See the racism of the American Left.

This turns my stomach and saddens my heart.

Fortunately, this woman is in a minority.

It's people like them that give the terrorists another reason to get out of bed and attack my soldier friends and their Iraqi Brothers.

The U.S. attacked, bombed, and invaded Iraq to liberate it? I thought it was because Saddam was supposed to be able to nuke the west in 45 minutes with his WMD's. So who will the U.S. liberate next..how about Egypt or "Myanmar"? China? There are lots of mass graves in Guatemala, Indonesia, Chile, as well as torture chambers and raping rooms (Saddam was probably cynical enough to label his).
The British killed about 10 thousand Iraqis in the the 1920 uprising; I wonder if the Americans have caught up yet?

WE are the cause of 2 million people dying. If Saddam had stayed in power, WE would have been the cause of countless more. The Iraqis could not have removed him, and he was OUR fault. They have a chance now - one that some groups in their country wish to squander simply because they don't trust us. Them not trusting us is OUR fault, too.

The ones we kill in this conflict are nothing (and I don't mean to be disrespectful of the dead or their families) compared to how many him and his sons would have killed while they remained in power. And they were OUR fault. Every day the US Government left that man in power we were killing, torturing, raping thousands and thousands. So, our choice was simple. Accidentally kill some civilians, or allow him to intentially kill 10, 100, 1000 times that number. IN OUR NAME.

And here's something for you - I don't like Bush. In fact I hate him. I don't like being lied to. But I guarantee that if he didn't lie - no matter what his true motives were - we would have left OUR puppet in Iraq killing and mutilating and murdering. But all he would have said to convince ME would have been to say to us "We caused a problem, one that is killing people by the millions, and we need to fix it" or said to the Iraqi people "we are sorry. We have caused you so much pain. We can't change the past, but we can help change your future" - I would have had so much respect for him, and I would have gladly done it.

See, for people that haven't seen it, its all just words. When I was dating my ex-fiance, her best friend was a woman from Iraq. All it took for me in this war was to remember when that woman was crying for joy when we attacked last time. She thought we were going in to bring him down. She was a Shia, and the stories she told still haunt me. Her family fled in the night from the country shortly after it *really* started getting bad for the Shia.

When I heard we were invading, and I heard why, I had a very hard time. I was so torn, I mulled it over for quite awile. I feel we went in without Honor. Honor is a very important thing to me. But then I made the realization that *something had to be done* and it wasn't hard to let it slide.

I've had doubts since. Some of me is stunned at the simple stupidity of the insurgency. They want us out, but are doing the exact thing they should do to keep us there forever. But occasionally I come across something like this:

http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_d...660057407559034



Right now, its a mess. Any armed conflict has its aftermath. I am a Humanist. I believe with my entire "soul" that humanity can overcome any problem it encounters. At this point in history, sometimes war is what has to happen. Saddam was so dug in that war was the only way to get him out. Even in the eleventh hour, he was offered asylum in several countries, and we were clear that it would be an accepted resolution - but his pride made him stay. So now we have a conflict that has given the human race another scar to bear. But it will end. Whether good or bad, it will end, and no matter the outcome, Iraq has something it hasn't had for 3 decades - a choice. Iraq may make the wrong one, but after 3 decades of oppression, I can guarantee that Iraq will eventually be what the Iraqi people want it to be.

This might be the best ever statement that I might thought of about how to rebuild trust with Iraqis.. Most of Iraqis really think that all what Saddam had committed was motivated by the Americans, they really need such open and fair consideration by the Americans , investigating all the wrong doing by previous US governments, if any, helping Saddam killing Iraqis and others. There is real need to open a Saddam testimony by the Congress.. Investigating any wrong doing .. This would be of a great help to heal the wounds and to figure out the real size of the issue. Of course this might be blocked by some restrictions by some security agencies, but I think any investigation even a classified one would do a lot.

This is not to criticize what had happened but to start new era of friendship and long standing trust..
Thank you Bob for bringing this up.. I think you had just touched the real issue of un trust.. Look to what this new debaaathification policy had done.. Most of the Iraqis "Mostly Shia" that I had talked to last week, brought this un trust issue.. They were wondering if this would be another betrayal!!

I had several close Iraqi friends in college in the 60's. One left Iraq in the 90's fearing for his life and now lives in Canada. He lived through the bombing of Baghdad in '91. But he says he will not return home as long as American soldiers are occupying his country.

It is good that Saddam is gone; I think the CIA etc could have found a way to take him out, as they have done to so many other leaders, without bombing a city of 5 million or killing thousands of innocent people. But an all out invasion was the only way the U.S. could secure a base in Iraq. .

If you compare the number of people Saddam killed on a straight percentage basis with the numbers of indigenous people killed in Guatemala, El Salvador, Indonesia, etc, by dictators armed and trained by the U.S., I believe the numbers of victims would compare more closely.

Yes, the U.S. should have taken Saddam out as well as all other dictators who torture, kill or imprison people for their views (I've heard that Hosni Mubarak does that), but they surely could have found a way that didn't involved the deaths of thousands. I naively thought they would be careful since this was an optional war, a war of choice (not that it was a real "war" any more than Saddam "went to war" with Kuwait or Hitler "went to war" with Poland) It was just a simple flatout attack and invasion. Over six hundred alone were killed by the U.S. in Fallujah two weeks ago, yet the they continue to bomb that city.

Then we have the sadistic yahoos at the prison who tortured, humiliated, and photographed Iraqi detainees. Those moronic soldiers are probably related to those Americans who after 9/11 went around attacking Indian-American Sikhs wearing turbans.

Unfortunately it isn't that simple. Saddam's regime wasn't the fault of the USA alone. Altho we certainly helped it happen, a good part of the blame lies on not just the west and the USA, but also much of the Arab world itself. Specifically, much of Saudi Arabia's duplicity would need to be exposed. Not mention Syria. Iraq and its past 30 years is quite a problem.

Saddam used our money to buy French and Soviet weapons to attack an enemy that was specified by Saudi Arabia. The Iran-Iraq war had little to do with politics and everything to do with using Saddam as a tool to go after the new Revolutionary government of Iran. Saudi Arabia was *very* concerned that it's Shia minority (such as it is) would start demanding more rights after Iran's revoltuion. Ever wonder why the early 80's saw such an increase in friendliness between the USA and Saudi Arabia?

Having accountability in the US government would only be a very small consolation. What is more of an issue is why the Arab world abandoned Iraq, and continues to do so simply for political posturing...

Good for you! It is nice to know that people all over the world have different opinions. It is part of what makes this world a beautiful place. It is nice that you have found an Iraqi ex-patriot that does not have the same viewpoint as the woman I knew. Ask your friend how many people in his town\city he saw raped and mutilated in the street as an example of how beneath notice the Shia were in Saddam's regime.

I see your friend as the exact reason why Iraq will slowly spiral into yet another period of civil war until a new dictator rises up. Occupation or not, this is Iraq's only real chance.

Also, I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Many people of your opinion argue the past. The question of should we or shouldn't we has already been answered. Do you honestly believe it helps anyone to sit and talk about how the USA shouldn't have invaded? Why isn't your friend there helping to rebuild the infrastructure of his own country?

I'll add one more point. We don't have a vested interest in the stability of Guatemala, El Salvadore, Indonesia, etc. Why should we go in? Think about it. We all know that if it wasn't for the oil, we would not have gone. We *do* OTOH have a vested interest in stability in Iraq.

As for the deaths of thousands, I would like you to have come up with a way to remove Saddam using covert ops. As a quantifier, keep in mind that every day you take to figure a way to take Saddam out, he is killing a few thousand people. See, Saddam's regime wasn't just one man. If Saddam would have fallen, one of his sons would have taken control. If they were taken out, there would be a short power struggle and one of his generals would be the next. There was no way to strip out the entire problem with any CIA action. There was no peaceful way of getting rid of Saddam, especially after the Gulf War. Besides, being a Saddam duplicate was one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. Ever stop to think that maybe the CIA *was* working to take him out? It is well and good that you count the dead caused by American Occupation. But don't you remember the numbers from Saddam? I would just like one person to answer a simple question. What was your magic number for you to want to stop Saddam? While you talk of 600 dead, many of which were actively attacking our troops, I talk of 2 MILLION dead. You talk about a mass grave in the middle of a soccer stadium. I talk about 269 mass graves *just that we know about* from Saddam.

Bob


Fully agree, however , it is the US interest today to build trust with Iraqis and bridge the gap that last decades policies had done.. Arabs and most of the west don't have such interest.. America took the lead in helping Iraqis, America should keep the momentum..
Taking part in a worng action wouldn't keep our responsibility away.. What I am suggesting is not to balme the Americans but to give them the lead in correcting the wrong doing, to put the issue in it's real size. It might set a great push to the trust building process..

"Guest" wrote: As for the deaths of thousands, I would like you to have come up with a way to remove Saddam using covert ops.

I leave that to the experts. But many of the top Pentagon generals were opposed to the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld plan. Bush proceeded during the runup to the attack on Iraq to scare half to death the already jumpy US citizenry as well as the troops with the horrors of Saddam's WMD's and continually mentioning his name with that of Osama Bin Laden and 9/11 in the same statement. That is one reason why there were so many avoidable Iraqi deaths at checkpoints and on city streets at the hands of frightenend, jumpy troops - long before the suicide bombings began. And then there continues to be the use of cluster bombs - see the Human Rights Watch website:
U.S.: Hundreds of Civilian Deaths in Iraq Were Preventable : http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/12/us-iraq-press.htm

At least "Guest" isn't deluding him or herself that the U.S. invaded Iraq for the sake of human rights, as so many Americans have, conveniently forgetting that finding WMD's was the original purpose, not to mention that a large portion on the U.S. citizenry still believes Saddam was behind 9/11. Human rights has never been a major motivating factor in hardly any country's foreign policy. The U.S. is no exception.

Sylvie wrote;

You leave that to the "experts" ? Then have no problems telling them why they made wrong decisions?

So you admit you offer no real answers.Sylvie, you bring nothing or offer nothing to the debate other than the same old story of dredging up facts and stats from the past to rub salt in open wounds.
nice.
Iraqi's visiting this board don't have the luxury to debate history. They may be hear looking for feedback to what they are living 24/7.

... stats..

As they say in the sport of American NFL Football---- stats are for losers and your comment for finding ways to remove Saddam ; " I leave that up to the experts" is a bit shallow and offers nothing .
Getting Saddam,
It didn't happen. But, the 1st bomb dropped did target Saddam.Rumor was he ended up turning blue in the face and taken away by ambulance.
On the ground covert actions were tried,and failed. Who is to say certain corvert people were in place for years for just that one shot ?
What if we did get him ? Well...didn't happen, why did I even mention it. It's water under the bridge...
My question is...Who are the experts in your opinion and what use is wishing ill will on them like that ?
blah blah blah Don't let anybody fool you on that point.A large portion of US citizens know Saddam wasn't behind 9/11.
You hope people overlook the obvious reasons Iraqi's themselves will tell you about human rights abuse,torture and mass graves or why many left that country.
Do you hope that the current experiment in Falluja fails ?
Yes or no....I don't want an after the fact , "wait and see" attitude of a response.
Thats lame.
Get off the high and mighty soap box while you cherry pick "stats" from the
Human Rights Watch website.

Why do you come here to post to Iraqis as to why you are so much better than they deserve a chance to be ?

I also admit I am an oil junky. My standard of living is directly related to oil production. Your standard of living is dependant on it.
Oil for food program corrupted the UN's best intentions for the Iraqi nation.

No more palaces for petroleumunder Saddams thumb. The majority of Iraqi's have been surpressed long enough due to our addiction to oil .

We are oil junkies Sylvie.
Somebody has you following an agenda of denial ? Don't buy into it. Don't delude yourself.

I look forward to eventual power transfer back to Iraq. They have the resources to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.


I hope you are not going to rant about colonialism,Haliburten or "anybody but Bush." The Iraqi oil industry is going to remain nationalized,not for sale.


Even Aljazeera sees and reports a glimmer of hope.Developments in Falluja

Reporting Doom and Gloom is big buisness. For the media,it's what pays the bills. Doom and Gloom is not the whole story Sylvie. Iraqi's have "been there,done that" . They must talk themselves through this.

Sorry if my rant but I feel with less than 2 months,this is no time to throw gasoline on a fire. I think they do have the ability to talk themselves through this.

Just one persons opinion.

THE FRENCH WAR FOR OIL

By KENNETH R. TIMMERMAN
March 16, 2004 -- MANY Americans are convinced even today that the war in Iraq was all about oil. And they're right - but oil was the key for French President Jacques Chirac, not for the United States.

In documents I obtained during an investigation of the French relationship to Saddam Hussein, the French interest in maintaining Saddam Hussein in power was spelled out in excruciating detail. The price tag: close to $100 billion. That was what French oil companies stood to profit in the first seven years of their exclusive oil arrangements - had Saddam remained in power.

The French claimed their opposition to the U.S.-led war to oust Saddam Hussein was all about policy. The editor of the Paris daily Le Monde, Jean-Marie Colombani, just resuscitated those arguments in an editorial that singled out George W. Bush as "a threat to the very foundation of the historical alliance between the U.S. and Europe," and called fervently for the election of John F. Kerry. (I guess that F now stands for France.)

But Colombani, whose paper's coverage of the war in Iraq was noteworthy for its wanton disregard for the truth, had not a word to say about his country's war for oil. Indeed, the secret deals the French state-owned oil companies negotiated in the 1990s with Saddam Hussein went widely unreported in France.

Almost as soon as the guns went silent after the first Gulf war in 1991, French oil giants Total SA and Elf Aquitaine - who have now merged and expanded to become TotalFinaElf - sought a competitive advantage over their rivals in Iraq by negotiating exclusive production-sharing contracts with Saddam's regime that were intended to give them a stranglehold on Iraq's future oil production for decades to come.

The first of two massive deals was announced in June 1994 by then-Iraqi Oil Minister Safa al-Habobi - a well-known figure whose name had surfaced in numerous procurement schemes in the 1980s in association with the Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization, which supervised Saddam's chemical, biological, missile and nuclear-weapons programs.

Speaking in Vienna, al-Habobi confirmed that his government was awarding Total SA rights to the future production of the Nahr Umar oil field in southern Iraq, and that Elf was well-placed to be awarded similar terms in the Majnoon oil fields on the border with Iran.



Those two deals, which I detail in "The French Betrayal of America," would have been worth an estimated $100 billion over a seven-year period - but were conditioned on the lifting of U.N. sanctions on Iraq. Simply put, analyst Gerald Hillman told me, the French were saying: "We will help you get the sanctions lifted, and when we do that, you give us this."

The Total contract, a copy of which I obtained, was "very one-sided," says Hillman. (Hillman, a political economist and a managing partner at Trireme Investments in New York, did a detailed analysis of the contract.) An ordinary production agreement typically grants the foreign partner a maximum of 50 percent of the gross proceeds of the oil produced at the field they develop. But this deal gave Total 75 percent of the total production. "This is highly unusual," he said. Indeed, it was extortion.

But Saddam willingly agreed: He saw the Total deal, and a similar one with Elf, as the price he had to pay to secure French political support at the United Nations.

Much has been written in recent weeks about the corruption of the U.N. Oil-for-Food program. Documents uncovered in Iraq's oil ministry and published by the Baghdad daily al Mada list several cronies of French President Chirac among those who had received special oil allocations as a political payoff from Saddam.

But the amounts attributed to these individuals - in the tens of millions of barrels, on which they stood to earn between 25 to 40 cents per barrel - pale in comparison to the $100 billion payoff orchestrated by Chirac and Saddam.

No, oil wasn't the only reason France opposed the United States at the United Nations in the lead-up to the war. The megalomania of Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin (who lied to Secretary of State Colin Powell repeatedly and later boasted about it to visiting U.S. congressional delegations) certainly entered into the mix. So did French pride, wounded at the realization that France is no longer the great power it once was.

But the French did not merely disagree with the United States over Iraq, as did a certain number of our allies: They actively sought to rally world leaders and public opinion to treat the United States - not Saddam Hussein - as the enemy.

The enormous difference between those two positions - legitimate dissent and active subversion of America's right to self-defense - is why America is right to treat France as a former ally. Under Chirac's stewardship, France has shown the world that it cared more about propping up a murderous dictator than it valued its 225-year alliance with America.

Kenneth R. Timmerman is a senior writer for Insight magazine. His book "The French Betrayal of America" is just out.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/20887.htm

Actually, that was me. I have no idea why it didn't take my nick for that post. Now, since you like to throw the whole "shouldn't be there" argument around, I have to ask, who cares? Sure, we shouldn't have gone in the way we did. But that is *over* now. Debating it doesn't help *anyone* at all except those that like to think that taking the moral high ground is reward enough.

I will say this again. What is your point? Why are you debating the past when people ask you how to help the future? We are there. We aren't leaving - in fact we *can't* leave now.

Your moral high horse is beautiful, but is a luxury no one can afford anymore.

If that were possible, I would wholeheartedly agree. But you and I know that isn't how things work. Human nature demands human sacrifice. If the US were to out the culprits (if that is even possible, we are talking about the entire foreign policy wing of the government for 30 years), the world would demand their punishment. The USA would once again be the scapegoat for everyone else's problems, just like we always are. It would be nice to think it could help the peace, but people would demand the blood of the outted. You know as well as I that a good chunk of the world would jump on that in an effort to take away their blame.

Only time will get trust back.

Firstly, I get tired of hearing the belly aching of Americans waving their flag claiming they want to bring peace and democracy throughout the world. They are no better than the old Roman Empire who had little tolerance for those that oppose their ways.

Don't get me wrong - I love America as well. Most of it. But, it’s a way of life that people choose. Big cars, TV's, Hollywood, McDonalds, Obesity and massive divorce rates will eventually signal the downfall of the American Empire. No individual is truly free in any politically run country, US included.

The truth - American Politics have been destabilizing the Middle East for a long time. It's actually policy. They want the Middle East unstable so they can get the oil, not worry about another world power and keep the Arab nation from uniting. Israel is a prime example of keeping instability. The mass genocide Israel is undertaking in Palestine is no different than the Germans did to the Jewish people then. But, the US still backs them to maintain unstability. They cannot keep it up there much longer though. Iraq was a logical target to continue this policy. Remember Egypt/ Isriel, Iran, Libya etc etc all part of the policy.

The real tragedy is - Americans, Iraqis, Egyptians, Israelis, Canadians, Russians are all human and great people plagued by political strangle holds. I have traveled in all these countries and found that people are in essence good, friendly and inviting. So the next time anyone kills another - it is not for the security of a country, not for revenge, not for you, it’s for a political party that eventually will not be in power and doesn’t care much other than their continued existence.

Also - the US never won the cold war. The Russian Union collapsed on its own and couldn't maintain its lifestyle. Much like the US will do eventually. It's destiny and history repeats its self. As well the US has lost a war - To Canada. Believe it or not.

May all your families stay safe and may you all never face adversity.

PS - Yes it does help do discuss the past on a "moral highhorse". It helps enlighten people as to the wrongs of others and perhaps will prevent future tragedies.

But, I agree also that people need to also focus on the future and help rebuild and grow strong again.

Stay safe.

Discussion is good. Beating that highhorse to the benefit of no one is not. The problem with the moral high horse that is being used now is that it doesn't benefit *anyone* except those that wish to feel superior.

Go ahead and discuss how it was a mistake to go into Iraq. No one says you don't have the right to do that. But using the invasion of Iraq as a grounds for not supporting or helping the Iraqis is obscene. While the anti-war folks talk and demonstrate against Bush, people are dying - and I'm not talking about insurgents v. American Soldiers. I'm talking about no refrigeration, no clean water, no stable economy.

So, once again, it is a luxury no one can afford anymore.

Hahaahah

There was a brief incident in 1838-39 called the Aroostoock War, named for Aroostook county in northern Maine, and the State of Maine declared war on New Brunswick (Canada did not exist until July 1, 1867), in a border dispute. I'd suggest that you go to Google or some such and type in the words: "Aroostook War."

The Aroostook War, also called the Pork and Beans War, or the Northeastern Boundary Dispute, it was an undeclared, BLOODLESS North American "war" that occurred in the winter of 1838 and early spring of 1839.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aroostook_War

it would behoove my Canadian Friend to see how that bloodless BORDER DISPUTE (before Canada was even a Sovereign Country) ended up before declaring her country defeated the USA..

Cheer Up ole Girl ! – it is why WE Americans Love YOU Canadian Humorist and pacifist ( so French ! ) …… by the way say hello to your patriot Hiram Smith next time you are in Madawaska, which is the northernmost township in Maine. USA. He was ……… ummmm your casualty? fell in a lake or something? – http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/07/13/p23s2.htm

What ?? that’s not the ONE?…. Well maybe its this one where the only casualty was a PIG?and the USA ended up with the disputed Island? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War ..

Still not it? Maybe the REPUBLIC of INDIAN SPRINGS…. Well isn’t that what the State of New Hampshire USA is today? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Indian_Stream

…… it’s truly funny how you can wrap YOURself in CANADIAN PATRIOTISM after chastising those PATRIOTIC Americans especially since you once defeated them!

Wanna come to Iraq?

Thank you for your humor , you ride that self rightous highhorse well !!

Come on down, we love ya !

TEX

BTW - perhaps you might want to LOOK UP the word EMPIRE before you compare the USA to any ROMAN EMPIRE? you're a chuckle a minute without GRASP of your own history to take any lessons from

Texas Gentleman
Since we are off subject;
Didn't Abe Lincolns Secy of State get Alaska from the Russian Czars?
Yep,
my question:
Once the Alaskan panhandle Latatude/Longitude was known,
Wasn't ther a political slogan ; 54- 40' or fight ! "
I understand that is the measure of North lattitude that may have knocked Canada landlocked, off the Pacific rim map.
Not to mention the vast wheatfields of canada would have been American.
?
Wasn't the dispute U.S vs England ?
I think the dominion of Canada was still a French pipedream in Quebec at the time....
....correct me if I am wrong.
Not to drift so far off subject.
So,
back on track ,
claiming moral highground in the present isn't such a big deal if car bombs go off in say, Athens during the Olympics in the near future.
Hey,
Iraq is sending a soccer team to Athens !

Rock em in Athens TEAM IRAQ !

If we want to go wayyyy back into Greek history.... wars and disputes were suspended for the sake of human competition.
Safe passage was granted and a truce would be observed

Unlike the modern Olympiad games of Munich in the 70's.

It's safe to say that we in the west will not make any violent political statements this summer.

Some folks in the west will attempt to justify what may happen at the games as a mindless " we deserved it " rant.
Those MORAL Equestrians are another weapon the " competition" is ready to accept as proof they can divide and conquer their Infidel enimies.

Canadian...

ROFL!

Puhleeeeeeeeze!

You are aware, aren't you, that if this were only about oil, it would have been easier, cheaper, and politically safer for Bush to have signed an executive order that said, "Commence drilling on the Florida side of the Gulf of Mexico"????

We have what could be one of the largest untapped oil resevoirs in the world under the Gulf of Mexico. We honestly don't know how big it is. What we DO know is that there are fissures on the floor of the Gulf that have been leeching oil for years. For decades small oil slicks have been blamed on dirty shipping heading for the Mississippi Delta, but scuba divers reported that it was coming up from fissures, and so it was tested within the past few years and was found to be unprocessed crude oil, not leakage from shipping.

Fully half of our access to the Gulf oil resevoir isn't being utilized. The entire 600 or so miles of Florida's Gulf coastline is platform-free. The reason has to do with tourists. But we're getting oil leaks from the fissures anyway, so I don't see what the big problem is.

We have a refinery shortage created by environmentalists. True that if we started building more refineries and Gulf platforms right this minute it would take a couple of years for that oil to come online and it would be costly to build the infrastructure, but that would still be a lot faster and cheaper than spending billions a day in Iraq trying to create a democracy.

So why didn't he just do that? Environmentalists don't like Bush anyway. He has no reason to pander to them .

The old "oil" argument doesn't wash. Oil IS a consideration, but the notion that it is the ONLY consideration is total hogwash!

"We have a refinery shortage created by environmentalists. True that if we started building more refineries and Gulf platforms right this minute it would take a couple of years for that oil to come online and it would be costly to build the infrastructure, but that would still be a lot faster and cheaper than spending billions a day in Iraq trying to create a democracy."

US oil production has passed its peak. We look for new oil more and find less. We open new oil fields and they don't replace what we've used up.

We *could* drill for oil in all the remaining places and forget about the environment, and it would last us a few years. I'm reasonably sure we *will* do that someday. But all the american oil we know about but don't pump yet, might as well be part of the strategic reserve. We can get it when we need it. It isn't nearly enough, we need foreign oil and we'll need more each year.

"Burn America First" is not a workable slogan. We need to first use up the oil we'd have more trouble getting later, and save american oil to fight the next big war with. If we burn the american oil first, what will we do when we can't protect the tankers? Better to use the tankers now to burn foreign oil, and burn armerican oil when we can't get the foreign oil until after the war.

وفي هجوم على المعارضة اليسارية في بريطانيا للحرب على العراق، وتحت عنوان "جبناء اليسار"، كتب نيك كوين من الأوبزرفر قائلا إن حدثا وقع الأسبوع الماضي لم ينتشر خبره "شكك أكثر في ما يتردد عن يسار ليبرالي قائم على مبادئ".

يقول كوين إن هادي صالح، المسؤول الدولي للاتحاد العراقي للنقابات، أُوثق وعصبت عيناه وتعرض للتعذيب على أيدي "مسلحين" بعثثين موالين لصدام حسين قبل أن يجبر على الركوع ويخنق بسلك كهربي ويطلق عليه الرصاص.

ويضيف الكاتب إنه "لم يندهش" لأنه لم تتعالى "صيحات الاحتجاج من جانب الحركة المناهضة للحرب لمقتل اشتراكي شجاع".

ويتابع قائلا إنه اعتقد أنه بعد الحرب فإن الأشخاص الذين عارضوها لأسباب وجيهة سيأخذون على عاتقهم "ملاحقة بلير وبوش لما فعلاه حتى النهاية" غير أنه ستكون لديهم الأمانة الفكرية لقبول أن نظام صدام كان فاشيا نظريا وعمليا، وستكون لديهم النوايا الحسنة لمد يد الدعم لرفاقهم الاشتراكيين والديمقراطيين والليبراليين العراقيين في صراعهم الدامي.

ويواصل الكاتب انتقاده فيقول إن "ائتلاف أوقفوا الحرب" الذي عبأ مليون شخص في مسيرات احتجاج في شوارع لندن، قال "للذين يقومون بعمليات الخطف والتعذيب" من البعث والقاعدة إن حركة مناهضة الحرب "تعترف مجددا بمشروعية الكفاح العراقي، بأي وسيلة يعتبرونها ضرورية".

ويضيف الكاتب أنه بخلاف أصوات قليلة، فإن ائتلاف أوقفوا الحرب وغالبية الرأي الليبرالي-اليساري في بريطانيا والعالم لا يبالي "بالمعركة الدائرة" للحيلولة دون عودة الاستبداد، "هذا في أفضل الأحوال، أما في أسوأها فإنهم يريدون كيدا في الأمريكيين أن يتمكن المفجرون الانتحاريون من وقف الانتخابات".

في مقابله مع شارلي روز على احدى القنوات الامريكيه, قال ريتشارد بيرل العنصر المهم في جماعه الصقور , ان الخطأ الاكير في العراق كان اعلان احتلال العراق بدلا من تسليمه للعراقيين اصحاب المصلحه
وعند سؤاله عن المسؤول عن هدا القرار قال ان الدفاع كان معارضا كبيرا لدلك
ويدكر ان احمد الجلبي كان قد نصح الامريكان بعدم الاستماع الى نصائح المخابرات الامريكيه التي تحملت مسؤليه هدا القرار
وعند سؤاله عن صحه التقارير التي تقول ان وصول الشيعه للحكم سيكون لصالح الحكومه الايرانيه الدينيه, اجاب ان دلك هو العكس لان المرسه التقليديه النجفيه لاتؤمن بالبدعه التي اوجدها الخميني بمساله تدخل الدين بالسياسه وان هدا الامر كان غائبا عن بال الادارات الامريكيه المتعاقبه بسبب النصائح الخاطئه
وقال ان حكومات الاردن ومصر وسوريا ستكون قلقه جدا من نجاح التجريه العراقيه
وتوقع ان ينجنح العراقيون بعد الانتخابات بتشكيل حكومه وطنيه تستطيع معالجه الملف الارهابي وبسرعه ستكون مفاجئه

If you call this a Liberation, you need to tell me what is slavery? US killed more Iraqis than Saddam 45 years in power.

Do you know how many Iraqis that Saddam had killed?
Do you know how many out of those Iraqi killed after the occupation/libaration, were killed by terrorists that some idiots call them resistance?

The liberation is not not only from foreign occupiers but also from local tyrany.. Do you agree on this?

Many Americans (and others) who dislike Bush for political reasons are refusing to celebrate Iraqi democracy with the joy that it deserves. The hate Bush, so they hate the liberation of Iraq.

Crazy as that seems.

Anyway. I'm happy for all of the Iraqis who now breath free air, and I hope that very soon you are able to root out the terrorists among you, and return to lives full of family, friends, weddings, births and have all the happiness you've earned through these many years of suffering.

http://www.daralhayat.com/opinion/02-2005/...50c2/story.html


In Arabic.. Intersting article by an Egyptian scholar..
He thinks that the Americans were smarter than the resistance.. The first chose an attractive slogan of democracy, while the later chose a non popular " talaban" face.

Below a fun question by Bob Herbert in NT. Evaluating the Iraq war.
The writer might missed the answer to his question from the comment he put!!



If they were not recruited to go east to Iraq , they might thought heading west , idiot!

Here is the full article..

http://www.radiosawa.com/RadioSawaFeatures...e=ram&id=493060

ندوه راديو سوا مع ممثلين لبعض الاطياف
Inarabic, interesting interview by Radio Sawa with some political figures including Alsadree one..

Intersting , the alsadree leader was not against the invation of Americans and toppling of Saddam, but he said that they changed their mind when the American declared the status of occupation..
He praised the Afghan scenario where a legitimate governemnt had esblished 28 days after removing talabans..
Good point to consider..

I already posted this on other Iraqi blogs,
A friend of mine had attended that demonstartion of Sadrees for curiosity , he is living in Karada discret , nearby to Firdous square.. He told me that there were about 100 thousands most of them were shanting for Saddam prosecution to be Iraqi and he should be hanged in the same square..There were some who were also calling for other demands such as the pullout of coalition forces..
He told me that there were many Saddamees trying to raise some old Saddam posters in front of media camaera.. He mentioned one incident where a young Sadrees tear down one of the posters from the hand of such Sadamees.. But there were on conflict between the two, the Sadrees were outnumbering.!

He also told me that he had the chamce to ask the young Sadrees about it because he thought the Sadrees might punish the Sadamee one .. The young man surprisingly answered
" It is his right to express his support to any one, but I don't like him to use our name in showing that"

To my friend, who is an anti Sadrees, that was a big change.. He told me that he realised at that moment what a big change had the last two years on Iraqis. If that how an Alsadree hard minder had behaved, what other moderates Iraqi would .

Guest,
I think your friend is right.. Have a look to the photos, the only main slogan on top of the Square is in Arabic "We want the prosecution of criminal Saddam"


http://www.asharqalawsat.com/view/front/fr...05,04,10,292799

A Preview to the book
What We Owe Iraq: War and the Ethics of Nation Building
By Noah Feldman

Introduction

LATE ONE NIGHT IN MAY 2003, I WAS IN A MILITARY transport plane somewhere over the Mediterranean, on my way to a stint as constitutional adviser to the American occupation authorities in Iraq. In the dozen or so rows of seats that had been jerry-rigged in the open belly of the aircraft, most of the passengers--all in various aspects of the advising business--were dozing, shivering slightly for the last time before we hit the Baghdad heat. The adrenaline pumping through me, I was rereading the best modern book on the Iraqi Shi'a1 and hastily trying to teach myself some Iraqi colloquial dialect.

Pausing to take in the moment, I glanced around at my new colleagues. Those who were awake were reading intently. When I saw what they were reading, though, a chill crept over me, too. Not one seemed to need a refresher on Iraq or the Gulf region. Without exception, they were reading new books on the American occupation and reconstruction of Germany and Japan.

My initial shock at my colleagues' reading matter was almost purely situational. Although it is possible to draw some more than superficial analogies between Ba"thism and National Socialism,2 Iraq was nothing like postwar Germany and Japan. Economic, political, social, and cultural conditions in Iraq after the U.S. invasion were distinct from any occupation situation that anyone had ever encountered, and if there was to be any hope of handling the situation effectively, the first step was surely to immerse oneself in what information was available about the country. The task felt classically orientalist, in the sense of gathering knowledge in order to exert control; but what other choice was there? Once you had agreed to go to Iraq as part of the occupation, you could go ignorant, or you could try to learn as much as possible.

But there was another, deeper problem with thinking of Iraq in terms borrowed from the nation-building experiences of the post-World War II era. We were occupying Iraq for reasons very different from those underlying our occupations of Germany and Japan. The most obvious difference was that the Axis powers had attacked us, and that we had then, with no other choice, fought and defeated them in a world war of unprecedented horror. By contrast, our war in Iraq, framed though it might have been in terms of preemptive self-protection, had been essentially voluntary. More to the point, however, the purposes of our occupation and reconstruction efforts in the second half of the 1940s were fundamentally different from the purposes of the task we were poised to undertake in Iraq. Different strategic objectives call for different tactics; but that is not all. The different purposes of contemporary nation building also call for a new and different ethical approach, one grounded in a normative evaluation of what we set out to achieve, the means and attitudes we adopt in the process, and a realistic sense of what success or failure would look like. We need, in short, an ethics of nation building suitable to our circumstances.

The place to begin the enquiry after such an ethics is with a clear-eyed, honest assessment of the purposes of nation building today, whether in Iraq or elsewhere--and that is the topic of the first chapter, in which I offer an explanation of how nation building can serve the nation builder's security interests, and how failed or incomplete nation building can harm them. In brief, I argue that strong countries like the United States and the Western European powers have an interest in building nation-states that seem reasonably legitimate to their citizens, because failed states and those perceived as illegitimately imposed from outside are likely to generate terror. I then defend self-protective nation building from the ethical challenge that its motives doom it to immorality.

The second chapter confronts the legacy of paternalism that, inherited from the ideology of empire, pervades the theory and practice of nation building today. I propose that nation building can be salvaged ethically only if it is stripped down to the modest proposition that the nation builder exercises temporary political authority as trustee on behalf of the people being governed, in much the same way that an elected government does. The fact that nation builders do not stand for election means they must authorize alternative means for the people whom they are governing to monitor their performance: free speech, assembly, and the active participation in government of the citizens of the country being ruled from the outside.

In the third and final chapter I consider how elections ought to figure in the nation-building process. Too much has been made of the capacity of elections to reflect the general will, and too little of their value in revealing voters' leadership preferences and in checking the arbitrary exercise of power. I propose that elections must be understood as the midpoint of the nation-building undertaking, not the end of the nation builder's obligations toward the country in question. In particular, I argue that the nation builder must not compromise its duty to provide security so as to facilitate political negotiation among the people who must shape the future for themselves--despite the likelihood that the nation builder will be sorely tempted to cut and run.

In each chapter, I draw examples from the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq in 2003-4, a distinctive moment that poses the ethical dilemmas of nation building more starkly than do the post-Cold War nation-building projects undertaken by UN-authorized transitional administrations in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, and Afghanistan. From May 2003, when it was formally organized to replace the short-lived Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) operated for more than a year in Iraq as an occupation government before transforming itself on June 28, 2004, into a U.S. embassy with extraordinary advisory capacities. During this period, the civilian administrator, L. Paul Bremer III, reported to the president of the United States through the secretary of defense. Although the United Kingdom participated in the CPA, sending a series of special representatives who in principle ranked alongside Bremer, and although other Coalition participants like Australia and Italy took roles in the CPA as well, the CPA functioned largely as an American show with British input.

In the context of UN-approved nation building, serious problems of conflict of interest, paternalism, and self-determination are sometimes shrugged off with a gesture toward the authorization of "the international community." By contrast, the case of U.S.-led nation building in Iraq precludes easy answers--and continues to do so even after formal political authority has shifted to Iraqis, with the recognition of the Security Council. Coalition troops remain on the ground in large numbers, and others will likely stay on for years. Nation building in Iraq is far from over. Our responsibilities to Iraq, and to ourselves, are not yet discharged. The ethical problems that this book considers will therefore remain alive in Iraq for years to come; and they will recur, in identifiable forms, whenever nation building is contemplated or undertaken.

A further distinctive feature of nation building in Iraq is, of course, the way the old regime ceased to be: not by internal collapse, but by overwhelming military force from without. Throughout its brief and eventful life, the CPA's status reflected legal ambiguity about the invasion of Iraq--which the Coalition depicted as authorized by a UN Security Council resolution, but which was never subsequently ratified by the Security Council, only acknowledged.3 In this book, I do not propose to consider the legality or wisdom of the U.S.-led removal of the regime of Saddam Hussein. Nor shall I even pose the related, extraordinarily complex question of when international intervention is justified, if ever. Other and better minds than mine have devoted enormous energy to the subject without exhausting it--and the debate, albeit altered by September 11, is still on.4 I want to focus, rather, on what happens after intervention is an accomplished fact--when the old regime is gone and a foreign power is calling the shots, whether it be the United Nations, NATO, or, as in 2003-4 in Iraq, a far narrower, U.S.-led coalition. On the ethical aspects of this topic there has been relatively little systematic thinking in the post-Cold War environment.5 We have a crop of memoirs about war and reconstruction in the former Yugoslavia,6 and some excellent studies of transitional justice and war-crimes tribunals.7 There is also a growing literature on the how-to side of nation building.8 Inspired by the problem of failed states, a small literature has grown up revisiting the option of international trusteeship.9 We do not yet have, however, a satisfactory account of why we should want to do such a thing as build nations and what the relevant principles are for making ethical sense of this goal.

The aim of this book is to jump-start an urgent conversation about the ethics of nation building. In the midst of all the heated, high-priority arguments about what policy would best serve U.S. interests in Iraq, it sometimes seems as though no one is asking what obligations we might have to the Iraqis whose government we deposed and whose country we occupied. The need is all the more pressing because of the tremendous complexities of the developing situation in Iraq, but it will persist even after Iraq recedes from the headlines. Realism and protective self-interest will play crucial parts in this conversation, to be sure; in what follows I seek to analyze problems of violence, security, and nation building in terms of the strategic incentives of various participants in a complex, multitiered engagement, because I do not think an account without this perspective would be very useful in the real world. But this is not the whole story, either. If ethics are to be taken seriously, we must also consider our problem from the standpoints of law, democratic theory, and moral principle.

In the hope of rendering the discussion concrete, I have included plenty of particulars of the situation on the ground in Iraq, including circumstances I encountered personally. In doing so, I want to provide a taste of how ethical problems and doubts present themselves in the real time of nation building.10 But I also aim to do something more, something that a few astute listeners noticed (and to which some strongly objected) when I delivered an earlier version of my argument as the Walter E. Edge Lectures at Princeton in April 2004. I want to implicate you, the reader, in the subjective "we" of ethical obligation, no matter your views on war and reconstruction in Iraq or elsewhere. If you are reading this, I want to suggest, you can be called to account for your own role in considering and debating the ethics of nation building, and in shaping collective decisions for the future. This claim may be controversial, but making it seems to me the only point of an argument in ethics.11 After all, there is no coercive authority in a book. All I can do is suggest a point of view, give my reasons for holding it, and invite you to try it on for size. What you do next is up to you.

For the safety of Israel and to control the oil and forfill the Zoinist dream the Greater Israel from the Nile to the two rivers in Iraq and the lands in between,do not trust Bush and any American,they kill the young and the old and call them terrorist

We keep hearing of possibility of civil war each time Iraqis step one further step.. Looks to me that these writers are indeed writing their wishes rather than going back to all those expectations of civil war that the terrorists are doing their best to ignite..

ان الولايات المتحدة عندها قواعد كثيرة في المنطقة ولكن هذا لا يضير اذا صار عتدها قواعد أكثر وخصوصا في دولة ذات موقع استراتيجي مهم كالعراق,
ان صدام أضعف المنطقة وساعد اسرائيل حقيقة ولكنه رجل غير معروف يوم يسالم وآخر يهجم ، لهذا فهو غير مأمون ومن الافضل التخلص منه .
وجود صدام كان اكبر ضمان للولايات المتحدة للسيطرة على النفط ، ولكن الان سيطرتها على هذا النفط اصبحت مباشرة، وليس بوجود صدام الذي لا احد يعرف ما ذا يفكر اليوم وبماذا سيفكر غدا.
من الممكن ان الولبات المتحدة كات تريد صدام ضعيف ولكن ليس الى هذه الدرجة من الضعف خوفا من طمع وتدخل دول كثيرة تستطيع السيطرة على العراق بكل سهوله وبمساعدة اعوانها في الداخل ..

نقاط مهمه وجديره بالاخد بنضر الاعتبار فيما يتعلق بدوافع تحرير العراقيين من خلال احتلال العراق

نعم امريكا دوله عظمى ولها مصالح استراتيجيه في منطقه حساسه مثل الشرق الاوسط , مفتاح التواصل الشرق غربي

الا انني لااخفي تحفضي المتواضع من حصر تلك الدوافع في اطر محدده
فمثلا فيما يتعلق بالقواعد العسكريه , السؤال هو هل ان المسار السياسي الدي تدعمه امريكا اليوم والمتمثل بدعم بناء عراق ديمقراطي سيضمن مثل هده الاهداف كالتي تدكرها ام ورد؟
هل وصول الغالبيه من الجماهير الشيعيه المعروفين بعدائهم التقليدي للهمينه والسيطره الاجنبيه سيسهل مثل تلك الاهداف لو وجدت؟
وهل حكومه منتخبه تمثل اراده العراقيين سيتيح لامريكا السيطره المباشره على النفط العراقي, النفط في النهايه سلعه للتصدير وليست للشرب وامريكا ستحصل عليه ان كان المنتج امريكيا او صداميا
لمادا تدفع امريكا كل تلك الاموال و تضحي بدماء ابنائها من اجل الحصول على شئ ستحصل عليه بدماء العراقيين واموالهم كما كان الحال ايثناء حكم صدام في استعداده المنفد و المعلن دائما لحمايه المصالح الغربيه. وفي الحقيقه فان كتابا كثيرين في امريكا يعيبون على الرئيس بوش وقيادته من انهم اغبياء في دهابهم للعراق لانه باعتقادهم ان المصالح الغربيه, كما يرونها, تتحق بشكل افضل في حاله ايقاء الوضع الاستاتيكي لنظام الحكم في الشرق الاوسط. يبقى ان نعرف ان اغلب هؤلاء الكتاب هم من الحرس القديم , نتاج مفاهيم الحرب البارده وانهم انما يقيسون من مقاييسها في ضروره دعم انظمه حكم ديكتاتوريه ولكن مواليه

من خلال التجربه فان اكثر الحكومات استقلالا بقرارها هي اقربها الى تمثيل اراده مواطنيها وليس ادل على دلك من اسرائيل. واضعف الحكومات امام الاطماع الخارجيه هي اشدها ديكتاتوريه مثل نظام الاقليه العشائريه الصدامي الدي لم يستطع الصمود امام الاحتلال الامريكي لبلد بحجم العراق اكثر مما تتيحه سرعه جريان الدبابه من البصره الى بغداد

لمادا تدعم امريكا نشؤ مثل هكدا حكومه قويه شعبيا في العراق؟
يبقى السؤال المحير فعلا الدي طرحه باسم في عموده هدا, ماهو الهدف؟ ارى انه للاجابه الدقيقه على هكدا سؤال يجب دراسه مختلف الجوانب التي تحيط عمليه اتخاد القرار الامريكي, امريكا بلد معقد المصالح والاهداف التي تتشابك بكثير من التعقيد مما لايمكن فصل الجوانب عن بعضها
اننا بمثل هدا الحصر نكون كمن يحاول استخدام نضريه تشريح كائن حي بسيط على تشريح نسيج عصبي شديد التعقيد
!

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-042005.pdf

Have fun with this important document..

يبدوا ان جبل الجليد قد بدا بالانهيار
مصر هي الامل وهي المصير

لندعوا جميعا ان يكون تحولها هادئا ولكنه ضروري

A top famous writer in Egypit , Usama Ukasha, is saying "Isn't it sad that Pres Bush was the one who condemnd the humen right violation by the regime while the egyptian assembly was not doing any thing??"

أ

In translation of the following in Alsharq Alawasat-a London based , suadi sponsered newspaper, the statement


Was translated without "on the cheap".. Making the whole point as different..

Was the above article written on June 16th ? I hope not.. Mr. Friedman might delayed puplishing his writing by one month.. While I agree with most of his points one month ago, it is completely the other way on Jun 16th. One month after the new governemnt !

What had happened during this month would need to have Mr. Friedman revisit his article ..
As for going into militia and other points.. I fully disagree. I raq is going the other way today.. We already hit the bottom..

Radio Sawa , US sponsered arabic radio, put Bush speach in the following context " We are fighting the terror in Iraq, so not to fight them in USA"

That was the head line of the editor.. I don't know if this editor is trying to send a wrong message to Iraqis or just wanted to bring attention.. According to the report below I didn't see any such statement, on contrary he reportedly said that this is to establish democracy in Iraq, a killing reciepy for terror..
BTW , this is not the first time I see some of the Sawa editors send such troubling messages.

بوش في خطابه الأسبوعي : نحارب الأرهابيين في العراق حتى لانواجههم في أمريكا




واشنطن ـ راديو سوا ـ 18/6 ـ قال الرئيس بوش إن الإرهابيين جعلوا من العراق جبهة مركزية في الحرب التي تشن على الإرهاب وان القوات الأميركية تحاربهم في العراق حتى لا تواجههم في الأرض الأميركية. وأضاف في خطابه الإذاعي الأسبوعي:
" يعارض الإرهابيون الأجانب قيام عراق حر وديموقراطي بتنفيذ عمليات مسلحة، لأنهم يدركون أننا عندما نقوم باستبدال الكراهية واليأس بالحرية والأمل، فإنهم سيخسرون الأسباب التي يروجون بها لمواصلة الإرهاب." وأشار بوش إلى أنه لن يتم تحديد أي جدول زمني لانسحاب القوات الأميركية من العراق , قائلا

"إن المهمة ليست سهلة ولن نتمكن من انجازها في ليلة وضحاها، إننا نقاتل عدوا شرسا لا يتورع عن قتل الرجال والنساء والأطفال الأبرياء، لقد جعل الإرهابيون من العراق اختبارا مهما لأمن بلادنا وأمن العالم أجمع، لن نقبل بأي حل أقل من تحقيق النصر هناك."

The real speach, not the the one edited by the Arab Sawa editor!!


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021007-8.html


<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors. </span>

Salim,

I think it is a different way of saying the same thing. Our US government came to the conclusion that the best way to fight terrorism was to have a nation of peace, freedom, and prosperity in the mideast. A place where average people are allowed to have a strong voice and do not have to live in fear of radicals or tyrants. A place where dialogue is free and open and the people discuss amoungst themselves their problems, their future, and their desires ... and the government listens while making no attempts to silence any person or group. A place where intellectuals are cherished rather than assasinated and the individual citizen feels that he and others like him are empowered to define the government. For lack of a better term, this and other things are braodly referred to as "democracy". Yes, we fight in Iraq so that we don't have to fight terrorists in America. Iraq is not some great benevolent gift. No nation would undertake such large expenses of blood and money if there was no gain for its own people. But we only fight with guns because the terrorists attack the people and government of Iraq. We would much prefer to fight them fight with freedom, hope, peace, and prosperity for all citizens.

Guest,

The Arabic text of Sawa news editor was to say different thing using same way.. That what I tried to highlight

I understand your point and that is why I put the real speach to read rather than get it manupulated through an Arab editor, even a US people sponserd!!

People getting their freedom is a very admirable.People helping others get their freedom IS THE MOST ADMIRABLE

العالم العربي: بين ديمقراطية الترويج.. وديمقراطية المنع
مأمون فندي

مبادرة الرئيس بوش لدمقرطة الشرق الأوسط، لا بد أن تؤخذ على محمل الجد من قِبل صانعي السياسة في المنطقة العربية، فهي بالفعل مكون أساسي من حرب أميركا على الإرهاب، فهي الحل الناجع للتعامل مع جذور الإرهاب وتجفيف الينابيع، ولا خلاف على ذلك، وأنا من أشد المنادين بدمقرطة المنطقة، لكن المشكلة الحقيقية في التصور الأميركي وفي تصور بعض ممن يخدمون على السياسات الأميركية في المراكز البحثية هي أنهم ينظرون إلى الديمقراطية وكأنها مشروع تسمين عجول أو دجاج، مقولات تسيطر على الساحة وكأنها صادرة من وزارة الزراعة لا من مراكز صناعة القرار، دعني أفسر أكثر.

جلّ الدعوة الأميركية لدمقرطة المنطقة هي مجموعة من المبادرات، مثل مبادرة الشراكة الشرق أوسطية، التي تعمل على دعم المرأة والمجتمع المدني الضعيف، كذلك ضخ الأموال إلى أفراد ومؤسسات بدعوى تقويتهم ضد الأنظمة المتوحشة التي تغلق الأبواب في وجوه الإصلاحيين، لا بد أن يكون لدينا رجال ونساء ديمقراطيون أشداء حتى تزدهر الديمقراطية في الشرق الأوسط، من وجهة نظري هذا مشروع تسمين عجول ومواش لا مشروع دمقرطة، لماذا؟.

سر الديمقراطية في نظري ينطلق من فرضية أن كل إنسان لديه جنوح طبيعي للتفرد بالقرار والسلطة، والمجتمع الديمقراطي هو ذلك المجتمع القادر على إقامة مجموعة من الحواجز القوية التي تحول بين الفرد وبين رغبته الطبيعية في التسلط والاستبداد، فالمجتمع الديمقراطي هو ذلك المجتمع القادر على بناء عوائق حقيقية أمام من تسول له نفسه أن يكون مستبدّاً، مجتمع قادر على صياغة حزمة من القوانين، قادر ايضا على بناء مؤسسات قانونية تفسر هذه القوانين، كذلك مؤسسات تحمي هذه القوانين، مؤسسات تمنع حزبا ما من السيطرة على مقدارات الأموال لفترات طويلة دونما تداول سلمي للسلطة، مؤسسات تمنع ذات الحزب من تزوير الانتخابات أو تجييرها لصالحه كل مرة، المجتمع الديمقراطي هو ذلك المجتمع الذي لديه مؤسسات وثقافة، أي منظومة قيمية مشتركة، ومجتمع مدني متنوع لا يسمح لأي جماعة بعينها الحصول على أغلبية مطلقة من الأصوات الانتخابية. إذن الأساس من وجهة نظري في موضوع الديمقراطية، هو المنع وليس الترويج، أي أن الديمقراطية الإيجابية التي تتبنى سياسة الترويج وتسمين مجموعة من الأفراد كي يكونوا قيادات ديمقراطية هي مسألة مضللة، لأن الديمقراطية لا يأتي بها الديمقراطيون الراغبون طواعية، ومنطلق النوايا الحسنة في تبادل السلطة مع خصومهم، الديمقراطية هي إيجاد عوازل حقيقية متفق عليها من قِبل كل فئات المجتمع تمنع أي ديكتاتور أو متسلط من الانفراد بالسلطة. في مثل هذا المجتمع، لا مانع من ان يكون هناك يمينيون متشددون مثل اليميني الروسي جرونوفسكي، أو أن يترشح لرئاسة مصر شخص مثل القرضاوي أو عبود الزمر، لا مانع من أن يحصد أي من هؤلاء خمسة في المائة من أصوات الناخبين في انتخابات حرة نزيهة، ولا مانع من أن تمثل أحزاب يتزعمها هؤلاء بخمسة اعضاء في البرلمان.

ما يجب ان يكون ممنوعا فعلا ان يصل متطرف أو ديكتاتور إلى سدة الحكم، ليس لأن دستور هذا البلد أو ذاك يقر بتداول السلطة، لكن لأن في المجتمع مؤسسات حقيقية تحول بين مثل هذا الشخص وبين قمة الهرم السياسي في بلد ما. غياب هذه العوائق أو الموانع في المجتمعات هي التي أدت إلى حصول شخص مثل هتلر وموسوليني للحكم عن طريق الانتخابات وعن طريق جماهير مغيبة ألهبتها الخطب الحماسية والعنصرية للتصويت لهؤلاء. ألمانيا ما بعد هتلر فهمت اللعبة، ولم تدخل في موضوع الديمقراطية كمشروع تسمين للعجول، إنما أقامت مؤسسات دستورية قوية تحول بين شخص مثل هتلر وبين الوصول إلى السلطة.

إذا ما استطاع اي مجتمع بناء هذه العوازل الاجتماعية، كذلك العوائق الحقيقية التي تمنع المتطرفين والديكتاتوريين من الوصول الى الحكم او السيطرة على أغلبية في المجتمع عن طريق الإرهاب أو عن طريق خطاب الكراهية، اذن نحن نتحدث هنا عن مجتمع سوي ومجتمع ديمقراطي، مجتمع راشد لا مجتمع مراهق، مجتمع عقل لا مجتمع عاطفة، مجتمع نبهاء لا مجتمع غوغاء، مجتمع مدني متحضر لا مجتمع وحش الطباع وسافلها.

كيف نطبق هذا الكلام النظري على العالم العربي؟! لنأخذ العراق مثالا، حتى لا تقوم علينا قيامة معاقل الديكتاتوريات. الناظر الى عراق اليوم والسياسة الأميركية تجاه تنظيم المجتمع واعادة بناء الدولة يدرك حجم المشكلة، وحتى لا افهم خطأ، انا لست متشائما تجاه العراق، الحقيقة انني متفائل، ولكن نقدي للحالة العراقية الحالية هو بهدف توضيح كيفية تطبيق ديمقراطية المنع مقابل ديمقراطية الترويج.

السياسة الأميركية في العراق والتي اعتمدت اسلوب الترويج للديمقراطية وللديمقراطيين عن طريق «الحرة» و «سوا»، كانت سياسة تبحث عن توماس جيفرسون عراقي، وفجأة اصطدمت بمقتدى الصدر والزرقاوي، حتى الجلبي وعلاوي. سياسة الترويج للديمقراطية حتى لو نجحت لعام او لعامين، فليس هناك ما يمنع ان يتحول السياق العراقي برمته الى سياق ديكتاتوري مرة اخرى على شاكلة المانيا قبل الحرب العالمية الثانية، ليس هناك ما يمنع من ظهور اشباه صدام مرة اخرى وعن طريق الاقتراع الحر المباشر.

الاسلوب الانجع لبناء ديمقراطية عراقية حقيقية هو القبول ببقاء البعثيين، ولكن لا بد من بناء مؤسسات اجتماعية وقانونية تمنعهم والى الابد من السيطرة على مقدرات الدولة بشكل مطلق. اول خطوة في هذا الاتجاه مثلا هي ان توضع كل اموال النفط العراقي وريعه في يد البرلمان، اي ان البرلمان العراقي مثله مثل الكونجرس الأميركي هو الذي يمنح السلطة التنفيذية الاموال اللازمة لتسيير امور الدولة، ولتكن السلطة في يد الرئيس، ولكن لا بد من بناء مؤسسات تمنع الرئيس من البقاء في الحكم اكثر من مدتين رئاسيتين، ديمقراطية منع الديكتاتور من الوصول الى السلطة او البقاء فيها افضل بكثير من ديمقراطية تسمين الديمقراطيين العرب او الترويج للديمقراطية عن طريق اعلام غير ديمقراطي اساسا. كي نبني عراقا ديمقراطيا لا بد من تبني ديمقراطية المنع لا ديمقراطية الترويج، لا بد من بناء نظام يوزع السلطة بشكل عادل بين البرلمان ورئيس الدولة ورئيس الوزراء بحيث لا يكون لأي منهم وحده سلطة كافية توصله إلى حالة الاستبداد. يروج الاسلاميون في بعض البلدان لشعار «الاسلام هو الحل« وكذلك الديمقراطيون لشعار «الديمقراطية هي الحل« ولكن في حالة العراق، وضع اموال البترول في يد البرلمان هو الحل. هذه هي ديمقراطية المنع، اما ديمقراطية وزارة الزارعة وتسمين الديمقراطيين العرب فمآلها الفشل لا محالة.

Bush speach today?


Listen to a great leader who stand still in defending his country through liberation of others..