baghda Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 لماذا "حرر" الامريكان العراقيين باستعمار العراق سالم بغدادي كل من يتابع تطور الاحداث خلال الفتره الماضيه يصل الى نتيجه واحده.. امريكا ليست هي التي خبرناها سابقا. فالتي عرفناها في الشرق الاوسط هي أمريكا السي اي اي والمؤمرات وتشجيع الظالم والمساعده على قتل المظلوم .. ليس ادل من ذلك موقفها من الحرب بين العراق وايران, موقفها من انتفاضه العراقيين بعد حرب الكويت, موقفها من القضيه اللبنانيه وتاييدها الاحتلال الاسرائيلي, موقفها من القضيه الفلسطسنيه..موقفها في دعم الطغاه العرب في الاردن ومصر والسعوديه والعراق وغيرها..هذه امريكا التي خبرناها..لم تكن بالسؤ اكثر مما يمكن ان يكون... ولكن مالذي جرى لامريكا ..امريكا في العراق غير ذلك تماما.. وقفت لوحدها تعاند الاعصار ,,اجتمع عليها كل اهل الارض كي يمنعوا تحرير العراقيين من الطغيان .. من مسلمين ويهود ومسيحيين..من شيوعيين و سلفيين.. من اعراب و من عجم ....داخل امريكا وخارجها.. لم تهن ولم تنكل وبقيت على الخط صابره مضحيه بالمال والولد.. انا لست ممن يؤمنون ان بلد كبير مثل امريكا يمكن ان تحكمها ا النوايا الطيبه فهي بالتالي لن تسيرها غير سياسيه المصلحه. كما لااؤمن ان امريكا اسقطت صدام لان لديه اسلحه دمار شامل .. فهي نفسها غير مقتنعه بذلك.. والدليل بسيط..لو كانت كذلك لكان اول شئ تفعله بعد سقوط النظام هو حمايه مراكز البحوث والمهندسين العاملين فيها خوفا من التسرب. على العكس انها اطلقت العنان للغوغاء للعبث حتى بالمفاعل الذري في سلمان باك بدون خوف حتى على جنودها من التعرض للاشعاع او تهريب تلك المواد والاجهزه المزعومه الى الخارج.. وحتى سفر ما يسمى بالعلماء العراقيين. وما نسمعه اليوم من تهويش اعلامي حول ضروره متابعتهم الان ماهو الا لتوريط دول معينه بهم.. . اذن ما هي المصلحه .. المال؟ لقد صرفت امريكا وستصرف اكثر مما يمكن ان يعطيه الاقتصاد العراقي المتهرئ حتى بعد تعافيه.. ميزانيه شركه كبرى امريكيه واحد تعادل ميزانيه نصف اقطار الشرق الاوسط.. ولو كانت تسعى لذلك لكان حريا بها ان تجعل المنحه الاخيره قرضا لكي يتم ربط عجله الاقتصاد العراقي منذ الان وكما فعلوا مع مصر وتركيا.. .. النفط؟ وهل النفط قبل سقوط صدام كان ممنوعا عنها؟ ان وجود صدام كان افضل ضمان لاستمرار تدفقه الى امريكا.. السيطره على منابعه للتحكم بالعالم؟ وهل يتم ذلك بتحرير العراقيين وجعلهم اكثر وعيا وتحكما بارضهم ومصالحهم؟ حمايه اسرائيل؟ وهل هناك اخطر على اسرائيل من اطلاق العنان للشعوب والعمل على تغيير النظام السياسي العربي الحالي , الحامي الاول لاسرائيل, او لم يكن صدام جوهره التاج الاسرائيلي من خلال كل مافعله بالعراق والمنطقه واضعاف بنيتها التنمويه والبشريه؟ على حد قول احد الخبثاء: لو كانت في اسرائيل ذره عرفان بالفضل لكان على كل اسرائيلي ان يعلق صوره لصدام في بيته! انها حتى لم تفعل ما فعلته مع المصريين والفلسطنيين حول مسأله الاعتراف باسرائيل.. والكل يعرف ان تلك الفقاعات الاعلاميه حول الوجود الاسرائيلي في العراق ما هو الاهراء.. تقسيم العراق؟ ولماذا يتم ذلك ؟ لكي تصبح لايران وتركيا والسعوديه اليد الطولى في الشرق الاوسط بما يخل بالتوازن الاستراتيجي في المنطقه..ان تقسيم واضعاف العراق هو اكثر ما يضر جيوبولتيك التوازن في هذه المنطقه وبما يخدم استقرار ها لمصلحه الدول الكبرى.. الاستيلاء على القواعد والدخول للشرق الاوسط؟ وهل تحتاج امريكا الى قواعد والعالم العربي والشرق الاوسط كله مفتوح لها..في مصر وتركيا واسرائيل والسعوديه وقطر وافغانستان وبلاد اسيا الوسطى.. واذا كان الخوف من استمرار ضمان ذلك فهل حصول ذلك اضمن بعد تمكن العراقيين من استرجاع زمام الامور؟ هجمه صليبيه؟ وهل الصليبيين محتاجين الى امريكا؟ اولم يقف رعاه الصليبيه بمعناها التبشيري في العالم .. الاخت الكبيره فرنسا والبابا ضد الامريكان؟ ماذا اذن ..هل تورطوا وفعلها الجلبي بهم كما يشاع في العراق؟ هل معقول ان بلد مثل امريكا كان يخطط لهذا المشروع منذ سنين ان تنجرف سياسته بخطأ سخيف مثل هذا؟ سؤال اطرحه للنقاش هنا واريد المداخله.. Why do the Americans liberat Iraqis and occupy Iraq? By ٍSalim Baghdadee All those who follow up with what is happening in Iraq can get to one conclusion: America in Iraq, is not the same America that people in ME used to know.. The one we had experienced, was America/CIA and conspiracy, encouraging and help killing and oppressing people. We had noticed that during Iraq/Iran war, during the Iraqi uprise post Kuwait war, in Lebanon during the Israeli occupation, anti Palestinian policy. It's support for all those Tyrants in Jordan, Egypt, Suadee, Turkey, Iraq, Israel. . That is America that we use to.. No more worse that what to be.. So what happened to America? In Iraq , America stands up a lone against all the world powers trying their best not to liberate Iraqis. Muslims/christians/jews, communists/Salafees, Arabs/non Arabs. America never gave up, insisting on liberating Iraqis, scarifying all wealth and blood. I am not the one to buy that a huge country politics might steered by good causes, at the end there is the international interests that should rule. I also don't believe that the search of weapon of mass destruction is a possible cause. My proof is very simple, if the Americans had any doubts that Sadamm had really acquired some, then the first thing to do, should be the protection of all sites and personals that might hide this in. Something never had happened and worse than that they encouraged the chaos and let the looting of all the possible organizations even the atomic reactor in Salman Bak. Without fearing the radiation danger on their on soldiers. Not mentioning the anthrax or germs or any other biochemical substances. Even the control over the so called "Iraqi scientists", they let them escape the country with absolutely no control. All what we hear about following up on some, I think, no more than to embroil the neighbors with them. Then what is the interest? Stealing Iraqi wealth? >>>> Nonsense! What American are spending, is much more than what a tiny economy of Iraq can subsidize. Even after recovery. One large scale American corporate had income that might exceed the annual income of half of ME countries. If they are really looking for such, then they should make the last 17 billion dollar as loan rather than grant. At least to engage the Iraqi economy from now as they did with Egypt or Turkey. Oil? >>>> Was it boycotted during Saddam? every one know that Saddams was the best guarantee to keep the pumps running the Iraqi oil to America.. Want to take over the control of the producing fields? Is that easier with Iraqis getting more involved with their country wealth and interests? Protecting Israel? >>> Is there worse than liberating Arab people from the current Arab static system to the future of Israel expansion and aggressiveness? Haven't Saddam been the jewel in the Israeli aggressiveness crown, by all what he did toward weakening the region? Every one knows very well that all those stupid propaganda about Israeli presence in Iraq is a non-sense. Dividing Iraq? >>>> Why will they do it? To let Iranians and Turks and Suadees having more control in ME ? Is not that breaking the geopolitical balance in the region, that balance that super powers are very sensitive to keep up? To get military bases in ME? >>> Is there more than Americans having bases and permissions in ME? In Egypt/Turkey/Suadee/Qatar/Afghanistan/Israel/ and other center Asia countries. They might be not sure about future of these bases? >>>> Is liberating Iraqis making it more secure? Crusaders attack? >>>Weren't the crusaders leaders "in the sense of missionary" against the liberation, I mean France and Vatican. Then why?. Is it, as some Iraqis might believe in, Alchalabe had tricked them in getting in? Any one with simple background about American politics would laugh at this! This is a questions that I want some answer about.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baghda Posted November 30, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 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 [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 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 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 [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. [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. [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 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. [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 [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 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. [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 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 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 [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 [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:< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andrew Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George B. Posted December 1, 2003 Report Share Posted December 1, 2003 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George B. Posted December 1, 2003 Report Share Posted December 1, 2003 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George B. Posted December 1, 2003 Report Share Posted December 1, 2003 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:" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George B. Posted December 1, 2003 Report Share Posted December 1, 2003 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George B. Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breaker Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 Mr. George B. misrepresents American intentions in Iraq. George B. says Many who are working within the Bush Adminastration believe the future of Iraq is to usher the new American Empire into the Middle East. 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: The rights that Americans claim are not American rights, but natural rights, which belong to every human being on this planet, most emphatically including Muslims and Arabs. As the president himself said in London: "It is not realism to suppose that one-fifth of humanity is unsuited to liberty; it is pessimism and condescension, and we should have none of it." Almost single-handedly, the president (and Prime Minister Blair) are stirring the world to match its deepest convictions with courage. "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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DebInUSA Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 DebInUSA One correction. It should be great news, though, that the Iraqi people are finally being freed after 35 years!!! It is after hunderens of years, may be for the first time in Iraqi history.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George B. Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 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"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steven Den Beste Posted December 25, 2003 Report Share Posted December 25, 2003 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Never Ex Marine Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 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 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.