/* */

PDA

View Full Version : For the British political elite, the invasion of Iraq never happened



سيف الله
03-21-2018, 11:54 PM
Salaam

A statement of the obvious,

For the British political elite, the invasion of Iraq never happened

Far from paying any price, the British system has rewarded ministers for their fateful decision on Iraq

March 20th marks the 15th anniversary of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq which plunged the country into a brutal occupation leading to sectarian civil war, terrorism and a death toll of hundreds of thousands.

Yet in Britain the anniversary marks another year of impunity for the ministers who authorised the invasion. This lack of accountability for crimes committed abroad is a British disease with a very long history.
A disastrous decision

No British minister was forced to resign over Iraq or has been held properly accountable for it, despite the disastrous decision to go to war made collectively by the Cabinet on 17 March 2003.

Where are they now, those Cabinet ministers who gave their assent? No less than six of them have since been elevated to the House of Lords: John Prescott, then deputy prime minister, was given a life peerage as Baron Prescott.

He is joined by former fellow Cabinet members David Blunkett, Tessa Jowell, Alastair Darling, John Reid and Paul Boateng. Other Cabinet members were promoted following the invasion: Margaret Beckett later became foreign secretary, Darling became Chancellor and Reid became defence secretary.

What about the main actors? Tony Blair, then Chancellor Gordon Brown and the International Development Secretary Clare Short were subsequently allowed to perform top international jobs: Blair became official special envoy of the Quartet on the Middle East until 2015, Brown became UN special envoy on global education and Short became chair of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative.

It is perhaps tragi-ironic that Jack Straw, the foreign secretary in March 2003, was later allowed to become justice secretary.

Far from paying any price, the British system has rewarded ministers for their fateful decision on Iraq. But not just ministers. Matthew Rycroft, Blair's private secretary at the time who drafted the "Downing Street memo" that was central to the build-up to the war, subsequently served as UK ambassador to the UN.

Earlier this year, he was promoted further to become permanent secretary at the Department for International Development.

A crime of aggression

The basic issue remains: the evidence is overwhelming that the war was illegal and constituted a "crime of aggression" – one of the worst crimes in international affairs. John Prescott himself later said he thought the war was illegal.

He is joined in this view by a long list of others including then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former US Attorney-General Ramsey Clark, former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix, later deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, not to mention most international lawyers.

When the Chilcot report on the Iraq war appeared in 2016, the media widely commented that it failed to explicitly say the war was illegal. But it did say: "Mr Blair asked Parliament to endorse a decision to invade and occupy a sovereign nation, without the support of a Security Council resolution explicitly authorising the use of force. Parliament endorsed that choice."

The invasion could only have been legal if it had secured such explicit UN authorisation. All Cabinet members were surely aware of this since it is basic international law - even though, as the Chilcot report showed, Blair withheld some key legal advice from them.

Sir Michael Wood, the most senior legal adviser at the Foreign Office at the time of the invasion, was unequivocal, advising the government that military action without UN approval was "contrary to international law" and would constitute a "crime of aggression".

He told ministers they risked offences under the International Criminal Court Act and for "misfeasance in public office". Wood's deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst, who resigned in protest on the eve of the invasion, told the Chilcot inquiry that "all the lawyers dealing with the matter in the Foreign Office were entirely of one view."

Escaping accountability

British ministers have been involved in war crimes abroad throughout the post-1945 period, as can be seen in declassified government files.

In the forgotten war in Oman in 1957-9, when Britain leapt to the defence of an extremely repressive regime against a rebellion, the files show that then prime minister, Harold Macmillan, personally approved British "attacks by rocket on water supplies" and on agricultural gardens – civilian targets that constitute war crimes.

In the mid-1960s, British governments covertly supplied arms to the regime in Iraq to be used to attack Kurds in the north of the country. In 1963, British officials described this as a "terror campaign" involving "the clearing out and destruction of Kurdish villages".

Yet British rockets, to be fired by British supplied warplanes, were provided to Baghdad "intended for use against the Kurds", a Cabinet file noted.

No-one, as far as I know, ever questioned ministers about this at the time or when the declassified files were released. What is happening now in Yemen is simply a repeat: ministers are also escaping accountability for their involvement in consistent Saudi attacks on civilian targets such as schools and hospitals – using similar rockets to those supplied to Iraq in the 1960s.

Bribery undertaken by British companies overseas can now be prosecuted in UK courts. But involvement in human rights violations and war crimes can be conducted with impunity.

Ministers are thrown out of the Cabinet for trivial driving offences (Chris Huhne) or viewing porn at work (Damian Green) but not for instituting foreign wars involving mass killing.

The invasion of Iraq was tragic for the people of that country but for the British political elite it is as though it never happened. Jeremy Corbyn, if he attains power, should make good on his signal to call for an investigation into Tony Blair for alleged war crimes during the Iraq war, and it should cover other Cabinet members too.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/british-political-elite-invasion-iraq-never-happened-435103022
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
cinnamonrolls1
03-23-2018, 07:02 PM
Not surprised tbh :(
Reply

Zafran
03-24-2018, 01:21 AM
Nothing was learnt on Iraq just look at Libya and the intervention in Syria. Afghanistan is also another disaster.
Reply

سيف الله
03-24-2018, 02:18 AM
Salaam

A recap of what it was all about.



Wish Peter Lavelle would be more neutral, still a good debate.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
سيف الله
04-06-2018, 10:01 PM
Salaam

Another update

When it comes to Middle East policy, the UK is nothing but a rogue state
#HumanRights

Giving the UK a seat on the UN Security Council is like employing a gangster to serve as a judge


In the current crisis with Moscow, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has written that “Russia cannot break international rules with impunity”.

Britain, along with Russia, has a particular obligation to uphold international law since it is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Last year, Attorney General Jeremy Wright said the UK was “a world leader in promoting, defending and shaping international law”.

Yet the reality is different: Britain has been promoting at least seven foreign policies that can be strongly argued to be violating international law, and which make a mockery of its current demonisation of Russia.

Israeli goods and Gaza blockade


The first two concern Israel. Although Britain regards Israeli settlements in the occupied territories as illegal, in line with international law, it permits trade with “Israeli” goods from those illegal settlements and does not even keep a record of imports into the UK from them.

Yet UN Security Council resolutions require all states to “distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967”.

Israel’s blockade of Gaza is widely regarded as illegal, including by senior UN officials, a UN independent panel of experts, Amnesty International and the Red Cross, partly since it inflicts “collective punishment” on an entire population. Through its naval blockade, the Israeli Navy restricts Palestinians’ fishing rights, even firing on local fishermen, and intercepts ships delivering humanitarian aid.

Yet Britain, failing to uphold its obligation “to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law”, regularly collaborates with the navy enforcing the illegal blockade. In December 2017 and November 2016, British warships held military exercises with their Israeli counterparts.

“We’ve operated with several Israel Navy ships, practising communications and manoeuvring” and have a “great relationship with the Israeli Navy”, UK naval commanders have said.

Wars in Yemen, Syria, Iraq

The war in Yemen is a further example. Ministers have consistently told Parliament that Britain is “not a party” to the conflict – presumably since this would formally implicate Britain in the violations of humanitarian law of which Saudi Arabia is accused.

UN Security Council Resolution 2286 of 2016 also calls on all states to “end impunity and to ensure those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law are held to account”. Yet Britain is doing the opposite – it ensures the Saudis remain unaccountable by allowing them to conduct their own investigations into alleged war crimes.

A fourth policy concerns the RAF’s secret drone war, which involves a fleet of “Reaper” drones operating since 2007 to strike targets in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. The UK/US spy base at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire also facilitates US drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia.

The targeted killing of terrorists (and the use of force generally) is only lawful in self–defence or following UN authorisation, and thus the drone programme is widely regarded as illegal.

When British drones killed two Britons in Syria in 2015, the government unconvincingly argued it was in “self-defence” to counter an “imminent attack”. Rather, as a House of Commons legal briefing argues, such strikes could set a dangerous precedent that other actors or organisations may follow.

Ministers remain unaccountable


There is a good reason why the UK never admits to undertaking covert action. As the same House of Commons briefing notes, “assistance to opposition forces is illegal”.

A precedent was set in the Nicaragua case in the 1980s, when US-backed covert forces tried to overthrow the Sandinista government. The International Court of Justice held that a third state may not forcibly help the opposition to overthrow a government because it would breach the principle of non-intervention and prohibition on the use of force.

This means that Britain has been acting illegally in its years-long covert operation in Syria, and anywhere else it deploys covert forces without agreement from the host state.

In the case of the Chagos islands, Britain has permanently violated international law since it expelled the inhabitants in the 1960s to make way for a US military base on Diego Garcia. Harold Wilson’s government separated the islands from Mauritius in 1965 in breach of UN Resolution 1514, which banned the breakup of colonies before independence. It formed a new colonial entity, the British Indian Ocean Territory.

London’s claim is nonsense: It is arming, advising and training the Saudis and maintaining their aircraft bombing Yemen, many of which have targeted civilians, as the British government has long known.

Last June, the UK was defeated at the UN when a large majority of countries supported a Mauritius-backed resolution to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legal status of the Chagos Islands.

In 2015, a UN Tribunal ruled that the UK’s proposed “marine protected area” around the islands – which was really a ruse to keep the islanders from returning – was illegal since it undermined the rights of Mauritius. The Chagos islands remain a UK-occupied territory.

Face facts: UK is a rogue state

Finally, there is the 2011 war in Libya, for which British ministers remain unaccountable. While Tony Blair is widely accused of acting illegally in invading Iraq, UK Prime Minister David Cameron often escapes condemnation for the UK/NATO military intervention that overthrew the Gaddafi regime.

Yet this war was surely a violation of UN Resolution 1973, which authorised member states to use “all necessary measures” to prevent attacks on civilians but did not authorise the use of ground troops – which Britain secretly deployed to Libya – or regime change.

Indeed, Cameron himself told Parliament in March 2011 that the UN resolution “explicitly does not provide legal authority for action to bring about Gaddafi’s removal from power by military means”.

This list of wayward policies is by no means exhaustive. The UK does not deserve its place on the UN Security Council when it is a consistent violator of the principles it is meant to uphold: It is like having a gangster as a judge.

To call Britain a rogue state is not to take an ideological position so much as to describe a basic fact in current international affairs.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/when-it-comes-middle-east-policy-uk-rogue-state-1677623456
Reply

سيف الله
04-08-2018, 10:11 PM
Salaam

And the Popes a Catholic

Why the US will never say sorry for destroying Iraq
#IraqatWar

Nearly half of Americans still believe the war was legal - and its easy to see why


The United States waged a two-decade war against Iraq, causing the deaths of 1.7 million civilians - half of whom were children.

It did this with crippling sanctions during the 1990s, before ruining Iraqi civil society with its illegal 2003 invasion, which took hundreds of thousands more lives, unleashing a sectarian civil war and giving birth to the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS).

But this tells you only part of the nightmare that the US has inflicted upon the people of Iraq.

The US occupation has also been accused of causing an "alarming" increase in the number of cases of cancer, leukemia and congenital birth anomalies due to the US army’s use of chemical weapons and dumping of toxic waste, including depleted uranium, into the soil and waterways.

This not only poses an existential threat to those alive today, but also to future generations of Iraqis, as the remaining traces of depleted uranium "will remain radioactive for more than 4.5 billion years".

Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector observed: "The irony is we invaded Iraq in 2003 to destroy its non-existent WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. To do it, we fired these new weapons, causing radioactive casualties."

All of this human suffering comes courtesy of a US government that falsified, manipulated and massaged "intelligence" on behalf of a handful of DC neo-conservatives who had been actively seeking a pretence to invade Iraq since the late 1990s so that they could launch their deranged project to remake the world in America's image.

This war of choice has cost US taxpayers more than $2 trillion and the lives of nearly 5,000 US soldiers, not to mention the tens of thousands of others suffering from debilitating physical or mental injuries.

The role of miseducation


Now consider that a new poll conducted by the Pew Research Center has found that 43 percent of Americans still believe that invading Iraq was the right decision.

Let that sink in for a minute: almost half of Americans still believe that an illegal war, based on doctored intelligence and entirely debunked claims, which resulted in almost immeasurable death and destruction, was the right thing to do, morally, politically, or otherwise.

How on earth does the United States of America, a country that proudly boasts its liberal democratic values, get to the point where it's pretty much hunky dory with the bloodshed it has unjustly and inhumanely left in its wake?

Obviously, that's a big, broad thesis question that only a 10,000-word academic paper could ever do justice in attempting to answer.

But there are a few easily identifiable signposts. Let's start with the US secondary education system.

US students are taught almost nothing about the world that exists outside the nation's borders. I don't say that as an outsider: I say that as the father of a daughter who is nearing the end of her junior year.

Moreover, high school teaching has become increasingly geared towards standardised testing, meaning schools lose funding if their student body falls below a curve. This means that kids are taught how to pass tests, not how to learn.

It's for this reason, and a myriad of others, that the country now ranks almost last among 35 industrialised nations in mathematics and has also dropped in reading scores.

Back to Iraq. A survey conducted for the National Geographic Society in 2006 found that 63 percent of Americans aged 18-24 could not locate Iraq on a map.

This is astonishing, given that the US has fought two wars there since 1990 and occupied the country for close to a decade.

If one can't even be bothered to find where the country of Iraq is located on a map, it might not be all that surprising that this person is indifferent to what is going on in the country, as indifference and apathy are more or less the same thing.

Rest here

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns...ush-1838892478

So we don't forget



Reply

سيف الله
04-24-2018, 09:32 AM
Salaam

Like to share

Blurb

On April 9, 2003, television networks across the globe cut to a live scene unfolding in Baghdad’s Firdos Square. A motley hybrid of what appeared to be ordinary Iraqis and uniformed U.S. troops — who had begun to occupy Baghdad — pulled down a massive statue of Saddam Hussein. It was a brilliant, semi-staged propaganda exercise meant to reinforce the neoconservative promise that ordinary Iraqis would be exuberant over the fall of the regime and welcome the U.S. troops as liberators.

To understand Iraq’s current reality, we must confront not just 15 years of U.S. policy, but a history that spans the administrations of 11 U.S. presidents. It’s a 55-year history that is filled with constant interventions and bombings, sanctions and covert CIA activity, and regime change. And in this history — a history you never hear discussed on cable news — the main victims are, as they’ve always been: ordinary Iraqis. This is a classic case study in U.S. imperial crimes that began in 1958 when the British-installed monarchy was overthrown by a popular Iraqi army general who set about to nationalize oil, normalize relations with the Soviet Union, and implement sweeping agrarian and social reforms.

This short film is by no means an exhaustive history, but rather a brief case study on the role the U.S. has played in destabilizing Iraq and the region.


Reply

سيف الله
04-28-2018, 09:39 PM
Salaam

More comment

The Iraq war: 15 years on

America’s invasion of Iraq was not predicated on keeping Iraq away from nuclear weapons, but instead stemmed from its opposition towards an Iraqi regime that continued to eschew American dominance

20 March 2018 marked the 15th anniversary of the United States’ invasion of Iraq. Dubbed ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’, the invasion had America at the forefront backed by a coalition of nations that on the surface vowed to ‘secure the free world from the threat of Iraq’ — as then US Vice President Dick Cheney claimed — but were, in fact, perpetuating American hegemony and imperialism in the world.

The operation was launched ostensibly to rid Iraq of the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) it was secretly accumulating. America’s then Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld — a man who was to profit from the invasion significantly — claimed publically on the 29 January 2003, ‘Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’

A few months leading into the war, state institutions in America and especially the CIA launched a spurious campaign that aimed to show how Saddam Hussein was secretly stockpiling material to develop nuclear weapons.

In reality, the Iraqi regime did not possess any nuclear weapons, a fact validated by the United Nations just a month before the invasion. On February 14, the UN’s nuclear and weapons inspectors informed the Security Council that no proof existed of any WMDs in Iraq. The United States ignored the UN’s appraisal and instead carried on with its plans to invade.

American efforts to re-define Iraq’s history and to impose a Western-style political settlement on the Middle Eastern country, in fact, highlight the pitfalls and harmful elements of Western liberalism and its claims of championing the rights of the downtrodden
It thus becomes evident that America’s invasion was not predicated on keeping Iraq away from nuclear weapons, but instead stemmed from America’s opposition towards an Iraqi regime that continued to eschew American dominance.

Since the first Gulf War between Kuwait and Iraq, Saddam had exercised a foreign policy that was in direct conflict with American interests in the region. Saddam’s independence meant that now Iraq — after Iran’s revolution in 1979 — was another Middle Eastern nation that was slipping from America’s hegemony.

American leaders thus developed a pernicious opposition towards Iraq. In his annual State of the Union address in 2002, American President George W. Bush labelled Iraq, along with Iran and North Korea as the three pillars of his ‘axis of evil.’ Thus, even before the actual invasion, America was promulgating propaganda that cast Iraq in a demonic light; with prominent ‘liberal’ newspapers such as the New York Times at the vanguard of this propaganda.

Underlying these false accusations against Iraq and perhaps more sinister reasons behind the invasion were American leaders’ desire to spread ‘disaster capitalism’ to Iraq and to ‘re-create’ Iraq in the image of West.

‘Shock and awe’ and disaster capitalism: feeding the Military-Industrial Complex in Iraq

Naomi Klein, the author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism argues that the invasion of Iraq was a prelude to privatise Iraq’s state-owned facilities and to bring American corporations into Iraq’s markets, especially oil. Klein builds her theory on what she calls ‘the Shock Doctrine’, an ideological conviction upheld by Milton Friedman and his followers of Chicago School economics.

The Shock Doctrine rests on the idea of ‘shocking’ a nation — either through military coups or direct invasion — and in the immediate aftermath of that shock, promulgating free market capitalist reforms in the shocked nation. The essence of the doctrine rests in the belief that the initial shock will be so powerful as to leave the country paralysed and unable to resist these reforms that would in normal cases be highly unpopular. Klein argues:“It’s hard to believe — but then again, that was pretty much Washington’s game plan for Iraq: shock and terrorise the entire country, deliberately ruin its infrastructure, do nothing while its culture and history are ransacked, then make it all OK with an unlimited supply of cheap household appliances and imported junk food.”

The speed with which America pursued privatisation and opened up Iraq to foreign corporations gives credence to Klein’s arguments and highlights how Operation Iraqi Freedom was in fact meant to allow US corporations such as Haliburton to make immense profits from the conflict.

Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s outstanding book “Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone” in fact highlights how Haliburton developed a utopia for American contractors in the heart of Baghdad — the ‘green zone’. The green zone was stocked by American fast food chains such as Burger King, movie theatres that played American classics and state of the art gyms, while outside the walls of the green zone, war and murder continued to rage in the streets of Baghdad — called the ‘red zone’.

Gaining access to Iraq’s oil reserves and its strategic location was, in fact, central to America’s plans to invade. Noam Chomsky argued in an interview in 2006:“It (Iraq) is the last corner of the world in which there are massive petroleum resources pretty much unexplored, maybe the largest in the world or close to it. Now they are very easy to gain access to.”

Destroying history and culture: America’s quest to rebuild Iraq:


Another, often less scrutinised aspect of the Iraqi invasion was America’s quest to re-define Iraq and build it as a modern, progressive democracy thriving on Western ideals.

Washington, in fact, continued to champion the invasion as an attempt to liberate Iraqi women and to fight ‘dictatorship’ in the region. On the eve of the invasion, George W. Bush in a public address claimed: “To all the men and women of the United States armed forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you. That trust is well placed.”(Emphasis added)

By labelling the Iraqis as oppressed people, Bush was, in fact, promoting the invasion as an attempt to liberate Iraqis from extreme tyranny; a stance that reeks of hypocrisy and was completely devoid of legitimacy.

On a more sinister level, the attempt to rebuild Iraq following Saddam’s ouster meant uprooting long-established cultural and political forces in Iraq and replacing them with Western notions of democracy and human rights. This involved a conscious effort to destroy Iraq’s thousands of years’ old heritage and history and meant turning a blind eye when vagrants looted Iraq’s libraries and historical documents.

American efforts to re-define Iraq’s history and to impose a Western-style political settlement on the Middle Eastern country, in fact, highlight the pitfalls and harmful elements of Western liberalism and its claims of championing the rights of the downtrodden. What Iraq has revealed, and what Afghanistan continues to prove every day, is that it is almost impossible to champion Western notions in the third world without being mindful of local conditions in the Global South.

These past 15 years continue to haunt collective memory in Iraq and the Middle East.

It thus becomes evident that America’s invasion of Iraq was more than an attempt to prevent Iraq from gaining nuclear weapons. The operation hinged on perpetuating American hegemony and on spreading the catastrophic impact of disaster capitalism to a nation that till then had sheltered itself from the debilitating effects of free market liberalism.

Underlying the operation was a false liberal ideal of liberating the Iraqi people from their oppressors; an ideal that in fact meant destroying Iraqi history and civilisation, and one that gave birth to the plethora of problems that plague the Iraqi nation today.

It comes as no surprise, then, that the great intellectual Noam Chomsky called the Iraqi Invasion “the worst crime of the 21st century” — a crime that highlights America’s hypocrisy, and that ripped apart Iraqi society’s social and political fabric.

https://dailytimes.com.pk/225096/the...r-15-years-on/

Dont forget

Reply

سيف الله
05-02-2018, 10:24 PM
Salaam

Heh, good for Israel certainly Bibi, all part of the plan, the oded yinon plan

Reply

سيف الله
05-12-2018, 11:06 AM
Salaam

The reason I post this is that it gives a good snapshot of the early months of the occupation (2003).



Reply

سيف الله
05-18-2018, 03:46 PM
Salaam

After you destroy them, why not 'dialogue' with them?



Heh

Reply

سيف الله
06-12-2018, 09:23 AM
Salaam

A documentary for posterity.



And lets not forget about Blair's role.

Reply

سيف الله
06-23-2018, 09:42 AM
Salaam

Another look at the legacy of Western involvement in the Iraq war.

Blurb

In 2004, investigative reporter Sy Hersh exposed the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq that shocked the world. Shocking photos of U.S. military personnel humiliating and torturing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib sparked global outcry, as well as national hearings, investigations and finger pointing. We speak with Sy Hersh about his investigation, nearly 15 years later.



Blurb

As Isis closes in on Baghdad - find out how US funded torture centres helped fuel the sectarian war in Iraq.

James Steele: America's mystery man in Iraq. A 15-month investigation by the Guardian and BBC Arabic revealed how retired US colonel James Steele, a veteran of American proxy wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua, played a key role in training and overseeing US-funded special police commandos who ran a network of torture centres in Iraq.



How they ruled.

Blurb

From inside a surreal bubble of pure Americana known as the Green Zone, the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority attempted to rule Iraq following the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.

Drawing on interviews and internal documents, Rajiv Chandrasekaran tells the memorable story of this ill-prepared attempt to build American democracy in a war-torn Middle Eastern country, detailing not only the risky disbanding of the Iraqi army and the ludicrous attempt to train the new police force, but absurdities such as the aide who based Baghdad's new traffic laws on those of the state of Maryland, downloaded from the net, and the twenty-four-year-old who had never worked in finance put in charge of revitalising Baghdad's stock exchange. "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" is American reportage at its best.




The torment continues.

Reply

سيف الله
07-10-2018, 08:26 PM
Salaam

Another documentary on the early months of the occupation, by the BBC

Blurb

Seven months after the end of the war, acclaimed BBC journalist and filmmaker Sean Langan (BEHIND THE LINES, TRAVELS OF A GRINGO) takes a brave and eventful trip through Iraq, seeking to shed light on the current situation.

Reply

سيف الله
07-14-2018, 07:35 PM
Salaam

Another good summary of what happened in Iraq.

Reply

سيف الله
08-02-2018, 09:22 AM
Salaam

More background on why the Iraq war happened.



Reply

سيف الله
08-20-2018, 07:15 PM
Salaam

They are finally admitting what a scam the Iraq war was.

















Reply

سيف الله
08-27-2018, 09:06 PM
Salaam

Another update

'Iraq is dying': oil flows freely but corruption fuels growing anger

Locked out of polluting wealth beneath their feet, those calling for an end to a ‘rotten system’ risk detention and death

The land of the Bani-Mansour clan north-east of Basra is flat and parched, spattered with dry crusts of salt and thorny shrubs. Clusters of palm trees form small patches of green in the otherwise dusty yellow and brown landscape.

Nestled among them are about a dozen berms, each enclosing an oil well and its pump. Pipelines snake over the ground, cutting through villages as they connect wells and pumping stations. Oil rigs tower over the southern Iraq landscape, sending plumes of thick black smoke across the horizon.

The land sits above the West Qurna oilfield. One of the most lucrative in the world, it is owned by the Iraqi government and run by Exxon Mobil. After years of sanctions and neglect, oil production in southern Iraq is picking up. A two-lane road that crosses the Bani-Mansour land has become a busy highway for lorries carrying drilling equipment and buses ferrying foreign oil workers back and forth. The windows of nearby homes rattle as the traffic passes.

The opening up of Iraq’s enormous verified oil reserves to foreign expertise in the aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussein was hailed as the means to kickstart its economy and potentially transform the south into an economic stronghold. Instead, ordinary Iraqis have seen little or no benefit from the proceeds of the country’s multibillion-dollar oil industry, much of which has been siphoned off by corrupt politicians. Across the south in recent months, simmering anger over corruption and unemployment has been fuelled by the dire state of public services, regular power cuts and water shortages.

Once there was a time when the Bani-Mansour land, not far from where the Tigris and Euphrates meet, had water and more than 300,000 palm trees, villagers said. Large numbers of buffaloes and cows cooled themselves in the green muddy waters of its canals.

But drought and the intrusion of saltwater from the Gulf have wiped out most of the palm groves, the cattle have been sold, local rivers have dried up and the canals have stagnated, clogged with rubbish. Corruption and mismanagement on the part of local and central government, both dominated by a kleptocracy of religious parties that have ruled Iraq for more than a decade, has exacerbated a slow-motion environmental disaster.

The oil companies, which are supposed to train and hire a workforce from local populations and invest back into development projects, are forced to hire those with connections to powerful tribal sheikhs and the Islamist parties. Funds for those populations rarely materialise and almost none of the oil revenuestrickle down to the population. Meanwhile, local militias with links to clans and political parties have formed their own companies, which land lucrative security contracts with subsidiaries of foreign oil firms.

In the eyes of the local villagers, the heavy traffic rumbling along the narrow road has become a daily reminder of the contrast between the boundless wealth lying underneath their homes and the abject poverty above ground.

They brought helicopters and armoured vehicles’


The flashpoint came in early July, when the temperature soared to nearly 50C, the electricity failed repeatedly, and the tap water ran hot and as salty as sea water. Two dozen men gathered outside the gates of one of the oil company compounds, blocking the section of the road adjacent to their village. Under the scorching Iraqi summer sun, they stomped their feet, raised their arms and angrily denounced the oil firms and the politicians.

A police unit stationed in the compound moved out to face the protesters while a larger army unit in charge of protecting the oilfields arrived in armoured vehicles. The two units sandwiched the protesters, who started pelting the armoured vehicles with stones. The soldiers and police responded with live ammunition, and within half an hour a young protester had been killed and three others injured.

In the villages surrounding the compound, men called each other and headed out to help neighbours and relatives, swelling the size of the demonstration to a few hundred people.

“When we heard the news that they killed someone from our area, everyone jumped in the car and went calling others to join,” said Ali, a government employee who lives in the village. “There I saw they had brought two helicopters and three armoured vehicles. I wondered where was this force when Daesh [Isis] took Mosul?”

That night, other communities in oil-rich areas held protests and the next day large demonstrations were held in Basra, spreading to other southern cities a few days later. Across the south tens of thousands of people took to the streets. Some called for better electricity and water supplies, others demanded employment – but everyone denounced the corruption and nepotism of the political parties. Party headquarters were attacked and ransacked.

Much of the anger was directed at Iran, which has also been beset by weeks of street protests over economic grievances. Many of the Iraqi protesters saw Iran as the protector of Iraq’s corrupt political parties. “Iran out, out” was a common chant. In one instance, a large picture of the once-revered founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, was set on fire.

“People are out demanding their rights,” said Ali. “They see that Iraq is dying, strangled by these parties that have been looting us for 15 years but who are more interested in serving Iranian interests than our interests. We either save the country or it will be lost.”

After the US invasion in 2003, the legitimacy of the Iraqi state and political system was challenged by the Sunni inhabitants of central and northern Iraq who had prospered under Saddam. The Sunnis resisted the invasion, fought the foreigners and lent a hand to the extremists.

Now, in the post-Isis era, a Sunni revolt toppling the state is no longer considered a viable threat. Instead it is the Shia majority, who shed blood defending the country from Isis who are questioning the legitimacy of the Iraqi state. About 500 men from the Bani-Mansour community were killed fighting the Islamist group.

The government has responded to the protests with violence, firing live rounds and killing at least 11 people. Hundreds have been detained and tortured, according to activists, lawyers and security officials who spoke to the Guardian. Some are still missing.

Paramilitaries associated with political parties were also accused of opening fire and abducting protesters. A prominent lawyer, who was leading a team defending detained protesters, was shot by masked men after leaving a police station.

‘The system is rotten and needs to be toppled’


I met Ali in a tin shack of a restaurant, tucked down a small lane shaded by palm trees, not far from the oilfields. He had invited his friend Haitham, a soldier and a farmer, to join us.

“We are really sorry for not inviting you to our homes,” said Ali with embarrassment. “But we rarely spend time there anymore; we have to move between relatives houses to avoid detention.”

In the past few weeks, Ali and Haitham have received threatening calls from the security forces. Seven of their fellow demonstrators in their village have been snatched at night by masked and armed men.

“ “In Basra you see the wealth pouring out of the community every day – from oilfields over there, less than a kilometre from where we are sitting – and then you see the poverty and lack of employment in the villages, while companies import thousands of foreign workers,” Ali said.

Haitham joined the Iraqi army in 2003 and fought to defend his country against the Sunni insurgents of al-Qaida and Isis. Now he sees it as his duty to oppose the state. As he spoke, the complaints came tumbling from his mouth: brackish and salty water, power cuts, pollution from oil companies, a collapse in the healthcare system, , dried up rivers, unemployment.

“I am not out on the streets for a job,” he said. “I have a salary and my land. I am protesting because what kind of a country do I want to leave for my children? What kind of education will they get in schools where teachers don’t show up and demand bribes for good grades?”

Like many of the demonstrators, much of the two Shia men’s anger is directed at the Shia parties that dominate Iraqi politics, and the Shia clergy and Iranian institutions that support them.

“These parties are responsible for the 15 years of failure,” Ali said. “In previous elections we all voted for the Shia parties because that is what the clergy and tribal sheikhs told us to do. Now we are holding the clergy responsible. Have they not seen what has been happening for 15 years?”

“While we were trapped in the sectarian war – the Shia killing the Sunnis in revenge for the death of Imam Hussain 14 centuries ago, and the Sunnis butchering us because they accused us of taking power from them. Sunni and Shia politicians sat in the parliament and built fortunes with the blood of the people who massacred each other in the street.”

“The whole system is rotten and has to be toppled,” said Haitham. “We are peaceful, but each of us sits on a warehouse of weapons. In 15 years 1 million Iraqis have been martyred. Had we held demonstrations early on and lost a thousand people we would be in a better place now.”

‘I am a pillar of that corruption’

“I feel sorry for those demonstrators, there is no hope that they will succeed,” a government official said as he sipped Turkish coffee in the lobby of one of Basra’s big hotels. He is in his thirties, well-educated and had worked with western companies in Basra before he landed a highly coveted job in the city council.

“All these parties, they have economic committees that get a share from every single government contract, while their paramilitary wings protect their interests,” he said. “I know they are corrupt, because I am one of the pillars of that corruption in this city,” he added with remarkable candour.

The official explained how a Basra clan with connections to more than one religious party took over large tracts of agricultural land that either belonged to wealthy families from the Gulf or Sunnis who have fled since the outbreak of sectarian war in 2003-04. The clan turned the land into lucrative residential plots. His job was to issue fake certificates confirming the land was residential.

Waste from houses built without connections to proper sewage and water networks clogged canals and rivers, turning them into stagnating swamps and further degrading the environment, which in turn made farmers’ lives even harder.

This month, Iraq’s prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, sacked a number of electricity ministry officials in the latest attempt to quell public anger at chronic power cuts. Last month he dismissed the electricity minister Qassim al-Fahdawi “because of the deterioration in the electricity sector”.

But the protests show no sign of abating. On 14 August police broke up a sit-in at an oil instillation in Qurna, killing one person. Another person later died in custody. Two days later demonstrators set the Qurna city council building alight in response to the deaths. Every Friday big protest marches have taken place in Basra.

Much like its stagnating rivers and canals, Iraqi democracy has become a victim of a never-ending cycle of corruption. Words such as election, parliament and democracy have become synonymous with corruption, nepotism and sectarianism. Many of the demonstrators are making ominous demands for a strong presidential system and an end to parliament.

Muzahim al-Timimi, a newly elected and independent member of parliament in Basra, said the demonstrations did not stem from salty water and electricity cuts alone. “We are used to the heat and salty water from the Saddam times,” Timimi said. “But back then we were under sanctions. The problem now is that we have money [from oil] but it is not being used to help the people.

“The people of Basra were patient until they couldn’t bear it anymore.”

The demonstrators wanted a revolution because they did not have trust that the system could reform itself, Timimi said. “In the past 15 years all the parties that have ruled this country were responsible for corruption. There is no party that can lead the reform because they all have been part of the same corruption mechanism.”

Timimi struck a despondent tone as he pondered the alternatives. “We are obsessed with the idea of the saviour. Some say the Americans will come to save us, others say the military should take over, like in Egypt.

“But there is no united army that can impose a state of emergency; there is no military institution. The army has no leaders,” he said. “How could it lead the country?

“If we topple the current regime tomorrow, who are we going to bring in after?”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/27/iraq-is-dying-oil-corruption-protest-basra
Reply

سيف الله
01-07-2019, 03:33 AM
Salaam

Another update

US 'war on terror' has killed over half a million people: study

Between 480,000-507,000 people were killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq in the wake of 9/11 attacks, study says.


Hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan have been killed due to the so-called "war on terror" launched by the United States in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attack, according to a new study.

The report, which was published on Saturday by the Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, put the death toll between 480,000 and 507,000.

The toll includes civilians, armed fighters, local police and security forces, as well as US and allied troops.

The report states that between 182,272 and 204,575 civilians have been killed in Iraq; 38,480 in Afghanistan; and 23,372 in Pakistan. Nearly 7,000 US troops were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in the same period.

The paper, however, acknowledged that the number of people killed is an "undercount" due to limitations in reporting and "great uncertainty in any count of killing in war".

"We may never know the total direct death toll in these wars," wrote Nera Crawford, the author of the report titled "Human Cost of the Post-9/11 Wars: Lethality and the Need for Transparency".

"For example, tens of thousands of civilians may have died in retaking Mosul and other cities from ISIS [also known as ISIL] but their bodies have likely not been recovered."

'War remains intense'


People who were indirectly killed as a result of war, such as through disease or bad infrastructure, were also not included in the report.

In a statement, Brown University said the new toll "is a more than 110,000 increase over the last count, issued just two years ago in August 2016".

"Though the war on terror is often overlooked by the American public, press and lawmakers, the increased body count signals that, far from diminishing, this war remains intense."

As an example, the US war in Afghanistan, which has been the country's longest military invasion for 17 years, has lessened in intensity in recent years, but the number of civilians killed in 2018 has been one of the war's highest.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/11/wars-terror-killed-million-people-study-181109080620011.html

Another good book on the subject.

Blurb

The moral, political, and legal problems surrounding the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq are addressed with uncommon frankness in this collection of essays by some of the world's most influential academics, lawyers, journalists, politicians, and military, intelligence, and media experts. Contributions include academics such as Noam Chomsky, Immanuel Wallerstein, and Claes Ryn; journalists Milton Viorst, Robert Fisk, Kirkpatrick Sale, and Justin Raimondo; former CIA professional Ray McGovern; former Defense Intelligence Agency professional W. Patrick Lang; and Fr. Jean-Marie Benjamin, personal friend of the former Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq Traiq Aziz.

Discussing the Iraq war and related issues such as the legal foundation of the war on terror, the detention practices at Guantanamo bay, and the roots of the American neoconservative ideology, the essays illustrate the hypocrisy and illegality of America's stance on terrorism and its policies of aggression in the Middle East.


Reply

Eric H
01-07-2019, 09:06 AM
Greetings and peace be with you Junon;

Sadly there is a tried and tested formula for taking a country to war, leaders have known this for centuries. Sadly we the stupid people are always drawn into war by our leaders. Hermann Goering one of the German leaders during WW2 spells out this simple formula.


“Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/335...war-why-should
Did Blair and Bush use this argument to take our countries to war?

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric
Reply

سيف الله
01-20-2019, 08:38 PM
Salaam

Yes, and guess what lessons the pathetic Blair has learnt? Nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, NOTHING.

Tony Blair warns of 'flabby liberalism'


Tony Blair has warned against "flabby liberalism" and says there needs to be a tougher centre ground approach to issues such as tackling extremism and responding to the refugee crisis.

The former UK prime minister is planning a global project to prevent extremism through education.

But he warns that too often the West can "be made to feel guilty about itself" and fails to make its case.

"We're in a situation where we have to fight back," said Mr Blair.

"The centre has become flabby and unwilling to take people on. We concede far too much. There's this idea that you're part of an elite if you think in terms of respectful tolerance towards other people. It's ridiculous," Mr Blair told the BBC.

After leaving office, Mr Blair set up a foundation which works to promote greater understanding between the world's religions and to challenge extremism and prejudice.

But he warned that moderate voices were too defensive about arguing their case and this was fuelling a culture of extremism in religion and politics.

"One of the problems with the West is that it constantly can be made to feel guilty about itself - and I'm not saying there aren't things we should feel guilty about.

"But you know, we shouldn't let people intimidate us into thinking there are certain values we shouldn't be standing up for," said Mr Blair, who was attending the Global Education and Skills Forum in Dubai last week.

"I'm a supporter of multiculturalism. But there's been a long period of time when we've allowed the concept of multiculturalism to be abused."

As an example, he said that if people were asserting the equality and fair treatment of women that they should not be made to feel "somehow we're being culturally insensitive".

"We have to be clear no one has the right to abrogate those basic human rights."

But he warned that moderate voices were too defensive about arguing their case and this was fuelling a culture of extremism in religion and politics.

"One of the problems with the West is that it constantly can be made to feel guilty about itself - and I'm not saying there aren't things we should feel guilty about.

"But you know, we shouldn't let people intimidate us into thinking there are certain values we shouldn't be standing up for," said Mr Blair, who was attending the Global Education and Skills Forum in Dubai last week.

"I'm a supporter of multiculturalism. But there's been a long period of time when we've allowed the concept of multiculturalism to be abused."

As an example, he said that if people were asserting the equality and fair treatment of women that they should not be made to feel "somehow we're being culturally insensitive".

"We have to be clear no one has the right to abrogate those basic human rights."

On the challenge of migration and refugees, he says that in an "era of anxiety", a lack of a coherent mainstream response has opened the door to more extreme arguments.

"You have to give a real solution and not one which is populist but false. If you don't give a solution, and you leave people with a choice between what I would call a bit of flabby liberalism and the hardline, they'll take the hardline I'm afraid."

He called for a more assertive policy of "muscular centrism".

The Tony Blair Faith Foundation is promoting the idea that all countries should include a commitment to tackle extremism and promote tolerance between different religions and beliefs.

He says there is clear evidence that education can reverse the spread of intolerance and he blames extremists for cultivating bigotry and conflict between religions.

"The truth is this extremism is being incubated in school systems, formal and informal, which are teaching children a narrow minded and often hateful view of those who are different," says Mr Blair.

"What people need to understand is that this culture of hate is taught.

"They are taught a culture of hate and they can be untaught it."

"This extremist thinking is what you have to attack, if you don't attack the ideology you'll never defeat the violence."

Mr Blair says that when people are taught to hate people in other religions "it's not surprising that a proportion of them go into violent extremism".

He says that he is talking to international leaders about this proposed Global Commitment on educating against extremism - and expects countries in the Middle East to be supportive.

"What is happening in all the turmoil, particularly since the Arab Spring, is that there is a much clearer understanding in this region of the need to fight back, and a realisation that you can't fight back unless you're putting a better idea in place than the extremists."

He argues that education against extremism and intolerance will come to be seen as an international obligation - in the way that environmental policy, such as tackling pollution, is addressed by international agreement.

But Mr Blair rejected the idea that promoting values of tolerance would be seen as a form of Western interference.

"The West has just got to get over this," he said.

"There are many other people in the region who do not regard the notion of peaceful co-existence as a Western value, they see it as a sensible human value, a global value."

The former prime minister also warned that both the far right and far left were promoting arguments in favour of "isolationism and protectionism".

"People are very anxious and uncertain and they are turning to the demagogic populism of left and right."


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35862598

What a sick and twisted human being, may Allah have mercy on his soul.

Edit:

Some new this man was a slippery customer way way back.

https://www.islamicboard.com/halal-f...ml#post2991174
Reply

سيف الله
02-09-2019, 10:46 PM
Salaam

During a conflict Rreports like this are routinely denied unless the evidence is overwhelming. After the intial phase of the conflict its over the truth starts the emerge.



Reply

سيف الله
02-16-2019, 12:30 AM
Salaam

This was during the 90s.



On the eve of the second Gulf war.

Reply

سيف الله
03-07-2019, 09:39 PM
Salaam

I see the lessons have been learned. Venezuelans take note.

Reply

سيف الله
03-12-2019, 12:35 AM
Salaam

Wish I posted this with the above post. I thought Tucker was an ok guy, guess Im wrong.



I wonder if his opinion has changed over the previous decade.

Reply

CuriousonTruth
03-12-2019, 06:17 AM
Believe or not, british people still think their kingdom was a light upon the lesser savages (non-white people) upon the Earth. Recently on one of my FB groups, a turkish member uploaded a series of old photos of british soldiers' masscre of native people, with one soldier with two heads on his hand, and the entire thread became a world war lol.

Basically the british response was:

"It wasn't us guv' I swear. We are all bad, we ALL did those things. Let's just forget this and move on, right?"

And ofcourse there was the mandatory Armenian genocide rantings as well. That's why I just equate british people with evil.
Reply

سيف الله
03-13-2019, 08:23 PM
Salaam

Lessons learned, preparing for the next war.





UK military turns to universities to research psychological warfare

Cambridge among partners shortlisted for £70m MoD funding, documents show


The British military is recruiting philosophers, psychologists and theologians to research new methods of psychological warfare and behavioural manipulation, leaked documents show.

Cambridge University was among the institutions shortlisted by officials in the Ministry of Defence’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), as it sought a partner to spend almost £70m in funding for a project known as the human and social sciences research capability (HSSRC), looking at how the arts, humanities and social sciences can shape military and security strategies, including “psychological operations”.

A spokesperson for the university said it had since pulled out. Others in the running were Lancaster University – which also subsequently dropped out – and the arms companies BAE Systems and QinetiQ.

In a slideshow to prospective contractors published online, DSTL listed “understanding and influencing human behaviour” among its list of research priorities, including through the “targeted manipulation of information” and “coordinated use of the full spectrum of national capabilities … including military, non-military, overt and covert”.

According to leaked Cambridge University documents detailing the research areas included under the programme and first reported by student newspaper Varsity, the military wants to develop “information activities and outreach, defence engagement and strategic communications” alongside military campaigns, as well as “communications and messaging [to] UK domestic and defence internal audiences that promote the attraction, health, welfare and resilience of our people (military and civilian)”.

This research would include “the testing, refinement and validation of workable concepts, tools, techniques and methods to enable analysis of audiences to inform planning of appropriate activities, synchronised delivery of these activities [and] measurement of their effectiveness”, the document said.

A spokesperson for DSTL said its research into “targeted manipulation of information” was focused on “communicating with overseas audiences and deterring adversaries who threaten the UK’s interests”. The research was intended to tailor military communications to key audiences in the most appropriate way, the spokesperson said, adding: “All DSTL research complies with ethical and legal requirements.”

For their HSSRC bid, Cambridge dons proposed a partnership with the national security consultancy Frazer-Nash to set up a research centre, initially within the university’s centre for research in the arts, social sciences and humanities (CRASSH). Within 12 months, it was to be spun out into an independent research facility within the university, called the Centre for Strategic Futures, “with the longer-term aim to explore the potential for this to be spun out as [a] profit-generating programme management consultancy”.

Funded with an initial £6.9m over four years, the centre would help the MoD decide where to spend its money, “including administering open competitive calls for research funding”. University administrators expected that not only would the core funding “provide a significant surplus” but a further £20m would pay for research by its own academics.

Forming the partnership with Frazer-Nash, “which has the highest levels of security clearance”, would give Cambridge access to the defence industry, as well as the framework to handle “projects up to the security level of ‘secret’.” The documents suggested the university has existing relationships with the MoD, DSTL and Frazer-Nash, but the natures of these were not made clear.

Dozens of academics at Cambridge were listed as engaged with the bid, including specialists in disciplines such as architecture, psychiatry, neuroscience and sociology. The project would have been led by Prof Steven Connor, the director of CRASSH.

Cambridge’s general board of the faculties approved the bid for the funding in June 2018, after a presentation by the university’s pro-vice chancellor for research, on a pitch written by Dr Peter Hedges, the head of the university’s research office. Board members were told Cambridge had been criticised for not seizing similar opportunities in the past. Taking this opportunity would, they heard, given them a chance to influence defence research and policymakers.

Heads of the schools potentially involved in the project were supportive, the documents suggested, particularly since many represented areas that typically struggle to obtain research funding. Arts and humanities in particular do not often benefit from big pots of research investment.

A spokesperson for Cambridge said the university was no longer bidding for the HSSRC contract, but was not able to give details as to why it had decided to pull out at such a late stage. Simon Schaffer, a professor of the history and philosophy of science at Cambridge, said he welcomed the withdrawal but was concerned it had not been more widely discussed at the university.

Schaffer was particularly concerned by the suggestion in the documents that “reputational risks” posed by the university’s collaboration with the MoD would have been mitigated by a communications campaign paid for by the HSSRC funding.

“Now I don’t want to be too academic about this, but it’s very striking that a programme designed to change people’s views and opinions for military purposes would spend some of its money changing people’s views and opinions, so that they wouldn’t object to changing people’s views and opinions. See what they did there? Propaganda squared, and that seems wrong,” he said.

DSTL said no PR budget was included in the funding available for HSSRC.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...P=share_btn_tw
Reply

سيف الله
03-19-2019, 08:19 PM
Salaam

Like to share.



Good thread.







Reply

سيف الله
03-24-2023, 08:24 AM
Salaam

the 20th Anniversary of the invasion has come and passed.

A lot has been said and Ill try and post some articles (time permitting). In the meantime.





The leadup to the war.







Reply

سيف الله
04-30-2023, 09:02 AM
Salaam

Another update.

Remember this in the lead up to the war?

Blurb

An interview with Professor Hans Blix, Swedish diplomat and politician, who tells how US intelligence about WMDs rarely led to anything, and how the pride of the Iraqis explains the reluctance to grant the inspectors full access.



And now

Blurb


Former U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix gained notoriety 20 years ago when he contradicted President George W. Bush’s claims about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. He asked for more time to find those weapons, Bush instead invaded Iraq. Two decades later, Blix joins Mehdi to discuss lessons learned from the war, and why he’s worried history could repeat itself.




Good point.



Reply

سيف الله
05-26-2023, 09:59 AM
Salaam

Another reminder.





A wide-ranging discussion on the topic

Blurb

We had the honour to welcome our guest Moazzam Begg, outreach director of CAGE, a human rights group.

We discussed CAGE's efforts in freeing Muslim prisoners, the Arab League normalising ties with the Assad regime and lastly, some advice for the Muslim youth.


Reply

سيف الله
05-26-2023, 11:12 AM
Salaam

Another update, something thats not talked about enough. Iranian expansionism in the aftermath.

HOW IRAN WON THE U.S. WAR IN IRAQ

A trove of secret intelligence cables obtained by The Intercept reveals Tehran’s political gains in Iraq since the 2003 invasion.


IN JANUARY 2015, as Islamic State militants were waging an offensive across Iraq and Syria, an Iranian intelligence officer known among his colleagues by the code name Boroujerdi sat down for a meeting with an important official: then-Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi.

The meeting, held at Abadi’s office in Iraq’s presidential palace in Baghdad, took place “without the presence of a secretary or a third person,” according to a report about the discussion contained in a leaked archive of cables from Iran’s shadowy Ministry of Intelligence and Security.

Abadi was a member of Iraq’s exiled political class, mostly Shia, who had returned to take power following the U.S. invasion. The two men discussed a range of topics, including the threat of ISIS to the Iraqi state, the role of foreign powers like Turkey and Saudi Arabia in the region, and, finally, the position of the West. On at least one point, they agreed: Despite the threat of ISIS and other regional powers, the political conditions wrought by the U.S. invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein had created an opportunity for the Islamic Republic of Iran and its allied Iraqi elites to “take advantage of this situation,” according to the Ministry of Intelligence and Security report.

Twenty years after U.S. troops first invaded Iraq, the classified Iranian intelligence documents, which were leaked to The Intercept and first reported in a series of stories that were published beginning in 2019, shed light on the important question of who actually won the war. One victor emerges clearly from the hundreds of pages of classified documents: Iran.

Today, Iran enjoys privileged access to Iraq’s political system and economy, while the United States has been reduced to a minor player. Iraqis themselves remain fractiously divided; many of their own political elites are close allies of Iran. The Ministry of Intelligence and Security cables, which were written between 2013 and 2015, the peak of the international campaign against ISIS, provide no shortage of examples of the expansion of Iran’s influence in Iraq. While helping train and organize Iraqi security forces who are ideologically tied to the Islamic Republic, activities documented at length in the cables, Iranian officials had also been routinely involved in promoting favored Iraqi politicians to important roles in the Iraqi government to protect Iran’s economic and political interests. One classified 2014 report contained in the trove of Iranian cables described then-future Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi as having a “special relationship” with Iran and named a laundry list of other Iraqi cabinet members who were close with the Islamic Republic — often people who had spent years exiled in Iran. The cables discuss how these close relationships have benefitted Iran, including by having sympathetic Iraqi officials give Iran access to Iraqi airspace and vital transportation connections with their allies in Syria.

The privileged conversation between Boroujerdi and Abadi was being replicated at that time at many levels of Iraqi government and society. In the cables, Iranian officials documented their work to solidify business and security interests in Iraq while obtaining oil and development contracts in the northern Kurdish regions and water purification projects in the south, the latter won with the help of a $16 million bribe paid to an Iraqi member of Parliament, according to one of the documents. The cables also show how former Iraqi military officials, including individuals trained or supported by the U.S. during the occupation, had been pressed into the service of Iranian intelligence, with one typical operative described as being forced to “collaborate to save himself.”

The war’s benefits to Iran were not solely political or security based either. Iraq is home to many sacred sites of Shia Islam, which, as the cables note, have opened up to Iranian tourism and influence. The documents in the Ministry of Intelligence and Security archive mostly provide individual reports of conversations and intelligence activities carried out by Iranian operatives inside Iraq. Yet overall, they depict Iran’s far-reaching political, security, and even cultural influence over Iraqi society in the vacuum left by the U.S. invasion.

THIS PICTURE OF Iranian ascendance is not only reflected in that country’s own intelligence documents. A massive two-volume study published in 2019 by the U.S. Army War College came to a similar conclusion, stating that “an emboldened and expansionist Iran appears to be the only victor” of the conflict. The study is the most comprehensive look yet at the costs and consequences of the war from a U.S. military perspective. Some of those costs are obvious and well known: Thousands of Americans were killed in combat after an ill-defined mission to find weapons of mass destruction devolved into a counterinsurgency campaign and civil war. But although most of the burden of the war was borne by the relatively small number of Americans who directly took part, the war had broader impacts on American society that continue to be felt today.

“The Iraq War has the potential to be one of the most consequential conflicts in American history. It shattered a long-standing political tradition against pre-emptive wars,” the War College authors wrote. “In the conflict’s immediate aftermath, the pendulum of American politics swung to the opposite pole with deep skepticism about foreign interventions.”

Iraqis themselves have suffered greatly from the war; millions have been killed, wounded, or displaced as a result of the invasion and the subsequent civil conflict. The emergence of the Sunni Islamist extremist group ISIS, which Iran’s intelligence documents discuss at length, was itself the product of the chaos of post-invasion Iraq, including abuses by rogue Iranian-backed militias. In the same 2015 conversation between Boroujerdi and former Prime Minister Abadi, the Iranian intelligence officer opined that “today, the Sunnis find themselves in the worst possible circumstances and have lost their self-confidence,” adding that they “are vagrants, their cities are destroyed, and an unclear future awaits them.”

The miserable condition of Iraqi Sunnis had worried others within Iran’s intelligence establishment, who warned that many Sunnis, reeling from massacres by Iraqi government security forces and militias, had been driven not merely to welcome ISIS, but also other Iranian enemies as well.

“The policies of Iran inside Iraq have given legitimacy for the Americans to return to Iraq,” one Iranian intelligence officer lamented. “People and parties who were fighting against America from the Sunni side now are wishing that not only America, but even Israel could come and rescue them from Iran.”

IN THE END, ISIS was destroyed as the result of a tacit coalition between the Iraqi government, the United States, Iran, and the Kurdish Peshmerga, which combined to fight the group and regain control of its territories. Today, Iran remains the most powerful outside player inside Iraq. Although it has achieved a goal longed for since the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s — to wield power in Iraq and incorporate its Shia-majority areas into Iran’s sphere of influence — Iran’s victory has proven, in many ways, an unhappy one.

During protests against government corruption in Iraq in 2019, Iraqis often blamed Iran and its allies, along with the United States, for the parlous state of the country. In 2020, Iranian Gen. Qassim Suleimani, a major architect of Iran’s policy in Iraq whose role is documented at length in the Ministry of Intelligence and Security archive, was assassinated in a U.S. drone strike near Baghdad’s airport, following tit-for-tat attacks between Iranian-backed militias and U.S. troops in the country.

Despite relative peace following the defeat of ISIS, Iraq today remains a powder keg with widespread unemployment, environmental degradation, and poverty that its ruling elites, widely denounced by Iraqis as kleptocrats and puppets of foreign countries, have been unable or unwilling to address. Two decades after the first U.S. troops invaded Iraq, Iran is facing its own challenges with internal instability and the economic impact of a U.S.-led international sanctions campaign that has destroyed its economy.

Yet when it comes to the shadow war between Iran and the United States in Iraq, Iranian elites likely view themselves as having prevailed — at a steep price to themselves, Americans, and Iraqis alike.

https://theintercept.com/2023/03/17/...r-iran-cables/
Reply

سيف الله
05-27-2023, 08:06 AM
Salaam

Hah, wasnt expecting this.

Neoclowns in Retreat

The Ukraine War hasn’t even been officially lost yet and the neoclowns responsible for it are already in retreat again from their own imperialist ideology.

Shortly after September 11, 2001, I became known as a “neoconservative.” The term was a bit puzzling, because I wasn’t new to conservatism; I had been on the right ever since I could remember. But the “neocon” label came to be used after 9/11 to denote a particular strain of conservatism that placed human rights and democracy promotion at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy. This was a very different mindset from the realpolitik approach of such Republicans as President Dwight Eisenhower, President Richard Nixon, and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and it had a natural appeal to someone like me whose family had come to the United States in search of freedom. (We arrived from the Soviet Union in 1976, when I was six years old.) Having lived in a communist dictatorship, I supported the United States spreading freedom abroad. That, in turn, led me to become a strong supporter of military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So, Paper American thinks he should be setting US foreign policy because he lived in an imperialist dictatorship created by his own people for five years. Strangely enough, he supports the same imperialist foreign policy of the place from which he came.

Although I remain a supporter of democracy and human rights, after seeing how democracy promotion has worked out in practice, I no longer believe it belongs at the center of U.S. foreign policy. In retrospect, I was wildly overoptimistic about the prospects of exporting democracy by force, underestimating both the difficulties and the costs of such a massive undertaking. I am a neocon no more, at least as that term has been understood since 9/11.
So we’ve seen the neoclowns retreat from the inevitable “End of History” to the need to “Garden the Jungle”, and now we’re seeing them retreat again to “Garden the Garden”.

I still favor U.S. international leadership and support of allies, including a strong U.S. military presence in the three centers of global power—Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia—where their deployment is essential to maintain order and deter aggression.
But you know what? The Garden is going to fail too. The neoclowns are going to lose control because they are not only at war with reality, but with God, history, and human nature. And they know it, which is why they are rapidly attempting to change their tune in order to try to escape being held accountable for their monstrous failures for which so many lives, including Americans, were sacrificed.

https://voxday.net/2023/04/30/neoclowns-in-retreat/

Understand where the garden and jungle rhetoric comes from.

Blurb

Josep Borrell, the EU foreign policy chief, holds a speech in Bruges to inaugurate the European Diplomatic Academy. "Europe is a garden," he says, praising the "combination of political freedom, economic prosperity and social cohesion". He urges European leaders, whom he compares to "gardeners", to help prevent the invasion of the "jungle".

Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-05-2017, 01:17 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-16-2006, 10:25 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-06-2006, 06:03 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-29-2006, 04:07 PM
  5. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-23-2006, 05:29 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!