Some positive news from Iraq

[KelleyD]

There are several reasons we invaded Iraq. You won't hear these on "faux news". The first was money. Many companies around the world were preparing to do business with Iraq in anticipation of a lifting of sanctions. But the U.S. and the U.K. had been bombing northern and southern Iraq since 1991. So it was very unlikely that they would be in any kind of position to gain significant contracts in any post-sanctions Iraq. And those sanctions were going to be lifted soon, Saddam would still be in place, and they would get no financial benefit.

Another reason was the conversion, the switch Iraq made in the Food for Oil program, from the dollar to the euro. He did this, by the way, long before 9/11--in November 2000 — selling his oil for euros. The oil sales permitted in that program aren’t very much. But when the sanctions would be lifted, the sales from the country with the second largest oil reserves on the planet would have been moving to the euro. The U.S. dollar was in a sensitive period because the we are a debtor nation and our dollar was beginning to fall then. If oil, a very solid commodity, is traded on the euro, that could cause massive, almost glacial, shifts in confidence in trading on the dollar. So one of the first executive orders that Bush signed in May [2003] switched trading on Iraq’s oil back to the dollar. That’s in addition to buying out Iraqi companies at a penny on the dollar and taking over Iraq’s Central Bank!

Another reason has to do with US military-basing posture in the region. US "banksters" had been very dissatisfied with US relations with Saudi Arabia, particularly the restrictions on US basing. And also there was dissatisfaction from the people of Saudi Arabia. So the banksters were looking for alternate strategic locations beyond Kuwait, beyond Qatar, to secure something they had been searching for since the days of Carter — to secure the energy lines of communication in the region. Iraqis were not about to invite the US in and create its 800th base in the world (yes there are close to 800 US bases around the world to ensure that the Banksters get what they want). Thus, the need for the bombing to begin. Here’s a poem I found that summarizes the US government's underlying policy. (The country title is subject to change based upon what your country has that we need to exploit).

Bomb Iraq!

If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's good enough for me
'Cos it's all the proof we need
Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
You've got permission from the UN to
Bomb Iraq.

If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.

Sad poem, but true.

 

[ricardo_sousa]

It would actually be funny to see what some people said about Saddam, and Iraq, when he started a war against Iran that killed more than 1 million people. If that was also a "crusade"....

 

[caroline]

What mindless babble!!

Oh yes, "mindless babble" from an economic anthropologist, specializing in Third World studies, poverty and grassroots development.

As I said, they are "not inclined to listen."

If you knew anything at all about this issue you would understand that almost all missionaries are totally devoid of any socio-economic knowledge or education and go into their target cultures pouring millions of dollars into to projects that crash the local economy, displace the existing means of subsistence and create crippling dependency which we now see the effects around the globe. This combined with corporate exploitation of indigenous lands and US interference in governance of Third World nations has definitely created much of the poverty on this planet.

And by the way, thank you for your personal attacks. They are such a good display of your ability and willingness to reason and understand. Also a perfect example of why I said that making some people understand just takes too long and they are not inclined to listen. Meaning, they don't want to understand, they don't want to know. Because knowing comes with responsibility and it's easier to follow along feeling like the great white humanitarian.

 

[Omar_Mukhtar]

Maybe you would have to ask the Saudis, Americans, Israelis and British the came the weapons, backing and intelligence to kill 1 million Iranians and also capability and intelligence to slaughter Kurdish people, which wasn't seen as that much of a problem at the time, because they preferred him as leader of Iraq as opposed to one controlled by militias. What about the 1 million killed by sanctions? So yes Iraq is partly a mess thanks to the policy of the U.S administration, which is something that can't be denied or refuted! Of course not all the blame should go to them, but that is how history will probably write it. At least the dictator Saddam Hussein protected historical artifacts!

Kelley, I don't think Alqaeda is largely due to the American foreign policy. They have an ideology which they seek to impose on all Muslims regardless of whether they are under occupation or not. They set of bombs in Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Pakistan and various other places. The group led by Zarqawi was trying to blow up Kurdish secular parties and labeling them as "apostates". But one thing that none of mouthpieces for the war never tell is that the vast majority of Iraqi resistance isn't Alqaeda. Also the majority of Iraqi resistance doesn’t believe in targeting innocent civilians or even security forces. This failure to admit that ordinary Iraqis took up arms on a large scale against the occupation has been one the reasons why the policy has failed, i.e. they the propagators of the war lumped all of the Iraqis as "Alqaeda", which is largely an isolated and unpopular group. They also never mention the vast majority of Iraqis want foreign troops out, but as Gates said they will stay there for years and decades. So Alqaeda is a scare card and boogey man to invade Muslim states and place them in the hands of local colonial governors!

 

[caroline]

I am interested to learn, however, exactly which rapacious Western power is profiting from Iraqi natural resources now? ?

Have you taken a look at Halliburtin stock over the past 7 years? Ever heard of war profiteering? Do you even have the slightest clue how much money the people who started this war are making off it?

God help us... this apathy and ignorance is what is allowing this to go on! And yet the people who close their minds to any kind of information contradicting the neocon agenda don't even realize they are pawns. The ones who lose their jobs to corporate outsourcing to make the super rich super richer are the very ones who will defend them with everything they have!

It's amazing what human beings will tell themselves in order to follow the herd.

 

[ricardo_sousa]

Maybe you would have to ask the Saudis, Americans, Israelis and British the came the weapons, backing and intelligence to kill 1 million Iranians and also capability and intelligence to slaughter Kurdish people, which wasn't seen as that much of a problem at the time, because they preferred him as leader of Iraq as opposed to one controlled by militias. What about the 1 million killed by sanctions? So yes Iraq is partly a mess thanks to the policy of the U.S administration, which is something that can't be denied or refuted! Of course not all the blame should go to them, but that is how history will probably write it. At least the dictator Saddam Hussein protected historical artifacts!

interesting. And when Saddam invaded Kuwait, killing thousands of people and made disappear "several sons" of the Kuwaitis... that was also backed by the USA, the British, Israel, etc...?

 

[ricardo_sousa]

If you knew anything at all about this issue you would understand that almost all missionaries are totally devoid of any socio-economic knowledge or education and go into their target cultures pouring millions of dollars into to projects that crash the local economy, displace the existing means of subsistence and create crippling dependency which we now see the effects around the globe. This combined with corporate exploitation of indigenous lands and US interference in governance of Third World nations has definitely created much of the poverty on this planet.

just the USA?? what about the soviets until the 90's? what about China and Sudan, in the present time?

 

[caroline]

Is that because Russert doesn't know? Of course not, it's because no American wants to admit that we are now experiencing a by-product of what we created years ago. .

Thank Allah for an intelligent, educated, strong voice of reason. Please don't let ignorant personal attacks and propaganda filled rebuttals discourage from posting.

 

[caroline]

what about the soviets until the 90's? what about China and Sudan, in the present time?

Okay -- what about them? Feel free to expound.

 

[Keltoi]

Its always fun to have Michael Moore liberals around.

 

[ricardo_sousa]

Okay -- what about them? Feel free to expound.

there are also responsible for lots that are going around the third world countries, not only the USA.

 

[Keltoi]

For some people, blaming the U.S. for everything has become pop culture. If you notice, most of them are filled with self-righteous indignation and delusions of intellectual superiority....I blame the current state of the college campus.

On to Iraq...economic improvement is vital if the people are going to start trusting their new political system. Infrastructure is the first step, which will improve if the violence stays low.

Basically it all hinges on the level of violence. Less violence, more improvement.

 

[Omar_Mukhtar]

interesting. And when Saddam invaded Kuwait, killing thousands of people and made disappear "several sons" of the Kuwaitis... that was also backed by the USA, the British, Israel, etc...?

I fail to see the point or widsom behind your question, but the answer is no. But still doesn't change the issue or fact that they armed, helped and effectively turned a blind eye to several of Saddam's massacres. I have clearly stated that American policy is not to blame for all the going ons in that country.Thus, it is not about blaming the U.S.A for everything. Rather, if you set yourself on a such a high pedastil and claim to be the champions of democracy,freedom and democracy in the Muslim world, you have to expect people will highlight your contradictions and inconsistencies. This isn't americanism, but holding politicians to account for what they promise to do and achieve.If Blair and Bush claimed that they bring democracy, peace and justice to Iraq and they miserably fail, then we have to scrutinize them. In the case of Iraq you have the mouthpieces of the war scrambling for many reasons to justify it including, Weapons of mass destrcution, dictators and now Alqaeda in Iraq. So whatever the excuse, be it; Saddam killing kuwaitis or Saddam killing Iranians( which was seen as a healthy thing), it still doesn't change the fact that this war was one big miscalculation and Iraqi is essentially a failed state under the grip of rival militias.

 

[ricardo_sousa]

I am not an "American total supporter", but I admire the country and the achievements of the USA.

From the beginning I believed that the Iraqi war was about the oil. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. And in the "long run", this war will be very profitable to the USA. So this was a oil invasion, with no doubt. The USA wanted to decrease their dependence in Saudi Oil, that uses the money to finance terrorists around the world

But what to do now? The Iraqis should united and stop violence. Because in fact the oil money will be used to rebuild the country, by American companies of course, but they will have a far better country that they would have with Saddam. In the end they could profit a lot from the invasion. But that´s another history... It is very funny to see "you", in a western country, saying that Iraqis should fight to death, but you are having a good life and Iraqis a miserable one.

 

[MTAFFI]

Oh yes, "mindless babble" from an economic anthropologist, specializing in Third World studies, poverty and grassroots development.

As I said, they are "not inclined to listen."

If you knew anything at all about this issue you would understand that almost all missionaries are totally devoid of any socio-economic knowledge or education and go into their target cultures pouring millions of dollars into to projects that crash the local economy, displace the existing means of subsistence and create crippling dependency which we now see the effects around the globe. This combined with corporate exploitation of indigenous lands and US interference in governance of Third World nations has definitely created much of the poverty on this planet.

And by the way, thank you for your personal attacks. They are such a good display of your ability and willingness to reason and understand. Also a perfect example of why I said that making some people understand just takes too long and they are not inclined to listen. Meaning, they don't want to understand, they don't want to know. Because knowing comes with responsibility and it's easier to follow along feeling like the great white humanitarian.

first off what exactly is a personal attack to you? This is the 2nd time you accuse me of it, yet I fail to see where one was made :? Please highlight it for me, because to me it seems that any disagreement with your "almighty" opinion is a personal attack, which in my opinion isnt an attack at all. I am all up for listening but you are providing no facts, you claim to be an economic anthropologist are we supposed to accept everything you say as fact? Where did you go to school, have you published anything, what makes you reputable?

Aside from all of this I started this thread because I was reading some news and happened by some that I thought would make a pleasant thread on this forum, since it had to do with the people of Iraq seemingly becoming more independent and better off as a whole. I assumed when posting this that Muslims and non-muslims alike would read it and not necessarily congratulate the US because I know that is beyond some people, but at the very least throw out a congrats to the Iraqis for making progress. Again I will say it is sad to see peoples own political agenda block them from being happy about positive progress.

Do you wish for peace in Iraq or would you rather see the US fail at its task to revitalize the country and rid it of terrorists?

The past is what it is, Iraq was a mistake and there is no doubt about it, I would pull the troops out today if I had any authority to do so, because in the long run I feel it is a lost cause, however seeing progress as shown in the aforementioned article does provide me with hope that, perhaps, our original faults and mistakes could be at the very least recognized in the future that the intention was there, maybe not by our political leaders but by the people that live in this country. By that I mean at the beginning of this war I was all for going to Iraq and getting revenge on anyone who threatened our country and way of life, I didnt see then that a power vacuum would be created and that sectarian violence would run rampant and that thousands upon thousands would die, I wanted to see Saddam die to make sure he couldnt hand off his WMD to any terrorist organization, hindsight is 20/20 isnt it? Now seeing what has happened I can only wish the best for the Iraqis and be sorry that there country is torn apart like it is, and I believe that by our country building Iraqs troops, police, government, infrastructure, etc. it shows that we do want to help them and that what is happening was not intended, whether it actually ends up working or not is another story.

 

[MTAFFI]

MTAFFI, perhaps the program will boost the economies at the local level. Somewhat like the WPA (public works administration) FDR introduced in America during the Great Depression.

Hoping so anyway

I think that is actually the idea, there is no way to just jumpstart the whole country, it is like a ripple effect, hopefully this will work out and neighboring villages will see and want to try as well and eventually over the course of a few years or more Iraq can eventually become self sufficient

 

[Jayda]

Its always fun to have Michael Moore liberals around.

what is wrong with michael moore?

i really detest how republicans insist 'lib'ruls' are traitors for not supporting your field trips to the middle east to kill arabs and get more oil. i know all of those concerns about killing people and 'thinking' about what we do before we do it gets in the way of grunting, being manly and 'thinking with your gut' but it would make US policy a little more... sophistocated... if you gave our way a shot once in a while. it might also save some lives (foreign and at home) and money in the process... who knows!

 

[Jayda]

concerning the OP, i think it's wonderful that progress is being made to make their lives safer... i also feel much better now that we have a plan...

i don't feel better about going into iraq on false pretenses, killing lots of people and tearing down their infrastructure and order (such as it was), turning their country into a terrorist magnet all without a plan in the first place like we were cowboys.

this is a simple point... this was wrong, from the beginning. the fact that things are going better now does not erase that.

 

[Keltoi]

what is wrong with michael moore?

i really detest how republicans insist 'lib'ruls' are traitors for not supporting your field trips to the middle east to kill arabs and get more oil. i know all of those concerns about killing people and 'thinking' about what we do before we do it gets in the way of grunting, being manly and 'thinking with your gut' but it would make US policy a little more... sophistocated... if you gave our way a shot once in a while. it might also save some lives (foreign and at home) and money in the process... who knows!

I didn't call anyone a traitor, don't get so dramatic. As for what is wrong with Michael Moore, I believe his "documentaries" to be nothing more than propoganda pieces for a political point of view. Therefore, a Michael Moore liberal would be a leftist who cares more about his political points of view than objective reality or honest problem solving.

 

[MTAFFI]

The United States has created many enemies through its policies in the Middle East over the past century and bears a significant amount of responsibility for creating a fertile soil for anti-American hatred. Any American response that does not address this truth is doomed to further the cycle of violence.

Most of what is regurgatated in the US are reports of a shadowy Islamic conspiracy against the U.S. led by Osama bin Laden, whihch have, in turn, have generated a steady stream of cliché's about this new enemy and its hatred of the U.S. Unfortunately, precious little light has been shed on understanding why this is happening and what exactly Muslims believe.

Any explanation of Middle Eastern violence that relies upon the notion that Islam is an inherently violent or inherently anti-Western religion is false and misleading. First, Islam is one of the world's largest and most diverse religions and like Christianity or Judaism there are thousands of views within Islam about the religion and also about violence and the West. Secondly, there are major differences even among explicitly Muslim militants and activists regarding these issues-some insist upon non-violent struggle and others regard violence as a legitimate tool. There is no way one can generalize about Islam or any religion for that matter.

Last week on Meet The Press, Tim Russert was interviewing presidential candidate Ron Paul and when Paul told Tim that we should look at the reasons behind the attacks on the US, Tim became upset and tried to imply that just by look anyone who even loos at these motivations, is somehow unpatriotic and unamerican. Paul stood his ground and had to remind him of our history and involvement in the Middle East. Is that because Russert doesn't know? Of course not, it's because no American wants to admit that we are now experiencing a by-product of what we created years ago. that motivations do not derive from Islam so much as from a common set of experiences and beliefs that resulted from their participation in the U.S. Which was a US backed war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980's. OBL and others were recruited by the CIA, Saudi Arabia and Pakistani intelligence services to fight against the Soviet Union during the 1980's. They came largely from the poor and unemployed classes or militant opposition groups from around the Middle East, including Algeria, Egypt, Palestine and elsewhere in order to wage war on behalf of the Muslim people of Afghanistan against the communist enemy. OBL played an important role in helping these groups recruit volunteers and build extensive networks of bases in Pakistan and Afghanistan after 1984. He was a HERO when he was doing the US's bidding for us.

This is where Americans don't do their homework. Even after the last two videos that OBL put out and detailed all of this, Americans still refuse to listen to what our government has done and what WE are responsible for. OBL and his groups, at that time, also served another purpose for the U.S. and its allies in the region. Not only were they anti-Communist due to their rejection of its atheism, they were also opposed to the brand of Islamic radicalism promoted by the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran Khomeini; largely because it was based on Shiite rather than Sunni Islamic doctrine, a major doctrinal cleavage within Islam. The revolution had had toppled a major ally of the U.S., the Shah of Iran, who played a major role as a pillar of U.S. hegemony in the oil rich Persian Gulf and was threatening key U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other oil rich states. Therefore, the clear aim of U.S. foreign policy therefore was to kill two birds with one stone: turn back the Soviet Union and create a counter-weight to radical Iranian inspired threats to U.S. interests, particularly U.S. backed regimes who controlled the massive oil resources.

Because we wanted to "have our cake and eat it too", our foreign policy in the Middle East has turned into a nightmare for the us and is exactly what led to the attacks in New York and Washington D.C. After the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan in 1989 the "Afghan" network became expendable to the U.S. who no longer needed their services. And as you can see, we have actively turned against these groups after the Gulf War when a number of those groups returned home and moved into the violent opposition against U.S. allied regimes and opposed the U.S. war against Iraq in 1991.

In short, they are particularly opposed to the unprecedented positioning of U.S. ground troops in Saudi Arabia on the land of the Islamic holy sites of Mecca and Medina. If you follow the intelligence agencies at all you will find that in the past decade there has been a vicious war in the region between the CIA and its allies and militant Muslim groups. The U.S. trains Egyptian police torture techniques. Moreover, the CIA has sent snatch squads to abduct wanted militants form Muslim countries and return them to their countries to face almost certain death and imprisonment.

The primary belief of the veterans of the Afghanistan war is that the West, led by the United States, is now waging war against Muslims around the world and now have to defend themselves by any means necessary, including violence and terrorism. They point to a number of cases where Muslims have born the brunt of violence as evidence of this war: the Serbian and Croation genocide against Bosnian Muslims, the Russian war in Chechnya, the Indian occupation of Kashmir, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, the UN sanctions against Iraq and the U.S. backing of dictatorships in Algeria, Egypt or Saudi Arabia, for example. They claim that the US either supported the violence or failed to prevent it. In almost all of these cases, they are correct. It is these beliefs, not to mention the fact that we've been bombing the Middle East for the last ten year and continue to keep adding more military bases over there, that enable them to justify not only targeting U.S. military facilities but also its civilians. And we sit here scratching our heads and wondering why? The "why" is clear for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. There is no question that the one-sided U.S. support for Israel, the U.S. sponsorship of sanctions against Iraq as well as U.S. support for dictatorships across the region have created a fertile ground for some sympathy with such militancy.

Osama bin Laden is not the only mastermind of these attacks as is often claimed in the media; he just facilitates these groups and sentiments with logistics and finances, as do others. He is simply a very visible symbol of this loose network and the U.S. obsession with him most likely works to increase his standing as an icon of resistance to the U.S. A rational person would ask themselves, why he was considered a Hero in the 80's and now considered, by the very government who helped him with training, armaments and finances, the antichrist of the 21st century.

The real problem is that the US refuses to address the root causes of anti-American sentiments in the region. Moreover, the U.S appears to have no long-term strategy to address the sources of grievances that the radical groups share with vast majority of Muslim activists who abhor using violent methods that would include, for starters, a more balanced approach to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, ending the sanctions on Iraq, moving U.S. military bases out of Saudi Arabia, and supporting the legitimate aspirations of regional peoples for democracy and human rights. Legitimate meaning, the majority of the people want is and ask for help; not butting your head into a countries affairs when none is warranted and attempting to install your form of government under the banner of "helping" when all you are really interested in is OIL.

What truly aggrevates me and the Muslim people I know are the US's double standards. The U.S. claims that it must impose economic sanctions on certain countries that violate human rights and/or harbor weapons of mass destruction. Yet the U.S. largely ignores Muslim victims of human rights violations in Palestine, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kashmir and Chechnya. What's more, while the U.S. economy is propped up by weapon sales to countries around the globe and particularly in the Middle East, the U.S. insists on economic sanctions to prevent weapon development in Libya, Sudan, Iran and Iraq. In Iraq, the crippling economic sanctions cost the lives of 5,000 children, under age five, every month. Over one million Iraqis have died as a direct result of over a decade of sanctions. Also, the U.S. pro-Israel policy unfairly puts higher demands on Palestinians to renounce violence than on Israelis to halt new settlements and adhere to U.N. resolutions calling for an Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian lands. Is this fair?

It isn't and that unfairness cannot be extinguished by Tomahawk missiles or military operations. The present U.S. strategy for ending the threat of terrorism through the use of military force will only exacerbate this anger and desperation. When innocent U.S. and Middle Eastern citizens are killed and harmed during this pathetic "war on terror", or used as cannon fodder for suicide hijackings, the U.S. government expects expressions of outrage and grief over brutal terrorism. But when U.S. Cruise missiles kill and maim innocent Sudanese, Afghanis, and Pakistanis, the U.S. calls it "collateral damage". The so-called hunt for Osama bin Laden is futile. It's the actions of a true megalomaniac--Bush who can't stand to lose. But he has lost already because the fertile soil that our involvement keeps us entrenched in simply creates other such figures who will still be around for a long time. Moreover, our continued presence in the Middle East simply serves to inflame passions and create hosts of new volunteers to those ranks.

I hate it that Americans lost their lives in New York and Washington. I was working there and very nearly one of them. But I also hate that innocent women and children have lost their lives in the Middle East due to what America's attacks. These attacks have served no cause; they have likely set back efforts to build popular movements and international solidarity that, in the final analysis, are the best chance of achieving social justice and change in the Middle East and elsewhere. Yet, at this difficult time, Americans should critically examine policies with which Arabs, Muslims and many others have legitimate grievances. Instead, like Russert, our leaders refuse to admit the flaws in their policies and find it easier to demonize those in both the American and Arab world who oppose them as a way of diverting attention from their own mistakes and it's my opinion that more military solutions to the problems in the Middle East and the terrorism that has resulted from these problems is not a policy but a recipe for more violence and bombings.

Is it really so hard to leave people in peace. If America wants democracy there so badly, why don't they start off by taking a vote. All Americans who want us there say aye. All Mulims who want us there, say "aye". Amazing, how silent is has become.

You make a lot of good points and to be honest I can sympathize with many of them and then there are others I could provide fine rebuttal to, but I do not wish to derail the topic which is "positive news from Iraq" not the "history of conflict between the US and the middle east"(although I am sure that may be a great thread ), not trying to be a wise guy just dont want this thread closed just yet. I can say though that obviously there are two sides to each story, the US and any other country group or person in this world is always going to be looking out for its own best interests, it is the way to survival. For every conflict you mentioned there are rights for both Muslims and Americans to be angry (or at least the situations that involve the US) If you would like please PM me, you seem to be a very logical person and I would be glad to discuss any of these conflicts with you, or better yet start a thread with your post! I am sure neither of our views would change much but I am sure it could be some very healthy discussion and who knows we and other may learn something new. eace: