| JuryFury.com
A New Issue Every
Monday ! Online School of Politics |
||
| Areas of Interest THE USA American Foreign Policy US House and Senate US Presidents State & Local Politics Regional Politics Politics of China The British Commonwealth Indian Subcontinent Middle East The European Union Africa Latin America ASEAN NATO United Nations The Non-aligned Movement Eastern Europe New Nations of the 20th Century General Topics Constitutional Law Human Rights Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties International Warfare Environmental Law Peace Treaties Economic & Social Alliances International Organizations Journalism & Media Racism and Democracy Women in the Workplace Family Law Courts and Practices The Judicial System Higher Education Education and Government Health Care & Insurance Rights of the Disabled Copyright & Working Online Legal Representation Legal Insurance Pornography Domestic Violence Religion & Law Workers Rights Employers Rights Prison & Life after Social Organizations Welfare & Poverty Taxation and Democracy Third World Aid Programs Space Exploration Alternative Energy Petroleum Industry & Cars Nuclear Power Programs for the Arts Sports Education Policing the Internet Privacy and freedom Immigration Food and Regulation War on Drugs War on Pharmaceuticals Public Housing Pollution and Control Sexual Harrassment Discrimination Electoral Process Consumers Rights Investors Rights Abortion Death Penalty Social Security Gender & Sexuality Grassroots Organization ACLU World Watch Oxfam UNICEF United Negro Fund Ford Foundation (suggestions welcome at our chatsite) Law of the Economy Join I-Traderschool, our sister magazine, for debates and news. |
What Iraq wants Iraqi opposition want own government - not US plans by Sophia Barkat While Bush, Rumsfeld and top US officials keep insisting that Iraqis want to be liberated and welcome US bombs and soldiers, an alternative theory is being proposed. Hmmm.....I Wonder what it could be? Here's the link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Iraq by Trevor Re: Sophia's post Yes, there does seem to be a slight contradiction between the idea that the Iraqis must govern themselves and the idea that the Americans must retain dominant control over the process. Still, I suppose the Iraqis should be encouraged by the idea that the Americans and British will continue killing them (in order to bring in humanitarian aid) until they agree to be liberated. One wonders when those who are supporting this war will realize that if everything is actually going to plan then it really was a stupid plan. Iraqi Army Deserters Describe Mistreatment by Commanders by Trevor Batten Last night (April 7), the BBC domestic TV sent out a profile of Saddam made some months earlier by top reporter John Simpson -who was recently slightly injured in a "friendly fire" incident in Northern Iraq. Although the programme clearly focussed on the evils of Saddam -it did (in a subtle way) put him (to a certain extent) in context. For example, it was mentioned that the CIA supported the rise of the Ba'ath party -that the US supported Saddam in the war against Iran (which started 18 months after Saddam took over). However, Saddam discovered that the Americans were double-crossing him and doing arms deals with Iran (Iran-Contra) to get American hostages free (as soon as Carter leaves office). This American double-cross apparently lies at the bottom of the split between America and Saddam. It was compounded by Kuwaiti refusals to contribute to the cost of Saddam's war against Iran (which both Saddam and America justified as an attempt to protect the region from the spread of fanatical Islam). In turn, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait put him on the American hit list -although until now they have apparently preferred to keep him in power to preserve the stability of the Middle East -which is why US forces stopped at the Iraqi border in 1991. Presumably, the US administration now believes that its own rebuilding of Iraq will prevent local instability spreading. Considering the damage already done by US client states in the region (including Iraq) -one can only wonder why this attempt shoullld be so different. Without wishing to condone him in any way -one also wonders why the world focuses on the evils of Saddam -while ignoring those who supported him. Irangate-Bush-CIA-Mossad: http://www.tarpley.net/bush18.htm Here's the link to the forwarded message from Human Rights Watch: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QuietPolyJuryFury/message/709 Puppet Govt. Leader not-popular in Iraq - by Sophia Barkat Bush test-drives Puppet Govt. Here's how Bush's chosen opposition leader - Iraqi in exile - got greeted in Iraq: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=574&e=10&u=/ nm/20030408/wl_nm/iraq_opposition_dc_1 by Trevor Batten Re: Sophia's post History repeating itself I guess -Roosevelt tried to ignore deGaulle and install a quisling (ex-nazi collaborator) as head of the free French during WWII. The echoes of this are probably still being felt in Anglo-French relations. Reports on the BBC (Newsnight) seem to suggest that the British are attempting to set up civilian control in their areas in such a way as to pre-empt US attempts. Interesting to note that the new US military Governor for southern Iraq specifically mentioned setting up a free market in the region. One suspects that this is the underlying motive. by Craig Johnson Re: Sophia's post The short term "appointments" will be only that short term. I do think the UK has suffered enough blood, sweat and tears in this venture that Americans aren't going to say a word against this at least in the near future. Just my opinion. I do realize that Bush and Blair don't see eye to eye on everything in a post-Saddam Iraq, however this is the time for Bush to reward Blair for his help. I know Blair sacrificed a lot in this endeavor, I do see Blair as the major player mending the US and UN fence in this matter. by Trevor: Re: Craig's post Well, Blair is certainly doing his best -as indeed he must, with his political future hanging on a thread. Bush is obviously also doing his best to support Blair without giving away anything of principle or of value. However, the problem still seems to lie with the international community -which got deeply hurt by the Bush-Blair prre-war actions. Everything is probably now dependant on behind-the-scenes reparation of political bridges -as many relevant organizations do not seemm to wish to burn their fingers by appearing to give support to American actions. Maybe this will change if the Iraqi reaction remains positive (making international help less important -but making it easier to give) -However, if the situation dissolves into chaos (making international intervention more desirable) then outsider's reluctance to get involved might easily increase). Presumably, the situation would have been much better (as it was in other similar situations) if America and Britain had coordinated with the rest of the world before going in. Now, the situation is extremely messy and dangerous. It certainly looks as if America (with British and Australian support) has taken a huge gambol on the future of the world (and America's position within it) -and has used the lives of Iraqis (and a handful of Americans and British) as the major gambling chip. by Trevor Batten Re: Sophia's post Interestingly, last night (8 April 2003) domestic BBC ran a documentary about an ethnic Hungarian woman born in Romania. Although conditions wary quite considerably in the ex-Soviet republics, it seems that many problems remain. Ethnic tensions between Romanians and Hungarians in Romania are still present. Highly significant, and problematic, are the economic and social differences between Hungary and Romania. Having been born on the wrong side of the border, Romanians with Hungarian backgrounds are treated as normal foreigners by the Hungarian government -so there are immigration problems involved, if they decide to move. Apparently, Hungary is about the only country that Romanians are allowed to visit without visa problems. Presumably, many ex-soviet eastern-European countries see EU membership as a way to improve their economic position -and presumably, many supporters of enlargement also see EU membership for these states as a way of supporting the development of European values within them. However, the social- economic situation shows great variation between the ex-communist states (largely dependant on their relative state of economic development before the collapse -which in turn seems dependant on the relattttive level of internal repression at the time). Nevertheless, there does seem to be a fairly clear division between western Europe which seems to be developing wealth on the basis of cooperation and Eastern Europe which seems to be sustaining (internal) conflict as a result of the struggle for survival. Presumably, EU membership for some, will only increase the gap between former communist states in the future. Clearly, east European support for the Bush-Blair invasion of Iraq has complicated matters -by emphasizing (and cynically manipulating -in true Communist style) the differences between aspirations in east and west (as if the cold war was still being fought!). On the other hand, although many in the east are probably grateful to America for "liberating" them -many are also suspicious of escaping from Communism -just to be enslaved by the west. Although the introduction to the east of western capitalism (and organized crime) has brought freedom and considerable wealth for some (just as in the west -and in America in particular) it has also brought poverty for many who have found no secure place within the western capitalist system. Nevertheless, many people probably prefer to look forward -rather than backward. The enlargement of Europe will certainly be interesting -as the battle for hearts and minds continues within the EU. The outcome is probably far from certain. East Germany is possibly an interesting example (and maybe a model for the future). Despite "liberation" and an expensive integration (from which the German economy may still be suffering) many east-Germans felt poorly treated in the new Germany as they saw their own (outdated) economic system being dismantled and replaced by shining new West German replacements. Resentment about being unfairly treated by their rich brothers lay just under the surface for a long time after unification. Then came the East German floods and Schroeder became popular in the east for the way he jumped in to help those suffering from the disaster. Because of the Communist anti-fascist tradition -east Germany had a tradition of pacifism (((at least under the general population) -which has probably fed pan-German popular support for Schroeder's anti-war stance. Although perhaps in a difficult position because it is daring to oppose the might of America -as far as internal politics are concerned -this is probably the first time that Germany has been truly unified (on east-German terms) since the end of WWII. Conventional wisdom has it that western capitalism won the cold war. However, it is possible that the reaction to this arrogant and aggressive attitude not only lead to 09-11 but also to the current widespread anti-American reaction to America's apparent new policy of 19th century gun-boat diplomacy and neo-colonial nation building. After the collapse of communism -many east Europeans felt they were not being politically liberated -but economically raped. If the same thing happens in Iraq -then the fight to win hearts and minds will be long and complex. In (eastern) Europe, more than ten years after the fall of communism, the effects are still being felt -and the battle is still being fought on the political and economic level. by Cherrie Lynn Lipsett Re: Sophia's post I find this article to be accurate and what I am hearing. The Iraqi people inside Iraqi are saying (those already liberated(?)) We have people who have taken care of our oil wells, we have electricians, contractors, plumbers etc. The Iraqi people need to work. They will not work low-level jobs only as cooks, and clean up people for the Americans and British. WE WILL NOT BE THE 51ST U.S. WELFARE STATE! We have our own police forces if you want to put them under a US general for awhile that is fine but we will police ourselves. Will we have to become Christians? Will we have to become Americanized? We have our own school books and teachers. We need none of these things from America. Now that they are liberated they seem more interested in what is going to happen in their daily lives than having a democracy. But isn't this what most people care about most? How is their life going to be affected now. Rebuild Iraq or Run it? by Sophia Barkat Iraqi news-editor says US planning Iraq reconstruction without consulting Iraqis: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/oneworld/20030408/wl_oneworld/13\ 343_1049837370&e=2 April 9, 2003 Baghdad Welcomes Coalition Troops? by Sophia Barkat Martin Savage reports: Iraqis dance in streets. It seems people have excused deaths of civilians. There's looting going on. Some areas of Baghdad are still fighting it out. Some Iraqis boo Coalition Soldiers, accusing them of bombing civilians. Baghdad University remains a battle zone. Northern Iraq celebrates Coalition victory. Ben, Wedeman reports from Erbil: Kurds from areas free of Saddam's rule since 1991 celebrate demise of the person who has driven them out of their homes. April 9, 2003 by Trevor Batten re: Baghdad Welcomes Coalition Troops? by Sophia Barkat I'm afraid BBC world service correspondents are rather more cynical...... Apparently, while helping to pull down the giant statue, one of the soldiers threw an American flag over its head -before realizing that this was perhaps not a very good bit of symbolism. The American flag was quickly replaced by an Iraqi flag. British reporters seems to consider this a significant image for the problems ahead. Many people seem to agree that this is not the beginning of the end -but the end of the beginning..... Tonight, in the domestic BBC TV programme "Question Time" in which a panel of "experts" answers questions from the public -much time was spend discussing the possible future for Iraq. Programme site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/question_time/ reactions: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/question_time/1858147.stm Digby Jones, director-general of the Confederation of British Industry (presumably a fairly conservative body) stated that he believed that behind the scenes the British government had more influence on the American government than most people thought -at least he hoped so -and he hoped that it would continue! It was in this programme that one of the panelists suggested that the (now unemployed) Iraqi information minister should be employed by Blair's government. by Craig Johnson Re: Trevor's post The most hilarious moment of CNN's day was the quick go to of one of their "imbedded" reporters who mentioned that the Iraqi minister of Information was being replaced by Howard Stern. Some producer at CNN got their butt chewed for sure! LOL Iraqi Defense Minister a hero by Cherrie Lynn Lipsett I personally must be out of step with the majority here and speak up for the Iraqi minister of Defense. I think he was/is a very brave man who cared a lot for his people, the Iraqi people. He was the one who stayed till the last- no one else. The last was until the Americans actually took over Baghdad. Yes - he gave false information but he did it to keep control until it was all in the Americans hands and they could take control. His actions in my opinion probably saved a lot of civilian lives. Kept order and rioting from happening until the Americans were there to take care of it. Any way I had to give another way of looking at what is to me a very brave man who cared a lot for the population of Baghdad. by Trevor Batten re: Cherrie's post - Iraqi Defense Minister a Hero Well, he certainly was a "character" - I believe the BBC reporters rather admired his optimism..... It is possible that he wasn't exactly lying. In authoritarian countries people tend to say what they are supposed to say, especially if this is contrary to what they believe or have experienced. If people in America have difficulty publicly opposing the war because they are scared of being accused of being unpatriotic -then how do you think people feel about telling the truth under Saddam? There possibly was a plan to lure the US soldiers into the airport and city and then attack them. However, it is obvious that the Americans are better equipped than the Iraqis -they have also been telling Iraqi soldiers to go home (so they can dissolve into the public and come back later?). So, it is possible that the defenders responsible for carrying out the plan had either been killed -or gone home -however, no surviving officer would probably dare to report this to his boss. Remember how the Pentagon kept maintaining that everything was going to plan -despite the fact that they seemed to have a rather bizarre plan -apparently involving attacks from suicide bombers and rear guarded attacks on their supply lines. If the information minister had been told that everything was going to plan -then I guess that could account for his opptimistic reports. On the other hand, he could have been lying through his teeth. However, it seems that Bush and Blair cannot be accused of being completely honest and accurate either -in war, the first casualty is truth!. How many times was Basra secured? How popular are the "liberation" forces? Is the UN to play a central, a vital, an important, a humanitarian, a contributory, a peripherally, a minimal, a confirmatory or a non-existent role in the reconstruction of Iraq? Who knows what his motives were. But I guess people are people and if you happened to be born in a country with a repressive government then you have to learn to live with it in some way. When the party rules the state then one often can't even be a teacher or a doctor without being a party member -so I guess most people are somewhere between being a victim and having dirty hands. Things are probably not as black and white as the neo-conservatives like to pretend. One might also ask how clean the hands of the cleaners are. Recently, I heard on the BBC world service radio that a group of German lawyers were studying the records of the Nuremberg trials against the Nazis after the war. They are studying the possibility of charging the US and the UK with war crimes as a result of their attack on Iraq. I have also heard a UN representative claiming that the US and UK forces are failing in their duty under the Geneva Convention to provide security and support to the sick and needy in the occupied areas. It seems that it is not impossible that after the war (which is not legally a war -but an "armed conflict" according to the BBC "Newsnight" programme) the US government might be charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. If this happened, then how many American citizens would be automatically guilty of complicity and collaboration with a criminal regime? I say this, not to make accusations but to show the shades of gray and how easily an individual can slip into the black under certain circumstances. Presumably, once over the line it is difficult to return. Such problems might also suggest that the US and its allies may sometimes be rather quick to set standards for others -which they are not capable of maintaining themselves. April 9, 2003 Iraqi exile supports Bush and then gets deported by INS by Sophia Barkat Here's the news. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60181-2003Apr8.html Is this the lady who kept coming on CNN and MSNBC - some petrochemical engineer or professor, very pro-Bush etc.? Does anyone know? by Trevor Batten Re: Iraqi Defense Minister A Hero - by Cherrie Lynn "cherrie lynn lipsett" <cherrie9@intercorp.com> wrote: "I personally must be out of step with the majority here and speak up for the Iraqi minister of Defense." Well, he certainly was a "character" -I believe the BBC reporters rather admired his optimism..... Cherrie wrote: "I personally think he was/is a very brave man who cared a lot for his people, the Iraqi people. He was the one who stayed till the last- no one else. The last was until the Americans actually took over Baghdad. Yes he gave false information but he did it to keep control until it was all in the Americans hands and they could take over control." It is possible that he wasn't exactly lying. In authoritarian countries people tend to say what they are supposed to say, even if (or especially) if this is contrary to what they believe -or have experienced. If people in America have difficulty publicly opposing the war because they are scared of being accused of being unpatriotic -then how do you think people feel about telling the truth under Saddam? There possibly was a plan to lure the US soldiers into the airport and city and then attack them. However, it is obvious that the Americans are better equipped than the Iraqis -they have also been telling Iraqi soldiers to go home (so they can dissolve into the public and come back later?). So, it is possible that the defenders responsible for carrying out the plan had either been killed -or gone home -however, no surviving officer would probably dare to report this to his boss. Remember how the Pentagon kept maintaining that everything was going to plan -despite the fact that they seemed to have a rather bizarre plan -apparently involving attacks from suicide bombers and rear guard attacks on their supply lines. If the information minister had been told that everything was going to plan -then I guess that could account for his oppptimistic reports. On the other hand, he could have been lying through his teeth. However, it seems that Bush and Blair cannot be accused of being completely honest and accurate either -in war, the first casualty is truth! How many times was Basra secured? How popular are the "liberation" forces? Is the UN to play a central, a vital, an important, a humanitarian, a contributory, a peripherally, a minimal, a confirmatory or a non-existent role in the reconstruction of Iraq? Cherrie wrote: "His actions in my opinion probably saved a lot of civilian lives. Kept order and rioting from happening until the Americans were there to take care of it. Any way I had to give another way of looking at what is to me a very brave man who cared a lot for the population of Baghdad." Who knows what his motives were. But I guess people are people and if you happened to be born in a country with a repressive government then you have to learn to live with it in some way. When the party rules the state then one often can't even be a teacher or a doctor without being a party member -so I guess most people are somewhere betweeeen being a victim and having dirty hands. Things are probably not as black and white as the neo-conservatives like to pretend. One might also ask how clean the hands of the cleaners are. Recently, I heard on the BBC world service radio that a group of German lawyers were studying the records of the Nuremberg trials against the Nazis after the war. They are studying the possibility of charging the US and the UK with war crimes as a result of their attack on Iraq. I have also heard a UN representative claiming that the US and UK forces are failing in their duty under the Geneva convention to provide security and support to the sick and needy in the occupied areas. It seems that it is not impossible that after the war (which is not legally a war -but an "armed conflict" according to the BBC "Newsnight" programme) the US government might be charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. If this happened, then how many American citizens would be automatically guilty of complicity and collaboration with a criminal regime? I say this, not to make accusations -but to show the shades of gray and how easily an individual can slip into the black under certain circumstances. Presumably, once over the line it is difficult to return. Such problems might also suggest that the US and its allies may sometimes be rather quick to set standards for others -which they are not capable of maintaining themselves. Unless one knows him personally, and can trust what he says, then it is difficult to know what he (or anybody) was (is) thinking. If he watched western TV then he would also know that the situation was not consistent with his own statements. One wonders if the Washington gurus do the same by listening to Arab TV stations...... However, if one has followed the arguments, and counter arguments, leading up to the war (which is no war -but an "armed conflict") -then one will be amazed at the apparent ability of humans to persist in their beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. It is also not totally impossible that capitulation is part of the defense strategy. The US used militia to win their war of independence. The Yugoslavian defense strategy (as I believe is the Swiss -and possibly the Israeli) was also based on a militia fighting on after defeat by more conventional means. The militia strategy is apparently the basis for the American "right to bear arms against unjust government" (which presumably does not include the US government itself). It was (is) responsible for a high level of arms in "private" ownership in Yugoslavia (Switzerland -and presumably Israel). Apparently, it was the large number of weapons in "private" hands that allowed armed groups to pursue the policy of ethnic cleansing which created such havoc in the Balkans. The recent assassination of the President of Serbia and the resultant arrests have shown that once such social anarchy takes over, it is extremely difficult to remove from society. Outsiders may also believe that high levels of "private" gun ownership in America also lead to undesirable (and uncivilized) levels of social disruption. If the collapse of Saddam's regime in Iraq leads to loads of weapons being in private hands (by design or by accident) -then it may take many years to stabilize the situation -and the chance to win "hearts and minds" may be lost completely (as the situation dissolves into chaos even worse than before -or is repressed with violence more savage tthan before). Well, it is their obligation -but it seems that Rumsfeld "blitzkrieg" strategy breaks down at this point. |
Encourage Political Discussion Join Juryfury Chat Promote Juryfury.com Join online discussion Groups Archives Writers Needed Be a Columnist Be an Editor Become an Owner Writing Training Program Internship Program for Students Advertise with Us Our Staff & Contributors Our Magazines Quietpoly.com I-Traderschool Juryfury.com The Company Our Address: QuietPoly Inc. 240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146) Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Tel (928) 214-7365 quietpoly@yahoo.com Our Affiliations (pending member) MediaChannel.org IndyMedia.org We Support: Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign & The EFF.org |