لماذا "حرر" الامريكان العراقيين باستعمار العراق

By Iraqi political writer..Please find translation to english below

Averroes: You are correct. The Japanese did float paper balloons laden with bombs over mainland United States.

Here is a link that might be interesting to some:

http://www.historyhouse.com/in_history/balloon_1/

I did not know about these balloons. I don't think many Americans do know about them. I stand corrected.
Submitted by: Breaker [email] [web]
Friday, 11.28.2003 @ 7:17 PM

To quickly correct some history: 9,000 Japanese paper balloons with bombs were launched into the jet stream from November 1944 to April 1945. 285 qare known to have made landfall in North America, with estimates that 1,000 did. A women and five children were killed by one of these bombs in Oregon, USA in march 1944. These bombs were meant to cause grass and forest fires, but since the ground was damp in winter, what fires that resulted were easily contained. Silence about the landings of the bombs convinced the Japanese that the program was a failure. This is the last time a foreign government has attacked the USA on the mainland.
Submitted by: Averroes [email]
Thursday, 11.27.2003 @ 8:33 AM

I agree with the comments stated so well above as to the US reasons for invading Iraq (with strong exception to the snide remarks of George B, whoever he might be). I too am one of many Americans who very much want to see Iraq living in freedom and proseperity and in friendship to America. It is not the "peace" and "anti-war" protesters who care about the Iraqi people...they wish to see Iraq fail because that will mean failure for America and their hatred of America is their highest ideal and guiding light. Part of living in a free society means that we must allow such fools to speak their minds...
Submitted by: Gary [email]
Wednesday, 11.26.2003 @ 12:23 AM

I do not usually read comments on these Iraqi blogs because they are long and usually repetitive. I read every word of this one. This comment thread is great. I agree with Lee's comments.

You can look at three examples of American foreign policy to understand our intentions in Iraq. We fought World War II to defeat Japan and Germany. We supported democracy and reconstruction in both countries. Both are now rich and peaceful allies - despite our disagreements with Germany over the invasion of Iraq.

You can also look at Russia. We fought and defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War. We have been providing aid to the Russians ever since the Cold War to help build a free society Russian style.

All that we want in Iraq is a free and peaceful society - Iraqi style - that will stand as a shining example to other nations of the Middle East - then we want our troops to come home. If that happens, the Iraqis will pay us back with mutually beneficial trade and support in other conflicts in the World.

Good luck, be safe. God bless you and yours Baghdadee. We need your help.

P.S. Catfish N. Cod is correct that the last time America was attacked on the mainland by a foreign power was in the War of 1812. Our current closest ally - the British - attacked and burned the Capitol and the Whitehouse in that War. Sorry for the long post.
Submitted by: Breaker [email] [web]
Tuesday, 11.25.2003 @ 7:58 PM

sorry for the double post I hit refresh and reloaded my comment
Submitted by: mobieone
Tuesday, 11.25.2003 @ 7:23 PM

If it's OK for an American to ask a question of a native Iraqi on this thread.....
I would like to know if you think that your constitution will be written with equal rights for women. that would mean the same rights as men.

Also during the former dictatorship, were their people who chose Bath party membership only because it was a "prerequisite" for a job, collage or to have a voice in local affairs, even though said person did not feel he or she agreed with the Bath policy
Submitted by: mobieone
Tuesday, 11.25.2003 @ 7:20 PM

Translatinf Mobieone's:
ترجمه تعليق موبياون
لاادري اذا كان بامكاني كامريكي ان اسال مواطن عراقي على هذا المحور
اريد ان اعرف اذا كنتم تفكرون ان الدستور الجديد سوف يساوي بين الرجل والمرأه؟
ايظا , لقد كان النظام السابق كان يعطي الاسبقيه للبعثيين في الوضائف والكليات حتى لو كان ذلك الشخص لا يتفق مع سياسه البعث
Submitted by: Ali
Tuesday, 11.25.2003 @ 6:22 PM

If it's OK for an American to ask a question of a native Iraqi on this thread.....
I would like to know if you think that your constitution will be written with equal rights for women. that would mean the same rights as men.

Also during the former dictatorship, were their people who chose Bath party membership only because it was a "prerequisite" for a job, collage or to have a voice in local affairs, even though said person did not feel he or she agreed with the Bath policy
Submitted by: mobieone
Tuesday, 11.25.2003 @ 6:02 PM

Lee ,
I can say not very easy to understand..Let me do it again
ترجمه اعلاه
تابعت احد المتكلمين في التضاهره وهو الاردني المدعو التميمي . لقد كان مؤلما ان يستطيع مثل هذا الصدامي ان يستمر في خداع الناس ولا يشعر بالعار من نفسه بعد كل هذه المقابر الجماعيه التي اطلع عليها العالم. لقد كان ببرود دم يدعو الرئيس بوذ للانصات الى نصائحه.
ربما كان كان يدعوا الى تنصيب صدام اخر كحل للعراق.
من المؤسف ان اليرفر للانترنت في بغداد لازال عاطلا , احب ان استمع لاراء العراقييون حول ذلك..
غدا العيد.. اعاده الله عليكم باليمن والبركه
Submitted by: Salim
Monday, 11.24.2003 @ 10:01 PM

I hope that worked Salim.
Submitted by: Lee C. [email] [web]
Monday, 11.24.2003 @ 5:31 PM

Machine translation from English: التّرجمة الآليّة من الإنجليزيّة
شاهدت أحد المتحدّثين الأردنّيّين العرب بالاسم ألتيميم . كان يضايق أنّ رجل صدام هذا يمكن أن يضلّل كثير
من النّاس و حتّى الآن ليس يشعر خجلانة من نفسه برغم كلّ شيء مقابر جماعيّة قد أُظْهِرَتْ للعالم .. كان يطلب من بوش أن يستمع لنصيحته سلميًّا .
ربّما يطلب صدام آخر المركّب كالحلّ الوحيد !
للأسف, الخادم في بغداد مازال إلى الأسفل, أريد رؤية عراقيّين يعلّقون على هذا .
أين علي ...لا ترجمة . أكتب من كمبيوتر شخصيّ بلا دعم عربيّ .
غدًا عيد لمعظم المسلمين . دع اللّه يغطّيك و عائلتك بأفضل النعم .

Submitted by: Lee C. [email] [web]
Monday, 11.24.2003 @ 5:28 PM

I watched one of their Arab Jordenian speakers by name Altememe. It was annoying that this Sadame's guy can fool so many people and still not feeling ashame of him self after all mass graves had shown to the world.. He was bloodlessly askin Bush to listen to his advices..
May be he is asking for instaling another Sadam as only solution !

Unforyunetly the server in Baghdad is still down, I would like to see Iraqis commenting on this

Where Ali..No translation..I am writting from a PC with no Arabic support.
Tommorrow is Eid for most of Muslims.. Let Allah cover you and family with best blessing
Submitted by: Salim
Monday, 11.24.2003 @ 5:02 PM

Salim, if I were a lesser man, I would wish we could take these heartless protesters, themselves bloody with supporting Hussein's crimes, and put them even for one day at the mercy of Saddam or Uday or Qusay. They should be made to taste that life. They should feel the choice they tried to make for the children of Iraq. But, I cannot wish such evil on any man, even those who cheer bestial, ruthless savages like the Husseins.
Submitted by: Tom Penn [email]
Monday, 11.24.2003 @ 3:24 PM

There are people all over the world who can form an oppinion faster than a flash of lightening, without knowing any of the facts or fiqures. Those were the London demonstrators. But in free society anyone can voice an oppinion. It up to rest of us to find out if it true or not.
cicio
Submitted by: cicio
Monday, 11.24.2003 @ 11:32 AM

Thank you for tell us this Salim.
I had dismissed the statue in London as a cheap stunt.
I had not thought about how it would appear in Iraq.
I wonder if they knew?

Machine translation:التّرجمة الآليّة من الإنجليزيّة

شكرًا ليخبرنا هذا سليم .
قد استبعدت التّمثال في لندن كحركة بهلوانيّة رخيصة .
لم أفكّر في كيف سيظهر في العراق .
أتساءل إذا عرفوا ؟
Submitted by: Lee C. [email] [web]
Monday, 11.24.2003 @ 10:30 AM

Tom,
I want to tell you this story..
I am not a guy who believes in politicians, especially the one we used to in the last fourty years in Iraq. When you have such feeling of isolation from your country's political leaders, for such long time, you will get in a no feeling state to any other.
Yet when I saw the idiots in London, stepping over the simulated statue of G. Bush, I felt some thing inside me get hurt.. I know they are doing it, because Bush gave us the opportunity to step over our killer statue.. Something these idiot had tried their best no to.

توم
دعني اخبرك شيئا.
انا لست ممن يتعاطفون مع السياسيين وخصوصا امثال اؤلئك الذين تعودنا عليهم في العراق خلال الاربعين سنه الماضيه. عندم تكون معزولا عن قادتك السياسيين لفتره طويله فان الشعور بالاحساس بهم ينعدم. ولكن عندم شاهدت اؤلئك الجهله يدوسون تمال جورج بوش احسست في داخلي شيئ ما قد جرح. انا اعرف انهم انما يفعلون ذلك لان يوش اعطانا الفرصه كي ندوس على تمثال قاتلنا. شئا حاولوا بكل مايستطيعون ان لايحصل

Submitted by: ٍٍٍٍSalim
Monday, 11.24.2003 @ 3:55 AM

Translating Tom's:
ترجمه تعليق توم
كان افضل لو كان جورج بوش من اعداء الحريه من الشيوعيين. انا لاافهمه, ولكن لو لاحظتم المتضاهرين قبل الحرب واؤلئك الذين تضاهروا في لندن, فسوف تعلمون ما اعني. بقدره قادر , صدام اصبح له العديد من الاصدقاء الشيوعيون والاشتراكيون. صدام كان ستالينيا كما تعرفون, وبالرغم من ان ستالين ورفاقه ارتكبوا المجازر بحق الملايين واستعبدوهم لاجيال, فان شخص مثل جورج بوش لازال يحب الشيوعيه واختها الصغيره الاشراكيه.هؤلاء مستائون ان صدام قد رحل وان الشعب العراقي سوف يحقق حريته التي يكرهومها. ولكن لاحض ان بوش واصدقائه المتضاهرون لن يذهبوا الى احدى الدول الشيوعيه مثل نضام صدام او كوريا كيم او كوبا كاستروا. انهم يفضلون التضاهر بحريه في شوارع البلاد الحره مساندين ابطالهم من السيوعين الكتاتورين.. كنهم يمثلون النسخه الغربيه من المقاوم العراقيه
Submitted by: Ali
Monday, 11.24.2003 @ 3:39 AM

Translating cicio's:ترجمه تعليق سيسيو
انا اتفق مع تحليل لي حول سبب اكتساح العراق.نحن لانريد ان نحكم بلادكم.لدينا من المسؤوليه ما يكفي لحكم بلادنا.نحن نريد كم ان تحكموا انفسكم. نحن نرغب بان يكون العراق ديموقراطيا لانكم كما نتوقع الاكثر ثقافه ومستعدون لتحمل مسؤليه الحكم. نخن لم نضع اي رئيس او رئيس وزراء او حكام في اي من البلاد التي ساعدنا على تحريرها وحسب علمي. ونحن الامريكان الضرفاء نحب ان نعمل بشكل شلق لكي نحصل على الاموال لشراء الاشياء. نرغب ان نبيعكم اشياء وان نشتري اخرى منكم.
اغلبيه الامريكان ذوي قلوب طيبه ويؤلمهم ان يروا الشعوب مضطهده. اتمنى ان ارى العراق بلد اشعاع للعالم.
Submitted by: Ali
Monday, 11.24.2003 @ 3:28 AM

George B must be one of the freedom hating communists. I don't understand them, but if you watched the protests before the war, and most recently in London, you will know what I mean. Somehow, Saddam has many communist and socialist friends in the west. Saddam was a Stalinist you know, and although Stalin and his communist dictator friends were responsible for killing tens of millions of people and enslaving them for generations, some like George B still love communism, and the little sister socialism, anyway. These people are very upset that Saddam is gone and the Iraqi people will have freedom which they hate. But, notice, George and his protestor friends would never actually move to a communist country like Hussein's Iraq or Kim Jong Il's North Korea or Castro's Cuba. They prefer to march in freedom in the streets of free countries supporting their hero communist dictators from the safety of Democracies. Kind of like the western version of Iraq's resistance.
Submitted by: Tom Penn [email] [web]
Monday, 11.24.2003 @ 1:32 AM

I agree with Lee's perception of why we invaded Iraq. We do not want to govern your country. We have enough responsibilty governing our own country. We want you to govern your own country.We are their to help Iraq have a democratic government because you are perceived as having the most educated people and are ready to take the responsibility to govern yourselves. We do not have any American Presidents, prime ministers or governing leaders in any of the countries we have helped liberate that I am aware of. Also we funny Americans like to work hard to make money to buy things. We want to buy things from you and sell things to you.
Most Americans have good hearts and do not like to see people terroized, I wish Iraq a future to shine on the world.
Cicio
Submitted by: cicio
Monday, 11.24.2003 @ 1:19 AM

Translating Larry's:ترجمه تعليق لاري
اعتقد ان سبب الحرب هو ان امريكا تعتقد ان صدام هو خطر ممكن ازالته. وكذلك لانه يكره امريكا واسرائيل فهو يرسل الصواريخ على اسرائيل وجيرانه من حلفاء امريكا.
كل الكلام عن اسلحه الدمار هو لاعطاء المبرارات وعدم الانتضار اكثلر.
كل ممبرارت التخلص من ديكتاتور او اقامه الديمقراطيه وغيرها هي مبررات نبيله ولكن لااعتقد ان احد هنا يمكن ان يجعلها سببا للحرب.
اهميه النفط انه يمكن اسنخدام عائداته لمحاربتنا ولكن وقد ثبت انه يمكنه محاربتنا بوسائل بسيطه, فما نحن فاعلون؟
Submitted by: Ali
Sunday, 11.23.2003 @ 4:53 PM

It is almost perfect.. It works very good with small statements.. The problem is when it gets into articles .
Not intending to discourage people from feel free in writing though!

Thanks your praising..
Not at all, simple participation in this great whole effort by all others!
Submitted by: Ali
Sunday, 11.23.2003 @ 4:45 PM

Question for overworked translators:

How useful (or accurate) is this site:
http://tarjim.ajeeb.com/ajeeb/default.asp?lang=1

Example, If I ran the phrase:

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog

and this was returned:

قفز الثعلب البنّيّ السّريع على الكلب الكسول

How good a translation is created?

BTW, a big thanks to your tireless work in building a bridge between 2 cultures.
Submitted by: mg [email]
Sunday, 11.23.2003 @ 2:17 PM

I think the US invaded Iraq because Saddam was a threat the US could get rid of.
Saddam had a policy of hating the US and Israel, but also was willing to invade his neighbors, send missles toward Israel, and invade a US ally.

All of the talk about WMD was only to give the reason for why getting rid of Saddam now and not before and not waiting longer.

The reason the US cannot leave Iraq is that we can no longer allow countries that do not control the terrorists that want to target the US and its allies. So we must insure there is an Iraq government and police that will cooperate with our anti-terror activities.

Everything else -- getting rid of a brutal dictator, insuring democracy, reconstructing the country, giving people freedom -- are goals of noble and kind individuals in the US. There are many such Americans, and I am proud of them. But those reasons were not enough for the US to invade elsewhere.

The only reason Iraq oil was important was that it made Saddam powerful, because he could buy weapons with oil money. Now that terrorists have shown that they don't need much money to cause terrible damage, we are all in trouble.

Submitted by: Larry
Sunday, 11.23.2003 @ 12:41 PM

I commend you Salim; Ali was needing the help I think
Submitted by: Lee C. [email] [web]
Sunday, 11.23.2003 @ 10:17 AM

Translating Averroes's:ترجمه تعليق افيرويس
كما تلاحظون من تعليق جورج ان الديموقراطيه تسمح لكل الاراء وحتى المكروه.هناك من الامريكان من يعتقد ان لا احد في اداره بوش يمكن ان يكون نزيها. لا احد في الاداره ممكن ان يحمل مقصدا شريفا.
لدي شئ واحد اقوله للامريكان , ان الجلبي ربما فعلا خدعنا للتورط في العراق. انه شخصيه طموحه و لديه حساباته الخاصه براي المتواضع.اعتقد اننا اعتمدنا اكثر من الازم على يقوله حفنه من المناضلين السابقين العراقيين.
Submitted by: Salim
Sunday, 11.23.2003 @ 6:42 AM

احد الدروس الكبيره التي قد استفاد منها شخصيا في هذا النقاش يتمثل في اهميه النظام الديمقراطي. فعندما تطرح كل الافكار المختلفه لابد وان نصل الى اكثر الاراء قربا للحقيقه.
نقطه اخرى قد يجد الاخوان داخل العراق فيها درسا.. ان امريكا ليست واحده.. انها اراء مختلفه.. الاحظ في الكثير من الصحف العربيه تشويشا للقارئ وذلك عنما يذكرون خبرا صحفيا يمثل رأي قائله على انه راي الاداره الامريكيه..
This is a good learning lesson in democracy.. When all views gave the chance.. then we might det into the accurate one.
Another lesson for those Iraqis inside Iraq, America is not one view, She is many, ..I noticed a lot of confusing news in Arabic newspaper .when mentioning a view for some one, they put it as the Admin view..

Submitted by: Salim
Sunday, 11.23.2003 @ 6:35 AM

As you can see from the comments of George B., democracy allows for all views, even the hateful. There are those in the US who have an almost religious belief that no one in the bush adminstration could be honest; that no one in that administration could have any honourable motive about anything.
I have little to add to the others except to observe that we may find that al-Chalabi did indeed "trick us into going into Iraq." He is a very ambitious man with his own agenda, in my humble opinion. I believe that we relied too much in what a small number of iraqi ex-patriots had to say.
Submitted by: Averroes [email]
Sunday, 11.23.2003 @ 5:52 AM


Translating George's: ترجمه تعليق جورج بي
اكره ان اكون بشاره سؤ ولكن الكثير منكم يدرك انه لن يكون للعراقيين ديمقراطيه. هناك العديد من الاسباب التي جعلت اداره بوش تلج بالاكاذيب لاحتلال العراق. اسلحه الدار, صدام , الديمقراطيه..هذه كلها لم ولن تكون اسباب الاحتلال. يمثل العراق مخلبا استرتيجي لمكين بلدي من زرع نفسه في الشرق الاوسط. الديمقراطيه في العراق تعوق من سياستنا الجديده وتؤثر في المنطقه ولم نضح المال والولد لتعميم نعيم الديمقراطيه..ز اكثر الديمقراطيات غير مستقره, ستكون نقمه على العراق.. فافهم واحذر , العراق لن يكن ديمقراطيا يتغنى به بلدي لاسباب شعبيه, تذكر اسلحه الدمار والقاعده اساطير يجب ان تردد لجعل اكثر الامريكان يهاجمون العراق ومع الاسف اقول , فانهم كاذبون بالنسبه للديموقراطيه
Submitted by: Ali
Sunday, 11.23.2003 @ 4:30 AM

Translating Christiana's:ترجمه تعليق كرستيانا

لااستطيع ان افهم لماذا لاتعتبر اكريكا ان بن لادن وصدام , اخذوا على عاتقيهما مهمه التعاون في تطوير الاسلحه سويه على شرط ان لايهاجم بن لادن العراق. وقد تبين لاحقا ان بن لادن كان يعمل مع العراق وايران والسودان وحزب الله. لصدام مبرراته لكءه امريكا بعد الاهانه التي لاقاها في حرب الكويت . ومن اكثر منه حبا في الانتقام من امريكا ردا على هذه الاهانه؟ من كان لديه كل تلك الاموال لتبذل على الاسلحه من سياسه النفط مقابل الغذاء .البديه حقيقه تفرض نفسها, ان صدام مستعد لمساعده بن لادن لتحطيم امريكا على ان جعل الثاني من صدام الوحش. كان على امريكا ان توقف ذلك فبل فوات الاوان .
ونعم امريكا ضاق صدرها بالوهابيين وتريد ان تطور علاقاتها مع اصدقاء افضل للمرحله اللراهنه.
Submitted by: Ali
Sunday, 11.23.2003 @ 4:09 AM

Translatinf Catfish's:ترجمه تعليق كات فش
لجعل مهمه علي اسهل , ساحاول الاختصار..
من المهم تصحيح مجاء في تعليق مواطنتي ليزا , لقد كان اخر هجوم على الارض الامريكيه في عام الف وثمنمائه واثني عشر. حيث احرقت العاصمه واشنطن. لقد احتلت الارض الامريكيه خلال منتصف القرن التاسع عشر بعد الحرب الاهليه.(قوات الشمال احتلت الجنوب). مع ذلك تبقى ملاحضتها وارده , لا احد يتذكر احتلال او هجوم لارض امريكيه. لهذا كان هجوم ايلول اقسى في وقعه من اي هجوم ارهابي في بلد اخر.
Submitted by: Ali
Sunday, 11.23.2003 @ 3:49 AM

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but many of you have to realize that there will be no democracy for Iraq. There were reasons why the Bush admin. had so many lies to invade Iraq.

WMD, Saddam Hussein, Democracy...those are not and will not be the reasons...Iraq is a strategic pawn in my nation's quest to position itself in the Middle East. A democratic Iraq would get in the way of our new power and influence in the region...and we did not sacrifice soldiers and money to spread the joys of democracy...most democracies are unstable, it would be a disaster for Iraq...so understand and be careful...Iraq will never be democratic...that is for Public Relations reasons that my government keeps chanting that...remember the WMD and the Al-Quada myths that had to be told so that most Americans would go for attacking Iraq...they are lying about democracy also...sorry

please be careful...God be with you.
Submitted by: George B [email]
Sunday, 11.23.2003 @ 3:21 AM

I can't figure out why the US government hasn't made a bigger deal of the evidence it has that Saddam and bin Laden had an agreement to develop weapons together in exchange for bin Laden not attacking Iraq. It's stated in a criminal indictment issued in November 1998 that bin laden was working with IRAQ, Iran and Sudanese governments. and Hezbollah. Saddam had reason enough to hate USA as he was humiliated in 1991. Who would be more likely to want the destruction of USA in retaliation for his humiliation? Who had all that money to spend on weapons development siphoned from the Oil for Food program? Common sense tells us that Saddam would be more than happy to help bin Laden destroy USA as long as bin Laden let him continue being a monster.
USA had to stop that partnership before it was too late. And yes, USA is sick of Wahabi Saudi getting all the oil money, why not develop a better friend to trade with?

Submitted by: Christina, Montana, USA
Sunday, 11.23.2003 @ 1:53 AM

For Ali's sake I will be brief. I must correct my fellow American Lisa. The American homeland was last attacked by a foreign army in 1812. The capital, Washington, was burned then. The last occupation of American soil was from 1865-1876 following our Civil War. (Troops from the North occupied the South.) However, her point still stands. No one living in America can remember an attack or occupation of U.S. soil. This is why September 11 had a bigger effect on America than any other country that ever had a terror attack.
Submitted by: Catfish N. Cod [email] [web]
Saturday, 11.22.2003 @ 11:56 PM

Translating Tom's:ترجمه تعليق توم
هذا ماتعلنه به الحكومه الامريكيه. المواقع ادناه بها الكثير من المحتوى العربي .اتمنى ان نكون خطابات الرئيس بوش مترجمه لانها احسن من تصف الحال. اذا لم تكن هذه الخطب الاخيره في لندن قد ترجمت فانني اتمنى رؤيتها كذلك عاجلا
http://usinfo.state.gov/arabic/iraq/
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/

حفظ الله العراقيون الشجعان
Submitted by: Ali
Saturday, 11.22.2003 @ 4:59 PM

Translating Tom's:ترجمه تعليق توم
هذا ماتعلنه به الحكومه الامريكيه. المواقع ادناه بها الكثير من المحتوى العربي .اتمنى ان نكون خطابات الرئيس بوش مترجمه لانها احسن من تصف الحال. اذا لم تكن هذه الخطب الاخيره في لندن قد ترجمت فانني اتمنى رؤيتها كذلك عاجلا



Submitted by: Ali
Saturday, 11.22.2003 @ 4:54 PM

This is what the US government says. These sites have a lot of Arabic content. I hope President Bush's speeches are transcribed because he explains it better than anybody else. If his speech from London two days ago isn't on one of these sites yet, I hope they add it soon. The Iraqi people need to read it.

http://usinfo.state.gov/arabic/iraq/
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/

God bless the brave Iraqi people.
Submitted by: Tom Penn [email] [web]
Saturday, 11.22.2003 @ 4:44 PM

Translating Hoving John's:ترجمه تعليق هوفنك
السبب بسيط . امريكا تعبت من شرق اوسط غير مستقر.تعبت من الارهاب المستمر.تعبت من كل هؤلاء الطغاه والحياه البائسه.عنما يكون الشرق الاوسط غير مستقر يكون العالم طذلك.
اذا لم تكن مصدقا ان الامريكان جاؤ لمساعده الناس هناك , اذن ربما تصدق انه ليس جيدا للاقتصاد عندما يكون العالم غير مستقر, والعكس صحيح.هل يزدهر الاقتصاد عندما يكون الشارع غي أمن؟هل يستطيع الاقتصاد بيع اي شئ عندما يكون العالم فقيرا وغير قادر على الدفع؟
وايظا امريكا ملت من السعوديه.. انهم يلعبون حيلا بالنفط,انهم يضغطون على شعةبهم بالديكتاتوريه.و يحتالون على الامريكان.."هلس" باللهجه السعوديه.
اذا تحول العراق الى بلد امن متحضر وحر وذو اقتصاد غربي ديموقراطي, واذا استطاع العراق ان ينتج نفط كافي, عندها سيكون العراق شريك امريكي جيد. وستضغط اكثر على السعوديه.
اذا اصبح العراق بلدا صديقا لامريكا واذا اصبح قويا, عندها سأسلك: هل تعتقد ان امريكا لاتريد صديقا قويا؟
امريكا تعرف ان الديمقراطيه تجعل البلدان اقوء . امريكا تعرف ان الديمقراطيه تجعل البلدان اكثر نجاحا.امريكا تعرف ان العراق فيه الكثير من الاذكياء. وشعب مثقف,وتأريخ عريق.امريكا تعرف ان العراق يمكن ان يكون بلدا قويا اذا اصبح ديمقراطيا ومنفتح اقتصاديا. انها يمكن ان تكون شريكا تجاريا جيدا, انها يمكن ان تكون اداه ضغط على السعوديون وستكون صديه لامريكا.
قل لي , اليس هذا سبب احسن الاسباب؟
Submitted by: ِAli
Saturday, 11.22.2003 @ 3:16 PM

The reason is simple. America is tired of an unstable Middle East. America is tired of constant terrorism. America is tired of horrible dictators and horrible living conditions. When the Middle East is unstable, the world is unstable.

If you do not believe America does things to help people, then perhaps you believe that it is "bad for business" when the world is unstable. When the world is more stable, things are "good for business." Can a business function properly when the streets are unsafe? Can a business sell anything when the world is poor and cannot buy it?

Also, America is tired of Saudi Arabia. They play games with oil, they keep their people in another dictatorship, and they keep playing games with America. "Halas," as they say in Arabic.

If Iraq would become a safe, modern, liberal, capitalist democracy, and if Iraq would produce enough oil, then Iraq can be a good trading partner for America, and it can put pressure on Saudi Arabia.

If Iraq is a friend to America, and if Iraq becomes a powerful country, then I should ask you: Do you think America does not want to have a powerful friend?

America knows that freedom makes countries powerful. America knows that democracy makes countries successful. America knows Iraq has very smart people, very educated people, lots of oil, and a good ancient history. America knows Iraq can be a very powerful country if it becomes a liberal capitalist democracy. It can be a good trading partner, it can put pressure on Saudi Arabia, and it can be a good friend to America.

Tell me, is that not the best reason?
Submitted by: Hovig John Heghinian
Saturday, 11.22.2003 @ 2:05 PM

انسخ تعليق ابو احمد الى هذا الحقل من فقره الملاحظات العامه للفائده:<

As long as dictators repress the Arab people,America will be a scapegoat and a target for radicals.Freedom had to start somewhere,and Iraq was the logical choice.A large,well educated population and abundant resources.Add a little freedom and Iraq will be the envy of the Middle East.Then,no matter how hard Arab media huffs and puffs,Arabs everywhere will know America is not the enemy.
It will be time for another scapegoat....
Submitted by: Andrew
Sunday, 11.30.2003 @ 2:28 AM

Bomb Saddam?
June 2002

Imagine for a moment that you're President George W. Bush. At some point in the next several months you will have to decide whether to overthrow Saddam Hussein--not just to threaten and saber-rattle and hope something gives, but actually to pull the trigger on what could be a very costly and risky military venture. How precisely will you make that decision? It will almost certainly come down to a choice between which of two groups of advisers you choose to believe. One side is comprised of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, most of the career military, nearly every Middle East expert at the State Department, and the vast majority of intelligence analysts and CIA operations officers who know the region. These folks generally think that the idea of attacking Saddam is questionable at best, reckless at worst. On the other side are a few dozen neoconservative think tank scholars and defense policy intellectuals. Few of them have any serious knowledge of the Arab world, the Middle East, or Islam. Fewer still have served in the armed forces. In other words, to give the go-ahead to war with Iraq, you'd have to decide that the experienced hands are all wrong, and throw in your lot with a bunch of hot-headed ideologues. Oh, and one other thing: The last few times, the ideologues have turned out to be right.

from:
How The Obsession Of A Few Neocon Hawks Became The Central Goal Of U.S. Foreign Policy

Practice to Deceive
April 2003

Imagine it's six months from now. The Iraq war is over. After an initial burst of joy and gratitude at being liberated from Saddam's rule, the people of Iraq are watching, and waiting, and beginning to chafe under American occupation. Across the border, in Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, our conquering presence has brought street protests and escalating violence. The United Nations and NATO are in disarray, so America is pretty much on its own. Hemmed in by budget deficits at home and limited financial assistance from allies, the Bush administration is talking again about tapping Iraq's oil reserves to offset some of the costs of the American presence--talk that is further inflaming the region. Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence has discovered fresh evidence that, prior to the war, Saddam moved quantities of biological and chemical weapons to Syria. When Syria denies having such weapons, the administration starts massing troops on the Syrian border. But as they begin to move, there is an explosion: Hezbollah terrorists from southern Lebanon blow themselves up in a Baghdad restaurant, killing dozens of Western aid workers and journalists. Knowing that Hezbollah has cells in America, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge puts the nation back on Orange Alert. FBI agents start sweeping through mosques, with a new round of arrests of Saudis, Pakistanis, Palestinians, and Yemenis.

from:
Chaos In The Middle East Is Not The Bush Hawks' Nightmare Scenario--It's Their Plan

A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.

[...]

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam.

But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the 'natural axis' with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity.

Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.

Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.

King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein.

from:
Participants in the Study Group on "A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000:"

Coping with Crumbling States:
A Western and Israeli Balance of Power Strategy for the Levant

Iraq's future will profoundly affect the strategic balance in the Middle East. The battle to dominate and define Iraq is, by extension, the battle to dominate the balance of power in the Levant over the long run. Syria understands this and has made the Iraq file its highest priority since the Gulf War. Belatedly, Jordan has realized the strategic significance of the circumstance and forwarded its Hashemite option for Iraq.

Until now, Syria and Iran have worked together without success to assume the lead role in defining a post-Saddam Iraq. Jordan's Hashemite option for Iraq is another blow to Syria's ambitions and will surely trigger a fierce Syrian-Jordanian competition. Still, Turkey’s recent shift under the Islamist leader Erbakan and that country’s continuing inability to come to terms with its Kurdish problem, as well as Iran’s increasing position as the power broker in northern Iraq, Asad’s close ties to Crown Prince Abdallah, and overall Western and Israeli inattentiveness due to their quest for "comprehensive peace," offer Asad some hope. The United States, Israel, and Turkey should pay particular attention to this circumstance in formulating an approach to the Levant.

more:
The Stakes for the Region and the United States

I do not agree with the last two posts, but I post many articles from many different sources so that there is a complete picture of the different players in my country’s foreign policy.

Many that work and influence the Bush Adminastration created the last two articles.

Many who are working within the Bush Adminastration believe the future of Iraq is to usher the new American Empire into the Middle East. Many of us (me included) here in the United States do no agree with this and we are against Empire.

Mr. George B. misrepresents American intentions in Iraq. George B. says

This statement is false. No American administration would ever want an "Empire" or Iraq as a cornerstone of such an "Empire". Mr. Bush is a plain speaking man who says what he means and means what he says.

Here is a quotation from an article about Mr. Bush's intentions for Iraq:

"Empire" implies permanent control. The United States has a history returing local control to any country defeated in war for the last 100 years. We have no appetite or desire to control Iraq. We do desire a free Iraq that joins the community of peaceful, democratic nations. The United State returned control of Japan and Germany to their peoples after ridding both countries of their authoritarian and malicious governments.

We defeated Saddam in major combat and we continue fighting the Baathist remnants. We will continue to enlist the courage and determination of the Iraqi people to defeat the remaining Baathist terrorists. When Iraq is stable and free, we will leave Iraq to a free, confident and courageous Iraqi people - the sooner the better.

I am not sure why people find it so hard to believe that America would go into a country whose leaders were torturing and killing the people to save them. If Americans knew for sure almost everyone in such a country wanted them to come in a save them, I would guarantee you way over half of Americans would make sure our government went into whatever country and saved the people. I realize we can't always do that because...well, for many reasons. One would be because it's always so hard to find out what is really going on in any particular country. No one can see the truth through all of the lies. Since 9/11/01, I have never seen so many lies in my lifetime. This really stupid stuff such as the US went into Iraq because Israel wanted them to or because the US wants the Iraqi oil (how pathetic) or because we want a new base, etc., etc., etc. There have been so many lies in the Middle East about America, most of the Middle Eastern people do not have one true sense as to what Americans and America are all about.

Please think about this: If you have a country anywhere in the world that the people are living in poverty, they're oppressed, unhappy people, it makes the whole world very unpredictable and shaky. When you have people raised in a free country such as the US, why is it so hard to believe that happy, blessed people want to make others happy and blessed, too??? I know a lot do not think Saddam had WMD, but there's no way I can believe someone like Saddam would destroy his own WMD. We know for certain that he had them. The whole world agrees on this fact. If they're gone, he had to destroy them and destroy them all on his own. Do any of you really believe that? Saddam is a really smart man. It's too bad we do not have such a smart man on the good side of life. But to have such a smart man on the bad side of life, to me, is reason enough to destroy him. I think he's hiding the WMD.

Whatever the real reason was that Bush wanted to go into Iraq so bad will come out sooner or later. It should be great news, though, that the Iraqi people are finally being freed after 35 years!!! I don't understand why some people do not see this as a great thing. Every single thing the US has ever done, some of the Arabian people have made it out to be something bad. Here's an example. I've been going to this Islamic site since 9/11/01. When I first started on the message board, all I heard was how pathetic the US was because after we helped the Afghan people keep Russia from taking their country, we just left. They were so down on the US for leaving. Well, now all I hear is how we are occupying Afghanistan and Iraq and how we need to leave. It is ALWAYS like this, in every situation the US has been in when it involves some Arabians - we are ALWAYS damned if we do and damned if we don't. And I am not saying the US has always done everything perfect and wonderful, because I think everything knows better than that. We are a country that is ran by people and all people make mistakes. Some of these people act like we are God and we couldn't ever possibly make a mistake. We make mistakes every single day just like every other country in the world does.

Iraq will become a democracy, just you wait and see. The only way this could fail is if the majority of the Iraqi people turn against the US before we have time to get them strong enough to defend themselves and run their own governments. That is absolutely the only way. Because there are way too many American eyes on this one. There are way too many conspiracies out there for Americans to go back to their busy lives and forget about Iraq and let the government slip one in. Believe me, there isn't a chance in badWord that's going to happen.

I will tell you this and then I will go. Aside from the terrorists, Iraq's next biggest problem is Al Jazeera. I've never seen a media quite like them, and I hope I never do again. It was hard to believe it was even a media web site. The media can certainly cause a lot of trouble, and in the Middle East, it sure has caused a whole lot of hatered for no reason at all and a whole lot of misunderstandings and a whole lot of deaths. Something really needs to be done about some of the media over there.

DebInUSA

One correction.

It is after hunderens of years, may be for the first time in Iraqi history..

Could any Iraqis comment on this. I never realized that the Iraqi people have ALWAYS been enslaved. Was there any moment in history that Iraq had known any type of freedom? Have Westerners been the only civilization that has experianced "freedom"?

قبل الثوره الفرنسيه, الحريه بمعنى حريه الشعوب باختيار مصيرها وقادتها لم تعرف الا في حالتين محدودتين في التاريخ الانساني للمجتمعات الانسانيه المتمدنه, الاولى ايام الرومان والثانيه ايام الخلافه الاسلاميه الراشده 600 م. والتجربتين لم تحصلا في العراق.
اذا استثنينا فتره بدايه تكوين الدوله العراقيه بعد الحرب العالميه الاولى , فان العراقيين لم يشهدوا تجربه تقرير مصيرهم بانفسهم على مدى التاريخ الذي اعرفه!

Before the fremch revolution, 1790's, freedom as per the new definition of having people decide their destiny and leadership had happened in two limited cases in human history of civilized societies, that is during some Roman and the Rashideen Islamic Khalifa in 600 A.D.'s.
Both were not in Iraq. If we exclude the temporary political situation after the first war where the new Iraqi government got established, Iraqis had never experienced deciding their destiny through all their history that I know of.

One of my readers sent me the link to the article titled (in English) "Why do the Americans Liberate Iraq?"

As the writer of the above article surmised, we Americans are doing this out of self-interest. There is little altruism involved. But I think he may be comforted to learn that the best possible outcome for the US in terms of American self interest is for Iraq to recover from Saddam, become democratic, free, and prosperous, and to stay that way. Of course, just saying that doesn't help.

The reason my reader sent me that link is because last July I wrote a comprehensive analysis of the overall war. It is presented in outline form, and explains the cause of the war, why America got involved in it, what America has to do to win it, and why attacking Afghanistan was part of the overall strategy for winning. And about half of it explains why we invaded Iraq, what we hope to accomplish in Iraq, and how it will benefit us.

My analysis fully answers the question asked in the above-mentioned post on this site and fully explains why we've done the things he found mystifying. I thought that the author of that article might want to read it. So I mailed the link to my analysis to the owner of the blog "Baghdadee", and he asked me to post the link here.

http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml

It's English only, I'm afraid. It's presented in outline form, and I haven't updated it to include the capture of Saddam or the recent deal with Libya, nor the considerable progress that has been made in Iraq since last August.

Steven Den Beste
owner of blog USS Clueless

Steven, I think your analysis is exactly right! In the case of Iraq and the Arab world in general our national interest is aligned with what is best for it's people. This has not always been the case. The rough part is that it is not the best for the people in charge of the arab countries.

ستيفين, أعتقد أنّ تحليلك ميّت على ! في قضيّة العراق و العالم العربيّ بصفة عامّة مصلحتنا القوميّة صُفَّتْ مع ما الأفضل لأنه ناس . هذا لم دائمًا يكن الحالة . الجزء الوعر هو أنّ ليس الأفضل للنّاس المسئولة عن البلاد العربيّة .

Iraq is crucial to showing the rest of the Arab world that there is a better way. My main concern is that we try to force that better way to be the exact same as America's.

لعراق حاسم لإظهار باقي العالم العربيّ أنّ هناك طريقة أفضل . اهتمامي الرّئيسيّ هو أننا نحاول إجبار تلك الطّريقة الأفضل أن تكون الدّقيق مثل أمريكا .

It is a different culture with a different history, time education & success will bring the general populace closer to us but this has to occur at their pace. The basic framework for govt. & economic systems should be done quickly and if it is done right we should let the rest develop naturally.

إنّها ثقافة مختلفة بتاريخ مختلف, تعليم الوقت و النّجاح سيحضران العامّة العامّة أقرب لنا لكنّ يجب على هذا أن يحدث في سرعتهم . الهيكل الأساسيّ للحكومة و النّظم الاقتصاديّة يجب أن يُعْمَل بسرعة و إذا يُعْمَل بطريقة صحيحة ينبغي أن نتجاهل اليتطوّر طبعًا .

This has been an interesting discussion. I don't live in Iraq or America, I live in New Zealand, and our government, backed by most of the population, were against the American invasion of Iraq. Our concerns were most clearly articulated in regard to the precedent set by America in bypassing the United Nations Security Council. As a small and relatively powerless nation, we found this very distressing. We saw the UN as more powerful than any nation alone, and we would be more comfortable if we could continue to believe that.

However, what many of us also fail to see is the mechanism whereby invasion solves the problem. Removal of a dictator does not inevitably lead to peaceful self-government. The journey from totalitarian state to participatory democracy is not exactly a well-travelled road that is widely understood, and I'm not sure that we have strong evidence that foreign guns hasten a nation on this journey?! The struggle is to discover and enable the moderate voices in a troubled nation, not easy in the face of dictatorship, nor in war, nor in the unpredictable unrest that troubles Iraq today.

It is time that the non-military aspects of facilitating democratic change were better researched and understood, because nations like Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq have suffered too much unrest and uncertainty for too long after Western nations have used warlike means to try and "help" them. There must be a better way to "win the peace", whether winning a war is part of the equation or not.

I would say that the moral authority a governing body is equal to that of it's members. The UN as it is currently structured gives the same credence to a dictator as they do to a freely elected govt. It is obvious that some of the member states in the security council was more concerned about their financial dealings with Iraq than they were with seeing Saddam dealt with. It is also clear that the United States would bear the brunt of whatever action Saddam & the terrorists would take in the future. So it was in OUR best interest to remove him regardless of what the UN's position was. The UN as it exists today is pretty dysfunctional.

Now to your question;


Invasion certainly solves the problem of the present regime retaining power! Removal does not inevitably lead to peaceful self govt. That is why we are pushing so hard to get a Constitution in place for Iraq so they have a road map to guide them there. I don't think we have any evidence since the French revolution in 1790 of a country overthrowing a tyrannical govt and replacing it with democracy without an outside force of arms. Some may argue S. Africa was but that was more an exchange of democracies.




There has not been one case in the history of man where a dictator has voluntarily given up power to the people. There has been blockades, isolation in both trade and diplomacy that has stretched on in some cases for over 30 years. That is an entire generation that has suffered from both the sanctions and the dictator. Is it not more merciful if upon determining that the ruler is so damaging to the people that he/she is unfit to rule that they be given a chance to step down and if they refuse they are removed by force immediately?

Look at your examples, Korea, Do you think that the South Koreans would rather be united if united meant living like the North? Vietnam In another 20 years may be just like south Korea. Do you think China's road in the 20th Century was any easier and they had much less Western intrusion?Afghanistan, It's way too early to determine what the total impact of things there will be but the problem certainly started as a regional conflict with Russia and the vacume that was created when they left.

What we really need to do in the developed world is find a way to curb opportunism in arms AND technology dealers. The flow of dangerous technology must be controlled and it is in the long term best interest of everyone to do this. The United is as guilty of this as anyone but no more so. It's time to stop pointing fingers and simply demand of each other that we do a better job of policing our own.

The reason the United States invaded Iraq and took out the former Dictator was because we need to reshape the Middle East for our own protection. The attack of 9/11 happened because we failed to respond to all the attacks before that. We are not a war mongering nation, we would rather not fight anybody. You must understand that to understand how high the threshhold is to ignite our anger. Saddam was dangerous. Taking him out and establishing a functioning democracy in the middle of a tyrant infested area sends some clear messages from the US.

1. Our patience is at an end and we will now use whatever means we have to protect ourselves.
2. If you are our friend, we can work together to build strong economies and lasting relationships, if you choose to be our enemy, we will hit you hard.
3. We will not subordinate our own security to any other nation or group of nations especially those who can demonstrate no moral authority over us.
4. Syria, Iran, and North Korea are clearly in our sights now and one way or another we will protect ourselves from them as well.

and most important of all - - -

5. We can do it!!!

We no longer care if others think we are arrogant. That bothered us prior to 9/11, it does not bother us any longer. If the 9/11 attack had not occured, Saddam would still be in power and we would have no interest in fighting with any other country.

To put it very bluntly, Most Americans are thoroughly pissed off and we want someone to thank us for our gifts to the world not seek creative ways to kill us. We are not wealthy because we steal from others, we are wealthy because we are free. God gave us and everyone else that same freedom. It is only when man and governments take freedom away from individuals that poverty ensues.

These are the meager mumblings of a middle-aged American from Fort Wayne, Indiana. I hope they can help to partially answer the question why we liberated Iraq.

John Smith
Fort Wayne, Indiana

Good Questions. As Americans, many of us are asking the same things. Why make such sacrifices when it seems many Iraqis would have much preferred to remain under the dictatorship of Sadam Hussein.

However, I think the answer lies in our history. Look toward any of the countries the United States has intervened in throughout its history, and, unlike most countries throughout history, America has never kept the territory it's conquered. Even though the rules of war allow it.

Instead, look at countries like Japan, France, Germany, Yugoslavia, Kosovo. All conquered by the U.S., but all enjoying Democracy and autonomy. And now even Afghanistan has ratified its constitution, giving its people equality and freedoms Iraqis never imagined possible.

And while, true, each of the Nations listed above are considerred allies by the U.S., they are far from being puppets. Just look to the universal opposition to the U.S.'s intervention in Iraq as proof.

I think it's understandable Iraqis are asking "what's the catch?" Especially coming from a region where war is waged by lobbing scud missiles at an enemies population centers, anexing ones neighbors is commonplace, and poison gas is used as a weapon to pacify resistance at home.

Obviously Iraqis are used to different rules.

To us Americans, an equally perplexing question to yours is why would the Iraqi people, or the majority of Arabs, for that matter, be so resistant to democracy? A government that's answerable to the will of its people seems like it would be an obvious choice. But so many seem so willing to fight to have their life be ruled by a despot, it's beyond understanding.

This is the question I'd like answered.

P@

P






I am wondering if you know anything about Iraq..?
That is the most strange conclusion ever I run into..! Even Aljezera and BBC don't dare to ask!
You might need to go through Iraqi blogs listening for people talking from inside Iraq to get rid of the main stream media brain wash..

I think this site is a good start, if you realy want the answer/wash .. Have fun!

اتسال اذا كنت تعرف اي شئ عن العراق؟
انه اغرب استنتاج سمعته لحد الان! حتى الجزيره واذاعه لندن لاتجرأن على سؤاله!
ربما تحتاج الى الاطلاع على بلوكات العراقيين الذين يكتبون من داخل العراق للتخلص من غسيل الدماغ الذي تتعرض له من قبل الاوساط الاعلاميه الرئيسيه.
اعتقد ان هذا الموقع يصلح كبدايه, اذا كنت فعلا ترغب في الاجابه.. تمتع بالموقع

Salim's right, P@. Spend some time finding out what Iraqis are saying--insider Iraqis. Talking to the Iraqis you get a completely different picture of what's going on there than you get from the media here in the U.S.

Unfortunately, Salim, I've heard quite a few people say things very much like that. It's part of a lot of political rhetoric here. If you just watch a little news here and there in America, you can easily get that impression, because most of the media here doesn't like Bush, and they want us to think our soldiers are fighting to free people who don't want to be free. They think it will make Americans force the military to withdraw immediately. It's not going to work. The news might make some Americans think things are going badly over there, but even so, Americans will want the mission completed.

Hello All .. I too am most perplexed as to what is happening in Iraq now. While gathering most of my information on the net, my preferred mode of learning is from the Iraqi bloggers and I've been reading them faithfully; As many as I can each day, to try to get a more clear picture of what people there in the midst of it all are thinking. Before the capture of SH and the demise of his sons, I thought I fully understood the reluctance of the Iraqi people to participate in their own march to freedom. With Saddam and sons gone, thus the fear of retribution, it amazes me that the "street" is not hustling hard and fast to get their country back, up and running and cooperating with the US to get things fixed and working ASAP, thus accomplishing their wish to get us (the US) out of their country faster. We have no desire to stay in-country, but won't too swift a withdrawal throw the country into civil war, as many Iraqis have said? I'm also wondering, is the "bottom line" as we call it here in the USA (the almighty dollar) really the thing that counts? An ice cream vendor was complaining on tv recently that although his business was booming more than ever before, before SH he could stay open until Midnight; now with the insecurity, he is only able to stay open until 9pm. Well .. hmm .. does the fact that his family is now safe from execution and torture not mitigate this 3 hour difference? Why do not the Iraqis help in droves in ridding the country of the "insurgents" causing this insecurity? I'm afraid it is very confusing for me but I have confidence that my Iraqi blogger friends will continue to help me understand. Thank you all for your input! What a gift it is to be able to communicate during this time of difficulty. This is truly marvelous towards helping all peoples of the world understand each other.

Betsy, not to slight the rest of your post, but this is what leapt out at me. As Salim indicated above, the media <i>is not</i> giving an accurate picture of what's really going on in Iraq. Al-Jazeera you expect it of, but the BBC and CNN especially have been focussing almost entirely on the negative. Charitable souls will give them a pass on the basis that 'good news is boring.' I'll grant that, though I believe there's some bias involved, as well. I've given up on TV for anything but local news. Living in Los Angeles, this means I've become an expert on car chases.

You mentioned you read the Iraqi bloggers extensively. That's definitely the way to go. I even read Riverbend (though I take her with a large dose of salt, since she seems to get her own information largely from Al-Jazeera and the BBC).

Hi Achillea. You are definitely correct about the news via tv or newspaper. Every one has an "agenda" and the reporting of good old fashioned news without bias or slant has gone by the wayside. Rarely do the media offerings get any credence from me; yet this ice cream vendor incident jumped out at *me* just because it seemed so silly. Iraqi bloggers and military bloggers are not only accurate but very insightful as to what's really going down (annnd, my son is in the AF, flying C-130's out of Doha. He recently flew supplies into Iran) as are several friends in Iraq. It does seem to depend where you are, as well. Some cities are doing very well and are attack free while others are not doing well at all. I have friends on the "pessimistic" side of this discussion and like to give them a "positive" reply from the Iraq point of view. I fear if there is no turnaround soon the US will be in big trouble as the population while staunchly behind Iraq, is getting weary of the daily slaughter of our military. Thank you again!

Betsy, one of the Iraqi bloggers http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/ had a theory about the security situation that makes a lot of sense to me. He expects violence in Baghdad to worsen in the short term precisely because coalition efforts to crack down on insurgents in the Sunni Triangle have been largely effective. Insurgents that weren't killed or captured in the country have had to escape. And because there aren't a lot of mountains, forests, etc., the only place to really hide is Baghdad. So, the ice cream vendor and the coalition probably have reason to be flustered right now. Things will be better in the long term, but right now, Baghdad is getting the worst of it.

And the media is mostly hunkered down in Baghdad--another reason why, apart from bias, that their reports are generally negative. They're not seeing the places in the country where things are more secure.

Hello Woody. Yes, the Mesopotamian is a fav blog as is Iraq The Model. Mohammed today wrote an excellent blog with regard to my doubts and questions. It makes me wonder as well why we don't have a strong radio or tv station broadcasting the positives going on in the country so as to help the people understand more of what is going on all over. And Achillea, I have trouble with Riverbend as she is so negative, but her recipe section is good! So is the food one here. My hub and I are newly to NC from Chicago and the local news down here is .. um, different but the football team is better!

I remember the lessons of America’s involvement in Latin America and the possibility of representational government came IN SPITE OF THE UNITED STATES INVOLVEMENT. The United States is better at supporting authoritarian regimes that use Death Squads to enforce democracy. The same will happen in Iraq.

The reason many in the world do not trust the more conservative elements within it's government is because of their past.

"We watch the American government be friends with this dictator over
here and support him, because he will give you the oil or minerals
or something that you want," one person stood up to say. "But then
with this other dictator over there, who is not so friendly and
cooperative, you will start talking about democracy just so you can
get rid of him. This is so hypocritical, to use democracy this way,
like a weapon. Do Americans think that the world does not understand
what it is you are doing?"

-snip-

"That history is unfamiliar to most Americans, but the rest of the
world knows it all too well. They know that when we finally moved
against Saddam, it was not to advance democracy or human rights, but
because it suited our national interests, just as today it suits us
to back a dictator such as Aliyev. They know, because they watch
what we do with the same intensity that you would watch a 600-pound
tiger locked in the same room with you. They watch every move, and
they remember.

That explains, I think, why Americans are so often surprised when
other countries express resentment, distrust and even anger at U.S.
policies. We look at ourselves in the mirror and see a decent
citizen of the world, strong but fair and devoted to the cause of
democracy. But increasingly, even our friends look at us in dismay
at our capacity for self-delusion."

I pray iraq is ok, but there is going to be worse times ahead.

George, as I posted elsewhere, what is your point? I really don't think you have to worry about Iraqis being "too trusting" of the U.S. What they have is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. The Americans made it possible, but for American motives. I think most Iraqis know that, but it doesn't take away from the opportunity. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish with your cynicism and negativity. If you hate America so much, what are you doing on this Iraqi board? Talk to us Americans. Tell us how terrible we are. We can take it.

Hello member # 100 Betsy!
Yeah your Carolina "Kittys" stuck it to the Cowboys good last week ! I loved it. ( btw, I'm a Browns fan )

We also have to take the Iraqi bloggers with a grain of salt not just the media slants that cater to sponsers ect.

My point is the average blogger may not be the average Iraqi.

That is , to have access to electricity,computers,the internet and be fluent in English and have it all come together may not be the norm that is taken for granted by many posters.
These bloggers are for practical purposes....well off,the fortunate ones

Not taking away from their slant but there is a silent majority in every nation.
Case in point is this blogger .
Healing Irag
It seems the grim reaper struck close to home and very personal recently.
Read it if a few of you as of yet missed it.
Continue to read Healing Iraq. We may see a different style evolve or morph in the comming months imo.


Even Salim Pax mentioned her situation on his blog Where is Raed

Both blog entries were for Jan 8th.
I kid you not.
I'd bet a new Iraqi Dinar the president of the United States will read Healing Iraqs
entry.

IMO, many unemployed Iraqi's would love to share their opinions with us.
But they can't due to the technical/economic/religeous/linguistic or security dificulties

The bloggers,they are the voice I hope reflect the majority over there.
I look forward to new bloggers perspective as well as probable changes in current bloggers.

Hey,
even Riverbend has a place, on the net

=======

[ سعر ] مركزي و أنا حديثًا إلى المؤتمر الوطنيّ من شيكاغو و الأخبار المحلّيّة إلى الأسفل هنا .. ام, مختلف لكنّ فريق كرة القدم أفضل ![ / سعر ]
مرحبًا عضو # 100 بتسي !
نعم مبالغ كارولينا ألصقته إلى رعاة البقر الجيّدين الأسبوع الماضي ! :لول : أحببته . ( بالمناسبة, أنا يحمّر المروحة )

يجب علينا أن نأخذ البلوجيرز العراقيّ بذرّة ملح أيضًا ليس فقط ميل الإعلام التي ترضي سبونسيرز إكت .

نقطتي قد لا يكون مستخدم الويب المتوسّط العراقيّ العاديّ .

ذلك, ليحصل على المدخل للكهرباء, الكومبيوترات, الإنترنت و طلق بالإنجليزيّة و لدى هو قد لا يكون الكلّ مجيء معًا المعيار الذي يُسَلَّم ببوسترات كثيرة .
هؤلاء بلوجيرز للأغراض العمليّة ....غنيّ, المحظوظون

ليس يأخذ بعيدًا عن ميلهم لكنّ هناك غالبيّة محايدة في كلّ دولة .
المثال الواضح هو هذا مستخدم الويب .
[ هتب = يو آر إل :/ / healingiraq.blogspot.com / ] التئام إيراج [ / يو آر إل ]
يبدو عامل الحصاد المزعج أضرب في الصّميم و شخصيّ جدًّا حديثًا .
اقرأه إذا أخطأته قليل من اعتبارًا من حتّى الآن .
استمرّ في قراءة العراق الملتئم . قد نرى أنّ أسلوب مختلف يتطوّر أو مقطع في إيمو أشهر الكوممينج .


حتّى سليم باكس ذكر وضعها على بلوج ه [ هتب = يو آر إل :/ / حبيب _ raed.blogspot.com / ] أين رائد [ / يو آر إل ]
كانت كلتا مادّتي بلوج للثّامن من جانر .
أمازحك ليس .
قد راهنت دينارًا عراقيًّا جديدًا رئيس الولايات المتّحدة سيقرأ إيراكس الملتئم
المادّة .

آي إم أو, كثير العراقيّ العاطل سيحبّ تقاسم آراءهم معنا .
لكنهم يستطيعون ليس بسبب التّقنيّ / اقتصاديّ / ريليجايوس / الديفيكلتيس الأمنيّ أو اللّغويّ

البلوجيرز, هم الصّوت آمل يعكس الأغلبيّة هناك .
أتطلّع إلى منظور بلوجيرز جديد وأيضًا التّغييرات المحتملة في البلوجيرز الحاليّ .

هيه,
حتّى لدى ريفيربيند مكان, على الشّبكة :دي

Hi Airedale #50 .. Yeah, I had a difficult time that day, I'm a Panther fan now and my hub is an ardent Cowboy fan.

You are right and I am aware of that, the bloggers' situation that is, as to internet access, speaking english, etc. Don't we wish we COUld hear from that "silent" majority as well? Reading a blog for some time gives you an idea the blogger's position/bias/leaning and then many tell what they do, where they are, etc. I admire their willingness to share with us no matter what their position in life, and eat up all of the history they share with relish. Riverbend is ok she's just to negative for me. I don't believe you can afford to be negative and still end up putting your country back together. A positive can-do attitude is imperative (a good ole 'merican trait).

And yes, I did in fact read Healing Iraq's blog this morning and the update. I'm putting that item on "hold" until we find out more information - it does not ring true, but who knows? I'll wait for more info before forming an opinion. The "gang" there emailed that letter to all websites, newspeople, newspapers, etc. so I'm sure Salem Pax had it from them. It is imperative we find out the truth.

What do you mean by "probable changes" in current bloggers? That's an odd thing to say. There have been bunches added constantly as new ones join in, I know that. So many now I'm having trouble keeping up with all of them!

Take care!

Americans and oil.

For 150 billion dollars, you can buy about, 5,000,000,000 bbls of oil, at $30 a bbl. Strategically, about 30% of our imported oil is from the Middle East. So 30% of about 9,000,000 bbl/day is 2.7 million bbls a day. 5 billion bbls of oil in reserve equals a 5-YEAR supply of Middle East oil. These numbers are rough estimates but at 30 dollars a bbl, we are talking about a 4 -5 year reserve of Middle East oil hedged for $150 billion, approximately the cost of the Iraq war to date including the 87 billion, I'm guestimating here.

This is PROOF, of why the "no war for oil" mantra is so stupid. The COMPELLING argument for continuing to buy Middle East oil in the short and medium term is socioeconomic for the Arab people. These regimes are basically oil welfare states. If we were to drastically reduce consumption and thus revenue to these regimes, we would cause a lot moref animosity toward the U.S., due to INCREASED economic strife, so the reality in the medium term is that we should maintain the status quo of oil revenue to these regimes until something concrete is done to create market economies in these otherwise stagnant economies. It's true that Al Qaeda is not about economics. But their ability to recruit and sustain support in the Muslim countries is VERY much about economics. This has everything to do with the new policy toward democracy and market economies in Iraq and the other Middle Eastern countries. So what we really need to beat terrorism is a sustained policy, world wide, over several decades. We will also need an economy to pay for it!

Our biggest short term challenge in the oil equation is to effectively increase Iraqi oil revenue, by increasing market share without conditionally reducing price/revenue. This means that hopefully demand will pick up and other OPEC nations will make room for a larger Iraqi quota.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the #1 reason for the Iraqi invasion is that Saddam was threat. It was easier to just do it than to wait the years it will take to unravel the details of Irqai involvement with Al qaeda, 9/11. blah, blah. It's there, but will take time to unravel it. Just consider Ramsi Yusef, who entered under that name, planned the 1993 WTC bombing, left under another name, which was Kuwaiti, but had been altered during the gulf war and now that guy and his family don't exist. Nonsense. Saddam was a threat so Bush took him out of the equation. WE HAD TO START SOMEWHERE, to dismantle state sponsors of terrorism. Hopefully others will get the message.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think maybe the least discussed but most important reason has to do with Saudi oil and U.S. dependence on it. This represented leverage that Saudis used to keep U.S. pressure off them for supporting, or not cracking down on the Saudi elements of Al Qaeda. The Saudis represent an oil valve that can be opened or closed to affect the oil markets(and the U.S. economy). Iraq has the second largest reserves. A U.S. friendly Iraq represents a second valve of equal importance. THIS SECOND OIL VALVE, that a free and prosperous Iraq will construct, eliminates Saudi leverage and I think you can already see the results of U.S. pressure to get more Saudi cooperation. THIS I THINK IS THE #1 SECURITY reason for attacking Saddam over other potential state sponsors of terrorism. Logistically and tactically it's strategic on a map. The humanitarian element of liberating Iraq made it the easiest to occupy thus the least likely to cause mass casualties of either Iraqis or Americans.

Finally I do believe that some Bush people believe that Iraq could be a catalyst for freedom and free markets in the Middle East. In the long war against terrorism, it will require improvement in ME people's lives. The oil welfare states of the current status quo will only get worse absent some structural change. Iraq is it, though it's important that Iraq develop a diverse market economy that can spread to other ME countries. If there was an MEU like the current EU, we would not have the same problems that exist tioday. Hopefully this will help slow recruitment of the next generation of radical terrists.

This I believe is the true justification for invading Iraq. The Saudi portion is quite compelling yet could not be argued for obvious reasons.

Vann

Aw yeah, that's what I like to hear, betsy. I am the only Carolina fan in Seattle, other than the manager at the local sports bar, who's from Charlotte. I'm from Winston-Salem (hmmm, Moravian Sugar Cake - drool). If you were going to have just one other Panther fan in town, it's not bad to get the bar manager! He gives me free beer when the Panthers are ahead! Can Carolina shut down Faulk? Can you say Peppers? Might'nitbe Green Bay at Carolina for the NFC championship!?

Glad to hear they're getting more fans. NE and Car for the big game!

cheers,
Rob

Hey .. go Cats! and Pack! I sent you an email on that topic, Rob. Hope you don't mind. If you do, it's ok if you don't answer .. *grin* .. I do have a question for someone living in Iraq, please - I've been chatting with a friend about the prices of things since the "official" end of the war (mainly in Baghdad, I guess) and she says everything has gone up dramatically. I had a quote from her I copied but it won't print out, so I'll go back and see about getting the actual figures she quoted. From other sources my impression was that prices on food, gas, etc. (not counting the black market, etc) had gone down. Or prices may remain higher in Baghdad than the out-lying cities? Thank you. I'll see about those figures.

Betsy

Part 2:

Here are the figures from my friend:

.."The food costs continue to rise on nearly a daily basis. Here is a short list of price comparison from before the War to now, on basic food and fuel supplies: Sugar 1 kg 150 ID (Iraqi Dinars) 750 ID, Tomatoes 1 kg 100 ID 750 ID, Rice 1 kg 150 ID 600 ID, Gas cylinder 300 ID 5000 ID, Diesel 1 ltr. 20 ID 300 ID, Benzene 1 lt. 20 ID 500 ID. Please tell me why diesel fuel is 10 times more expensive, or that gas cylinders are 15 times more expensive."

Are these correct? Thank you for your input!

Betsy

From Betsy about my comments of Iraqi bloggers;
My observation of "probable changes" was the Humor in Salim Pax.( the 1st I stumbled on )
Yes,
It was about this time last year.His humor was very entertaining. He seemed to blog and write for the shear wit and one liners he could post.
I suspect due to external conditions beyond his control....
ie the war...
his humor faded. I wasn't the only one to notice it. It vanished for awhile.

In a nutshell,;they are just people going through the situation we call "life" . Life can make you moody at times. ect.

So don't read to deep into my posts! LOL

On the cost of living;
Betsy,
you may be "barking" up the wrong tree asking the Iraqi input on prices other than to confirm that the socialist market of Saddam 's price fixing has given way to a free market supply/demand price floating.
Everything is on the table.
The market will set the price,not the states planning commisions of the past. They do have an unemployment rate that screams "welfare subsidies" just the same.

What I found Ironic was that Iraq was importing oil from Jordan ! ? ! ?
go figger ( I understand they don't have oil wells )


=======

من بتسي عن تعليقاتي للبلوجيرز العراقيّ, [ سعر ] ماذا تعنيه بالتّغييرات المحتملة في بلوجيرز حاليّ ؟ ذلك شيء غريب للقول . قد كان هناك مجموعات إضافيّة باستمرار بينما (كما) تشارك الجدد في, أعرف ذلك . كثير من الآن أشعر مشكلة تدركهم كلّ ![ / سعر ]
كانت ملاحظتي للتغييرات المحتملة الدّعابة في سليم باكس .( الأوّل تعثّرت على )
نعم,
كان عن هذه المرّة العام الماضي .كانت فكاهته ممتعةً جدًّا . بدا إلى بلوج و يكتب لليجزّ الفطنة و بطانات واحدة التي كان يمكن ان يرسل لها .
أشكّ بسبب ظروف خارجيّة بعد سيطرته ....
الحرب لآي إي ...
تضاءلت دعابته . لم أكن الوحيد لملاحظته . اختفى للحظة .
بإيجاز,, هم فقط ناس تعاني من الوضع الذي نسمّيه حياة :هاه : . يمكن أن تجعلك الحياة عصبيّ أحيانًا . :أو :الطّرفة : :غاضب : :رولييس : إكت .

:غاضب : لذا لا يقرأ إلى بعمق في بريدي ! :غاضب : لول

على نفقات المعيشة, [ سعر ] ... كان انطباعي ذلك الأسعار على الطّعام, الغاز, إلخ ( ليس يعدّ السّوق السّوداء إلخ ) قد نزل . أو الأسعار قد تبقى أعلى في بغداد من المدن البعيدة ؟[ / سعر ]
بتسي,
أنت قد تخطئ الهدف تطلب المدخل العراقيّ على الأسعار بخلاف لتأكيد أن السّوق الاشتراكيّ تثبيت أسعار صدام قد أفسح مكانًا لسوق حرّة كمّيّة / سعر المشتري تطفو .
كل شيئ على المائدة .
سيضع السّوق السّعر, ليس الدّول التي تخطّط كومميسيونز الماضي . فعلاً لديهم معدّل بطالة يصرخ دعم الرّاحة فقط نفس الشيء .

ما وجدته ساخر كان أنّ العراق كان يستورد الزّيت من الأردنّ ! ? ! ?
اذهب فيجر ( أفهم أنّ ليس لديهم آبار بترول )

Alright, Airedale (cool name!), but my friend's hollering that her "figures" prove she is right about the suffering in Iraq because the prices have gone up so high .. so I'm looking for help in a rebuttal .. "everything's on the table" doesn't surprise me but where did she get those numbers?

Haha, sorry, didn't mean anything heavy by the question about the bloggers. Healing Iraq is in a bit of hot water right now and your statement just made me wonder. If you like humor, do you read "Allah"? Or The Mesopotamian is eloquent today. I know many have their own agendas, etc. but it's all interesting! Thanks for your input

go Panthers! ;-)

cheers, betsy!

rob

What do the Iraqis on the list think of Paul Bremer's Order 39
which allows foreign investor to buy state-owned Iraqi assets and
take one hundred per cent of the profits out of the country - BEFORE
the Iraqi people even have a chance to vote on this issue??

(I could post or send the entire article to anyone who's interested.
The Guardian/Observer also had some articles on this).


NEW YORK TIMES
ARTS & IDEAS/CULTURAL DESK | January 10, 2004, Saturday
Free-Market Iraq? Not So Fast

By DAPHNE EVIATAR (NYT) 1699 words
Late Edition - Final , Section B , Page 9 , Column 3
ABSTRACT - Article on concerns being raised by legal scholars that US-led Coalition Provisional Authority, seeking to help rebuild Iraqi economy, may be violating longstanding international laws governing military occupation by instituting rules allowing foreign investors to own Iraqi companies and sell state-owned enterprises; coalition authority officials insist UN Security Council Resolution 1483 specifically authorizes it to wipe out Saddam Hussein's entire economic system and institute economic reforms; photos

Interesting thread. Couple of questions...

1. Are any Iraqis participating in this discussion? By the third page there was more chatter about the NFL than the latest news from Baghdad.

2. Other than George B., the group here seems pretty conservative. Is there some connection other than pure curiosity that brought you all here?

3. Does anyone else here wonder what the heck we (the U.S.) is doing in Iraq? We hear a lot of rhetoric about "democracy" and "self-government" but the goals seem to change every time the CPA puts out a news release. I'm confused, but then I'm also stuck out here on the far upper left end of CONUS. I know what we didn't want - Saddam (though we were okay with him when he was pounding Iranian ass for us in the 80s) - but what do we really want? Does anyone out there think we'd be okay with Iraqi democracy if that democracy wanted to be an Islamic Republic a la Iran? If it voted to send troops to help Pakistan regain the Kashmir? If it sided with Syria over the Golan? It it had an independant foreign policy that conflicted with ours ar all?

A confession - I also spent a bunch of time in Panama, Hondo and similar tropical vacation spots during the 80's, hauling water for our little wars in Nicaragua and El Sal, so I'm a little sceptical of any government doing good for goodness sake. In my experience, nations and governments, even our own Fair Columbia, have interests, not friends. I suspect that we'd be perfectly happy with a friendly autocrat in Baghdad. It's working for us in Pakistan and Egypt, right?

But I'm not on the scene there. What's the "street level" feeling - is there any indication of a plan for setting up a system that will get Iraq to a functional, representative society and keep it that way? And if so - what the heck is it, and how workable does it look?

You might also need to go through other threads on this site to follow with some Iraqis input..

1. I couldn't care less about the NFL.

2. Curiousity, for me. I read the various Iraqi blogs, and found Baghdadee back when it was one, 'following' along when it became a bboard.

3. I can't speak for Iraqis, but as to why I believe my country is doing the right thing, whatever wrongs we might have done in the past --

Doing this good for Iraq does good for us. Would we be happy with an 'Islamic democracy' in Iraq? No, but if such a thing could exist, it wouldn't exist long. It would either devolve into a dictatorship like Iran, or evolve into something like the 'Judeo-Christian-flavored' democracy of the US.

Must we really rehash every cold war conflict? Funny how the US is constantly held accountable for all the coldwar bloodshed, yet given no credit for winning it. Funny how the US is held accountable for Vietnam and Korea, but the UN, Soviets, Chinese, the French, Ho Chi Minn, and Pol Pot all get a pass. Suddenly, the Socialists have rewritten history and the US tramped around the world boxing shadows from WWII to the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the Soviet Union wasn't so bad after all. Nevermind the history of communism, the Americans are the barbarians. What a comfortable place you people must live in!

To debunk a myth, the US sold Hussein a tiny fraction of his weapons from 1981 on. Look up the real numbers. Those are not American planes hidden in the sand. James Baker is not spending most of his time standing in front of our Congress begging the forgiveness of 5% of my GDP to write off Hussein's debts. Hussein always had better friends than us.

On the contrary, my money, our national efforts, and the blood of my contrymen is being spent in Iraq to pick these people up, help them dust themselves off, and prepare them for self-rule. Building schools, hospitals, roads, infrastructure, encouraging a free press, holding local elections. Now, if that is such a terrible thing, why don't you really put your money where your hypocritical mouth is and immigrate to North Korea? I did not hear such outrage about how Iraq managed Kuwait during THAT occupation. Can you not see the difference? Are you blind?

From Shi'a Pundit:

can liberty be imposed?: The Islamic Republic of Iraq is inevitable.

can liberty be imposed?. an essay in The New Yorker relates a historical parallel to our Iraq adventure - that of French Algieria:

Unlike the French mission in Algeria, Washington’s goal in Iraq is not to prevent the people from governing their own country but to help them to do so. Presumably, the insurgents—about whose politics, allegiances, organization, and objectives shockingly little is known—also want to see Iraqis in power, if not the same ones that Washington might favor. The question “Is America to remain in Iraq?� would ultimately receive the same negative answer from the occupiers as from the guerrillas. But, as the Bush Administration pushes for speedy elections and a speedy exit, Algeria’s example is again worth bearing in mind. In the early nineties, an Islamic fundamentalist party won elections in that country by a solid majority but was prevented from taking power by the secular military, which refused to accept the democratic election of an anti-democratic government. As a result, the country descended into a civil war that is reported to have claimed a hundred thousand lives.


This really is the nub of the question - are we seeking to give Iraq democracy, or liberty? Both are important and idealistic concepts. Democracy is the will of the people, and is more universal a human desire. Liberty is a freedom to dictate the circumstances of your personal life, such that you can achieve the pursuit of happiness (as defined by our American founding documents) and rests solidly upon the First Amendment - freedom of speech and religion.

I am confident that democracy can be imposed, but the outcome is not guaranteed to be liberty. People don't, as a rule, understand liberty as a concept until they actually have to fght for it, to earn it - as our Founders said, the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots. Can liberty be given? I don't think so. It has to be won, not gifted.

I don't doubt that we will succeed in gifting democracy to Iraq. But my prediction is that the result will be a Shi'a theocracy, though unlike Iran the true political clerical leadership of Iraq's Shi'a are more open to the concepts of liberty than the fundamentalists who imposed theocratic rule in Iran were (with the people's democratic blessing).

Ayatollah Sistani will be better than Saddam in all respects - and the true villains remaining on the field are those on the Interim Governing Council who are taking note of Bush's plan to cut and run in time for election 2004, and moving to cement their positions accordingly.

Given a choice between the imposed rule of the IGC and the democratic groundswell of the Shi'a majority, what seems inevitable? Democracy is as desirable, if not more, than liberty, and of the two concepts, only one is within the reach of th emajority of people in Iraq. They will harvest that fruit soon enough.

The Islamic Republic of Iraq is inevitable.

posted by Shi'a Pundit | 21.12.03 | Comment (2)

Mr. Penn,

It is your ignorance, naiveté, or your total self-denial that allows our government to get away with the things they got away with during the Cold War. People strive for independence in spite of the interventions of other Empires, American or Soviet.

The road to freedom begins with honesty, ….you obviously do not wish to take the journey.

Quoting from the link


Seems the writer is not aware about what is realy happening in Iraq.. I suggest all those who are trying to analyze the future of democracy in Iraq, to read the article by Basim A "The other Khumaini..." on this web site..

Systani is not asking for Islamic state.. He is gainst it.. His ask for the UN judge on the possibility of election , is just another proof for it..

George B, I am not ignorant, naive or in self-denial. American Empire? Hilarious. If we are an Empire, pray tell, what nations are we an Empire over? Who, exactly, are the subects of this Empire? How do we weld our Emperial power?

My communist friend, if the US is an Empire, why did we honor the will of the democratically elected Turkish parliament and go around Turkey instead of through her at the inception of this war? Did Stalin, Hitler, Napolean, or any of your other jackbooted Impirial heroes ask permission before stomping through their friends? No. Had they asked permission, would they then have honored a negative response? No. Would they then have worked to bring Democratic self-rule? No.

Your pretense that history has happened in a vacuum and that bad, evil America has stomped around the world enslaving the free exposes you as the one who is ignorant, naive and in self-denial. You cannot speak of the "truth" and "American Empire" in the same post without exposing yourself further to be a Communist America hater. Why don't you talk about the truth of Communist conquest and number of genocides committed in YOUR name.

I got this as email from Christopher J.
##########################################

Why do the Americans liberate Iraqis and occupy Iraq?
An interesting article by the Iraqi writer Basim Almustaar.

I would like to comment on the article by Basim Almustaar, on 'Why do the Americans liberate Iraqis and occupy Iraq?'

As an American, I want Mr. Almustaar to understand that for Americans, our world changed completely on September 11, 2001. I see many ME commentators talk about the civilian casualties in Iraq from Coalition actions, and then ask rhetorically, 'how would Americans like it if someone came and bombed them?' The reality is that we in America were bombed, and over 3,000 of us were killed in a single attack, more than in any other single attack in recent history.

All Americans now know and understand that Osama bin Laden issued fatwas in 1996, calling for us to be killed, just because we are Americans. We know we are not safe anymore.

Because of this, the majority of Americans realize that we must not allow our enemies, those who hate us and want to kill us, to gain strength and plan and prepare their weapons against us. It is true that America is a democracy, and there is a minority of Americans, mostly members of the Democratic Party, led by their politicians like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean and others, who want America to try to placate and give in to our enemies. Basically, they want us to submit. But these people, thank God, are a minority in this country, and the majority rules in a true democracy.

Saddam and the Baathists of Iraq have been open enemies of America since the late 1980's. It is true that America supplied help to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War, but it is also true that we were helping the Iranians as well. The reality was that both Saddam and the Mullahs in Iran were our enemies and we wanted the Baathists and the Revolutionary Guards to kill each other so they wouldn't kill us. It was a cynical policy, true, but it kept America safer.

America would have liked to remove Saddam in 1991, and all Americans were calling for Saddam's head back then, but our 'allies', the French, Turks, Syrians, Saudis, etc, along with the UN, were against it, and because Bush the First wanted to 'cooperate' with other countries and 'work with' the UN, we shamefully stopped the war too soon, before the entire Republican Guard was destroyed, and abandoned the Iraqi people when they rose up. Also, our general in that war, Schwartzkopff, wasn't too smart, and he let Saddam keep his helicopters, when he should have shot them out of the sky. If the Coalition in 1991 had kept fighting for a few more days and destroyed all of Saddam's tanks and Republican Guards, and had shot down all Iraqi helicopters, the uprisings against Saddam would have succeeded.

Thank goodness, this time Bush the Second did not listen to appeasers or to the UN, and he decided to remove Saddam.

You must remember that it has been the official policy of the US Government to remove Saddam since 1998, that a law was passed that year, called the Iraqi Liberation Act, but the previous President, Clinton, was only willing to talk about removing Saddam, but would never act, because his party, the Democrats, is controlled by appeasers who believe that America must submit to the UN, and to those who hate America. That is why the majority of Americans will not elect Kerry as President in November, because they do not want to submit to those who hate us.

So, once America was attacked on 9/11, the vast majority of Americans wanted our enemies to be destroyed, to make sure that we can be safe. We knew that Saddam wanted Americans dead, that he wanted revenge for his defeat in 1991. Americans do not want to see more piles of dead Americans killed in mass attacks, and we know that the reason Saddam was trying to develop nuclear weapons was to use them against us. One nuclear bomb would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it was detonated in one of our cities.

So, it is quite obvious, that once 9/11 happened, that Saddam's days were numbered.

But there is more to this, because America could have just invaded Iraq, blown Saddam away, and left. But G.W. Bush is a very smart man, with very smart advisors, like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz, and they advised him, that as long as there are tyrannical countries, with oppressive governments, that there will be more terrorists and more people that will hide the terrorists. It is true that terrorists do not come from democratic countries in large numbers. If you look at the Middle East, most terrorists come from countries with no democracy like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc, and you may notice that not many come from democracies like Turkey, or from muslims born in France, Italy, Germany, etc. So President Bush and his administration have decided that the best solution to stop terrorism is help the Middle East to turn to democracy. America wants Iraq to become a democracy, because democracies do not attack each other. As an example, even though America and France do not get along and are not close friends, we do not fight each other, and can settle our differences peacefully. Once Iraq is a democracy, when Iraq and America have a dispute, we will settle it peacefully.

I think that America will do what it can to give democracy to Iraq. Remember that America fought very bitter wars against Germany and Japan that killed over over 400,000 Americans, and after we had won the wars, we spent billions of dollars to rebuild those countries and helped them to establish democracies, which are now free and prosperous.

Some day Iraq will be like Japan and Germany are today, but Iraq will be much richer and much more prosperous. It will be free and democratic and peaceful.

And also got this one from Brandon L
#########################
Why do the Americans liberat Iraqis and occupy Iraq?

I think this is a good question raised by Basim Almustaar, one which I
am afraid a majority of my fellow Americans cannot even answer. Many
think we liberated Iraq because we feared Saddam's WMD, some think it
was for oil... In my opinion neither is the case.

The moment that the Bush administration mentioned invading Iraq - it
was clear was clear to me the motivation was neither WMD or oil, but
rather CULTURE. Let me explain.

One has to go back to 9/11 and ask "What motivated terrorist to fly
planes into the WTC?"

What drove these terrorists to blow up the WTC is the realization that
their warped fundamentalist religious culture is being replaced in the
name of progress. For instance, the fundamental Saudi religious leader
who sees his grandson watching Baywatch and his granddaughter starting
to get thoughts in her head that she should be treated like a human
being, given freedom and a education. They see these things which
oppose their radical religious views and declare a "holy war" against
western culture "the great satan". Now who is the leader of this
'western evil'? The U S of A.

They (radical Islamic terrorists) have decided that they cannot live
in a world 'infected' with western culture - and seem pretty adamant
about it too... We let a lot of bombings slide by in the past
(Tanzania, USS Cole, Lebanon, etc.) but this last one (9/11) leaves us
only two choices. We can hunker down, and sacrifice all our civil
rights so our government can prevent another attack, but that goes
against the principles of liberty and freedom which are at the very
core of our culture. So, unfortunately, we are going to have to go
with option two... Wipe them off the face of the earth. It is obvious
that we cannot physically eliminate every terrorist any more than they
can eliminate us... So, how then?

Here is how... Move into the enemy's back yard (Iraq) and bring with us
more liberty, democracy, free speech, and capitalism than they every
imagined. Help create a flourishing free society where people have
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Equal Protection under Law -
where women are treated equally - where the government exists for its
people rather than for some tyrannical despot or repressive theocracy.
Freedom is contagious. This is a war of ideas and ideologies, fought
and won in hearts and minds, not on the battle field.

My one regret is that we did not do this until our own freedom was
being threatened. For that I am ashamed.

If you have time let me know what you think about these ideas.

Take Care and God Bless,
Brandon Leach (Texas)



I think that the best example of this initiative President Bush's
Speech at the 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy.
(I think it is the most important speech given by a US President in a
long time. )
You can listen/watch it here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0031106-2.html#

Got this through email..
######################################

Please spread the word that if they will stop fighting us, we will leave. We do not believe that our form of democracy is what the Iraqi's want now. We made a terrible mistake in thinking that the people of Iraq actually wanted freedom. I do not believe that Iraq will ever be free, and most Americans do not either. We sent our sons, fathers, brother, husbands over there to help Iraq, and they were killed. We want them home, and the only way we can get them home is you will stop fighting them. We bury dead everyday also, we cry for our dead also. We want our soldiers home. We love them as much as you love yours. We want them to come home. Then you can decide the fate of your country, not us. Just stop fighting us so that they can come home. They dont want to be there anymore either. But until the fighting stops they will have to stay. Americans took billions of our dollars, out of our pocket, we sacrificed so much that could have went to improve America, so that we could help Iraq. We sent so many intelligent men and women over there to teach on new equipment for your country, and to repair. Now they are also being killed. I dont know you, but what we see on television over in America shows Iraqi's to be a warring nation, that thrives on murder, theft, and a fanatic religion. WE WANT OUR SOLDIERS HOME! Iraq will never change, the people of Iraq do not want it to change. So please tell everyone that will listen to you that if you want the Americans out, stop fighting them.
Elaine

Dear Eline,
Don'y you agree with me that this is what all the terror in the world are looking for? Don't you agree that this is exactly the reason behind 9/11.. We ran away from confronting those terrorists hopping that we would be safe in our land way far from their reach..
The liberation of Iraqis is the hart of the battel , I remember Salim was writting some thing regarding that two weeks agao. I might be repeating his here.
Please don't let the terrorist succed to mix the cards.. Iraqis are moving forward toward freedom and we need to have the mission accomplished.. Otherwise we are just retreating our beloved Iraqis and Americans and others scarifies..