Anti-U.S. cleric delivers first speech since Najaf clashes, demanding Americans leave Iraq
By Abdul Hussein Al-Obeidi, Associated Press, 5/16/2005 11:11
ADVERTISEMENT
NAJAF, Iraq (AP) Anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr came out of hiding Monday for the first time since his fighters clashed with American forces in August, delivering a fiery speech demanding that coalition forces leave Iraq and that Saddam Hussein be punished.
Al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric whose militia battled U.S. forces in Baghdad and Najaf last year, held a press conference in his father's home in this holy Shiite Muslim city, 100 miles south of Baghdad. Al-Sadr criticized the American-led occupation and called for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.
He also demanded punishment for Saddam, who brutally suppressed Shiites during his three-decade rule and now is being held in a U.S. military detention facility in Baghdad awaiting trial on war crimes charges.
''I demand several things, including punishing Saddam and calling on the Iraqi government, religious movements and political factions to work hard to kick out the occupier,'' al-Sadr said. ''I want the immediate withdrawal of the occupation forces.''
Al-Sadr's reappearance coincides with mediation efforts involving Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi to get murder charges against the cleric dropped. An Iraqi judge has issued an arrest warrant charging al-Sadr and his key lieutenant, Riyadh al-Nouri, in the 2003 assassination of moderate cleric Abdul Majid al-Khoei.
Al-Sadr also accused the United States of trying to foment a sectarian conflict, and he demanded the coalition release all detainees.
''The occupier is trying to make up a sectarian war between the Sunnis and Shiites,'' al-Sadr said. ''It is not acceptable to direct the allegations of ugly acts committed by the occupier against the Shiites, to the Sunnis, we also condemn and denounce all the terrorist acts.''
He did not elaborate but apparently was referring to a spate of violence since the April 28 announcement of Iraq's new, Shiite-dominated government. More than 450 people have been killed in insurgent-related activity that has raised fears of an outbreak of a wider sectarian conflict.
The burly, bearded cleric, usually clad in a robe and turban, wields wide support among young Shiites, particularly in Baghdad's impoverished Sadr City, the scene of fierce fighting last year between his militia, the Imam al-Mahdi Army and American forces.
...
I have contended that you know nothing of history.
You have contended that I know nothing of history. I contend that this contention of yours libels me!
I have used as examples (recently--i don't intend to delve any further into the past) your ludicrous contention that the War of 1812, World War I and World War II were pre-emptive wars. When challenged on that, you decided you have some kind of right to re-define pre-emptive to suit your purposes.
It is you who did the redefining of pre-emptive. You redefined pre-emptive to exclude the case of one, having suffered harm by another, attacks that other to prevent further harm. The US did that in 1812 (England), 1917 (Germany), 1941 (Japan and Germany), 2001 (Afghanistan), and in 2003 (Iraq). In the latter two cases, the governments of both nations refused to evict those (i.e., al Qaeda) based in their countries who had declared and made war (i.e., caused harm) against the US, and thereby became accomplices to those had harmed the US.
Then you came out with this claptrap about Hussein, Napoleon, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. Rather than take you down a path which would have confused you further, i simply pointed out that you would be unable to support a contention that Napoleon was responsible for the deaths of millions of civilians. The point about civilians is important, because in a list of monsters which includes Hitler and Pol Pot, any contender for a place of honor there would have to had been responsible for the deaths of millions of non-combatants.
I have conceded that the detailed argument you presented makes it appear probable to me that I did exaggerate the number of civilians killed in the Napoleon Wars. However, you have failed to provide your estimate of how many civilians were actually killed in the Napoleon Wars, and, if you have any, any evidence you have supporting your estimate.
You just don't get it, because your world view is oversimplistic, and your devotion to a purely partisan support of the current administration leads you to reach beyond your understanding of history to establish precedence for the administration's actions. The United States has had some pretty flimsy reasons for going to war, but this is the first "pre-emptive" war in our history.
I think your "world view is oversimplistic, and your devotion to a purely partisan support of the [opposition to the] current administration leads you to reach beyond your understanding of [both logic and] history."
It is a pre-emptive war in that the administration claimed there was a proximate danger of Iraq threatening our security with weapons of mass destruction. The administration knew better than to assert outright that Iraq was involved in the September 11th tragedy, but they were certainly not above a sub rosa implication to that effect.
This is false because it is incomplete! Possession of ready-to-use WMD is but one of five reasons given. Among the other four reasons the US gave for the invasion of Iraq was the fact that al Qaeda was based in Iraq and the government of Iraq would not evict them (e.g., extradite al Qaeda's leadership).
But no weapons of mass destruction have been found,
True!
and no undeniable linkage of Iraq and the September 11th bombers has been established.
True, but irrelevant. This was not one of the five reasons the US gave for invading Iraq.
So the conservatives have switched the rationale to one of freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal tyrrant.
Setanta, Mr. alleged history expert, some Republicans and Democrats gave this rationale both before and after Bush became president, and both before and after the invasion of Iraq.
Without doubt, Hussein was a brutal tyrrant. What is in doubt is whether or not the Iraqi people would have suffered as much if some other member of the Ba'at Arab Socialist Party had been in charge.
While it is possible that eventually replacing Saddam would have solved the problem satisfactorily, it is improbable.
What is in doubt is whether or not it is justifiable to assert that Hussein is in a league with Hitler and Pol Pot.
Gad! Setanta, you again misconstrue and thereby obscure the point I made and successfully communicated to others. I made no such assertion, nor did I imply such an assertion. What I did assert and imply is that the historical and current flaws exhibited by the USA are not in the same horrible class as are those three examples plus others. Consequently, to judge the USA strictly in the context of its own history and not in the larger context of the history of all nations is unjust. Now I go further and claim that those living in other nations who are attacking the US's contemporary behavior ought to finally begin to see it in the context of their own nation's historical and contemporary behavior.
What is not in doubt is that Napoleon does not belong in that list.
Tell you what! I'll agree to remove Napoleon from that list if you are able to provide persuasive evidence that fewer than 20,000 civilians were killed in Napoleon's wars of aggression (excluding Napoleon's wars of pre-emption, if any). Napoleon was a tyrant that caused the death of millions. The only probably valid argument you have so far made about that gangster is that his wars killed less than millions of civilians.
All the rest of this stuff of yours in quotes is unrelated to any argument I made.
Quote:It serves conservative propaganda quite well to whip the discussion into hysteria by likening Hussein to Hitler and Pol Pot. However, that contention will not stand up to close examination. Of the more than 300,000 Iraqis estimated to have died during his regime, other than combat deaths, the majority came after the failed uprising which Shi'ites undertook in the belief, tragically mistaken, that Pappy Bush would support them. While not in the least condoning any of the behavior of that regime, i can understand well why the number of deaths chargeable to them would increase dramatically after a failed uprising.
It would be absurd to contend that no war would have taken place in Europe in the mid-20th century had Hitler not taken power. It would be reasonable to state, however, that the number of deaths would have been fewer by millions had there been no Hitler, no Eichmann, no "final solution." However, the greatest number of deaths took place in the Soviet Union, many if not actually most were as a result of the actions of Stalin's regime, and the reduction in deaths in that war had there been no "final solution," no death camps, would have been proportiately small. Reasonable estimates of deaths in the Soviet Union are placed at 25,000,000. Subtract the deaths of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals and anti-Nazi activitists from the death toll, and the difference is far less significant as a proportion of the total loss of life, given the horrible toll of death in the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, it is still quite reasonable to contend that millions fewer would have died had there been no Hitler.
In the case of Pol Pot, the examination reveals an even more extreme case of bloody murder. There is no reason to deny that life would have been brutal under a Khmer Rouge regime. However, under Pol Pot's leadership, millions died who likely would never have had to fear for their lives, absent Pol Pot. It simply is ridiculously unreasonable to put Hussein in the same league as Hitler or Pol Pot.
And that is a significant point. Having failed to find the weapons of mass destruction, having failed to find solid evidence of a link between Iraq and the September 11th bombers, conservatives have rushed to assert that it was always about freeing the Iraqis of a brutal, murderous regime. But those who opposed the war, and now criticize the administration's fabrications leading to war point to two significant holes in that story. The first is that the PNAC has listed bases in southwest Asia in general and Iraq in particular as a goal in their agenda, since long before the Shrub was even elected. The second is to point out that there are other brutal, murderous regimes around the world which have not received the tender minstrations of the Shrub and his Forty Theives--North Korea is mentioned again and again, because it is a brutal dictatorship which murders its people through starvation, and there is not doubt in the mind of any reasonable person that they possess weapons of mass destruction.
Therefore, the conservatives attempt to raise the debate to an hysterical level by comparing Hussein to the likes of Hitler and Pol Pot. It is an attempt to place the justification for war on the solid ground of removing an epochal murderous tyrrant from power. But the case cannot be made, because it depends of analogies which don't hold up.
That is why i found your post to be a line of crap.
Because of arguments I didn't make?
Were anyone to make the same assertion again, i would consider it a line of crap, and say as much. Therefore, i did not and do not accuse you of retailing lies. I simply point out that you are not equipped to make such historical analogies, because you demonstrably possess insufficient knowledge of history, and insufficient historical prespective to sustain such analogies.
Well that last is a positive change from your earlier, clearly libelous accusation: insufficient is a far cry from nothing!
