Iraqi Letters

I think there’s three points to be made in response to that.
1) The so-called neo-cons, currently dominating foreign policy in Washington, did not author "Plan for the New American Century" and similar documents just because they wanted a new expensive brand of toilet paper. They were very serious about securing US and Israeli dominance in the Middle East by the use of force, starting with Iraq. (With a bit of exploitation and corporate profiteering on the side.) However
2) Even though these aims were openly stated, they could not be "sold" to the US public as the reason for (a) invasion and (b) occupation of Iraq. Hence (a) WMD and (b) "democracy." But "democracy" has become a trap because, despite some last-gasp neo-con noises, the Administration is now committed to withdrawal, even Rumsfeld says so. (And this includes cutting losses, they must realise that no independent Iraqi government is going to acquiesce in exploitation for long.) But withdrawal depends on at least the appearance of stability in Iraq. And
3) With all due respect for Abu Kahleel’s pious hopes, what are the prospects for stability? There’s the primary problem of an insurgency to be somehow brought under control. There’s the matter of Kurdish independence. There’s the alleged religious rift, and the possibly more serious rift between secular and fundamentalist impulses. There’s almost a total infrastructure to be reconstructed. A reliable police force is essential. Someone (Negroponte?) recently said that the Ration Card system should be dismantled. Too much military and you get more coups. Too little and you get lawlessness and nihilists. And so on, and so on.
It seems to me that if 30 years of Saddam produced "x" then two years of chaotic unplanned occupation have produced "x squared."
Look, how about inviting the British to come back and try again?
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

AK my dear, tell me, Please please tell me this is really true before I go crazy again. I just read one of the most wonderful example of a poetic justice in a long long time. Read this and let the Liberity Bell ring for beating the war criminals at their own game! You don't have to let the occupiers steal your oil or speech or your right to evict these no good cockroaches out of YOUR country or any other property these greedy pigs have been trying to steal anymore. You kick them and their expensive fancy embassy war rooms right in their face. If this isn't for real, I'm gonna get real drunk, so please, I need some good news for a change

Link
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21235/

here is a little teaser to set the mood:

"The Iraqi people gave America the biggest 'thank you' in the best way we could have hoped for."

Sincerely
me
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Dear Abu Khaleel:

I have only limited Englis skills, then I am trying to comment your posts with other's words. It means, by sending some links to you and to the readears.

Robert Fisk writed an article adressing the same ideas you had in "A Lesson from History".

In World Social Forum that took place in February, 2005, Porto Alegre, Brazil, I met some Iraqis, militants of "Iraqi Patriotic Alliance", and I had received some articles of them that I am publishing in iraq-war.ru.

The most recently one is Iraqi Resistance's victory depends on the political front - An aproach of the Iraqi Elections

Those who cast their ballots voted for the end of the occupation but their hope will be frustrated soon pushing them towards the Resistance. All depends therefore on the capacity of the Resistance to form an inclusive political front

The ideas of this article fits with The Shi'ites' Faustian pact by Pepe Escobar.

The key reason for the war was control of Iraqi oil, supported by the installation of strategic US military bases. The key question now is which Iraqis will embrace the agenda of the Bush administration. Secular, moderate Sunni observers in Baghdad simply cannot believe the Shi'ite leadership will maintain public support for the rest of the year without telling the Americans to leave.

And I have a especial link to bait Charles:

Hogan's Heroes: Have Americans become like Nazis? Nah

I think the two initial links are on-topic, but the third is off-topic. Then I bag Charles to not comment it here but in iraq-war.ru.

Thanks to all in advance.

Alvaro Frota
 
_____________________________________________________________________

"The US/ Coalition is now needed to provide security for the new government in transition. This need will decrease over time."
I Remember Another Quagmire.
Just a query for Charles. To provide security, the matchless US army finds it necessary to deploy a lot of heavily armed helicopters and fighter-bombers, hi-tech observation drones, main battle tanks, armoured personnel carriers, armoured humvees, artillery, and so on.
The fledgling Iraqi army has none of these things - all they’ve got is grotty pick-ups and rusty AK47s.
Clearly the security forces need to be better armed than the insurgents. So presumably as part of training up the locals like everybody wants, all these things will have to be given to them?
(No, no, that’s not the American way! Sold to them, sold to them!)
As the Iraqi strength increases the US strength will be reduced. Presumably the point will be reached eventually when the Iraqi forces outnumber and outgun the US forces.
Coup time? Round and round we go in
Circles
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Hello Abu Khaleel,
Interesting, it reminds me of those time machine sci-fi TV shows where the hero keeps going back in time to fix the situation, except he's helpless to do anything. If he's lucky he figures out that he's the common element that prevents a positive outcome and finally just gives up trying to influence events.
Hmm...maybe if...
 
_____________________________________________________________________

"Of course it would be quicker if other countries helped."
But Charles, we DID try to help! We marched in our millions, all around the world, saying "Don't rush into this! It's not urgent! It's not essential! You don't know what you're getting into!"
Wasn't that helpful? Wasn't that good advice?
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Have we missed a deadline for announcing the results?

I had been led to understand that we would hear results by Thursday.

Circular, your point 2 sounds very optimistic.

[[
But "democracy" has become a trap because, despite some last-gasp neo-con noises, the Administration is now committed to withdrawal, even Rumsfeld says so. (And this includes cutting losses, they must realise that no independent Iraqi government is going to acquiesce in exploitation for long.)
]]

This baffles me to some degree. Is it so hard to say the US is lying about democracy?

Why on earth should there be an independent Iraqi government?

What happened to your point 1? Goodness gracious - don't you understand that US and Israeli dominance in the Middle East (which you correctly say are the open goals written on paper for anyone to download by the advocates of this invasion) is inherently contradictory to democracy?

Can't you see the difference in the way that defense against Russia and China is not inherently contradictory to democracy in Germany or Japan?

The US was also lying about the weapons of mass destruction. Not just Bush II, but pretty much ever since Gulf War I ended. You believe that right?

Do you think there is an independent Afghani government now? Or there will be for the indefinite future?

I agree that Iraq has a much better chance than Afghanistan did, mostly because installing and a puppet will be much more expensive than it was in Afghanistan. Mostly because of the insurgents, but a lot of the credit goes to the potential insurgents who aren't fighting yet but who apply their own form of negative pressure.

If Sistani can come to an agreement with the insurgents, that's game set and match Iraqis. I'm sure hoping.

And when the results are announced and we see how people react to the results, the occupation enters its next stage.

I can see why the announcement would be delayed. It is real easy for this stage to get really bad for the Americans.

But democracy is not a trap - the US does not have to create an independent democracy just to match its rhetoric. It's much easier just to lie about democracy.

When the US leaves, it will be because staying is more expensive than its worth to the Americans.

I think that together the Iraqis have the cards to make the Americans leave. If the insurgents can work with the people who successfully forced elections that the Americans did not want, the US is headed for a tremendous defeat and the Iraqi people are headed towards an independent government of their choosing.

Ah, we can only hope.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

In response to your post, there is a difference between America now and Britain 90 years ago... The difference is that Britain was at the end of its imperialistic era while (despite the massive propaganda) the United States never had an imperialistic agenda. From what I recall from Iraq history, Iraqis have this disease of murdering weak leaders (King Fasial, Abd Al-Kareem Quasim, etc..). Americans don’t have this particular pathology. Had the Iraqi’s supported the King or even Quasim (who was not such a bad man), you wouldn’t be in this mess.

I was for this war when it started, it felt good to get rid of a tyrannical dictator. Now however I am vehemently opposed to it now and I weep for every American who died there. What a waste of a human life. In my opinion, the entire middle east is not worth one American soldier, not even the “abu Garib” veriety. The Americans should have just bombed the country to rubble, the propaganda would have been the same as it is now. Why Americans would go the extra mile of providing freedom to a country of despots is beyond me.

There is a reason why the Arabic world has no democracy, because they tend to murder the leaders who do not rule with an iron fist. I disagree with most Americans who are naive enough to think that Iraqi’s are capable of ruling themselves for the exception of the Kurds, I cant see this happening. The Shia’s want Khumaini and Sunnis want bin-ladin, same “zibil” different man.

So you can complain all you want, Iraq will most likely revert to some dictator soon and then Iraqi academics in America will blame “Imperialism and Capitalism”

Stop whining and fix your own bloody problems.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Charles:

"Your stream of consciousness writing style is difficult to follow at times."

You now officially have my permission to not follow my writing.

Don't tax yourself with this difficulty on my account, but if you insist, you may be able to follow if you concentrate. It depends on how well you read.

Everyone else:

A real important moment is coming when the parliament sits and we see who they are, hear what they have to say and hear what the rest of Iraq has to say about them.

All we can do is hope for the best.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Hello Charles,
'Mission accomplished!',eh?
Now how about that reconstruction aid?
 
_____________________________________________________________________

"Tyrant and terrorist loving dirtbags"

You would think these words would come from the side that does _not_ make the strategic decision to bomb the water facilities of major cities.

We are literally talking about baby-killers. It is impossible to be more morally bankrupt than that.

The United States certainly would have preferred elections like the ones in Afghanistan, where the US stooge did not have to face organized competition.

The USSR occupied Afghanistan during the 80s and the Russian puppet won fair elections than in US occupied Afghanistan. With equally high turnout and the fact that if not for the terrorists, turnout would have been even higher.

The fairness of elections in occupied countries depends on how costly the resistance makes it to impose and then maintain the preferred stooge. This is as true in occupied Iraq as in occupied Poland.

Some people here seem to think that if they repeat the phrase "legitimate elections" a lot of times, the elections become legitimate. So we can see them hard at work.

The results for Iraq's election are not in yet so we cannot yet see how effective the resistance was. I'm hoping for the best.

We know that in addition to the power of the state that was given to him by the Americans, Allawi spent $200m on his election. Compared to Iraq's $20b GDP, that would be like some foreign country giving their chosen candidate $100 billion dollars to campaign in the US elections.

That candidate would win. But that would not be a legitimate democracy.

Allawi despite the advantages he had, did not have enough advantages to get more than 15% of the vote. That is a victory for those who want to see Iraq independent. Without both the armed resistance and the non-cooperation of those led by Sistani and others, Allawi would have been where Karzai is.

On the other hand, we don't know yet what the US Embassy in Baghdad is doing behind the scenes now, who is being paid what, specifically how the US intends to limit Iraq's independence and what the Iraqi people can do to further thwart those plans.

We do know that the US has positive plans to maintain a long-term presence in Iraq and we know that most the population of Iraq does not want that.

We also know that the US has other items on its agenda for Iraq, including using Iraq to host attacks on other countries in the region that would not be possible if Iraq was an independent democracy. (That agenda is possible if Iraq is an Egypt or Saudi Arabia-model puppet dictatorship.)

So now we wait. Will the Americans prevail over the Iraqis?

I keep saying that depends on how well the Iraqi people communicate and work with each other.

We have to wait to see what position the Americans take and what the Iraqi reaction to that is.

For entertainment while we wait, we get to listen to the chorus of American useful idiots who are insisting that the United States has no agenda for the Middle East other than democracy.

Forget everything the Americans wrote when they began planning this occupation. Forget the entire history of US interactions in the region. Forget America's current support for dictatorships and terrorist groups that promote America's agenda. Forget America's support for Saddam Hussein when Hussein supported America's agenda.

Just keep repeating: "Legitimate Elections" "Legitimate Elections" "Legitimate Elections" "Legitimate Elections" "Legitimate Elections" "Legitimate Elections" "Legitimate Elections" "Legitimate Elections"

That will make it true.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Let me correct a statistic, Iraq has nearly a $40 billion purchasing power-calculated GDP . $200 million in foreign campaign money would compare to $50,000 million dollars on a US campaign.

George Bush and John Kerry each spent almost $400 million dollars on their campaigns.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Charles:

As I keep saying, I'll form an opinion on how successful the Iraqis have been in thwarting the US intention to prevent the emergence of an independent Iraq after I see who is seated, what the people who are seated are saying and what the people of Iraq say about them.

I'll tell you now that the elections in Afghanistan were not legitimate, did not represent in any way the desires of the Afghan people and were not better in any important way than the elections held earlier under USSR occupation.

I'm hoping the Iraqi election is better.

Of course Charles, your poor reading skills shine through again. Mr. Annan is hopeful that the after the elections the situation will improve for the Iraqi people. Mr. Annan does not say that the elections were free of foreign influence, or that they were designed to or succeeded in reflecting the will of the Iraqi people.

Nobody will be able to say that until we see who is seated where, what they say and what the Iraqi people say about them.

"I hope the transition is a success" and "I think the elections were legitimate" are two very different statements.

If reading and understanding is too difficult for you, save yourself the effort. You're wasting your own time more than anyone's.

If you insist though, then ask yourself the question, would the US be a democracy if the Indian government promoted a former asset of the Indian intelligence services to be president and that person outspent Bush and Kerry 100-1?

Everyone else:

I found this link about "demonstration elections" that discusses how the fixed and fraudulent elections in Nicaragua and Vietnam were covered by the US media using essentially identical terms to the election in Iraq, while the fixed and fraudulent elections in occupied Poland and in the freer elections in El Salvador were reported using different terms, though the most important real difference was the political identities of the winners.

One point of the article is that "demonstration elections" are more for the benefit of people like Charles than for the people governed, and the people governed end up with a result essentially opposite to what they thought they were voting for.


Link here
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Dear Abu Khaleel,
now the official election results are in.
It took two weeks (FOURTEEN DAYS) to produce them, although all the ballot boxes had been in Baghdad one day after the elections.
Two weeks? OK, 8 million votes plus, and the first elections (so they love to tell us) in forty years. But with a single constituency, and just one tick per ballot, it does seem a bit fishy indeed...
I do suspect that some slight 'arrangement' may have occurred... and the Iraqi Electoral Commission had been nominated by US Gauleiter Bremer, after all...
It was difficult to steal votes from the al-Sistani-blessed coalition, and even more difficult to steal them from the Kurdish coalition. But I suspect that it was quite easy to steal votes & rig the results at the expense of the Communist Party list (no. 324, if I'm not mistaken) and of all minor parties, in order to pump up the list of the US puppet of the day (Allawi).
Maybe I'm very mistaken, and no such vote fraud occurred...
What is your opinion on the subject, Abu Khaleel?
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Charles, it’s nasty old Circular back again. You say:
"Can you name for me any country that has been MORE supportive of the emergence of an independent Iraq than the USA???"
Can you answer for me a hypothetical question, just to clarify your stance. It is perhaps unlikely, but it is theoretically possible, that the new Government in Iraq, if it is successfully formed in the next few weeks, might say to the US: "Thanks very much for your help, but we’ll take it from here. We’ll sort out our own problems now, find our own way to deal with the insurgency. We would like you to take all your troops, and your bases, out of our country, right now. You can leave a moderate sized Embassy if you like."
Well two questions actually: if this happened, should the US do it? And would the US do it?
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Charles:

When you said following my writing style was difficult for you, you weren't lying.

All I can say is read what I already wrote more carefully. All of your questions are already answered in both of my last two main comments.

I'm pretty sure nobody else thinks I wrote what you think I wrote.

I could repeat what I've already written more than once, while periodically calling you stupid in between, but if you haven't been able to comprehend yet, why would you the third time?

Otherwise, here's a truce. If you think someone is a dirtbag, call that person by name and make sure that person is not me or a group that could include me. Then I'll just go back to ignoring you.

Everyone else:

I'm still guardedly optimistic that once in place the new government will be substantially outside of US influence.

I expect that the US is pouring a lot of money in behind the scenes to ensure the new government is as close to a puppet as possible, but I'm even more optimistic now than I was 24 hours ago that this US money is just being flushed down a toilet.


Over at Informed Comment, there is an english translation of a story about the Association of Muslim Scholars and the efforts they are making to reach out to Sistani and his followers.

I think it might work. I think the Iraqi people might beat the Americans. I'm really hoping.

We'll see.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

"I called you and your ilk "terrorist and tyrant loving morally bankrupt dirtbags.""
Charles! Do you mean me too? After all I've done for you!
I assure you that I have never knowingly embraced a terrorist or tyrant in my life.
Well that may not be strictly true - the wife's a bit domineering ...
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Ya Abu Katya,

It appears I am the only person (other than our host) paying attention to the dis-enfranchising of the ChaldoAssyrians. (The Yezidis and Turkmen experienced similar problems as well--see the most recent issue at zindamagazine.com ) [note, I leave spaces after website names to make it easier to copy and paste JUST the link]
As a native of Los Angeles, I know something of what is involved in travel around this metropolitan area. I know something of the extended traffic jam running from San Diego into Irvine and back. So I know the strength of the arguments made by the ChaldoAssyrians of California about too few polling places.
If this were merely about a fraction of some large group which will surely be represented by SOMEONE, then I would let it pass. However, it is about the group(s) least likely to be represented, most likely to be oppressed...

Yes, I was (and AM) against the war. I was partially against the war because I feared that things would become more dangerous for this embattled community upon our invasion, and so it has happened. DO YOU THINK I'M GLAD THIS IS GOING ON???!!! DO YOU THINK I'M GLAD THAT MY FEARS APPEAR TO BE JUSTIFIED????!!!!
I'm deeply disappointed by your lack of response to this situation. For my fellow left-wingers, it's all more of the same. "It's a sham anyway". "What do you expect?" and so forth. They (we) didn't really believe it in the first place. But you!? You BELIEVE in the process.

I'm watching the possible destruction of this community, which has been self-documented in Iraq since before my ancestors had any idea anyone anywhere could read or write. I'm ANGRY, I'm upset!

I've known something of the history of Kurdish/ChaldoAssyrian tensions for some time (due to my interest in the Assyrian culture and people). We have documentation of a repression of the vote among this community, and I read little or nothing.
I wouldn't be surprised if you merely dismiss this as a new form of left-wing rant. I'm saying that your cherished Iraqi elections may be 'legitimizing' the disenfranchising and destruction of Iraq's oldest community.
---
Bechtel and Haliburton don't care about the ChaldoAssyrians. It's not a profitable interest. I don't blame THEM for not caring. My problems with them are more political/economic.
----
My apologies for my vehemence. I'm worried and with very good justification. Read about 'The Year of The Sword', or search out the articles regarding the behavior of Badr's Brigades in Basra towards the local ChaldoAssyrians. Please understand, the Armenians were not alone in suffering (and dying) under the Turks (often with Kurds acting for the Turks). And Iraq has a less-than-hopeful history with regards to this community. And some the Syrian Kurds are bringing their own prejudices into play in dealing with their ChaldoAssyrin neighbors in the Jezireh.
---
Abu Khaleel,
My apologies for running on about this. I wish my fears were unjustified.


Bob Griffin
 
_____________________________________________________________________

" Charles " does not exist.

It is a propaganda project paid for by the Ministry of Truth for the Republic and the Party.

In addition to buying some reichwing loons, the Party which fabricates reporters for the White House does other dirty tricks. e.g.- Add poison and ignorance and angry racism to blog talk posts.

Charles is a faith based initiative. Two or three Rapturites are getting a thousand $ a week for their propaganda work.

Ignore Charles - it's poison.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Hello Bob,
I think the best bet for the Christians is to go to Kurdistan, where the Kurds are likely to resist Sharia law, otherwise they will probably have to leave Iraq for good. So much for Bush's crusade.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Well Charles, you're certainly getting madder and madder.

I'm still waiting to see what government sits.

When that happens I'll form a judgment on the process that produced that government. This is the third time I'm writing this in this post. I've written it before in other posts.

You have not read it before, you won't read it now. Oh well.

While I wait to see what government forms, as you get madder and madder, you get more and more entertaining.

But since you are going to be such a vocal participant here, I think it is important for me to explain to everyone why you are so angry.

In a previous comment in this post I referred to useful idiots of the United States, but didn't stick to that point for long.

In Charles' mind, the United States only has one agenda for Iraq. That agenda is to create a democracy. Charles is honest when he says, for example, the US should leave if the Iraqi people want it to.

That image of the United States as the pure and innocent force of good forms an important part of Charles' self-image.

Unfortunately for everyone, Charles does not work in the US State Department.

So when asked the question, would the US tolerate an Iraq that is as hostile to US interests as Iran, Syria or Saddam Hussein's Iraq, as long as Iraq is a democracy, Charles replies "absolutely".

The US State Department has a record that says "absolutely not".

It is simplicity itself to point to three or four priorities that the US, by its policies proves it values more greatly than democracy.

But when someone points those priorities out or points to the plentiful evidence that democracy is not the primary objective of the United States in the Middle East, that hurts Charles in his core. That is an attack on a central component of Charles' self image.

That's why Charles wants strike back at those who hurt him. It seems unprovoked to people whose identities don't depend on the purity of US foreign policy, but to Charles, it is self defense.

There is no democracy in Afghanistan. After Charles brings up Germany and Japan, I can easily bring up a half dozen other US interventions in nations more similar to Iraq that worked against democracy.

And that hurts Charles at least as much as if I had besmirched the honor of his daughter.

To understand how this comments thread is developing, I offer this explanation.

I am pretty unlikely to make an actual statement that Charles can disprove. If I do, Charles will quite eagerly disprove it and you will never hear it from me again.

But it does not take a disprovable statement to hurt Charles' core. And when that happens Charles has to attack. If there is not a statement he can disprove, he has no choice but to make up statements, assign those statements to me and attack me for those.

I say the United States wants to control Iraq - Charles says I love tyrants and terrorists, my mind is full of vile virulent conspiracy theories. To Charles it's an eye for an eye.

One thing that is unfortunate for everyone is that the professionals in the US State Department do not live in Charles' world where their personal identities depend on the purity of US political motives.

For the professionals in the State Department, a democratic Iraq that that threatens US interests in the region is just as unacceptable as an Iraqi dictatorship that threatens US interests.

The professionals in the United States State Department are just as willing to kill Iraqi civilians to prevent one as to prevent the other.

But to assert that where Charles can read it causes Charles to lash out in counterattack. If he can't attack the message, he has no choice, but to attack the messenger.

I'm prepared to be even more entertained by the lashing this inspires than I have been up to now.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Charles,

I am not going to delete that offensive and almost unwarranted outburst since you have apologized… but please try to control yourself and reduce the personal attacks (like you have managed to reduce the number of “quotes” :)if we are to have a civilized debate. Remember, we are all being asked to learn from the America that you represent.

Iraq has been continuously inhabited since the last ice age. There is no such thing as “the” true people of Iraq. The first civilizations were started by the Sumerians. They were not Semites and nobody knows where they originally came from. All other civilizations were built by Semites. Akkadians, Babylonians, Amorites, Assyrians and Arabs are Semites (based on the roots of language). Kurds are not. The Kurds came from the North East of Iraq. All others came from the South (the Arabian Peninsula: Yemen and Saudi Arabia). Abraham was a Semite who lived in Sumer.

There are four major Christian groups in Iraq. Chaldeans (who I think still use the original language of the Bible, Bob?), Assyrians, Arabs and Armenians. The first three are all Semites. The Armenians are recent newcomers who fled Turkish genocide. In my humble opinion, they all have equal claim to being true Iraqis.
______________________________

Bob,

I am afraid that your fears are not misplaced. These people (and many others) are in for a rough ride.

If you have the time, have a look at the details of the vote (http://www.ieciraq.org/English/Home.htm ) you may notice such a disproportionately low vote for the major Kurdish slate from Kurds in Baghdad (estimated between 800,000 and one million)! Similarly, many of the Baghdadi Christians that I know did not vote on sectarian or religious lines. Cosmopolitan Baghdad apparently still has some (but perhaps not yet enough) fighting spirit left in it.
______________________________

Circular,

I liked your response to Charles. It seems that you managed to diffuse his anger, but at the expense of taking out yours at the poor wife!
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Mr Kahleel, honoured sir, could I make a few suggestions.
1) Re-name your Blog "Iraqi Letter to Charles." This would reflect reality. Or
2) Post some really interesting stuff about the ancient Iraqi art of flower arranging, or the intricacies of the Baghdad sewerage scheme, or anything else that Charles knows nothing about. Or
3) Preface each future post with an acknowledgement that US motives and methods in Iraq have been positively virginal, purer than the driven snow, that the US has made no errors in Iraq, has not harmed a single hair of an innocent Raghead mother or child. Or
4) Could we set a given time, say 12.00 noon GMT next Tuesday, when we all go "Blaaaaaaaah, Charles!" An echo heard around the world! Or
5) Any other suggestions, anyone?
I’m sorry, Abu, but this relentless propaganda assault on reality is getting up my nose.
Ah Choo!
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Abu Khaleel,
Tha Assyrians and Chaldeans speak dialects related to the language of Jesus, however there have been enormous changes over the centuries. The language used in their traditional church services is much closer to the language of Jesus, but there are still differences of dialect (somewhat like that between Iraqi and Egyptian Arabic).

The language spoken by the Assyrians around Mardin and Midyat in Turkey is a bit closer to that spoken by Jesus, as far as I can tell, but I don't have much documentation on that dialect.

(Note:some of the words in the modern Irani and Iraqi dialects of Aramaic actually are derived from ancient Assyrian, and not ancient Aramaic)
For the most part, the Assyrians and Chaldeans are native to northern Iraq. The earlier communities in the south appear to have disappeared during by the end of the 14th century, whether by death, conversion, or migration.

The community in Tigrit is primarily native, while that in Baghdad and the south is more mixed, with some ChaldoAssyrians possibly being ancestrally from around Lake Urumiah.

----
Charles,
Given that the Kurds have been pushing for ChaldoAssyrian lands, and both SCIRI and the Wahhabis/Salafis see them as infidels, I don't see democracy under the current situation (including the suppression of ChaldoAssyrian votes in areas under Kurdish domination) as boding well for the ChaldoAssyrians.
The Iraqi-Armenian community MAY have an advantage in contacts with the world-wide Armenian community, which MAY be able to exert influence for the sake of their fellow Armenians. The Pope may be able to exert SOME influence on behalf of the Chaldeans, who are Catholic. However, in spite of the presence of the major Assyrian patriarch in the US (Chicago), the US remains mostly ignorant and uninterested in the plight of the Assyrians. For most Americans, they're just Middle-Easterners (terrorists?) with wierd accents, if even that much is known. I don't know if Europeans in general are any more aware, although there have been a few British parliamentarians who have spoken up for them.
So, in both the Kurdish north and in the Shi'ite south, ChaldoAssyrian hopes for good results from democracy are like Gay-American hopes for pro-Gay policies as a result of Bible-Belt democracy. They are nearly as much a minority in Iraq as the American Indians are here in the states, and in the north they are probably about as likely to be protected by a Kurdish-dominated democracy as Navajos occupying Uranium-bearing land are to be protected by the US gov't when mining corporations want access to the minerals.

Be Well,
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Abu - I've read 54 comments.

Charles is a thief - he steals your readers' attention.

In the best circumstances, it is not easy for people to talk and reason together.

When someone who just wants to provoke fights, it's almost impossible.

It does not matter if Charles is a paid agent-provocateur or a gifted loon who can diagnose mental illness better than psychiatrists.( Doctors actually see and speak with people.)

It does not matter if Charles is one person or a group.

What matters is - the blog's comments have a hijacker on board.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Charles,

I am addressing you because I think that you do not represent just yourself, but many millions of Americans who are still supporting that administration in its ‘puritan’ adventure in Iraq and are certain that they are doing the right thing. Around 58 million Americans who do not care what the other 5 billion people around the world think.

I found your last comment even more offensive than the earlier, insulting one.

You expect that your white knights in shining armor will “probably” bring forth more positive political reform in the next ten years than it has in the last 5000 years. I frankly find this so ignorant and arrogant!

Do you have any idea how many upheavals and political, religious and cultural changes took place in this region over the last 5000 years? The written word, the written laws and the world’s major religions just to name a few!!

All these momentous achievements seem to pale in your view in comparison to what your administration is going to “probably” bring forth through innocent blood, bombing, incompetence and devastation… just because they helped set up those elections that you seem to believe are a true manifestation of democracy. I suppose we have to ignore all that blood and suffering and the facts on the ground… and take your word and the word of your administration for it.

Judging by the past record regarding the WMD and the links to Al Qaeda, you have to agree that it is not really a very promising prospect!

When this campaign of yours “probably” fails and Iraq and the rest of the world are more dangerous places, with hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead, with billions in Iraqi and American funds wasted… we all would still have your word! You and your administration would “probably” still be claiming victory much like now.

In the first comment, you insulted a few people. But in the second, you insulted many millions, many centuries of human effort as well as scores of civilizations and human achievements.

Ignorance is a lot easier to cure than mental illness. All it requires is some willingness to learn and some effort to obtain new info. Arrogance is “probably” more difficult. It may have to be treated the hard way, which unfortunately can only mean more suffering.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Charles, Circular, Bruno, Abu Khaleel and others:

What happened to the middle ground on this site? Charles insists on the moral purity of U.S. intentions, while the rest of you insist on the moral depravity of them. It now contains two polar opposite views with no effort on either side to bridge the gap. The possibility that motivations and intentions could be mixed, i.e., that they may include elements or self interest and altruism, are not even considered.

For example, at some point, Sistani's insistence on direct elections probably became viewed by U.S. officials both selfishly, as the best way of Iraqification of the battle against the insurgency, as well as, altruistically, as the most appropriate means to pass power to the long suffering Iraqi people. There were, of course, other options for fighting the insurgency that a “self-interested Evil Empire” could have chosen, including tightly retaining all political control and engaging in a massive military build up to crush it. The Nazi, Romans, and many other relatively ruthless Empires had little trouble dominating conquered territory by purely military intimidation.

Where an attempt at nuance is made, it is merely a flaccid rhetorical device. For example, I am sure that the many Eastern European victims of Soviet repression would find Circular's assertion that, "I might agree with you that the USSR was rather worse than the US," demeaning to their considerable suffering, particularly where it is merely a throw-away concession in his broader attack on U.S. intentions.

Rather than examining the subtleties and nuance of interplay between mixed intentions that have influenced U.S. policy over time, this site is becoming a forum for creative insults. It is DEPRESSING!

Mark-In-Chi-Town
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Charles, Circular, Bruno, Abu Khaleel and others:

What happened to the middle ground on this site? Charles insists on the moral purity of U.S. intentions, while the rest of you insist on the moral depravity of them. There are now only two polar opposite views expressed with no effort on either side to bridge the gap. The possibility that motivations and intentions could be mixed, i.e., that they may include elements or self interest and altruism, are not even considered.

For example, at some point, Sistani's insistence on direct elections probably became viewed by U.S. officials both selfishly, as the best way of Iraqification of the battle against the insurgency, as well as, altruistically, as the most appropriate means to pass power to the long suffering Iraqi people. There were, of course, other options for fighting the insurgency that a “self-interested Evil Empire” could have chosen, including tightly retaining all political control and engaging in a massive military build up to crush it. The Nazi, Romans, and many other relatively ruthless Empires had little trouble dominating conquered territory by purely military intimidation.

Where an attempt at nuance is made, it is merely a flaccid rhetorical device. For example, I am sure that the many Eastern European victims of Soviet repression would find Circular's assertion that, "I might agree with you that the USSR was rather worse than the US," demeaning to their considerable suffering, particularly where it is merely a throw-away concession in his broader attack on U.S. intentions.

Rather than examining the subtleties and nuance of the interplay between mixed intentions that have influenced U.S. policy over time, this site is becoming a forum for creative insults. It is DEPRESSING!

Mark-In-Chi-Town
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Mark
you quote "Circular's assertion that, "I might agree with you that the USSR was rather worse than the US ...""
Are you sure I said that, you’re not confusing me with someone else? I’ll take your word for it if you can quote chapter and verse, but I don’t remember saying it and it doesn’t sound like me.
As to the "no middle ground" thing, I strongly disagree. You are certainly out of order if you accuse any of us "liberals" as actually approving of or siding with "terrorists" or "tyrants," as Charles does. But as world citizens we are perfectly entitled to take exception to what we see as the dishonest, incompetent, unrealistic and arrogant attitudes and actions of the current US administration. There is a very large body of opinion in the US which agrees with us! We *are* the middle ground.
You will note, I trust, that the US administration is now trying to mend bridges with Europe, and has scaled down its "world leader, do as we tell you" rhetoric and bluster. It seems unlikely to launch a "pre-emptive" attack soon on North Korea, or Burma, or Syria, or Iran, and as undesirable as those regimes are, that is probably best from the point of view of world peace. There is no hugely pressing urgency, and the lesson of Iraq is that a badly planned and clumsily executed "liberation" is not much better than no liberation at all.
If you can’t take criticism, don’t promote yourself as bigger and better than everyone else, just be one of the gang.
(And if the majority rules, I’m not sure, as I’ve said before, how far to go in separating the country from its current and temporary leaders.)
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Further to Mark, and by way of illustration of my feelings towards the current US administration, and also as a complete change of subject away from Iraq for a moment, can I say something about the US response to the Tsunami disaster. Three developments struck me (though I’m open to correction of my memory here):
1) Condy Rice’s statement that the disaster was "a great opportunity for America." I.e. presumably a chance to show the humanitarian side of the US for a change. Grown-ups don’t talk like that! You may think it, you may infer it privately to friends, but you don’t say it out loud and publicly - complete lack of subtlety and sensitivity.
2) Shortly afterwards, someone announced that the US would form a coalition of itself, India, Japan and Australia to lead disaster relief. A few days later, India said rather huffily that it didn’t need any help from anybody, then the Japanese foreign ministry said that the coalition was off. Reading between the lines, it seemed pretty clear that the US announcement was made before they bothered to consult the other partners - it was just assumed they would fall into line. Again, sensitivity and subtlety.
3) Next, Colin Powell and Jeb Bush (who?) fly out to the Far East to "co-ordinate disaster relief." A few days later they’re back home, and it’s announced that the UN will handle it after all. Again, pushing for a leadership role that the rest of the world just didn’t want to know about.
US ships and helicopters made a great contribution to immediate relief in Indonesia. But it was noticeable that the Indonesians and Sri Lankans were very reluctant to have any actual American boots on the ground in their countries. Wonder why that was? (By way of contrast, there’s been a large ANZAC Army medical team in Banda Aceh for weeks. Yet a few years ago the ANZACS were actually fighting Indonesian militia in East Timor.)
These Bush guys are primitives, out of touch with reality. This administration has just been a total disaster for America’s foreign policy and world image.
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

To Mark and all:

Charles insists on the moral purity of U.S. intentions, while the rest of you insist on the moral depravity of them.Perhaps you will find both moral purity and moral depravity in this news:

Four men say they witnessed shooting of unarmed civilians

If there is a struggle of moral purity against moral depravity, the side of moral purity will only win when Charles gives up.

But, as I think he is being paid to write propaganda stuff in Abu Khaleel's blog, he will never ever give up. If he gives up, he will prove that I was wrong about he and the defensors of the moral purity will win.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Charles
I was attempting to correspond with Mark.
I did not need a referral to a Blog representing the "State Department Republican Underground." If I want to read about Neanderthals, I've got a book, thanks, pictures and all. Petty-minded mean-spirited point scoring over human suffering by petty-minded mean-spirited sneerers does not make for informative reading.
As we say in NZ, in our friendly Kiwi way, "Piss Off!"
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Mark-in-Chi-Town
(where the hell is Chi-Town, anyway?)In case you are thinking of responding to my post to you above, about my supposed statement "I might agree with you that the USSR was rather worse than the US."
I've just looked back, and that was actually Bruno, not me.
Bruno's occasional excesses are in my view excusable - he sometimes forgets to wear his sun hat.
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Well, just to put everyone’s minds at rest, I’ve had some enquiries made (mes espions sont partout) and it turns out that "Charles" is actually three pimply adolescent boys (CHuck, ARrthur and LESter) in Idiocy, New Hampshire. This explains the variability in their posts: Chuck is the gullible one who watches Fox news all day, Arthur is the excitable one who uses ad hominen argument about terrorist-lovers, and Lester has just learned to spell "tyranny" and is using it every chance he gets.
They aren’t CIA agents (too young for Federal employment) but they are linked to CRAP (Committee for Republican Analysis of Propaganda) which is monitoring the effectiveness of their total credulity about every changing White House line. (As 12-year-olds, they were totally convinced that that Iraq was awash with WMD. Now, they’ve never heard of WMD, or "foreign fighters" which were the flavour of the month last year, they’re fixated on Lester’s excitement about tyranny.) After tyranny has been totally eradicated from the world, the next item on their agenda is mixed bathing.
Maybe not, they may have grown up by then and come to appreciate it.
My advice is, don’t respond to them, or engage in "debate" with them.
They should be doing their homework anyway.
Not Circular. Definitely not me!
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Circular:

You are correct. The language I quoted was posted by Bruno, not you. I was confused by his referencing your name at the very end of the post into thinking you were the author. I apologize for the error.

If your views differ substantially from him on this point, please feel free to explain, because to my ear, the substance of your comments sounds as if you are in agreement with him. Please feel free to correct me, if I am, again, in error.

As to your claim to be the voice of moderation, you are confusing the concepts of majority opinion and moderation. Moderation, in this political sense, means critically examining opposing views and attempting reconcile and synthesize them in effort to screen out partisan biases. By engaging in such a process, one hopes to arrive at a closer approximation to the "truth," than can be generally found at the two extremes. Where, as in the current circumstances, large numbers of people are polarized at opposite extremes, one can be both "moderate," as I have defined the term, and hold a minority view point.

Also, your assertions concerning U.S. troops in Indonesian are largely incorrect. U.S. troops are being drawn down from a high of 15,000 to 5,000 for continued disaster relief. Most other foreign troops are also being drawn down since the situation is now entering the long-term reconstruction phase, which is more appropriately handled by employing local civilians. See http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/128823/1/.html . Further, it seems that al least some common Achenese would prefer that the foreign troops stay to protect them from the repressive Indonesian military. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05030/449504.stm .

Concerning the phase out of the “Core Group,” its creation to some extent was due to its member’s wariness concerning the U.N. bureaucracy ability to rapidly cope with an emergency of this scale. By the time it was disbanded, U.S. and other foreign troops were already in Indonesia getting aid to victims, while the U.N. continued to struggle with its administrative role. As express by Colin Powell after he discussed the issues with Kofi Annan in Jakarta, "We talked about the need for the U.N. agencies — if they are going to play that coordinating role — to get on the ground and start playing it." See http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=389190 .

As to the Condi Rice comment, she was responding to a comment made by a Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, who commented that the massive U.S. help for victims of the Asian tsunami had aided the nation's image.

Ms. Rice Responded:
"I do agree that the tsunami was a wonderful opportunity to show not just the U.S. government, but the heart of the American people," Rice said. "And I think it has paid great dividends for us." See http://www.freep.com/news/nw/rice19e_20050119.htm .

Former President Clinton has been quoted as expressing similar sentiments, "I am grateful for the opportunity that this terrible tragedy gives for religious reconciliation in the world." Clinton is a much more polished public speaker, yet expressed comments that could be criticized for the same lack of empathy for the victims of the Tsunami. See http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,11920491-401,00.html .

Thus, your criticism of Rice seems unfair and, in my view, serves as a better example of your political view point, than her incompetence. This is not to say that the Bush administration has not been ham-fisted in its handling of a number of matters, most prominently, the governance of post-invasion Iraq. Further, it is certainly true that the Bush administration has damaged the image of America in many quarters in the short run. However, it is far too soon to speak of what the ultimate judgment of history will be.

Mark-In-Chi-Town

P.S. “Chi-Town” is local slang for Chicago, Illinois. Yes, if you must know, it is a “blue state.”
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Mark:

This is not a situation where one side is saying the US is worse than Nazi Germany and the other is saying the US is angelic.

This is a situation where one side is saying the US has interests that can and do override its supposed interest in promoting democracy and another side seems to be saying some combination of "promotion of democracy is the only US agenda" and "whatever the US installs is democracy."

In other words, this is a real one side is right, the other side is wrong issue. And its pretty easy, using the historical record, to show which side is which.

So while "the truth is somewhere in between" is a lofty sounding thogh meaningless stance, it just does not apply here.

At some point the elected government will sit and we will see what control it has over what aspects of the country, and we will learn what role each player has been playing.

Until then we are waiting. In the meantime one side is getting upset and calling names and losing coherence and the other side is responding to that.

When what's going on behind the scenes comes to light, we'll have plenty of substantive things to discuss along with the name calling and the responses to the name calling.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Mark
"This is not to say that the Bush administration has not been ham-fisted in its handling of a number of matters, most prominently, the governance of post-invasion Iraq. Further, it is certainly true that the Bush administration has damaged the image of America in many quarters in the short run."
Well thank you very much. That’s all I’ve been trying to say.
The question is why they have been ham-fisted and damaged the image of America. I would put it down to ignorance, arrogance and ideology, not necessarily in that order.
" ... it is far too soon to speak of what the ultimate judgement of history will be."
I think before Bush’s term is out there is a fair chance that history will already have spoken - the US will have become marginalised while the major players, China, India, Russia, the EU, South America, and yes, the Arab Muslim states, work out their own new world order. Without much reference to the failed ideology of the present US administration. You brought it on yourselves.
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

[
"Until then we are waiting."

Don't pretend such generosity. You are not waiting. Your opinion and inferences are set in stone.
]

Aaah Charles. I understand.

When you are so angry that you have to argue with something, but I haven't written anything you can argue against ...

Just make something up, say that's what I really believe then argue against that.

You can calm down. The wait will be over soon enough.

We don't know yet what the US has been doing behind the scenes between election day and the day the elected government sits. But we will know soon.

And when we do, we will easily be able to determine the degree to which the United States is working for or against the establishment of an independent Iraq.
 
_____________________________________________________________________