Thursday, January 13, 2005

 

Reciprocating Favors


[I have been accused of being obsessed with the neocons. But look at it this way: Your country was attacked by a bunch of lunatics more than three years ago. I, everyone I love and care for, my people and my country have been paying a heavy price as a result! God knows we had nothing to do with it!

Conversely, I know who has been responsible for much of that death and suffering in my country (not to mention the unnecessary death of quite a number of your boys and girls). A fair minded person should not object to me writing a few harmless words about them!!]

Even the most horrific and devastating happenings may have some good coming from them.

Unwittingly, both Iraqis and Americans have done each other big favors over the past 18 months!

America’s Favor

Due to the way the campaign was managed, many Iraqis began to see the US army and administration as enemies. This ultimately united much of the country (the country, mind, not the politicians) exorcising some of Iraq's haunting ghosts of ethnic and sectarian divides in the process. Fresh attempts are being constantly made in that direction… but they will probably also fail.

Iraqis have been through invasions, military coups, revolutions, wars and tyranny before. But now, thanks to the American administration, they now also know that they can somehow survive in a society that has no government, no law, and no services; and can still lead a life of sorts with chaos, bombs, terrorism, criminals on the loose and random violence all around them. They will fear nothing now!

When you think about it, this is indeed a big "favor"!

Iraq’s Favor

When the annals of history are written in the future, it will be mentioned that a group of power-mongers and fascist fanatics took control of the most powerful nation on earth riding on a wave of fear. They pretended to mobilize the nation to fight for liberty and democracy against terrorists not much worse than they are.

Their first major campaign in this global war was waged on Iraq under false pretenses: to free its people from tyranny, which had weapons of mass destruction, and to get rid of a dangerous regime that was an eminent threat to the US.

Mobilizing the mighty force of the most powerful army in the world, they invaded that country. Within a year, they lost… miserably! [Fanatics always lose in the end really because they cannot see other forces and the power of other human beings who might disagree with them.]

The Iraqi people didn’t behave as theory predicted. They somehow unwittingly put a spanner in the works of a grandiose program to dominate the world! That program would have resulted in disaster to Iraq, to America and to the rest of the world.

When you think about it, putting that spanner in those evil works was indeed a big “favor” done by the Iraqis to America.

***


We still have many problems but I would hate to ask the US for favors again.




Comments:

Just WHO will you call? And how bad will Iraq have to be before they send their sons and daughters to fight and die for you considering Iraq WAS NOT bad enough under Saddam for them to send anyone this time?
 
_____________________________________________________________________

America liberated a small county from a mad man bent on stealing its wealth back in 91. As part of the surrender agreement they were to let UN weapon inspectors come in and inspect. The mad man led the U.S. to beleive he had something to hide. 10 years he defied the terms of the agreement so the mad man had to go. I have heard it said that we had ulterior motives for intervening in the middle east and I do not doubt this. But I must say that America is has no ill will against the Iraqi people, and I believe we have done them and the rest of the world a faver by ridden the world of this mad man. The world had a chance to stop Hitler and choses instead to let him build power and eventually invaid his neighbors and kill millions of his own people. Perhaps we have learnd from our mistakes.
I wish the Iraqi people nothing but good will and a bright future now that they can live in FREEDOM once the dust settles.
We are all in a race. The Human Race.
Peace.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

"All I need is for at least one person to know what I believe in, in case I lose my life," said the man, who is in his twenties. Under Fire, Election Workers in Iraq Are Scared but ResoluteWith the courage and strength of Iraqis such as these, I have no doubt Iraq will succeed. You may think they are naive, gullible, seduced by the fascist neo-cons but I believe in them and the opportunities they will create for themselves.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Mr. Khaleel,

Your assesment is logical, but I take a different view.

Consider this:

The orgy of current violence is not the result of the US overthrow of Saddam. It is the result of baathist, terrorist and pan-islamic ideologues who fomented violence in Iraq, knowing full well that it would inflame intertribal/interethnic mistrust and enmity. It would also invite retaliation from US forces who without understanding culture/language, would make grave tactical errors. This would lead to further resentment and armed resistence. The cycle would grow and feed itself. It would radicalize people who had suffered, and fill the ranks of the 'insurgency.' The instigators would never proclaim their agenda, but would wear the cloak of freedom fighters as the resistence gained traction.

As Churchill once wrote - "Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and timidity, are no match for armed and resolute wickedness."

But maybe you are right. Just as Iraqi's can 'survive' under US occupation and terrorist mayhem, so too did they survive under Saddam - at least some of them. So be it. They will survive under the next regime too - well, some of them anyway.

The US will learn a lesson taught in Iraq. Avoid foreign 'adventures' motivated by 'naive' values. The values we think we hold dear and share in our hearts are just imaginary. Let the autocrats, theocrats, mafia oligarchs, and dictators have their way. Everything is relative and all people get what they deserve. There are no universal human values that should be honored and sacrifices in blood and treasure shall be spit upon and ridiculed.

There is no hope to achieve lofty goals of freedom, respect, and dignity because people are not worthy of the sacrifice.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Hello Abu Khaleel,
I wish I could see a farce in all this, with the scoundrels retreating in confusion and the people rejoicing over their demise but I am afraid the 'fun' isn't over yet. I hope Iraqis can vote their way out of this mess, but over here Bush has the government and much of the media in his hands for the next 2 years at least. Needless to say, I don't expect much international sympathy for America suffering under our delusional Leader.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

This looks like the thread where everyone gives an overview of how we got to this point. I want to join in.

Should we start the story with the crusades, and the birth/invention of Europe that defined itself as Christendom in opposition to the pagans and mohomedans of the rest of the world?

Should we start the story in 1948, when the West, including the United States formally committed to maintain a colonial presence in the region and consequently committed to ensuring, for as long as the West can, that the people of the region would not ever be capable of defeating that presence?

A great place to start the story is with the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Throughout the 1990's the Iraqis were saying they don't have them. The Americans were saying they do have them.

The security council did not authorize an overthrow of Hussein or an Iraqi regime change in 1991. It did authorize a program by which Iraq could destroy its weapons of mass destruction and make restitution for the damage caused by the invasion of Kuwait, after which Iraq would return to being a fully sovereign nation, still not under American control.

If there was a case for overthrowing Hussein because he was not democratic enough, America could have, but chose not to make that case. That case could just as easily been made against America's friends/lackeys in Egypt, Jordan and Kuwait.

Simply stated, a fully sovereign Iraq not under American control is not acceptable to the United States.

Supporters of the US make really bizarre claims that somehow Hussein did not cooperate with the inspectors. From Iraq's point of view the best move would be to get rid of the weapons, let the sanctions end, and get back to normal, even getting more weapons if they want. The Iraqis never had any incentive to lie about any weapons of mass destruction.

From the US point of view, the best scenario would be to say that the Iraqis were hiding something - whether they were hiding anything or not - and maintain the sanctions until the ultimate goal could be accomplished, removal of Hussein. The US always had an incentive to lie about weapons of mass destruction.

The sanctions, maintained through stategic lying on the part of the Americans, killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, mostly children.

Now everyone except the most willfully blind can see what should have been obvious for years - that the United States was lying about the weapons and Iraq was telling the truth.

So the question that remains is why was the US lying? It was not weapons of mass destruction per se. What did the US get out of imposing sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of people and then out of invading?

The United States tolerates several dictators in that region as long as they do not threaten Israel, invest their money in Western economies and not in industrializing their own countries (which would make their countries more strategically threatening to Israel), and do not threaten the other friendly dictators.

Would the United States tolerate a democratic Iraq that may well threaten "US interests" in the region? Those who believe US propaganda say yes. Those who have looked at US actions and policy are pretty confident that the answer is no.

Elections could have been held over a year ago. There cannot be elections while the US occupies Iraq until the US is confident that those elections will not result in a stable unified nation that is capable of threatening "US interests".

If the Iraqi people are very wise and very lucky, they will be able to produce a stable government against US wishes, and their government will immediately be demonized by the Americans.

Otherwise the Americans will get what they want. Even more dead Iraqis than were caused by the sanctions, a totally paralyzed Iraq and a few more years of breathing room for the "US interests" in the region, namely Israel.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

I have to say again that it really is a mistake to look primarily at the Neocons.

No Americans - not Retrocons, not Neolibs, not Retrolibs nor Neocons - would be willing to accept a stable independent Iraq that could be a long-term or short-term threat to "US interests".

More Americans hate your people than care about your people. If 5 million Iraqis starving to death today might reduce a smaller theoretical possible long term threat to Israel, most Americans would gladly watch your people starve.

There is no answer because the Americans are occupying your country, but I do wish you luck.

Anon. 6:59
 
_____________________________________________________________________

From Circular
Sorry Abu but you appear to be losing your former reasonably rational audience, most of these recent guys (Fathom, Charles, various Anons) seem to start off their posts sensibly then veer off at the end into some sort of weird obssessional interpretation of the world, generally along mystical US supremacy lines. Bring back Barry and Mark!
If you’re willing to give the Neo-cons a rest and answer a question: I read a recent Juan Cole article that ascribed a very prominent role to former Baathists in the fomentation, direction, and exploitation of the insurgency. This was interesting because I was talking to an Iraqi exile/immigrant* here the other day, and he assured me very earnestly that if the US left Iraq the Baathists would be back in power "within a week."
Robert Fisk is back in Baghdad, he and Dahr Jamail describe a sort of surreal city of petrol queues, explosions, power shortages, masked ING and terrified, paranoid US patrols. Powell is reported to have told Bush recently "We are losing." And been sent from the room.
Are these elections going to achieve anything at all, or is it much too late for that?
(* You may be interested: I did some jobs for an Iraqi family here. The wife told me that she came from an old political family, and that her husband was in a responsible Government position. Apparently they were free to travel - but not together, one of them always had to remain in Iraq. Her husband phoned her one day in the mid-90’s and told her to grab the children and passports and get to the airport - there had been a change of security arrangements at his Ministry and a window of escape had opened. She lives well here - lovely house - but seems a pretty sad lady. But she looks at her stalwart sons and says proudly, "they are Kiwis now." And certainly the guys greet you with broad Kiwi accents, and a proper "Gidday, mate," and proper ironic grins. Of course there’s a lot of irony in Iraq these days as well.
It was her brother-in-law who told me about the Baathists. Mind you, 18 months ago he told me that the US weren’t really looking hard for Saddam, because he had once been a CIA asset.
Looks like he used up his favors.)
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Charles,

I really do welcome a fresh point of view. However, if you take some time to read previous posts, you can save yourself quite a bit of typing… and you wouldn’t be wasting your time fighting phantoms of your own creation: Nobody here (not the author and not any of the regular comment posters) is against democracy or any of those “naïve” ideals. That democracy and those ideals are cornerstones in this blog!

The question is whether your present administration still remembers and uses those ideals as guidelines or not.

Apart from that, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion that “..people are not worthy of the sacrifice.” But please remember that those unworthy people never asked you to make those sacrifices. Secondly, my belief is that your administration’s policies caused (and is causing) a lot more “sacrifices and suffering” than was necessary.

_______________

Bruno,

Thank you for those poll figures on the last post. They save me searching time and confirm my own personal observations on the civil war question. Never mind all those experts. Time will tell whether the Iraqis or the experts know the Iraqi society better. I hope I will be able to post something on this soon.

Bottom line: There will not be civil war! Various politically affiliated militias may stir some trouble… but ordinary people will not fight. They do not want to. They have no reason to. They know that they are going through the same hardship together.

_______________

Circular,

You know my opinion regarding the coming elections. Anyway, most people have many more pressing things on their minds at the moment. Things that have to do with immediate survival!

You raise an important point about Baathists. Right after the invasion, most went deep underground. Now, they are surfacing back up. We have a saying in Iraq: “If you face death, you will readily accept fever!” But I doubt that they can regain power that easily. Most people have not forgotten yet.

As to the sudden rush of new blood, I think I deserve to bear some of the blame for that!!

What are you doing to our lads down there? “broad Kiwi accents”… "Gidday, mate," ???How on earth are we going to rehabilitate them again? Don’t you think we have enough problems as it is?
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Abu Khaleel:

You appear to be being misled into over reliance on a strain of left-wing political propaganda which sensationalizes Neocon influence and control of United States policy. Emphasizing the strength of the fringe members of your political opponents is one of the oldest political tricks used to energize one’s own political base. It is a time honored tactic which has been used repeatedly by both the left and right in the political history of this country.

Setting aside for a moment political games, it is of course true that there are true Neocon believers in positions of power within the Bush administration, but there is very little public support for the type of long term, military conquest required to sustain a true American Empire or the type of “grandiose domination” that you describe. In a democratic country, such support is an absolute necessity for such a plan to have any chance of long term success.

It is indisputable that the U.S. has the most potent military force on the planet and is quite likely to maintain that advantage for some time to come. However, there is no ground swell of popular support for any political ideology that could justify the types of foreign adventures necessary to extend and maintain a true “Empire.” Neither the war on terror nor the Neocon agenda fit the bill. To get a true sense of American public opinion regarding foreign policy, please see the annual Council of Foreign Relations Poll which found that only 11% of Americans believe the U.S. should be the sole world leader, while 74% advocated a shared leadership role. The link is http://www.cfr.org/pdf/CFRPEW.pdf .

The truth of the matter is that a strong majority of Americans want our troops out of both Afghanistan and Iraq as soon as there is some stability (see the CFR survey). While there may be some in the current administration that dream of politically and economically dominating Iraq from behind the scenes, the reality is that the American public doesn't have the stomach for the kind of long term, high level military commitment it would require. To put it bluntly, most Americans would rather pay Iraqi a fair market price for its oil than pay the economic and social cost of maintaining the type of military presence required to attempt to steal it.

Perhaps you are not aware of the true level of influence with the American public of some of the Neocon sources that you consistently cite. For example, the PNAC is a fringe group with a small staff and political following within the right wing fringe. Michael Leeden is considered by most to be a fringe right-wing, ideologue. He writes for a magazine of quite limited circulation. I am not asserting that that Neocon ideas don't have a level of influence in government circles, only that, you are beginning to fall prey to the exaggeration game that has been orchestrated by a certain segements of the American left.

Mark-In-Chi-Town
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Mark-in-Chi-Town,


I have no intention of falling into the never-ending Left-Right battle in the States or to be a party to it.

Further, I do not challenge the figures you present. I fully agree with you that the American public has no desire for the things you mention. I also agree that this doctrine does not have a very significant influence on the American public.

I am talking about their influence within the present administration.

I see things happening here on the ground in Iraq and the only possible explanation for those things can be found in neocon literature - their own literature, not just what the Left says about them. Then I find their sentiments echoed by people holding high public office such as the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense of the United States, his deputies, etc. etc.

I did not say that the American public endorses such schemes. But these people are creating facts on the ground. How would you alternatively explain the events of that year in Iraq to accommodate those facts on the ground?
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Abu Khaleel:

Many of the events of the occupation can be explained in two simple words, GROSS INCOMPETENCE. It seems likely that, to the extent that there was plan for occupation, it was based on hopelessly optimistic best case scenarios in which the planners simply wished away many easily anticipated problems.

Those that argue that the Neocon occupation plan was for long term chaos and instabilty had better re-examine their logic. It would be far better, from their perspective, to pacify and install a puppet government than to allow political instability with U.S. troops locked in combat with insurgents. The steady rate of casualties and astronomical cost of such chaos are undermining Neocon hopes for further military adventures elsewhere. A quick pacification of Iraq would have made attempting to sell another such operation much easier as you yourself have commented.

However, you must understand that, even with a good plan and competent execution of it, an occupation of a large country in which the pre-existing government structures have been eliminated would have been problematic. A reading of contemporary accounts of mistakes in post-WWII occupation of Germany and Japan will make this abundantly clear. In a country, like Iraq, in which some hostile ex-regime officials should have been expected to remain at large with access to large sums of money and weapons caches, competent occupation planning should have had robust plans to prevent the growth of any insurgency by a variety of political, social, economic and military means. There was, quite obviously, either no competent plan or, if there was one, its execution was criminally negligent.

Mark-In-Chi-Town.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

This is about the Negroponte's tasks to achieve democracy in Iraq, as he did in Latin America:

Pentagon plans death squad terror in Iraq
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Obviously from a US point of view, a puppet is better than civil war.

But if for any reason, a puppet cannot be reliably put into place, civil war is better from the US point of view than an independent dictatorship or an independent democracy.

The original plan was to install a puppet - Chalabi or Allawi. If the Iraqis foil that plan that does not mean the US has no options other than to just accept an independent Iraq outside of US control.

If the US cannot install a puppet the second best solution is a paralyzing civil war.

From the US point of view, transparent lies notwithstanding, a democratic Iraq that can threaten the US controlled dictators in neighboring countries, pursue weapons of mass destruction and form alliances with opponents of the United States and Israel is no better than Iraq under Hussein.

The US may be failing to install a puppet, but it looks to be succeeding at removing Iraq as a strategic threat.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Mark
Congratulations on a couple of posts of very concise and comprehensive analysis. (Which don’t seem to say anything in favour of this failed enterprise, incidentally. My impression previously was that you were to some extent defensive of it.)
Just one point. You say
"... it is of course true that there are true Neocon believers in positions of power within the Bush administration, but there is very little public support for the type of long term, military conquest required to sustain a true American Empire or the type of "grandiose domination" that you describe."
and
"However, there is no ground swell of popular support for any political ideology that could justify the types of foreign adventures necessary to extend and maintain a true "Empire." Neither the war on terror nor the Neocon agenda fit the bill."
What then is your interpretation of the fact that a majority of your countrymen (those who bothered to vote) have just returned Bush to power? Were the red-staters, who after all have effectively just defined and reaffirmed your country’s stance towards the world, just misinformed, or just not very bright, or basically sympathetic towards ideals of grandiose domination?
Or is this just an inherent problem of democracy? If I say "America has an aggressive foreign policy" and you reply "No, 48% of us don’t," and America then continues aggression, is this a weakness of an overly simplistic and unrepresentative two-party system?
"There was, quite obviously, either no competent plan or, if there was one, its execution was criminally negligent." Who was at fault? America or just its temporary leadership?
It seems to be a question of some relevance for future US relations with Iraq, the Middle East and the rest of the world.
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Puppet x civil war is not the question.

Walters: But was it worth it if there were no weapons of mass destruction? Now that we know that that was wrong? Was it worth it?

Bush: Oh, absolutely."


Absolutely, the only solution that will work in Iraq is to expel the enterely USA personel, by defeating in the terrain the USA military

The big question to Iraquis are: Be occupied x be one free Nation, freee, in first time, of the boots of the USA occupiers, with all signification of these words.

I am realy sure about this: Iraquis must be unified just under one thing: expel, by all means that is necessary to do so, the occupiers.

Iraquis must remember what happened with French Resistance in WW2. Of course, Iraquis do remember what happened in Iraqui, 1920.

Government of Iraqui Resistance and common Iraquis who don't have blood in their hands, after the expel of the occupiers.

The Iraqui Resistance Government, with all it means, will certanly be the only Government capable to bring security to all country in order to normalize the civil life.

To defeaty USA military the Iraqui Resistance is ragging a guerrila warfare against the "most powerful" Army of the world. And is winning this warfare because they have the Iraqui common people supporting the fight.

To be able to open a second front is very important. The civil one. If people gather to streets withou fear of dead, claiming USA-OUT there will be one Iraqui Resistance Government in one month.

But Americans know better. Then, there will be a big blath blood, with lots of American blood.

Nobody rememeber Dien Ben Phu? Nobody rememeber Stalingrad? Iraqui is just a big Dien Bem Phu with lots of litle Stalingrads anywere. Suply only by air. No oil no gas for none. Hostile borders. The defection of the USA occupiers is in action. This is the only solution. And is time to prepare the aftermath.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Hello Alvaro,
"Hundreds of Brazilian soldiers and special units of the Haitian National Police stormed the pro-Aristide neighborhood of Bel Air in the early morning hours of January 5. Residents were surprised and frightened by the armed incursion as gunfire broke out. Witnesses reported that five persons were killed as the operation unfolded." Is Haiti Brazil's Dien Bien Phu? Maybe RPG is the only thing Brazilians understand?
Brazil is the home to its famous child killing death squads.
Brazil has the greatest level on income inequality in famously unequal Latin America.
Brazil's crime wave( not attributed to foreign occupation) is as bad as Iraq's.
Yet Brazilians fearlessly confront the US tyrant on every front!
'Brazil, a dream sublime,
a vivid ray
Of love and hope
to earth descends,
Where in your clear, pure,
beauteous skies
The image of the
Southern Cross shines forth.'
Bah!

So when are you coming to America to teach us a lesson?
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Dear Hello Anon:

Thank you for the post. It is very informative.

In Haiti, the Brazilian troops are doing the same sorts of things the American troops are doing ir Iraque. The Brazilian soldiers are commanded by UN, what means that USA are in charge by proxi.

The same disinformation the corporate media tells to Americans is telling to Brazilian people. Officialy, our troops are in Haiti in a "peace" mission...

But lots of my countrymen are deeply against the Haitian occupation by proxi. And we are highly fighting against our Government in this matter.

I really don't cheer when am American soldier get killed or wounded in Iraq, or commit suicide, or kills his own countrymen, as an ex-Fallujah Marine did in Ceres a couple of days ago. The American soldiers are just another victims of this criminal war. But if Iraquis wants freedon, they have to kill the American soldiers, as many as they can. There is a war, and so there is no another solution but to impose a defeat in American Military.

I think the same is valid to Haitians and Brazilian troops. Until now, none of our soldiers get killed in Haiti and we are supporting brazilian troops claiming to Lula da Silva, our "democratic" President to bring the troops home.

In 1964, USA brought some "democracy" to Brazil, installing a brutal dictatorship. We even had our Abu Ghurayb, rulled by Brazilians trainned in the famous "School of America".

I will not discuss Brazil in this blog, because it will be off-topic. But be sure lots of Brazilians know Brazilian Government is one thing, and Brazilian country is another. Very different things.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

To Hello anon:

So when are you coming to America to teach us a lesson?

I am not teaching lessons to nobody. I am only writing my opinion.

And this blog, despite the English language, is not an American blog. Have you forget that USA don't own Iraq?
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Hello Alvaro,
I agree Iraq is the issue, not Haiti. I would hate to hear of a single Brazilian soldier killed serving his country in Haiti. Let's face it there are places in the world that are literally going to hell, so we can't always stand aside while the neighborhood falls apart.
However, when the US does intervene it is taking on a significant responsibility and must do so with clean hands, not lies and phoney ideology. The theory of nation building is non-existent. The UN (the proper nation-builder) withdrawl from Iraq when De Mello was killed, was an disgusting abdication of the responsibility of the UN to the Iraqi people, in the name of Russia, France and Germany fighting US hyperpower arrogance, pure hypocrisy. Yes, Bush is a criminal for attacking Iraq and for fighting Sadr and attacking Fallujah, yes Abu Gharib is torture, yes many things are on the wrong track. People are caught up in a tragedy. It is bad form to cheer at a tragedy.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Abu wrote:"They will fear nothing now!".
Why don't you show your " fearlessness " by going out and voting !
Abu wrote :When the annals of history are written in the future, it will be mentioned that a group of power-mongers and fascist fanatics took control of the most powerful nation on earth riding on a wave of fear. They pretended to mobilize the nation to fight for liberty and democracy against terrorists not much worse than they are.
Please . If this is the way you think , then you cannot possibly want to see the elections be successful , and the Iraqi people run their own country , God forbid , that would mean that America helped you .
Abu wrote: "Their first major campaign in this global war was waged on Iraq under false pretenses:"
Wrong Abu , the first campaign was in Afganistan .
Abu wrote:"Mobilizing the mighty force of the most powerful army in the world, they invaded that country. Within a year, they lost… miserably!".
Wrong again Abu , the Iraqi Army folded , we occupy your country , we have your leader in prison . I think we won the " war " .
 
_____________________________________________________________________

And lost the peace.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Alvaro,

"Absolutely, the only solution that will work in Iraq is to expel the enterely USA personel, by defeating in the terrain the USA military."

That's really a noble thought! Attack the people that freed Iraq and murder the Iraqis that are trying to stabilize country.

"The big question to Iraquis are: Be occupied x be one free Nation, freee, in first time, of the boots of the USA occupiers, with all signification of these words."

Or,,, now try to absorb this alvaro, let the US finish its mission, establish a democracy, rebuild the country, then go home and let the Iraqi's live in a freedom they have never known. Its the same wish you have, somewhere down deep (since we are all human), except it doesn't include the murder and mayhem you crave.

"I am realy sure about this: Iraquis must be unified just under one thing: expel, by all means that is necessary to do so, the occupiers."

And then what? Have you thought about that?!?

"Iraquis must remember what happened with French Resistance in WW2. Of course, Iraquis do remember what happened in Iraqui, 1920."

Do you think the US should have liberated France in 1944? Even though it cost thousands and thousands of civilian lives?

"The Iraqui Resistance Government, with all it means, will certanly be the only Government capable to bring security to all country in order to normalize the civil life."

What Iraqi resistence government? The baathists? The Wahabists? The criminal gangs? We can all guess with reasonable accuracy how they would establish security.

"To be able to open a second front is very important. The civil one. If people gather to streets withou fear of dead, claiming USA-OUT there will be one Iraqui Resistance Government in one month."

That is the first reasonable thing I have ever read from you.

In closing, I'd just like to say that you seem a mean spirited person.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Charles, Lou,
Just forget about it. Walk away. Your time is worth more to you than it is to the general audience here. Aggressive sentiments like Alvaro's are tolerated and probably appreciated. There are no mind's changing in this neighborhood. Just a self validating dialougue revolving around an obsessively negative world view.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

making money
is easy. making money

 
_____________________________________________________________________

10/25/06
An Iraqui banker educated in America at Harvard has discovered that the former Iraqui government was self serving and their only interest was in stealing from the citizens .
The facts are as they are and mulling over what was or could have been is of no value to anyone or any ocuntry . What is the solution to the present government being in collusion with terrorist ?
Iraquis educated in America who have the ability to run the country and form a civilized government , not a theoracy , and who care about their people and who don't have a self serving mindset is the soultion to all problems in Iraq . At present guns are seen every where in the streets . There is no law and no order , nor has ther been from the day the country fell under George Bush's command . Had law enforcemnet not been in place when this man was elected , American streets would look like those in Iraq . The facts is America is in Iraq and the American educated Iraquis need to take over their country and have a real civilized land , not a place where criminals roam free and in collusion with the government .
 
_____________________________________________________________________
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Listed on Blogwise