Author: calimero

Iraq: things you won't hear in the news [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 4

Post time 2004-5-1 19:54:09 |Display all floors

I've read the letter to Blair...

AND I've looked deep, deep, into saddam's eyes, I did not like what I saw. I was horrified, to tell you the truth. I looked deep into his eyes and saw a strange lueur I thought only HITLER had ...

I tend to think the goals of the US and that of the Iraqi / Afghani people coalesced.

What would've happened had the US NOT invaded Iraq, I ask you...?

The previous strategy the US employed, the economic embargo, killed more people than saddam could've accomplished with his best efforts.

So what to do?

It was a no win situation...

How many people have now died?

10,000-15,000? (suggested in the letter to Blair)


How many died a premature death in the previous ten years, during the economic embargo?

How many died a premature death because of the Ba'aath regime was in power, the last 35 years?

How many would've died in the coming 10 years?

How many will now die in the coming 10 years?

Untill the voilence escalated a few months ago, the number of deaths weekly, during the occupation, was lower than the number of deaths during saddam's regime!

What percentage of the Iraqi population is happy Saddam is now gone?

Do you know?

I don't! (why is that?)

The Baath regime was holding captive an entire nation!

I don't care what reasons the US sought or has in invading Iraq. All I care about is that now the Baath regime is gone, and it'll take SOME time in coming back. Or any totalitarian regime that maybe like to take it's place...

I don't care Iraq did not have WMD. the baath regime was oppressing an entire nation!

I don't care for anything except the Iraqi people, I couldn't care less if the US only went in for the oil, I don't care if Bush went in because of some religious belief of his. I don't care Bush's grandfather had something to do with the Nazi's!

Maybe the UN should've acted, yes! Maybe the UN should've acted! Maybe baby Bush and the hawks should've tried more to try to get the UN to act...

They should've.

Yes, they should...

But they haven't...

I've listened to Villepin, France's foreign minister, in the security council, never believed him, no, not for a second.

I've listened to Jack Straw, Britian's foreign minister, never believed him, no, not for a second.

I've listened to Collin Powell, never believed him, no, not for a second.

I've listened to Blair and Bush, those two are just to laughable to take seriously...

Each has his motives. The only motive I have, and you have, is deciding what was, is, best for the Iraqi people...

So, was it better the US not invade Iraq and leave the baath party in power, for another 10 years?

Or was it better what now is happening: 10,000-20,000 deaths and no more Saddam, no more oppression of millions of Iraqi's and no longer a totalitarian regime, for a while to come...

And how to proceed from here...?

That's a difficult one...

One thing's for sure, vote bush!

how to proceed from here?

Some diplomats think they know...

From the  yapchongyee post in the US-sino section:


Protest Letter of 52 British Former Diplomats to Blair on Iraq Policy

The letter is worth reading in full, and probably it is also worth googling the signatories. It is extraordinary how terrified these experienced diplomats are, and amazing that these men who spent a lifetime practicing discretion would now speak out. I understand that the British special envoy in Iraq, Jeremy Greenstock himself, agreed with the substance but declined to sign because he was too close to the action. This letter is canary in the mine material, and should alarm everyone concerned with the situation in Iraq. They clearly are afraid that the 7500 British troops and administrators in Iraq are in severe danger from Bush/Blair policies, and that Israeli Prime Minister Sharon's policy of "negotiation by murder" has the potential to set the whole region aflame, just as, in some ways, it already has Fallujah.

Dear Prime Minister,

We the undersigned former British ambassadors, high commissioners, governors and senior international officials, including some who have long experience of the Middle East and others whose experience is elsewhere, have watched with deepening concern the policies which you have followed on the Arab-Israel problem and Iraq, in close co-operation with the United States. Following the press conference in Washington at which you and President Bush restated these policies, we feel the time has come to make our anxieties public, in the hope that they will be addressed in Parliament and will lead to a fundamental reassessment.

The decision by the USA, the EU, Russia and the UN to launch a "Road Map" for the settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict raised hopes that the major powers would at last make a determined and collective effort to resolve a problem which, more than any other, has for decades poisoned relations between the West and the Islamic and Arab worlds. The legal and political principles on which such a settlement would be based were well established; President Clinton had grappled with the problem during his Presidency; the ingredients needed for a settlement were well understood; and informal agreements on several of them had already been achieved. But the hopes were ill-founded. Nothing effective has been done either to move the negotiations forward or to curb the violence. Britain and the other sponsors of the Road Map merely waited on American leadership, but waited in vain.

Worse was to come. After all those wasted months, the international community has now been confronted with the announcement by Ariel Sharon and President Bush of new policies which are one-sided and illegal and which will cost yet more Israeli and Palestinian blood. Our dismay at this backward step is heightened by the fact that you yourself seem to have endorsed it, abandoning the principles which for nearly four decades have guided international efforts to restore peace in the Holy Land and which have been the basis for such successes as those efforts have produced.

This abandonment of principle comes at a time when rightly or wrongly we are portrayed throughout the Arab and Muslim world as partners in an illegal and brutal occupation in Iraq.

The conduct of the war in Iraq has made it clear that there was no effective plan for the post-Saddam settlement. All those with experience of the area predicted that the occupation of Iraq by the Coalition forces would meet serious and stubborn resistance, as has proved to be the case. To describe the resistance as led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor helpful. Policy must take account of the nature and history of Iraq, the most complex country in the region. However much Iraqis may yearn for a democratic society, the belief that one could now be created by the Coalition is naive. This is the view of virtually all independent specialists on the region, both in Britain and in America. We are glad to note that you and the President have welcomed the proposals outlined by Lakhdar Brahimi. We must be ready to provide what support he requests, and to give authority to the United Nations to work with the Iraqis themselves, including those who are now actively resisting the occupation, to clear up the mess.

The military actions of the Coalition forces must be guided by political objectives and by the requirements of the Iraq theatre itself, not by criteria remote from them. It is not good enough to say that the use of force is a matter for local commanders. Heavy weapons unsuited to the task in hand, inflammatory language, the current confrontations in Najaf and Falluja, all these have built up rather than isolated the opposition. The Iraqis killed by coalition forces probably total between ten and fifteen thousand (it is a disgrace that the Coalition forces themselves appear to have no estimate), and the number killed in the last month in Falluja alone is apparently several hundred including many civilian men, women and children. Phrases such as "We mourn each loss of life. We salute them, and their families for their bravery and their sacrifice", apparently referring only to those who have died on the Coalition side, are not well judged to moderate the passions these killings arouse.

We share your view that the British government has an interest in working as closely as possible with the United States on both these related issues, and in exerting real influence as a loyal ally. We believe that the need for such influence is now a matter of the highest urgency. If that is unacceptable or unwelcome there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure.

Yours faithfully,

Brian Barder
Paul Bergne
John Birch
David Blatherwick
Graham Boyce
Julian Bullard
Juliet Campbell
Bryan Cartledge
Terence Clark
David Colvin
Francis Cornish
James Craig
Brian Crowe
Basil Eastwood
Stephen Egerton
Dick Fyjis-Walker
William Fullerton
Marrack Goulding
John Graham
Andrew Green
Vic Henderson
Peter Hinchcliffe
Brian Hitch
Archie Lamb
David Logan
Christopher Long
Ivor Lucas
Ian McCluney
Maureen MacGlashan
Philip McLean
Christopher MacRae
Oliver Miles
Martin Morland
Keith Morris
Richard Muir
Alan Munro
Stephen Nash
Robin 0'Neill
Andrew Palmer
Bill Quantrill
David Ratford
Tom Richardson
Andrew Stuart
David Tatham
Crispin Tickell
Derek Tonkin
Charles Treadwell
Hugh Tunnell
Jeremy Varcoe
Hooky Walker
Michael Weir
Alan White

posted by Juan Cole at 4/27/2004 06:40:22 PM


Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2004-5-1 21:19:54 |Display all floors


vagabond wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>  Open your eyes and look at the furious fists upon those occupiers
Iraqis need security. Iraqis need peace. Iraqis need jobs and wealth just like what god endowed to other oil-rich countries.

They would never need street shootouts, car bombings, roadside bombs and city sieges, if their liberators had given them things above.

Your facts are biased and misleading. How can you ignore the expressions on these peoples' faces?  <<<<<<<<<<

REPLY: How can you ignore, vagabond, the hundreds of thousands of deaths ordered by the MADMAN and his regime? The soldiers you see here are not in the process of killing that little boy.

If Saddam, two years ago, would have visited the school his older brother goes to. And if this older brother would have done so much as laugh at Saddam Hussein, Saddam Hussein would have taken his gun from out his belt and he would have SHOT the older brother of this Child through the head.

The bullet would have gone into the front of his head and the brains of this little boy's older brother would have been splattered all over the floor and wall, vagabond.

The older brother of this child would then be very, very irrevocabally DEAD, vagabond!

My eyes are WIDE open, vagabond!

Did you not hear of the hundreds of thousands of Kurds the Baath regime EXTERMINATED in the eighties, vagabond?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2004-5-1 21:35:34 |Display all floors

The above is not to say...

That I approve of how the US and to a lesser extent, Britain, is conducting this after war policing. They are not being very friendly to the Iraqis. They do not talk enough with the Iraqi elders, and they are, on the whole, not prepared or trained for the job they are now faced with.

See also the letter by the British diplomats.

And see also the post by chairman demonstrating the moral decrepitude of some of the forces in Iraq.  

I, along with these british diplomats, think it is this poorly trained and morally abject force now in Iraq which poses the greatest danger to any postive result which might follow from the occupation.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email:
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.