Iraqi Letters

Abu ,
In a very mechanical sense I agree with you about the value of Negative feedback . In human relations I prefer to think that " constructive criticism " is what works best to affect positive change .
The reason why I read these blogs , is to get some positive news out of Iraq , God knows we get enough negative news from the Media , everyday .
You wrote :"Elections are of course the final tool, where the people can change the driver(s)… non-violently."
I agree ! I think the only way the elections will fail is if the Iraqi people are scared away from the polls by those who do not want to see a free Iraq . I have no illusion that the elections will cure all of the problems in Iraq , but they will send a message , a positive message , that there are those in Iraq who want a chance to change their country peacefully .
Remember Abu , you also need Positive feedback .
 
_____________________________________________________________________

From here it looks like Sistani has committed to not make a play until after the elections.

After the elections, Sistani will decide whether he will tell the Shia to join the Sunni rebellion or try to quash the rebellion, in part by getting the Americans out.

I don't think the security situation will get better over the next six months if there are no elections. The US will not be growing while the insurgency may well be better organized and more effective six months from now.

When the constitutional council asks for a withdrawal timetable and the US essentially refuses, that's when things get very interesting.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

More and more individuals are coming out trying to convince the administration that the process will fail.Are these individuals from across the board or are they from one segment of the population? If so, do they have a vested interest in having the process fail? Have they put forth an alternative process, a timetable, a course of action? Are these individuals willing to concede the violence may not abate even if elections are delayed?

Aren't there any proposals that could bridge the differences? Can absentee ballots be prepared for communities? Can a compromise be reached whereby a number of seats representing these communities be set aside for an election to take place on a future date?

Is there any truth to these quotes from Juan Cole?

"Sunni Arab parties' reluctance to participate may come from foreboding of Shiite victory, something to which many Sunni Arabs have not reconciled themselves."

"The tendency to blame everything on Zarqawi and a handful of foreigners is a propaganda move that suits both the Baath mukhabarat and the Bush administration." [Only 6% of those captured in Fallujah were foreign fighers.]

"the Baathists along with some Salafi (Sunni fundamentalist) allies are behind the guerrilla war,.. They want to drive the Americans out of Iraq and make a third Baath coup, putting the Shiite genie back in its bottle and restoring Sunni Arab primacy."
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Oxblog elaborates on the request for postponement. He links to an informative editorial by Larry Diamond in the New York Times.

Mr. Diamond favors postponment. He does write "In crises, democracy is not forged through a sudden moral conversion of warring parties to principles of freedom and the rule of law. Rather, bitter antagonists come to see a democratic accommodation as their second-best option - worse than the domination they would prefer, but better than the mutual destruction that they risk through continued strife."
 
_____________________________________________________________________

And when Paul Bremer leaves, that is not America listening to negative feedback?

I'm not sure what you are selling, but so far..no sale. Just because the leadership does not do exactly what you or your small group would like them to do does not mean your concerns are not being taken into account.

And as we had over here in America, the Left claimed that their message was not getting out, and that people were not listening. Problem was, we were listening...we just disagreed.

The Sunni need to get on board, or they could find themselves not only facing a Shia dominated gov't, but one that is disgusted with them, and one they have no influence in.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

This elections were forced on the US by Sistani as a nonviolent mean to bring the US out.

If the US had any say elections would take place in 2007 or 2008 or 2017 or 2018 (see Bremer in 2003), depending on when they had transformed the iraqi society to their own image, so that they could stay forever.

So what could the US do to foil Sistani? It's simple. Take aggressive actions to alienate great parts of the population (Falluja, next step Mossul) to make the coming government as weak as possible, and so dependant on US Force.

The crucial point here is: is the new shia-led government able to negotiate a timetable for a complete US withdrawl or not. If it is not, the government and the shia clergy will quickly loose any popular support.

On the other hand, as much as i can see, has the baath party a great hand in the strategy of the resistance. Their aim is, alongside the defeat of the US, the elimination of the shia clergy as an indepentant power base. Either in getting them depending upon the US and therefore loosing their whole credebilily or in forcing them to negotiate with the resistance and thus showing their limitations.

So, interestingly, in the question of this election the US and the resistance have common interests.

A postponing of the election would make no difference, unless Bush is is ready to negotiate with the resistance.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

I'm not sure about the above, maybe Abu can answer this:

Are the actions in Fallujah reflecting on the Shiites in any way?

Is there more popular resentment of the Shiites than there was before among Sunnis?

I really can't imagine that there is so I'd be surprised to learn differently.

If Americans believed in playing by the rules, they would leave when Sistani asks. But there are so many things that would have happened if the Americans believed in playing by the rules - Sanctions would have ended in the 1990s, there would have been no invasion and a lot of things in other countries.

The Americans are not going to play by the rules and Sistani will have his proof when he asks the Americans to leave and they don't.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage?pid=2132

Only if Sistani plays that situation very poorly will the Americans demonstrating that they were lying all along result in more hatred of him, even though Sistani will look mighty stupid for giving the Americans as much leeway as he did.

More likely he will do the sensible thing and at least start mass demonstrations and make Iraq a place the US forces cannot stay in cheaply.

Then we'll see exactly how much money and lives George Bush is willing to pay to eventually install a puppet regime in Iraq.

When Sistani asks the Americans to leave and the Americans don't - which is pretty much what will happen if Sistani's party wins - foreign nations at that point have every right to support the Iraqis. Not behind the scenes with deniability like today, but openly and using the more efficient official government apparatuses in unlimited amounts.

Obviously false election results, where Allawi ekes out a slim victory and asks the Americans to stay may be better for the Americans, and the Americans can make that happen. But Sistani and the Shiites would not be part of that government. That scenario avoids America technically legally being in the wrong and thereby avoids unlimited arms for the rebels. I think that is the most likely outcome, because that is what is best for the Americans and the Americans are the occupiers here.

Sunnis being prevented from voting given that the Shiites will likely vote as a bloc makes the false elections results marginally harder to accomplish, so the resistance is doing the right thing to some degree. I'm not 100% sure it is the best strategy but it's something. It's better than just watching the Americans install their own pro-American Saddam Hussein.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Dear Mr. Abu Khaleel:

I realy think this is the sole feedback that Americans is capable to understand.

Al-Fallujah.

Al-Fallujah resident, outraged at loss of his home, shoots two US soldiers to death before American troops gun him down.

Two US soldiers were killed in al-Fallujah at 9:15am Tuesday morning by an outraged Iraqi citizen who had returned to the city and found that his home had been totally demolished.

A neighbor of Mr. Ahmad Hudayb, who was gunned down by US occupation troops after shooting two of them, said “Shaykh Ahmad Hudayb, may God rest his soul, returned to his house in the ad-Dubbat neighborhood in the east of al-Fallujah and found it totally destroyed. He started to cry, and to think of his house as a sacrifice for which God might reward him, and he called American soldiers over to talk to them about what happened to his house and why it was demolished.”

The neighbor went on, “Two of the soldiers were sitting in a house next door to Shaykh Hudayb’s but they arrogantly ignored him and didn’t even glance at him. He appealed to them again and again, wanting to ask them about how he might get compensation, how much it might be, and when he might get it. But one of the soldiers only screamed in his face and told him to get out into the street.”

“Then suddenly,” the neighbor continued, “we saw Shaykh Ahmad running at the soldiers and we thought he was going to have words with them after they had refused to come up to him and talk. But as soon as he got near them, he saw one of the soldier’s guns lying on the ground about five meters away from them. He snatched it up and fired off 30 rounds into the heads of the two Americans, killing them instantly. Then a bunch of soldiers who had been standing in a nearby street came running in and shot him to death.”

Is sad, but true. Since the genocide of the Amerindians, it is impossible to watever country to make a truce with the Americans, because their Government are betrayal by the very nature of their Capitalism.

It were be possible to make a truce with Hitler and the most "zombi"-Germam" people? It is be possible to made a truce with Bush and the most "zombi"-American people?

Sistany thought he make some truce, with the elections. He thougt it was possible to expel the occupiers by elections under the very boots of the occupiers. The Shia will win and ask the occupiers to leave the country. But the Americans attack Fallujah in order to promote caos, civil war, and be sure they will stay to "pacify the country", what means stole the oil, protect Israel and establish a base to attack Iran.

What feedback this situation needs? Mr. Ahmad Hudayb told his feedback. The Americans, of course, smiled and told him he was a fool. Then, Mr. Ahmad Hudayb told his feedback again, commiting suicide against Americans troops, killing two and being killed by the others.

And, after reading this, the "zombi"-Americans will say: Alvaro Frota is a terrorist! OHW!

Of course, I know it is an over-generalization. There are many Americans, the "non-zombi" ones, the human beings, those who don't see the world as a TV Cartoon of Mr. America. These Americans will understand my words.

Bests regards to all.

Alvaro Frota
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Just to make sure everyone understands why the US will not tolerate a democratic Iraq, let's imagine what a democratic Iraq would look like from America's point of view:

A democratic Iraq would have an embassy in Beirut. At some point a representative from Hezbollah will walk into that embassy and ask if the Iraqis can give them any support.

Statistically speaking, the Iraqi that Hezbollah's representative speaks to will have personally lost an immediate family member to the sanctions, that the Americans claimed were aimed at forcing Iraq to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction. The fact that the Americans hate Hezbollah will certainly *NOT* make the Iraqi less likely to give them the support Hezbollah asks for.

A democratic Iraq would have an embassy in Saudi Arabia. At some point someone is going to walk into that embassy with a plan to overthrow the monarchy. That person will ask will Iraq immediately recognize our new government.

Statistically speaking, the Iraqi in the embassy will know someone who was killed by American bombing, from planes that took off from Saudi Arabia with the permission of the monarchy. The Iraqi will know that basing US soldiers who killed the Iraqi's family or friend was not popular with the Saudi people but was imposed by the monarchy with the support of the CIA. That Iraqi has a very good chance of asking is there anything else Iraq can do to help.

All contracts put in place by the occupation government will be voidable by the legitimate Iraqi government. The Iraqi people will decide who should profit from those contracts, the Americans or the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese. If any of the people making that decision have ties to Fallujah, we know how that decision will turn out.

An anti-American democratic Iraq, aligning itself with the anti-American camp of Iran and Syria against the undemocratic pro-American camp of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Emirates, Jordan, Egypt and Israel is in no way better for America than Iraq under Saddam Hussein, but that is likely to be what happens.

It seems some people have this mystical belief that Americans support democracy regardless of the outcome. That is a pathetically silly belief.

The Americans _cannot_ leave Iraq. So if a democratic Iraq would ask the Americans to leave, the Americans either have to be able to ignore the request or Iraq cannot be a democracy.

So what happens if the US does not fix the elections?

Sistani asks for the timetable, the US replies that it may be able to draw down the last troops by 2009.

Sistani says that's not acceptable, and asks for a plan removing all but 30,000 troops by the next election.

The US says that's impossible.

Sistani says the troops are here illegally and asks if Iraq has any friends who can help us remove them. Iran and Syria may become very friendly at this point. China and Europe, while not as friendly will not be the enemies of the Iraqi people.

Elections that can be won by Sistani's party are a complete nightmare scenario for the Americans, no matter what happens after.

If America is not able to fabricate the election results, we will definitely see the postponement some are asking for.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Will Sistani, the man who so far seems to have completely negotiated the Americans into a corner be able to negotiate an arrangment that most Sunnis can live with?

I would bet yes.

Is Sistani really secretly a collaborator who has been bought off by the Americans?

I really don't know. We'll all know for sure when we see how he reacts to the American offer to maybe remove the troops by 2009.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

"In simple terms, if your car moves too far to the right, you steer it slightly to the left. Right? Your eyes give you feedback and your brain decides how much correction is needed!"
Aha! Analogy time!
The Bushmobile is hurtling down the Ey Rack highway, going to wherever it’s going. (There’s still disagreement about that: Mrs Great American Public, in the passenger seat, thinks they’re heading for Freedom and Democracyville, where there’s a MacDonalds on every corner. But some say that spooky little Mr Neocon, navigating from the back seat, is really aiming for Hegemony City, by way of Submissive Client State.)
Anyway, ole George is driving, singin’ folk songs at the wheel.
("Freedom’s jus another word for nuthin’ left to lose,
"Nuthin’ ain’t worth nuthin’ but it’s free ...")
Thing is, he’s driving really erratically, scaring the pants off his passengers and other motorists. The reason is obvious: he thinks he’s a great driver, so his feedback mechanism doesn’t let through the negative inputs (corner ahead, drifting off the road) until it’s almost too late. And then he over-corrects (Iran next) or blames his tyres (a few bad apples.)
Plus, he needs to stop soon for a tankful of Unleaded lo-octane Elections. But the gas station on this highway only stocks Leaded Insurgency Super, which will ruin his valves.
Uncle Powell and Auntie Garner done tole him ‘fore he started, git some Elections in yer tank, soon as. But George knew better.
This car’s gunna crash, nuthin’ surer.
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

I think most of the people screaming from the back seat wanted the car left in Tyranny Town.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

To Charles:

What if fanatics take power through populist support and proceed to dismantle the foundations of democracy, rule of majority, rights of minority, etc.? Well then my friends, it's no longer a democracy.

You are meaning USA, aren't you?

It seems to me that a reasonable person could draw the conclusion that since his 'reliable sources' are deliberately lying through their teeth in order to manipulate their respective readers' opinions, that the conclusions one would draw from those sources are hogwash. But hey - that's just me.

As you are an American that see the world as a TV Cartoom of Mr. America, you are incapable to learn nothing about your own History in Vietnam. Whem the Communists defeated the American Military, the official causality amount is about 6.000. But it turned to be 56.000...

You buy all the lies your corporate media tells you as "facts". The real facts, to you, is only "conspiracy theories"...

Because too people of USA is like you, the only solution to the Iraqis is to kill as much American troops as they can, in order to defeat the occupiers.

And, as Iraqi Resistance is capable to do this, they are capable to form a Government that will bring security to the country.

Iraqi Resistance has nothing to do with the gangs of criminals. For example, The "Star From Mossul" girl reported that the criminals that abduced a relative of her speaking in Kurdish... Most of these criminals are being paid for CIA in order to establish a "psychological warfare".

With Iraqi Resistance Government, these criminals will go to jail. And American Troops will go HOME.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

I think most of the people screaming from the back seat wanted the car left in Tyranny Town.

You are meaning USA, aren't you?
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Is the goal of the US to establish a prosperous democracy in Iraq that will serve as example to region? I believe so. Doesn't it make sense?

All this talk of puppet regimes and imperfect democracy seems deliberately misguided. As I stated in previous posts, establishing the process of democracy is more important than the superficial and transient agents currently participating. If the process can be established, then Iraq will be on the road to democracy.Hmmm. The road to democracy.

It seem as if what you're saying is that Iraq should remain lead by a US-installed leadership whose priorities and decisions are not consistent with the views of the population (but you don't like the term puppet).

And after some undefined amount of time living under this US-installed undemocratic leadership, Iraq will become more democratic.

In that case, Saddam Hussein was already leading Iraq down the road to democracy. Mubarak, Musharaf, Hussein of Jordan, the Saud family, Stalin, Hilter all leading their nations down the road to democracy.

Some of us disagree with that conception of democracy. If a government does not reflect the population today, the government is not a democracy today. Promises to be a democracy at some undefined point in the future are worthless.

You may actually believe you want Iraq to be a democracy some day far in the future, but just as likely, you are lying.

You have a vision of what the Middle East should look like that is at odds with what the people of the region want. There is no way to reconcile imposing your foreign vision with democracy.

You're lying either on purpose or by accident.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

OK Charles, let's go back over this slowly.

You listed all the reasons, the US just had to invade Iraq - threatening other states, trying to get weapons of mass destruction, supporting terrorists in Palestine.

Problem is that a democracy could well do all these things. These aren't things that were necessarily unpopular with the people being ruled. Several of these things are things the people of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would be doing right now if they were not ruled by unpopular US-supported dictators.

If the US cannot tolerate these things, then it is simple, the US cannot tolerate democracy for Iraq. Or Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Emirates for that matter.

That is why claims to support democracy coming from supporters of invading Iraq ring hollow.

That is why opponents of the invasion believe the US intends to install puppet leadership on Iraq. Because the things you think are worth invading for are things only a US puppet government would reliably refrain from.

I thought you were arguing that complaining about puppet leaders was deliberately misguided as long as Iraq was on the road to democracy.

Any nation can claim to be on the road to democracy, with a temporary dictatorship. If that is acceptable for Iraq, dictatorship was no reason to remove Saddam Hussein.

If you want a government that will not do all of the evil things you accuse Hussein of doing, you do not want a democracy. If you don't want a democracy but you claim you are arguing for democracy, you are lying.

Your only credit is that you've probably successfully lied to yourself first, and can now lie to us with a clean conscience.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

This is not a fight between people who want democracy and people who do not want democracy.

This is a fight between people who want Iraq to be able to do things the population supports - such as build a military that certain Israeli US allies consider threatening, support the people you consider terrorists but they consider freedom fighters against the people you consider reasonable but who they consider terrorists, threaten the other corrupt, unpopular US-supported dictators in the region, use what control of oil they have to advance their own geopolitical agendas instead of the US' - and people who want Iraq to be unable to do those things.

You, Charles, for all your propaganda about democracy that you may or may not believe yourself, are fighting for an Iraq that cannot challenge the US, the US' Israeli allies, and the other stooge states maintained by the US.

What you are fighting for is completely inconsistent with democracy.

The invasion was not to create a democracy. The invasion was to create an Iraq that will not challenge the US or the US' Israeli allies.

If the Iraqi people succeed in creating a democracy, which I truly hope happens, it will be despite every effort by the US. And that democracy will be strategically worse for the United States and its Israeli allies than Saddam Hussein was.

And believers and purveyors of US propaganda, such as yourself, will demonize that government and at some point you probably call for more sanctions or another invasion of Iraq.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Bruno,

This is anonymous 1209, 929, 1027, 1037, 431, 1025 and 1125.

I'll come up with a name at some point.

Anyway we agree that Sistani is the wildcard. He's smart enough that he seems to have outplayed George W. Bush.

Maybe he's a genius, maybe he's just less of an idiot than George W. Bush.

I'm really nervous and worried about him. I will be very disappointed if it turns out he is a collaborator. But the day that everything becomes clear is coming soon and Sistani has never taken any action to delay that day, which he could have. I'm nervous but I have to say that right now I'm optimistic.

Charles agrees that Iraq just complying with the inspections and having the sanctions lifted with Hussein still in power would not have been an acceptable outcome for him. Bush feels the same way. Clinton felt the same way.

Given that it is unanimous that the Americans wanted more than Saddam was legally required to give, I think it is letting the Americans off too easy to claim Iraq was lying to trick Iran. I think the sanctions story can be explained by assuming that the party that was lying is the party that everyone agrees had the most incentive to lie. The US.

The simple truth, it seems to me, is that Saddam did not have to leave power according to the rules, so if the game was played according to the rules, Saddam would have won.

So the US cheated. Made the inspections as difficult to cooperate with as possible, even to the point of inviting Mossad agents onto the team, then kept making up new requirements.

I have not seen good evidence that Saddam was trying to fool the Iranians and I don't think it adds to the story. The Iraqi ambassador told the UN that the hand cannot give what the hand does not have. He was telling the truth. He had no reason to lie.

Anyway, this invasion with luck just might result in the disaster scenario for the US. A democratic unified stable Iraq. I'm hopeful. Sistani has good cards because he can may more than triple the resistance in a short time after the elections. It would be real hard for Bush to stay under those circumstances.

I marvel at people like Charles who don't realize when they call for a democracy to serve as an example for the dictatorships is that most of the dictatorships in that region are _MUCH_ more cooperative with the US than the populations want.

For example, as I write this, the US is shipping Muslims to Jordan so that the Jordanians can torture those Muslims without the CIA violating US Law. Do you think the Jordanians would vote for that?

A democratic Iraq will put pressure on Saudi Arabia to democratize. That is a disaster for America because a democratic Saudi Arabia would be in any camp but the American camp. It would put pressure on Egypt. A democratic Egypt would be a disaster for America and America's Israeli regional allies.

I hope that the complete ineptitude of George W. Bush produces this long term result that would be very good for the Middle East and very bad for America. There are people in the State Department right now trying very hard to make sure it does not happen that way.

I've said before that the US would rather see a civil war than a democratic Iraq. We'll see how the cards fall.

Its a nervous time. I hope it all works out.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Charles said:

Tell that to the pieces of blown up civilians who were walking down the wrong street at the wrong time.

Is that means it is necessary to tell that to the American troops in Tal Afar who killed the parents of six childrens in front of them? See the photos, Charles, because people like you is guilty of this war crime.

You personally is guilty. See the photos of the childrens crying, Charles, becouse you murdered their parents.

Yes, people like you, Charles, people that refuses to see the reality, these Americans are guilty of all USA's war crimes, in Iraq and around all the world.

Yes, people like you, Charles, people that by all the lies such as WMD, Iraq links with Al-Qaida, and whatever lies your corporate media tells, this kind of people is very alike German people under Hitler. You are guilty of the genocide of the Iraqi people.

And you told me "it is impossible to USA Military to hide their huge casualities". Whit such credulous and blinded people like you, Charles, yes, it is not only possible, but it is very, very easy...
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Charles:
But I think you confuse 'pent up populist outbursts based on socially engineered hatred' with 'responsible democracy.'

Getting rid of people like Saddam will help get rid of support for the diehards who under no circumstances would accept peace with Isreal.

You seem to be of the school who thinks that arabs/muslims are ignorant dogs incapable of responsible leadership and participation in the world community.

If I accepted your premise that Iraqi's are all murderous dogs, then your logic would ring true.

This murderous ignorant dogs stuff is your invention.

Maybe your support of Israel derives from socially engineered hatred of Arabs. Maybe you're the dog.

I'm sure you've seen democracies acquire weapons of mass destruction. I'm sure you've seen democracies use weapons of mass destruction. I'm sure you've seen democracies invade other nations. I'm sure you've seen democracies support organizations that other people consider terrorists. You've even seen democracies give support to organizations you consider terrorists.

You say you're confident a democratic Iraq would never do any of those things?

It is very hard to believe you are being honest when you write that.

If those actions are unacceptable to you, then democracy in the Middle East is unacceptable to you. Not because the people of the Middle East are ignorant dogs or because they have been whipped into artificial hatred, but because they have a legitimate different point of view from yours.

When you are unable to accept that their point of view is legitimate, that says all that has to be said for your claims to support democracy for them. It is a lie. The good news is nobody believes you.

Your assumption is that since the arab man on the street has been worked up into a frenzy by the stuff he is fed by the government, that hatred will last forever and will deny all influence of democratic ideals/liberalization/free information. I think it will blow over.Well, Malawi and Zambia never reconciled with apartheid South Africa. When do you think that would have "blown over"?

Do you admit that you do not support democracy for Iraq and other people in the Middle East until it "blows over"?

Do you admit that if, for argument's sake, the opposition to Israel will not "blow over" you will never support democracy for Arabs?

Its one thing to disagree with the Arabs about Israel. But you go further when you assert that their opposition to Israel is somehow not real while your support for Israel is legitimate.

When you assert that, it lends support to the idea that Americans such as yourself do not see Arabs as full-fledged human beings.

It makes your talk about democracy seem not only dishonest but also paternalistic and condescending.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Charles said:

We have covered the tragedy of the family that did not stop at checkpoint after being warned. It is a real tragedy.Chris Hondros, the photographer who witness these "unfortunate incident" in Tal Afar, Iraq, 20 January 2005 wrote:

It was a routine foot patrol. As we made our way up a broad boulevard, in the distance I could see a car making its way toward us. As a defence against potential car bombs, it is now standard practice for foot patrols to stop oncoming vehicles, particularly after dark.

"We have a car coming," someone called out, as we entered an intersection. We could see the car about 100 metres away. It kept coming; I could hear its engine now, a high whine that sounded more like acceleration than slowing down. It was maybe 50 yards away now. "Stop that car!" someone shouted out, seemingly simultaneously with someone firing what sounded like warning shots - a staccato measured burst.

The car continued coming. And then, perhaps less than a second later, a cacophony of fire, shots rattling off in a chaotic overlapping din. The car entered the intersection on its momentum and still shots were penetrating it and slicing it. Finally the shooting stopped, the car drifted listlessly, clearly no longer being steered, and came to a rest on a kerb. Soldiers began to approach it warily. The sound of children crying came from the car. I walked up to the car and a teenaged girl with her head covered emerged from the back, wailing and gesturing wildly. After her came a boy, tumbling on to the ground from the seat, already leaving a pool of blood.

There was not a checkpoint. There was a foot patrol in panic (why? why?) that have standard procedure (it means orders: why? why?) to deadly shoot every car that moves to them in less than a second of the warning shoot.

Why they are in panic? Why they have these standard procedure? Perhaps because the true amount of causalities is much higher than the lies your Government and your corporate media tell you.

The parents of the children simple had not time to react. They were murdered in cold blood because the Usandals troops are too cowardly to stand Iraqi Resistance.

And, supporting these kind of action of your troops in Iraq, Charles, you become a murder too. The blood of that family is now in you hands. PeriodOf course you will say I am a sick person. It is too much guiltiness to a young person like you. But if you open your eyes, and fight in your own way against this illegal and imoral war, the guiltiness will cease.

Perhaps you are not too arrogant to see the truth, after all...
 
_____________________________________________________________________

On "murderous ignorant dogs"

Not at all. It is your underlying premise. You believe that the legitimate interests of the ME necessarily put them at murderous odds with the United States. If they achieved democracy, they would necessarily make war upon the United States. There could be no peace, etc.
No. Are you misreading what I've written on purpose? Iraq was not invaded because it was at murderous odds with the United States. You are the one who wrote the reasons Iraq was invaded and I summarized them. We can go over this again slowly.

Iraq was invaded because it 1) Tried to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction 2) Attempted to become a military threat to its neighbors, which happen to be Israel and a set of unpopular dictatorships that are more cooperative with the US than their populations would like and 3) Supported Palestinians you consider terrorists

None of those three things would be prevented by democracy.

If it is unacceptable for Iraq to do those three things, then the US cannot install a democracy in Iraq because a democratic Iraq is very likely to do those things if it can. You do not have to be a murderous dog to want to do those things.

This is very clearly stated in posts you've responded to. You've invented this stuff about murderous dogs, superpowers bent on evil, etc and ignored what was written clearly.

Now you seem like you believe you have all the answers about Israel. You know exactly how the Arabs are going to have to change for there to be any hope of peace.

A couple of points I think you should consider.

I think you perceive this situation as reasonable Israelis doing the best they can in a difficult environment. Sometimes unfortunately the Israelis are forced to kill civilians but that is ultimately not their fault.

Arabs just as validly perceive the situation as reasonable Palestinians doing the best they can in a difficult situations. Sometimes unfortunately the Palestinians are forced to kill civilians but that is ultimately not their fault.

I'm not trying to convince you the Arabs are right, but you are not going to impose your perception on people who have been watching this very closely their whole lives. Its not going to happen - you can just forget about that. The Arabs are not going to "grow up" and start thinking like you.

Al Jazeera seems to be the most widely respected and most watched Arab language news channel. People watch the news that they consider fair and balanced. If it does not seem fair, they watch something else. Arabs in democratic countries watch Al Jazeera more than any other Arab language news channel. They are not forced to do so by their governments. They watch it because it matches their perceptions.

People in Texas watch Fox News. They consider that fair. People in New York watch CBS News. They consider that fair. Giving Fox News competition from CBS News is not going to make Texans "grow up" and think like New Yorkers. Broadcasting Charles' idea of fair coverage of Arab/Israeli issues is not going to make Arabs "grow up" and start thinking like Charles.

This is not government sponsored hatred that will "blow over". This is how they honestly see the world. Which is different from how you see the world. There are plenty of channels that give a different point of view. Fewer Arabs trust those channels.

The Palestinians originally called for one secular state where Jews and Muslims could live in peace without discrimination. Many have given up on that idea but it is making some degree of comeback.

Israel as a Jewish state is as provocative to Arabs as apartheid South Africa was to Black people. You may think it shouldn't be. It may not be provocative to you. But you can not cause an the entire region of people to up and start seeing things your way.

If the region was democratic, the people of the Arab world would not be investing billions of dollars in the US stock market while Israel retains a nuclear monopoly over the region.

If the region was democratic, the people of Israel would have to accept a compromise that they currently do not find acceptable. They would have to do what white South Africans did and accept that their dream of a Jewish state cannot be sustained.

Otherwise, they would have to engage the oil producing world in an arms race that they would lose in only a matter of time.

I think a compromise could be worked out where Jews currently there get to stay with guarantees of freedom of religion, a secular government. But no immigration laws that discriminate against non-Jews and the state would not be a "Jewish" state, kind of the way South Africa today is not a "White" state.

The alternative is what we have today. The people of the region live under unpopular governments that depend on the US for their survival. Israel is today offering the Palestinians less autonomous bantustans that the ones Mandela rejected. That is what you are calling "justice". I expect you will be very disappointed to find that this is not an acceptable solution to many people in the region and will not end the opposition to Israel that you hope will "blow over" soon.

So to bring this back to democracy in Iraq. Israel's existence depends on its neighboring nations being unable to effectively confront it. But the populations of the neighboring nations find a state formed by evicting nearly a million arabs from their homes and that currently identifies itself by the the ideal of discrimination against non-Jews to be inherently confrontational.

A democratic Arab state with oil money and with the independence to enact policies that represent the will of its people would represent a fatal existential threat to Israel. If America is to be an ally of Israel, it simply cannot allow a democratic Iraq to happen.

It's not just Israel. Especially any more. The people of Iraq have been harmed greatly by the United States recently. You say its all Saddam Hussein's fault. Many Iraqis think the US was more to blame that Hussein. Getting rid of Al Jazeera will not change that.

This means that if the people of Iraq are free to choose which nations help develop its resources, they are unlikely to choose the United States. This means that if the people of Iraq are free to decide whether or not Iraq can be used as a base to attack other nations such as Iran, they are unlikely to agree.

But the US, the conquering occupying power. Has every intention of being the party the benefits from Iraqi oil contracts. And it has every intention of using its military presence in Iraq for further plans in the region. That means Iraq cannot be a democracy.

Bruno raised the point earlier that control of oil and the ability to set the terms by which competitors can access oil is more important than access with low prices at any given time. A democratic Iraq would not allow the US to control its oil. That means Iraq cannot be a democracy.

I hope Iraq becomes a democracy despite the resistance of the US. It may happen only because George W. Bush has made the most spectacular strategic blunders of any US president ever. If it works out, I will be very happy.

I have a final question for you: If the Iraqi government on February 1 asks that the United States leave Iraq by December 31 2005 do you think the US should leave?

Or do you think the US should stay until the US decides that Iraq has met whatever requirements the US wants to set, and in the meantime to effectively control the country against the expressed wishes of its people?
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Let me put it to you this way - there are Palestinians living in Isreal more or less comfortably (more so when there are fewer provocations naturally). But I'll bet you won't mind many Isreali's living comfortably in any ME countries. Who is more tolerant?Here you're arguing that Israel is right. I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. The point is not who is more tolerant. The point is that a potentially nuclear armed Arab state, democracy or not, is not acceptable to those interested in Israel's existence.

That's where your claims to support democracy crash into reality.

The US has a stated policy that Israel will maintain military superiority over the rest of the region. That policy cannot be maintained if the region is free to spend the money that it controls on ending Israel's military superiority.

Something has to give. The US resolves this conundrum by ensuring that the Arab people are not free to spend the money that comes through their hands in a way consistent with the wishes of the populations.

At that point, claims to favor democracy are just bald-faced lies that noone takes seriously outside of the US.

'Existence' is not the question. Unless of course some irresponsible wackos decide its time to end life for the entire region.Apartheid South Africa was nuclear armed and it no longer exists. A non-Zionist nation in Israel's borders, even if its still called Israel, means that what you think of when you say Israel no longer exists.

Walk the walk first.No. To say that Israel won't be resolved in the Arabs favor until the Arabs learn to walk the walk is to say that Arabs will not have enough control over their own economies to build a military that can defeat Israel until they learn to walk the walk.

You can say that. But now there is a structural impediment to democracy. Because democracy means the Arab people control their economies *now* whether they walk the way you want them to or not.

You try to square that circle by saying Democracy has a magic force that would make Arabs accept Israel. The important thing is that even if you believe that, which I kind of doubt, US decision makers obviously don't believe that.

Egypt for example is given large payments for maintaining its unpopular peace with Israel. If US policymakers thought peace with Israel comes free with democracy, those payments would be for democracy which as an ideal is much less unpopular among Egyptians than peace with Israel.

We did far worse to Germany and Japan, and they turned out OK.An important difference is that there is no nearby nation to which the United States policy explicitly attempts to grant perpetual military superiority over Germany, especially a nearby nation towards which the German people have a structural hostility.

If that had been the case, Germany would look a lot more like Saudi Arabia today.

Do you believe that freedom of expression exists in ME? Truly?There is a lot of debate in the Middle East. Many people sit together and discuss, among other things, the best way to overcome the hostility directed at them from the United States. And people disagree. Some think the answer is to turn to the Koran. Some think the answer is to join or support what you consider terrorist organizations. Some say they just can't figure out how to overturn America's regional hegemony, but they wish they could.

You think there is no freedom of expression because nobody says what you would say. "Hey America is right. If we oppose America we are just murderous dogs."

Given a reasonable definition of freedom of expression, there is freedom of expression in many places in the Middle East.

"This means that if the people of Iraq are free to choose which nations help develop its resources, they are unlikely to choose the United States."

Maybe. Well, that's pretty much the key. The United States has not spent $200 billion gaining control over Iraq to "maybe" be the nation that benefits from control over the oil and "maybe" be able to stage further attacks and "maybe" ensure that Iraq is not a threat to the US' priorities in the Middle East and "maybe" Iraq will refrain from supporting what you consider terrorists and "maybe" Iraq will get along well with the corrupt unpopular US-supported dictators who allowed the US to bomb their families from nearby bases.

With all of the US supposed puppet governments in the middle east, can you explain to me where and how we have excercised this magical influence?!?Good question. I don't have a complete answer. I spent a couple of minutes googling for some official statement from an ambassador or the pentagon or CIA that advances the idea that the US considers its current leverage over these governments as strategically useful and I didn't find anything.

In the unforeseen future, in a conflict with an unforeseen rival, such as China, India, Europe or Russia, the ability to influence the price of oil may be useful and the inability of the rival to influence the price of oil may be useful.

If I find anything more specific I may post it here.

What the US certainly gets from its control over Saudi Arabia today is that Saudi Arabia is holding oil prices relatively low, not pursuing nuclear weapons, not building or buying missiles that could reach Israel and providing very minimal support to Palestinian organizations that Americans consider terrorists.

None of these positions necessarily are how Saudi Arabia's leaders would behave if they had to depend on elections instead of US support.

Mr. Democracy
 
_____________________________________________________________________

With all of the US supposed puppet governments in the middle east, can you explain to me where and how we have excercised this magical influence?!?I have something:

Charles:
I would also add/clarify to #2 that he was a threat and did attack his neighbors in the worlds most strategic region and was bent on establishing a hegemony on much of the worlds oil supply.You explain exactly what you think Hussein could have done with hegemony on much of the worlds oil supply and I'll change a few words around and explain to you what the US can do with hegemony on much of the worlds oil supply.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

The comment above is by Mr. Democracy again.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Isreal is far from perfect. I wasn't arguing thatthey are right. i am arguing that Isrealis will defend their security and are unlikely to compromise that security based upon assurances from countries that are bent on destroying it. These countries will have to walk the walk before Isreal will compromise its existence. You can't expect concessions from Isreal that will compromise its very existence. You need to change the equation.

I'm not discussing if Israel is right, or if its perfect, or what concessions it should make or anything about Israel itself. I'm just asserting that its existence as a Zionist state is as provocative to Arabs as South Africa as an Apartheid state was to Black people. If you wanted an African state to cooperate with South Africa, you had to have a dictatorship. If it was important to you that South Africa be as secure as possible and you had a choice you would not allow a government that represented the views of the people within striking range of South Africa. This has nothing to do with the peace process or compromises or whatever you're talking about.

If it is important to the United States that Israel be as secure as possible, which it is according to many informed sources, it will not allow a representative government, that represents people hostile to Israel to come to power within striking distance.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'control'.

To spend their money how they want, even if how they want may conflict with interests the United States feels are important.

Define 'accept.' Do you mean accept its right to exist? or the current status quo? Or what? The rest of the world accepts Isreal's right to exist.

A lot of the world accepted apartheid South Africa. Some African nations accepted apartheid South Africa. Many Arabs do not accept Israel. The question is will the US trust those people with control of a nearby state? My answer is it will not if it has a choice.

With democracy, those discussions will widen further.

You're going ... (I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean)

OK, OK. So you are saying that ME has unmitigated freedom of expression...

You're going ... (This is a silly strawman, but what is the relevance to anything?)

Hmmm. Well, I think most people would disagree with you. Its more likely that if you said something against establishment you would get fatwad out of existence.

You're gone. I guess this was your big point. Fatwas. If you say something against establishment in the US you can get Patriot Acted out of existence.

What specifically do you think people in the Middle East are not able to say for fear of being "fatwad"? If you have a point, make it.

If the people of the Middle East don't say what Charles thinks, the only possible explanation is that they are afraid of being "fatwad". It could never be that they honestly don't agree with Charles. Yet Charles poses as the Champion of Middle East democracy. How funny.

"This means that if the people of Iraq are free to choose which nations help develop its resources, they are unlikely to choose the United States."

We shall see - won't we.

If its up to the US, we don't have to see, do we? The US could just install a puppet. Every indication is that but for unexpected resistance, Chalabi would be installed as "democratic" dictator by now.

Uh-guh. so thats what your whole argument boils down to. A very nebulous hypothetical.

Where's your argument? You made the same argument that Hussein was attempting to get hegemony over world oil supplies. You explain how it helps Hussein, and you've explained how it helps the US. What do you think Hussein might have done?

You focus most of your argument around desire for ME to destroy Isreal, arms races, etc. Maybe. Maybe. Maybe.

Yes. My argument is that if the US is free to choose between Maybe and Definitely, the US will choose Definitely and lie rather than really choosing Maybe.

What is your argument? That the US would rather maybe see its interests advanced than definitely? Pretty silly.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

We both agree that we want the establishment of a viable and successful democratic government in Iraq.

Agreed.

And in your life, I wish you the best.

Mr. Democracy
 
_____________________________________________________________________