Jump to content
Baghdadee بغدادي

Why do the Americans liberate Iraqis and occ

Recommended Posts

Guest Mark-Cambridge,MA

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Guest_tajer

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!!


An article in last Friday's Washington Post said the radical group Ansar al-Islam, which has carried out dozens of suicide bombings in Iraq, is recruiting young Muslims across Europe to join the insurgency.


So tell me again. What was this war about?


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


Here is the full article..



Iraq, Then and Now



Published: February 21, 2005



remember going to Washington in mid-March 2003, nearly two years ago, to cover a demonstration by tens of thousands of protesters who were clinging to the last, tissue-thin strands of hope that they could bring the Bush administration to its senses and prevent the invasion of Iraq.





But it was already clear that nothing would deter President Bush from his war. I filed a column that said, "We're about to watch the tragedy unfold."


Even more clearly than the protests that weekend, I remember the ominous stories in the press about the likelihood that a war in Iraq would embolden Islamic terrorist organizations and strengthen their recruitment efforts. The Times ran a front-page article on Sunday March 16, in which a senior counterintelligence official said: "An American invasion of Iraq is already being used as a recruitment tool by Al Qaeda and other groups. And it is a very effective tool."


On the same day The Washington Post reported that "specialists inside and outside the government question whether a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq would deliver a significant blow against international terrorism. Experts warn that war and occupation could also have the opposite effect by emboldening radical Islamic groups and adding to their grievances."


All warnings were given the back of the administration's hand. Mr. Bush launched his invasion and many thousands died. Now fast-forward to last week's testimony of top administration officials before the Senate Intelligence Committee. If the war in Iraq was supposed to stem the terrorist tide, the comments of these officials made it clear that it hasn't worked.


Porter Goss, the C.I.A. director, told the committee, "Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists." He added, "These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focus on acts of urban terrorism."


The war, said Mr. Goss, "has become a cause for extremists." In his view, "It may only be a matter of time before Al Qaeda or another group attempts to use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons."


Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said: "Our policies in the Middle East fuel Islamic resentment. Overwhelming majorities in Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia believe the U.S. has a negative policy toward the Arab world."


An article in last Friday's Washington Post said the radical group Ansar al-Islam, which has carried out dozens of suicide bombings in Iraq, is recruiting young Muslims across Europe to join the insurgency.


So tell me again. What was this war about? In terms of the fight against terror, the war in Iraq has been a big loss. We've energized the enemy. We've wasted the talents of the many men and women who have fought bravely and tenaciously in Iraq. Thousands upon thousands of American men and women have lost arms or legs, or been paralyzed or blinded or horribly burned or killed in this ill-advised war. A wiser administration would have avoided that carnage and marshaled instead a more robust effort against Al Qaeda, which remains a deadly threat to America.


What is also dismaying is the way in which the administration has taken every opportunity since Sept. 11, 2001, to utilize the lofty language of freedom, democracy and the rule of law while secretly pursuing policies that are both unjust and profoundly inhumane. It is the policy of the U.S. to deny due process of law to detainees at the scandalous interrogation camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where prisoners, many of whom have turned out to be innocent, are routinely treated in a cruel and degrading manner.


The U.S. is also engaged in the reprehensible practice known as extraordinary rendition, in which terror suspects are abducted and sent off to be interrogated by foreign regimes that are known to practice torture. And the C.I.A. is operating ultrasecret prisons or detention centers overseas for so-called high-value detainees. What goes on in those places is anybody's guess.


It may be that most Americans would prefer not to know about these practices, which are nothing less than malignant cells that are already spreading in the nation's soul. Denial is often the first response to the most painful realities. But most Americans also know what happens when a cancer is ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Guest Mustefser

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..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

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 .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Guest Guest

A Preview to the book

What We Owe Iraq: War and the Ethics of Nation Building

By Noah Feldman




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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest allan massey
لماذا "حرر" الامريكان العراقيين واستعمروا العراقWhy do the Americans liberate Iraqis and occupy Iraq?



مقال ممتع للكاتب العراقي" باسم المستعار" وعلى شكل سؤال . يتسائل الكاتب عن سبب مايجري في العراق .

للمتابعه اضغط الرابط ادناه


للمتابعه اضغط الرابط ادناه


لماذا حرر الامريكان


nteresting article by the Iraqi writer Basim Almustaar.

The writer is discussing the reasons behind Liberation/Occupation issue of Iraq..

It is bilang, to continue pree the link below


Why do the Americans liberate

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mustefser

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..




Bombings threaten civil war in Iraq




Mercury News Wire Services



BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi insurgents killed scores of people Wednesday as their bloody campaign continued, and several experts said the country is either on the verge of civil war or already in the middle of it.


At least 69 people died in suicide bombings Wednesday, raising to more than 400 the number of people killed since the new Iraqi government was announced April 28.


At the same time, U.S. Marines were winding up a pitched battle against surprisingly well-equipped and determined insurgents on Iraq's western border. Some 76 Iraqis were reported killed and more than 120 wounded in the one day of violence.


Instead of bringing the country together, the new government seems to have further alienated even moderate Sunnis who believe they have only token representation.


With security experts reporting that no major road in the country was safe to travel, some Iraq specialists speculated that the Sunni insurgency was effectively encircling the capital and attempting to cut it off from the north, south and west, where there are entrenched Sunni communities. East of Baghdad is a mostly unpopulated desert bordering on Iran.


``It's just political rhetoric to say we are not in a civil war. We've been in a civil war for a long time,'' Pat Lang, the former top Middle East intelligence official at the Pentagon, told the New York newspaper Newsday.


Other experts said Iraq is on the verge of a full-scale civil war. Incidents in the past two weeks, with apparently retaliatory killings of Sunni and Shia civilians, point in that direction, they say.


Also of concern were news accounts that hard-line Shiite militia members are being deployed to police hard-line Sunni communities such as Ar-Ramadi, east of Baghdad, which specialists on Iraq said was a recipe for disaster.


``I think we are really on the edge'' of all-out civil war, said Noah Feldman, a New York University law professor who worked for the U.S. coalition in Iraq.


He said the insurgency has been ``getting stronger every passing day. When the violence recedes, it is a sign that they are regrouping.''


Judith Kipper of the Council on Foreign Relations concurred.


``Everything we thought we knew about the insurgency obviously is flawed,'' she told Newsday. ``It was quiet for a little while, and here it is back full force all over the country, and that is very dark news.''


Lang said there is new evidence that Saddam Hussein's government carefully prepared in advance for the insurgency, with former Iraqi officers at the core of each group. They are well coordinated and have consistently adjusted their strategy, he said.


Now the 140,000-plus U.S. soldiers in the country are mainly ``a nuisance'' factor in the overall goal of preventing the new government from consolidating. The insurgents' roadside bombs are intended to keep U.S. forces inside their bases, he said.


But a longtime Iraqi government official who has worked on security issues told Knight Ridder on Wednesday that the success of the Jan. 30 elections had weakened the insurgency and that insurgents are now desperately trying to affect the political process.


Judith Yaphe, a former CIA analyst who specializes in Iraq at the National Defense University in Washington, agreed. She told Knight Ridder that the insurgents are not specifically targeting the new government.


``They are out to prevent any government from functioning,'' she said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Guest ’عسفثبسثق

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??"



سامة أنور عكاشة: درجة ذوبان الجبس! 

GMT 3:00:00 2005 الأحد 5 يونيو

الوفد المصرية







في نهاية »حزيران« يونيو الحالي ينتصف العام الخامس بعد الألفين! وفي ظني أن الشهور الستة القادمة ستحمل في طياتها من الأحداث والتغيرات الجذرية في مسار مصر السياسي ما يجعل تاريخ 2005 علامة فارقة في التاريخ المصري كله والمسألة لا تحتاج الي تنبؤات عرافين أو قارئي كف أو ضاربي ودع لكي نؤكد ما نراه جميعا بأعيننا شاخصا علي الساحة في وضوح شمس النهار!



التوقعات بين التفاؤل والتشاؤم

وإذا كانت التوقعات تجمع علي حتمية التغييرات الجذرية خلال الشهور القادمة إلا أنها تختلف في التحليل وتخيل السيناريوهات القابلة للتنفيذ وتتراوح بين النقيضين: التفاؤل والتشاؤم! المتفائلون ـ وأنا منهم ـ يؤمنون بميكانيكية التاريخ وبأن تردي الأحوال في بلد ما وبلوغه أقصي درجات السوء والانهيار لابد أن يتبعه نقيضه.. فيكون الرد عليه هو الحركة في اتجاه عكسي نحو تحسن الأحوال وتسارع عملية الإصلاح وإعادة الحياة الي ما أصابه الموات في جسد الأمة.. أما المتشائمون فهم من تعودوا مناخ الجمود والرتابة والتكلس وسكنوا فيه الي أحاسيس الزمان الزائف.. التي توهمهم بأن الحركة فوضي والسعي الي التجدد ليس إلا قفزا الي المجهول.. وأن بقاء كل شئ في مكانه بحجة »الاستقرار« هو الأسلوب الوحيد الذي يضمن السلامة والبعد عن »الخضايض«.. وغني عن الذكر أن فريق المتشائمين هو فريق »الحكام« وبطانة السلطة وكل الهاجعين في أحضانها وفي كتلة الناس الذين تناولوا سم »الخنوع« و»الاستسلام علي جرعات ولقنوا في نوع من غسل الأدمغة Brain wash مقولات »اللي نعرفه أحسن من اللي مانعرفوش«، و»آهي ماشية«، و»اللي يتجوز أمي أقول له يا عمي«، و»اذا فت علي بلد بتعبد التور حش وارمي له«، »طاطي للحكام تخلي من الملام«، .... الي آخر كل المأثورات المريضة التي أفلحت عقود التيبس والتخشب في ترسيبها داخل عقول ملايين البسطاء من أبناء هذا الشعب!



علي أنه بعيدا عن التفاؤل والتشاؤم يتأكد كل يوم لدي جميع المصريين أن هناك ما يحدث.. هناك ما يتفاعل علي السطح ويعبر عن نفسه فيما يتوالي كل يوم من أحداث.. وأن الصخب الذي يترامي الي أسماع في الشارع والصحافة والفضائيات ليس لغطا عاديا ما ينجم عن ظواهر مؤقتة.. بل هو »هسيس« غليان الماء في مرجل ضخم بحجم الوطن كله! ويري المصريون بوضوح أن تصاعد الالتحامات والتناقضات والاستقطاب الحاد الذي يعبر بشكل غير مسبوق عن الانفصال بين الشارع والنظام هي مجرد بدايات وإرهاصات لأمر جلل يوشك أن يتحقق علي أرض مصر.. وأن مظاهرات الاخوان المسلمين وحركة كفاية وما حدث يوم الاستفتاء أمام نقابتي الصحفيين والمحامين وحول ضريح سعد وما أظهرته أجهزة الأمن من عصبية أفقدتها الرشد ودفعتها لانتهاج أسلوب قمعي نازي تجاوز كل الحدود والحرمات بمشاركة ومباركة ثابتة ومشهودة للحزب المتورم المتخم بأعداد غفيرة تعودت دخول كل تشكيل يرأسه الحاكم بحكم خشية السلطة والطمع في قضاء الحاجات وكان علي رأس فرق »البلطجة« التي شكلها مغتصبو حرية الوطن كوادر من »دكاترة« تربوا علي الغوغائية وتسابقوا في تقديم الولاء المشفوع بأشلاء كرامة وأعراض مواطنيهم قربانا علي مذبح السادة المتكنفين بأجهزة السلطة تكييفا مركزيا شاملا.. كل هذا وما سبقه وما سيلحقه »وسنري العجب العجاب في سبتمبر ونوفمبر القادمين اذا كان لنا عمر« دليل علي أمر أساسي خبرناه جميعا في تاريخنا وتاريخ الأمم الأخري فيما قرأناه وتعلمناه..وهو أن النظم التي تنتابها العصبية وتلجأ الي العنف وتحيل التعامل مع الجماهير الي أجهزة الأمن السياسي البوليسية الهيملرية »نسبة الي خالد الذكر الهر هايزيش هيملر رئيس الجستابو في ألمانيا النازية«.. تلك هي نظم تحس باهتزاز الأرض تحت الكراسي فتندفع لتأكل في آخر زادها مطبقة المثل الشهير »كتر م الفضايح.. ما دمت رايح«!



حرارة الصيف وخريف البطريرك!

فلا شك إذن في أننا قد بدأنا صيفا ساخنا بحق ! والصيف الحار في مصر يتوافق دائما مع سخونة الأحداث الكبري.. وكأنه كما يذيب اعصاب البشر يذيب كل التكلسات المتصلبة في مفاصل البلد.. وها نحن بعد مضي كل هذه السنوات التي قاربت نصف قرن أو تعدته نري وطننا أشبه بمن تعرض لحادث جسيم خرج منه وقد وضعت أطرافه كلها في »الجبس« فقبع في مهجعه لا يقوي علي الحركة ولا يخطو من مكانه.. شعب كامل زاد تعداده من ثمانية عشر مليونا فجر الثالث والعشرين من تموز يوليو 1952 الي سبعين مليونا أو يزيد ينطرحون أرضا رازحين تحت ثقل نظام أشبه بقميص الجبس.. فضمرت اعضاء الحركة حتي كادت تذبل وتسقط.. واستعرض جسم »الوطن سكانيا« وزادت وتفاقمت أوصابه وأمراضه حيت ظل قعيدا تقلص قواه شيئا فشيئا ليصبح كيانا ساكنا بلا نأمة حياة تدب في أوصاله!



هل أقول أننا يئسنا وفقدنا الأمل واستسلمنا لتقدر غشوم خيمت ظلمته علينا كاللعنة؟ هل أقول اننا تمهاينا مع »النظام« حتي ظن سدنته وبطانته أننا حقا نذوب عشقا في العبودية وندين بالحياة لمستعبدينا؟ هل استمرأنا دعاوي الملأ حتي اعتنقناها وبتنا لا نرضي عن »فراعنتنا« المحدثين بديلا؟ وهل صدقنا في نهاية المطاف أننا حقا ـ ودون سائر شعوب الأرض ـ لسنا جديرين بالديمقراطية لأننا لم ننضج لها ولم نستعد بعد لفهمها وممارستها؟

.. ربما.. ولكن... يفعل الزمن فعله وينفذ التطور مشيئته وأحكامه! ويتحرك الجسد الخامل.. ويتململ.. ويدير رأسه ليتأمل العالم حوله ثم يعيد النظر الي حاله.. ويأنف أن يظل رهين محبسه.. ويقرر أن ينفض عنه ضلالات العالم السفلي الذي أودعه فيه جلادوه وسالبو حريته.. واستجمع كل ما لديه من قوي ليبدأ في التخلص من قميص »الجبس« يأتي صيفنا الحار في العام الخامس بعد الألفين ليري مصر غير التي توالت عليها أصياف خمسين عاما سالفة.. مصر تتحرك.. تتأهب من رقادها.. تسعي لاستردادها حريتها.. مصر »تفك الجبس« وتذيب بحرارة غضبها وليس بحر صيفها ما ترسب من دهون وجلطات في شرايينها.. وسيأتي الخريف القادم ويشهد مقومات انتهاء النظام البطركي Patriatric الذي يسبغ فيه الحاكم سيطرته »الأبوية« التي لا تقبل التحدي ولا النقاش علي شعبه »خريف البطريرك اسم رواية للكولومبي العبقري غابرييل غارسيا ماركيز.. هل نري العلاقة؟«.

وفي نهايات الخريف سيقطع المصريون الشك باليقين بعد أن يراقبوا هم - ، وقبل مراقبي الأمم المتحدة أو الاتحاد الأوروبي في لجنة كارتر أو ايما ما كان شكل الرقابة الدولية - ماذا تفعل السلطة الديكتاتورية لحزب النظام الحاكم بالفرصة السانحة للتحول السلمي الي الديمقراطية؟ وهل ستنتهزها حقاً لتنقذ نفسها وتبيض صفحتها الأخيرة وتحظي من المصريين بصك الغفران.. أم ستضيعها وتظل سادرة في غيها.. وتحشد ميليشيات البلطجية بشعارها المبتكر »الإصبع الوسطي المقوسة« ثم تصدر بياناتها المنقوعة في »مباول الكذب والعهر السياسي؟



* »مفيش فايدة« !!.. يقولها صديقي الذي يفوقني في الحكمة وبعد النظر ويضيف »أنهم« يدافعون بالرمق الأخير! و»حلاوة الروح« تجعلهم أكثر عصبية وتفقدهم ما بقي لديهم من آدمية.. لذا فسنشهد منهم أضعاف ما شهدنا يوم استفتاء الأربعاء الكئيب.. ولن يكتفي »دكاترتهم« بهتك الأعراض وضرب البونيات وتمزيق الثياب.. بل ربما بلغت رفساتهم ونطحاتهم مسايل الدماء!



الأعذار الأقبح وذنوب لا تغفر

بأي منطق وطبقاً لأي مشورة خرج علينا الدكتور المتحدث باسم رئاسة الجمهورية معلنا الرأي »الرسمي«. الذي نفترض بالطبع انه رأسي الرئيس فيما جري من اعتداءات همجية علي المواطنين في يوم الاستفتاء .. وهو رأي يعلق علي الأحداث بنغمة تهوين واستخفاف مؤسفة حقاً فحواها انها »حوادث فردية« تم تناولها بنوع من المبالغة.. وذلك بدلاً من ان يدلي سيادته ببيان صارم شديد اللهجة يعبر عن أسف الرئيس الحقيقي لما جري ويعد بالضرب علي أيدي مرتكبي هذه الأحداث وأيدي محرضيهم! أما التصريح أو البيان بالصيغة التي خرج بها فيدل دلالة واضحة وقاطعة بأن الرئيس لا يتلقي مشورة مخلصة صادقة.. فالرأي السائد في »الأوساط« المقربة في الحكومة وحزب السلطة أن ما حدث »ربما« كان خطأ تسبب فيه »حماس« بعض كوادر الحزب.. ولكنه ليس نهاية العالم و»إيه يعني لو أربعة أو حتي عشرة انضربوا ولا اتقطعت هدومهم أو هتك عرض النساء منهم؟.. هناك آلاف لم يحدث لهم هذا..«.

بالضبط هذا هو المنطق الذي صدر عنه البيان.. ولا يمكننا ان نرد عليه إلي ان نهتف »ياللعار!« .. أي نظام هذا الذي لا يدرك ان سحق كرامة مواطن واحد هو سحق لكرامة الوطن كله؟.. فأي مصري في حد ذاته.. وأي مصرية في حد ذاتها تلخيص للوطن.. ومصغر رمزي له!

أليس مزرياً ومخجلاً حقاً أن يكون الرئيس الأمريكي جورج بوش هو من يغضب لما حدث وهو الذي يطلب التحقيق ومعاقبة الجناة ويحذر من تكرار المهزلة في الانتخابات القادمة سواء كانت انتخابات الرئاسة أو انتخابات البرلمان؟! ألا نشعر بفداحة ان »يعنف« بوش »النظام المصري« منبها الي تصريحه القديم بان مصر جديرة بان تقود التحول الديمقراطي في المنطقة وان ما حدث يتناقض مع هذا تماما؟

الي اي مصير يدفعنا الحزب الوطني الديمقراطي بعقلية العناد الأحمق التي تقوده وتقودنا الي الهاوية؟ أيدفعنا لكي يكون ملاذنا الأخير هو سيد البيت الأبيض نطالبه بأن تمد بلاده يد المعونة للشعب المصري لكي يحصل علي حقوقه السياسية كاملة غير منقوصة ويتخلص من »الاحتلال الداخلي« الجاثم علي أنفاسه؟ أهذا ما يريده المتشدقون في الحزب بان يكون الاصلاح من الداخل؟ أليس الداخل الذي يقصدونه هو »داخل الحزب ودائرة السلطة فقط«؟ وأن الاصلاح الذي يتحدثون عنه ليس أكثر من تغيير اللافتات وصك الشعارات الجديدة؟



* قال صديقي الحكيم: هدئ اللعب! وخفف الوطء وحاول ان تنظر الي رأس الذئب الطائر! سألته عما يعني فأجابني: المناخ خطر والوقت حرج وملتبس.. وتلفيق القضايا.. وتسجيل المكالمات .. وفرق التأديب.. كلها »آليات« السلطة البوليسية في التعامل خاصة إذا حوصرت وضيق عليها الخناق .. وتذكر جمال بدوي .. وعبدالحليم قنديل.. و...

وقاطعته: لا أعتقد انهم يرغبون الآن بالذات في إضافة مآثر جديدة تضاف إلي سجلاتهم ومع ذلك .. فالمثل يقول: أذا خفت ما تقولش.. وإذا قلت ما تخافش.. وخليها علي الله!



اللي يشتري يتفرج

منذ سنوات خلال عقد التسعينيات من القرن الماضي حدثت موجة من هجوم فرق المسرح الهزلي وأصحاب »كومبينات« التجارة المسرحية علي سوريا ولبنان.. وكان أبطال هذه الموجة مجموعة من الممثلين »الكوميديانات« أرباب ما تسمي بمسرحيات الصيف التي لم تكن تقدم إلا أردأ وأسوأ وأرخص أنواع فن الزغزغة الفجة والكوميديا المرتجلة الغليظة.. ونجوم هذه العروض معروفون.. وقد توالت هجماتهم حتي صار المسرح المصري »فضيحة« متكررة في القطر الشقيق وسلقتنا كتابات النقاد هناك بألسنة حداد حتي اضطرت وزيرة الثقافة السورية وقتها د. نجاح العطار الي اصدار قرار بمنع أي عروض مصرية من هذا النوع في سوريا! هذه الموجة عادت للظهور من جديد .. هذه المرة ترمي نفسها علي شواطئ الخليج! فقد نشط السماسرة ومتعهدو »الترحيلات« الفنية في تنظيم رحلات »فنية« تتكون لكل منها »كومبينة« من الممثلين يقودها مخرج خبير بمسرح »الهلس« الي مدن السعودية أو دول خليجية أخري.. حيث تقام في الصيف هناك مهرجانات عديدة للتسوق في الأسواق التجارية.. وكنوع من تنشيط الحركة في السوق يقدم لرواد السنتر عرض تمثيلي يشاهد فيه ممثلين مصريين بينما يتسوق ويلعب .. أي أنه يشتري ويتسوق.. وبالمرة يتفرج علي »الأراجوزات« ممن ينتسبون الي الفن المصري يقدمون له أي تمثيل.. ليضحك ويهرش ويتجشأ.. وينام إذا أراد.. هكذا وصلت تجارة الفن إلي حضيض المسخرة والنخاسة الفنية.. ومنذ ثلاث سنوات أو أكثر تتابع رحلات السادة الممثلين والمخرجين .. يرسلهم مقاول »الترحيلة« ليسلوا »المتسوقين« و»المتسكعين« مقابل ريالات أو دراهم يعودون بها مقابل كرامتهم وكرامة الفن في بلادهم!



ماذا أقول؟

أنا لا تحضرني الآن إلا كلمة واحدة.. إخص!!

إخص مهداه مع التحية إلي نقابة المهن التمثيلية »وبعض من أعضاء مجلس إدارتها علي رأس الرحلات المكوكية عبر البحر الأحمر!«.

ونفس »الإخص« نهديها إلي الصحف التي تتابع أخبارهم وتسمي سفرياتهم »رحلات عمرة«! .. وهي »العمرة« التي أصبحت »موضة« الفنانات والفنانين.. وأسرارها لا تخفي علي أريب! لكن الله أمر بالستر.. ومنكم لله.. ولضميركم. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poll finds dimmer view of Iraq war

52 percent say United States is no safer than before conflictBy Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane


Updated: 7:29 a.m. ET June 8, 2005WASHINGTON - For the first time since the war in Iraq began, more than half of the American public believes the fight there has not made the United States safer, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.




While the focus in Washington has shifted from the Iraq conflict to Social Security and other domestic matters, the survey found that Americans continue to rank Iraq second only to the economy in importance -- and that many are losing patience with the enterprise.


Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.



• More politics news


Perhaps most ominous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it has. It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home. In late 2003, 62 percent thought the Iraq war aided U.S. security, and three months ago 52 percent thought so.


Overall, more than half -- 52 percent -- disapprove of how Bush is handling his job, the highest of his presidency. A somewhat larger majority -- 56 percent -- disapproved of Republicans in Congress, and an identical proportion disapproved of Democrats.


There were signs, however, that Bush and Republicans in Congress were receiving more of the blame for the recent standoffs over such issues as Bush's judicial nominees and Social Security. Six in 10 respondents said Bush and GOP leaders are not making good progress on the nation's problems; of those, 67 percent blamed the president and Republicans while 13 percent blamed congressional Democrats. For the first time, a majority, 55 percent, also said Bush has done more to divide the country than to unite it.


Rising gloom

The surge in violence in Iraq since the new government took control -- 80 U.S. troops and more than 700 Iraqis died in May alone amid a rash of bombings -- has been accompanied by rising gloom about the overall fight against terrorists. By 50 percent to 49 percent, Americans approved of the way Bush is handling the campaign against terrorism, down from 56 percent approval in April, equaling the lowest rating he has earned on the issue that has consistently been his core strength with the public.


The dissipating support for the Iraq war is of potential military concern, because, as Marine Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis wrote in a note to his troops as he led them back into Iraq in February 2004, "our friendly strategic center of gravity is the will of the American people."


Some authorities on war and public opinion said the figures indicate that pessimism about the war in Iraq has reached a dangerous level. "It appears that Americans are coming to the realization that the war in Iraq is not being won and may well prove unwinnable," said retired Army Col. Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor at Boston University. "That conclusion bleeds over into a conviction that it may not have been necessary in the first place."


That is the view of poll respondent Margaret Boudreaux, 63, a casino worker living in Oakdale, La. "I don't think it's going well -- there's too much killing," she said, worrying that the Iraq invasion could move more enemies to violence. "I think that some of the people, if they could, would get revenge for what we've done."


‘A lot of talking’

"You hear a lot about Saddam but nothing about Osama bin Laden. I don't think he [bush] does enough to deal with the problems of terrorism. . . . He's done a lot of talking, but we haven't seen real changes," said another poll respondent, Kathy Goyette, 54, a San Diego nurse. "People are getting through airport security with things that are unbelievable. . . . I don't think he learned from 9/11."


While Bush has shelved his routine speeches about terrorism, and Congress has turned to domestic issues, fear of terrorism has receded from the public consciousness. Only 12 percent called it the nation's top priority, behind the economy, Iraq, health care and Social Security.


The drop in Bush's approval ratings on fighting terrorism came disproportionately from political independents. In March, 63 percent of independents approved of Bush's job combating terrorism. By April this had fallen to 54 percent. And in this weekend's survey, 40 percent gave him good marks

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Create New...