Free Iraq

Before anything else, understand this is not critizism.
I think I understand your point of view. But your analogy has one slight problem. In real life the leader of Iraq was a monster (Is there anyone who disagree?), and if we had a leader like that (yes Bush is an idiot but uncomparable with Hussien) then I think many would accept an invasion if it meant that this monster of a leader was removed. I don't agree with the current occupation, but it did acheive something. I think the real question is, what would happen if they pulled out today? Would the country return to its previous rule by dictator?
 

This is a fantastic website. I will pass on the address to my friends who are of the same mind. Bravo for you!
wynn bexton
 

Andy,
How many more present-day dictators do you have in mind?
 

I am an American. I leave this comment for Andy and others wanting to understand, for I believe his comment was made in good faith.
My response is three-fold:
1. Iraqis did not ask us to "liberate" them. Their country is sovereign, just like ours.
2. How do we go about comparing "tyrants"? If the standard is body counts, then I fear George Bush and this administration probably win hands down. The destruction wrought upon Iraq is such that I for one, continuing to live in comfort, can scarcely fathom, let alone do I believe I could sanely endure.
3. Have a look at the photos at the link below. They show a reality that is hidden from us in the States. I commend the photographer. These photos tell a story we don't want to know.

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album28
 

Why does America fight Iraq?

On 8 Feb. 2003 (BEFORE the American invasion), Bill Christison, former CIA political analyst had this to say (and here I extrapolate from a his very long analysis)

1. Oil--the desire for greater U.S. control of Iraqi (and thus indirectly other Middle Eastern) oil resources.
2. U.S. desire to extend the U.S. drive for global domination.
3. The desire of many dominant leaders of the Bush administration in the U.S., in partnership with the Sharon government in Israel, that a conquest of Iraq become the first stage of a "strategic transformation" of the entire Middle East.

He went on to add:
"We place a high value on American lives. We do not--and all the world sees this--seem to place anything like the same value on other lives. I simply cannot justify in my own mind a war that will lead to major civilian casualties. If it turned out that there were not heavy casualties, I still could not justify a war for any of the three reasons I've already discussed as being the real causes of the war, or for all of them combined.

"Even if the issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were the real reason--which I think is clearly not the case--that issue would not in my opinion justify a preemptive war either. At a minimum, we ought instead to continue the present U.S. policies of containment and deterrence. THIS WAR AGAINST IRAQ IS COMPLETELY UNJUSTIFIED, and we the people of the United States should be ashamed of ourselves if we allow it happen."

Bill Christison was correct. We had NO business invading Iraq. One day even we will rue the fact of our collective stupidity and national indifference to the suffering of ordinary Iraqis.
 

The fact that Bush and PNAC had this invasion planned well before he was installed in office proves that the invasion has nothing to do with Saddam, hideous as he is. PNAC petitioned Clinton to invade Iraq as well. Clinton was no supporter of Iraq either. Let's get that point clear. Now Iraq is becoming a nuclear wasteland, thanks be to the US military using DU arms. There are no winners in this affair. Anyone who thinks so is not seeing a clear picture of what's really happening.
 

Don't mean this exactly the way it sounds, but what about the Iraqi people under Saddam. You must know there was no way they could have ever gotten out from under Saddam and his sons; you cannot also believe the UN would ever put enough pressure on him to change decades of human rights violations. Why does the world not think they are important enought to fight for either then or now?
 

To any American who thinks that this war was justified because it removed Hussein, just try to imagine for a moment that the military might of the old Soviet Union arrived upon our shores, took over Washington DC., arrested our Congresspersons, flattened buildings, destroyed our artifacts and precious documents such as the Declaration of Independence, imprisoned our President (yes, I know, lots of Americans would find this a tempting thought), killed tens of thousands of our citizens, arrested thousands of them and put them to humiliating torture, cut electricity down to a few hours per day for years, promised rigged elections, and then trumpeted to the world how they were liberating us while in fact liberating our natural resources ... well, you get the picture. Any patriotic American would rise up in wrath. I'm amazed the insurrection isn't worse than it is. Point is, invasion is invasion no matter who's on the delivery end. Americans have to get over being "special." The only thing special about us in my opinion is that our land is blessed with incredible natural resources, etc., and we were historically blessed with brilliant founding fathers (and mothers who aided them) who gave us our system of government that respects, or used to respect, the rights of individual citizens and gave people the right, or used to give the right, to elect their government. Our current administration is busy deconstructing our Constitution, and as we seem to be losing ground on keeping this wonderful democracy, we would be better advised to confine our efforts at spreading democracy to Ohio and Florida and other states with wobbly voting rights records, and leave the Iraqis and the citizens of the middle east to sort out their own lives. This is not indifference on my part, it's respect! End of sermon!
 

Regarding KT : posted at 10:27 PM "what about the Iraqi people under Saddam".
Well thought of, Kt.
It was indeed a difficult dilemna.
In the English version of my book, Iraq's Nuclear Mirage, I mentioned a Post Script article which I had written to my Iraqi friends one week before the occupation of Iraq, (on page 223 of the book)in which I stated: "There is the assumption that if one decries the coming slaughter of Iraqis by Americans, that one must also curse Saddam at the same time; otherwise, so the accusation go,you are defending Saddam", and I went one defending my position (kindly see my book's site).
A year and a half later, in the Arabic version of my book, which was published just last month, I reminded my Iraqi friends of that Post Script letter, with the following observation:"I ask again, was getting rid of Saddam worth the destruction of Iraq? and the slaughter of 100,000 Iraqi people and the injury of more than 300,000 Iraqis?"
 

I have been reading riverbendblog.blogspot.com for a while and found a link to this blog there. I think it is great that Iraqi people are using modern technology to get the Western world's attention and telling us what the newspapers and TV stations do not or dare not. We need to hear what is really going on over there. Keep up the good work, best regards, Icelander
 

Dear Imad:

First, thank you for speaking out. Secondly, as an American citizen, (and US Navy vet), I do not support this war. It was wrong, wrong, wrong.

I feel a certain national guilt, and responsibility for the destruction and de-stabilization caused in Iraq.

I fear a return to war-lordism, of civil war if we pull out now. Not that these aren't already happening, I suspect.

As a feminist, I also fear that women will be oppressed by a conservative Muslim theocracy. Iraq had made great inroads in the equality of women prior to invasion, and then I see images of our troops patting down women, questioning them. This horrifies me.

I will admit to ignorance of Islamic theology in general, and I suspect that most of the oppression of women under "Islam" is actually holdovers from previous cultures. Take for example the (to the western mind) "barbaric" practice of female genital "mutilation". This isn't mentioned anywhere in the Qur'an, but it's often justified by religious leaders as a way of enforcing female "modesty". I'm not sure if "cutting' is done in Iraq, I'm using this as an example. Oh, and I think male circumcision is "barbaric", too.

It's not Islam that oppresses women, it's more likey the residual oppression of the culture that Islam has integrated and incorporated.

I know about the various differences in traditional women's attire, and I know that many woman actively chose to wear the veil(s) with pride. But I really hope that it never becomes "mandatory" for women to wear the veil in Iraq.

I'm not sure about spreading "democracy" to the rest of the world, but I'd like to see the idea of separation of church (or temple, or mosque) and state take hold. Especially since it seems to be in danger of collapse here in the USA.

What are your thoughts?
Jean Dudley
 

I share the same thoughts of Andy. The below is also not criticism but rather a humble explanation.
For Darantha who thinks too few (relatively) are fighting now: you need to live in Southern Iraq during Saddam's era for a while and then you would understand why people are not fighting now.....for those tortured Iraqis, the current security situation is much better than that during Saddam's time and electricity and clean water are luxuries that they didn't even dream of, so not having any at the moment is not a new thing at all!!
For the argument that says what about the 100,000 Iraqis killed since the invasion. What about the 1 million Saddam killed! And how do you know he wouldn’t have killed another million to save his crown!!!
Finally, I’m not with the invaders but those who call themselves resistance they are only fighting because they can’t bare the idea of a ruling shia majority, for they have been ruling this country since Baghdad was built.

Wisam.
 

To my knowledge, only France, Turkey and, in a way, the US, have church / state separation laws. Why pick on the Iraqis ? They will organise themselves as they see fit once the invaders have been booted out. And, by the way, Saddam Hussein was pretty secular.
 

Imad,
Keep blogging! Great information. Can't wait to read your book.
Peace
 

Your analogy makes no sense. The children in Red Dawn were fighting for self-determination. They did not want to be subjects, but free men and women.

The insurgents in Iraq are fighting to stop Iraq from attaining self-determination. They are trying to stop Iraq from becoming a democracy.

Democracy and tyranny are not morally equivalent. Unless you deny this the analogy is nonsense.

The insurgents, by fighting, are making Amricans stay in Iraq longer. The insurgents, by trying to stop elections, are trying to enslave the majority of Iraq.

It is like you're comparing someone who fights off a rapist to the rapist. They both struggle, therefore they are equal. Make a moral distinction.

As for your lies about WMD- every intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had them before the liberation. If he didn't have them all he had to do was cooperate with the UN LIKE HE AGREED TO WHEN HE SURRENDERED AFTER THE US PUSHED HIM OUT OF KUWAIT.
 

In my book, Iraq's Nuclear Mirage (page 232), I qoute from an artcile I wrote back on May 23, 2003 called "Iraq's Free Fall"
http://www.yellowtimes.org/print.php?sid=1370

which posited the following:
"..... The Americans and the British have, in a sense, raped Iraq and left it bleeding. There they stand, with their pants down, licking their lips, just waiting to manipulate the oil industry."
 

By the way, I would advise you, if you are a father, to heed the following:
"Father concerned about terrorist-leaning son"
http://www.ashlandwi.com/placed/index.php?sect_rank=6&story_id=191082
 

Imad,
Great blog. As an America I'm ashamed for what my country has done to the Iraqi people. Through lies and fear our goverment has lead us to commit these horrible atrocites against the Iraqi people. It's always easy to see the faults and the evil of Saddam, but many Americans can't look at themselves to see what we are doing in Iraq..My hope is that the curse of Americans on Iraqi soil will soon end and Iraq can build from the ashes that we have created.
 

Btw. The pictures above. There is picture of Us soldier strapping little girl and women. Take a closer look on the pictures and you will see that he is actually cutting them loose..

Just small detail..
 

Salam alaikum,

I live in a small town in Roswell. My father and I got into an argument over "Red Dawn" and what was going on in Iraq. In the movie the kids bombed a store that people that were not locked up shopped at. But I guess you can only get away with that if your american.


Sadiq Kennedy
 

Regarding mrhood's comment: "The pictures above. There is picture of Us soldier strapping little girl and women. Take a closer look on the pictures and you will see that he is actually cutting them loose.."
Metaphorically, that is perhaps why 48% of the American people still believe that Iraq had wmd when the US illegally occupied Iraq.
 

This comment is in repsonse to Andy's original stements in comment: Firstly, If a so-called "monster" like Saddam Hussein can tell the truth and put out an 11,800 page document as evidence that the WMD was done away with, what ever gave the US the right to steal 8,000 pages of that report before it was seen by the UN? As for Bush...how can a President of the US be such a liar, and be any less a monster than Saddam Hussein in anyone's eyes when the lies that were told were to start a war in a foreign country and bring such a shame upon the reputation of America?
 

This is a little off-topic, perhaps, but as last night another atrocity was committed by US troops, killing the parents of a bunch of children at a checkpoint (one pic on the front page of today's Toronto Star, top of fold), here's a link to a series of photos on the St. Petersburg Times' site:

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/01/18/iraqgallery/page1.shtml

The story they carry is just the AP story that's seen elsewhere.
 

One Stone,

To call this incident an "atrocity" is more than a stretch. Yes, the incident was most unfortunate. We all regret the death of innocents in any confrontation. But I suspect you believe the shooting of the driver and passenger was entirely without cause. However the reports that I have seen indicate that the car did not stop when ordered to. You don't figure the daily car-bombings in Baghdad has caused soldiers to be suspect of vehicles entering checkpoints and not stopping when orderd to do so??? Nah, probably just a couple of sicko G.I.s out to kill some Iraqi for the fun of it. Isn't that right, One Stone???

Self-loathing Americans like One Stone make me sick to my stomach. How quick they are to condemn our military when they are over there risking their lives to secure Iraq and give the Iraqi people an opportunity to live in peace and security....something they never would have had under SH.
 

Peace and security? Yeah, things were a lot worse under SH.

And yes, everyone who fights our invasion is a "terrorist." Now here's a cookie.

In the meantime, what do you call this, if not an atrocity?
 

All of these people who are trying to justify our occupation of Iraq are lying to themselves. Maybe Iraq wasn't a great place to live and maybe Hussein wasn't the nicest guy in the world but there are worse places and worse people that we have ignored for years. I don't see Americans screaming to attack the Sudan even though thousands are being killed there and I don't see anyone saying we should attack Cuba because Castro is a dictator. We attacked Iraq because we wanted their oil and Israel felt threatened. Any other reason is just an excuse to make people feel better.
 

All of these people who are trying to justify our occupation of Iraq are lying to themselves. Maybe Iraq wasn't a great place to live and maybe Hussein wasn't the nicest guy in the world but there are worse places and worse people that we have ignored for years. I don't see Americans screaming to attack the Sudan even though thousands are being killed there and I don't see anyone saying we should attack Cuba because Castro is a dictator. We attacked Iraq because we wanted their oil and Israel felt threatened. Any other reason is just an excuse to make people feel better.
 

Personally I find ignorance turns my stomach most. Working off assumptions and coming to fairy tale conclusions (plainly called stupidity) is the denomination of most modern day 'thinking'. I put it in quotations because thinking in its current form should hardly be called that. In order to understand any given situation we must first know the basics, which involve doing your own homework and coming to your own conclusions. Sadly, in American society anyway, the mass of sheep rely on others to provide what to believe. Such as Fox's 'fair and balanced' news. The extent of relying on something this truth-forsaken epitome of propaganda goes to the extent of believing in labels; hardly a desire to dig a little. But people don't want truth, they want fuzzy-warm-fitted lies.

So to understand the US position in Iraq one must dig a little. One must also be willing to give up sacred illusions that make us feel good; such as, The US government is currently in Iraq to free its people. A little bit of studying the Neo-Cons agenda by reading about PNAC, the thousands of connections to corrupt and self-serving LIERS, amoung other things. When one begins to learn to use a partial iota of a rotting brain, one may start to rely on their 'self' for information instead of the APPALLING channels called US Media. US is not in Iraq to FREE its people. That goes against its agenda. It likely wants to stay there as long as possible for the vested interest for the corporate pigs blood-stained lust for wealth; additionally the Zionist racists' interests are being met with plans of developing a 'Greater Israel'. The largest Embassy (previously one of Saddam's palaces - how proper)in the world in Iraq is now being setup and used as a base for further domination of the other countries deemed necessary for the entropic black-hole of greed and power of the Neo-Cons. Of course don't take my word for it. DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK!

A simple example of non-thinking was shown in Jim's recent post on several occassions:
the obvious lie: soilders are dying in Iraq for the democracy of Iraq.
Present information suggests they are dying for the Corporate pigs and Zionists.
more subtle: 'Self-loathing Americans like One Stone'
the present information suggests One Stone is from Toronto - thats in Canada for those geographically challenged. This may not be true, only probable given the information in his post. And we need to rely on probablities from the facts we have. From the facts we have now, US is not in Iraq to free anyone.
 

Some praise and another analogy.

First, I hope you are not embarassed by praise. You are brave and resolute for bucking the "establishment line" and publishing your book. Riverbend has linked to your work before, and I have linked to you as a result (but I got your name wrong, sorry!). You may never get the front page story in the US establishment press that you deserve, but you are a figure of history.

Red Dawn was a great analogy, and I enjoyed the movie, too.

I have another analogy. What if aliens came to Earth, and told President Bush that he has to disarm, or America would be invaded and great carnage ensue. Some might think this would be simple, but the Pentagon can't find 1/7th or more of its assets! Bush couldn't prove that he'd disarmed. OK, I feel foolish, since it wasn't an apt an analogy as it could be, but there is more. When I told this story to some people, it was the most Conservative, pro-Bush, pro-Iraq war person who instantly said he would never surrender to the aliens, and would fight to the death. He said we had no reason to believe the aliens wouldn't invade after we disarmed. I tried to tell him they could destroy us from space, and that an intact infrastructure would be better for a guerilla war if they did invade, but it didn't matter.

Someday, when things settle down again, you might enjoy a TV series from Britain called Blake's 7. Many, if not all, of the lead characters die over the show's 4 seasons of 13 episodes.
 

Jim, if you're so concerned about what happens to your American military, 40% of whom are reserve or National Guard, just simply bring them back and thank you very much.

Atrocity is the right word, because it's neither the first, nor second time, and unfortunately it won't be the last time, that a similar thing has happened; perhaps you've only followed the conflict from American media, and maybe you don't know of a van full of women that was blasted during the first phase of the invasion, perhaps even after Mission Accomplished.
Geez, one gets confused driving in a strange city at night and you expect some guy to know that some shots he may have heard were warning shots (don't Americans know how to warn in any other way?) and not some fighting nearby which would likely have caused him to floor it to get out of there?

If Americans were not there, none of this would happen.

Good thing that even Ukrainians are leaving, Poles are cutting down and even Portuguese are leaving soon, allowing those who created the problem to remain stuck with it, as long as their criminal governments like.
 

In honor of MLK: http://messopotamian.blogspot.com
'we shall overcome'
- lucky
 

I am totally with you and against occupation. I wanted to just bring out the picture detail, because photos are just photos and they can be seen like they are wanted to be seen.

My first reaction was some anger. Then I was looking at the pictures in details and I noticed that they are cutting the ties.

Just a small detail in much large scale matter.
 

Reggarding the Finish mrhood's insistance that the American soldiers are 'freeing' the Iraqi children..
Now who do you suppose handcuffed these children with the white plastic handcuffs?
 

I have been reading your journal and have been deeply affected. Your comments about the movie Red Dawn ring of truth. Despite the awful reality of the war and its ongoing brutal impact on Iraqi's, the truth is that Americans want only to see Iraq restored to a condition on peace and security. It grieves us to realize that we have introduced chaos and violence and terror into your lives. Even those of us who opposed this war from the start had hoped that Iraqi's might be better off once it was over -- but it seems never to end, and the path we have followed has been bloody and unjust. I wish I could change this. I am ashamed of what has been done by my government and my people.

Peace,

Neil
 

It has been some time since I saw that movie...perhaps someone can refresh my memory. In what scene did the child "martyr" himself outside a place of worship, killing more than 14 innocents and wounding dozen more? And why would he do this when the enemy was the Russian occupiers????

Also, I don't remember it being the goal of the Russian invaders to restore security and relinquish authority to a government elected by the people. Excellent analogy, though.
 

Despite some comments posted here giving very weak excuses as to why the analogy isn't an apt one I firmly believe it is a very correct one. And have even thought of the comparision for almost 2 years now.
 

youre right and very wrong. there is good being done there by good people but more bad is being done too. you see life there was hell in its way, not it is the same again. why? because when you have the power to save you have the power to take, and in a foreign land when its easy to hate, its easy to fall to the second..Fair enough. And what, you may ask, defines a "challenge"? How about the experiences yet to be had by the young girl below, grieving over the corpse of her gunned-down daddy? She can at least always be thankful that he didn't die in one of Saddam's infamous torture rooms, because then, you see, she would be angry and bitter about his death at the hands of an all-powerful, violent government entity. It's so much better this way. Our way. The American way (no pic :()