Iraqi feelings.

Remove all ads!

I don't know who Shralp is, but I find myself pretty much in agreement with him. America most certainly is a land of liberty and rule of law. And you know what? The whole world agrees and votes with its feet. Having said this, Canada, Australia, Britain, France, Germany, etc. are every bit as much lands of the free as the US.

You criticize America for incarcerating its citizens. While this may indicate a lack of imagination on the part of American policy makers, American prisoners are jailed for real crimes - theft, fraud, assualt, racketeering, etc. - having been convicted in open, fair trials. There are obvious reasons why America has a higher violent crime rate than other developed countries (notably guns and drugs) which goes some way to explaining why there are more convicted criminals.

You say that America seeks to impose its way of life and government on other people. Utter rubbish! Liberty and freedom of expression isn't some alternative lifestyle, it's a basic human right. To argue feebly that democracy may not be right for other countries is the worst sort of moral relativism.

As for people saying that they're not free post 9/11, well, unless there are citizens of North Korea, China or Burma posting on these boards, what the hell are you bleating about? In what ways are you not free to pursue your lawful business? We enjoy freedom of press, freedom of expression, freedom of association, free elections, freedom of religion and more. As a Briton, the only restriction on my freedom of expression is that I may not incite racial hatred. I personally don't find that too restrictive. As for America, I'm not aware of ANY restrictions on freedom of expression.

America supports dictatorships? Who, exactly? Israel may be many reprehensible things but it is not a dictatorship. Saudi Arabia? Well, OK, it is more or less a dictatorship, but a friendly government in that part of the world is not to be spurned lightly. America has used its influence in Kuwait to encourage liberal reforms. Who's to say that it won't be successful in doing the same in Saudi Arabia?

The war was about oil? This really is the worst sort of unthinking balderdash. Ask yourselves this: can the Americans possibly turn a profit from this venture? Iraq's gross oil revenues are around twelve billion dollars per annum (I don't know what the net revenue is - obviously it's lower). The war has cost, what, two hundred billion dollars and mounting. There's no profit there, so you have to look for other motives. Imperialism? A word easily bandied about, but what the blue blazes would America want to occupy Iraq for, given that there's no profit in it? Because America hates Muslims? This is the perception in many parts of the Muslim world, but they're just seeing what they want to see and conveniently forgetting that America has twice waged war in the past decade to help Muslims (Bosnia and Kosovo in case you're wondering). The only motive that remains is a desire on the part of the current US administration to depose a tyrant. You can argue about the rights and wrongs of the war but you can't put it down to base motives.

Having bashed the America bashers, back to the topic of the post which is "Iraqi feelings". We all saw the jubilation which greeted the downfall of Saddam, right? I think that showed Iraqi feelings quite clearly. They still suffer from intermittent electricity and water supplies and shortages of essentials. Plus ça change. They had those problems before the war, but now they will be fixed given time. Meanwhile they have free press, freedom of expression, freedom of association and the right to demonstrate. America and its allies may have done them a favour, but the fact remains that the American, British, Australian and Italian troops (and others, I know) are invaders and occupiers and I'm sure that the Iraqis will be more than glad to see the back of them. I would guess that they want nothing more than to be left alone to build a just and peaceful future for themselves. However, they would not thank us for leaving the country in its present state, tottering between anarchy and theocracy. People who call for the immediate withdrawal of all allied troops really need to think for just one moment about the implications.

 

I don't really know, but perhaps talking to Iraqis about what is going on there, and how much freedom they have actually rather than "on paper" would probably make a difference.

Consider this. Some Iraqis never had their doors bashed in or their houses searched until after the foreign forces turned up. Maybe that is not so good for PR.

And it is true to say that Iraqis were happy that the US etc came to get rid of Saddam, but their point was and is that "you've got rid of him, you may now leave stage left." And still many people speak of democracy as being alien to the middle east and muslim culture. What bunk. Democracy is not forming there because it is not in various leaders' interests to allow it.

 

Let's set the record straight, bashing Bush does not equate with bashing America. That anyone needs to question the patriotism of others because they don't go along with the current regime is about as anti-American as one can get. Sorry if our time-honored tradition of dissent and opposition bothers some, but that's just the way it is here, although those in power would certainly like to change that.

 

I would not equate shutting down TV stations with Freedom of the Press.

 

True, but there is no such thing as a "free press" anyway. Why does the editor refuse to publish my letters that I send to the paper?

 

I think you're confusing the term "free press" with the term "available space".

 

The term "free press" is just another joke to make us feel more democratic. There is not even a single villages newspaper that does not try to keep the "balance" or better yet to keep the authorities at least a little satisfied. So every editor or whoever decides what will be shown or not is making compromisations to avoid unpleasant for him situations.

 

My link of the day

These lines are some 30 years old and as fresh as if written yesterday.

 

As bashing Bush is not bashing US, showing statistics that prove US to be less than perfect is not an anti-American act. It's hardly ever anti- to provide facts. What journalists all over the world write when they are bored, is a different story, but some people tend to feel personally attacked at the sight of whatever comparison that doesn't put them on the top. It's natural for humans, but well, we're not the crowd.

Closer the topic, though, keeping prisoners in Guantanamo so that US constitutional rights couldn't apply, is not a pinnacle of human achievement so far as freedom is concerned. People are held there in extremely harsh conditions. Other than basic hygiene and edible food, they're like animals in the zoo. None has been presented with any charge, there's no court order, there's no singular, specific proof against any of them. Who cares? So long as US claim to be fighting terrorism, everything should be let pass, if not praised.

Democracy is not an American concept, it's a human one - like someone mentioned above. This means that the blame for its faults isn't on US, but neither is the merit. Modern democracy in US is as old as 39 years and it wasn't a steady and calm evolution until then. Now US tend to supersede Athens in the role of ancient source of democracy and its champion... at least in their own eyes. What I say is not to bash US, it's to force some ridiculous claims back. US does not promote democracy. US promotes it's own interests. It's public knowledge that in South America, US actually promoted virtual slavery (United Fruits Company case) and that Fidel, Osama, Saddam and their boys were trained and subsidies by US at the beginning. They became evil no sooner than when they turned against their former bosses.

It was good to remove Saddam, but was a war worth it? Peaceful means hadn't been exhausted, Iraq is regarded as a conquered country and prey. Iraqis are irrelevant at best. Ask them, they probably have warmer feelings for Saddam than for Dubya by this time.

What about Korea? What about China? Saddam was a ***** cat compared to either. I doubt he got remotely close to either of those countries in his model of tyranny. He happened to be Bush Jr's unfinished business inherited from Bush Sr. In so far as it's not all about oil, of course.

 

I would like to add to Chev's comment that U.S. follow the same steps which led Athens to its downfall. When Athens adopted a "with us or against us" policy and began to treat its allies as subjects and to fight/destroy every city (through war or embargo), which didn't satisfy the Athenian demands, a hatred was developed in the rest greek city-states, which led to the peloponesean war, the end of the Athenean haegemonia. It seems that now history is repeating.

 

BTA, I understand that 'the situation' is going to serve as universal excuse? They war is, officially, against evil and all about evil. However, war isn't considered evil. Even necessary evil, but still evil. No.

There were and still have been more evil targets than Saddam. More evil, more aggressive, more dangerous, more remorseless. They, however, don't have oil. And they have real nukes. So everything's OK. That's how it looks.

Peaceful means would never have been exhausted anyway? What is the UN for, then? International law? Hmmm...?

As Pompey said in Messina, "stop quoting laws at us, for we carry swords". Swords tend to get dented, though, break, fall from hands. Other guys carry swords too and someone might always grab a bigger one.

 

Kinda sounds hollow to me. What WMD have been found till now again?

CIA admits lack of specifics on Iraqi weapons before invasion
Iraq Scientists: Lied About Nuke Weapons

US keeps its Iraqi bases covered. The war IMO was about quite a lot of reasons, for Bush it was perhaps the war on evil, he is just the type.

For his neocon crew the goals were less esoteric: Bases, oil, control, water (yes, Iraq has an ancient irridation system, some 6.000 years old, and still working, and some large rivers making it a fertile country surrounded by desert countries). Water, in a desert is more valuable than oil, and under US control a strategical asset, maybe even a weapon one day.
Oil, for export to fuel the world markets and US demand is one advantage. Another advantage is that it would allow, with refineries in Iraq, to make the US armed forces there independent from sea supply for fuel, quite a strategic advantage.
The purpose and advantage of the bases is utterly obvious: They aim on Syria, Iran and Saudi-Arabia. I remember you laughed about me calling this adventure a war for basing BTA. What exactly do you think is Halliburton building over there?

Saddam had to be removed because his presence was the key obstacle to give US control over Iraq and it's strategic assets: territory, oil and perhaps one day an army of Iraqi proxies. It has never been about liberation from opression, nor about democratisation. The neocons would have been happy with any pro-US ruler, some of them have demanded a hashemite king even, others a strongman, someone like Franco or Pinochet. Well, why then topple Saddam at all?
The ideals and the pompom-weaving for freedom is for the people, the president's PR, and alas, the people like it. Reasons for everyone. For free.

The neocons want to stay in Iraq, and will resist a draw-out to the death, they haven't spent billions of dollars on a war only to risk that investment by giving the Iraqis democracy or, worse, a say about the terms of their rule, or wether they like US bases or not. The Democrats atm declaring that America now has responsibility in Iraq and has to get the job done and to make the best of it, are playing in the neocon's hands: Making the best of it is exactly what they want.

[ December 02, 2003, 02:43: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Well, not every country with the *potential* to build this stuff is a threat. IMO it is a folly to conclude from the internal wickedness of a regime that is also has murderous ambitions towards its neighbours and the US. That view is simplicistic and childish. Only because your neigbour beats his wife he isn't out for you.
Saddam was no longer a threat to any of his neighbour countries, much less the US. Face it.

The other fact is that the US is building these bases. So are the advantages for the US I described. That is not a conspiracy theory but a simple lining of facts. The neocons have always been quite outspoken about their plans and ideas, you only need to care to read their papertrail to see what I mean. (try this or this if you prefer audio)
After seeing Rummy in action you should find it easier to take what he writes and signs for serious, so why not this piece, Rebuilding Americas Defences on PNAC too?

A look at the map explains what that means.

And besides, what would be so bad about holding elections and to draw out? It would give the US claims to liberate the Iraqis some credibility. And wouln't it truly have been a nice thing to go there, altruistically, only to oust Saddam and let the Iraqis choose a better government?
The point is if you are willing to maintain a durable presence in a country where the US troops are not wanted, not to mention the fiscal strain for the US.

Anyone feels a draft? If an empire, a generational commitment to seize the assets of the middle east, the occupation your son or daughter will serve in, is what you want, just say so. The Israelis got something like that, and now its tearing their society apart and wrecking their economy.
But please do not dwell in the illusion that Iraq is a bene-violent police action for the goody-two-shoes US. It was a war of coice, not of necessity, for a strategical advantage - control of the territory and the oil flow. And unfortunately it was a war of agression too. Try this (end of page), about William J. Fulbright, IMO a really great and very perceptive American.

[ December 02, 2003, 15:58: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Something were done against Saddam's possibility to build up a WMD stockpile. As nothing has yet to be found, which I have to admit even I am a bit surprised by, I thought that there would atleast me something left somewhere that someone had missed or forgotten but not even that. It shows that the inspections and the constant check on Iraq was working, it was working even better than for instance Blix thought. In hindsight one might wonder if Saddam's lack of complete cooperation was nothing more but annoyance that he was demanded to do something he had already done, or that he knew he was screwed either way and he wanted to keep some dignity. I think it is pretty safe to say that the Bush II regime wanted the war no matter what and it wouldnt have mattered if Saddam had crawled on his belly to Washington to pray for mercy and agreement to every demand put to him. So instead he decided to act like the snake he is and go down with guns blazing, cause he knew he would go down no matter what so he might as well pull down as many others in his fall as possible, which he continues to do to this day.

The WMD's proved to be a non-issue, everything against Iraq is based on facts from 70's and 80's. Saddam may very well have had a will to build up a new WMD stock but he would never get the oppurtunity again. Keep in mind that more or less all his old stockpile he managed to get by being a buddy with the world and even then he didnt manage to get nukes even if he wanted to. So I just dont see how anyone can think that a dictator no one other government would touch with pliers, ruling a country in tatters and with the entire world watching his every move could ever get a hold of anything more dangerous than some sidearms smuggled in from his neighbouring countries.

 

The biggest threat in the world today is the country with the biggest guns. Iraq was hardly a danger.