McTag wrote:This is from an interview with Noam Chomsky published in The Guardian today. It is offered as a counter to the gent above who still thinks the action in Iraq was to take the sword of Islam from Saddam's hands.
Just curious, but who other than you has said anything like that in this discussion? (Maybe I missed a post?)
this is the post I meant, Scrat
ican711nm wrote:AGAIN, THIS IS WHAT HAS INCREASED THE INCIDENCE OF WORLD TERRORISM, AND NOT OUR THUS FAR INSUFFICIENT ATTEMPTS TO RESIST IT.
First paragraph from bin Laden's 1998 Fatwa:
Quote: Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
World Islamic Front Statement
23 February 1998
Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin
Ayman al-Zawahiri, amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt
Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Egyptian Islamic Group
Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Fazlur Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh
Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.
One more time:
Quote:
I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped
Please know your enemy before you and yours can no longer know anything.
It's true that Saddam was used to indulging himself in lengthy and fanciful oratory, partly because like Gaddafi he fancied making himself into a pan-arab leader; but no-one else in the Arab world took him seriously in that role, and nor should you.
The sword he held in his hands was rusty, blunted and broken from years of war and UN sanctions. he didn't threaten anyone except other Iraqis.
The reason for the invasion lies elsewhere, I would respectfully suggest.
Whoops, Bin Laden not Saddam.
I agree Bin Laden is a more potent threat. He's got the money, the connections, and the cred.
My main purpose in writing is to oppose the invasion of Iraq, which has little to do with the terrorist threat.
Sorry for my slip.
McTag, As a matter of fact, we've heard the news of turning over sovereignty to Iraq on June 30. There is absolutely no mention of US plans to establish a large embassy "to control" the economy and our large military presence to guarantee that control. This administration has perfected the shell game very well.
On the ABC/BBC/&c survey Walter and Scrat posted about, TNR has a most interesting item in its Iraq'd blog. It points out that when reading the results, one should note carefully the chasm that exists between Kurdish and Arab respondents.
Consider this:
Quote:According to the poll, 48 percent of Iraqis think the war was justified; 39 percent think it was wrong. Fifty-one percent oppose the presence of coalition forces; 39 percent support it. That about corresponds with the ambivalence that John Zogby found last August. Except that that's not the whole story.
The only reason those anemic pro-U.S. numbers are as high as they are is because they incorporate the massively pro-war, pro-U.S. feelings of Iraqi Kurds. When the poll disaggregates how Iraqi Arabs feel, the numbers shift substantially against the U.S., something that "World News Tonight" didn't mention in its coverage of the poll. That's not so surprising in itself, since Sunni and Shia Arabs in Iraq have spent the past year feeling a combination of awe, frustration, and humiliation toward their occupiers. But the depth of the split is breathtaking, and it carries two implications. First, with just over three months to go before the handover of power to an interim Iraqi government, it appears the United States has lost the battle for Iraqi hearts and minds. Second, the gulf between Iraqi Kurd opinion and Arab opinion presents a daunting challenge to creating a united country--particularly when the temporary constitution points the way toward balkanization.
For instance, look at the numbers on support for the invasion. Iraqis as a whole split in favor of it by 48 to 39 percent. But factor out the Kurds--87 percent of whom back it--and the picture gets more complex. Iraqi Arabs are somewhat against the war: 40 percent say it was right, while 46 percent say it was wrong. There's no religious breakdown, so we don't know how many of those respondents are Shia and how many are Sunni, which would be very helpful information. But as it is, consider that in total, 42 percent say that the invasion "liberated" Iraq, while 41 percent say it "humiliated" the country. The Kurds split on that question 82-11; for Arabs, 33 percent consider the war a liberation, while 48 consider it humiliating. That's on top of the fact that across all regions of the country, people report that their personal lives are better now than before the war, and they expect them to improve--which suggests that regardless of how they personally feel affected by the war, Iraqi Arabs believe it was unfortunate for the nation as a whole.
Security is overwhelmingly the highest priority among Iraqis. Sixty-four percent rank it as their top concern, with the next contender, holding elections, garnering 8 percent. Yet only 18 percent say coalition forces should remain "until security is restored." Thirty-six percent say they should only stay in Iraq "until an Iraqi gov't is in place"--and the poll is painfully unclear on whether that means the interim government scheduled to take over July 1 or a permanent, elected government next year. On the question of U.S. troops, the ethnic breakdown is significant as well. Kurds support the presence of coalition forces by a margin of 82 percent to 12 percent. Only 30 percent of Arabs feel the same way--and 60 percent oppose the U.S. troop presence. No statistic here bodes particularly well for U.S. plans to negotiate an open-ended basing arrangement with a sovereign Iraqi government.
Nowhere is the Arab-Kurdish split starker than on the question of Iraq's future political structure. The questions were not very nuanced: Respondents were offered the option of "unified country, central government in Baghdad," "regional states with a federal government," and "divided into separate independent states." That doesn't allow for evaluating the varieties of federalism available. But an overwhelming 90 percent of Arabs prefer a centralized model, with only 5 percent favoring a federal Iraq, which helps account for the anti-federalist protests among Iraqi Arabs this weekend. Among the Kurds, 26 percent want centralism. While that's certainly a vastly higher figure than I imagined--and only 12 percent opt for independence--Iraq's Kurds back the federal model by 58 percent.
As for the kind of government Iraqis want: 48 percent desire democracy; 28 percent a strong leader "for life"; and 21 percent an Islamic state. Broken down between one year and five years, the top preference--a massive 47 percent--is for a strong leader over the next year; this number drops to 35 percent after five years. Conversely, 28 percent want democracy in a year, but 42 percent want it in five. Not surprisingly, those who want an Islamic state, 10 percent, want it as strongly in one year as in five. No ethnic breakdown on these questions is available.
There's a lot more in this poll than what's listed above. One surprising result: While only 2 percent want to see the Governing Council in place in a year's time, 39 percent express confidence in it. (By contrast, "religious leaders" are trusted by 70 percent of Iraqis, and the CPA by 28 percent.) Yet the most important thing the poll tells us is that in our first year of control, we have resoundingly failed to live up to the expectations of the Iraqis. That's not to say we haven't helped, as the figures about Iraqis considering themselves better off than before the war demonstrate. But their sense of personal advancement has not translated into significant feelings of good will for the U.S., at least among Iraqi Arabs. And with only a few months before the transfer of power, there doesn't seem to be much we can do to turn that figure around.
More ominous is the massive discrepancy between how Arabs and Kurds view their present political situation and their visions for the future. As I've written for the past week, the TAL sets the country on precisely the wrong course--heightening ethnic divisions rather than diminishing them. But even if the TAL opted for an administrative federalism, the psychic divide would still be present--and it would still be formidable. Overcoming this divide is the central question facing Iraqi politics.
what Iraqis want doesn't matter
Future US Embassy in Iraq to surpass others
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The next U.S. Embassy in Iraq, scheduled to open in July, will eventually become the biggest American diplomatic mission in the world, U.S. officials say. While the future U.S. diplomatic presence in Baghdad is still in the planning phases, officials here agree that an enormous American contingent -- of 3,000 or more U.S. employees -- will be required in Iraq long after July 1, when the United States plans to turn over sovereignty to Iraqis.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/2391809
*The US will be in Iraq forever. Iraqis have no say so about it. They can kill Americans there for years. The US Govt. under any Admin. will stay.
Seems this administration isn't sure of June 30 after all.
*****************
Rumsfeld Hedges on June 30 Iraqi Sovereignty Date
Tue Mar 16, 7:23 PM ET Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!
By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Tuesday he could not be sure that a June 30 date would be met for ending the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq (news - web sites) and handing sovereignty over to Iraq.
"Everybody, including the Iraqi Governing Council, has set that date as a target," he said in a radio interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation at the Pentagon (news - web sites).
"And do I think it will happen? It has a chance of happening, yes. Will it happen for sure? Who knows? I don't know what's going to happen tomorrow," Rumsfeld added.
The United States, the United Nations (news - web sites) and the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council set the date for restoring Iraqi self-governance, which ended with the U.S.-led invasion a year ago that toppled President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).
"What we do know is that the Iraqis and the coalition have worked together, and the Iraqis have produced an interim constitution. They're pointed toward the date of June 30th. And why can't we just wait and see how well they do? They've done pretty darn well so far," Rumsfeld added.
Although the Iraqis have taken the important step of agreeing on an interim constitution until elections can be held at the end of this year or in 2005, they and U.S. authorities have not yet agreed on the form of the Iraqi body that would take power in Iraq on the return of sovereignty.
The Rumsfeld interview was one of a number by Pentagon leaders to mark this week's anniversary of the Iraq invasion.
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was also asked about the June 30 date. "Well, I'm not in the business of predicting dates," he told CNN.
"We are very committed to having that handover take place on that date. And I think it's important because it will mean the end of the occupation. It will mean Iraqis being in charge of their own country. But it's not going to be a change from night to day," he said.
A State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that "right now we are working toward a June 30 sovereignty transfer and that's our operating assumption."
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) has emphasized the importance of June 30. After a U.N. team visited Iraq last month, he issued a report saying, "Virtually every Iraqi with whom the mission met stressed that the date of June 30, 2004, is a deadline that must be respected." (Additional reporting by Saul Hudson)
McTag wrote:this is the post I meant, Scrat
Boy, did I miss that one! Thanks.
Re: what Iraqis want doesn't matter
pistoff wrote:Future US Embassy in Iraq to surpass others
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The next U.S. Embassy in Iraq, scheduled to open in July, will eventually become the biggest American diplomatic mission in the world, U.S. officials say. While the future U.S. diplomatic presence in Baghdad is still in the planning phases, officials here agree that an enormous American contingent -- of 3,000 or more U.S. employees -- will be required in Iraq long after July 1, when the United States plans to turn over sovereignty to Iraqis.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/2391809
*The US will be in Iraq forever. Iraqis have no say so about it. They can kill Americans there for years. The US Govt. under any Admin. will stay.
Yes. And they will have a huge military footprint there too. This is their staging area for the middle east, and along with the control of oil resources, it's why they are there at all. That's also why the US will not allow any government to form in Iraq which might ask the US to subsequently leave - talk of democracy notwithstanding.
Is George gonna screw this up too???
Top Shia cleric wants UN back in Iraq
Tuesday 16 March 2004, 22:12 Makka Time, 19:12 GMT
Ayat Allah Al-Sistani denies he criticised the UN
Related:
Sistani wants UN guarantee on poll
UN envoy backs al-Sistani on poll
Bush wants UN to sweet-talk Sistani
Tools:
Email Article
Print Article
Send Your Feedback
A senior Iraqi Shia leader has told the United Nations he wants the world body to play a role in the country's future and distanced himself from those opposing the organisation's return.
Al-Akhdar al-Ibrahimi, the former Algerian foreign minister, told a news conference at the UN Ayat Allah Ali al-Sistani sent a written message through an aide to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan "a few days ago" saying he had nothing to do with negative press reports from some members of the Iraqi Governing Council.
Al-Ibrahimi went to Baghdad last month with a UN team to study the feasibility of holding elections before June and to discuss proposals for an interim government when the US-led occupation ends on 30 June.
He quoted al-Sistani as saying, "As I told Mr Brahimi, we do want the UN to play a role in Iraq."
Formal invitation
The note from al-Sistani denied he had anything to do with the criticism of al-Ibrahimi and the UN, most of which came from former exile leader Ahmad Chalabi, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council close to the US Defence Department.
But al-Ibrahimi said he did not know when he would return to Iraq and was waiting for a formal invitation from the US-led occupation authorities and the 25-member Governing Council.
"I don't think it is so much a credibility problem for the UN as internal politics in Iraq"
Kofi Annan,
secretary-general, UN
The about-face by Chalabi and others is of concern to the US whose officials in Baghdad and Washington have asked the United Nations to help give legitimacy to an interim Iraqi government that is to take power by 30 June.
Annan, speaking to reporters before al-Ibrahimi's news conference, said he made it clear "we are prepared to go back and assist should they want us to do so and I am waiting for them to let us know."
"I don't think it is so much a credibility problem for the UN as internal politics in Iraq," he added.
Several Shia members of the Governing Council have expressed reservations about al-Ibrahimi, a Sunni Arab with a secular, nationalist background.
Photos have circulated of al-Ibrahimi shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, in an apparent effort to discredit the diplomat. Al-Ibrahimi in 1998 set up a visit between Annan and Saddam Hussein, although it was not known if the photos were authentic.
A spokesman for Chalabi said the United Nations had opposed "the liberation of Iraq" and mishandled the oil-for-food programme, put in place to alleviate the impact of sanctions.
Its getting near the end for me on this thread.
"No blood for oil". Who could disagree?
Sadly countries have been fighting over oil or mineral resources for ever. Its hard to admit this (and would be impossible if I were standing for election) - I would much rather it was true that we had to defend ourselves against Iraqi wmd, or that we felt so moved by the plight of the Iraqi people that we had to invade- but shedding blood for oil, or rather the control of oil resources, is exactly what we have done. We may console ourselves by saying well at least Saddam is gone; and that we can now help the Iraqis build a better Iraq etc etc but we can't any longer be blind to the reality of what we have done. So should the Brits follow the Spanish out of Iraq? Its interesting that neither of the oppostion parties advocate this. The Liberal Democrats in particular are well placed to reap huge political advantage if they stood on a platform of pulling British troops out. It would offer a real alternative, and win them a lot of support. But they don't argue that way. For those of us who know the truth about Iraq we are all living under a burden of guilt. The least we can do now to solve our own conscience, if nothing else, is to make good on our promise to make Iraq a better place.
Steve, Our promise to make Iraq a better place is going to take much effort on the international community, and I don't see that happening. On Nightline last night, the topic was "what's happening in Iraq." It seems it depends on what part of the country one takes a poll of the people. The Sunni seems to be the least happy with the current situation, and wants to see the American occupation end. What was surprising was that the majority of Iraqis are happy with the way they are progressing economically and politically. There is still wide decension between the three tribes, but their geographical separation seems to be working relatively well - considering. We must now hope for the best, but I see deep divisions within the Iraqi's own people. It will be difficult, but leaving it entirely is not an option.
That's why a survey of people from all parts of Iraq--like the new one from the BEEB, is what you need to get an accurate picture, not cherry picking stories from the places where things are worst or best.
ci
One thing I forgot, although Zapetero repeated his promise to pull out Spanish troops, he made it conditional on the UN playing the lead role in security operations by June 30. In other words if this happened, Spanish troops would stay under UN authority. If this forced a change of mind with Bush it would be great. If the UN took the lead role, not only would Spain stay, but I think the Germans and even the French could be pursuaded to send troops. But as it was always Bush's intention to invade on his own if necessary, and given the prevailing attitude in his administration towards the UN, I think relinquishing control to the UN by 30th June just will not happen.
Zapetero always said in the campaign, Spain should (would, if he became PM) only stay in Iraq under UN authority.
I'm quite sure, Bush will try to an UN resolution to save the coalition - the Netherland and Danish government are under steadily increasing pressure from their citizens (and the media).
I also heard the stance taken by Spain; that under UN control, they would stay. What bothers me at this point is the plan by the US to establish the largest embassy in Baghdad with over 100,000 troops remaining in Iraq. That sends the wrong message not only to the Iraqis, but to our other allies. This administration has not made good decisions for improving foreign policy; we'll have to wait and see.
Can anyone offer me evidence that the UN has any proficiency in managing a situation like the one in Iraq?
Can anyone offer me evidence that the US has any proficiency in managing a situation like the one in Iraq?
Scrat wrote:Can anyone offer me evidence that the UN has any proficiency in managing a situation like the one in Iraq?
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:Can anyone offer me evidence that the US has any proficiency in managing a situation like the one in Iraq?
So, the US perhaps better shouldn't lead an UN-mission in Iraq?