0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 03:42 pm
I kinda like Ahnuld. Apparently, hamburger's accent is exactly the same. I don't hear it (hamburger's accent) anymore. Ahnuld's just so anti-heartland though.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 03:43 pm
ehBeth wrote:
err, tico, could you try to find a more heartland kinda avatar. seeing a heartland poster with a pic of mr big-business/hollywood media is so ... weird.

nemmind. it's starting to make sense.


What makes you think that's not me?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 03:44 pm
If it is, it explains a lot.

14 days without makes people cranky. :wink:
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 03:50 pm
Ticomaya
Here we go again Clinton would do this and not do that. Clinton would have done the necessary. It was not necessary to invade nor was there sufficient justification to invade since the inspectors were allowed to inspect as we and the UN had been calling for.

Regarding Saddam don't give me the hogwash about him ignoring the UN mandates for twelve years. The fact was that he was complying when we attacked. I should also point out since it was the UN mandates he had ignored those long years, it was the UN that was the injured party. And considering that they were satisfied Saddam was compiling and were dead set against the invasion. what was our justification to invade?
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 04:27 pm
Is it an insurgency .... or a revolt?


Quote:
Published on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 by Knight-Ridder
Iraqi Whispers Mull Repeat of 1920s Revolt Over Western Occupation
by Hannah Allam and Tom Lasseter


BAGHDAD, Iraq - Whispers of "revolution" are growing louder in Baghdad this month at teahouses, public protests and tribal meetings as Iraqis point to the past as an omen for the future.

Iraqis remember 1920 as one of the most glorious moments in modern history, one followed by nearly eight decades of tumult. The bloody rebellion against British rule that year is memorialized in schoolbooks, monuments and mass-produced tapestries that hang in living rooms.

Now, many say there's an uncanny similarity with today: unpopular foreign occupiers, unelected governing bodies and unhappy residents eager for self-determination. The result could be another bloody uprising.


To many Iraqis, today's U.S. occupation reads like an old play with modern characters: America as the new Britain, grenade-lobbing insurgents as the new opposition, and Ahmad Chalabi and other former exiles on the Governing Council as the new kings.

"We are now under occupation, and the best treatment for a wound is sometimes fire," said Najah al Najafi, a Shiite cleric who joined thousands of marchers at a recent demonstration where construction workers, tribal leaders and religious scholars spoke of 1920.

The rebellion against the British marked the first time that Sunni and Shiite Muslims worked in solidarity, drawing power from tribesmen and city dwellers alike. Though Shiites, Sunnis and ethnic minorities are rivals in the new Iraq, many residents said the recent call for elections could draw disparate groups together. A smattering of Sunnis joined massive Shiite protests last week, demanding that U.S. administrators grant the wishes of the highest Shiite cleric for general elections.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al Husseini al Sistani has been unbending in his demand for direct elections instead of U.S. plans to select a new government through caucuses. At the request of L. Paul Bremer, the American envoy to Iraq, and several members of the U.S.-appointed Governing Council, the United Nations is sending a team to Iraq to study the feasibility of holding elections in time for the transition of power this summer.

Sistani's representatives expect widespread civil disobedience and violence if elections are deemed impossible.

"They know what will happen if they do not listen to us," said Sabah al Khazali, a religious scholar who joined last week's demonstrations. "They know this is a warning."

The historic rebellion has broad resonance. A band of anti-American insurgents has named itself the "1920 Revolution Brigades," and Sistani himself, in a newspaper advertisement this month, asked Iraq's influential tribes to remember that year.

"We want you to be revolutionaries ... you should have a big role today, as you had in the revolution in 1920," the ad said.

Elderly tribal leaders recently discussed revolution amid plumes of incense smoke and the gurgle of tobacco-filled water pipes. Many men on the 50-member Independent Iraqi Tribes council proudly claimed ancestors who rose against the British in 1920. They likewise would join a revolt if Sistani and other clerics gave the word, they said.

History writers are less kind in their assessment of the rebellion's outcome. In 1920, the League of Nations awarded Britain the new mandate of Iraq as part of secret deals made during World War I. Just six months into British rule, Iraqi opposition was growing. After the unrest deteriorated into three months of death and anarchy, the British plucked an Arab nationalist fighter from exile in the United Kingdom and installed him as king. The monarchy lasted until 1958, when a military coup turned Iraq into a republic.

To many Iraqis, today's U.S. occupation reads like an old play with modern characters: America as the new Britain, grenade-lobbing insurgents as the new opposition, and Ahmad Chalabi and other former exiles on the Governing Council as the new kings.

"We've sacrificed many martyrs and we would do it again," said Sheik Khamis al Suhail, the secretary of the tribal council. "In 1920, we faced a struggle between Muslims and non-Muslims in Iraq. We are living under basically the same conditions now, and revolution is certainly possible."

Iraqi Shiites, who make up 60 percent of the country's population of 26 million, look to Sistani for leadership.

"If Sistani called for revolution, I would sacrifice my life for the good of my country," said Hamdiya al Niemi, a 27-year-old street vendor whose father raised her on stories of the 1920 uprising. "My father was so proud talking about that time, how we kicked out the British and how we should never allow foreigners to rule our land."

The al Hamdani tribe, with thousands of members across Iraq, provided key organizers of the 1920 revolt. These days, the family name is linked to the cream-filled confections sold at the popular al Hamdani pastry shops throughout Baghdad.

Yaser al Hamdani, a 28-year-old tribe member whose great-uncle fought in the revolution, said he'd give up his job in the steaming bakery for a rebellion.

"Of course I would join," Hamdani said. "There would be bloodshed along the way, but sacrifice is important for success."

(c) 2004, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 05:06 pm
McGentrix wrote:
The best way to do what Cycloptichorn is suggesting is to get them working on their own infrastructure. Pay them to fix their own neighborhoods. When the terrorists blow them up, they will be blowing up Iraqi interests instead of US interests. Iraqi's are a proud people and I do not think they would idly sit by and watch their own work be decimated.

There is no reason for there to be even one unemployed Irai right now.


Why would that be any more successful than trying to get the Iraqis trained to provide their own security? It is rather obvious that those that cooperate with us become targets themselves.

IMO this is beginning to look like the occupation of France by the Germans. Those that aided the Germans were considered collaborators by the French Resistance.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 05:13 pm
AH. But we are not Germans, and Iraq is not France.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 05:36 pm
McGentrix
As far as the Iraqi's are concerned we are the Germans [foreign invaders] and they are the French. Making any Iraqi's who cooperates with the invaders a collaborator.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 05:42 pm
I find it shocking that you know what the Iraqi's are so concerned about.

If you, in your wisdom, can not tell the difference between the US and Germany of the late 30's then nothing I can say will ever make a difference to you.

I will leave the reading of the Irtaqi minds to those best suited for it.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 05:48 pm
McG, if Iraq were France, all of Europe would be bumping into each other wanting to help us first to liberate them, then to assist them in setting up a peaceful democracy. For some reason, they don't see the Iraqi's as worthy.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 06:01 pm
MgC
What the hell are you talking about. The Iraqi's particularly the insurgents view the US as an invader and anyone who works with them a collaborator. That is fact. And therefore as far as they are concerned we are to them as the Germans were to the French during the occupation.
Is that to difficult for you to understand?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 06:13 pm
I guess the part where Germany took over France as an act of expansion with the goal of ruling France as part of an empire whereas we defeated a despotic ruler bent on the slavery of his people with the goals of setting up a democratic government.

The insurgents are petty thugs and terrorists who would otherwise be in jail.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 06:20 pm
McG wrote

Quote:
The insurgents are petty thugs and terrorists who would otherwise be in jail.


That my friend is to simplistic an answer. Many are people who view the US is an invader.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 07:03 pm
WMDs or Abu Mussab Al-Zarqawi .... one just as real as the other?

An Iraqi blogger


Quote:


- posted by river @ 10:01 PM

Some Terrorists...
The sky has been overcast these last few days. It's a smoggy, grayish combination of dust, smoke and humidity. I guess it has matched the general mood in many ways- somewhat dark and heavy.

I've been very worried about Falloojeh. So worried, in fact, that I find it hard to sleep at night, wondering how the situation will unfold in that troubled area. Things are bad in Baghdad, but they are far worse in Falloojeh. Refugees have been flowing out of the area for weeks now. They've been trying to find havens in Baghdad and the surrounding regions.

I met my first Falloojeh refugees last week. One of my aunts was feeling a little bit under the weather and the phones in her area were down, so we decided to pay a brief visit after breaking the fast in the evening. As we pulled our car into her driveway, I discerned strange, childish voices in the garden. Since my aunt has only an eight-year-old daughter, S., I assumed the neighbors' children were over to play.

S. tripped over to the car and helped open the door. She was jumping with excitement and pleasure at so many guests. I glanced towards the garden, expecting to see children but besides a big palm and a couple of rose bushes, I couldn't see anything. "Where are your friends?!" I asked, pulling out the Iraqi sweets we had brought for my aunt. She looked over her shoulder and smiled, pointing to the palm tree. I squinted at the tree in the dark garden and glimpsed a small head and a flashing pair of eyes, which quickly disappeared. I nodded sagely and called out, "Hello, palm tree!" S. giggled as the palm tree softly replied, "Hello."

"It's fine," S. called over her shoulder to the garden, "You can come out- it's only my cousin and her parents!" We walked towards the house and S. continued her prattling. "Mommy is feeling much better. We have guests today. Well, we had them from yesterday. They are my friends. They're daddy's relatives… they don't have to go to school but I do."

The living room was in commotion as we entered it. The television was turned on high to some soap opera and mixed with the shouts of an Egyptian soap star was an infant crying, a mother ?'shushing' it, and my aunt and her husband discussing the fate of telephone line which had been dead for the last four days. The woman with the infant suddenly rose as we entered the room and made way for the door leading to the hallway.

After the initial greetings and salams, my aunt rushed out of the room and came back in with the very reluctant woman and her baby. "This is Umm Ahmed." She introduced us and firmly sat the woman back down on the couch. "She's from Falloojeh…" my aunt explained. "She's my husband's relative- but we never met before this." She turned to give an encouraging smile to Umm Ahmed, who was looking somewhat like a deer caught in headlights.

The woman was tall and graceful. She was wearing a longish traditional ?'dishdasha' (something like heavy, embroidered nightgown) and her head was covered with a light, black shawl that kept slipping back to reveal dark brown hair streaked with strands of silver. I tried guessing her age but it was nearly impossible- she had a youthful look about her and I guessed she was probably around 33 or 34. Her face, however, was pinched with strain and worry, and that, combined with the silver in her hair, made her seem like she was forty. She nodded at us nervously and held the infant tighter.

"Umm Ahmed and her lovely children are here until things are better in Falloojeh." My aunt declared. She turned to my little cousin with the words, "Go get Sama and Harith." I assumed Sama and Harith were the children hiding behind the palm tree. A moment later, Sama and Harith, led by S. entered the living room. Sama was a delicate girl of about ten, while Harith was a chubby little boy who looked to be six or seven. They avoided eye contact and quickly ran over to their mother.

"Say ?'hello'," Umm Ahmed urged quietly. Sama came forward to shake hands but Harith tried to hide behind his mother.

"What lovely children!" My mother smiled and pulled Sama in for a kiss. "How old are you, Sama?"

"Eleven." Came the soft answer, as she went back to sit next to her mother.

"How is the situation in Falloojeh?" My father asked. We all knew the answer. It was terrible in Falloojeh and getting worse by day. They were constantly being bombarded with missiles and bombs. The city was in ruins. Families were gathering what they could and leaving. Houses were being demolished by tanks and planes. But the question had to be asked.

Umm Ahmed swallowed nervously and her frown deepened. "It's quite bad. We left two days ago. The Americans are surrounding the city and they wouldn't let us out using the main road. We had to be smuggled out through another way…" The baby began to whine softly and she tried to rock it to sleep. "We had to leave…" she said apologetically, "I couldn't stay there with the children."

"Of course you couldn't." Came my aunt's firm reply. "That's crazy. It's suicide- the bastards aren't leaving anyone alive."

"I hope everyone is ok…" I offered tentatively. Umm Ahmed focused for a moment on me and shook her head, "Well, last week we buried our neighbor Umm Najib and her two daughters. They were sleeping when a missile fell in the garden and the house collapsed."

"And my windows were broken…" Harith suddenly added, excitedly, then disappeared again behind his mother.

"The windows were broken and the front door was blown in. We were all ok because ever since the war we've all been sleeping in the living room." Umm Ahmed explained, automatically, like she had told the story a hundred times. As she spoke, the baby's fists went up into the air and it gave out a little cry. It was a welcome sound- the agonizing subject could be changed. "And is this Ahmed?" I asked, rising to look at the infant. My aunt was calling her "Umm Ahmed" which means, "The Mother of Ahmed". Usually, the name of the eldest child is used as an informal way to speak with the parents. "Abu Ahmed" is "The Father of Ahmed". I didn't understand why she wasn't, Umm Harith or Umm Sama, but since this was the last child, it must be ?'Ahmed'.

"No- this is Majid." Sama answered my question softly. The baby looked about four months old and had a shock of dark hair, covered with what seemed at first sight to be a little white cap. His eyes were the same hazel color as his mother's. I smiled down at Majid and noticed that the white thing on his head wasn't a cap- it was a white gauze bandage. "What's the bandage for?" I asked, hoping it was just to keep his head warm.

"When we were fleeing the city, we had to come in a pickup truck with two other families. His head got hit with something and there was a scratch. The doctor said that he has to keep the bandage on so that there won't be an infection." Her eyes filled as she looked down at the infant and rocked him a bit harder.

"Well, at least everyone is safe… you were very wise to come here." My mother offered. "Your children are fine- and that's what's important."

This phrase didn't have quite the effect we expected. Umm Ahmed's eyes suddenly flowed over and in a moment, she was crying freely. Sama frowned and gently took the baby from her mother's arms, rising to walk him around in the hallway. My aunt quickly poured a glass of water out for Umm Ahmed and handed it to her, explaining to us, "Ahmed, her fourteen-year-old son, is with his father, still in Falloojeh."

"I didn't want to leave him…" The glass of water shook in her hands. "But he refused to leave without his father and we got separated last minute as the cars were leaving the city…" My aunt rushed to pat her back and hand her some tissues.

"Umm Ahmed's husband, God protect him, is working with one of the mosques to help get some of the families out." My aunt explained, sitting down next to Umm Ahmed and reaching to pull a teary Harith onto her lap. "I'm sure they'll both be fine- maybe they're already in Baghdad…" My aunt added with more confidence than any of us felt. Umm Ahmed nodded her head mechanically and stared vaguely at the rug on the ground. Harith rubbed at his eyes and clung to a corner of his mother's shawl. "I promised her," my aunt explained, "That if we don't hear from them in two more days, Abu S. will drive out to Falloojeh, and he can and look for them. We've already left word with that mosque where all the refugees go in Baghdad."

As I sat staring at the woman, the horror of the war came back to me- the days upon days of bombing and shooting- the tanks blasting away down the streets, and helicopters hovering above menacingly. I wondered how she would spend the next couple of agonizing days, waiting for word from her son and husband. The worst part of it is being separated from the people you care about and wondering about their fates. It's a feeling of restlessness that gnaws away inside of you, leaving you feeling exhausted and agitated all at once. It's a thousand pessimistic voices whispering stories of death and destruction in your head. It's a terrible feeling of helplessness in the face of such powerful devastation.

So Umm Ahmed is one of the terrorists who were driven from the city. Should her husband and son die, they will be leaders from Al-Qaeda or even relatives of Abu Mussab Al-Zarqawi himself… that's the way they tell the story in America.

It makes me crazy to see Bush and Allawi talking about the casualties in Falloojeh like every single person there is a terrorist lurking not in a home, but in some sort of lair, making plans to annihilate America. Allawi was recently talking about how the ?'peace talks' weren't going very well and a major military operation was the only option available. That garbage and the rest about Abu Mussab Al-Zarqawi is for Americans, Brits and Iraqis living in comfortable exile.

Allawi is vile and the frightening thing is that he will *never* be safe in Iraq without American military support. As long as he is in power, there will be American tanks and bases all over the country. How does he expect to win any support by threatening to unleash the occupation forces against Falloojeh? People are greeting refugees from Falloojeh like heroes. They are emptying rooms in houses to accommodate them and donating food, money and first-aid supplies.

Everyone here knows Abu Mussab Al-Zarqawi isn't in Falloojeh. He isn't anywhere, as far as anyone can tell. He's like the WMD: surrender your weapons or else we'll attack. Now that the damage is done, it is discovered that there were no weapons. It will be the same with Zarqawi. We laugh here when we hear one of our new politicians discuss him. He's even better than the WMD- he has legs. As soon as the debacle in Falloojeh is over, Zarqawi will just move conveniently to Iran, Syria or even North Korea.

As for the ?'peace talks' with Falloojeh- they never existed. They've been bombing Falloojeh for several weeks now. They usually do the bombing during the night, and no one is there to cover the damage and all the deaths. It's only later we hear about complete families being buried alive or shot to death by snipers on the street.

By the way, Americans- 100,000 deaths in a year and a half, and the number is rising. Keep Bush another four years and we just might hit the half-million mark…


- posted by river @ 9:57 PM
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 07:57 pm
Quote:
err, tico, could you try to find a more heartland kinda avatar.


Beth, Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 07:59 pm
Quote:
are serving as macrophagic agents in order to dispel the invading organism


Ge, do you even....? Cool
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 08:24 pm
"The insurgents are petty thugs and terrorists who would otherwise be in jail." ... better not forget who let them out of jail !
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 08:38 pm
Luckily for us, Ronald Reagan stayed the course in Lebanon all those years ago, never flinching for a minute after the death of those Marines. Because he fought to the end, Lebanon is today a fresh vibrant example of democracy in the Middle East -\\\

-- oh wait, he bugged out about six hours after the attack==

=== How come he didn't win a Nobel Peace Prize???

Joe
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 09:07 pm
Joe are you forgetting Grenada?
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 09:52 pm
Kara wrote:
Quote:
are serving as macrophagic agents in order to dispel the invading organism


Ge, do you even....? Cool


We, that is, Bush, has dropped the equivalent of six atomic bombs on Iraq the size of the ones dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. We are bombing rubble and for what? Al-Zarqawi? Has anyone ever seen him or the WMDs?
Where lies the rubicon ..... how many deaths .... or have we passed it and rapidly approach total destruction of them or us. How long will the world stand byand observe the carnage

Quote:
In September 2002 President Bush urged the United Nations to encourage Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to comply with U.N. resolutions or "actions will be unavoidable." Bush said that Saddam has repeatedly violated 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, which include a call for Iraq to "disarm its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs". Iraqi officials rejected Bush's assertions.

In November, the U.N. Security Council unanimously passes a new resolution (UNSC 1441) giving Iraq a 30 day to provide the Security Council a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its military programs, demanding that Baghdad allow U.N. arms inspectors unhindered access to any site suspected of producing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, recalls, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.

Iraq agreed to the resolution and inspectors returned to Iraq on November 26. The resolution also requires Baghdad to provide a list of its weapons of mass destruction to the Security Council by December 8. Iraq denies having any weapons of mass destruction and says the resolution is the result of the desire of the United States and Britain to launch military attacks on Iraq.

On 17th of March 2003, President Bush gave Saddam Hussein and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq, threatening that their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of his choosing.

Saddam has rejected President Bush's ultimatum that he and his sons leave Iraq before early Thursday the 20th of March, or face military action. A statement from the Revolutionary Command Council was broadcast on Iraqi television, saying the Iraqi regime "denounced the reckless ultimatum directed by American President George Bush." It said Iraq is ready to confront a U.S.-led attack.

It was 5:45 in the morning in Baghdad on Thursday 20th of March 23, 2003 (Wednesday 9:45 PM EST) when more than 40 satellite-guided Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from U.S. warships in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf at a "target of opportunity" as described by U.S. military sources. U.S. President George W. Bush announced Wednesday night he had ordered the coalition attack on Iraq to begin with what the Pentagon called a "decapitation attack."

total hits since Sunday, April 20, 1997

Page was last updated on Friday, June 18, 2004 at 11:37 PM


SOURCE
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 03/14/2026 at 01:53:06