouldn't use direct fire unless it was being attacked. And even then it would use their organic direct fire weapons and if necessary, another type of projectile. To use a WP for direct fire would be entirely counterproductive to the security of the battery even in self defense.
This Italian news story is nothing but a lie.
I analyzed the video and am pleased to announce that it is junk. There are many things I could point out, but here is what sticks out.
1. The “fire raining down from the helicopter” was the part that concerned me...
Contrary to the documentary claim that hellicopters were shooting fire, there are no helicopters in that video segment. There is a split second airbust and if you freeze the picture at the right instant, the airburst lights up the sky. There are no helicopters present. This proves a false claim by the documentary creators in what may be the most significant portion of the video...
...I had to watch it repeatedly to figure it out. At first I thought it was the backblast from a missile being fired the other direction. After a more thorough analysis, I realize it was an air burst of WP artillery rounds. Those are basically small rags that looked like balls of fire. This is because it is night and it is hard to get perspective at night, with or without night vision equipment. Taken out of context, it is easy to make it look like fire raining down on the city. The rag would certainly burn, but it would be like a cigarette and you would just need to brush it off, maybe take off clothes, and get away from it.
2. The voice over states "contrary to the claim by the state department that WP was used in open fields, this was not true because tracer rounds were used to illuminate the enemy" Nothing could have spelled out liar any bigger than that one statement. Tracy rounds are never used to illuminate the enemy. The glow from a tracer round lasts tenths of a second and travels hundreds of miles an hour; it could not possibly be used for this function, again a claim that defies all practicality. Tracer rounds are used to see where your bullets are going so your fire can be adjusted, flat out. And quoting the State Department about a military function?
3. The pictures of dead bodies while hideous provide no analytical value. Contrast the opening from Vietnam, with the burned little girl, running from a napalmed village. That is conclusive evidence. Nothing about these dead bodies looked any different to the many dead bodies I have seen analyzing other videos (of dead bodies) that were all made that way (dead) by Saddam’s regime and then by Jihadists. There is no way to determine what killed these people by looking at pictures, except maybe by a forensics expert.
The kind of projectile they are speaking about here creates smoke. It is widely, commonly, and legally used by every army to conceal their men. Usually, if an obstacle needs to be breeched, the smoke is delivered by artillery in between the obstacle and the enemy observer. It can also be placed on the enemy to confuse and scare them. The smoke itself is uncomfortable, but not dangerous, unless you want to sit on top of the projectile and breathe it. I know because I have experienced it.
Now, unless you believe in ghosts, Captain Robison is very much alive.
Source: Confederate Yankee
Italian,
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I was distracted by Bruno.
There is a big difference between a "psychological" weapon and a "lethal" weapon. I believe they used music and sound effects as well, as a "psychological" weapon. (If you have ever heard some of the music, you would understand.)
A liar is someone who deliberately tells something that is untrue. Where is there evidence that the spokesperson speaking about WP had the intent to lie? As I said he was simply misinformed or sloppy in his work. ("dillema"...now, dear, isn't such pettiness beneath you?)
"clearly distinguishable from the civilian population"
Please correct me if I am wrong, didn't the Mahdi army go in for black?
"Guerrilla (also called a partisan) is a term borrowed from Spanish ("guerra" meaning "war" and "guerrilla" meaning "little war"), and used to describe small combat groups and the members of such groups (see Etymology). Guerrilla warfare operates with small, mobile and flexible combat groups called cells, without a front line. Guerrilla warfare is one of the oldest forms of asymmetric warfare. Primary contributors to modern theories of guerrilla war include Mao Zedong, Wendell Fertig, Regis Debray, Vo Nguyen Giap, and Che Guevara. Later students of guerrilla warfare included Swiss Major Hans von Dach who wrote the now widely available Swiss Army field manual "Total Resistance". While "asymmetric warfare" is the military term for guerrilla tactics, in present times when abhorent tactics are commonly used, it is often referred to in the pejorative as "terrorism"."
Wikipedia
Hmmm, which is it, "terrorist" or "guerrilla"? A thin line I think.
Bruno,
The fact that Saddam was tainted is beyond dispute. He is probably deserving of a quick bullet to the head. But failing that? We must consider the choices - and they are not a lot. Basically, one either deals with him peacefully, or violently. Now, if it were just his fate in the balance, I would just cap him and move on. But the fact is, he was a lynchpin in a very complex and important knot, and thousands of lives would be affected by his fate. It is not a simple or easy decision to take, yet the yanks made it out to be so. The violent option has now been taken. The results are clear - chaos and destruction. Simply, it was the wrong option. The fact that America has some serious vested interests in the country only makes it worse.
Ok, we have now taken a different tack. I am quoting all of the above merely to make the observation that this is not an example of the "cold hard facts" you allegedly had at your disposal (11.28.05 - 9:10 am). Rather it is highly subjective and speculative. Fine rhetoric, but at the moment the only evidence I have that the U.S. took "the wrong option" is your highly unconvincing bit of handwaving (11.23.05 - 4:05 am) about the alternative of politically isolating him. Anyone living in a multi-party democracy is used to opposition claims that "things would have been so much different and better if only OUR ideas had been implemented, instead of those of the incompetents in charge". It is easy to make such claims retrospectively, as you are doing. And who ever claimed that war was a "simple or easy decision". If you are just complaining about American government propaganda then do me a favour -- when you find a country where the government DOESN'T preach to the populace in trite little soundbites, let me know ... I want to go and live there.
Ah, look, the question [of HRW and UNICEF statistics] is hardly central to our debate, since our assessment of Hussein is more or less similar.
I would agree your report of Blair's exaggeration of grave counts AFTER the war is hardly relevant. But you later make the further claim that after 1991 "Hussein was no longer slaughtering people domestically" and that this intervention is a decade late. That is patently untrue. What about the al-Sadr intifada of 1999 precipitated by Saddam's assassination of Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr and his sons? This led to mass detentions, tortures, and hundreds of arbitrary executions. The direct orders almost certainly came from Saddam's cousin "Chemical" Ali Hassan al-Majid. So if the perpetrator of the Anfal genocide was still actively slaughtering eight years after the imposition of sanctions, how is it fair to characterise Iraq under this regime as somehow "neutered" and ready to accede to international demands? (FYI - Human Rights Watch 2005 report on the 1999 Basra Massacre is here).
(contd...)
(...contd)
Aha, now we are talking about interesting stuff. Deaths due to sanctions? Well, I hold both Saddam and the US primarily responsible for them. Saddam in the sense that by not living up to his side of the bargain, brought them upon Iraq. The US, because it manipulated and subverted what should have been a targeted process of denying weapons materials into a weapon of genocide. After the US declared it would maintain the sanctions EVEN IF Iraq was cleared of the WMD allegations, the fault was 100% that of America.
Then we agree (although I would maintain that sanctions were no more moral before the U.S. declaration to which you refer). As Pat Buchanan said of sanctions in 1999 "Saddam today is holding the people of Iraq hostage, while America kills the hostages". However, in the same article, Buchanan criticises the U.S. as "a nation that declares piously it will never stoop to assassinating tyrants".
Iraqi deaths due to insurgents? Again, not straightforward. The US military likes to confuse criminal activity with "insurgent" activity. Of course, the fact that the US STARTED the war, and that the Resistance is DEFENDING gives the US a measure of culpability in the "insurgent" caused deaths as well.
Ok, so its not straightforward and the U.S. has a "measure" of culpability. Fine by me.
...Iraq was helpless and willing to appease the US in order to avoid war in 2003.
Part of the "neutered" Iraq thesis ... as above, I disagree.
Ha! Nice flourish... Taking your analogy as a starting point, let’s also admit that YOU hired the thug...
Nice come-back. However, to re-use YOUR analogy, if I DID happen to save my neighbour that would be a welcome spin-off even if I did NOT do it out of "sheer magnanimity", n'est-ce pas?
The efforts of the US to turn Iraq into a client state are too obvious to be laboriously worked through... It is a legalised pillage. It is one armed robber over another.
I don't entirely agree. The main resource to be pillaged is obviously oil (with the usual caveat that this does not literally mean taking Iraqi oil out of the ground for transport to the U.S at no cost). I don't think the U.S. could risk setting up a long term "arrangement" about Iraqi oil under any kind of transitional Iraqi government. The danger would be that Iraq will pursue it through the International Court of Justice for violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, rendering any such arrangement null and void. Instead the attempt to establish Production Sharing Agreements with Iraq won't happen until immediately after the December elections. PSAs could be defined as "pillage", although they have to be balanced against the need for truly massive investment in Iraq's oil infrastructure. In any event, it will be an Iraqi government that decides.
(contd...)
(...contd)
As we can clearly see, the current situation is far worse than Saddam’s rule. Saddam’s rule UNDER SANCTIONS, I may add.
No, I think we can clearly see that the current situation is far better. Can you define what metrics you are using, and explain why you are not using the raw death toll including deaths attributed to sanctions. (Cold, hard facts, remember?).
It may get better, yes. Or it may get much worse. If the American ‘utopia’ of flowers and milk and honey had come to fruition in 2003, I would probably have had to concede the argument on this score. But clearly, it has NOT happened. So I DO NOT concede that this ‘spin-off’ has been good for Iraq in the least.
So you would have retrospectively blessed the operation had it been successful? How convenient. How utilitarian. How Nutjob-from-Oz-esque. But at least you have backed a winner, since the Iraqi insurgency will almost certainly "win" in some grotesque sense.
Ha! This is an interesting piece of analysis. So you accept responsibility for what is occurring in the Sudan as well? The slaughter of the Chechnyans is also more blood on YOUR hands? The destruction of the Brazilian rainforests? The high US crime rate as well?
All of the above to some extent, yes (except the last). You DON'T accept that more international pressure could have been brought to bear on Khartoum (and no invasion needed, by the way)? Why are they being allowed the prestige of hosting an African Union summit? It's disgraceful. Most citizens of the first world just plain don't give a shit about anyone else (unless of course the U.S. can be blamed for it). Most despots know that they can get away with pretty much anything. Look at Mugabe -- in five years he has brought a beautiful and up-and-coming country to the brink of disaster. He is a nasty old man scared of letting go of the reins, but some persistent prodding and a reminder from his neighbours that history will smile on Nkomo but spit on Mugabe would probably have been enough if it had been done on time. Instead, economic self-interest is almost the sole motivator of governments. WE are the citizens who elect them. How often does foreign policy feature as a vote-getter?
Your shoulders must be broad indeed, to take responsibility for this status quo. Be careful, PeteS! Our Australian friend has fallen victim to this disease of treating every injustice in every country as his personal responsibility
I don't accept sole responsibility. It's yours too, depending on where you live. The Nutjob from Oz certainly takes his responsibilities seriously, but that is a different matter from deciding that the solution to everything is to bomb the bejeezus out of all non-NATO countries.
(contd...)
(...contd)
You are logically less responsible for the status quo (since you didn’t do anything to bring the situation about) than for the consequences of your actions.
That assumes one is not responsible for the consequences of inaction. Most legal systems disagree in cases where inaction can be construed as negligence.
I can understand that you would feel tainted by having to deal with one such as Hussein. I can understand the desire for revenge as well.
Well, thanks for the understanding, but no thanks. I just don't think dealing with Saddam would have achieved much. I think revenge is something to be avoided too.
Nevertheless, you must consider the possibility that the tools you are using (the US) and the consequences of his removal might well be worse than his continued rulership.
As I hope I've conveyed, I have considered that possibility.
Unfortunately not every dictator receives his just desserts. Stalin died peacefully. (As a Christian, you have the luxury of believing that Stalin is getting his behind prodded by flaming torches. I have no such luxury. )
Nah, Stalin's probably reincarnated and is back in the seminary having just taken a break from priestly training to bump off 13 million people. (Only joking).
My argument is that there was a third way between doing nothing and all out war, and that the USA was too tainted with self interest and involvement with Hussein to pursue it.
As I said, I just don't buy it.
(end)
Don't know if what I wrote "takes the biscuit", but it seems to have "lost my cookie". That was me of course.
Mathias Doepfner
August 01, 2005
THE writer Henryk Broder recently issued a withering indictment: Europe, your family name is appeasement. That phrase resonates because it is so terribly true.
Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as allies Britain and France negotiated and hesitated too long before they realised that Adolf Hitler needed to be fought and defeated, because he could not be bound by toothless agreements.
Later, appeasement legitimised and stabilised communism in the Soviet Union, then in East Germany, then throughout the rest of Eastern Europe, where for several decades inhuman, repressive and murderous governments were glorified.
Appeasement similarly crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Bosnia and Kosovo. Indeed, even though we had absolute proof of continuing mass murder there, we Europeans debated and debated, and then debated still more. We were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, to do our work for us.
Europe still hasn't learned. Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word equidistance, often seems to countenance suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.
Similarly, it generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore the almost 500,000 victims of Saddam Hussein's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, to harangue George W. Bush as a warmonger.
This hypocrisy continues even as it is discovered that some of the loudest critics of US action in Iraq made illicit billions - indeed, tens of billions - of dollars in the corrupt UN oil-for-food program.
Today we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in The Netherlands, Britain and elsewhere in Europe? By suggesting - wait for it - that the proper response to such barbarism is to initiate a Muslim holiday in Germany.
I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of Germany's Government - and, if polls are to be believed, the German people -- actually believe that creating an official state Muslim holiday will somehow spare us from the wrath of fanatical Islamists.
One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain on his return from Munich, waving that laughable treaty signed by Hitler, and declaring the advent of peace in our time.
What atrocity must occur before the European public and its political leadership understands what is really happening in the world? There is a sort of crusade under way; an especially perfidious campaign consisting of systematic attacks by Islamists, focused on civilians, that is directed against our free, open Western societies, and that is intent on their utter destruction.
We find ourselves faced with a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military clashes of the last century, a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation because that enemy is actually spurred on by such gestures. Such responses have proven to be signs of weakness.
Only two recent US presidents have had the courage needed to shun appeasement: Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The US's critics may quibble over the details, but in our hearts we Europeans know the truth, because we saw it first hand.
Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of Europe from almost 50 years of terror and slavery. And Bush, acting out of moral conviction and supported only by the social democrat Tony Blair, recognised the danger in today's Islamist war against democracy.
In the meantime, Europe sits back in the multicultural corner with its usual blithe self-confidence.
Instead of defending liberal values and acting as an attractive centre of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, the US and China, it does nothing. On the contrary, we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to the supposedly arrogant Americans, as world champions of tolerance, which even Germany Interior Minister Otto Schily justifiably criticises.
Where does this self-satisfied reaction come from? Does it arise because we are so moral? I fear that it stems from the fact that we Europeans are so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.
For his policy of confronting Islamic terrorism head-on, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the US economy. But he does this because, unlike most of Europe, he realises that what is at stake is literally everything that really matters to free people.
While we criticise the capitalistic robber barons of the US because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our welfare states. "Stay out of it. It could get expensive," we cry.
So, instead of acting to defend our civilisation, we prefer to discuss reducing our 35-hour work week or improving our dental coverage, or extending our four weeks of annual paid holiday. Or perhaps we listen to television pastors preach about the need to reach out to terrorists, to understand and forgive.
These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewellery when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbour's house. Appeasement? That is just the start of it. Europe, thy name is Cowardice.
Mathias Doepfner is chief executive of German media group Axel Springer
Italian and kind, "Thy name is Cowadice."
@ HOLLYWOOD WIVES CAST.
Funny how monkeys’ commands chain works! when the first chews the last farts.
And here we have some ace-gender (anone1!) conveniently quotes an essay from Walid Phares – God help us, to make a point. Naturally, not a single word of comments from the ace-gender to follow this ‘re-make-able’ piece of history, and that shows charismatic shallowness of the ‘past-er’. But this piece fYI, is Loose. And if you guys think you can have it published in the Christian Science Monitor for a 2 buck profit at some newsstand in Des Moines, Iowa,. then this is exactly how much it is worth.
But if this ace-gender (Shallow Hal) is a bit voluptuous in the brain matter rather in the butt, then he would have realized that not everything is written meant to be an accurate document, and especially in History. And as Hal takes us into an Azande matrix trip of figures after figures (I can imagine Walid dressed in missionary cloak behind a weggie board, and writing to Isabelle of Spain how much Gold and Sliver they have curtailed after decimating the Aztecs, and the Mayas LOOOL) Hal too via his proxy mentor breaches inquisitive Gothic Spain ‘Vino’ and ‘Pan’ monologue to indirectly implicate the Inversos (Jews) and the Moriscos (Muslims) for the trickling of Arab Christians in the Middles East.
But before I go about ‘my’ history, I may have to clarify that shallow Hal has included the Arab Christians as in whole. Yo, Hal. This is healing Iraq. It’s about the country Iraq! You dig? Speaking of which, I hereby challenge Walid and his whole neo-cunts oops, cons team to single out at any time in the history of Saddam pathetic years, were there any mistreatments of any kind to any Christian in the land of Iraq by Saddam.
As a matter of fact they were totally well-respected and trusted; and they were as numerous as Muslims in his private circle. Michele Aflaq - the thinker & founder of the Baath party was a Christian. Saddam had permitted Christians to occupy high public office. This included the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Tariq Assiz, who is a Roman Catholic. Christmas and Easter decorations always abound in Iraq and attending church was & is a common practice. But I really don’t want to get into this bit of history (Saddam used minorities to concretize power – he even was Aoun’s buddy during the civil war in Lebanon).
As I said we respect our Arab Christians. And if (iosefo?) thinks some Christians were recently maltreated in other countries in the region then I sympathize with him. Also, we shall try hard to prevent religious prosecutions in Iraq after we get the ugly America’s ass kicked good. You see iosefo, most of US friends who killed and harassed Christians (the Saudi Wahhabies, Housni Mubarak, the Zionists terrorists in Palestine - 1950 is when the Arabs both Christians and Muslims lost Palestine to the Zionists!!. the Turks, and now Al Bader Brigade in Iraq) all had political agendas (most are of land expansions) with little respect to minorities. This is one reason why we will change the current Iraqi constitution, Inshallah.
Hal’s paste up piece of wobbly history:
(This denial of identity of millions of indigenous non-Arab nations can be equated to an organized ethnic cleansing on a politico-cultural level. Similarly to the Turkish attempts to eradicate the ethnic identity of the Kurds)
>>Out of context. The writer’s political agenda is quiet evident, and thus his arguments are irrelevant.
(Christians, pressured to participate in the general "war effort" conducted by the Arab regimes against a non-Arab nation, i.e. the Jews of Israel.)
>>The writer here is being disrespectful of the Arab Christians intellectuals and their nationhood. He insinuates that Arab Christians have no embedded chain of thoughts towards their nation’s destiny in whole. There are plentiful of Christian Palestinians who today are truly believer in the cause like Hanan Ashrawi. Writer shows sever symptoms of political Hepatitis!
(The gestalt of global Arab strategy in the region was to pit non-Arabs against other non-Arabs,)
>>Who against whom?? The only current example I can think of is when the Turks used the Kurds to decimate the Armenians – none are Arabs and all are US friends!! Of course, the writer again veers off course.
(The gestalt of global Arab strategy in the region was to pit non-Arabs against other non-Arabs, after demonizing those who have formed their national state Israel)
>>The writer dwells profusely in his political quandary and again is out of context. So far not a shred of history has been laid out!!!
(Arab Christians" exist in few spots in the region, but they are a minuscule minority within the world of Middle Eastern Christianity)
>>proofs?
However, the Arab Christians dated back to the early years of genesis when everyone (Arabs – Canaanites were Arabs too, Assyro-Chaldeans, Armenians, Phoenicians, Arameans, Palestinians and Jews) were under the occupation of the Romans. The fact that he construed that Arabs ‘cannot’ be Christians are baseless, Arabs existed before Islam and were equally forced to accept Christianity under the Holly Roman Empire. And therefore, his argument is immaterial.
(Prior to the Arab Islamic invasion of the upper Middle East)
>>upper Middle East!!!? This shows that the writer is geographically illiterate. Such territory does not exist.
(the term invasion is crucial--most of the peoples of the region, with the exception of the ancient Israelites, were Christianized: )
>>People were forced into Christianity by their occupiers the Romans, and later the Byzantines. The Israelites were not allowed to enter the religion due to the lower caste in the social blocks.
(With the dispersion of the Jews by the ………. was Christian, and many Arabs in the Peninsula were Christians. These are the "Arab Christians.")
>>When the Jews fell of favor with the Christians and dispersed in the region. Then the remaining were natives (pre-Jews natives - the Palestinians, the Arabs and the Arameans in Palestine) – Israel did not exist (Jews come from a place which is south of today’s Iraq). Arabs Christians and Palestinians Christians lived side by sided along with other the minorities in peace.
Before Christianity, The Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula were not under the Roman occupation – that’s why Christ escaped to Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula to flee prosecution from the Romans. The Arabs were much influenced by Christian teaching at that time – an anti Roman movement for the free world
(Since the 7th century the geo-political landscape of the region changed dramatically. The Arab Islamic armies occupied the upper Middle East, the new order implemented an Arabization and an Islamization of the conquered people).
>>Bull. Again! Arabization did not exist at that time – and perhaps never existed. The Arabs believed in Segmentary Oppositions and they really look cautiously in the origins of the peoples. At that time in the middle-east the majorities were Arab tribes (Christians) under the occupation of both the Persians and the Byzantines and were fighting for their freedom. A great Arab Poet who lived then was Christian – Amero Al Kais.
(The majority of the inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, and Nubia, shifted to Arab Moslem. Numerically the native pre-Arab nations were reduced,)
>>‘Shifted to Arab Muslims’ This is really snowballing from bad to worse. The writer just cannot come to admit the presence of the Arabs! Arabs were living side by side with
other inhabitants.
(……… Christians, shrunk to enclaves, or to social categories.)
>>Unlike the Iberian Christians who imposed direct taxes on the Muslims in Spain after the fall of Andalusia, Islam introduced nondirective taxes for the non-Muslims through trades. Some were called Mawali and they were closest to the Muslims – Most Mawali eventually converted to Islam. – The Muslims believe in the book of Moses and Messiah and therefore, Christians and Jews were free to keep their religion if they paid trade taxes. However, Persians who worshipped other forms of gods were prosecuted and killed by the Muslims when they failed to convert to Islam. The prophet Mohammed was married to a Jewish lady.
btw. in Spain, those who chose to convert to Christianity - Morsicos, were kicked out of Spain 200 years later to confiscate their lands. Also, the Jews were burned in open plazas in Seville).
(By the beginning of the twentieth century,)
>>Wow, Holly Ravioli!! What a humongous jump in history!!! LOOOOOL guys come on. I really cannot be serious about it now, and while I’m in this mood, Randy G you say ‘Prozac your ass’, well come to think of it, you may have to try that end too; It could be aphrodisiac LOOOL.
I know why this jump. It’s to cover history’s indelible dent, which was left by the Crusaders, and it was meant to be the biggest sabotage in history for Arab Christians in the Middles-East. The ‘R-jihad’ lionhearted of England amongst others, called upon Arab Christians to be either ‘with us or against us’ – sounds very familiar! And there were heroic acts of Arab Christians who fought side by side with Saladin against the invaders. History shows that the third stage of Crusade was never materialized due to the close cooperation of the Arab Christian traders with their Italians counterparts in Venice, where both planned out a scheme to siphon down the money allocated for the mentioned crusade. Thank you Venice.
(By the beginning of the twentieth century the non-Arab Middle Eastern nations reasserted their historic national claims in many areas of their ancestral lands..)
>>And I guess this happened over night? This shows the hilarity of the writer's incompetence in conjuring up history. The movement of liberating the Arabs land from the Ottoman crumbling empire was quiet evident, and the liberal Arabs of all factions and religions have fought side
(Cont...)
(By the beginning of the twentieth century the non-Arab Middle Eastern nations reasserted their historic national claims in many areas of their ancestral lands..)
>>And I guess this happened over night? This shows the hilarity of the writer's incompetence in conjuring up history. The movement of liberating the Arabs land from the Ottoman crumbling empire was quiet evident, and the liberal Arabs of all factions and religions have fought side by side to defeat the Turks. And this had prompted freedom and ushered the Middle East into the modern times. Of course, then the British were eyeing the movement and sided with the Arabs to secure the Indian – England trade routes.
(The historic national rights of these native nations were met with radical rejection by the established Arab regimes. Ethnic conflicts exploded in Sudan and Lebanon,)
>>South of Sudan has had its ethnic conflicts dated back more than 2000 years between the Nuer and the Dinka
(Darfur issue). The Dinka were converted to Christianity via the American Missionary gales in Africa, while the Nuer kept their own religion intact (The Nuer have wonderful religion and I am happy they did not convert) The central Government of Sudan then with the help of the British pushed downward to target those two tribes, so Britain could force change Sudan’s crops to certain harvests like Cotton for example.
Lebanon did not exist at that time. It was all part of Syria. The French crafted the land out into two countries and forced a factional-oriented constitution in Lebanon which triggered the problem
(while ethnic oppression was implemented in northern Iraq)
>>Only one faction of the Christians – A’thur revolted against the UK crafted constitution at the time in Iraq, and called for autonomy. The central Government moved swiftly and quelled the revolt. Today many of their grandsons live in Detroit.
(What happened to the "Arab Christians?")
>>I have already answered this question!
(The largest Christian nation are the Copts, who number about 12 million. The Egyptian government recognizes only 2.5 million. )
>>Proofs? How on earth the writer can get those figures without official verification!!
(Maronites) who number 1.5 million in Lebanon, seven million in the Diaspora. The Assyro-Chaldeans of Iraq are about 1 million in Mesopotamia, and one million in the diaspora. The Christians of Syria are about a million. Non-Arab Syriacs (Arameans), Arabized Syriacs, and Arab Christians (mostly Orthodox), in addition to Armenians. In southern Sudan the African ethnic nationality is about seven million, Christians and Animists.)
>>I am quite perplexed about the writer’s authority with figures - exception for Lebanon. Until recently the British and the Ottoman were the only two reliable sources of data for the Middle East. Where is he getting those figures from? I am a bit worried that they are ass-u-m-ptions. He too constantly mixes the Nuer and the Dinka in Sudan together as a one voice of Christianity, The Nuers are NOT Christians.
(So who are the "Arab Christians" to whom Arab regimes and Arabists in the West refer?)
>>Again the ‘vomity’ question.
(First, they are not recognized as distinct ethnic identities, but rather as segments from the wide "Arab nation" who are "of Christian faith."This indicates the non- readiness of these regimes and their dominant ideologies to recognize the later's fundamental, political rights, and subsequently their rights to "national lands." )
>>Wrong, they are recognized as an integral part of Arab societies, and not segments from the wide "Arab nation. And this indicates that they have total rights to their national lands and they have the right too to social roles as they form an unprecedented social block of the Arabic backbone
(Second, the Arab-Arabist duo do not admit the real numeric size of these so-called "Arab Christians." In Egypt they are recognized as 2.5 million, in Iraq, 250,000, in Sudan, 2 million, in Syria, 500,000, and in Lebanon, 25% of the population!)
>>Wrong those data are as old as the writer’s theories. Accurate figures must be obtained and we are certain that the Christians are much more than mere mob.
(Not only have the Arab dominant powers subverted the numbers, but they have attempted to subvert the identities.)
>>Irrelevant. Subject is Arab Christians.
(Where are the real "Arab Christians?")
>> Merci!! Have the writer ran out of ways to formulate this question?
(They are dispersed between Jordan, Syria, Israel, and the Palestinian autonomous territories. They are the remnants of the Arab Christian clans who escaped Islamization)
Please refer to my previous comments – no religion of book from the middles East (The Adam & Eve story) needed to escape Islam as I have previously explained.
(and more recently the end product of Evangelization. They are estimated to be 200,000 in Syria, a hundred thousand in Jordan )
>>Here we have it. Now we know all those figures are estimates!! Hmmm. End of discourse for me. Amen
From what we see the writer’s geopolitical agenda is quite obvious even to the freshman student in Political Science. There have been various theories behind rejuvenating baseless nationhood within bigger nations by simply misplace history (names, dates, figures) and make it believable amongst certain masses so some world’s nations can be sized down to smaller and even smaller nations until they turn to inhabitants crumbs so they can be easily swallowed by the scavengers.
The theory of Walid is quite stale and can only be compared to the old Zionist sabotage movement that foresaw a nation for the Jews alone, at a time the respectable Jewish communities were thriving in Europe and elsewhere.
We have to learn from the great nations of India and from the Malaysian experience too how to live in polarized societies in peace and prosperity regardless of the challenges that lay ahead. Nation’s wealth it’s its own people of different religions and backgrounds along with their arts, music, customs, and cuisines.
We shall be quite vigilant at all times for the global opportunists who harp the cords of false patriotism amongst young men and women only for the sake of their personal interests. And while they count their takings the young men and women die. Alas.
btw. PeteS (bomb the shit), your comments suck as ever. Consider some distance learning in thematic options.
Latest episode of US guard at Abu Ghraib prison
http://www.laughline.com/jokes/f...p? funpage_id=14
Hope this time takes you there
Latest episode of US guard at Abu Ghraib prison
http://www.laughline.com/jokes/f...p?
funpage_id=14
[bruno] "On the other hand, I have seen the RAI video regarding the WP use."
[lynette] “So has this person:”
Let’s just use our heads for a moment, shall we? The story he gives on the flare is correct. That’s just ‘filler’ to make his story more credible. In fact, if you watch the video, it is quite evident that the legitimate use of a WP illumination is present, in the form of the flare slowly drifting to the ground. OK, so no problem with that.
The video I watched had no audio … or to state it correctly, I have no speakers on this computer … so the question of whether the WP clusters were being fired from helicopters or not is moot. Even if they were, one wouldn’t see such a helicopter due to the light contrast.
ANYWAY, I believe that the rounds ARE artillery rounds, and this is exactly what this person here admits – no, boasts about:
http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/P...5/PAGE24-
30.pdf
“"WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."”
[robson] “The smoke itself is uncomfortable, but not dangerous, unless you want to sit on top of the projectile and breathe it. I know because I have experienced it.”
As *I* have already pointed out, there is a difference between the effect of a few shells fired in the open for obscuring operations and the effect of WP fumes in a highly concentrated environment. The chemical action of phosphorus smoke in such concentrated conditions is, as I have mentioned, quite damaging to the respiratory system and skin. Robson admits himself indirectly that it would be ‘dangerous’ in such conditions. THAT is the point.
I sincerely doubt that fanatical jihadis, as the US Army terms them, would have been discomfited by a little smoke. Ergo – either the US artillerymen are morons, or the effect of their fire was more than just ‘psychological’. Numerous Iraqi witnesses reported WAY before this story broke, about the ‘poisonous gasses’ employed by the US. They were laughed down at the time. Now, however, we have a much better idea of exactly WHAT those gasses were.
The use of WP is legitimate UNLESS it is being used in such a way that the chemical properties are used as a weapon. THEN it becomes a chemical weapon. Logic dictates that this is precisely the effect aimed for by the US artillerymen, through their saturation bombardment on specific areas. ‘nuff said.
[Lynette] “Hmmm, which is it, "terrorist" or "guerrilla"? A thin line I think.”
No, the line is quite clear. A guerrilla fighting FOR the USA, like the School of the Americas trained Contras, are clearly heroic freedom fighters. Guerrillas fighting AGAINST the USA, are clearly freedom-hating terrorist scum. And, if they switch sides, like the Taliban / Al Qaeda types did, you must IMMEDIATELY expunge all memory of them being ‘freedom loving anti communist guerrillas’ from your mind.
Easy, see?
Just like Big Brother told you.
[PeteS] “Ok, we have now taken a different tack. I am quoting all of the above merely to make the observation that this is not an example of the "cold hard facts" you allegedly had at your disposal (11.28.05 - 9:10 am). Rather it is highly subjective and speculative. Fine rhetoric, but at the moment the only evidence I have that the U.S. took "the wrong option" is your highly unconvincing bit of handwaving (11.23.05 - 4:05 am) about the alternative of politically isolating him. Anyone living in a multi-party democracy is used to opposition claims that "things would have been so much different and better if only OUR ideas had been implemented, instead of those of the incompetents in charge".”
So, basically you are dismissing my suggestion out of hand as an idealisation, a fantasy mirage to be scoffed at. I disagree, but on the other hand, we are talking about ‘maybe’s’. So, let’s compare REALITIES, shall we? Let’s put some CONCRETE realities on the table, and then you can judge whether the invasion was ‘worth it’.
You want specific FACTS?
Here we go:
The state of Iraq with regards to Christians:
For Basra's Christians, Hussein era the good old days - Shiite-dominated city's minorities say repression on rise
Timothy M. Phelps, Newsday - August 28, 2005
Basra, Iraq -- For the Christians in Basra, the downfall of Saddam Hussein has meant a terrible loss of religious freedom. The social club where Yousef Lyon and his friends would gather in the evening to play dominoes, where families danced or listened to live music on holidays, is closed. Wedding celebrations are held quietly at home. "Of course, during the Saddam regime, it was better," said Lyon, 40, a member of the city's small Armenian community. "Now we are afraid from the religious parties that maybe they will throw a bomb at us."
Not just the Christians, but many of the city's minorities -- from obscure sects like the ancient Sabeans to the sizable Sunni Muslim community - - live in fear of the hard-line Shiite religious parties and their militias that now rule Iraq's second-largest city. Freedom has been curtailed for women, regardless of their religion. Several decades ago, almost no woman in Basra covered her head. Now, they all do, under fear of harassment or worse.”
The state of Iraq with regards to Water infrastructure:
People falling ill from contaminated water
25 Aug 2005 07:56:15 GMT - Source: IRIN
“BAGHDAD, 25 August (IRIN) - Numerous cases of people falling ill from contaminated water in districts across Baghdad have been reported by local doctors and the Ministry of Public Works this week.
"We have registered dozens of cases of people falling ill from dirty water in the past four days and we have found that the water used was from taps water inside the homes," Dr Hassan Adnan, a paediatrician at Yarmouk Hospital, said. Doctors have informed the ministries of Public Works and Health and asked for urgent assistance, especially in districts where there are large numbers of people falling ill. Mua'ad Husseiny, a senior official in the Ministry of Public Works, said that the districts of Palestine Street, Baghdad, Bataween and Rissafa in the capital, were the most affected.
[...]
Meanwhile, the news has prompted some families to move from the district they live in, afraid that their children could be the next victims of the polluted water.”
The State of Iraq with regards to Housing:
Iraq: Housing problems increase as conflict hits hearth and home
4 August (IRIN) –
[...]
The main reason for terrible living conditions for thousands of Iraqis is that many houses have been destroyed over years of conflict in the country. The number, officials say, has been increasing daily and very little investment has gone into the sector. Ahmed D’lemi, a senior official at the Ministry of Construction and Housing, said that according to its records, more than 450,000 families were homeless countrywide. Most were living in what he described as “very deteriorated or miserable conditions”.
[...]
He added that the number could be much higher than their records suggest, since many homeless people have not been registered due to the prevailing insecurity in Iraq. At a conference held in Jordan in November 2004 by the United Nations Human Settlements Programme, known as UN-Habitat, and Iraqi government officials it was stated that Iraq needed 1.5 million new homes to cover needs, confirming the vast scale of the problem, but lack of funds has delayed the process.
[...]
Recent conflict in the country, especially in the western province of Anbar, where US forces are flushing out insurgents, has caused thousands of residents to flee and become homeless, according to the Ministry of Construction and Housing.
[...]
The country’s housing problem dates back to previous conflicts, but has been exacerbated by the war, insurgency and instability in the recent past.
The State of Iraq with regards to Food and Salaries:
Iraqis struggle to make ends meet as food rations shrink
By Louise Roug, Times Staff Writer - June 17 2005
[...]
Like many Iraqis, the Hadis depend on food rations distributed by the government. Sometimes the sugar they receive has been hardened by rainwater and the rice is crawling with maggots. The soap is so harsh it causes rashes. On the rare occasions when the Hadis received all the items - sugar, rice, flour, baby milk, tea, vegetable oil and a few other essentials - they thought themselves lucky.
The United Nations World Food Programme, which monitors the distribution of rations, recently reported "significant countrywide shortfalls in rice, sugar, milk and infant formula". Families in Baghdad have received no sugar or baby milk since January. Newspapers have also begun reporting that the tea and flour hand-outs contain metal filings and that people have fallen ill after consuming food rations.
Officials with the trade ministry, which is in charge of distributing the rations, said the media have created the crisis. But they have refused to release results of the tests for contamination they said they are doing. Retail agents who sell the food baskets say the ministry is corrupt, a charge supported by Radhi Radhi, the government's anti-corruption chief.
[...]
Like the Hadis, many Iraqi families rely on the heavily subsidised rations, which were previously distributed under the United Nations' oil-for-food programme to mitigate the effect of sanctions after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. After the removal of Saddam Hussein, the programme was handed over to the trade ministry.. More than half of Iraq's population lives below the poverty line. The median income fell from $255 (£144, €211) in 2003 to about $144 in 2004, according to a recent UN survey. Families buy the food baskets for a few dollars at state-licensed shops.
[...]
Intisan Karim, 26, lives with 24 family members in a small house. If rations continue to shrink, she joked, laughing without mirth, "we'll start eating each other". Outside sewage flowed along the streets; goats gnawed on rubbish."
The State of Iraq with regards to its Cultural Heritage:
The plunder of Iraq's treasures
By Humberto Marquez - Asia Times - Feb 17, 2005
CARACAS - One million books, 10 million documents and 14,000 archaeological artifacts have been lost in the US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq - the biggest cultural disaster since the descendants of Genghis Khan destroyed Baghdad in 1258, Venezuelan writer Fernando Baez told Inter Press Service (IPS). "US and Polish soldiers are still stealing treasures today and selling them across the borders with Jordan and Kuwait, where art merchants pay up to $57,000 for a Sumerian tablet," said Baez, who was interviewed during a brief visit to Caracas.
[...]
His inventory of the destruction and his denunciations that the coalition forces are violating the Hague Convention of 1954 on the protection of cultural heritage in times of war have earned him the enmity of Washington. Baez said he was refused a visa to enter the US to take part in conferences. In addition, he has been barred from returning to Iraq "to carry out further investigations", he added.
[...]
IPS: What do you accuse the United States of doing?
FB: In first place, of violating the Hague Convention, which states that cultural property must be protected in the event of armed conflict. That is a criminally punishable offence, which is why Washington has not signed the convention, or the 1999 protocol attached to it. And perhaps it is one reason the administration of George W Bush is seeking immunity for its soldiers. But it is not only the United States; the rest of the coalition forces are also guilty.
IPS: But according to the reports, it was Iraqi civilians and not US soldiers who looted libraries and museums.
FB: But the US Army was criminally negligent, failing to protect libraries, museums and archaeological sites despite clear warnings from UNESCO [the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization], the UN, the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute and the former head of the US president's Advisory Committee on Cultural Property, Martin Sullivan. The Iraqis who went out to loot interpreted the negligence as a green light to act without restraint.
IPS: So the sin committed by the US was one of omission?
FB: Not only that. There was also direct destruction and looting. In Nassiria in May 2004, a year after the formal end of hostilities, during fighting with [Shi'ite cleric] Muqtada al-Sadr's militants, 40,000 religious manuscripts were destroyed in a fire [set by the coalition forces]. And when soldiers found out that the Sumerian city of Ur [in southern Iraq] was the birthplace of the prophet Abraham, they took ancient bricks as souvenirs.
[...]
IPS: Thousands of relics were also lost from the National Archaeological Museum.
FB: The initial reports spoke of 170,000 objects, but 25 major artifacts as well as 14,000 less important ones actually disappeared. An amnesty for the looters led to the recovery of around 3,500, according to the US colonel who led the investigations, Matthew Bogdanos. But besides the national museum and library, the al-Awqaf library, which held over 5,000 Islamic manuscripts, university libraries and the library of Bayt al-Hikma also suffered. At least 10 million documents have been lost in Iraq altogether.” //end excerpt
The State of Iraq with regards to Mental Health and associated Infrastructure:
'We are living in a state of constant fear'
Ghaith Abdul-Ahad investigates - March 2, 2005 - The Guardian
Hafid al-Qadhi is one of the most precarious places in the new Baghdad.
[...]
One of Baghdad's best-known shrinks has his clinic in a crumbling, two-storey building there.
[...]
Iraqis these days like to look back and tell each other stories of the good old days when everyone was happy and people weren't at each other's throats over every issue. Clearly the memory is a rosy one, but there is no doubt that depression and psychiatric illness are on the increase in today's Iraq. The worsening security situation has led to more and more people with serious mental health problems, though the withdrawal of the UN and international aid agencies means information about the scale of the problem is elusive; both the International Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières say they have no data on the psychiatric effects of the war and its aftermath on Iraq's population.
(A 1999 report by MSF into psychological damage in Sierra Leone after a period of intense violence found that 99% of respondents showed levels of disturbance equivalent to severe post-traumatic stress in Europe.) With limited availability of medicines and counselling therapies, some doctors are increasingly relying on electroconvulsive therapy, or ECT, to treat Iraq's mentally ill.
[...]
Ibn al-Rushud is Iraq's psychiatric hospital, built in the late 70s with oil-boom money. Dr Hashim Zaini, the hospital's director, is bald, spectacled, slightly eccentric, and clearly a little despairing. "We have 74 beds and two doctors," he says. "We receive 250 to 300 patients a day and we are supposed to serve a nation of 25 million people."
[...]
But according to Zaini and other experts, it is children who are experiencing most acutely the impact of Iraq's descent into violence. "We are witnessing a gradual change in the psychology of the children - they are living in a state of constant fear. When the teacher comes every few days and tells the children, 'Don't come to school tomorrow, there is a terrorist threat,' what do you think will happen to those kids? This is why the best business in town is the market for toy guns.”
The State of Iraq with Regards to Health Care and the Medical Profession:
Iraq healers have become targets
By Sabrina Tavernise The New York Times - MAY 31, 2005
[...]
In the past year, about 10 percent of Baghdad's 32,000 registered doctors - Sunnis, Shiites and Christians - have left or been driven from work, according to the Iraqi Medical Association, which licenses practitioners. The exodus has accelerated in recent months, said Akif Khalil al-Alousi, a pathologist at Kindi Teaching Hospital and a senior member of the association. The vast majority of those fleeing, he said, are the most senior doctors.
[...]
Doctors are easy targets for gangs that specialize in kidnapping because doctors move around the city to visit patients and often cannot afford large numbers of guards. Health care providers must also deal with the power failures that plague hospital operating and emergency rooms that are coping with a seemingly constant stream of patients furnished by the insurgency.
[...]
In the early years of Saddam Hussein, the health care system in Iraq was a showcase, with most Iraqis receiving excellent, inexpensive care. But Saddam let the economic penalties of the 1990s bite deeply into medical care and used the damage to the increasingly worn system to try to persuade the world to ease economic pressure on Iraq.
[...]
"We try to avoid complicated operations," said the doctor, who said he was afraid enough for his own safety to insist on being identified only by his first name, Omar. "What if the patient dies? You're face to face with relatives with guns."
[...]
The simple quest for money, which fuels the country's widespread kidnapping industry, appears to be the biggest motivation for making targets of doctors. Alousi estimated that 250 Iraqi doctors have been kidnapped in the past two years.
[...]
The state no longer pays for medicine: Iraqis in several clinics visited this month complained of not having access to basic heart and diabetes medications.
The State of Iraq with regards to Cancer and Child Deformities:
Soaring birth deformities and child cancer rates in Iraq
By James Cogan - 10 May 2005 - wsw
Iraqi doctors are making renewed efforts to bring to the world’s attention the growth in birth deformities and cancer rates among the country’s children. The medical crisis is being directly blamed on the widespread use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions by the US and British forces in southern Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War, and the even greater use of DU during the 2003 invasion.
The rate of birth defects, after increasing ten-fold from 11 per 100,000 births in 1989 to 116 per 100,000 in 2001, is soaring further. Dr Nawar Ali, a medical researcher into birth deformities at Baghdad University, told the UN’s Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN) last month: “There have been 650 cases [birth deformities] in total since August 2003 reported in government hospitals. That is a 20 percent increase from the previous regime. Private hospitals were not included in the study, so the number could be higher.”
[...]
Six years ago, the College of Medicine at Basra University carried out a study into the rate of cancer among children under the age of 15 in southern Iraq from 1976 to 1999. It revealed a horrific change between 1990 and 1999. In the province of Basra, the incidence of cancer of all types rose by 242 percent, while the rate of leukaemia among children rose 100 percent. Children living in the area were falling ill with cancer at the rate of 10.1 per 100,000. In districts where the use of DU had been the most concentrated, the rate rose to 13.2 per 100,000. The results were cited at the time in campaigns to end the UN-imposed and US-enforced sanctions against Iraq, which were held responsible for the death of as many as 500,000 Iraqi children from malnutrition and inadequate medical treatment.
[...]
Terrible as these results were, the last six years have witnessed a further rise in the number of children under 15 falling ill with cancer in Iraq. The rate has now reached 22.4 per 100,000—more than five times the 1990 rate of 3.98 per 100,000.
Dr Janan Hassan of the Basra Maternity and Childrens Hospital told IRIN in November 2004 that as m
Dr Janan Hassan of the Basra Maternity and Childrens Hospital told IRIN in November 2004 that as many as 56 percent of all cancer patients in Iraq were now children under 5, compared with just 13 percent 15 years earlier. “Also,” he said, “it is notable that the number of babies born with defects is rising astonishingly. In 1990, there were seven cases of babies born with multiple congenital anomalies. This has gone up to as high as 224 cases in the past three years.”
The statistics point to the long-term consequences of depleted uranium contamination. Munitions containing an estimated 300 tonnes of DU were unleashed by coalition forces in southern Iraq in 1991. A decade after the war, DU shell holes are still 1,000 times more radioactive than the normal level of background radiation. The surrounding areas are still 100 times more radioactive. Experts surmise that fine uranium dust has been spread by the wind, contaminating swathes of the surrounding region, including Basra, which is some 200 kilometres away from sites where large numbers of DU shells were fired.”
The State of Iraq with regards to Child [mal]Nutrition
Let them eat bombs - The doubling of child malnutrition in Iraq is baffling
Terry Jones - April 12, 2005 - The Guardian
“A report to the UN human rights commission in Geneva has concluded that Iraqi children were actually better off under Saddam Hussein than they are now.
[...]
It now appears that, far from improving the quality of life for Iraqi youngsters, the US-led military assault on Iraq has inexplicably doubled the number of children under five suffering from malnutrition. Under Saddam, about 4% of children under five were going hungry, whereas by the end of last year almost 8% were suffering.”
The State of Iraq with regards to Mortality rates compared to Hussein’s time – ie how many Iraqis have died because of this invasion :
Iraq’d December 14, 2004 Burnham Lancet Interview
“Earlier today I spoke with Gilbert Burnham, co-author of the Johns Hopkins-Columbia-Mustansiriya study on Iraqi civilian casualties that found that 100,000 Iraqis have died that would likely have lived had the U.S.-led coalition not invaded in March 2003. (Scientists term this "excess mortality.")
Burnham is associate professor of international health at the Bloomberg School of Public Health and director of the Center for International Disaster and Refugee Studies at Johns Hopkins, and we spoke at some length about his very serious finding.
[...]
BURNHAM: The methods we used here is what's known as a cluster survey.
[...]
IRAQ'D: How confident are you that you have a sample size that's adequate?
BURNHAM: We calculated our sample size, and the number of people that we did have in the study is well within the range that would detect a change in mortality rates--we were looking for half, or 60 percent change. It was well within that range. Now, I don't want people to be thinking that this is the definitive study on mortality in Iraq. Basically, as you can imagine, in Iraq, doing any kind of survey is in itself very dangerous. So we wanted to do something that would give us an idea about what changes in mortality would be, as a rough indicator of where mortality was for the civilian population. Now, the final word on this is going to be done by a proper census-type survey, and this is by no means intended to be the definitive survey. But it is a way that, within its statistical limits, can tell us with some confidence: Is there an increased mortality rate [due to the intervention] or is there not? And I think that from the results we can say with confidence that yes, there is definitely an increased mortality rate.
Now, you can argue, is this increased mortality rate 70,000? Is it 60,000, is it 150,000, is it 200,000? Our best guess, on a conservative side, is 100,000. But it could be less and it could be more. Because just by the statistical nature of this thing, the kind of zone around this number where we are sure this answer truly lies is fairly broad. It's a national survey, it's a massive survey, but it's not a national census.
IRAQ'D: In this press release, it says, "84 percent of the deaths were reported to be caused by the actions of Coalition forces." This is determined by asking the household, "How did this particular individual die."
BURNHAM: Exactly.
IRAQ'D: And then accepting what they say?
BURNHAM: Yeah, that's right.
IRAQ'D: So you did ask, "Did the insurgents cause this," a particular death?
BURNHAM: We didn't specifically look for that. And indeed, we did find some of those deaths that were caused by insurgents. Some of those deaths were caused by Saddam's retreating army, some were criminals, some were family feuds.
[...]
IRAQ'D: Was this study peer reviewed?
BURNHAM: Oh, my goodness, was it ever. [Laughs]
[…]
Article excerpt to give you an idea of the amount of bullets flying about in Iraq today:
Republished from The London Independent
US forced to import bullets from Israel
“US forces have fired so many bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan – an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed – that American ammunition-makers cannot keep up with demand. As a result the US is having to import supplies from Israel.
A government report says that US forces are now using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year. The total has more than doubled in five years, largely as a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as changes in military doctrine.”
OK, PeteS, that series of article excerpts ought to be enough to lay the basis for my assertions that the state of living has VASTLY deteriorated over even the days of Hussein in pretty much every facet of life. Please note that I have not even touched upon the killings of Iraqis by the US military, be they accidental or otherwise. Please note that I have not even mentioned the pillage of Iraqi resources via a combination of the old CPA and US corporations. These are two large and imposing topics on their own.
So, let’s talk FACTS, shall we? FACT: life under Hussein was BETTER than life right now for Iraqis in general, statistically speaking. (You can regale me with promises of a rosy future, the same as I can regale you with future tales of doom.) Facts: the status quo was BETTER than the current invasion.
My suggestion to take the status quo and modify it via political and economic pressure was (a) never tried and (b) certain to have been less destructive than the current option. Yes, it may have been a miserable failure. That still leaves the “petes” option open. The point is: nobody even bothered to try.
[PeteS] “What about the al-Sadr intifada of 1999 precipitated by Saddam's assassination of Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr and his sons? This led to mass detentions, tortures, and hundreds of arbitrary executions.”
Mm. Fair enough, I guess. I was more concerned with the figures of tens of thousands as per the Coalition casus belli. Still – what’s the difference between Hussein killing hundreds of his opponents and the US killing thousands of its opponents? You are basically justifying the killing of Iraqis because “Johnny did it”.
[PeteS] “However, to re-use YOUR analogy, if I DID happen to save my neighbour that would be a welcome spin-off even if I did NOT do it out of "sheer magnanimity", n'est-ce pas?”
*sigh* Look at the statistics published above. Saving your neighbour while laying waste to his neighbourhood and his immediate family might not seem to be such a welcome ‘spinoff’ to him.
[PeteS] “I don't think the U.S. could risk setting up a long term "arrangement" about Iraqi oil under any kind of transitional Iraqi government.”
Let’s be clear about this. The US already has control of Iraqi Oil revenues through the IDF, which is overseen by US appointees and regulated by the IMF, which is headed by a neocon. BILLIONS have already been mismanaged, ‘lost’ or otherwise been used to pay for the activities of US corporations within Iraq, including the very mercenaries which are killing Iraqis themselves. The US only needs to corrupt a few key politicians (Abdul Adel Al Mahdi being a case in point) to get whatever concessions it desires. The rules (democwacy) have changed, but the final objective has not.
[Bruno] If the American ‘utopia’ of flowers and milk and honey had come to fruition in 2003, I would probably have had to concede the argument on this score. But clearly, it has NOT happened. So I DO NOT concede that this ‘spin-off’ has been good for Iraq in the least.
[PeteS] So you would have retrospectively blessed the operation had it been successful? How convenient.”
No! Don’t try to twist my words. I would NOT have approved of the invasion as it was, since the damage to international law, the advancement of a global US hegemony and quite simply, the precedent of justifying unilateral, ad hoc invasion of other countries on spurious pretexts would have been a LOT of long term damage to bear.
What I would have conceded was that: *IF* the neocon utopia had come to pass, and IF Iraqis were awfully happy with the situation – then the invasion would have been a positive spinoff for Iraqis. BUT since it was OBVIOUS to even the most retarded unbiased observer that this current disastrous situation would have been the exact result of the invasion, I DID NOT approve of it, doubly so. (And now I have the luxury of saying ‘I told you so …’)
(Btw, I see that ‘retrospectively blessing’ the invasion is EXACTLY what you have done, my little hypocrite )
[Bruno] This is an interesting piece of analysis. So you accept responsibility for what is occurring in the Sudan as well? The slaughter of the Chechnyans is also more blood on YOUR hands? The destruction of the Brazilian rainforests? The high US crime rate as well?
[PeteS]All of the above to some extent, yes (except the last).
Oh boy.
[bruno] You are logically less responsible for the status quo (since you didn’t do anything to bring the situation about) than for the consequences of your actions.
[PeteS] “That assumes one is not responsible for the consequences of inaction. Most legal systems disagree in cases where inaction can be construed as negligence.”
Alright, you would have to cite specific cases here. Are you saying that if I happen to walk past that guy hanging from the cliff and did nothing I would be criminally liable? Or are you saying that if I shove the guy, and he ends up hanging from the cliff, and then I do nothing - I am criminally liable?
[Ah. Btw, a snap survey of the people who happen to be drifting through my office at the moment adds another two people to YOUR viewpoint that inaction can be morally wrong. Grr. Idiots. I’m surrounded by idiots ]
[bruno] My argument is that there was a third way between doing nothing and all out war, and that the USA was too tainted with self interest and involvement with Hussein to pursue it.
[PeteS] As I said, I just don't buy it.
Duck Season! [that means I DO buy it]
In any case, I feel that I have satisfactorily proven to you that the current situation is WORSE than Hussein’s government’s time. The situation was PREDICTABLE, and was in fact predicted. I feel that it is quite fair to lay the moral blame squarely at the feet of the US and its associated war supporters.
@ puck
(Europe still hasn't learned. Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word equidistance, often seems to countenance suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians. )
>>Israel was the first to conjure up an idea of a religious internal movement within the Palestine nation to counter the PLO’s drive for the liberation of its country (the PLO was a Marxist movement for many years). There are documented meetings between Hamas and Israel in 80s. Also in Lebanon Amal – religious movement was another proxy for the Israelis. Amal were actively involved in killing Arab thinkers (Christian and Muslims both) in south of Lebanon.
(Similarly, it generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore the almost 500,000 victims of Saddam Hussein's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, to harangue George W. Bush as a warmonger.)
>>Saddam’s most sublime atrocities occurred when he was US best dictator after Pinoche. At Dujail – similar to US crimes in Fallujah, he was riding his tempest against your eternal foe Iran. Al Anfal - one year later he was awarded a generous 2 Billion ‘Agricultural loan’ from Bush senior. And then the Shiites in 1991, an ex-white house ‘whinny’ boss (Bush's own father) letting Saddam’s units marching south to quell a Shiite uprising leisurely while US forces are few KMs away.
(This hypocrisy continues even as it is discovered that some of the loudest critics of US action in Iraq made illicit billions - indeed, tens of billions - of dollars in the corrupt UN oil-for-food program.)
>>Proofs Monsieur, proofs? Stop rattle like a booby trap and show us documents.
(For his policy of confronting Islamic terrorism head-on, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the US economy. But he does this because, unlike most of Europe, he realises that what is at stake is literally everything that really matters to free people.)
>>And here is how much it’s worth (your boss’s stake):
In the early 1990's Prince Turki al Faisal, chief of Saudi intelligence until 2001, advertised that Taliban as "liberators" to the U.S. Dana Rohrabacher, a prominent member of the U.S. House of Representatives from California, and then stated that he believed that the U.S. entered into an agreement with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to allow both countries to dominate Afghanistan.
American response to the advent of the Taliban and the events in Afghanistan during the mid 1990's, suggest acquiescence to the group. In 1995, Unocal, a U.S. oil company, vocally backed the Taliban, stating that they would bring stability; making the pipeline project feasible. Unocal executives even held several meetings with the Taliban regarding the implementation of the pipeline.
USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) is implementing a project in Fallujah to assist the residents of the Al Jubail neighborhood... As of August 15, OFDA has distributed 520 tents, 1,040 blankets and mattresses and 520 kerosene lamps and water tanks in the Al Jubail neighborhood. The installation of latrines is on-going...
In coordination with an Iraqi NGO, OFDA is implementing a project to support 1,000 farming families in 29 Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) returnee villages around Kirkuk. Through this project, 750 hectares of land has been prepared for summer vegetable planting. The project also includes the provision of seeds, spare parts for tractors, extension services and advice to the farmers...
With the support of an Iraqi NGO and OFDA, 300 children from various neighborhoods in Kirkuk city participated in a one month series of activities to explore the issues of diversity, participation and communication through activities such as games, drawing and writing stories...
OFDA representatives recently completed a 16 week public health campaign targeting more than 100 villages populated by 2003 conflict IDP returnees in Arbil Governorate.
The plight of the disabled is improving throughout Iraq:
Before the war, people with disabilities in Iraq were often cared for at home. Government-run facilities were run down and understaffed. Families had little confidence in them.
Over the past couple of years, new equipment and better training have changed that. "Families are becoming more aware of the importance of developing skills of the handicapped to enable them to be an active part of society," says Layla Kadhum Aziz, a Labor and Social Affairs Ministry official.
After suffering under years of sanctions and war, schools that help people with disabilities have access to modern equipment from abroad and better training.
Students at the Al-Amal Institute, a school for deaf and mute people in Baghdad, learn on new computers provided by the Japanese government. The teachers have better training.
Students are provided transportation from their homes to the school, which has 208 registered students and 24 teachers. Before the war, families were responsible for transportation.
Students are drilled through basic math and writing problems and use computer workshops to improve communication skills.
An American charity is helping Iraqi schoolchildren:
As children in the United States go back to school, Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) is preparing a shipment of school supplies for children in Iraq.
Staff at MCC's Material Resources Center in Ephrata will be loading a container with school kits on Monday, Aug. 29. A total of 24,000 school kits will be shipped to Iraq in two containers.
School kits are colorful cloth bags containing notebooks, a ruler and an eraser, along with regular and colored pencils. MCC is currently seeking donations of school kits for children in Sudan, Honduras, Jordan, Zambia and other countries. MCC shipped more than 90,000 school kits to 13 countries last year.
MCC's shipment to Iraq also includes 4,200 relief kits, which contain basic hygiene items. Relief kits will be distributed to Iraqis who have been displaced by urban warfare, and school kits will be distributed to children in low-income neighborhoods of Baghdad. The total value of the shipment is $360,000 U.S. Information on donating school kits, relief kits and other items can be found at www.mcc.org/kits.
Meanwhile, a consortium of church charities, Action by Churches Together International (ACT), is also helping with a variety of projects throughout Iraq:
ACT members, the International Orthodox Charities (IOCC), the Middle East Council of Churches (MECC) and the Norwegian Church Aid (NCA), have been responding to this emergency during the last two years with the support of the ACT Alliance. IOCC is proposing to continue supporting the Iraqi population in rehabilitation and furnishing of schools and institutions for orphan and handicapped children; vocational training for youngsters and distribution of essential food; and hygiene items. MECC is proposing to continue providing food and non food assistance to the Iraqi war refugees located in the Ruwayshed camp in Jordan; and NCA is proposing to continue supporting small infrastructure and water and sanitation projects.
In spite of the security situation, IOCC and NCA have been able to continue working inside Iraq. They have established offices in the country, operating with Iraqi staff that are supported and monitored by regional offices located in neighbouring countries.
A Wisconsin agricultural company is helping troops in Iraq help the local farmers:
With all of the destruction in Iraq, Garst Seed Company, through its donation of corn seed, hopes to plant seeds of growth by assisting U.S. armed forces in an important humanitarian effort through the Amber Waves mission.
Amber Waves began in January 2005, with the 3,500 members of the 155th Brigade Combat Team. Its mission is to establish peace and restore the Iraqi economy by building schools and aiding Iraqi farmers. Amber Waves introduces new methods for raising animals and crops, the biggest source of income for Iraqi farmers.
"As a civilian high school agriculture teacher and a farmer, I understand what these farmers are feeling. They are great people and only want to raise crops and livestock to make a living and provide for their families," says 155 BCT Agriculture Officer, Capt. Jesse J. Cornelius.
Kevin Coey, founder of Farmers Independent Research of Seed Technologies (F.I.R.S.T.), read about the request for crop seeds from Capt. Cornelius in a magazine article. Coey thought that the F.I.R.S.T. program, which is an organization of farmers who evaluate seed products, could assist Iraqi farmers for growing seasons to come.
To get some idea just exactly what the troops are doing in Iraq besides trying to provide security, read this profile of Col. Larry McCallister and the reconstruction work that the U.S. Corps of Engineers, Gulf Region South is doing under his command:
One could say Larry McCallister was a cattleman from just outside of Houston down Texas way, and they would be somewhat correct. But then again a person would be much more accurate in saying that he grew up on his parent’s farm where they raised beef cattle in Texas County outside of Houston, Missouri.
An individual could also say that as a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Colonel, he is the quintessential, military professional. In that they’d be right on target.
This slender, physically fit, 49 year old Soldier heads the U.S. Corps of Engineers, Gulf Region South (USACE-GRS) out of Camp Adder on what was once called Tallil Air Force Base in Iraq. His responsibilities are massive; the accomplishments of his team are huge.
His native State’s reputation for spawning those of dogged determination and hard work, such as President Harry Truman, could not be more appropriate. His is one with well honed skills and a determined drive who capably leads his team in a wide array of Iraqi reconstruction projects.
In not much over a one-year period, the Gulf Region South (GRS) team has completed new or rehabilitation efforts on 309 of 355 schools, are presently working on 60 medical clinics with another 21 projected, and have completed three hospitals while laboring on nine more. In addition to those efforts, they have completed six of 45 oil related projects, 23 of 64 border forts, four of 12 courthouses or prisons, seven of 16 Iraqi military projects, 19 of 29 fire stations and 121 of 198 police stations...
They are also working on four airports, three bridges, have completed three of seven port projects and have finished 3,767 miles of roads. In the pool of water projects, they have finished one of two irrigation efforts, a wastewater treatment facility, 22 of 25 water distribution projects and 26 of 28 water treatment plants.
US troops have succeeded in turning Baghdad's Sadr City into an oasis of peace and quiet:
Crammed into armored Humvees heaving with weapons, Lt. Col. S. Jamie Gayton and his soldiers were greeted by a surprising sight as they rolled into one of Baghdad's poorest neighborhoods.
Men stood and waved. Women smiled. Children flashed thumbs-up signs as the convoy rumbled across the potholed streets of Sadr City.
It was a far more welcoming scene than the urban war zone of a year ago, when U.S. troops and black-clad guerrilla fighters battled in the narrow alleys of the squalid slum.
"We're making a huge impact," Gayton said as his men pulled up to a sewer station newly repaired with U.S. funds. "It has been incredibly safe, incredibly quiet and incredibly secure."
Sadr City has become one of the rare success stories of the U.S. reconstruction effort, say local residents, Iraqi and U.S. officials. Although vast swaths remain blighted, the neighborhood of 2 million mostly impoverished Shiites is one of the calmest in Baghdad. One U.S. soldier has been killed and one car bomb detonated in the last year, the military says.
The improvements are the result of an intense effort in the wake of the street battles last August with fighters loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada Sadr. Within a month, U.S. officials decided to make Sadr City a showcase for rebuilding, and increased spending to $805 million in a neighborhood long neglected under
Saddam Hussein.
Read the rest of this very long and informative article, including these lessons:
Unlike elsewhere in Iraq, where the reconstruction fell under the purview of a hodgepodge of U.S. civilian agencies, the American military provided sustained, focused leadership in a limited geographic area. That focus provided the oversight needed to coordinate the military's efforts with those of the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Pentagon's Project and Contracting Office, the primary reconstruction agencies.
The rebuilding also held more immediate significance among mid-level commanders in the field than among higher-level Pentagon officials preoccupied with fighting the war. The field officers focused on short-term, high-visibility projects such as cleaning up trash and digging wells, instead of massive new water treatment plants or power stations that take years to build. They also hired local Iraqi contractors, who in turn employed many of the militia members who had once battled U.S. troops.
Finally, unlike the U.S. multinationals contracted to build large infrastructure projects, the military did not have to rely on expensive security contractors for protection. That enabled soldiers to more easily communicate with Iraqis, monitor progress and overcome problems.
Soldiers from 1st Battalion, 10th Field Artillery Regiment are helping to bring fresh drinking water, consistent electricity, paved roads, and sewage systems to the city of Baqubah and its suburbs.
Working with Iraqi officials in the Diyala Province, Task Force Liberty Soldiers are planning and producing projects that will improve the Iraqi peoples way of life.
"We’re really focusing in on high impact projects, "said Capt. Neil Orechiwsky, civil-military operations officer of Task Force 1-10 and a native of Philadelphia. "Things like water projects that will impact tens of thousands of Iraqis that have never have fresh water in generations, sewage projects where there has never been sewage before because typically you’ll see sewage running through the streets. We’ve got plans to address sewage in every major district through out the city, fresh water filtration plants, electrical substations things that are going to affect a lot of people over a large amount of area."
According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), two million Iraqi citizens in Basra and the surrounding area will have a constant and reliable source of water when the Basra Sweetwater Canal (SWC) system upgrade is complete.
Two million dollars of the Iraq Reconstruction Program’s $18.4 billion was released this week to purchase electrical equipment for Pump Station Two, to include breakers, a mobile substation, switchgear, wire and towers to provide permanent power to Pump Station Two. All materials are scheduled for full delivery by May 2006.
Pump Station One currently has permanent power, as well as back-up generator capabilities.
USACE describes the Sweetwater Canal—also known as the Um Qasr—as a 238 km man-made canal that begins in Ash Shatrah, 60 km north of An Nasiriya on the Gharraf River, and runs to slightly west of Basra.
The canal "was constructed under difficult conditions with limited resources more than a decade ago. Although originally designed to be fully concrete lined, due to lack of funds and construction materials at the time of construction, 40 percent of the canal is partially unlined and structurally unstable, resulting in leakage, bank collapse, breaches and other issues," USACE Gulf Region Division's LuAnne Fantasia reported.
A second contract will be advertised and awarded to a local Iraqi contractor for construction and installation of the permanent power system for Pump Station Two, with the USACE providing quality assurance oversight.
The troops continue work on the large Najaf Teaching Hospital project: "Phase III of the $10 million Najaf Teaching Hospital project began this week with a symbolic "ground-breaking" ceremony on the second floor of the hospital. This phase of the project includes civil, mechanical, electrical and plumbing rehabilitation throughout the facility. The contract also includes a physicians’ residence building, sewer treatment plant, a morgue, storage and garages, and remodeling of the main entrance to the hospital."
US troops continue to support Iraqi schools: "Five hundred children in a community west of Al Hillah will start school in a newly renovated school, thanks also to the Coalition forces in the Central-South Division, who finished work on the Abu Gharaq School this week. Other Coalition forces built a playground Aug. 19 for the children of the Tesin Orphanage in Kirkuk. Soldiers built the playground out of discarded auto parts, welding the various parts together. Coalition civil affairs Soldiers spent a busy day with the local leaders, delivering school supplies and then assessing the Musala and Al Sader Primary Schools. Six school construction and renovation projects were started this week, while two others in Dahuk Province were completed."
There are other projects in the pipeline, by the army engineers:
The Corps’ Gulf Region South District (GRS), led by Col. Larry McCallister, is a prime example of the focused, community-by-community effort helping provide better environs in which these children may learn the Iraqi equivalent of “the three Rs: readin’, ‘ritin’, and ‘rithmatic.” In Arabic, the equivalent is “ekra, ektom, and hesab.”
The variety of work being done on these schools varies from project to project. The actual determination of how much will be done is made by the local Provincial Regional Development Councils. In some cases, it may be a $24,000 rehabilitation project of adding two rooms and upgrading or building a new toilet as are being done at the Saniyah School for Girls and at the school of Shahama.
As in the Diwaniyah neighborhood of Thalthah, it may be a totally new facility of nine rooms and a rest room facility costing $93,000. In many cases, however, it seems not nearly enough. Having been so stated, Barry Stuard, construction representative, and Michael Osborne, project engineer, both of the Diwaniyah Resident Office, recognize anything is better than what typically existed.
McAllister affirms this sentiment saying, “Yes, there is so much more that we wish we could do but, tragically, virtually all manners of this country’s infrastructure have been unattended for nearly three decades. As generous and giving as the U.S. and its Coalition partners are, there is only so much that can be done at this point.
As part of a Coalition and Iraqi stability-and-support operation, several truckloads of humanitarian assistance rolled out from a forward operating base in southern Baghdad to provide Horajeb residents with basic food items, medical supplies, and recreational items Aug. 17. Toys and soccer balls were donated by friends and family members of the U.S. forces.
The mayor of Muqdadiyah, Coalition forces and Iraqi Soldiers delivered critical medical supplies to the Muqdadiyah Women and Children’s Hospital.
Or like this one:
Iraqi Army and U.S. Soldiers from Task Force Baghdad recently teamed up to bring medical care to residents of the Abu Ghraib district in west Baghdad.
Even as the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division prepares to take over operations from the 256th Brigade Combat Team, they hit the ground running with a humanitarian mission.
Led by the Iraqi Army, the mission provided food and medical aid to Iraqi citizens in the most impoverished area of Abu Ghraib. Soldiers from 1st Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment and brigade civil affairs along with medical staff handed out toys and school supplies to children...
A normal mission like this sees about 150 to 300 people in a few hours. However, this particular mission was a huge success, said 1st Lt. Aaron Ashoff, 1/11th ACR civil affairs officer.
"We saw and treated over 500 people today, making this mission a success in every sense of the word. To our knowledge, this is the largest number our brigade has seen to date," said Ashoff, of Pittsburgh.
This Texan servicemen explains his unit's help:
The Civil Affairs Team which includes SPC "Doc" Moses of Brownwood recently received some good news. Funds should soon become available, which will allow the start of the bidding process for projects. In turn, more Iraqis can become involved in rebuilding their country.
"I look forward to seeing the projects get off the ground," SSG Paul Farr said in a newsletter distributed to friends.
"This week we were able to go to different villages and let the medics do their thing. In fact, in one village we visited, the medics saw so many patients -- 65 total -- they ran out of medication. Now I ask you, where else but Iraq could 65 civilians walk into a classroom converted into a treatment room and be seen by two competent medics...
"The medics are doing an outstanding job with limited resources and the people show a lot of gratitude when we visit their villages," Farr said.
And the Air Force has made one life-saving trip easier:
Although Baher, 8, looks like a happy, healthy boy on the outside, the joint Iraqi and U.S. Air Force C-130 aircrew, who gave him the ride of his life Aug. 22, knows he isn’t healthy - at least for now.
Baher and his mother, Afaf, are headed to New Orleans, La., to repair a hole in his heart via a new program called Operation Mend a Heart.
“I was very happy to (be a part of the aircrew to) help him,” said Iraqi Air Force Navigator Atiya, Squadron 23 (Transport), whose name is protected.
Atiya was one the C-130 crewmembers who flew Baher from Baghdad International Airport to Basrah Air Station on the first leg of his journey.
He has reason to sympathize.
“I have three boys myself,” said Atiya, who held Baher on his lap to show him the airplane’s control panel. “They’re 11, 10 and 5.”
From Basrah, Humanitarian Operation Center (Kuwait) Army Civil Affairs were waiting to whisk the family to Kuwait to pick up the proper visas and paperwork.
U.S. warplanes bombed alleged safe houses of Abu Musab Zarqawi's fighters near the Syrian border Tuesday in one of the strongest uses of air power in months, backing what leaders of one Sunni Arab tribe described as an unprecedented tribal push to drive out Zarqawi's forces...
The clashes between Sunni Arab tribes and insurgents, coupled with growing vows from Iraq's Sunni minority to turn out in force for upcoming national elections, in a small and localized way meet one of the strongest U.S. hopes for defusing the insurgency. U.S. military leaders have repeatedly expressed the hope that public anger at insurgent violence would deprive insurgents of their Sunni base of support, and that the disaffected Sunni minority would look instead to the political process to defend their rights.
A tribal leader near the Syrian border, Sheikh Muhammed Mahallawi, said his Albu Mahal tribe opened the latest fighting against Zarqawi's insurgents after the foreign-led militants kidnapped and killed 31 members of his tribe to punish them for joining Iraqi security forces.
"We decided -- either we force them out of the city or we kill them," with the support of U.S. bombing, Mahallawi said by telephone...
Tribes in the Anbar province region have clashed sporadically with Zarqawi's fighters at least since May, usually in revenge for Zarqawi killings of tribal members seen as collaborating with U.S. forces or the Iraqi government.
In Ramadi, the capital of Anbar, tribes earlier this month took up arms to block Zarqawi's movement from enforcing his ultimatum for all Shiite Muslim families to leave the city. Fighting there killed several fighters on both sides. An Iraqi commander in Zarqawi's group, al-Qaida in Iraq, said Monday that the group had dropped the ultimatum so as to keep Ramadi as a base for his fighters.
In the fertile "bread basket" of central Iraq's Diyala valley, roadside-bomb attacks have nearly stopped.
This ethnically complex patchwork of towns, villages, fields, and orchards, which US commanders call a "little Iraq," has seen its share of insurgent activity since 2003. But nowadays, the local Sunni Arabs appear inclined to climb aboard the US-backed political process, rather than trying to derail it through violence.
The relative peace in the breadbasket is the result of a carefully managed transition from US to Iraqi security responsibility, US and Iraqi commanders say.
While roadside-bomb attacks in July were down more than 30 percent compared to the same month last year, the drop has been especially drastic in August. The local Iraqi Army unit, the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Brigade, officially took the lead in a roughly 1,158 square-mile battle space, containing nearly 300,000 residents, on July 31.
"We're responsible for actual security, and it is going well," says the unit's commander, Col. Theya Ismail al-Tamimi, a former intelligence officer under Saddam Hussein who has gained the Americans' respect by keeping constant pressure on the insurgents. "Attacks are a fraction of what they were," says Colonel Theya, as he is known to both his own troops and the Americans.
US troops recently closed down one of their forward operating bases near here, "since the area was so calm," Lt. Col. Roger Cloutier, a US battalion commander, says.
When Lt. Col. Bradley Becker stepped forward, it was to offer a valedictory message to a room full of Sunni and Kurdish shieks and imams gathered at Forward Operating Base Key West for a regional security meeting.
It was, in some strange way, very much like a graduation.
Becker's 2nd Battalion of the 8th Field Artillery Regiment has been in Quayyarah in northwestern Iraq for 11 months and they are preparing to hand over to a new unit from Alaska.
"I was new to this area and I thought I had come to rebuild the infrastructure and rebuild your villages," he said from the podium, an interpreter at his side. "I found myself in a fight with a very determined enemy."
In November, just a month after arriving in Iraq, Becker, along with battalion commanders across the northwest, found his troops defending against an insurgent attack that was stunning for its organization and breadth.
In two days, insurgents conducted nearly simultaneous attacks on 44 Iraqi police and army posts. Almost all of them folded, many of them with a single shot being fired.
The Iraqi police went from about 7,000 members down to 300 in two days.
The Iraqi army disintegration across the region was nearly as dramatic.
"I only had seven platoons. I thought, I can't cover this," Becker recalls.
He had a little unexpected help.
One former Ba'ath party official, a man known as Shiek Rahd, climbed to the top of his local police station and with some neighbors manned guns and drove off attackers.
Rahd is now a highly respected Iraqi army battalion commander, and an early target of insurgents. They blew his car up; he lived. A rocket-propelled grenade meant for him tore his driver's leg off; he lived.
"He's the second baddest man in Iraq," smiles Becker. "I have to remind him I'm still here."
As the report notes, "across Iraq, a counter-insurgency strategy has emerged in almost organic fashion at the battalion level. Its authors say that -- after two and half years of fighting -- it finally seems to be yielding results."
In Mosul, one American unit is fixig potholes - and saving lives:
With a name like Task Force Ripper, the mission would seem to be some sort of bloody, covert operation that strikes fear into the hearts of enemy forces in Iraq.
The Germany-based 94th Engineer Combat Battalion (Heavy) mission - named for rapid pothole repair, or RPR - does take place under the cover of night, but the purpose is to save lives, not take them.
About 10 soldiers from the battalion, along with other soldiers who provide security at the sites, go out into Mosul several times a week to rob insurgents of hiding places for roadside bombs. The battalion's companies A and B and Headquarters Support Company run the missions.
The crews patch potholes and, in some instances, craters left from roadside or car bomb blasts to prevent the same hole from being used for another bomb - a common practice among insurgents.
"We've gotten some intelligence that the [insurgents] are not happy, because we are doing this and making their job a lot harder," said 1st Lt. Young Chun, 2nd Platoon leader, Company B, 94th Engineers.
The training and readying of Iraqi army and police to take over greater security role continues. For example, "in the Combat Leaders Course at the Diyala Regional Training Facility, Coalition Soldiers worked with their Iraqi counterparts to train soldiers from the Iraqi Army’s 5th Division to be better battlefield leaders. Training during the 14-day course builds on the Iraqi soldiers’ basic military knowledge and skills. Most of the instruction is performed by Iraqi cadre, and Coalition Soldiers are more supervisors, observing and instructing when needed."
The troops are also training Iraqi army medics:
Medics with the Division Support Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division are helping train the Iraqi Army in combat medic skills.
Sgt. Matthew J. Carver and Spc. Richard J. Fourroux, combat medics with the 550th Area Support Medical Company, Brigade Troops Battalion, DSB, are leading the efforts to train new Iraqi Army recruits to be full combat medics.
Carver, who is from North Wilkesboro, N.C., and Fourroux, from Denver, are directing a five-week course that requires Iraqi medics to train to a similar standard as U.S. Army combat medics.
The first class graduated 15 medics on July 26 to add to the Iraqi fighting force.
Fourroux said his experiences in Iraq have come "around full circle."
Today, his mission is vastly different from that during his rotation in Operation Iraqi Freedom 1. When he deployed to this country for the first time, Iraqis were the enemy. Now, he is preparing them for the future security of their nation with a more stabilized force.
As of July 26, the course has now shifted to the "train the trainers" phase-instructing qualified Iraqi Soldiers to teach their own forces, said Carver.
Coalition forces turned over Camp Zulu in As Suwayrah, Iraq, to the Iraqi Army on Aug. 21. The division’s 3rd Battalion, 3rd Brigade will be permanently housed there. This is the twenty-fourth base to be turned over to the Iraqis, returning the land to the government elected by the people."
The new Iraqi air force has recently flown its first mission:
Iraq's nascent air force carried out its first military mission when it flew two battalions of Iraqi troops into a troubled zone in the north of the country, a U.S. military spokesman said...
Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch said that three C-130 Hercules cargo planes this week redeployed troops belonging to the 2nd Iraqi Division from the Kurdish city of Irbil to Tal Afar near the country's northwestern frontier with Syria.
"This was the first use of the Iraqi air force," Lynch said...
The air force is now gradually being resurrected with the help of instructors and aircraft donated by the United States, Jordan and other countries.
It now has in its inventory a handful of used C-130s, along with a squadron of light reconnaissance planes and transport helicopters. Although the newly formed squadrons have been in training for the past year, they are still not fully operational.
Construction of security infrastructure continues. Police stations continue to be built: "Construction also started on two new police station projects in Fallujah and one in Muthanna Province. Each of the two-story facilities in Fallujah measures more than 35,000 square feet and includes a dorm area for 100 police officers, offices, a holding cell, conference room, kitchenette, armory and covered courtyards. The Al Khider Police Station construction project in Muthanna Province provided new perimeter walls, replaced roof systems, installed a 528-gallon water tank and piping for potable water storage, and restored electrical and masonry work to the existing police station in Al Khider."
In stories of security cooperation from the locals:
"Based on information provided by an informant, a drug dealer with ties to the insurgency was captured during a U.S. raid in the Taji area on Aug. 7";
"Iraqi Police Service officers on patrol received a tip from a local citizen concerning a suspected weapons cache in the Zohour District of Baghdad. Police uncovered 68 mortar rounds buried in a field. The munitions were transported to Boob Al Sham Police Station. This was the second significant cache find in the same area in two days - 32 mortar rounds were discovered Aug. 21";
"Iraqi army and coalition forces, working together and independently, took 19 suspected terrorists into custody while conducting a series of combat operations in and around Baghdad on Aug. 21. Tips received from Iraqi citizens led to the detention of 12 of the 19 terror suspects";
"A local Iraqi citizen reported two males using a car to emplace improvised explosive devices (IEDs) here August 23. The individual gave a detailed description of the vehicle and the two individuals in it. This information allowed Coalition Forces to find and capture two suspected IED installers. Coalition Forces confiscated three 130 mm rounds and wire from the vehicle";
A growing number of Iraqi troop battalions -- nearly four dozen as of this week -- are playing lead roles in the fight against the insurgency, and American commanders have turned over more than two dozen U.S.-established bases to government control, officials said yesterday.
Lt. Col. Fred Wellman, a spokesman in Baghdad for the U.S. command that is responsible for the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, said approximately 130 Iraqi army and special police battalions are fighting the insurgency, of which about 45 are rated as "in the lead," with varying degrees of reliance on U.S. support.
The exact numbers are classified as secret, but the 45 figure is about five higher than the number given on Nov. 7 at a briefing by Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who previously led the training mission. It is about 10 higher than the figure Gen. Petraeus offered at a Pentagon briefing on Oct. 5.
An Iraqi battalion usually numbers between 700 and 800 soldiers.
As another measure of progress, Col. Wellman said about 33 Iraqi security battalions are now in charge of their own "battle space," including parts of Baghdad. That figure was at 24 in late October. Col. Wellman said it stood at three in March.
Also, American forces have pulled out of 30 "forward operating bases" inside Iraq, of which 16 have been transferred to Iraqi security forces. The most recent and widely publicized was a large base near Tikrit, which U.S. forces had used as a division headquarters since shortly after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003.
At a Nov. 22 ceremony marking the Tikrit base transfer to Iraqi control, insurgents delivered a reminder of their resilience by firing a mortar nearby; the round failed to explode, and U.S. officials declared the turnover to be an important step in replacing U.S. forces with Iraqis.
The Bush administration has been citing the Iraqi efforts as evidence that the Iraqis not only want more responsibility on the security front but are capable of handling it with less assistance from U.S. troops.
The steps toward lessening the U.S. military role in Iraq come amid mounting political pressure on the Bush administration to reduce the American presence in the face of rising casualties and an unrelenting insurgency.
There are now about 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. They have trained and equipped about 212,000 Iraqi security forces, including infantry, commandos, special police battalions and a variety of military support units. The figure is supposed to reach 230,000 by mid-December and top out at 325,000 by July 2007.
Lawrence Di Rita, spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, said the transfer of authority at formerly U.S.-controlled bases is an important part of the long-range plan for stabilizing the country.
"As you continue to either close or turn over these bases, it's just self-evident that there would be some reduced need for the American presence in those areas," Mr. Di Rita said.
The spokesman said no decisions on future troop levels were likely until after the Dec. 15 election of a new Iraqi government. He suggested, however, that signs point to reductions during the course of 2006, so long as the political process remains on track.
Pentagon officials acknowledge that there are significant gaps in the Iraqis' ability to defend their own country, and they are unwilling to commit to any specific drawdown of U.S. forces next year, beyond the announced plan to pull back 28,000 troops who were added this fall for extra security during the elections.
The remaining shortcomings range from the institutional (a lack of administrative and leadership support from the ministries of Defense and Interior) to the personal (a sometimes faintheartedness among Iraqi troops.)
Some in Congress have expressed worry at what they see as sluggish progress in training Iraqi security forces, even as U.S. commanders insist that measures of progress have been widely misunderstood.
Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is continually assessing the security situation, Mr. Di Rita said.
"He's presented a variety of alternative approaches that could occur after the election, but again it's all based on waiting to see how it goes and waiting and watching as we continue to hand over responsibility to the Iraqis," Mr. Di Rita said.
Columnist Mona Charen documents the vast gulf separating our troops from the reporters who cover them.
There was plenty of progress to report, if the press had been interested. When the battle of Fallujah was over, the Marines set up a humanitarian relief station in an abandoned amusement park. Together with Iraqis locally hired and trained for the purpose and with an assist from the Iraqi ministry of the interior, they distributed rice, flour, medical supplies, baby formula, and other necessities to thousands of Iraqis. For six weeks, Bowers reports, the distribution went beautifully, "like a well-oiled machine." Not worth a story, apparently. Only when something went wrong did the press see something worth reporting. A small group of Iraqis were turned away from the food distribution point, though they had been waiting in line for hours. They were given vouchers and told they could come to the front of the line the next morning when supplies would be replenished. These few unhappy souls were then besieged by press types eager to tell their story.
At the same site, the Marines had repaired an old Ferris wheel. The motor was dead, but when two Marines pushed and pulled by hand they could get the thing turning to give rides to the children of the Iraqi employees. They did so for hours on end. A photographer from a large American media company watched impassively. "Why don't you take a picture of this?" demanded one Marine. The photographer snorted, "That's not my job."
NPC
Link it dude, link it.
If your brain’s RAMs are small, then try to link your bla bla bla to the proper website. Or be concise and stop sabotaging the post with Pentagon’s propaganda.
NCP, right it's NCP. What are you a radio station?
or perhaps the National Center for Psychos
Armed men have attacked a US base and a local government building with mortar rounds and rockets in Ramadi, west of Baghdad, before holding ground on several central streets, some residents said.
witnesses said armed groups attacked several US bases and government offices before dispersing in the capital of western Iraq's Anbar province.
Around 400 heavily armed, masked men were patrolling the main thoroughfares of the city and had set up checkpoints at major entrance and exit points, they said on Thursday.
It was not clear if the attacks left any casualties but most residents fled to their homes after the exchange began.
Suddenly Leaflets were distributed and declaring that al Qaeda in Iraq was taking over the city!!
witness quote "I've seen about 400 armed men controlling streets, some of which were controlled by Americans before,"
"Its followers will burn the Americans and will drive them back to their homes by force. Iraq will be a graveyard for the Americans and its allies."
The US military did not immediately respond to a request for information about the situation.
Residents said there was no presence of US forces in the streets, while others said US forces warned townspeople by loudspeakers to stay in their homes for the next three days.
"Iraq will be a graveyard for the Americans and its allies"
one of the leaflets
Meanwhile, 3 US service members died of wounds suffered in combat and a Marine died in a non-hostile traffic accident, the US military said on Thursday.
That raised the US death toll for November to at least 84, the fourth deadliest month for US forces since Iraq invasion began in March 2003.
Ramadi has long been a focal point of armed activity in Iraq.
There is no such thing as an Iraqi army. What you have are a bunch of Iranian agents in uniform, given a free reign to kidnap, torture, rape and kill in their grandiose scheme to establish the Great Islamic (or Satanic, that's interchangeable)Republic of Iran.
All freedom-loving people should join the decent Iraqi motto:
NO TO THE YANKEE-IRANIAN AXIS OF EVIL!
@ All Pro-US Warmongers (both of the ‘better’ and of the ‘worse’ sorts).
1) SNIPER. There is a very instructive video you can download if you have broadband (it’s some 57 MB):
http://www.iraqsnuclearmirage.co...dia/
Sniper.rmvb
It seems that some sectors of the Iraqi Resistance have eventually learnt that to have a few good snipers is much more important than to have thousands of recklessly courageous fools shooting aimlessly and getting themselves killed.
Moreover, it seems that on average a person out of five does make a good marksman, if trained for the purpose.
How much does the presence of a US soldier in Iraq cost the American taxpayer? Let’s see: maybe divide the $ 200 billions for the number of US soldiers & personnel deployed in Iraq since 2003… $ 100 millions? Oh, no, the cost of the war includes the money given to the US corporations for ‘reconstruction’ (LOL!) and mercenaries and weapons… well, let’s say that a US soldier costs just 1 million dollars. With a trained marksman and the cost of a bullet, i.e. a few cents in Iraq, the Iraqi Resistance can destroy $ 1 million!
$ 1 million destroyed by a few dimes! (is that cynical? No, since, as Oscar Wilde remarked, you Ahmehwicans know the price of everything, but the value of nothing…).
As you’ll see from the many enjoyable clips offered in the video, the usage of snipers (instead of, for instance, explosive devices in an urban area) is most effective in the good cull of your beasts-at-arms (or ‘poor kids doing their job’, namely invading and occupying foreign countries, and murdering their inhabitants).
The use of snipers reduces ‘mistakes’ and civilian casualties; it is much less messy than other methods (no paws and other body parts left around); and, last but not least, it is as well a rather humanitarian way of putting down your soldiers, so that staunch defenders of animal rights like our PeteS will be favourably impressed (I’m in favour of animal rights myself, Pete, and very much against hunting; but if hordes of armed apes & monkeys were to invade my country like they did with Iraq, I’d become an enthusiastic hunter overnight…).
Just one shot rings, and one of your arrogant critters is put to sleep pronto… and then another… and then another…
Enjoy!
2) IRAQ THE MINION. By now everybody in the world knows it (it’s in AP News and all through the international media networks), and anyway everybody with even half a brain knew it from the beginning, but you deluded blind beasties in denial need to be pointed to this ‘revelation’:
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/
n...latimes949.html
Now you can see the real source of all the ‘good news from Iraq’, of ITM (‘the two Iraqi brothers’, indeed!), and of the crap this disgusting troll NCP above has just been spamming Zeyad’s comment page with.
Nice reliable news you are used to get from your so trustworthy Government, aren’t you?
Bruno,
Do you really believe that we would put our own troops in danger by using something in the way that you describe, in the close confines of urban combat? With all the video that was shot in Fallujah (remember the marine in the mosque?), where is any real evidence that anything like you describe occured? Please don't say that Italian film that even the Guardian called a "turkey". And don't say it was oooh so conveniently stolen.
Ray Robison:
"A chemical weapon when deployed will retain its toxicity in vapor or liquid form for a variable length of time usually measurable in hours, depending on the agent. This is to create wide and indiscriminate dispersal.
WP oxidizes spontaneously and does not exist in a residual form when exposed to oxygen other than smoke, which is no more harmful than any smoke because it is no longer "white phosphorous" having oxidized. In addition, the military application in question uses WP embedded on felt wedges to allow a more controlled dispersion versus indiscriminate.
Chemical weapons require protective equipment and decontamination to operate in the affected area.
WP requires none after it oxidizes.
Chemical weapons attack the body in a variety of ways including inhalation and absorption through the skin to produce a toxic effect.
Though you can replicate a scenario in a controlled environment that may demonstrate this for WP, such as forced ingestion, the practical application of WP weapons causes injury by the heat generated by oxidation. The injury is localized to the exposed area and does spread through the body, but it would take massive amounts of exposure to become toxic, which is impractical to this application. It continues until the WP is removed, oxidized, or removed from oxygen. This is a burn, not a toxic reaction.
If you are in a location attacked with a chemical weapon, there is no way to avoid it without protective equipment.
Falling WP can be avoided easily with cover. The WP may cause secondary fires and associated smoke, but fire and smoke are not chemical weapons.
The lethality is what really shows the difference:
If you deployed a chemical weapon against a building containing 20 enemy soldiers, they would probably all die and any one near the building, down the street, around the corner….
If you deployed this application (base-ejecting, artillery 155mm projectile with WP embedded on 116 felt wedges with a total payload about the size of a coffee can) against a building you would have a very low probability of killing any of the soldiers. You would even have a low probability of injury, since in this scenario the enemy has cover. You may get secondary effects from fire and concentrated smoke, but this is not a chemical attack.
Chemical weapons have one function: kill everything in the affected area.
WP has other functionality such as obscuration, incendiary, and marking a target.
In my over ten years of U.S. army training on the application of and how to react to chemical weapons, WP was never even mentioned."
Source: Confederate Yankee (Comments section response)
Don't you think, with our military's love of training for all contingencies, we would have taken into account the type of scenario you were talking about, if only in our own defense?
I know you said something else in your comment, but I'm getting tired of scrolling so far back. This comment section is getting looooooong.
la la la... more white phosphorous debate here! whee! what did I miss?
Wikipedia quotes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Whi...orus_incendiary
"Weight-for-weight, phosphorus is the most effective smoke-screening agent known, for two reasons:"
(go read the reasons if you like, the point is WP is the best known smoke munition)
"However, no recorded casualties from the effects of WP smoke alone have occurred in combat operations and to date there are no confirmed deaths resulting from exposure to phosphorus smokes."
Millions of people, including me, have been exposed to (and have BREATHED) WP smoke. NO KNOWN CASUALTIES. Out of millions.
OK, now I'm going to be lazy (because I'm feeling lazy on this topic these days) and do a copy/paste from a comment I left on Mad Canuck's blog:
http://www.ccwtreaty.com/protocol3.html
That's a link to the full text of protocol III of the Geneva conventions, which is what Al Jazeera claims bans White Phosphorous. Here is the relevant quote:
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
incendiary. weapons. do. not. include. smoke. or. signalling. systems.
And we now know tht WP is the best of all smoke munitions, do we not?
White Phosphorous is explicitly excluded as banned weapon. It's not illegal, nor can it EVER be considered to be illegal, under any inetrantaional treaty or convention. Period. What's all the confusion about?
BTW, it's pretty cool Zeyad's blog has these ongoing discussions in his comment section! Weird, but cool
By the way, you italian bastard, what's the deal with that bullshit documentary you guys put out with all those claims about war crimes? I can't believe you come here talking about bad sources of information. Asshat.
@ PeteS, 11.29.05 - 9:40 - 9:41 pm.
Dear Pete, let’s start from the most striking of your ‘honest’ (uhm…) statements, namely the one about your astounding ‘ignorance’ about Iraq: “one problem is that it is very hard to find information from sources that one can be sure have no axes to grind. […] Frankly, your seeming certainty about some of these [facts] disturbs me because I do not see how such certainty can be arrived at given the aforementioned lack of unbiased sources”.
Now, I see that (if what you say about yourself were true) you would not be able to know A SINGLE thing about Iraq, past or present; so I cannot see how you can pass ANY judgement whatsoever. Differently from mathematics, physics, or maybe engineering, research in human activity cannot, quite simply, find ANY “sources that one can be sure have no axes to grind”, or “unbiased sources”. This is obviously lesson number one in the study of history, anthropology, literature, languages, sociology, political realities, etc. etc.: please, Pietrino caro, do not keep trying to sound as an unmitigated idiot to our benefit… (such beings, so common in the US, do not exist in Ireland, apart from some changelings). If that were the case, I wouldn’t understand what you are doing here, in the comments pages of an Iraqi blog…
But, instead, you seemed to take, for instance, Michael Yon (!!!) as an ‘unbiased source’ (LOL!); you keep accepting and propagating US (and in some cases Israeli) propaganda as if you were sure that it has “no axes to grind”; you do not notice patent absurdities on that side of the story (actually, stories, since they, Orwellian-1984-like, change the story every day); strangely, in most cases, when confronted, you do not know a thing about Iraq (like with the baloney about the ‘poor Shiites’ oppressed by the ‘Baathist Sunnis’, months ago) – while you are very knowledgeable about everything else. So you can often utter asinine statements, like “a disturbing and deeply ingrained racist antipathy towards the U.S in some Arab quarters”, that are even in complete contradiction with your notable language property (in that case, of course, it doesn’t matter if your beloved Americans are a nation of humans, or instead a novel species of apes: nation or new species that they may be, what is sure is that they come in all colours, white, black, yellow, polka dots, and anything in between, precisely like people from the rest of the earth; so to mention any ‘racism’ against them is just absurd). And you keep doing this, over and over again… one of the most banal inventions of US propaganda after the other.
The sensible procedure, instead, is to find ALL the possible sources in your reach (which are ALL very biased, and in many different and complex ways), to put each of them in its context, to cross-check their contents, and to find out what is actually going on. This wee lesson is not to your benefit, my Pinocchio Peadarín, because you know it only too well; but for any one of our US warmongers who might want to know why average human beings are so monstrously intelligent, and maybe be tempted to try and become like them…
So, please, dear Pete, do stop playing the fake ignoramus.
(continued…)
(…continued)
If, instead, you want to go on with this disingenuous farce, do avoid your absurd ‘moral’ (i.e., immoral or amoral) high judgements (about Iraq you are an ignoramus and you know effall, you say, so what’s the sense?).
Ludicrous ones, like “you characterise the U.S. intervention as evil, rather than as the lesser of two evils” (LOL! Iraqi reality is not on your side).
Or about “the issue of how to assess the pre-war and post-war situations from a moral standpoint. My contention is that the pre-war situation was morally repugnant”.
So what? Removing Saddam in 2003 with a foreign armed invasion, after 12 years of cruel sanctions, was a) illegal; b) not allowed by your beloved Catechism; c) creating a perfectly foreseeable situation worse than Saddam’s regime; d) henceforth immoral. At the end of the Gulf War in 1991 it would have been of course illegal, but at least it would have been more moral. That callous criminal George Bush Senior did decide against it, because he didn’t like the idea of a Khomeinist Republic & all other troubles, Kurdistan included; but not before having called all Iraqis to rise up against Saddam. They did, and were sold down the bridge.
Such ‘moral’ judgements of yours, “my little hypocrite”, are especially indecent, since you cheekily say to Bruno: “But at least you have backed a winner, since the Iraqi insurgency will almost certainly ‘win’”. What’s that, Saint Peter the Long-Nosed? Have you already forgotten the third condition for a just war, according to ‘da Catecheesm’? Namely, “there must be serious prospects of success”? Now you admit that your beloved Apes are going to be defeated; but at the same time you keep giving comfort to the most deluded among them, our US warmongering posters? And this, while thousands of Iraqis die every month, and tens or hundreds of your misguided critters die as well? You are being totally immoral, aren’t you?
The same goes for the rest of your immoral ‘moral’ rants: “[Oytalian] ‘IS KILLING Iraqis at a much faster rate than Saddam, and it is high time you RECOGNISE it’. [Pietrino] ‘I don't accept this is the case’”. On the basis of what privileged info, oh wise Pete? Or the rare pearl: “improvement for Iraqis being a welcome if not wholly intentional spin-off, were that to occur in the long run”. But, you see, in that case (“the long run”) Saddam’s regime would have been as well very good for the Iraqis, don’t you think? And Stalin’s for the Russians (etc. etc.)… what wonderful morals!
With an even more indecent turn when you accuse those who regard this US invasion of Iraq as insane and immoral of ‘Pontius-Pilatism’ and of washing their hands… The only Saint of Hypocrisy we know, dear Pete, is you; indeed the “status quo” is NOT Saddam’s regime (that is dead & gone), but the present US-enforced tragedy destroying Iraq.
So, Most Seraphic Highness Hands-Deep-In-Gore from Ballytown, why don’t you say anything sensible (like: ‘The US should go home right now’) about the way from here and the problems at hand?
(continued…)
(…continued)
“[Oytalian] ‘by itself Catholic catechism ... is NOT the proper tool to analyse the war in Iraq’. [Pietrino] ‘The catechism is reasonably explicit, but [is] difficult to apply it. The same would be true if I was trying to analyse the situation using the manual for my food processor’”.
Surprise, surprise! Common sense prevails… Use ‘da Catecheesm’ for what it is for, and the manual for your food processor for what it is for!
Oh sorry, dear Pete, for my harshness… I forgot that you have a most special devotion for that Most Holy Relic, the Blarney Stone!
[I hope to answer to Lynnette (and to kind Craig) tomorrow; to Bruno, sorry for the delay.]
@ Lynnette in Minnesota, 11.30.05 - 11:18 am.
“A liar is someone who deliberately tells something that is untrue. Where is there evidence that the spokesperson speaking about WP had the intent to lie? As I said he was simply misinformed or sloppy in his work”.
Dear Lynnette, so, on one side, you have a succession of Pentagon & Centcom spokesmen (followed by your press, and by all of you US warmongers – apart from those who dream about the complete ‘green-glassing’ of Iraq instead) who kept being “misinformed or sloppy” for over a year about the employ of WP and of Mk77.
On the other side, you had plenty of ‘eeeevil Eyrakians’ who were claiming that your forces had indeed used WP and Mk77 in Iraq, especially in Fallujah. Some Western journos who wanted to get into direct touch with people from Fallujah did meet a sticky end (among them, the Italian Enzo Baldoni), or some considerable troubles (among them, Giuliana Sgrena), being prevented from getting more information.
More than one year later, the Pentagon admits that Mk77 (not a ‘psychological’ weapon, do you agree?) was indeed used in Iraq; and that WP was used as well as a weapon.
If you have such a “misinformed or sloppy” command of your military, you should change it ASAP, don’t you think? Your country is in danger!
“There is a big difference between a ‘psychological’ weapon and a ‘lethal’ weapon”.
This is the nice spin some new US spokesmen are trying to put on the thing. Now, Lynnette, there are WP canisters (for use as field illumination), and there are WP shells (for use as a deadly incendiary weapon); whom is world opinion going to believe?
Your by now ‘informal’ spokesmen & ‘experts’, who kept denying ANY usage of WP for more than a year, or the ‘eeeeevil Eyrakians’?
Do wise up, instead of lamely trying to catch up with the latest useless spin.
“Please correct me if I am wrong, didn't the Mahdi army go in for black?”
Not just the Mahdi army (last year when fighting the Americans, instead of being, like ever since after the ‘purple-fingered revolution’, Ministers in the Interim Govt. the same Americans support, and cops and soldiers in the so called ‘Iraqi forces’ of the same Govt.), but all those Iraqi ‘insurgents’ who are of a strong religious bend. I suspect the colour has something to do with the concept of martyrdom (like, after the Council of Trent, the black dresses of Catholic priests of the Western rites).
“Hmmm, which is it, ‘terrorist’ or ‘guerrilla’? A thin line I think”.
Like Bruno said with a very good example, it’s just a matter of perspective…
In WW2, to add another, the partisans were bandits and terrorists for the Nazifascist Axis, freedom fighters, guerrillas and patriots for the Allies.
“‘dillema’...now, dear, isn't such pettiness beneath you?”.
Yes, you’re right, sweet Lynnette: I’m truly sorry (but do write ‘dilemma’ from now on, anyway ).
[it came through, after all...]
Bruno,
Alright, you would have to cite specific cases here. Are you saying that if I happen to walk past that guy hanging from the cliff and did nothing I would be criminally liable?
Duh! Have a look at web definitions of "negligence". It is basically a failure to do what a prudent or reasonable person would do, and depending on the consequence of the negligence is a crime in most countries.
[Ah. Btw, a snap survey of the people who happen to be drifting through my office at the moment adds another two people to YOUR viewpoint that inaction can be morally wrong. Grr. Idiots. I’m surrounded by idiots ]
Thank God for idiots who know the law (not to mention what is moral). In return for your survey results here's some potential ammo for your side: under U.S. law a failure to take account of the natural or foreseeable consequences of an action may also constitute criminal negligence.
Duck Season! [that means I DO buy it]
I am guessing the response to this is supposed to be "Rabbit Season!". I will have to get back to you on your main points ... duty calls.
Hey, Italian dude, WP isn't illegal, you know? There's nothing to deny, dumbass, who cares if the denial was misinformed or not?
It's the old "do you deny that you beat your wife?" trick.
Italian Idiot: "Mister Centcom spokesman, there have been reports that white phosphorous has been used in Falluja"
CENTCOM: "What?"
Italian Idiot: "Do you deny that white phosphorous was used in Falluja?"
CENTCOM: "White Phosphorous has been used in every battle, in every country, by every military, for over 100 years. Yes. It was used in Falluja"
Italian Idiot: "So, you admit the US used chemical weapons in Falluja?"
CENTCOM: "I'm not talking to you anymore. Go away"
Italian Idiot: "Do you admit the US committed war crimes in Fallujah, by deploying the white phosphorous weapon of mass destruction in Falluja?"
CENTCOM: "Somebody get this asshat out of here"
Italian Idiot: "Mister State Department Spokesman, CENTCOM has admitted to using the White Phosphorous chemical WMD kryptonite weapons grade radioactive waste, against CIVILIANS, in Falluja. What's your comment?"
State Department: "I'm not an expert on military matters, what did the Department of Defense say?"
Italian Idiot: "They called me an asshat and security threw me out of the building. But before that, they admitted they used the WMD in Falluja."
State Department: "Well, I assure you, the WMD were used in a lawful manner"
Considering this Nazi style "big lie" originated in Italy, I for one do really not appreciate some Italian bastard calling somebody else down for being dishonest on this issue. It's YOUR lie. Do something about it, rather than calling other people dishonest. Here's a good place to start. Go to the director of that documentary's house and punch him in the head, for making you look like and italians everywhere look like idiots.
Because taht's exactly what you look like when you refer to perfectly ordinary and common combat operations as "war crimes."
"This is the nice spin some new US spokesmen are trying to put on the thing. Now, Lynnette, there are WP canisters (for use as field illumination), and there are WP shells (for use as a deadly incendiary weapon); whom is world opinion going to believe?"
WTF are you talking about? Dude, go back up to the post where I put the wikipedia reference for white phosphorous. It isn't used for EITHER of those purposes. You're just as wrong as the state department spokesman is. I cannot believe you wrote that AFTER I posted an online enclopedia reference for white phosphorous. The State Department spokesman's excuse for his idiotic response is that he was blindsided, and he's a diplomat (why are people asking the STATE department questions like this? Because they want WRONG answers) - what's YOUR excuse?
Lynette- this guy doesn't want to know the truth. I wouldn't bother if I was you. Every time you prove him wrong on one of his allegations, he'll throw out another one. Just to make you fume.
USA legalizes Chemical Weapons while American high school degree holders cheer it up. It makes sense!
@Ray Robison
(A chemical weapon when deployed will retain its toxicity in vapor or liquid form for a variable length of time usually measurable in hours, depending on the agent. This is to create wide and indiscriminate dispersal.)
>>So is Depleted Uranium (DU) which was used extensively in Iraq by US forces. A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report giving field measurements taken Kosovo indicates that contamination by DU in the environment was localized hundred metres around impact sites. Ingestion of small amounts of DU contaminated soil by small children may occur while playing. Intake from wound contamination or embedded fragments in skin tissues may allow DU to enter the systemic circulation. The fraction of uranium absorbed into the blood is generally greater following inhalation. The vapour settles as dust, which is chemically poisonous and also radioactive.
For soluble forms, more than 20% of the inhaled material could be absorbed into blood. In the kidneys, the proximal tubules (the main filtering component of the kidney) are considered to be the main site of potential damage from chemical toxicity of uranium. Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose
‘babies born without eyes' in Iraq. Only one in 50 million births should be anophthalmic, yet one Baghdad hospital had eight cases in just two years. Seven of the fathers had been exposed to American DU anti-tank rounds in 1991.
(Though you can replicate a scenario in a controlled environment that may demonstrate this for WP, such as forced ingestion, the practical application of WP weapons causes injury by the heat generated by oxidation. The injury is localized to the exposed area and does spread through the body, but it would take massive amounts of exposure to become toxic, which is impractical to this application. It continues until the WP is removed, oxidized, or removed from oxygen. This is a burn, not a toxic reaction.)
White phosphorus spontanteously ignites in air at about room temperature to form "phosphorus pentoxide" ‘smoke’ which causes adverse effects on the cardiovascular (heart and blood vessels) or hematopoietic (blood) systems (Cardiovascular or Blood Toxicity). Exposure to cardiovascular toxicants can contribute to a variety of diseases, including hardening of the arteries (arteriosclerosis).
Phosphorus Pentoxide" causes too Respiratory toxicity which includes a variety of acute and chronic pulmonary conditions, including local irritation, bronchitis, pulmonary edema, emphysema, and cancer.
Phosphorus pentoxide reacts with moisture on body tissue surfaces to form phosphoric acid, which approximates sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acids in corrosive intensity.
A no-effect level of 50 mg/m3 of Phosphorus pentoxide was claimed but no supporting data were provided to support the claim but recent study shows evidence of toxicity in rats and mice following repeated exposure to phosphorus smoke at a concentration approximately equivalent to 37 mg/m3
Inhalation:
Inhalation produces damaging effects on the mucous membranes and upper respiratory tract. Symptoms may include irritation of the nose and throat, and labored breathing. May cause lung edema, a medical emergency.
Ingestion:
Corrosive. Releases heat on contact with moisture and will burn mucous surfaces. Sore throat, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may result. Brown or yellow stains will be found around the mouth. Suffocation may occur from swelling of the tongue. Aspiratiuon into the lungs can cause chemical pneumonitis. Ingestion of this material has caused human fatalities.
Skin Contact:
Corrosive. Contact can cause severe irritation, burns, redness, and pain. Burns usually penetrate the skin with sharply defined edges, and heal slowly with the formation of scar tissue.
Eye Contact:
Corrosive. Fumes and airborne powder cause eye irritation. Contact with substance can cause severe eye burns and permanent damage.
Chronic Exposure:
Chronic ingestion or inhalation may induce systemic phosphorous poisoning. Liver damage, kidney damage, jaw/tooth abnormalities, blood disorders and cardiovascular effects can result. Early symptoms of chronic phosphorous intoxication include gastrointestinal distress and possibly a garlic-like odor to the breath. Chronic exposure can lead to necrosis of the jaw, or 'phossy-jaw'.
Aggravation of Pre-existing Conditions:
Persons with pre-existing skin disorders or eye problems, jaw/tooth abnormalities, or impaired
Non-combustible but can cause high local temperatures in contact with water; heat generated may be enough to ignite other materials. Reacts violently with water to form phosphoric acid. Phosphoric acid in contact with common metals may generate flammable and explosive hydrogen gas.
In case of Accidental Release:
Measures Ventilate area of leak or spill. Keep unnecessary and unprotected people away from area of spill. Wear appropriate personal protective equipment (wear a self-contained breathing apparatus in pressure-demand, and full protective gear. Will react with water to form toxic and corrosive fumes. Vapors may be heavier than air). Treat spilled material with an excess of soda ash or slaked lime, mix and add water cautiously to yield acid(s) and react with the alkali until fully neutralized. Collect the residual for disposal. Flush spill area with plenty of water.
Antidote: None reported.
NCP --
I guess my long list of realities on the Iraqi situation stung your sensitive posterior to such an extent that you felt obliged to respond with a stream of propaganda detailing all the wonderful work the US is doing in Iraq. Well, bully for you, but the essential reality of the situation remains unchanged:
(1) The damage and ruination to Iraq WAS COURTESY OF THE USA. To try to twist the story around and make it seem as if the US is a magnanimous force for good is ridiculous. (Before war and sanctions, the standard of living of Iraqis was amongst the highest in the world.) Taking Fallujah as a case in point, the fact that you destroyed 80% of the city and are now ‘helping out’ the dazed survivors is in no way a ‘good’ act at all. In fact, it is mentally sick. I take it if bin Laden provided tents to the survivors of 9-11, he would have been a swell guy, huh?
(2) The scale of US aid compared to the destruction it has wrought is completely out of proportion. It’s like farting against thunder. What’s more, the ‘reconstruction’ that IS being done is largely being funded by the IRAQIS themselves via the IDF. Really, is it any surprise that US companies were tripping over their own feet to get a slice of the ‘reconstruction’ – aka corporate plundering – pie?
(3) The basic statistics of the equation remain unchanged no matter how many isolated incidents of magnanimity you manage to pluck from the (probably planted by the US, judging by the latest news making the rounds) media barrel. This is entirely due to point (2) – which is the complete inade