Free Iraq

In iraqwar.ru is a story
A source close to the Iraqi Draft Constitution Committee revealed that the US had offered bribes of US$ 5million each to Sunni members in the Constitution Committee to accept the draft constitution.

With an link to an arabic page
http://www.alwatan.com.sa/daily/2005-08-30/first_page/first_page04.htm
 

Simohurtta
Thank you.
 

Arab League warns Iraqi charter 'will bring chaos': "Amr Moussa, the Arab League secretary general, said . . . 'I share the concerns of many Iraqis about the lack of consensus on the constitution. I do not believe in this division between Shia and Sunni and Muslims and Christians and Arabs and Kurds. I find this is a true recipe for chaos and perhaps a catastrophe in Iraq and around it.'"

"The ratification of the constitution at the referendum, and the subsequent elections, remain a key plank of the US-British exit strategy* from Iraq and a rejection will mean the political process will have to start again from scratch."
------------------

* "Exit strategy"? Given the established permanent U.S. military bases, I don't know what this means.
 

Iraq's constitution is neither the first one to be "assisted" by a third party, nor will it be the last. This kind of thing has happened throughout history and, in the end, amounted to nothing in almost every case. What DID matter was the native population's attitude when dealing with the third party and each other.

Take Germany and Japan for example. We Americans 'assisted' them in writing constitutions as well. If anyone believes that the Americans were welcomed as liberators of either country or that they appreciated our suggestions, I have a bridge I'd like to see you. It could argued that the respective occupations went smoothly because the native populations were exhausted from years of constant war. Or perhaps they just realised that one day the Americans would be gone. Either way, they managed to get through it without civil war and even managed to pocket a little American aide money. If you doubt that they have moved on, you need only look at the way Germany has been thumbing its nose at the US lately. This would have started much earlier if it hadn't been for the cold war. Which brings me to my counter example ...

Afghanistan. The Soviets helped the Afghan "government" write its constitution as well. During the almost ten years of occupation, Afghanistan got a well trained Army, a brand new public health system, some new roads, even its own air force. Of course, its villiages also got nearly bombed out of existance by the Soviet air force because of the almost universal resistance to the occupation. The resistance won, if you consider the loss of almost a million people over 10 years winning. The Soviets left with their tail between their legs. And what did the Afghan people get for their victory? Another five years of civil war followed by rule by some religious fanatics. Was the Soviet union wrong to invade? Certainly. Did kicking out the Soviets with violence help Afghanistan?

I know, I know ... most of you will tell me how all Iraqis will work together peacefully to build a new government once the Americans leave. How its just the Americans who are screwing everything up. All Iraqis will simply put their disagreements aside and work for the common good. Of course, this presupposes 'civilized' behavior on the part of everyone. HINT: If you solve your problems with RPGs and road side bombs you aren't civilized. Why would someone choosing to use violence to react to a situation he doesn't like suddenly choose otherwise. Will he suddenly love all his neighbors once the Americans are gone?
 

"Transformation" and the Beginning of Global Resistance: "The changes that are taking place within the military under the deceptive name of 'transformation' have nothing to do with national defense or preparedness for terrorist attack. Rather, the military is being converted into a taxpayer subsidized security apparatus for multinational corporations that will seize foreign resources through force of arms and then crush the indigenous elements that resist US aggression."
 

toobad4us
"HINT: If you solve your problems with RPGs and road side bombs you aren't civilized."
Do you regard RPGs and road side bombs as being more civilized or less civilized than an invasion deploying zillions of dollars worth of bombs and depleted uranium and assorted artillery causing general destruction of infrastructure, massive loss of life, maiming of thousands, a poisoned environment, and sickness and deformity for generations to come?
 

Nuremberg Lesson for Iraq War: It’s Murder: "Any resort to war - any kind of war - is a resort to means that are inherently criminal. War inevitably is a course of killings, assaults, deprivations of liberty and destruction of property.. . . [I]nherently criminal acts cannot be defended by showing that those who committed them were engaged in a war, when war itself is illegal."

"The war in Iraq, for one example, constitutes the quintessential war of aggression, falling very far short, rhetoric apart, of any justification in self-defense or authorization by the Security Council of the United Nations, the only two accepted legal grounds for war in international law."
 

Iraq's fig leaf constitution
 

US launches air strikes on Iraqi insurgent stronghold: "A hospital official in Qaim told Reuters that at least 47 people died in the bombings. Mohammed al-Aani said 35 people were killed in one house and 12 in another."


Bush is the real threat: "Some influential Americans appear to be convinced that the US will attack Iran. Whether they are right or not, the build-up to a new war is taking exactly the same form as it did in 2002. First we are being told that Iran poses a military threat, because it may be developing nuclear weapons. We are assured that the President is hoping that diplomacy might succeed through the European negotiations which have been in progress for some months."
 

tobad4us the history doesn’t not always provide the right comparison points. First the US generals after WW2 were a rather different calibre than the preset US “military men”. Secondly Germany and Japan had lost a total war, but the occupiers did not destroy the local administrative system. The new system was built on it. Not in Iraq. Third and most important point US didn’t then create insane minority rules and veto rights, which would destroy any nation’s capability to “hold” a nation together or produce a really functioning democracy. The Iraq occupation has been an unseen and complete huge mess performed by a bunch of complete idiots. Unseen in history.

What makes the Iraq constitution process so “bad” compared to others, is that USA has its own “dreams” of military presence and huge economical interests in Iraq. It is no impartial consultant helping Iraqis. UN has far more “power” and experience in helping creating a new constitution if Iraqis really would need this kind of help.

Well, now there is a real dilemma for USA and Iraq. If the new constitution is approved Iraq is de facto a three state nation at least for a short while. If it is not approved the chaos gets even worse, but it could unify Iraqis, at least Shias and Sunnis.

What would happen with a three area solution in future? If there is no strong and functioning central government + army, the country splits fast in three parts (in a couple of years). Before this process each area tries to build its own armies and strengthen itself for the imperative splitting.

Would Iraq Kurdistan be a really functioning country, I do doubt it. Syria, Turkey and Iran have too much in stake and can’t tolerate a strong Kurdistan. Also the new Sunni land and Shia area would have completely different interests than Americans hope. Shias had fast to lean to Iran to get “support” against the “outside forces”. So it would be more or less a vassal state of Iran. It would be rather naïve to believe that the Shia country could or would be a US leaning state, with a hostile attitude against US's enemy Iran.

You say: HINT: If you solve your problems with RPGs and road side bombs you aren't civilized. Why would someone choosing to use violence to react to a situation he doesn't like suddenly choose otherwise. Will he suddenly love all his neighbors once the Americans are gone?

Iraqis solve with RPG’s and road side bombs their problem which is mainly the US occupation. Nobody wants to “live” in an occupied country. Not Americans or Iraqis. Iraq is no threat to its neighbours, it has no heavy weapons. On the contrary Iraq is now rather defenceless against its neighbours.
 

Evelyn - I have never supported what my country has done in Iraq. That, however, does not change one word of what I have written. Killing twenty year old US troops who don't want to be there anyway will accomplish nothing and leave a bad legacy for Iraq and Iraqis.

Simohurtta - Are you saying that the US did a better job of "occupying" Japan and Germany? Have you ever heard of the MORGENTHAU-PLAN? Did you know that Germany put up both passive and active resistance to the Allied occupation? Are you aware that, in Japan, MacArthur closed down major Japanese companies and restricted trade in all sorts of goods? US policies in both of those countries made already bad conditions WORSE for several years after the WW2 ended. Armies aren't designed to do that kind of work. Armies are meant to win the war, not win the peace. That said, both Germany and Japan managed to get through the occupation and regain their independence despite US mistakes. There is a certain Japanese term you should look up: "shikata ga nai". Its a whole ideology about maintaining dignity in the face of terrible injustice. There is a lesson there for Iraq.
 

toobad4us,
You are right. To my knowledge you have not supported the invasion/occupation of Iraq. And certainly I do not wish the death or injury of anyone, on either "side". But my problem is this: What is your suggestion to the Iraqis for getting rid of the occupying forces? Or, are they meant to simply accept their "fate" and move on?
 

U.S. Envoy: Iraq Constitution May Change: "Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told reporters he believed 'a final, final draft has not yet been, or the edits have not been, presented yet.'"
 

Morgenthau plan was not performed because it would have been insane and the “German” part of USA’s population was against it. The reason for WW2 in Europe was much the stupid peace agreement of WW1. The Nazis rose to power much because of that unjust peace treaty. A classical example how a bad peace treaty creates new wars.

Certainly the process in Japan and Germany was not “easy” and the people resisted some of the occupation armies’ new rulings and when the occupation army behaved heavy handed. But in total the Germany and Japan were huge success stories compared to Iraq.

To the question about “not wanting to be there”. My grandfather was in the German occupation Army in Poland and my relatives were fighting against Soviet Union in Stalingrad. They certainly did not want to be there and were no Nazis – simple farmers and industrial workers. Did the Polish and Russians have a right to shoot at them – yes they did. My Finnish relatives fought against Soviet Union, which was trying to invade my country. Did the Finns have the right to shoot at the Russian troops and was it uncivilized?

I would say that it is uncivilized to force 20 year old soldiers to go and invade a foreign country. US occupation army’s soldiers are no tourists in Iraq learning the culture of Mesopotamia. Neither they are there to save, protect or help Iraqis. They are there to achieve the military and economical goals of USA not Iraq or Iraqis in general. Creating a “democratic” country is only an excuse invented after the occupation began to fail. Bremmer intended to be in power for several years. The resistance forced to change the strategy.

The invasion was a mistake, but a greater mistake has been the aftermath. Saddam’s rule was not ideal for Iraqis, but neither is a chaotic, bad performed occupation with rival groups struggling for power. If the Iraqis would have done an equal general uprising against Saddam, like what happened in Philippines and Indonesia, (when they threw out the “American” dictators) could have created a democratic country. But can a super power create with military force and by its own decision change any country to a peaceful democratic country? Has it alone the right even thinking of doing so? Let’s imagine USA wants to “democratize” North Korea without South Korean support. First a bloody war, then the US occupation army tries to re-organize a society of which culture and habits the US soldiers have no understanding. The results would be probably even worse than in Iraq.
 

---First lie: The only legitimacy is that of the Iraqi Resistance

---Second lie: the constitution is still born

What is the legitimacy of firing mortars into crowds of celebrating Shias to deliberately cause a stampede that would kill hundreds?
Perhaps you can explain the legitimacy of their continuously murderous actions?

The Iraqi people will make a decision on the constitution in October. It's called 'democracy'. For the second time this year, they will decide their future
 

Iraq’s draft constitution: a recipe for neo-colonial rule: "If it were ratified, the constitution would overturn the secular character of the Iraqi state and establish the basis for the wholesale erosion in women’s rights and religious freedom. Guarantees of equality under the law are directly contradicted by the second article of the constitution, declaring Islam the official state religion and a source of law, and that 'no law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam'. The Supreme Court that will interpret the constitution will include individuals appointed because of their expertise in Islamic law—in other words, clerics.

"Articles such as the ones banning arbitrary detention and the handing over of Iraqi nationals to 'foreign bodies or authorities' are worthless under conditions of a US military occupation and regular declarations of martial law. Thousands of Iraqis suspected of being insurgents have been rounded up and held in US and government-run prisons without charges or trial dates.

"Behind the window-dressing of such formal guarantees of civil and political liberties, the real agenda stands out. The Kurdish and Shiite parties have agreed to a document that sanctions the privatisation of the state-owned oil industry and the free market restructuring of the economy. Article 25 declares 'the state shall guarantee the reforming of the Iraqi economy according to modern economic bases, in a way that ensures complete investment of its resources, diversifying its sources and encouraging and developing the private sector'. Article 110 (2) of the constitution declares Iraq’s energy resources will be developed 'relying on the most modern techniques of market principles and encouraging investment'.

"In exchange for permitting the US plunder of the Iraqi economy, the constitution will allow the Kurdish and Shiite fundamentalist elites to gain control over much of the revenue generated by the oil industry, through the establishment of 'federal regions' in the areas under their authority.

"At the same time, the federal system will facilitate the long-term domination of the weak central government by the Kurdish and Shiite parties that won the majority of the seats in the January 30 election. The regional governments—not Baghdad—will have jurisdiction over internal security and the power to establish 'internal security forces... such as police, security and regional guards'. The flow of oil revenues into their coffers makes it inevitable that the Kurdish and Shiite elite will preside over what will be little more than one-party mini-states, with their political opponents facing systematic repression.

"The central US demand throughout the entire constitutional process has been that there can be no delay in forming an internationally-recognised Iraqi government by the end of this year. The Bush administration is guided by utterly pragmatic and reckless considerations. It wants a regime that has the power to carry through a sell-off of the oil industry and to sign agreements sanctioning the permanent US military bases that are being built in key areas of the country. After months of horse-trading, the deal with the Kurdish and Shiite factions has emerged as the most viable way of transforming Iraq into an American client state."
 

9/11 testimony of 'Inconvenient Patriot' implicates Dennis Hastert, other top officials in al Qaeda-related bribery scandal: ". . .[T]he U.S. geopolitical strategy in Central Asia—primarily designed to gain control of the energy resources in the region—has led to a tolerance of and maybe even complicity in the heroin trade and to a much more complex relationship with al Qaeda than was revealed in the 9–11 Commission Report.

"Scott writes: 'The truth is that for at least two decades the United States has engaged in energetic covert programs to secure U.S. control over the Persian Gulf, and also to open up Central Asia for development by U.S. oil companies . . . To this end, time after time, U.S. covert operations in the region have used so-called 'Arab Afghan' warriors as assets, the jihadis whom we loosely link with the name and leadership of al Qaeda. In country after country these 'Arab Afghans' have been involved in trafficking Afghan heroin.'

"Combining the analysis of Mr. Scott with the testimony of Edmonds, it would appear that investigative reporter John Stanton had it exactly right when he wrote that the American people ' . . . are easily sacrificed for a perceived greater good.' From the U.S. support for the drug-running KLA in Kosovo, to its coddling of totalitarian regimes in Central Asia, it appears that once again the U.S. is complicit in the drug trade, even though that same trade also benefits our alleged enemy, Osama Bin Laden. And the heroin is not just going into Europe:

"Edmonds makes clear that the pipeline of Southwest Asian heroin to the United States that closed after the end of the Soviet-Afghan war has been reopened. The DEA's own website may give credence to her allegations: According to the its Domestic Monitor Program, Southwest Asian Heroin, which had previously been brought in small quantities by West African couriers, principally through JFK Airport in New York, suddenly began appearing in larger quantities in Washington D.C. in 2001. Was this heroin coming in with the full knowledge and even the support of the U.S. government? Were these narcotics, and not some obscure collection of Islamic charities, the primary financing mechanism for the 9–11 attacks?"
 

The Iraqi constitution may require modification to make us happy . Remember-

"Long is the way
And hard, that out of hell leads up to light." - Milton
 

Christian Soldier, you say
"The Iraqi constitution may require modification to make us happy."
Who is the "us" to be made happy?
 

Iran welcomes completion of work on Iraqi draft constitution

Everybody knows that Iran is a model of democracy, freedom and human rights respect. After all, the Iranians had got this year, their purple finger too.
Maybe Bush should say to Cyndi Sheehan that her son died, to please iran's mollahs.
 

640 Dead in Iraq: the Never-Ending Depravity of the Bush Neocons: "Blame the disgusting neocons and Bush for the death of 640 people (expected to eventually reach over a thousand), mostly women and children, killed during a religious festival in Baghdad. If not for Bush's invasion and occupation, there would be no suicide bombers in Iraq and people would not be drinking poisoned juice and food, suffocating in panic-stricken crowds, or jumping to their death into the Tigris River from a bridge after somebody shouted there was a suicide bomber in the crowd. Before Bush's criminal father and the don of the New World Order invaded the country fifteen years ago, Iraq was a modern Arab country with the best health care and educational systems in the Middle East. Sure, they were ruled by a brutal dictator, but his depredations against political enemies paled in comparison to the interminable brutality suffered by the Iraqi people under occupation and the Bushzarro world version of democracy."
 

evelun you must be one of saddam's biggest fans. you have the gall to come on here defending him and his policies whilst he killed 1 million iraqis and hundreds of thousands of foreigners. you are one sick twisted mind
 

CS: Kindly indicate which of my posted comments supports your contention.
 

Sign the Petition of Redress. Either the Bush Kids Put Their Lives on the Line for George's "Noble War" or the Troops Come Home.

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
 

Recent news from Iraq indicate that Ministry of Interior security forces have arrested all of the police officers who were manning the entrances to the A'adhamiya bridge after many local witnesses have testified that it was the policemen's 'unintended mistake' in urging people to move faster for fear of 'booby trapped cars' and 'suicide bombers' that initiated the stampede - these articles are in Arabic.
 

The men and women of the National Guard shouldn't be killing in Iraq. They should be helping in New Orleans.

------------------------
MadAsHell: I've signed! To other site visitors, there's no indication one has to be American to sign the mentioned petition.
 

ChristianSoldier: After you've found the relevant pertinent comments (see my 11:50 AM) take time to check your Bible. I'm wondering which of Jesus' teachings support the 'christian' part of your faith (as distinct from the 'soldier' part). I've looked at, for example, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and come up empty handed. But you, being better versed in the Bible, should succeed where I have failed.
 

Christian Science Monitor: Terrorist activity on the rise in SE Asia
(What does this tell us about Bush's War of Terror?)
 

A Freudian slip?
Bush Tuesday answered growing anti-war protests with a fresh reason for American troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protecting that country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.

Nuremberg 60th Anniversary
"Nuremberg prosecutor Bernard Meltzer wrote soon after the Nazi trials that, "a modern war, no matter how chivalrous, involves so much misery that to punish deviations from the conventions without punishing the instigators of an aggressive war seems like a mocking exercise in gentlemanly futility."

Perhaps it is worth pondering, in the midst of the immense suffering unleashed by the Iraq war whether we are engaged in the same mocking exercise when we prosecute those far down the chain of command for violations of the Geneva Conventions and let the unleashers of illegal wars get away with murder."
 

Iraqi Official: Stampede Toll Likely to Reach 1,000