Iraqi feelings.

Remove all ads!

Yesterday's newspaper had an article about the Iraqi who was shot by American soldiers. One line that came out was a quote from an Iraqi lady saying words to the effect, "You Americans are the same as Saddam, just killing Iraqis".

I wonder how much longer that US forces are going to be around in Iraq, it seems that Jo Blo on the street in Iraq is not really capable of thanking their liberators anymore...

 

It is always easy for some newspaper to find someone to say just that. No matter what, there will always be dissent against a peacekeeping/occupation force. When I was in Kosovo, a lot of people were not happy to have us around, even though the situation there is very calm.

As for how long the US is going to stay in Iraq, well if they are going to do anything, they have to stay for quite a while. Remember, there are still troops in Bosnia. If they pull out of Iraq, then I fear the whole war would be in vain. However, I think it would be wise for the US to appeal to the UN to make Iraq an UN-mission, so we could have peacekeeping forces from different nations.

 

It's not just newpapers saying that.

From http://www.msnbc.com/news/992125.asp?vts=111320030652

 

Grovflab - Referring to the current occupation force in Iraq as "peacekeeping" is strange. You must be listening to too much of Bush's propaganda.

 

Chandos, I HATE Bush! Absolutely no discussion there. As I wrote in my previous post, peacekeeping/occupation? The first is good, the second is bad! I did not agree with the war in Iraq. However, it is no longer a war. The Iraqi military has been defeated, and there are no more operations of war taking place. I know american soldiers are dying, but they have around 130.000 troops in Iraq, so that can't be a huge surprise.

As little as I agree with the war in the first place, I think that to pull out the troops now would turn this into an even bigger disaster. Then the whole war would have been for nothing, and it would just be a matter of time before a new warlord takes the power in Iraq. Therefore, I think that Iraq has become a peacekeeping mission, and it would be wise for the americans to let UN take control, so that the ameracans would no longer be viewed as an occupation force.

Bottomline is, I think a lot of people is unable to see the difference between peacekeeping and war/occupation. Yes, US have attacked Iraq, and a lot of us think its wrong. However, that has already taken place, and we have no way to change that. What we can do now is help Iraq back to stability.

 

Grovflab - OK, I see your point, but it seemed a little unclear in your previous post. That's probably my bad. My feeling is that to cut-and-run now would be a mistake also. BUT, if Bush and his gang can find a way to make amends to the Europeans and the UN, then they can make a graceful retreat, just in time for the election. But that seems a hard thing for them given the current feelings. Even Japan is backing out of its meager commitment.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0cv=CA01

I'm sure by now even the Bush gang is having second thoughts about this whole "mission." They should have stopped in Afghanistan while they had the support and goodwill of most. Instead, they became arrogant and overconfident. Now they are in quicksand and sinking fast. The best thing they can do at the moment is get their hands on Saddam, and stop the bleeding. I still feel that he may be at the bottom of the recent attacks.

[ November 13, 2003, 19:54: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

It was not my intention to illustrate newspaper propoganda, it's just that I have known Iraqis for over 10 years and they said before the war that Americans would not be welcome, for the reason stated above. It just seems that it has taken such a long time for the western media to be bothered reporting a fact that has been around for a decade. There may have been for a short period of time some kind of leaning towards the US way back in April but after such a long time and little anything good...

 

Well Grovflab there is a slight difference between the situation in Kossovo and Iraq. In Kossovo there was a united front of the western world behind the attacks and the peacekeeping force is under UN administration which was a big advantage for the forces stationed there.
In Iraq we had an invasion against the wishes of the vast majority of the nations, which are members of the UN, and against the wishes of the most members of the security counsil. Furthermore UN is not enjoying the level of acceptance that did in Kossovo due the lengthy sanctions, that were imposed on Iraq. And since USA is always a favourite enemy in Muslim world for a number of reasons, things can only go worse i am afraid.
Another reason for this may be that the coalition forces seem to be more interested in the untroubled supply of oil to the West, than in the wellfare of Iraqie people. And when you are in acountry that was under a suppressive regime for so long, then comes a coalition of nations that are blamed for many troubles that existed before the invasion, and the people instead of seeing better days they see more blood and even worse living conditions what can anyone expect?
I believe that no nation in the world likes to see another nation invades in it and trying to play the savior of the day. They would prefer to be left alone to deal with their problems. We are treating them as kids that need guidance when they are not and this makes them nervous and unhappy. USA must start thinking to change policy on the Iraq issue before things go out of control.

 

I am really getting tired of people saying that the war was over oil. The Middle East is actually beginning to now pull extremely low-grade oil from their wells. The only country in the world with the capability to refine most of it is the US. They'd supply to us whether we are there or not or they'd destroy their own economies.

The war was partly over Bush's revenge for his father's failure, I'll grant that. It was also over terrorism. There is concrete proof of Saddam's association with al-Quaeda. As I recall, we've decalred war on all terrorists.

 

What evidence is that Rastor? As far as I know all the concrete pieces of evidence linking Saddam and Al Qaeda together has been refuted, one was iirc a paper written by a college student in Britain. I do not doubt that Saddam supported Palestinian rebels, but so does every arab country in the world.
Now however I think there are links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, before the invasion islamic fundamentalists were as big a threat to Saddam as the US.

 

Alright, first the caveats. Laches' link to the following article in no way means that he supports the views expressed therein etc etc etc.

This is in response to joacqin's question and I'm not sure if this is what Rastor means but this news hit New York last night and was published as factual. What I would consider the reputable news sources such as WaPo haven't talked about it yet but it has hit the wires and is seeing some broadcast news reports I suspect because a google search came back with MSNBC and Fox hits. Again, I'm sceptical as to the link myself but:

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/42706.htm

I don't know if that is what Rastor meant or not. From what I understand Tariq Aziz may be willing to say just about anything and I wouldn't be surprised if the same is true of others cited.

 

Interesting article, but I really would want to see a more reputable outlet than the NY Post reporting it .

Also wanted to add to a comment that Rastor made:

This statement is mostly true, and I'm glad that it has been brought up. All crudes are different on a regional basis, sort of like wines, but in general, Middle Eastern crudes produce fairly high sulfur content fuels. Many areas in Europe and some in US (California for example), have enacted legislation requiring the use of cleaner or low sulfur fuels. The process to clean up sulfonated fuels adds a very costly step to the refining process, and the use of expensive equipment such as hydrotreaters.

I don't know the exact count, but the number of large scale de-sulfonation units that are outside of the US, probably could be counted on one hand. In fact the best process to do so is patented by either Exxon-Mobile or Chevron-Texaco (all these mergers have clouded the playing field and I've lost track)

Just a little ironic side issue on the whole "War for Oil" concept...the places that have the highest demand for fossil fuels refined from Middle Eastern crude, also have the worst pollution from the use of those fuels, and are enacting requirements that make those Middle Eastern crudes less economiclly viable than some other sources. If we are in a war for oil, nobody asked the oil companies if they even want it, or the environmentalists if it can be used.

 

Most of the stuff in that article sounds quite old to me, especially that meeting in Prague has been talked about for quite some time and if I am not completely mistaken even the CIA said the intelligence on it was shaky.
I am not completely sure that it is so but but what I can recollect that article was just a rehash of what has been said about Saddam/Usama connections for atleast a year and is nothing new.

 

Saddam + Usama = Pope + Lenin. Crass comparison, but fairly accurate.

Latest news to come in also that according to Gallup Polls (which are extremely reliable?) only 1% of Iraqis believed that American forces wanted to bring democracy to Iraq. 43% believed it was to rob Iraq of the oil.

In May attacks against coallition forces were rare, in summer around 12 a day, more recently between 35 and 40 and over the last fortnight about 60. So clearly as time goes by, more Iraqis are beginning to welcome the occupiers...

Also after 7 months the electricity and clean water levels have finally reached pre-invasion levels, and we all know how great that was...

So in the end the author of the article, a professor of politics calls the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq the most foolish adventure of forign politics that he has ever witnessed, making it even more outrageous than the Vietnam debacle.

BTW go ahead and flame me, I couldn't care less since I am only (selectively) reproducing someone else's views.

Mine is simply, Doh (Homer style), but didn't sensible people predict all this hostility before the conflict?

 

Whats also interesting is that more people American soldiers have died since the start of the war that died the entire first 2 years of Vietnam.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/111503B.shtml

Those numbers really suprised me and made me think of the snowball effect, Vietnam started off slow and got worse and worse and the same is going on in Iraq. Very few problems at first, now the attacks are getting more and more coordinated and attacks are getting more severe and more often.

 

well, america did invade Iraq, so what was everyone expecting to happen - a welcome party for US troops?

what was the original reason behind the war anyway? oh yeah that's right - those weapons of mass destruction, and saddam

they still haven't found either

 

I do not think that sulfur will be a big problem. Well, it is a problem, but separation is not a technical problem, it's only a problem to find anyone who buys it. The same goes with all the other problematic emissions of oil. Uh, too much co2, what are we gonna do about it ? Stob buying oil ? here

Mexico and Venezuela crude isn't better in sulfur matters. But what the heck, oil is needed.

As for war reason, it was mainly that plan to "reshape" the middle east. Oil propably was only a positive side aspect, yet oil will be the most important aspect in the end.

here

 

The top sources for imported crude oil are (in order)
1. Canada 16.5%
2. Saudi Arabia 14.9%
3. Mexico 13.6%
4. Venezuela 10.5%

In fact, between Jan 2003 and July 2003, US imports of Middle Eastern crude dropped from 21.6% to 17.0%. It is anticipated that by end of year, US reliance on Middle Eastern crude will be less than 15%. It is true that both Mexican and Venezuelan crude are high sulfur, but typical analysis puts them about 0.5% less than Saudi...and that equates to numbers like 0.7% by total weight of crude to 1.2% by total weight of crude...when translated into a weight difference per barrel, the difference becomes daunting.

I read the article that you cited, Yago, and it looked to me more like wishful thinking. Within it's text I also found

There are currently no markets for sulfur, other than fertilizer, and far more is produced by refining and other industries than can be utilized in that venue. Historically, most of the sulfur has been loaded on barges and shipped to China, where it has been accepted as a waste product, out of sight/out of mind...sulfur disposal is currently an operating cost line for American refineries, and it is only going to get worse.

There are many problems facing the refining industry, as outlined here

Sulfur...it's compostion in crude and the cost to remove are a huge, looming problem. I agree with you, Yago, that the war will yield oil in the end...but that oil will be delivered by pipeline into Eastern Europe and China, not to the US.

I think that we may be far , so why don't we start a new thread if you want to continue this discussion. I think that I've kinda left Iraqi feelings in the dust .

 

Yes, and we were told, over and over and over, that the reason we had to remove Saddam and his regime from power RIGHT NOW, without the approval or assistance of nearly every one of our international allies, was because Saddam had WMD and was itching to use them ON AMERICANS. Please don't act like that wasn't part of the equation or even the major selling point, because it was. Everyone knew Saddam and his regime needed to go, and with proper evidence and more international support, this could have easily been achieved without going to war alone. But in my estimation, 2 things are screamingly clear.

1. America would never have been behind this war had the Bush administration not played the "WMD" and "Saddam's Connection to Terrorism" card ad nauseum.

2. They either lied about the above outright, or were terribly misinformed, because both claims have turned out to be false. In either case, they were completely in the wrong.

The fact that Saddam has been overthrown does NOT excuse the way this war was conducted, and still hasn't (nor will it ever) mend our international image. We are now the most hated country on earth. Thank you, Mr. President.