What should be done in Iraq?

by Daren Carroll (an american) Tue Apr 20, 2004 16:56

this is the first sensible beggining article i have ever read on this website.

by David C. Tue Apr 20, 2004 21:45

This 'article' reveals the deep implicit racism that is the root cause of American-led misery around the world. I'll put this in bold, so that even tone-deaf Americans might hear it:

THE BEST IRAQI GOVERNMENT IS ONE THAT IRAQI PEOPLE CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES.

Do you remember the mockery when Saddam got 99.3% of the vote in the last Iraqi election? That was less than Mubarak got in his last election.

Do you think that the Feudalism in Saudi Arabia is acceptable?

Do you think that the recent election in Algeria was 'democratic', even though the Islamic party (yes -the one that was poised to win the 1992 elections before they were canceled) was banned?

Do you think that its OK for a country, like Jordan, whose population is 98% against the war in Iraq and 65% of whose people support Bin Laden's fight against the U.S., to host American troops in bases on its eastern border?

Do you think that its OK for the Americans to help the Israeli's 'manage' their Palestinian problem by unilaterally giving away their land in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolution 242?

Do you?

Let me repeat:

THE BEST IRAQI GOVERNMENT IS ONE THAT IRAQI PEOPLE CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES.

The Americans want to manipulate and control governments all over the Middle East. They play the governments of these countries like chess pieces, with total concern for American 'interests' and zero concern for the people who have to live there. It is time for the Americans to be completely defeated throughout the region and to be forcibly evicted from every middle-eastern country. The resistance in Iraq is doing heroic work to make this happen. God bless them.

by Northern Eye Tue Apr 20, 2004 22:26

The only way forward is for America to meet with representives of all the armed groups and agree to leave immediately and the IR agreeing to stop all fighting and to abide by any result of an election. These elections are then to be held as soon as possible and peacekeeping troops from Muslim countries would replace the US as the military presence in the area, but only in a strictly peace-keeping role with them themselves leaving as soon as the new Iraqi government asks. This, though, will never happen because America simply refuses to take any other way than the worst possible path. But it will learn its lesson when it casulties start to run into the thousands. Sad, but true.

I sure woundn't like to live under religious rule either, but fuck me whats the difference of having your arms removed by some fucker with a big sword or by a 1000lb bomb dropped by a flying cowboy. If the people of Iraq vote in a Islamic government thats their choice. Thats their way, and its feck all to do with us. We'll see then how another Islamic state in the Mid-East will help Israels cause.

by Faisal Tue Apr 20, 2004 23:11

The best thing to do in Iraq is send more international troops. The much vaunted popular uprising has been crushed and now is the time to tighten the clamps.

by David C. Wed Apr 21, 2004 02:15

...The Americans have withdrawn from Fallujah after their killing of hundreds of innocent civilians became known. Tonight they are withdrawing from around Najef, abandoning their attempt to arrest Al-Sadr. The 'coalition' of the bribed and the bullied is disbanding. The American casualty rates are at Vietnam levels. The Americans are pleading with the UN to take power from them in Iraq. America's reputation, both militarily and morally, is in tiny little pieces. etc. etc. etc.

The Iraqi resistance is winning big time...

by Tyler Durden Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:09

Do you want them to win?
America shouldn't be shooting civilians dead of course but what are the implications for Iraq if Al-Sadr wins?
Al-Sadr and his militia are Islamic fundamentalist crazies just like the Ayatollahs in Iran who fund him and his militia.

Do you know what fundamentalist Islam is?

It means absolute unquestioning obedience to Sharia Law and the leadership of the mullahs and religious leadership.
Nothing is tolerated- not human rights, democracy, freedom of worship, expression, freedom of movement assembly or dissent, except strict regimentation of society in order to be utterly uniform and unbendingly submissive to the will of the leadership who of course were given authority from Allah.
If you oppose them, make your voice heard or create fuss you can expect to be executed, imprisoned or tortured.

It is religious intolerance and mania at its very worst.

Would you tolerate a regime in Ireland which banned the internet, music, dancing, nightclubs, sex before marriage and sex other than for procreation, abortion, divorce, porn, cinema, short skirts, high heels, make up, swim suits, soft drinks, fast food, science, technology, art, literature, masturbation, homosexuality, lesbianism, communism, socialism and a million zillion other things you can think of?

No?
That's what Al-Dar wants in Iraq.

Instead there will be public floggings, beheadings, honour killings, fatwas, death sentences, amputations, burkas, mandatory daily prayers and death to blasphemers
( Anyone who opposes the will of the religous authorities)

These medieval morons want to drag Iraq back to the 8th century.

I don't like America or any other superpower throwing its weight around but id rather they did against savage like Al-Sadr.

Islam is a good religion its most extreme form makes Nazi doctrine seem harmless by comparison

by Homer Wed Apr 21, 2004 14:51

If the US or British troops had tried to take out a target in Basra and killed 55 people, including minibuses full of children, there would be an outcry on Indymedia.

But no, neither the IAWM nor any other left-wing groups are condemning this it was the insurgents that carried out this attack.

Any moderate debate here is attacked I'm afraid.

by Tyler durden Wed Apr 21, 2004 15:31

Right on Homer.

I'm of a left wing slant myself but i can see good and give praise where prise is due.

The removal of Saddam cannot be seen as anything else but a good thing.

The Americans have made a dogs dinner of things but its hard not to step in shit when you wade though a cess pool.
Iraq had serious problems long long before Bush and his army invaded and perhaps millienia before Saddam was in power.
Frankly there has never been an iota of democracy in Iraq since the time Abraham heard voices in his head telling him to go to Palestine.

I think it will be decades before the middle East becomes even a functioning democracy.
That means a great many people both foreign and Iraqi will certainly die in conflicts before then.

But what ever you think about Bush thats not the point.

Iraq deserves the chance to be a free open democratic society just like the one enjoyed here in ireland.

No body should allow it to descend into anarchy and barbarism.
If that means a fight then a fight it shall be.

by Northern Eye Wed Apr 21, 2004 15:31

I do condemn it. It was surely the work of reckless madmen. They're now saying that it was a Bin Laden attack.

How could it have been prevented? If GWB hadn't have opened the gates of hell. So thats what I condemn even more: the pricks whose actions and lies set in motion the machinery which producded the horror which the people of Basra have suffered today.

Re: Islamic State. I disagree that the Americans staying in Iraq will weaken those who want to immpose Islamic law. American occupation has only hardened Iraqis attitudes and will turn more and more to extreme Islam. The US must limit the damage it has caused thus far by pulling out immediately.

by Tyler Durden Wed Apr 21, 2004 15:46

Youre basically saying that the Islamic insurgency will diminish if America goes.
You think that militant Islam will increase if america stays.

So why would the Al-Sadr want the americans to go then?
surely he would come to your amazing conclusion and realise it is in his best interests for America to stay so his power base will enlarge.
In fact by your logic if America made Iraq a state of the Union it would would be an uber Islamic state.

By your logic the Allied war against Nazi Germany in World War 2 only served to strengthen it.

by Northern Eye Wed Apr 21, 2004 18:22

Well lets just look at it by comparing it with other situations from around the World, shall we?

Palestine - Has the Israeli war against the Palestinians defeated militant Islam or has it in fact created millions more supporters of militant Islam around the world and made Hamas possibly the dominant Palestinian power ?

Ireland - Did the British heavy-handed tatics at the start of the Troubles prolong the conflict or in actual fact swell the ranks of the IRA?

Chechneya - Russian bombing and brutality a good idea? Likely to create more moderate people in Grozny or less moderate? You decide.

Not saying extreme Islam will disappear if America goes. Am saying the problem will grow and grow if America stays. This isn't like the second world war as that was against nations. This is insurgency and rebellion and is totally different.

Maybe Moqtada Al-Sadr wants Americans to go because he wants a foreign power out from his country. Ever think of that? He has said he's prepared to die, so maybe he's not really interested in keeping the invader there so he can build up personal power. Maybe he's genuine in hs beliefs. Just maybe.

And, anyway, if, going by your beliefs, America is really fighting this war for the freedom of the Iraqi people and is genuine in its aim of bringing true democracy to Iraq, do you not think the more the US kills, murders, and humiliates people in their own country that come election day the people are going to vote in overwhellming numbers for parties representing the IR which will probably be Islamist. So your logic in supporting a continuing war which will only radicalize hugh numbers of possibly tolerant people will only backfire at the polls anyway. Some might be put off by the Islamic extremists who carried out todays killings, but I'll hazard a guess that a lot more will hate America so much by then that they'll vote for whoever fought the Americans. This is a very complicated problem which American violence can only make worse. In fact, what am I talking about? Its probably to late anyway.

by Northern Eye Wed Apr 21, 2004 18:41

I meant to say ' Did British heavy-handed tatics at the start of the Troubles shorten the conflict or swell the ranks of the IRA'. Ahem.

by Tyler Durden Wed Apr 21, 2004 19:21

The tactics of Islamic terrorists are designed to terrorise the democratic states of the entire world.
They want us to give in and allow Wabbaist Islam( compare it the KKK) to conquer to Middle East and oppress moderate Islamic nations with their fundemantalist doctrine before they launch a new onslaught against "Christian" Europe in revenge for the Crusades.
There are extremist minority factions in Muslim society in Britain, France, Germany and other European countries who have not assimilated into Western society and practise tribal honour killings ( murders of young girls who have in some way "shamed" family honour) and Sharia Law amputations of limbs( after sentence by kangaroo courts administered by underground clerics). They unashamedly point out they want to eventually extend this practise to secular society inhabited by non Muslims and establish Islamic states in France, Britain and Germany. Basically they are trying to colonise us.

Moderate Islamic followers who are the vast majority of Muslims ( who by the way fled extremist regimes to live in democratic Europe) do not support these lunatics.

But what is the result of Islamic terror?

Merely 200 people had to be killed in train bombings in Spain for the Spanish government to honour Ossama Bin Laden's request that they withdraw troops.

However America said fuck you.
They have decided to fight rather than be made kneel and touch the ground with their foreheads in front of a raving maniac who lives in a Afghan cave.

What is Europe's response?

Appeasement.
This appeasement will prolong the war in Iraq and prolong the War on Terror unless Europeans sanp out of their defeatism.

If you believe in left wing politics at all you should support Arab liberation from tyrants and religious maniacs. Saddam the former, Al-Sadr the latter.

by David C. Wed Apr 21, 2004 19:26

Have you any idea what Moqtada Al-Sadr wants? Have you read his list of demands? He's about as much of an 'Islamic fundamentalist' as Pat Rabbitt, although he is a religious man. His demands remind me very much of the 1916 proclaimation by Eamon Devalera and those other 'terrorists'.

Iraq will stabilize and prosper if the Americans leave immediately. Read ANY Iraqi journalist or blogger and they'll tell you that this whole kurd/shia/sunni civil war fear is bullshit. Look at Iran, with similar cultural divisions. Iran is a healthy, propserous democratic, tolerant, safe country (although, like the United States, it has huge problem with its supreme court interfering in elections, the death penalty, etc).

What the Americans are most afraid of is a truely independent Iraq.

(BTW, the killing of civilians - whether by Americans or by Iraqi groups, using car bombs or F-16s - is a war crime and should be punished)

by Tyler Durden Wed Apr 21, 2004 19:46

"Iran is a healthy, propserous democratic, tolerant, safe country"

WHAT?

If that is so the who the fuck is the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-KHAMENEI (since 4 June 1989) leader of the Islamic Revolution appointed for life by the Assembly of Experts?
The Council of Ministers is selected by the president with legislative approval but the Supreme Leader has some control over appointments to the more sensitive ministries( State Security, Defence, innocent things like that)

Read this notice from the Iranians:

Boycott massively the sham elections
SMCCDI (Information Service)
Feb 20, 2004


Reports from most Iranian cities are stating about the massive popular boycott of the Islamic regime's sham elections.

Millions of Iranians have stayed home and affar from official ballot boxes in order to show the rejection of the Islamic republic in its totality.

Reports from Shiraz, Mashad, Kerman, Malayer, Abadan, Bookan, Esfahan, Tabriz, Marivan, Amol, Sannandaj, Oroomiah (former Rezai-e) and Gonabad are all stating about dead cities in another show of massive Civil Disobeidance.

The usually crowdy streets and avenues of most areas of Tehran, the regime's Capital, are also empty contrary to any other Friday and the population is at home.

Several reports are stating about the transfer of professional "voters" from one ballot to another in order to simulate popular participation. An estimated 150,000 "voters" have been transferred, since Feb. 9th, to the capital for participating in Feb. 11th official demos and the today's sham elections.

4,000 full buses and most dorm facilities affiliated to the regime and its mosques were allocated for these 2 shows.

The "Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran" (SMCCDI) is completely independent of other groups and political affiliation as far as its administration and decision making is concerned.

While a number of groups have often claimed the ownership of our organization and are trying to take credit in our name for our achievments, other have usurped or are currently using parts of our denomination in order to gain part of the trust that the name of the "Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran" is creating among many. Others have often published copies of our statements or articles under their names which have lead to confusion on our origin or goals.

Such behavior has harmed, at several occasions, the SMCCDI in many aspects and in its relations with third parties.

It's to note that the members of our Mouvement consist of students inside and outside of Iran, as well as Iranian professionals who share the students’ vision of a free, independent, democratic, secular and industrialized Iran.

Although we have differing views for a post theocracy Iran, we are united based on our shared beliefs in nonviolent resistance, secularism, peace, democracy and free markets.

We believe the common objectives that unite those of us who oppose the theocracy are far greater than what divides us. Yet, we have allowed our differences to dictate our actions, permitting the theocracy to take advantage of our lack of unity. We need to come together and unite behind a set of principles and ideals, not an individual. No more individual worship. That time has long faded. How many times must we set up ourselves for disappointment by putting all of our hopes behind an individual?

We need to look forward to the future and create a better life for our children, not waste time placing blame for past mistakes or constantly criticizing one another. We need a tangible, constructive and positive action plan. Let us unite behind implementing peace, democracy, free markets and a bill of rights in Iran, while trusting the Iranian people to decide as to which government or individual suits them best.

We welcome any Iranian who believes in nonviolent resistance, secularism, peace, democracy and free markets to join our group. Faith in ideals – not individuals

by Drbinoche Wed Apr 21, 2004 20:03

Ive been away for a bit, had to go and get recharged, but I must say, if you honestly believe that America pulling outof Iraq is gonna somehow be the end of it, then you are very naive.

The Sunni and Shia Islamic groups have been at each others balls for years. The Sunni have been the top dogs in Iraq for the last 30 years and now its the Shia who have the majority, do you think that there are people among the Sunni, who are going to happily take the back seat. Of course not they'll start to fight for their own power. So lets say America pulls out, the Shia 'elect' a representative who just happens to be a Shia cleric or something like that, the Sunni start a fight, but of course the Police force are not trained or trusted, so you have militant groups like Al Sadrs protecting people?? But the people have no recoure should one of these guys get a little feisty, so the people are fucked and the situation gets more and more fucked.

Its ironic that you liken Al-Sadr to 1916, alot of similarities, but please bear in mind that the Pearse KNEW that a blood sacrifice would be needed to help Ireland. Maybe this is what Al-Sadr is thinking, maybe he is aware that either way whether he lives or dies Iraq will get better. But also bear in mind, the Brits did not leave immediately, it took another 5 years to get em out. So don't think that Al-Sadr is gonna get his wish anytime soon, America aint leaving. They will hand over UN control and then withdraw SOME troops and try to allow the UN to get some sort of force in. America will still be in Iraq come December 31 of this year.

by Northern Eye Wed Apr 21, 2004 20:12

Well of course the best course of action and the one thats likely to lead to the greatest peace in Iraq is for America to stay and continue the way its been going. It will also destroy Bin Laden's fan base when muslims all over the world see how good America is and that they really love it after all.

by David C. Wed Apr 21, 2004 20:53

The Americans are the direct cause of almost all political. violence in Iraq. Neighborhoods are quiet until American patrols go through, whereupon the place erupts in gunfire. The American-associated police stations attract car bombs like flies. The Americans insult, intimidate, steal, etc. The problem is the Americans.

They should withdraw to their bases. The U.N. should be handed full political control of Iraq. The U.N should use that control to appoint an interim government that is truly representative of the Iraqi people (for example representative of the 76% of Iraqis who want the Americans to leave). The interim government, with the U.N , should organize elections immediately - no bullshit about census' and voter rolls. By September the Iraqi people should be voting in open, free and fair elections for any candidate they choose - baath, Islamic fundamentalist, whatever. The resulting parliament should collectively produce a draft constitution, which should then be voted on by the entire Iraqi population. While all this is going on the U.N member states (including Ireland) should be providing peacekeepers - fully paid for by the U.S. - and the American forces should be withdrawing from their bases back to the U.S. Within a year the last American should have left Iraq - no bases, no military attaché, no 'training' of the new Iraqi forces, no influence of any kind whatsoever. All the Americans should do is pay money to fix what they have broken.

Iran obviously has political problems, but it is a modern, successful state. The recent barring of candidates in the election, while reprehensible, is little worse than the American election fraud of 2000, and the massive popular outcry by Iranians shows that real democracy is more alive there than in the U.S. Don't believe the ignorant American propaganda about Iran (or about Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq). It is nonsense, intended to convey the 'need' for American interference. All that is needed is for Iraq (and Iran) to be left alone to organize their own countries without interference.

Regarding 1916. I believe that the level of popular support for Pearse, DeValera et al in Ireland in 1916 was LESS than the level of popular support for Moqtada Al-Sadr in Iraq now. It was the British ruthless suppression of the uprising that led to a free Ireland.

Remember Easter 1916. Remember Fallujah.

by Drbinoche Wed Apr 21, 2004 21:01

I have no doubt that by America staying in Iraq it is going to lead to further troubles in the world, but them pullingout leads to the Iraqis getting fucked again. Irrespective of whether America stays in Iraq and Afghanistan for a long time, Bin Laden and AQ are going to get more recruits, they can offer some people, what they would normally never get. They can also recruit people who are easily mislead as well as those who are interested in more money, so the argument that America should pull out if they don;t want further acts of violence, is somewhat useless. Either way, no matter what America does they are going to be attacked again. The same with the UK and more than likely us. It has very little to do with Iraq and Afghanistan, it has to do with AQ and other extremist groups wanting to be in charge of a certain region and the rest of the world realising that these people do not represent the majority and so should not be charge. Its the exact same as why so many people flocked to the Republican and Loyalist sides during the troubles. Some were passionate followers, others were mislead by false truths and by not investigating the full truths. You cannot honestly say that all IRA and UVF, UFF etc terrorists were fervent supporters.

No America should withdraw the majority of their troops, I will not deny that, but I don't think America would ever fully withdraw all of their troops. The UN should be brought in to provide security while the nation gets back on its feet. A job that may take quite some time. I still stand by my belief that it should be predominantly Muslim troops and Irish troops being sent in for the UN, it is less infuriating to the local populace than American and other nations troops.

by David C. Wed Apr 21, 2004 22:32

People do not 'join' Al Qaeda in order to get money or because they are easily misled (or because they 'hate freedom'). They 'join' Al Qaeda because they viscerally hate the United States. And they viscerally hate the United States because the United States has done hateful things to them and to their countries. Osama Bin Laden is viewed favorably by a 2/3 majority of people in Pakistan, Jordan, Morocco and by substantial minorities in many other countries (see the recent Pew Research poll). Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are merely a focal point around which rapidly rising global hatred of the United States can coalesce. Their violence is profoundly wrong, but the violence of the Americans is just as wrong. Both must end.

BTW, the idea that people are financially motivated to 'join' Al Qaeda is just silly, and believing that kind of propaganda is even sillier. Osama Bin Laden is many things, but he is obviously not a material man and his followers are obviously not material men. They are motivated by a sense of justice, spirituality and honor. The Americans are motivated by a desire to protect their 'interests' and by profound ignorance. They both use deeply reprehensible tactics, but many people find it easier to admire Bin Laden's motivation that to admire America's.

Also BTW, the idea of 'joining' Al Qaeda makes about as much sense as the idea of 'joining' feminism or of 'joining' humanitarianism. Likewise, the idea of stopping Al Qaeda by killing its leaders makes about as much sense as trying to stop feminism by killing Gloria Steinem. 'Al Qaeda' is an idea, and judging from the Pew Research polls it is an idea whose time has come. The concept of 'Al Qaeda' (or of 'terrorism') being a discrete organization that can be 'defeated' is a result of the wishful thinking of a militaristic country designed to fight and manipulate nation states rather then individuals. Its just incorrect. The only way to defeat 'terrorism' is to end the hatred within individuals, and you can't do that by force or by propaganda or by manipulation. You can only do it by being fair and decent for real. (Robert Wright had an excellent article on this in late 2001 on Slate.com).

There is no room for the Americans to merely 'modulate' their behavior in Iraq such that they can control Iraq as they now control Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, etc. They must leave Iraq totally and completely, giving up all influence and control. Instead of being like Canada or Australia - subservient to and controlled by Britain for generations - Iraq must be like Ireland, truly independent to make its own way in the world. It is time to make a stand against the Americans.

by David, UCD Wed Apr 21, 2004 23:37

Sure, there may be bloodshed in Iraq if the Americans leave. Or there may not be. However, there is absolutely enormous bloodshed there now, under the American Occupation. So having to choose between POSSIBLE bloodshed and CERTAIN bloodshed i know which i'd choose.

Plus another thing to remember is that more is at stake here than continuing violence. There is also the question of will the Iraqis get to determine their future? For their past 50 years, the Americans have insisted that they support democracy, but instead support puppet regimes in the Third World, some of which had nominal democratic functions, others which were just pure dictatorships. Either way, they were more concerned with keeping themselves in power (dependent on their American sponsors) than with the interests of their people.

Iraq is no different. the Americans have so far shown contempt for Iraqi democracy and self-determination. They have banned trade unions, hand-picked pro-American sicophants and appointed them as council ministers, killed and imprisoned scores of thousands of innocent Iraqis. And the government they want to put in place will be completely unelected. the Iraqis won't even get a chance to write their own constitution!

So the only way the iraqis can get to REALLY choose their governments is if the Americans leave, and some sort of UN body oversees free elections. The Americans have said they will be staying in Iraq for years to come. This will mean that Iraq is little more than a colony.

Oh and one more thing: nearly every journalist and opinion poll now will tell you that the vast majority of Iraqis want the Americans out of their country. So to argue otherwise is also showing contempt for iraqi democracy and self-determination.

by kokomero Thu Apr 22, 2004 09:50

not only have the Americans supported dictators, and superficially democratic regiemes which they have installed directly/indirectly with economic and military aid including training on torture and intimidation but they have also contrived to depose or undermine a variety of democratically elected governments and leaders they don't happen to like.

The list is very long and includes Chile, Iran and most recently Venezuela.

The Americans have nothing to teach the world about democracy other than being an example of what can go drastically wrong, specifically:

+ electoral fraud
+ covert undemocratic programmes
+ pseudo-democracy 1.5 party system where Democrats = Republican

A great example indeed!

by refresher Thu Apr 22, 2004 16:43

A.) extend the front north, south, west and east. & Do the "holy job".

Pity the UN aren't there isn't it?
Bit discredited at long last no, the UN?

Pity the old contracts are valid isn't it?
Bit of a financial mess there, no?

Pity the factories of Hell are burnt to a crisp?
At long last to put our brothers and sisters to rest in ashes was so poignant.

Pity they thought to hide in Babylon isn't it?
They hung out in other places too.

Pity about the credibility thing isn't it?
OH yes, only when the system is completely discredited will be ready for peace.
Well you know what that means, more discrediting is a coming.

Pity someone tried to start the Megiddo to Babylon end time war game isn't it?
OH yes, you'd think they'd played it before, the enthusiasm they showed.