This email was sent to a woman in Carbondale from a woman who fled Bagdad and now lives in Jordan.
Happy New Year and God bless all USA honest people.
They kill him, Saddam, to please Bush and the criminals of Baghdad and Iran. He was better than them.
Bush killed many, many Iraqis and USA soldiers (thousands) for nothing. Bush should be punished for his crimes by the American people. The UK should punish Blair for killing US and UK soldiers. We should hang …Al hakim, Sader and Maliki. … Iran killed more than he (Saddam) killed in his time. He (Saddam) killed people who tried to kill him, defending himself, but Bush, Blair, Hakim, Sader killed many honest people. Also, the Kurdish killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers in Iran-Iraq War. …
Saddam did many good things, may he be forgiven, … but others what good things have they done!!??
I know we were very poor but we were safe at least. We had home and country but now we have nothing. We had honor in his (Saddam) regime. What do we have now?? We look like slaves!! No home, no country, no hope, no future! May God punish Bush and the US Congress I wish.
The killers killed him (Saddam) in a very blessed time of peace, they give us blood. Killing him is not a gift for our children or something to help our situation. I’m writing with tears in my eyes. You can’t imagine our feelings in Jordan, Iraq or all Arab and Muslim countries. They pray God will punish America and Congress for all they did to Muslim countries. It is not right to kill a person in this blessed time for Muslims and Christians. I want to ask Bush what did he give the world and USA? He give them blood and hate; he gave USA people more and more enemies; and he gave himself shame.
Nice letter…is this obvious to anyone where this person stood with regards to Saddam? I could go though this whole letter, but why not start with her first statement of “They kill him, Saddam, to please Bush and the criminals of Baghdad and Iran. He was better than them.” He was better then them? I could list thousands of atrocities that Saddam committed, but I think this one illustrates best how much of a better person Saddam was….
One of the gas attacks took place in mid-March 1988 in the Kurdish town of Halabja, the crossroads of an ongoing battle waged between a joint Kurdish-Iranian force and the Iraqi army. Caught in the middle were innocent civilians, including women and children.
“It was different from the other bombs,” one witness remembered. “There was a huge sound, a huge flame and it had very destructive ability. If you touched one part of your body that had been burned, your hand burned also. It caused things to catch fire.” The planes flew low enough for the petrified Kurds to take note of the markings, which were those of the Iraqi air force. Many families tumbled into primitive air-raid shelters they had built outside their homes. When the gasses seeped through the cracks, they poured out into the streets in a panic. There they found friends and family frozen in time like a modern version of Pompeii: slumped a few yards behind a baby carriage, caught permanently holding the hand of a loved one or shielding a child from the poisoned air, or calmly collapsed behind a car steering wheel.
Halabja was the “most notorious and the deadliest single gas attack against the Kurds,” killing 5,000 civilians. But it should be noted, it was just one of some forty chemical assaults staged by Iraq against the Kurdish people.
WOW, you are right, he sounds like a great guy!!
This woman was or still is obviously a member of the Baath Party, who lived well in Iraq though the suffering and murder of those who opposed the party that she benefited from.
I was glad on Congames today when Michael allowed a second caller who had also been talking directly to Iraqi’s give a completely opposite account of what they are seeing in Iraq and are glad to finally be rid of that demon.
I also find it ironic that this person, who is criticizing the President and Congress, calling on God to punish them made, according to the caller whom this email was sent to, a petition to come to the US and to try and get a job at the US Embassy in Jordan. Yeah, this is just the kind of people we need immigrating into our country. Someone should tell her to stop her whining and get to work rebuilding her country and her life. It’s not the US that is destroying it, it’s her beloved Islamic brothers that are blowing the crap out of everyone and everything. Don’t see too many US suicide bombers do we?
Yeah lady, you can believe that Saddam was a Saint…but the only way you are going to see him again is if you happen to run into him in Hell.
Nice letter…is this obvious to anyone where this person stood with regards to Saddam? I could go though this whole letter, but why not start with her first statement of “They kill him, Saddam, to please Bush and the criminals of Baghdad and Iran. He was better than them.” He was better then them? I could list thousands of atrocities that Saddam committed, but I think this one illustrates best how much of a better person Saddam was….
One of the gas attacks took place in mid-March 1988 in the Kurdish town of Halabja, the crossroads of an ongoing battle waged between a joint Kurdish-Iranian force and the Iraqi army. Caught in the middle were innocent civilians, including women and children.
“It was different from the other bombs,” one witness remembered. “There was a huge sound, a huge flame and it had very destructive ability. If you touched one part of your body that had been burned, your hand burned also. It caused things to catch fire.” The planes flew low enough for the petrified Kurds to take note of the markings, which were those of the Iraqi air force. Many families tumbled into primitive air-raid shelters they had built outside their homes. When the gasses seeped through the cracks, they poured out into the streets in a panic. There they found friends and family frozen in time like a modern version of Pompeii: slumped a few yards behind a baby carriage, caught permanently holding the hand of a loved one or shielding a child from the poisoned air, or calmly collapsed behind a car steering wheel.
Halabja was the “most notorious and the deadliest single gas attack against the Kurds,” killing 5,000 civilians. But it should be noted, it was just one of some forty chemical assaults staged by Iraq against the Kurdish people.
WOW, you are right, he sounds like a great guy!!
This woman was or still is obviously a member of the Baath Party, who lived well in Iraq though the suffering and murder of those who opposed the party that she benefited from.
I was glad on Congames today when Michael allowed a second caller who had also been talking directly to Iraqi’s give a completely opposite account of what they are seeing in Iraq and are glad to finally be rid of that demon.
I also find it ironic that this person, who is criticizing the President and Congress, calling on God to punish them made, according to the caller whom this email was sent to, a petition to come to the US and to try and get a job at the US Embassy in Jordan. Yeah, this is just the kind of people we need immigrating into our country. Someone should tell her to stop her whining and get to work rebuilding her country and her life. It’s not the US that is destroying it, it’s her beloved Islamic brothers that are blowing the crap out of everyone and everything. Don’t see too many US suicide bombers do we?
Yeah lady, you can believe that Saddam was a Saint…but the only way you are going to see him again is if you happen to run into him in Hell.
Americans have a very naïve view of Saddam Hussein’s rule in Iraq. Many are quick to point out all of the atrocities he committed, as if that justifies the even greater atrocity of the US war. But according to International Law, it is illegal to attack a country that has not attacked us first. It’s also illegal to depose leaders of sovereign nations for any reason. Saddam’s immorality does not justify our own.
Yes, his methods of controlling his people were brutal. He punished whole villages for harboring Shiite insurgents backed by Iran, who attempted to assassinate him and take control of Iraq. He punished the Kurds for their attempts to overthrow the Iraqi government and take over the northern oil fields. In this way he kept Iraq from fracturing, descending into civil war and being taken over by Fundamentalists determined to turn the country into a repressive state that would limit modernization and eliminate women’s rights.
I’m not condoning Saddam’s brutality, but unlike most Americans I understand the problems he faced in ruling a country that had artificial borders drawn by the British without regard for sectarian differences and hostilities. He ruled with an iron fist because he had to, just as we are doing now. With Saddam gone the US has had to assume his role. When insurgents attack our military, we hunt them down and kill them. We kick down doors in the middle of the night and drag people off to imprison and torture them.
But where Saddam built up and modernized infrastructure, we lay siege to entire towns, bulldozing, bombing and destroying. We have replaced the security, education, and health care that Saddam provided with a ruined chaotic state that will take decades to repair.
Long before he was president, Hussein made a commitment to the improvement of living standards in Iraq. He established the “National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy,” which led to hundreds of thousands learning to read, and the campaign for “Compulsory Free Education in Iraq,” which gave everyone, male and female, the opportunity for a higher education.
At a time when most Middle Eastern countries were ruled by monarchies and Ayatollahs, Hussein implemented a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf not ruled by Islamic law. He gave women new freedoms and offered them government and industry jobs.
Introducing modern western ways to the Muslim world earned him many enemies, including Osama bin Laden who called him an infidel.
Hussein created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, gaining an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). He used Iraq’s oil profits to establish a national infrastructure campaign that built roads, promoted mining and brought electricity to nearly every area of the country.
In a nation rife with ancient tribal rivalries, competing religious ideologies and Kurdish nationalism, Saddam Hussein was able to accomplish everything that we are now struggling to do.
When our military withdraws from Iraq, the current regime will fall and someone will step in to fill the power vacuum, most likely a member of radical Islam, who will then employ the same methods of control as Saddam did. In addition, Sharia Law will be instituted and Iraq will no longer be safe for Jews, Christians, women and modernity.
In all, the removal of Saddam has been a loss for the Iraqi population, especially professionals, women, and non-Muslims. It has meant the loss of over 3000 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis; far more than would have died under Saddam. The only winners in this situation are the radical Islamists, the very people our president has vowed to eliminate. Oh and Haliburton, which has made billions from the Neocons’ very calculated military failure in Iraq.
Americans have a very naïve view of Saddam Hussein’s rule in Iraq. Many are quick to point out all of the atrocities he committed, as if that justifies the even greater atrocity of the US war. But according to International Law, it is illegal to attack a country that has not attacked us first. It’s also illegal to depose leaders of sovereign nations for any reason. Saddam’s immorality does not justify our own.
Yes, his methods of controlling his people were brutal. He punished whole villages for harboring Shiite insurgents backed by Iran, who attempted to assassinate him and take control of Iraq. He punished the Kurds for their attempts to overthrow the Iraqi government and take over the northern oil fields. In this way he kept Iraq from fracturing, descending into civil war and being taken over by Fundamentalists determined to turn the country into a repressive state that would limit modernization and eliminate women’s rights.
I’m not condoning Saddam’s brutality, but unlike most Americans I understand the problems he faced in ruling a country that had artificial borders drawn by the British without regard for sectarian differences and hostilities. He ruled with an iron fist because he had to, just as we are doing now. With Saddam gone the US has had to assume his role. When insurgents attack our military, we hunt them down and kill them. We kick down doors in the middle of the night and drag people off to imprison and torture them.
But where Saddam built up and modernized infrastructure, we lay siege to entire towns, bulldozing, bombing and destroying. We have replaced the security, education, and health care that Saddam provided with a ruined chaotic state that will take decades to repair.
Long before he was president, Hussein made a commitment to the improvement of living standards in Iraq. He established the “National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy,” which led to hundreds of thousands learning to read, and the campaign for “Compulsory Free Education in Iraq,” which gave everyone, male and female, the opportunity for a higher education.
At a time when most Middle Eastern countries were ruled by monarchies and Ayatollahs, Hussein implemented a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf not ruled by Islamic law. He gave women new freedoms and offered them government and industry jobs.
Introducing modern western ways to the Muslim world earned him many enemies, including Osama bin Laden who called him an infidel.
Hussein created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, gaining an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). He used Iraq’s oil profits to establish a national infrastructure campaign that built roads, promoted mining and brought electricity to nearly every area of the country.
In a nation rife with ancient tribal rivalries, competing religious ideologies and Kurdish nationalism, Saddam Hussein was able to accomplish everything that we are now struggling to do.
When our military withdraws from Iraq, the current regime will fall and someone will step in to fill the power vacuum, most likely a member of radical Islam, who will then employ the same methods of control as Saddam did. In addition, Sharia Law will be instituted and Iraq will no longer be safe for Jews, Christians, women and modernity.
In all, the removal of Saddam has been a loss for the Iraqi population, especially professionals, women, and non-Muslims. It has meant the loss of over 3000 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis; far more than would have died under Saddam. The only winners in this situation are the radical Islamists, the very people our president has vowed to eliminate. Oh and Haliburton, which has made billions from the Neocons’ very calculated military failure in Iraq.
Nice bit of information there, too bad the majority of it is speculation, assumptions and outright lies. Over the weekend I will address your post point for point, with links to support what I post to counter your misinformed comment.
Stay tuned.
Nice bit of information there, too bad the majority of it is speculation, assumptions and outright lies. Over the weekend I will address your post point for point, with links to support what I post to counter your misinformed comment.
Stay tuned.
[Americans have a very naïve view of Saddam Hussein’s rule in Iraq.]
Really?
My naïve American view of Saddam Hussein’s rule is that he was a dictator who stopped at nothing to increase his power.
• In 1937, Hussein is born in a mud hut near Tikrit. He is raised by an uncle who encourages him to dream of becoming an Arab nationalist Arab like Saladin.
• In the early 1950s, Hussein becomes a Stalinesque “enforcer” in the Baath (Renaissance) Party established by Salah Bitar and Christian Michel Aflaq.
• In 1958, King Feisel I’s monarchy falls to General Adel Karim Kasim.
• In 1959, Hussein participates in a failed attempt to assassinate Kasim. Hussein is exiled to Egypt, and begins organizing Baath cells at the University of Cairo.
• In 1963, General Abdel-Rahman Arif overthrows Kasim, and the Baath party ascends to power.
• By 1968, Hussein becomes Vice President of Iraq, serving under President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr. Close family and tribal ties abound in the Baath Party’s ruling clique, the Tikriti relatives of Bakr.
• In 1969, Hussein surpasses al Bakr as the dominant force in Baath Party leadership; responsible for Baath Party internal security, Hussein creates a police state that rules by intimidation, sham trial and execution, and assassination.
• In the 1970s, Hussein escalates the systematic torture and execution of political prisoners.
• In 1979, Hussein becomes President of Iraq.
• In 1980-88, Hussein orders the use of chemical weapons against Iranian forces in the Iran-Iraq war, which left 150,000 to 340,000 Iraqis and 450,000 to 730,000 Iranians dead. These attacks involve multiple chemical agents, including mustard gas, and the nerve agents Sarin, Tabun, and VX.
• In 1982, Hussein travels to Dujail where Dawa Party (Shi’a) gunmen attempt to assassinate him. Hussein orders the immediate execution of Dujail males older than twelve; 1500 people—including women and children—are incarcerated and tortured; 250,000 acres of farmland adjacent to Dujail are bulldozed.
• In 1988, Hussein orders the use of chemical weapons against Iraq’s Kurdish population.
• In 1990, Hussein orders the invasion and destruction of Kuwait. 1,000 Kuwaitis are killed.
• On August 2nd, 1990, the UN Security Council adopts Resolution 660, condemning Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and demanding Iraq’s immediate withdrawal.
• On August 6, 1990, the UN Security Council adopts Resolution 661, which imposed stringent economic sanctions on Iraq.
• On November 29, 1990, the UN Security Council adopts Resolution 678, which authorizes member states to use “all means necessary” to uphold UN Resolution 660.
• On January 17, 1991, Operation Desert Storm commences.
• On March 10, 1991, Operation Desert Storm ends when the US begins moving troops out of the Persian Gulf.
• On April 3, 1991, the UN Security Council adopts Resolution 687, which declares a formal cease-fire at the end of the Operation Desert Storm, establishes the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), imposes peace terms on Iraq, and demands the removal of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
• On April 5, 1991, the UN Security Council adopts Resolution 688, which establishes the northern and southern Iraq “No Fly Zones.”
• On April 18, 1991, Hussein authorizes the initial declaration required under UN Resolution 687, declares some chemical weapons and materials and 53 Al-Hussein and Scud type long-range ballistic missiles. Hussein declares Iraq has no biological weapons program.
• On May 16, 1991, Hussein revises his declaration, admitting additional chemical weapons and a missile types.
• In the days following June 23, 1991, UNSCOM/IAEA inspectors try to intercept Iraqi vehicles carrying nuclear related equipment (Calutrons—a mass spectrometer used for separating uranium isotopes). Iraqi personnel fire warning shots in the air to prevent the inspectors from approaching the vehicles.
• On August 2, 1991, Hussein declares to the first biological inspection team that Iraq has conducted “biological research activities for defensive military purposes”.
• On August 15, 1991, UN Resolution 706 established the “Oil for Food Programme,” and UN Resolution 707 demands that Iraq provide a full, final and complete disclosures of its proscribed weapons and programs, as required by resolution 687.
• On September 19, 1991, UN Resolution 712 decrees that Iraq may sell up to 1.6 billion in US Dollars worth of oil to fund the “Oil for Food Programme.”
• In 1991, Hussein orders the suppression of two insurgencies, one in the Kurdish communities of northern Iraq, the other in the Shi’a areas of southern Iraq. The number of resulting deaths varies between 30,000 to 60,000. Saddam later orders the destruction of southern marshes to finally extinguish the Shi’a insurgency.
• On September 23, 1991, IAEA inspectors find many documents describing Hussein’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraqi officials confiscate some documents from the inspectors, but the inspectors refuse to yield all of the documents. In response, the officials refuse to allow the team to leave the site. A four-day stand-off during which the team remained in the parking lot of the site ensues. after a statement by the President of the UN Security Council, Hussein finally permits the team to leave with the documents.
• In May, 1992, Hussein provides its first Full, Final and Complete Disclosures for its prohibited biological and missile programs, admitting a “defensive” biological weapons program.
• In January, 1993, Hussein refuses to allow UNSCOM the use of its own aircraft to fly into Iraq for aerial inspection of sites.
• In April, 1993, Kuwaiti security officials uncover a plot by the Iraqi Intelligence Service to assassinate former President George H. W. Bush by car bomb.
• In June, 1993, Hussein refuses to allow UNSCOM to install remote-controlled monitoring cameras at two missile engine test stands.
• In 1995, Hassan al Turabi persuades Hussein to allow Osama bin Laden to support Mullah Krekar’s Islamic Movement in Kurdistan (IMK).
• In March, 1995, Hussein provides the second Full, Final and Complete Disclosures of its prohibited biological and chemical weapons programs.
• On April 14, 1995, UN Resolution 986 implements the “Oil for Food Programme.”
• On July 1, 1995, As a result of UNSCOM’s investigations and in the light of irrefutable evidence, Hussein admits for the first time the existence of an offensive biological weapons program but denies weaponization.
• In July, 1995, Hussein threatens to end all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA if there is no progress towards the lifting of sanctions and the oil embargo by 31 August 1995.
• On August 8, 1995, General Hussein Kamel, Minister of Industry and Minerals and former Director of Iraq’s Military Industrialization Corporation, with responsibility for all of Iraq’s weapons programs, leaves Iraq for Jordan. Hussein claims that Kamel has hidden important information on the prohibited weapons programs from UNSCOM and the IAEA. Iraq withdraws its third biological Full, Final and Complete Disclosure and admits a far more extensive biological warfare program than previously admitted, including weaponization. Iraq also admits having achieved greater progress in its efforts to indigenously produce long-range missiles than had previously been declared. Iraq provides UNSCOM and the IAEA with large amounts of documentation, hidden on a chicken farm ostensibly by Kamel, related to its prohibited weapons programs. This leads to further disclosures about the production of the nerve agent VX, and Iraq’s development of a nuclear weapon. Iraq also informs UNSCOM that the deadline to halt its cooperation is withdrawn.
• In August, 1995, Hussein provides the third Full, Final and Complete Disclosure for its prohibited biological weapons program.
• In November, 1995, Hussein provides second Full, Final and Complete Disclosure of its prohibited missile program.
• In November, 1995, the Government of Jordan intercepts a large shipment of high-grade missile components destined for Iraq. Hussein denies that it had sought to purchase these components, although he acknowledges delivery of similar shipments in Iraq. UNSCOM investigates and confirms that Iraqi authorities at missile facilities have been involved in the acquisition of sophisticated guidance and control components for prohibited missiles. UNSCOM inspectors recover additional, similar missile components from the Tigris River, apparently dumped there by Iraqis involved in the covert acquisition.
• In March, 1996, Hussein denies UNSCOM teams access to five sites designated for inspection. UNSCOM teams enter the sites only after delays of up to 17 hours.
• On March 27, 1996, the UN Security Council adopts resolution 1051, which approves the export/import monitoring mechanism for Iraq and demands that Iraq meet unconditionally all its obligations under the mechanism and cooperate fully with the Special Commission and the Director-General of the IAEA.
• On June 12, 1996, UN Security Council resolution 1060 (1996) determines that Iraq’s actions a clear violation of the provisions of the Security Council resolutions and demands that Iraq grant immediate and unrestricted access to all sites designated for inspection by UNSCOM.
• On June 13, 1996, Hussein denies another UNSCOM team access to an inspection site.
• On June 22, 1996, Hussein provides the fourth Full, Final and Complete Disclosure of its prohibited biological weapons program; a third Full, Final and Complete Disclosure of its prohibited chemical weapons program follows within days.
• In November, 1996, Hussein blocks UNSCOM from removing remnants of missile engines for in-depth analysis outside Iraq.
• In February, 1997, Hussein allows UNSCOM to remove missile engines from the Iraq.
• On June 21, 1997, Hussein blocks UNSCOM teams from sites designated for inspection. On the same day, the UN Security Council passes Resolution 1115, which condemns Iraq’s actions and demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM’s team immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any sites for inspection and officials for interviews by UNSCOM. The Council also calls for an additional report on Iraq’s cooperation with the Commission and suspends the periodic sanctions reviews.
• In September, 1997, Hussein provides fifth Full, Final and Complete Disclosure for its prohibited biological weapons program. An international panel of experts convenes in New York and unanimously finds Iraq’s declaration to be incomplete, inadequate and technically flawed.
• On September 13, 1997 An UNSCOM inspector is manhandled by an Iraqi officer on board a Commission helicopters as the inspector photographs of the unauthorized movement of Iraqi vehicles inside a site declared by Iraq to be “sensitive” that was designated for inspection. Two days later, Iraq again failed to freeze movement inside another “sensitive site” designated for inspection.
• On September 17, 1997, while seeking access to a site for inspection declared by Iraq to be “sensitive”, UNSCOM inspectors witness and videotape the movement of files, the burning of documents and dumping of ash-filled waste cans into a nearby river.
• During September and October, 1997, Hussein denies UNSCOM access to three sites on the basis that these sites are what he calls “presidential sites.”
• On October 23, 1997, the UN Security Council passes Resolution 1134, which demands Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission, continues the suspension of the periodic sanctions reviews and foreshadows additional sanctions pending a further report on Iraq’s cooperation with UNSCOM.
• On October 27, the UNSCOM Executive Chairman sends a letter to Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, suggesting the agenda for forthcoming meetings in Baghdad. The letter proposes that Iraq address important outstanding issues, including warheads, VX and the biological weapons area. It also mentions the need to review the “modalities for inspection of sensitive sites” to ensure that inspections are conducted in a credible manner.
• On October 29, 1997, Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq Mr. Tariq Aziz sends a letter to the President of the Security Council, informing the Council of policy decisions taken by the Government of Iraq. The letter includes a decision not to deal with personnel of United States nationality working for UNSCOM, a demand that all personnel of United States nationality working with UNSCOM leave Iraq by a given deadline, and a request that UNSCOM withdraw its “cover” for the “spy plane” U-2, provided by the United States.
• On October 29, 1997, the President of the UN Security Council condemns Iraq’s decision and terming it “unacceptable”. The statement demands that Iraq cooperate fully, without restrictions or conditions with UNSCOM, and warns of the serious consequences of Iraq’s failure to comply immediately and fully with its obligations under relevant resolutions.
• On November 12, 1997, the UN Security Council passes Resolution 1137, which condemns continued violations, including the unacceptable decision to impose conditions on cooperation with UNSCOM. The Resolution also imposes a travel restriction on Iraqi officials who are responsible for or participated in the instances of non-compliance.
• On November 13, 1997, Hussein requires the personnel of United States nationality working for UNSCOM to leave Iraq immediately. The Executive Chairman decides the majority of the UNSCOM personnel should withdraw temporarily from Iraq. A skeleton staff remains in Baghdad to maintain UNSCOM’s premises and equipment; later this day, the President of the Security Council in condemns this decision and demands Iraq cooperate fully with UNSCOM.
• On September 3, 1998 the Executive Chairman briefs the Security Council on the status of UNSCOM’s work in Iraq, including three incidents where Iraq has placed further limits on the Commission’s rights and activities with respect to monitoring.
• On September 9, 1998, the UN Security Council passes Resolution 1194, which unanimously condemns Iraq’s decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM, terming Iraq’s actions a totally unacceptable contravention of Iraq’s obligations; demands Iraq rescind its decision and decides not to conduct the 60-day sanctions reviews until Iraq does so and the Commission reports to the Council that it is satisfied that it has been able to exercise its full range of activities, including inspections.
• On October 31, 1998 Hussein decides to cease all forms of interaction with UNSCOM and its Chairman and to halt all UNSCOM’s activities inside Iraq, including monitoring. The Security Council, in a statement to the press, unanimously condemns this decision.
• On November 4, 1998, the Executive Chairman informs the Council that, as a result of Iraq’s actions, the Commission is not in a position to provide the Council with any level of assurance of Iraq’s compliance with its obligations not to retain and not to reestablish proscribed activities.
• On November 5, 1998, the UN Security Council passes Resolution 1205, unanimously condemns Iraq’s actions and demands that Iraq rescind immediately and unconditionally its decisions of 31 October and 5 August.
• On November 10, 1998, the Executive Chairman decides to remove all of the UNSCOM personnel from Iraq.
• On November 11, 1998, the entire UNSCOM contingent withdraws to Bahrain.
• On December 17, 1999, UN Security Council Resolution 1284 establishes the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) for the purpose of disarming Iraq of its Weapons of Mass Destruction, and to ensure Iraq’s compliance with its obligations not to reacquire the same weapons prohibited to it by the Security Council.
• In 2001, the IMK merges with Abu Abdallah al-Shafii’s Jund al-Islam to form Ansar al Islam.
• In 2002, Hussein agrees to let UN inspectors return, but he fails to cooperate fully with the UN-inspectors.
• In June, 2002 Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi joins Ansar al-Islam forces in northern Iraq.
• On November 8, 2002, the UN Security Council unanimously passes Resolution 1441, which states that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms of UN Resolution 687. Iraq’s breaches related not only to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, and the purchase and import of prohibited armaments.
• On March 30, 2003, Operation Iraqi Freedom commences.
• In July, 2003, Saddam’s sons Uday and Qusay Hussein are cornered in a Mosul house and perish in a lengthy firefight.
• In December, 2003, Saddam is captured while hiding in a “spider hole” beneath a farmhouse porch in ad-Dawr, near Tikrit.
• In June, 2004, Saddam is handed over to the Iraqi Government to stand trial for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
• On November 5, 2006, an Iraqi court found Hussein guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to death by hanging.
• On December 30, 2006, at 6:10 a.m. Arabic Standard Time, Saddam Hussein executed by hanging.
You contend that “Hussein ruled with an iron fist because he had to…” that “in a nation rife with ancient tribal rivalries, competing religious ideologies and Kurdish nationalism, Saddam Hussein was able to accomplish everything that we are now struggling to do…” In these statements is the conceit that the peoples Iraq are so different, so divided that only a brutal tyrant could govern. This notion flatly contradicts the proof that is the melting pot of the U.S.
Iraq is 97% Muslim.
Iraq is 60%-65% Shi’a Muslim and 32%-37% Sunni Muslim.
Sunni Muslims are theologically more akin to Whahhabism than their Shi’a counterparts. Whahhabism is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia.
Iraq’s government is made up of United Iraqi Alliance (Shi’a, 41.2% of seats), the Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan (Kurd, 21.7 %), the Iraq Accord Front (Sunni, 15.1%), and the Iraqi National List (Shi’a & Sunni secularist/communist, 8%), and other alliances and parties.
Saddam Hussein was a born in Tikrit, the northern point of the Sunni Triangle. While Hussein (and the Baath Party generally) was secularist, his affinity for Sunni Muslims is clear based on the targets of his crimes against humanity: Shi’a Muslims, Kurds, Iraqi Turks, and other non-Sunni groups.
Saddam was executed at Camp Al-Adala (a.k.a. “Camp Justice”), an Iraqi army base in Kadhimiya, a neighborhood of northeast Baghdad.
Saddam was taunted by one or more present at the execution who yelled the name “Muqtada” (Muqtada al-Sadr), the name of a prominent Shi’a religious leader.
Political pundits like Chris Matthews have jumped all over this, claiming Saddam’s execution is proof, among other things, that the U.S. now finds itself inexorably associated with the Shi’a Muslims of Iraq, a misguided observation designed to exacerbate the world’s problems with an essentially Shi’a Iran.
That, my friends, is Bulls**t.
Contrary to suggestions by Matthews and others, Camp Al-Adala, the military base on which Saddam Hussein was executed, is an Iraqi military base, not a U.S. military base.
The majority of people in Iraq, as reflected by Iraq’s freely elected government, are Shi’a. Hence, it can be a surprise to no one there were Shi’a present at Hussein’s execution.
Hussein killed tens of thousands of Shi’a. Hence, it can be no surprise there were Shi’a present at the execution who were happy to see Saddam swing.
Saddam’s execution is no proof of a U.S. association with Iraqi’s Shi’a population, as Matthews suggests. If anything, Saddam’s execution is proof of the population makeup of Iraq, and through democracy, proof of the makeup of a freely elected Iraqi government.
What is it that permits Americans like Matthews to judge an event like Saddam’s execution through the prism of American partisan politics? I submit it is a myopic hubris, a viewpoint that America, as represented by damn near anyone with a social security number, but more specifically, President Bush, was, is, and shall always be wrong for confronting a disturbing form of Pan-Arabic Nationalism that defies every precept of the United States Constitution.
One piece of evidence that the U.S. has had a positive effect on the Iraqi people is that when an Iraqi Court found Saddam guilty of crimes against humanity last November 5th, there wasn’t a gaggle of baklava hooded men with AK-47s and swords ready to drag Hussein into a Baghdad for beheading.
The seeds of Iraqi freedom will germinate at a rate that only people who filter their world view through the dirty underwear of U.S. partisan politics find too slow.
Cheers,
[Americans have a very naïve view of Saddam Hussein’s rule in Iraq.]
Really?
My naïve American view of Saddam Hussein’s rule is that he was a dictator who stopped at nothing to increase his power.
• In 1937, Hussein is born in a mud hut near Tikrit. He is raised by an uncle who encourages him to dream of becoming an Arab nationalist Arab like Saladin.
• In the early 1950s, Hussein becomes a Stalinesque “enforcer” in the Baath (Renaissance) Party established by Salah Bitar and Christian Michel Aflaq.
• In 1958, King Feisel I’s monarchy falls to General Adel Karim Kasim.
• In 1959, Hussein participates in a failed attempt to assassinate Kasim. Hussein is exiled to Egypt, and begins organizing Baath cells at the University of Cairo.
• In 1963, General Abdel-Rahman Arif overthrows Kasim, and the Baath party ascends to power.
• By 1968, Hussein becomes Vice President of Iraq, serving under President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr. Close family and tribal ties abound in the Baath Party’s ruling clique, the Tikriti relatives of Bakr.
• In 1969, Hussein surpasses al Bakr as the dominant force in Baath Party leadership; responsible for Baath Party internal security, Hussein creates a police state that rules by intimidation, sham trial and execution, and assassination.
• In the 1970s, Hussein escalates the systematic torture and execution of political prisoners.
• In 1979, Hussein becomes President of Iraq.
• In 1980-88, Hussein orders the use of chemical weapons against Iranian forces in the Iran-Iraq war, which left 150,000 to 340,000 Iraqis and 450,000 to 730,000 Iranians dead. These attacks involve multiple chemical agents, including mustard gas, and the nerve agents Sarin, Tabun, and VX.
• In 1982, Hussein travels to Dujail where Dawa Party (Shi’a) gunmen attempt to assassinate him. Hussein orders the immediate execution of Dujail males older than twelve; 1500 people—including women and children—are incarcerated and tortured; 250,000 acres of farmland adjacent to Dujail are bulldozed.
• In 1988, Hussein orders the use of chemical weapons against Iraq’s Kurdish population.
• In 1990, Hussein orders the invasion and destruction of Kuwait. 1,000 Kuwaitis are killed.
• On August 2nd, 1990, the UN Security Council adopts Resolution 660, condemning Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and demanding Iraq’s immediate withdrawal.
• On August 6, 1990, the UN Security Council adopts Resolution 661, which imposed stringent economic sanctions on Iraq.
• On November 29, 1990, the UN Security Council adopts Resolution 678, which authorizes member states to use “all means necessary” to uphold UN Resolution 660.
• On January 17, 1991, Operation Desert Storm commences.
• On March 10, 1991, Operation Desert Storm ends when the US begins moving troops out of the Persian Gulf.
• On April 3, 1991, the UN Security Council adopts Resolution 687, which declares a formal cease-fire at the end of the Operation Desert Storm, establishes the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), imposes peace terms on Iraq, and demands the removal of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
• On April 5, 1991, the UN Security Council adopts Resolution 688, which establishes the northern and southern Iraq “No Fly Zones.”
• On April 18, 1991, Hussein authorizes the initial declaration required under UN Resolution 687, declares some chemical weapons and materials and 53 Al-Hussein and Scud type long-range ballistic missiles. Hussein declares Iraq has no biological weapons program.
• On May 16, 1991, Hussein revises his declaration, admitting additional chemical weapons and a missile types.
• In the days following June 23, 1991, UNSCOM/IAEA inspectors try to intercept Iraqi vehicles carrying nuclear related equipment (Calutrons—a mass spectrometer used for separating uranium isotopes). Iraqi personnel fire warning shots in the air to prevent the inspectors from approaching the vehicles.
• On August 2, 1991, Hussein declares to the first biological inspection team that Iraq has conducted “biological research activities for defensive military purposes”.
• On August 15, 1991, UN Resolution 706 established the “Oil for Food Programme,” and UN Resolution 707 demands that Iraq provide a full, final and complete disclosures of its proscribed weapons and programs, as required by resolution 687.
• On September 19, 1991, UN Resolution 712 decrees that Iraq may sell up to 1.6 billion in US Dollars worth of oil to fund the “Oil for Food Programme.”
• In 1991, Hussein orders the suppression of two insurgencies, one in the Kurdish communities of northern Iraq, the other in the Shi’a areas of southern Iraq. The number of resulting deaths varies between 30,000 to 60,000. Saddam later orders the destruction of southern marshes to finally extinguish the Shi’a insurgency.
• On September 23, 1991, IAEA inspectors find many documents describing Hussein’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraqi officials confiscate some documents from the inspectors, but the inspectors refuse to yield all of the documents. In response, the officials refuse to allow the team to leave the site. A four-day stand-off during which the team remained in the parking lot of the site ensues. after a statement by the President of the UN Security Council, Hussein finally permits the team to leave with the documents.
• In May, 1992, Hussein provides its first Full, Final and Complete Disclosures for its prohibited biological and missile programs, admitting a “defensive” biological weapons program.
• In January, 1993, Hussein refuses to allow UNSCOM the use of its own aircraft to fly into Iraq for aerial inspection of sites.
• In April, 1993, Kuwaiti security officials uncover a plot by the Iraqi Intelligence Service to assassinate former President George H. W. Bush by car bomb.
• In June, 1993, Hussein refuses to allow UNSCOM to install remote-controlled monitoring cameras at two missile engine test stands.
• In 1995, Hassan al Turabi persuades Hussein to allow Osama bin Laden to support Mullah Krekar’s Islamic Movement in Kurdistan (IMK).
• In March, 1995, Hussein provides the second Full, Final and Complete Disclosures of its prohibited biological and chemical weapons programs.
• On April 14, 1995, UN Resolution 986 implements the “Oil for Food Programme.”
• On July 1, 1995, As a result of UNSCOM’s investigations and in the light of irrefutable evidence, Hussein admits for the first time the existence of an offensive biological weapons program but denies weaponization.
• In July, 1995, Hussein threatens to end all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA if there is no progress towards the lifting of sanctions and the oil embargo by 31 August 1995.
• On August 8, 1995, General Hussein Kamel, Minister of Industry and Minerals and former Director of Iraq’s Military Industrialization Corporation, with responsibility for all of Iraq’s weapons programs, leaves Iraq for Jordan. Hussein claims that Kamel has hidden important information on the prohibited weapons programs from UNSCOM and the IAEA. Iraq withdraws its third biological Full, Final and Complete Disclosure and admits a far more extensive biological warfare program than previously admitted, including weaponization. Iraq also admits having achieved greater progress in its efforts to indigenously produce long-range missiles than had previously been declared. Iraq provides UNSCOM and the IAEA with large amounts of documentation, hidden on a chicken farm ostensibly by Kamel, related to its prohibited weapons programs. This leads to further disclosures about the production of the nerve agent VX, and Iraq’s development of a nuclear weapon. Iraq also informs UNSCOM that the deadline to halt its cooperation is withdrawn.
• In August, 1995, Hussein provides the third Full, Final and Complete Disclosure for its prohibited biological weapons program.
• In November, 1995, Hussein provides second Full, Final and Complete Disclosure of its prohibited missile program.
• In November, 1995, the Government of Jordan intercepts a large shipment of high-grade missile components destined for Iraq. Hussein denies that it had sought to purchase these components, although he acknowledges delivery of similar shipments in Iraq. UNSCOM investigates and confirms that Iraqi authorities at missile facilities have been involved in the acquisition of sophisticated guidance and control components for prohibited missiles. UNSCOM inspectors recover additional, similar missile components from the Tigris River, apparently dumped there by Iraqis involved in the covert acquisition.
• In March, 1996, Hussein denies UNSCOM teams access to five sites designated for inspection. UNSCOM teams enter the sites only after delays of up to 17 hours.
• On March 27, 1996, the UN Security Council adopts resolution 1051, which approves the export/import monitoring mechanism for Iraq and demands that Iraq meet unconditionally all its obligations under the mechanism and cooperate fully with the Special Commission and the Director-General of the IAEA.
• On June 12, 1996, UN Security Council resolution 1060 (1996) determines that Iraq’s actions a clear violation of the provisions of the Security Council resolutions and demands that Iraq grant immediate and unrestricted access to all sites designated for inspection by UNSCOM.
• On June 13, 1996, Hussein denies another UNSCOM team access to an inspection site.
• On June 22, 1996, Hussein provides the fourth Full, Final and Complete Disclosure of its prohibited biological weapons program; a third Full, Final and Complete Disclosure of its prohibited chemical weapons program follows within days.
• In November, 1996, Hussein blocks UNSCOM from removing remnants of missile engines for in-depth analysis outside Iraq.
• In February, 1997, Hussein allows UNSCOM to remove missile engines from the Iraq.
• On June 21, 1997, Hussein blocks UNSCOM teams from sites designated for inspection. On the same day, the UN Security Council passes Resolution 1115, which condemns Iraq’s actions and demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM’s team immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any sites for inspection and officials for interviews by UNSCOM. The Council also calls for an additional report on Iraq’s cooperation with the Commission and suspends the periodic sanctions reviews.
• In September, 1997, Hussein provides fifth Full, Final and Complete Disclosure for its prohibited biological weapons program. An international panel of experts convenes in New York and unanimously finds Iraq’s declaration to be incomplete, inadequate and technically flawed.
• On September 13, 1997 An UNSCOM inspector is manhandled by an Iraqi officer on board a Commission helicopters as the inspector photographs of the unauthorized movement of Iraqi vehicles inside a site declared by Iraq to be “sensitive” that was designated for inspection. Two days later, Iraq again failed to freeze movement inside another “sensitive site” designated for inspection.
• On September 17, 1997, while seeking access to a site for inspection declared by Iraq to be “sensitive”, UNSCOM inspectors witness and videotape the movement of files, the burning of documents and dumping of ash-filled waste cans into a nearby river.
• During September and October, 1997, Hussein denies UNSCOM access to three sites on the basis that these sites are what he calls “presidential sites.”
• On October 23, 1997, the UN Security Council passes Resolution 1134, which demands Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission, continues the suspension of the periodic sanctions reviews and foreshadows additional sanctions pending a further report on Iraq’s cooperation with UNSCOM.
• On October 27, the UNSCOM Executive Chairman sends a letter to Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, suggesting the agenda for forthcoming meetings in Baghdad. The letter proposes that Iraq address important outstanding issues, including warheads, VX and the biological weapons area. It also mentions the need to review the “modalities for inspection of sensitive sites” to ensure that inspections are conducted in a credible manner.
• On October 29, 1997, Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq Mr. Tariq Aziz sends a letter to the President of the Security Council, informing the Council of policy decisions taken by the Government of Iraq. The letter includes a decision not to deal with personnel of United States nationality working for UNSCOM, a demand that all personnel of United States nationality working with UNSCOM leave Iraq by a given deadline, and a request that UNSCOM withdraw its “cover” for the “spy plane” U-2, provided by the United States.
• On October 29, 1997, the President of the UN Security Council condemns Iraq’s decision and terming it “unacceptable”. The statement demands that Iraq cooperate fully, without restrictions or conditions with UNSCOM, and warns of the serious consequences of Iraq’s failure to comply immediately and fully with its obligations under relevant resolutions.
• On November 12, 1997, the UN Security Council passes Resolution 1137, which condemns continued violations, including the unacceptable decision to impose conditions on cooperation with UNSCOM. The Resolution also imposes a travel restriction on Iraqi officials who are responsible for or participated in the instances of non-compliance.
• On November 13, 1997, Hussein requires the personnel of United States nationality working for UNSCOM to leave Iraq immediately. The Executive Chairman decides the majority of the UNSCOM personnel should withdraw temporarily from Iraq. A skeleton staff remains in Baghdad to maintain UNSCOM’s premises and equipment; later this day, the President of the Security Council in condemns this decision and demands Iraq cooperate fully with UNSCOM.
• On September 3, 1998 the Executive Chairman briefs the Security Council on the status of UNSCOM’s work in Iraq, including three incidents where Iraq has placed further limits on the Commission’s rights and activities with respect to monitoring.
• On September 9, 1998, the UN Security Council passes Resolution 1194, which unanimously condemns Iraq’s decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM, terming Iraq’s actions a totally unacceptable contravention of Iraq’s obligations; demands Iraq rescind its decision and decides not to conduct the 60-day sanctions reviews until Iraq does so and the Commission reports to the Council that it is satisfied that it has been able to exercise its full range of activities, including inspections.
• On October 31, 1998 Hussein decides to cease all forms of interaction with UNSCOM and its Chairman and to halt all UNSCOM’s activities inside Iraq, including monitoring. The Security Council, in a statement to the press, unanimously condemns this decision.
• On November 4, 1998, the Executive Chairman informs the Council that, as a result of Iraq’s actions, the Commission is not in a position to provide the Council with any level of assurance of Iraq’s compliance with its obligations not to retain and not to reestablish proscribed activities.
• On November 5, 1998, the UN Security Council passes Resolution 1205, unanimously condemns Iraq’s actions and demands that Iraq rescind immediately and unconditionally its decisions of 31 October and 5 August.
• On November 10, 1998, the Executive Chairman decides to remove all of the UNSCOM personnel from Iraq.
• On November 11, 1998, the entire UNSCOM contingent withdraws to Bahrain.
• On December 17, 1999, UN Security Council Resolution 1284 establishes the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) for the purpose of disarming Iraq of its Weapons of Mass Destruction, and to ensure Iraq’s compliance with its obligations not to reacquire the same weapons prohibited to it by the Security Council.
• In 2001, the IMK merges with Abu Abdallah al-Shafii’s Jund al-Islam to form Ansar al Islam.
• In 2002, Hussein agrees to let UN inspectors return, but he fails to cooperate fully with the UN-inspectors.
• In June, 2002 Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi joins Ansar al-Islam forces in northern Iraq.
• On November 8, 2002, the UN Security Council unanimously passes Resolution 1441, which states that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms of UN Resolution 687. Iraq’s breaches related not only to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, and the purchase and import of prohibited armaments.
• On March 30, 2003, Operation Iraqi Freedom commences.
• In July, 2003, Saddam’s sons Uday and Qusay Hussein are cornered in a Mosul house and perish in a lengthy firefight.
• In December, 2003, Saddam is captured while hiding in a “spider hole” beneath a farmhouse porch in ad-Dawr, near Tikrit.
• In June, 2004, Saddam is handed over to the Iraqi Government to stand trial for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
• On November 5, 2006, an Iraqi court found Hussein guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to death by hanging.
• On December 30, 2006, at 6:10 a.m. Arabic Standard Time, Saddam Hussein executed by hanging.
You contend that “Hussein ruled with an iron fist because he had to…” that “in a nation rife with ancient tribal rivalries, competing religious ideologies and Kurdish nationalism, Saddam Hussein was able to accomplish everything that we are now struggling to do…” In these statements is the conceit that the peoples Iraq are so different, so divided that only a brutal tyrant could govern. This notion flatly contradicts the proof that is the melting pot of the U.S.
Iraq is 97% Muslim.
Iraq is 60%-65% Shi’a Muslim and 32%-37% Sunni Muslim.
Sunni Muslims are theologically more akin to Whahhabism than their Shi’a counterparts. Whahhabism is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia.
Iraq’s government is made up of United Iraqi Alliance (Shi’a, 41.2% of seats), the Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan (Kurd, 21.7 %), the Iraq Accord Front (Sunni, 15.1%), and the Iraqi National List (Shi’a & Sunni secularist/communist, 8%), and other alliances and parties.
Saddam Hussein was a born in Tikrit, the northern point of the Sunni Triangle. While Hussein (and the Baath Party generally) was secularist, his affinity for Sunni Muslims is clear based on the targets of his crimes against humanity: Shi’a Muslims, Kurds, Iraqi Turks, and other non-Sunni groups.
Saddam was executed at Camp Al-Adala (a.k.a. “Camp Justice”), an Iraqi army base in Kadhimiya, a neighborhood of northeast Baghdad.
Saddam was taunted by one or more present at the execution who yelled the name “Muqtada” (Muqtada al-Sadr), the name of a prominent Shi’a religious leader.
Political pundits like Chris Matthews have jumped all over this, claiming Saddam’s execution is proof, among other things, that the U.S. now finds itself inexorably associated with the Shi’a Muslims of Iraq, a misguided observation designed to exacerbate the world’s problems with an essentially Shi’a Iran.
That, my friends, is Bulls**t.
Contrary to suggestions by Matthews and others, Camp Al-Adala, the military base on which Saddam Hussein was executed, is an Iraqi military base, not a U.S. military base.
The majority of people in Iraq, as reflected by Iraq’s freely elected government, are Shi’a. Hence, it can be a surprise to no one there were Shi’a present at Hussein’s execution.
Hussein killed tens of thousands of Shi’a. Hence, it can be no surprise there were Shi’a present at the execution who were happy to see Saddam swing.
Saddam’s execution is no proof of a U.S. association with Iraqi’s Shi’a population, as Matthews suggests. If anything, Saddam’s execution is proof of the population makeup of Iraq, and through democracy, proof of the makeup of a freely elected Iraqi government.
What is it that permits Americans like Matthews to judge an event like Saddam’s execution through the prism of American partisan politics? I submit it is a myopic hubris, a viewpoint that America, as represented by damn near anyone with a social security number, but more specifically, President Bush, was, is, and shall always be wrong for confronting a disturbing form of Pan-Arabic Nationalism that defies every precept of the United States Constitution.
One piece of evidence that the U.S. has had a positive effect on the Iraqi people is that when an Iraqi Court found Saddam guilty of crimes against humanity last November 5th, there wasn’t a gaggle of baklava hooded men with AK-47s and swords ready to drag Hussein into a Baghdad for beheading.
The seeds of Iraqi freedom will germinate at a rate that only people who filter their world view through the dirty underwear of U.S. partisan politics find too slow.
Cheers,
It is amazing that there are still extreme views with respect to Iraq when two things are absolutely true: 1) Sadam was an evil guy, who ruled effectively because of his brutual suppression of opposition. 2) The US was duped into attacking Sadam by the Iraqi National Congress; an organization that was led by an Iranian agent. Both sides make good points, but the truth, as is almost always is the case, is somewhere in the middle.
Aside from reckess G’s errant understanding of International Law (there are, in fact, many legal reasons for going to war), he is largely correct in charecterizing the ancient sectarian rivalries that have described the land that is Iraq; the conflict between Sunni and Shiite is centuries old and usually without any compromise and only minimal tolerance. To rule effectively in Iraq, it may be that one must rule like a Sadam. I am confident that as the US withdraws, we will see the Shiite majority rule with cruelty equal to that of Sadam.
Of course this does not mean that Sadam’s execution was not just, it almost certainly was; he was an evil guy. The US facilitated the regime change, the US ensured a trial, and the US provided the security for Sadam while in prison and right up to his execution; but this doesn’t mean that his conviction and execution were not the will of the Iraqi government, they were.
However, it is almost certain that the new government will rule with an equally strong fist to suppress the oppostion it faces. There is no bipartisanism, there is no religious freedom or tolerance. It is a different world over there and the nature of effective rule is what it is.
We can only hope that the US is not fooled into participating in the next regime change. The US decision to go to war against Sadam will be characterized by the histroy books as one of the greatest intelligence coups ever; props to Iran. It does not please me to recognize this, but the evidence is very clear now (I am sure the polygraphs continue by the FBI to confirm the sources of intel that went from the US to the Iraqi National Congress – Iran -, but there are very highly placed people in the Pentagon who, along with the CIA, were absolute stooges).
Mitch holds up the US as an example of a tolerant mixing pot that could be emulated in Iraq. Well, that would be nice, but it just isn’t going to happen. There are too many factors that make Iraq different from the US; the predominant role of competing religions is just one major factor, but there are many others. To think that we could impose an effective democracy there is folly; democracy is a privilege, not a right, that has to be earned by certain achievements and enlightenments.
Assuming that the Democrats can downsize our role Iraq, I think the best we can hope for is nothing like a Western democracy, it is more like anconcerted effort within Islam to heal itself – and lets hope they don’t just mask the symptoms by unifying in war against the non-muslims. Although the outcome of that war might be a good and longlasting one.
It is amazing that there are still extreme views with respect to Iraq when two things are absolutely true: 1) Sadam was an evil guy, who ruled effectively because of his brutual suppression of opposition. 2) The US was duped into attacking Sadam by the Iraqi National Congress; an organization that was led by an Iranian agent. Both sides make good points, but the truth, as is almost always is the case, is somewhere in the middle.
Aside from reckess G’s errant understanding of International Law (there are, in fact, many legal reasons for going to war), he is largely correct in charecterizing the ancient sectarian rivalries that have described the land that is Iraq; the conflict between Sunni and Shiite is centuries old and usually without any compromise and only minimal tolerance. To rule effectively in Iraq, it may be that one must rule like a Sadam. I am confident that as the US withdraws, we will see the Shiite majority rule with cruelty equal to that of Sadam.
Of course this does not mean that Sadam’s execution was not just, it almost certainly was; he was an evil guy. The US facilitated the regime change, the US ensured a trial, and the US provided the security for Sadam while in prison and right up to his execution; but this doesn’t mean that his conviction and execution were not the will of the Iraqi government, they were.
However, it is almost certain that the new government will rule with an equally strong fist to suppress the oppostion it faces. There is no bipartisanism, there is no religious freedom or tolerance. It is a different world over there and the nature of effective rule is what it is.
We can only hope that the US is not fooled into participating in the next regime change. The US decision to go to war against Sadam will be characterized by the histroy books as one of the greatest intelligence coups ever; props to Iran. It does not please me to recognize this, but the evidence is very clear now (I am sure the polygraphs continue by the FBI to confirm the sources of intel that went from the US to the Iraqi National Congress – Iran -, but there are very highly placed people in the Pentagon who, along with the CIA, were absolute stooges).
Mitch holds up the US as an example of a tolerant mixing pot that could be emulated in Iraq. Well, that would be nice, but it just isn’t going to happen. There are too many factors that make Iraq different from the US; the predominant role of competing religions is just one major factor, but there are many others. To think that we could impose an effective democracy there is folly; democracy is a privilege, not a right, that has to be earned by certain achievements and enlightenments.
Assuming that the Democrats can downsize our role Iraq, I think the best we can hope for is nothing like a Western democracy, it is more like anconcerted effort within Islam to heal itself – and lets hope they don’t just mask the symptoms by unifying in war against the non-muslims. Although the outcome of that war might be a good and longlasting one.
[Mitch holds up the US as an example of a tolerant mixing pot that could be emulated in Iraq...]
That’s putting words in my mouth, but I won’t let that detract from a great comment… thanks, suferdude.
The point to which I think you allude was and is that I tire of those who say the fracture among the Iraqi peoples is so great that only a brutal dictator could rule. I think the exact opposite is true, that one of the central traits of human nature is the desire to be free…
Your point that democracy is earned couldn’t have been better stated. No doubt the measures taken by the US amount to a square-peg-through-the-round-hole trick. Were partisan debate able to limit itself to a preferred action, I’d be fine with that. My larger point is, of course, this has never been and likely never will be the central question in this debate. And that, perhaps more than anything else, makes failure in this struggle a very real possibility.
Cheers,
[Mitch holds up the US as an example of a tolerant mixing pot that could be emulated in Iraq...]
That’s putting words in my mouth, but I won’t let that detract from a great comment… thanks, suferdude.
The point to which I think you allude was and is that I tire of those who say the fracture among the Iraqi peoples is so great that only a brutal dictator could rule. I think the exact opposite is true, that one of the central traits of human nature is the desire to be free…
Your point that democracy is earned couldn’t have been better stated. No doubt the measures taken by the US amount to a square-peg-through-the-round-hole trick. Were partisan debate able to limit itself to a preferred action, I’d be fine with that. My larger point is, of course, this has never been and likely never will be the central question in this debate. And that, perhaps more than anything else, makes failure in this struggle a very real possibility.
Cheers,
Mitch writes; “the fracture among the Iraqi peoples is so great that only a brutal dictator could rule. I think the exact opposite is true, that one of the central traits of human nature is the desire to be free…”
True, but freedom means something different to most Muslims than what Americans think of. To moderate Middle East Muslims, as with moderate Americans, freedom means personal choice. To Shia, as with Fundamentalist Christian Americans, freedom means being able to influence government policy toward their own belief system. In Iraq, the Sunni want the rule of law, as they had under Saddam. The Shia want Sharia Law which they were denied under Saddam. So which freedom are we bringing to Iraq?
Unless you understand the struggle between Sunni and Shia that has been going on for hundreds of years, you can’t begin to understand what is going on in Iraq right now. And there is another factor; tribalism. Traditionally Arab cultures have been ruled by tyrants, called Sheiks. The strongest Sheik ruled the region, and by strongest I mean most brutal, willing to kill the enemy as well as their wives and children. That is the culture that until less than a hundred years ago was dominant in the region.
So in many ways, they are not like us. And to approach the problems in Iraq with the same mentality we have here in America is to invite failure.
Mitch writes; “the fracture among the Iraqi peoples is so great that only a brutal dictator could rule. I think the exact opposite is true, that one of the central traits of human nature is the desire to be free…”
True, but freedom means something different to most Muslims than what Americans think of. To moderate Middle East Muslims, as with moderate Americans, freedom means personal choice. To Shia, as with Fundamentalist Christian Americans, freedom means being able to influence government policy toward their own belief system. In Iraq, the Sunni want the rule of law, as they had under Saddam. The Shia want Sharia Law which they were denied under Saddam. So which freedom are we bringing to Iraq?
Unless you understand the struggle between Sunni and Shia that has been going on for hundreds of years, you can’t begin to understand what is going on in Iraq right now. And there is another factor; tribalism. Traditionally Arab cultures have been ruled by tyrants, called Sheiks. The strongest Sheik ruled the region, and by strongest I mean most brutal, willing to kill the enemy as well as their wives and children. That is the culture that until less than a hundred years ago was dominant in the region.
So in many ways, they are not like us. And to approach the problems in Iraq with the same mentality we have here in America is to invite failure.
[So which freedom are we bringing to Iraq?]
I don’t think this is a matter of choosing one of two freedoms, nor did the Iraqi people who framed Iraq’s Constitution:
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101201450.html)
Saddam’s Iraq was essentially secular. His Baathist beliefs combined Arab Socialism, nationalism, and Pan Arabism—hence the Baathist motto “Unity, Freedom, Socialism.”
This may begin to explain why the Iraqi framers emphasized the rule of law:
“We the people of Iraq, newly arisen from our disasters and looking with confidence to the future through a democratic, federal, republican system, are determined — men and women, old and young — to respect the rule of law, reject the policy of aggression, pay attention to women and their rights, the elderly and their cares, the children and their affairs, spread the culture of diversity and defuse terrorism.”
Nowhere in the Constitution of Iraq does the word “Sharia” appear. Doesn’t this at least raise the possibility of a third alternative that does not exacerbate the age old antagonism between Shi’a and Sunni?
Cheers,
[So which freedom are we bringing to Iraq?]
I don’t think this is a matter of choosing one of two freedoms, nor did the Iraqi people who framed Iraq’s Constitution:
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101201450.html)
Saddam’s Iraq was essentially secular. His Baathist beliefs combined Arab Socialism, nationalism, and Pan Arabism—hence the Baathist motto “Unity, Freedom, Socialism.”
This may begin to explain why the Iraqi framers emphasized the rule of law:
“We the people of Iraq, newly arisen from our disasters and looking with confidence to the future through a democratic, federal, republican system, are determined — men and women, old and young — to respect the rule of law, reject the policy of aggression, pay attention to women and their rights, the elderly and their cares, the children and their affairs, spread the culture of diversity and defuse terrorism.”
Nowhere in the Constitution of Iraq does the word “Sharia” appear. Doesn’t this at least raise the possibility of a third alternative that does not exacerbate the age old antagonism between Shi’a and Sunni?
Cheers,
The third alternative, of course would be the most desirable, to America as well as moderate Iraqis. Unfortunately most of the moderates have fled Iraq, and its fate will now be left to “the age old antagonism between Shi’a and Sunni.”
The constitution was framed by Sunni, Shia, and Kurd with guidance from America, and since only a constitution framed thusly was acceptable to America, it was adopted. Democracy and a constitution can only stand when the people participate and willingly support it. That doesn’t seem to be the case in Iraq.
Without the support of our military might, that government will crumble, the constitution will be burned and whoever wins the sectarian war will rule Iraq. Since the majority are Shia, they will inevitably prevail and Sharia Law is probably just around the corner. At least if Muqtada al Sadr has anything to say about it.
The third alternative, of course would be the most desirable, to America as well as moderate Iraqis. Unfortunately most of the moderates have fled Iraq, and its fate will now be left to “the age old antagonism between Shi’a and Sunni.”
The constitution was framed by Sunni, Shia, and Kurd with guidance from America, and since only a constitution framed thusly was acceptable to America, it was adopted. Democracy and a constitution can only stand when the people participate and willingly support it. That doesn’t seem to be the case in Iraq.
Without the support of our military might, that government will crumble, the constitution will be burned and whoever wins the sectarian war will rule Iraq. Since the majority are Shia, they will inevitably prevail and Sharia Law is probably just around the corner. At least if Muqtada al Sadr has anything to say about it.
In that comment, your words sound prophetic:
[…that government will crumble, the constitution will be burned and whoever wins the sectarian war will rule Iraq. Since the majority are Shia, they will inevitably prevail and Sharia Law is probably just around the corner. At least if Muqtada al Sadr has anything to say about it.]
“[Shi’a] in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in [their] religious, political, and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger and annihilating death at the hands of these Sabeans. Despite their weakness and fragmentation, the Sunnis are the sharpest blades, the most determined, and the most loyal when they meet those Batinis [Shi`a], who are a people of treachery and cowardice. They are arrogant only with the weak and can attack only the broken-winged. Most of the Sunnis are aware of the danger of these people, watch their sides, and fear the consequences of empowering them. Were it not for the enfeebled Sufi shaykhs and [Muslim] Brothers, people would have told a different tale.”
~from a letter reputed to have been written by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to Osama bin Laden, c. February, 2004
Sectarian war is, or was, al Zarqawi’s recipe for success in Iraq.
While I’ve got that letter open, did you ever wonder what al Zarqawi had to say about Americans?
“These, as you know, are the most cowardly of God’s creatures. They are an easy quarry, praise be to God. We ask God to enable us to kill and capture them to sow panic among those behind them and to trade them for our detained shaykhs and brothers.”
~from a letter reputed to have been written by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to Osama bin Laden, c. February, 2004
Cheers,
In that comment, your words sound prophetic:
[…that government will crumble, the constitution will be burned and whoever wins the sectarian war will rule Iraq. Since the majority are Shia, they will inevitably prevail and Sharia Law is probably just around the corner. At least if Muqtada al Sadr has anything to say about it.]
“[Shi’a] in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in [their] religious, political, and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger and annihilating death at the hands of these Sabeans. Despite their weakness and fragmentation, the Sunnis are the sharpest blades, the most determined, and the most loyal when they meet those Batinis [Shi`a], who are a people of treachery and cowardice. They are arrogant only with the weak and can attack only the broken-winged. Most of the Sunnis are aware of the danger of these people, watch their sides, and fear the consequences of empowering them. Were it not for the enfeebled Sufi shaykhs and [Muslim] Brothers, people would have told a different tale.”
~from a letter reputed to have been written by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to Osama bin Laden, c. February, 2004
Sectarian war is, or was, al Zarqawi’s recipe for success in Iraq.
While I’ve got that letter open, did you ever wonder what al Zarqawi had to say about Americans?
“These, as you know, are the most cowardly of God’s creatures. They are an easy quarry, praise be to God. We ask God to enable us to kill and capture them to sow panic among those behind them and to trade them for our detained shaykhs and brothers.”
~from a letter reputed to have been written by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to Osama bin Laden, c. February, 2004
Cheers,
Great discussion guys….
Reckless, you don’t know how right you are with your statement “So in many ways, they are not like us. And to approach the problems in Iraq with the same mentality we have here in America is to invite failure.”
This attitude and policy of the state department has continually resulted in failure in countries all over the world. When are people going to understand that people around the world have beliefs, cultures, and values that are far different then us. This attitude of “Make the world American” didn’t work for the British during their attempts at the same thing. Some countries function best under a dictator pure and simple. If we want change, then stage a coup, and put in your guy…all behind the scenes. I mean we might as well get our tax dollars out of the CIA, they sure as hell aren’t gathering any worthwhile intel…
and Mulhall, I am glad that you bought up in your last comment the idea that the US appears weak in the eyes of most of our enemies. Our willingness to make nice is regarded as a weakness in their culture, they respect only one thing, strength and power, if that isn’t obvious, I don’t know what is.
Things in this region will only get worse, but don’t worry it will turn out fine; “It said to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, “Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates.” And the four angels who had been kept ready for this very hour and day and month and year were released to kill a third of mankind.” (Revelation 9:14-15)
Great discussion guys….
Reckless, you don’t know how right you are with your statement “So in many ways, they are not like us. And to approach the problems in Iraq with the same mentality we have here in America is to invite failure.”
This attitude and policy of the state department has continually resulted in failure in countries all over the world. When are people going to understand that people around the world have beliefs, cultures, and values that are far different then us. This attitude of “Make the world American” didn’t work for the British during their attempts at the same thing. Some countries function best under a dictator pure and simple. If we want change, then stage a coup, and put in your guy…all behind the scenes. I mean we might as well get our tax dollars out of the CIA, they sure as hell aren’t gathering any worthwhile intel…
and Mulhall, I am glad that you bought up in your last comment the idea that the US appears weak in the eyes of most of our enemies. Our willingness to make nice is regarded as a weakness in their culture, they respect only one thing, strength and power, if that isn’t obvious, I don’t know what is.
Things in this region will only get worse, but don’t worry it will turn out fine; “It said to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, “Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates.” And the four angels who had been kept ready for this very hour and day and month and year were released to kill a third of mankind.” (Revelation 9:14-15)
Wow, that’s heavy.
I’m not enough of a biblical scholar to interpret this passage in Revelation, but as I was drew a parallel between reckless G’s point and al Zarqawi’s plan for jihad in Mesopotamia, I was struck by this passage:
“They are arrogant only with the weak and can attack only the broken-winged. Most of the Sunnis are aware of the danger of these people, watch their sides, and fear the consequences of empowering them. Were it not for the enfeebled Sufi shaykhs and [Muslim] Brothers, people would have told a different tale.”
~Abu Musab al Zarqawi
Doesn’t that passage remind you of this one?
“…He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you! ”
~Louis Tully, Ghostbusters
Cheers,
Wow, that’s heavy.
I’m not enough of a biblical scholar to interpret this passage in Revelation, but as I was drew a parallel between reckless G’s point and al Zarqawi’s plan for jihad in Mesopotamia, I was struck by this passage:
“They are arrogant only with the weak and can attack only the broken-winged. Most of the Sunnis are aware of the danger of these people, watch their sides, and fear the consequences of empowering them. Were it not for the enfeebled Sufi shaykhs and [Muslim] Brothers, people would have told a different tale.”
~Abu Musab al Zarqawi
Doesn’t that passage remind you of this one?
“…He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you! ”
~Louis Tully, Ghostbusters
Cheers,
Heh, heh, Ghostbusters as Revelation…I like it. Well if the world doesn’t end any time soon, the problem of Iraq will remain for some time, but since it has been invaded countless times before, by many foreign people, Americans, British and Turks to name only the last few, (and don’t forget Christian Crusaders), and has always recovered and thrived, I have no doubt this little US military adventure will not hinder Iraq in the long run, (though the borders may be redrawn to accommodate Kurds, Shia and Sunni). The real question is what it will do to America. Looking at examples of imperialism in the past; Egypt, Rome, England, Spain, etc.) I’d say it’s going to bankrupt us bigtime and cause a major rethinking of our foreign policies. Maybe not a bad thing for the world in general. Too bad ordinary Iraqis (like the woman who wrote the letter above) have to suffer through our learning curve.
Heh, heh, Ghostbusters as Revelation…I like it. Well if the world doesn’t end any time soon, the problem of Iraq will remain for some time, but since it has been invaded countless times before, by many foreign people, Americans, British and Turks to name only the last few, (and don’t forget Christian Crusaders), and has always recovered and thrived, I have no doubt this little US military adventure will not hinder Iraq in the long run, (though the borders may be redrawn to accommodate Kurds, Shia and Sunni). The real question is what it will do to America. Looking at examples of imperialism in the past; Egypt, Rome, England, Spain, etc.) I’d say it’s going to bankrupt us bigtime and cause a major rethinking of our foreign policies. Maybe not a bad thing for the world in general. Too bad ordinary Iraqis (like the woman who wrote the letter above) have to suffer through our learning curve.
[Heh, heh, Ghostbusters as Revelation…I like it.]
That’s not the parallel I drew, but if you found it amusing… great.
[I’d say it’s going to bankrupt us bigtime and cause a major rethinking of our foreign policies...]
reckless G–you continue to be eerily prophetic, er, sibylline, in your comments. US insolvency, I contend, is the un-stated objective of bin Laden and al Zawahiri. Don’t make the mistake of thinking bin Laden’s design for the Middle East is limited in any way to Iraq… bin Laden and al Zawahiri probably think al Qaeda and the Afghani Mujahideen were collectively responsible for the demise of the Soviet Union in the late 80s.
That said, I find your characterization of the US in this struggle as some kind of “white man’s burden” about as ingenuous as US political leaders who stood behind McCain’s call for more troops at the beginning of the war condemning the idea of troop surge now…
Cheers,
[Heh, heh, Ghostbusters as Revelation…I like it.]
That’s not the parallel I drew, but if you found it amusing… great.
[I’d say it’s going to bankrupt us bigtime and cause a major rethinking of our foreign policies...]
reckless G–you continue to be eerily prophetic, er, sibylline, in your comments. US insolvency, I contend, is the un-stated objective of bin Laden and al Zawahiri. Don’t make the mistake of thinking bin Laden’s design for the Middle East is limited in any way to Iraq… bin Laden and al Zawahiri probably think al Qaeda and the Afghani Mujahideen were collectively responsible for the demise of the Soviet Union in the late 80s.
That said, I find your characterization of the US in this struggle as some kind of “white man’s burden” about as ingenuous as US political leaders who stood behind McCain’s call for more troops at the beginning of the war condemning the idea of troop surge now…
Cheers,