« Bending it | Main | Vigilant Resolve »
January 30, 2005
Democracy in Iraq
Operation Iraqi Freedom revisited.
When President George Bush announced ten days ago that “the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands,” he drew upon a notion with deeper roots in the history of political thought than perhaps he was aware. This notion, the neo-roman theory of freedom, states that individual liberty is constrained not merely by force or the threat of it, but by “a condition of dependence”—which “is in itself a source and form of constraint.”1 That is to say that “it is the mere possibility of your being subjected with impunity to arbitrary coercion, not the fact of your being coerced, that takes away your liberty and reduces you to the condition of a slave.”2 It is accordingly only possible for an individual to be truly free in a free state. President Bush, by making “liberty in our land” dependent on “liberty in other lands,” internationalized this notion as he invoked it. The move was programmatic and prescriptive, but equally self-satisfied and retrospective—referring undoubtedly to the War on Terrorism and, specifically, the liberation of Iraq, which comes into being today with the first national elections in fifty years. Here we undertake only to examine the terms of this liberation in the language supplied by our president and our media.
An indelible moment
“An Indelible Moment,” is one among several hundred articles that have littered our collective imagination during the past weeks. Printed yesterday as expatriate ballots were cast, it is the Washington Post’s attempt to consummate the marriage of Iraqi-democracy.
There was much to reconcile, many mixed emotions. This moment had been purchased with a lot of blood. But even in the fog of war and the sadness of exile and the blindness of faith there are truths that cannot be denied, that everyone can agree upon. Hayder Alhamdani selected one of these simple, resonant truths for this moment.
“This,” he said quietly, “is the first time in my life.” He let go of his ballot. He cast his ballot.
All day yesterday, voters held up their purple fingers in triumph. It was a new victory sign, maybe someday a peace sign, they hoped. It befitted the low-tech, hands-on feel of this election—democracy at its most basic and emotionally powerful. Democracy had marked them, touched them physically, and they hoped it would last forever.3
In today’s Los Angeles Times, this story took the form of an Iraqi expatriate family’s interstate “drive for democracy,” while in the Boston Globe it is a “historic event.”4 The Baltimore Sun even exhorts Iraqis that “the moment has come to exercise your political freedom for the first time.”5
But the occasion is not only one of joy. Dahr Jamail reported to Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales only hours prior to the indelible moment that things in Baghdad was “a city under siege.”6
Well, there have been ongoing attacks on polling stations, just in the last 24 hours in Iraq. There’s been at least 15 people killed in attacks on polling stations as they’re being set up for Sunday's polling process. It's been very, very bloody here. Every day at least 15 Iraqis a day have been killed in the last, at least, four or five days at the minimum.
The official response has been the elimination of all non-official cell and satellite phone services, the banning of all civilian use of cars. Thus Dahr Jamail and Brian Dominick document the unease that surrounds the event.
“We are not against elections,” said Saif, an 18-year-old Shiite biology student at Baghdad University, “but we are against the timing of them. Look at the security,” he exclaimed...“I will not vote, nor will anyone I know.”7
Such views, incidentally, altogether contradict the principle championed by all US commercial news outlets that determine enthusiasm for the elections along unmistakable religious lines. The New York Times characteristically led the charge: “Every single Shiite interviewed for this article said he or she planned to vote...all the Sunnis interviewed, except one, said they were going to boycott.”8 Such assessments ignore the irony that this glorious, historic transition to democracy occurs under the conditions of martial law. Exercising political freedom is perhaps not as easy as it seems.
But what about the specifics of this exercise in political freedom? Dahr writes that “more than 7,000 candidates on the electoral lists have opted to remain anonymous prior to polling day.”
Even determining how many lists of candidates will actually appear on the January 30 ballot is an elusive task, with the Independent Commission originally reporting 83, the UN claiming 256 during a ceremonial ordering of the ballot on December 20, and the Iraqi Independent Commission spokesperson putting the number at 111 during the recent IRIN interview.9
Unsurprisingly, then, Abu Sabah, a grocery stall owner near the Karrada district of Baghdad, asks
Who says we should have elections for people we don't even know during occupation, martial law and in a war zone? And why vote when we're expected to vote for an entire list of candidates when we only know, if we're lucky, one or two of their names?10
He is not alone.
“I have seen the lists, and I don't know any of them,” said Mustafa, a 20-year-old physics student at Baghdad University. “I don't know if I'll vote yet because we don't know any of these people. I can't vote for someone I don't know.”11
Prof. Shawket Daoud, a computer science specialist who now works for the government, said uncertainty over polling booths and the fear of violence was not the only problem. ”Why vote when we don't even know who is running yet?”12
Nonetheless, the Washington Post tells us, “Democracy had marked them, touched them physically, and they hoped it would last forever.”
This is what democracy feels like
This is not to imply that news coverage of the elections has been devoid of its adversarial trademark. In the New York Times, scrutiny is directed at the notion that Iraqis are ready for democracy.
But questions over the election go far beyond the American stewardship, to issues that touch on whether it was ever wise or realistic to think that Jeffersonian-style democracy, with its elaborate checks on power and guarantees for minority rights, could be implanted, at least so rapidly, in a country and a region that has little experience with anything but winner-take-all politics.13
Our media elsewhere provided much to substantiate this, as the reporting of an American election worker shows.
There were a lot of misconceptions. I explained, for instance, that the majority rules, but minorities are protected. This is new to Iraqis. People who have been spoon-fed everything for many years have trouble knowing what freedom involves.14
Indeed, many Iraqis seem to have some trouble knowing what freedom involves.
“The elections cannot be legitimate because we are under occupation, so I will not be voting, nor will any of my friends,” said Layla Hamad, a Shiite shop owner.
“It's not a matter of elections, because those in power will stay in power,” commented Suhaid, a 23-year old Shiite who is an unemployed computer science engineer. “This is a big lie and the elections are illegitimate.”
Asked if he expected to vote, Saif promptly responded: “Even though the elections will happen, they will not be legitimate, and they will be a disaster. Anybody elected will be a puppet of Bush.”15
To understand “what freedom involves” let us first understand what it does not involve. The vote today is not a vote on how to manage and distribute the country’s vast resources, on how to go about bringing the occupying power to justice for unremitting war crimes, or even on whether to continue to host an army that continues to rape its lands and murder its citizens. “Democracy at its most basic and emotionally powerful,” as the Washington Post called it, instead means choosing from a list of unknown names. Following a narrated account that one is hard put to call anything other than pornographic, the Washington Post announces that “this is what democracy feels like.” Unfortunately, “what democracy feels like” to Iraqis during the rest of the day and night is the collective punishment essential to any occupation: curfews, restrictions on public gatherings, road blocks, razed agriculture, home demolitions, mass detentions.16
But these are all justifiably small considerations beside the emergence of democracy and its initiation of the constitutional processes. The New York Times is nonetheless quite right to write somewhat dubiously of implanted Jeffersonian checks on power in Iraq. For in 1984 it was also given assurances by the then US ambassador to Honduras that that country was “committed to the constitutional process.” In recent years, however, much has been said of the informal subversion of constitutional process there by state subsidized torture and death squads. Formal, too, were subversions of constitutional process. When Juan Almendares was reelected as President of the University of Honduras, for instance, his victory was challenged in court. He recounted in recent years how Justice José Benjamin Cisne Reyes of the Honduran Supreme Court took him aside, saying that the US ambassador “pressured us to annul your recent reelection as rector, giving the reason that you endanger the security of the state.” Mr. Reyes confessed that he and all of the other Supreme Court Justices had committed “this dishonest act” out of fear for his life and for the life of the Mr. Almendares.17 Mr. Almendares’ reelection was annulled and a critic of US policy was thereby removed from public life. The digression here is I think only apparent, for the US ambassador to Honduras then is today the US ambassador to Iraq. It is with justification, then, that the Baltimore Sun and New York Times suggest that Iraqis may not yet have the capacity to enact a “separation of powers, the rule of law and an independent judiciary, concepts that have been alien, or at least malleable, under the rulers Iraqis have known for centuries.”18
Before the law
On the same thread, let us turn from the possible subversions of the constitutional process (however probable) to the constitutional process itself, as embodied in the letter of the law. Surely this process, whose results will endure the subversions of the coming months and years, is worth their price; temporary coercions are a small cost to pay for freedom. The freedom to be delivered by the constitutional process is outlined by the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL). The initial step towards freedom will come in the form of the Iraqi Transitional Government (ITG) will be composed of a independent judiciary, the National Assembly (to be elected today), which will elect a three-person Presidency Council, which in turn appoints a Prime Minister and Council of Ministers. On behalf of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the senior intelligence analyst for Iraq at U.S. Central Command writes,
The ITG’s most important task in governance will be its efforts to restore security and stability in Iraq. As time goes on, the challenges involved in thwarting the insurgency will only increase. The struggle to establish competent Iraqi security forces will continue to be a critical task for the government.19
How diligently the ITG will execute the bidding of Washington is uncertain.
Within the ITG, the potential use of these forces could become controversial. Considering its dispersal of power and its checks and balances between various branches, the ITG will likely not be as decisive as the IIG has been. The role of Coalition forces in fighting the insurgency will be another key component of ITG debate. Many in Iraq’s political elite are probably uncomfortable with the Coalition’s strength and pervasive presence, despite the central role that Coalition forces play in maintaining security. Some of Iraq’s emerging political class may be vocal in advocating limits on Coalition activity or continued deployments inside Iraq—either as a matter of policy or as populist political theater.20
Iraqis, through the ITG, would seem to be given by the constitutional process the legal mandate to challenge the policies of its occupiers. However, “In the ITG, the judiciary will emerge as a prominent player in national politics.”
As the interpreter of the TAL, the judiciary occupies a potentially powerful position to intervene in the transition process. The supreme court, in particular, has the power to challenge virtually any decision that it believes to contravene the TAL. In deciding what legal questions it will examine, the court largely formulates its own rules. Rather than wait for formal legal complaints to wind their way through a hierarchical court system, the supreme court theoretically has broad authority to identify and act upon issues it deems relevant to the interpretation of the TAL. This sort of independence, and the ability to block legislative and executive actions, represents a new and unusual feature of Iraqi politics in general, and specifically for judges.21
The “ability to block legislative and executive actions,” it should go without saying, is legal answer to anything the National Assembly or its elected representatives might have to say about the war being waged by US army on the people of Iraq or anything else. Who are the members of the judiciary? Article 43(b) of the Transitional Administrative Law provides the answer.
All judges sitting in their respective courts as of 1 July 2004 will continue in office thereafter, unless removed from office pursuant to this Law.
The branch of government, then, that “independent voice” that “largely formulates its own rules” having unlimited “ability to block legislative and executive actions” is the same arm of justice that was installed by and administered the occupation by a foreign power. Among such “legislative and executive actions” are those that will have lasting effects.
An example of a potentially significant intervention is the court’s authority to “force” forward a failing constitutional drafting or ratification process. Such an independent authority did not exist during the negotiation and signing of the TAL, which was delayed for several days past its deadline when last-minute objections were raised and debated. The informality of the 15 November Agreement established no authorities and named no penalties for this delay. Under the TAL, however, supreme court judges faced with similar delays in drafting the permanent constitution would be duty-bound to trigger the painful provisions of dissolving the government and starting again.22
The effect should be clear: all legislation, including the constitution of the Iraqi state itself will be those acceptable to the occupying power. As President Bush indicated when he said that the fate of our freedom is contingent upon freedom abroad (implying that the mere possibility of unfreedom anywhere threatens freedom everywhere), the issue here is not decisive action on the part of the judiciary, but the possibility of such action. In other words, it may well come to be that in the next months and years, the judiciary will not exercise the extent of the power allotted to it. But the mere possibility of the exercise of such power, in the law, will provide a (US imposed) corrective effect upon the actions of the Iraqi Transitional Government, and all Iraqi governments thereafter. Arbitrary coercions thereby do not merely subvert the law; they are written into the law. One can only conclude that “the rule of law and an independent judiciary,” will in Iraq continue to be “concepts that have been alien”—which is to say imposed from the outside, by representatives of the United States of America.
Postscript: on criminal justice in Iraq at the present time
The fact remains that what has been said up to this point of the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) and the judicial provisions that it extends are removed from current, everyday realities in Iraq. Nonetheless, the indefinite extension of these provisions gives every indication that what is will be what remains. Whatever we can determine of criminal justice in Iraq up to the present time tells us, then, what is likely to remain. We begin with Dahr Jamail’s interview of Lilu Hammed late last May.
Sitting alone on the hard packed dirt in his white dishdasha, his head scarf languidly flapping in the dry, hot wind, Lilu Hammed stared unwaveringly at the high walls of the nearby prison as if he were attempting to see his 32 year-old son Abbas through the concrete walls. When my interpreter Abu Talat asked if he would speak with us, several seconds passed before Lilu slowly turned his head and said simply, “I am sitting here on the ground waiting for God's help.” His son, never charged with an offense, had by then been in Abu Ghraib for 6 months following a raid on his home which produced no weapons. Lilu held a crumpled visitation permission slip that he had just obtained, promising a reunion with his son…three months away, on the 18th of August. Along with every other person I interviewed there, Lilu had found consolation neither in the recent court martial, nor in the release of a few hundred prisoners. “This court-martial is nonsense. They said that Iraqis could come to the trial, but they could not. It was a false trial.”24
An ACLU press release this past Monday indicates that any torture that Lilu Hammed’s son may have encountered—let alone the detention which made him vulnerable to torture—has been systematically abandoned and uninvestigated by US army authorities.23 Torture in the report is characterized “as acceptable practice” if not “standard operating procedure.” A ninety-four page Human Rights Watch Report published the next day investigated the functioning of Iraqi institutions of criminal justice. It found
The systematic use of arbitrary arrest, prolonged pre-trial detention without judicial review, torture and ill-treatment of detainees, denial of access by families and lawyers to detainees, improper treatment of detained children, and abysmal conditions in pre-trial detention facilities.25
The report indicates that the prolonged detention of Lilu Hammed’s son is not the exception the Iraqi Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), which requires a defendant to be brought before an investigating judge within twenty-four hours of his or her arrest; rather, such prolonged detentions constitute “the vast majority” of cases. This is in contradiction to the TAL, which stipulates that all Iraqi citizens are equal before the law, and that their rights to freedom from arbitrary arrest, unlawful detention, unfair trials, and torture are protected by law. Human Rights Watch adds that “there are a number of protections in the CCP that, if implemented, would contribute to the better protection of persons deprived of their liberty.” The failure to implement such laws—again, the rule rather than the exception—tells something of the judicial institutions charged with this task. According to Human Rights Watch, this rule of lawlessness has been used to target local journalists and members of rival political parties. The following testimony, taken from Ali, a 29 year-old suspected dissident, typifies that which comprises the report.
When we entered the headquarters, the [Iraqi] officer told us to kneel before him. We were hit on the back of our necks with a rifle butt. Then they took us upstairs to the first floor and told us to face the wall and began beating us severely. The Americans were there, standing some five or six meters away. They just stood and watched. I was beaten with a wooden stick on my forehead, and all of us were beaten over the body with cables and hosepipes. That happened even before the interrogation had begun.
Then they put us in a cell measuring three by four meters. Altogether we were sixty-three in that room, all crammed together. Some of the others in the cell had also been tortured. One of them, a farmer from al-Najaf called Khalid, had had his fingernails extracted and on of his arms broken. Most were adults but there were also several children, between fifteen and seventeen [years old]. We were given no food for the first day and a half. The guards told us if we wanted to eat we would have to buy our own food.
When a formal complaint was recently lodged in response to one such interrogation, Chief Investigative Judge Zuhair al-Maliki issued a series of summons requiring several officials to appear in court to answer questions relating to the arrests.
The Ministry of Interior’s legal spokesperson, the Minister of Interior Falah al-Naqib, and the Iraqi National Intelligence Service director, Major General Muhammad Abdullah al-Shahwani, did not answer summons issued to them. On October 18, 2004, Judge Zuhair al-Maliki was removed from his post as the Central Criminal Court’s chief investigative judge and transferred to another post.
Such is the political process out of which today, quietly, democracy was born in Iraq.
(1) Liberty before Liberalism, Quentin Skinner, p. 84.
(2) Ibid., p. 72, emphasis mine.
(3) “An Indelible Moment,” Washington Post, David Montgomery, January 29, 2005.
(4) “For many expatriates, casting ballots brings jubilation, expectations,” Boston Globe, Suleiman al-Khalidi, January 29, 2005.
(5) “First Steps Toward Democracy,” Baltimore Sun, Jonathan Pitts, January 29, 2005.
(6) “Heavy Bloodshed in Iraq Only Expected to Worsen on Election Day,” Democracy Now! Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzales, and Dahr Jamail, January 28th, 2005.
(7) “Iraqis Discuss Voting, Or Not, in Elections Held Amidst Chaos,” The NewsStandard, Dahr Jamail and Brian Dominick, January 18, 2005
(8) “As Election Nears, Iraqis Remain Sharply Divided on Its Value,” New York Times, Jeffrey Gettleman, January 23. Jassim, a grocery store owner in the district of Khadimiya, responds that “it is only the political parties that are using this talk. And it seems as though there are those who would like to cause a divide. But it will never happen, because we have never had this divide,” in “What Iraqis Think of the Elections,” Islam Online, Dahr Jamail, January 25, 2005.
(9) “Iraqis Discuss Voting, Or Not, in Elections Held Amidst Chaos,” Jamail and Dominick.
(10) Ibid.
(11) Ibid.
(12) “Vote Where, How, and for Whom?” Inter Press Service, Dahr Jamail, January 26, 2005.
(13) “The Vote, and Democracy Itself, Leave Anxious Iraqis Divided,” New York Times, John Burns, January 30, 2005.
(14) “First Steps Toward Democracy,” Baltimore Sun, Jonathan Pitts, January 29, 2005.
(15) “Iraqis Discuss Voting, Or Not, in Elections Held Amidst Chaos,” Jamail and Dominick.
(16) “I don’t know why I was arrested,” explained Ahmed, a 38 year-old farmer, who discussed his journey through the military detention system for 10 months that began during a home raid on August 13th, 2003, and which found him experiencing treatment like having mock executions, being bound and having his head covered for days on end, and being held at a camp near Basra in the scorching summer temperatures. “At that camp they hung a sign where we stated that said, The Zoo,” he explained. He claims that his home and fields were searched and no weapons were found. During his detention he witnessed the sexual humiliation of fellow prisoners and regular beatings, “Collective Punishment,” Dahr Jamail, January 14, 2005.
(17) El Tiempo, July 31, 2001.
(18) “The Vote, and Democracy Itself, Leave Anxious Iraqis Divided,” New York Times, John Burns, January 30, 2005
(19) “Iraq: Outlook for National Elections and Governance,” The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Gregory Hooker, January 2005, p. 27.
(20) Ibid., p. 27.
(21) Ibid., p. 28-9.
(22) Ibid., p. 29.
(23) “Iraq: The Devastation,” TomDispatch, Dahr Jamail, January 7, 2005.
(24) “Newly Released Investigative Files Provide Further Evidence Soldiers Not Held Accountable for Abuse,” American Civil Liberties Union, January 24, 2005
(25) “Iraq: Torture Continues at the Hands of New Government,” Human Rights Watch, January 25, 2005.
Posted by at January 30, 2005 09:33 PM
It seems to me that the United States has gone from being an exporter of democracy and freedom, to becoming the pimp of so-called democracy and freedom.
Jeffersonian? Hardly. But get a few people to get purple on their fingers, wave it in front of a camera, broadcast it on CNN, and ......voila!!! you've got Bush-style "democracy."
It is shameful how Americans have forgotten, or perhaps never knew, what the word means. They don't know, or perhaps never knew, what "freedom" means.
Isn't it ironic that the nation that holds itself up as a beacon of light among nations is now exporting terror and tyranny and calling it "freedom" and that the Washington Post et al. seem to be buying it?
i'm sickened.
Posted by: Rashad at January 31, 2005 11:55 AM
very informative ... jazakAllahu khairan
Posted by: Maxime Maximilien at January 31, 2005 01:44 PM
Rashad, I cannot explain to you why the media has abdicated its role to the American people. The Congress and Senate have abdicated their power and vital role in a democratic structure.
Not all are asleep to the growing lies and corruption that are destroying the fabric of all our forefathers stood and fought for. I believe a breaking point lies ahead and the real face of the Bush people will be exposed.
When that happens you will see the spirit that formed this country is still alive.
Posted by: Frances at January 31, 2005 02:54 PM
Bush's quote, “the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands,” indeed has several interpretations.
To me the statement sounds like a threat - an echo of the "either you are with us or against us" rhetoric.
The largest threat to our liberty in America is the current US leadership with its policies of supporting torture, arbitrary detention of "enemy combatants" for indeterminate lengths of time, patriot act, etc. etc.
Bush's statements sound to me as if he is threatening the citizens of the US if they do not support the war in Iraq.
And the fact that our president, once again, resorts to using fear, intimidation and threats while pretending to support concepts such as "Liberty" pisses me off.
Posted by: James at January 31, 2005 11:33 PM
First, I appreciate the website posting my views as they seem different then most others on here. Please know my comments are part of what I hope are a 2 way street in learning from one another. I am sitting in the Persian Gulf trying to make sense of all this, especially those of you who are critical of what is happening in Iraq with respect to America's involvement. Below I will post some responses to the above comments to allow you to see how the other side thinks with the hope that some of you will respond back so that I may better understand you.
-"It seems to me that the United States has gone from being an exporter of democracy and freedom, to becoming the pimp of so-called democracy and freedom."
I say to this; If not the US then who? The former Soviet Union? Their system failed. How about the Iranians? They too have a failing economy. How about we let the Iraqi's do it themselves? They allowed Saddam to rule them for the last few decades and he killed between 1 million - 6 million of his own people. The US is the only country in the world that has both the ability and guts to go into a place like Iraq, arrest the murdering dictator and kill two of his equally evil sons and then make an attempt at securing the country so they may have a free election. Granted, not all this was done perfectly but I fail to see anyone else, except for a few coalition countries, making the attempt. The alternative was to allow Saddam to go on doing what he was doing. Again, we found no WMD, but aren’t killing several million of your own people a WMD?
-"Jeffersonian? Hardly. But get a few people to get purple on their fingers, wave it in front of a camera, broadcast it on CNN, and ......voila!!! you've got Bush-style "democracy.""
To this I say; I understand there is a slant of propaganda from the US Press by doing this, but let's not forget, this is the same press that shows a car bomb, an IED, or a suicide bomber and calls it a "National Insurgency". Media call those isolated events "a quagmire of chaos". Sorry, several million more voted then the few thousand that blow things up. I take this as lessen for both sides. Don't believe what you see on the news. They will sensationalize anything to make their ratings look good. They are not sensationalizing voting or car bombers for our benefit, but for their own pockets.
-"It is shameful how Americans have forgotten, or perhaps never knew, what the word means. They don't know, or perhaps never knew, what "freedom" means."
I have just one comment here. How many people tried to defect to Iran, France, North Korea, China, Iraq, Cuba, or any African Country in the last 50 years because they were seeking freedom? Several million tried to enter the US because they all know where true freedom is. What they fail to see is that freedom comes at a cost and is hard work. The US system is not nearly perfect and has huge gaps in consistency at times, but it is the best thing out there, otherwise why do we have so many trying to cross our borders?
-"Not all are asleep to the growing lies and corruption that are destroying the fabric of all our forefathers stood and fought for. I believe a breaking point lies ahead and the real face of the Bush people will be exposed."
Who are you talking about? 52% of those who voted voted for the President. The other rest either didn’t vote or voted for someone else. The "real face of the Bush People" belongs to more then 50% of the country. What "fabrics" are you referring to that our fore fathers stood and fought for? Religious freedom? Freedom of the press? Freedom to pursue your dreams? News flash.....There was none of this under Saddam and if someone like Zarquawi (forgive my spelling, no offense intended) is allowed to flourish, he will chop your head off unless you do exactly what he says you should do. Please enlighten us all on what freedoms the Iraqis had before the US showed up.
-"Bush's quote, “the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands,” indeed has several interpretations. To me the statement sounds like a threat - an echo of the "either you are with us or against us" rhetoric."
You are exactly correct. This is a threat and one I hope we all back up. Because what you forgot was "those that are against us", fly fuel and passenger laden aircraft into buildings and kill people in America’s back yard. North Korea, Iran, and China would like nothing better then to set up "indoctrination camps" in downtown America and do it at the expense of your head on a block if you don't attend the "meeting". People in those countries who would do us harm deserve to be talked with first, and when they don't listen, fail to give and take, and start blowing things up in Washington, DC, and New York, we (America) needs to make some threat and then, if required, back up those threats. Iran, China, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union all noticed the strength and precision of the US Military and will be more then happy to step up to the political forum to discuss our differences rather then resort to military action, terrorist acts, conventional war, or nuclear war.
-"Bush's statements sound to me as if he is threatening the citizens of the US if they do not support the war in Iraq."
Again, 52% of the voters voted for him. The entire US Military is volunteer. No one defects to Cuba. These things happen because no one feels threatened. If you feel threatened then I would say you are either misinformed or have no back bone so get out and vote for someone who doesn’t threaten you.
Ok...I'll shut up now. Please give me constructive criticism on my thoughts. I only ask you base them on facts and with the intent to make the world a better place....Dave
Posted by: Dave Tikk at February 1, 2005 08:50 AM
Dave,
No, the majority of Americans are not for Bush and even Bush supporters are turning away from him.
I think you are misreading the post you commented on. We are worried about our freedoms because we have lost some of them. We know that to violate the rights of just one person puts ALL of our freedoms in jeapardy. We have seen people detained in America without charges or trial because they are Muslim, we have seen detainees in Abu Ghraib detained in the same manner but also tortured and killed. We have heard the Iraqi voice and it is SCREAMING for us to get out of their country.
There will never be peace in an occupied country. It is simply not possible. Sooner or later the people demand their liberty.
Posted by: jamie at February 1, 2005 05:12 PM
Dave,
Alan Watts once warned that we can focus too often on words and concepts and miss entirely the reality. “Its like we are going to a restaurant and eating the menu,” he said.
Debating WMD, terrorism, and the spread of democracy in Iraq is like eating the menu. These issues are the motives that our government and media have provided to us to explain the war, and mostly the debate in this country goes on and on in circles around these concepts. The concepts have increasingly proven hollow. To have a real debate we need to discuss real issues.
For a nation interested in the promotion of democracy, we have done some interesting things. We know, for example, that the US has in fact destroyed democracies in the past in order to advance other interests. Look at Kissinger's assistance in overthrowing the democratically elected Allende in Chile and putting the dictator Pinochet in power.
And just recently the Bush administration was wooing Kissinger to help out again with foreign policy!
We also can wonder why the US is "spreading democracy" in Iraq now when the US was actually making deals with Saddam as it meddled in the Iran/Iraq war while Saddam gassed the Kurds. Very strange how our government uses this atrocity as a justification for the current war when the US was essentially supporting Hussein while this was occurring.
For other inconsistencies in the “spreading of democracy” argument for the war we only need to look at other countries in the world without democracy and wonder why the US isn’t invading them.
As for the other reasons we have been provided with to explain the Iraq war, WMD were never in Iraq, a connection between Iraq and terrorism was never demonstrated or found, and the war in Iraq is in fact doing a wonderful job in recruiting more terrorists.
It is very clear that there are motives for the invasion of Iraq that have nothing to do with WMD, terrorism or the spread of freedom and democracy. Granted, WMD, terrorism and democracy have proven to be good rallying points for motivating the US republic to support the invasion and on-going occupation of Iraq, but the reasons – the menu – provided to the American people to explain this war are, for a large part, bogus.
If you are interested in a reasonable conversation, I suggest that we begin by discussing some of the real reasons the US invaded and is now occupying Iraq. I invite you to speculate on these for conversation.
Posted by: James at February 1, 2005 08:01 PM
Dave, I hope you continue to mistrust what you hear in the media, and that you do it consistently. Then maybe you can go back in history and see the actions and the intentions of the US and Britain in Iraq for the past 80 years or so. You tell me that the Iraqi people "allowed" Saddam Hussein to take over their country? I will tell you that Saddam didn't just happen to get power and that the US and Britain weren't just innocently minding their own business thousands of miles away. If you think that the OIL GUZZLING powers haven't had their eyes on and fingers into the pie for decades and decades, then you are too innocent by far.
Posted by: Rashad at February 1, 2005 09:27 PM
jamie - the current president won the election. corroborate your assertions to prove others wrong. stating something does not make it true.
Posted by: g at February 1, 2005 11:43 PM
G,
In regards to Jamie’s statement:
“No, the majority of Americans are not for Bush and even Bush supporters are turning away from him.”
60.7 percent of eligible American voters turned up to vote. 50% and some change of them voted for bush. A little over ½ of 60.7 percent of America is not a *majority* of Americans. And when the electorate is so blatantly misled, deceived and fear-instilled to cast a vote for such terrible leadership as we currently have, it really makes one wonder about how many people actually voted for the guy without really being *for* him.
Posted by: Spoken Freely at February 2, 2005 03:09 AM
To James and Rashad.....Thank you for the above comments and thanks to those who have emailed me with similar ideas.
I fully understand and agree that the US, in the past, assisted, meddled, and screwed up when dealing with Iraq and Iran. I once saw a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. I believe it was during the Iran/Iraq War. Classic! At one point the US provided Iran with imagery, weapons, intel on Iraq and then later provided similar things to Saddam during the same war. (I recommend reading “The Persian Puzzle” by Ken Pollack) This is all poor governing and leadership. I know of the Chile situation as well although am not as schooled as I should be. No doubt US foreign policy at times is a mess led by the blind, but this time I disagree.
I agree we have made mistakes in Iraq, not all is perfect. Abu Graib was a black eye, although ask an Iraqi on the street (I asked many while I was in Baghdad a few weeks ago) and they will tell you two things: 1. It was unbelievable to them (the Iraqis) that a government as strong as the US actually apologized for their actions (US actions in the prison). 2. Most Iraqis couldn't have cared less about the humiliation those prisoners suffered because in their minds those prisoners were Saddam's henchmen responsible for killing and torturing their friends, countrymen, and in some cases they themselves. Now, having said that I still don't agree with the actions of those responsible for doing what they did to those prisoners and I have no idea where the Iraqi's I talked to received their information.
All in all there were mistakes made and there will continue to be mistakes made. When was the last time someone rebuilt a country of 26 million (?) people? I think it is more important that people like ourselves (I'll even include myself) continue to speak out and take action to assist. Sometimes all that can be done is writing letters to Senators and Congressmen. Believe it or not that goes along way to shaping America.
I also don't think for a minute that oil and pricey contracts are not on the mind's of those in charge, but then again, shouldn't it be. Think about what would happen if Saddam had been allowed to control Kuwait, and then he moved into Saudi Arabia, etc, etc. Now we have a madman controlling the world's oil supply. I don't know about you but I'm not ready to give up my SUV just yet. I am also not willing to have nuclear power plants springing up in my back yard to supply my power needs. On this note I will say America (If you haven’t guessed, I'm an American) needs to cut back on it's consumption and find alternative resources. We will do this but in the mean time I'm glad that my timeline is not tied to Saddam's requirements.
My last comments are reserved for "Jamie".
"Dave, No, the majority of Americans are not for Bush and even Bush supporters are turning away from him."
-Who are you talking about? Did you talk to all President Bush supporters? You didn't talk to me. You heard that on the news.
"We are worried about our freedoms because we have lost some of them."
True, except guys like me are willing to loose a little freedom so that guys like Mohamed Atta don't fly planes into buildings.
"We have seen people detained in America without charges or trial because they are Muslim, we have seen detainees in Abu Ghraib detained in the same manner but also tortured and killed."
Name one person that was detained based solely on the fact they were Muslim. News Flash.....I am a US Marine and I am Muslim. Also, no one was killed in Abu Graib. Some died but they were not killed. Again, you read this in a newspaper, I was there.
"We have heard the Iraqi voice and it is SCREAMING for us to get out of their country."
Again, I was there....No "Iraqi voice" was screaming. You heard this on the news. There were a few I talked with that said, "Leave, but when there is security and our own forces are ready to handle the situation."
"There will never be peace in an occupied country. It is simply not possible. Sooner or later the people demand their liberty."
True again but you have to start somewhere and occupation is where we are now and we will continue it until Iraq can stand on it's own two feet. They are getting there, but they are not ready yet. Another news flash…..A few car bombs, although they are noisy and do kill people are not a war and the country of Iraq is working toward peace while being occupied. Iraq has pockets of an insurgency, not a complete lack of peace. Again I fear you are watching CNN and Fox News.
As before, please give me constructive criticism on my thoughts. I only ask you base them on facts and with the intent to make the world a better place....Dave
Posted by: Dave Tikk at February 2, 2005 08:17 AM
David:
>>"No doubt US foreign policy at times is a mess led by the blind, but this time I disagree."
the issue, my friend, is not blindness. during the 1980s and also during the early 70s in chile, kissinger, rumsfeld & co. were not blind. on the contrary, they took good care of themselves. today he and other elites do the same. to call earlier outrages 'blindness' totally misses the point. blindness to some moral standard, maybe, but then so is what's going on today.
>>"I agree we have made mistakes in Iraq, not all is perfect. Abu Graib was a black eye."
abu ghraib was a black eye on a charcoaled body. my friend, proud marine that you are, you can survey as many iraqis you like. it's possible that they weren't even scared of your guns. my sweet, sweet friend, it makes little difference to me whether tired iraqis with your guns to their heads "couldn't have cared less" about their brothers and sisters locked up and tortured by laughing americans. because we arabs have forgotten how to tell the truth - we are today better uncle toms than the original. "when was the last time someone rebuilt a country of 26 million?" sometime before you jackals bombed it into the pre-industrial age.
>>"News Flash.....I am a US Marine and I am Muslim."
nobody cares: muslim or non-muslim, you are equally stupid. that we are detained on the basis of our religion doesn't require that every last one of us be detained. did you even read the post you commented on? it says that freedom belongs to those who are free of the POSSIBILITY of coercion, not the probability of detention that profiling brings. what the united states has done to iraq is profiling on an international scale. many say there is no connection between bin laden and iraq. of course there is: both are muslim. this is the unpleasant truth that americans are unable to reckon with.
today you - a us marine charged with executing crimes against the collective humanity of a nation, its women, children, and babies - talk of dead, abstract mohammad atta as if he is someone to be feared. mohammad atta wasted his life, giving it to (we are told) a plaintive cia subcontractor, usama bin laden. may our people in the years to come put themselves to more productive uses; may iraqis rid themselves of you, who will understand only the fire next time. what can we do in the meantime but pray for peace.
Posted by: hussein at February 2, 2005 10:15 AM
Dave,
"except guys like me are willing to loose a little freedom so that guys like Mohamed Atta don't fly planes into buildings"
Guys like me get a little pissed off when our "democratically elected" leaders say that we need to sacrifice our freedoms for reasons that they deceive and lie to us about:
Atta et al. were from Saudi Arabia and had nothing to do with Iraq. Yet, what actions did the US take against Saudi Arabia for "harboring terrorists" - aside from flying a bunch of Saudis out of the US on the days following 911 when no other planes were allowed to fly, and obstructing the inquisitive in our own government's ability to question them.
I believe that you are a paid US propagandist…mispellings and all…taking the party line and forcing a debate oriented toward “democracy” in Iraq and terrorism while avoiding the real stuff.
Come now.
“It was unbelievable to them (the Iraqis) that a government as strong as the US actually apologized for their actions (US actions in the prison).”
Perhaps this is true to some Americans and Iraqis easily deceived. But a real apology would have come from President Bush. A real apology would have been to state, insist and enforce that the US doesn’t use torture. A real apology would have gone up the chain of command and punished all the commanders responsible. But we saw none of that.
What the US did in the case of Abu Ghraib was to scape goat some low ranking soldiers, fly Rumsfeld out there to look apologetic and concerned and then continue with the torture...they are just more careful about cameras now. If the US isn’t doing it, private contractors are. If you doubt, please look at the story and pictures on this website about Sadiq Zoman....or spend some time while you are out there to actually talk with those who have been detained.
The US gave no real apology for Abu Ghraib. The US gave only an insult to those that see how transparent their lie is.
Posted by: James at February 2, 2005 03:33 PM
So much to write, so little time....Well I asked for the other opinions and I got them. This is good. I am learning, which of course is the point of this.
"to call earlier outrages 'blindness' totally misses the point."
I see....and I actually agree with you Hussein. I truly did understate those mistakes. Blindness, mixed with lack of foresight, and I hope not, but after reading your comments I think even self preservation on their part. I hope and prey there are others better then that out there. I do however still have some faith that they were trying to do the right thing. Let's hope I'm not blind myself.
"many say there is no connection between bin laden and Iraq. of course there is: both are muslim. this is the unpleasant truth that americans are unable to reckon with."
True again. Both are Muslim, but I also see people arrested everyday who are Catholic or black or white and it is because what they have in common is a crime. Americans are too busy (sometimes selfishly) to care about Bin Laden’s and Saddam's religion. I truly feel that they could both have been Irish Catholics and the US would have done the same thing to them. What they did had nothing to do with the Muslim religion. Killing millions of your own people (Saddam) and plotting to kill Americans (Osama) has nothing to do with being Muslim. Again I hope I am not as blind to this as you say.
"I believe that you are a paid US propagandist........”
I wish I was paid for this! Please. I am guilty of sparking debate because I am trying to learn the other side of the story. Most of the comments I read from others concerning my comments are solid. I believe this even when they disagree with me, but this one, you made, sounds more like fear to me. Big Brother is not out to get you. I am a human being seeing horrible things around me and I am trying to make sense of them.
"A real apology would have gone up the chain of command and punished all the commanders responsible. But we saw none of that."
I myself am still waiting for others more senior ranking then an Army enlisted man to be held accountable. What he did was disgusting and he and his friends were sub-human to do the things they did, but no Captain, or Major, or senior enlisted person saw it? I don't believe it and if more senior people missed seeing their subordinates’ actions then they are grossly negligent and need to be held accountable. At the same time I don't believe we fire a Secretary of Defense because his soldier makes a mistake. The US President did apologize to the people of Iraq, but we don't impeach him for Grainer’s actions.
"please look at the story and pictures on this website about Sadiq Zoman"
Please send me a link to the website and I will take your advice and see for myself.
"or spend some time while you are out there to actually talk with those who have been detained."
You know....I did. Yes I did and when I asked a former prisoner of Abu Graib what he had done to get put in prison, he said he was there because he had been employed as a prison guard and he abused, tortured, and killed Iraqi prisoners. He said he had been disgusted by what had been done to him by the US guards. He was made to eat pork and drink alcohol, and even pose in some of those pictures we all got to see. Again, what happened to him was wrong and Sgt Grainer deserves to spend the next ten years of his life in prison as do his supervisors, who I have yet to see be charged. The fact is the guy I spoke with was a torturing murderer and I have a little trouble feeling too badly for him because he was humiliated.
Ok....I thank you both (Hussein and James) for opening my eyes a little more. Please don't be insulting to me. I care and I want to see your side of things and understand you, but the insults get in the way......Dave
Posted by: Dave Tikk at February 2, 2005 07:57 PM
Sobre as "eleições democráticas" do Iraque, em janeiro de 2005 e a notícia abaixo:
Qualquer semelhança, NÃO SERÁ mera coincidência, porque a história se repete.
About the "democratic" elections of Iraq, in January of 2005 and the news below:
Any likeness, or similarity, won't be mere coincidence, because the history repeats itself
Salám !
Carlos Tebecherani Haddad
"United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam."
- Peter Grose, in a page 2 New York Times article titled, 'U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote,' September 4, 1967.
Posted by: Carlos Tebecherani Haddad at February 2, 2005 08:21 PM
David,
I respect your tone, your ability to defuse conflict and to take insult without violent reaction.
Surely if we all behaved similarly, the world would be a better place.
I am having difficulty, however, reconciling the content of what you write, the fact that you are a Muslim Marine in Iraq and and your peaceful approach to debate. It seems an unlikely package.
Maybe you could help me understand a couple of things:
What is it like to hear those in your ranks use slurs against your religion such as calling people "muzzies"?
Do you ever feel betrayed by your leadership?
Is that a moot point as a Marine?
You risk your life and American citizens question why you do it - How can you not be angry while posting to this site?
###
Please read about Sadiq Zoman:
Pictures:
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=Detained_and_tortured_iraqi
Writing:
http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000066.php
With such a reasonable sensibility as yours, how could the things done to Sadiq Zoman not cause you to question just what the US is doing in Iraq?
Posted by: James at February 2, 2005 10:13 PM
James,
I appreciate and enjoy the dialogue. As you say, if all did these things the world would be better. The other thing is that you and I and some others on here are doing this via emails and posting. Can you imagine what could be solved if the leadership of the world, with the resources they have did this face to face? I read and post other websites like this and I find the first few go-rounds with postings are sorting out who is for real with valid points of view and who is just complaining. Even then it takes a few discussions to get the feel of the other person. I find it always better to be able to see body language, tone of voice, and expressions to really tell what a person is saying.
Thank you for directing me to the websites that showed Mr. Zoman. I will caveat everything I say with, "if his story is true". What happened to him was horrible and I can tell you that after spending more than 17 years in the Marines there is no such policy of torture. I know that sounds as though it is coming from the fox that is guarding the hen house. I can tell you that if Americans did those things, they did it wrongly and are more subhuman then Grainer was. Having said, that I fully accept it could have happened and Americans were responsible. You already know this, but there are Americans who would do these things, but please also know that the actions are neither condoned by those in a position to stop it and if it is then they are wrong as well. I can also tell you that these sub-humans that do these things are a very small percentage and the other 99.99% of us don't do these things, but end up paying the price for those that do.
Now to answer your other thoughts.
"I am having difficulty, however, reconciling the content of what you write, the fact that you are a Muslim Marine in Iraq and your peaceful approach to debate. It seems an unlikely package."
I am first a Marine. With that comes honor, courage, and commitment. I will fend off the first thought of some in the audience and say we (Marines) are not all perfect in these respects. Again as in any cross section of society we have our problem children. The issue with those problem children is that they make very adult mistakes and can do irrefutable damage. We have a term for them and their actions: "Strategic Corporals". This is a young person way down in the structure that when he or she does something, good or bad, it can have worldly impact.
I have also discovered that to have any dialogue with anyone you have to get to know them. Anything other then a peaceful approach sets up defenses that can be harder to overcome. I would hope you find that most Marines are like this. I've obviously know many Marines and I can tell you we have changed over the 17+ years I have been in and we have become thinkers first. Of course our own news media will show you a 1000 pictures and video clips of us kicking in doors and shooting weapons that do incredible damage. Yes, we do those things but the vast majority of us do a hell of lot more strategic thinking, studying, and planning, but that doesn't make for very exciting news.
"muzzies"?
I myself have never heard this term but I went and asked a few dozen over the last 12 hours. None had heard the term. Having said that, it obviously exists and there are those out there in my ranks using the term. Two thoughts: 1. I don't defend them. It could be a nick name or worse, meant to belittle Muslims. It is up to the person hearing it to decide that, not the person saying it. So why even say it? Especially if there is the slightest chance it will be construed negatively. 2. If it is being used negatively, which I suspect it is, then I would again tell you, like any cross section of the world's population we have our ignorant idiots as well. Ever heard the term "redneck". That is my negative word for someone who would use the term "Muzzie".
"Do you ever feel betrayed by your leadership?"
No. I know they make mistakes. Some with horrible consequences. If I were to allow myself to feel betrayed every time they made a mistake I would never get anything accomplished. It is my job to do three things with respect to this: 1. Do my best not tot let my leadership make a mistake. 2. If they do make a mistake, then I need to learn from it and not allow it to happen again, especially to not allow myself to make the same one. 3. Teach those that follow me to do #1 and #2. Again, you need to know I am not the one whispering leadership pointers to Mr. Bush, or the Generals in charge of Iraq. I trust their leadership and I feel as though I don't do this blindly. This is another reason you find me on this type of website. I am seeking alternate ways of looking at things and other's ideas. They allow me to do it.
"You risk your life and American citizens question why you do it - How can you not be angry while posting to this site?"
This one is my favorite to discuss. I don’t agree with a few ideas posted on this site. Other examples....I don't like anything the Ku Klux Klan stands for. I don't agree with abortion or all the ideas I hear from the Democratic Party, or certain newspapers and magazines, etc, etc. Here is what I will do.....I will defend to my death the rights of those mentioned above to feel however they feel, and for them to speak about it and for them to have protests, write songs about their thoughts and write about it in the newspaper if they choose. You get the idea. That to me is what America is about. If I don't like or agree with what is being said on this website, I have the chose to ignore it, read it, or engage it if I choose. I am forever fearful of someone who makes a statement about not allowing someone to say or write something that they disagree with and they want to disallow that person from saying or doing those things. What happens when I say or do something they don't like?
I hope this helps and I was clearly expressing my thoughts. If not or what I said leads to other questions please post them or email me. May I ask your background and what shapes your thoughts I have read? Dave
Posted by: Dave Tikk at February 3, 2005 12:55 PM
My prayers and sympathy for the Iraqui people. Your people had nothing to do with the terrible occurances on Sept 11, 2001 but you are paying a price for it. I find it stgange that we Ameicans cannot seem to conduct fair elections in the US, but we seem so confident that we can co opt one in Iraq! (?)
I would love to hear first hand from the Iraqi people themselves what is going on there and their opinons about the US occupation (liberation) So many feel empowered to speak for you. Well, I want to hear from you!!
Peace
James Leo
Posted by: James Leo at February 3, 2005 02:36 PM
"The ends justifies the means" is the case in point as we view the dreadful mess in Iraq. The logic goes, so what if tens of thousands lost their lives? Iraq is better off with these elections than under Saddam Hussein. This so-called "noble experiment" stinks to high heaven since it progressed under false pretenses (remember the pre-war rhetoric about links to Al-Qaeda and Weapons of Mass Destruction). The fact remains that you cannot liberate a people you essentially do not have common bonds of interest with based on historic, cultural, social, political or religious grounds. Iraq is not our near cousin as Britain whom we defended in WWII or France whom we help liberate following the same war. Americans by in large have a very low opinion of anything Arab or Muslim. This sudden love fest is hypocritical when MOST indicators in our popular culture point to a continuous hostile and superior view. The evidence is abundant so let's quit fooling ourselves with this B.S. of "freedom" and "liberty." The U.S. is in the process of subverting the very process it is supposedly extolling as executive orders of covert action have already be signed. We will be bribing and buying Iraqi loyalty. In fact this has already been under way. Saddam did it and so can we. If we were indeed the "Good Guys" as our conservative friends at Fox want us to believe, why did we "shock and awe" Iraq's population, continue terrorize them with bombings, raids, and threats? The aim was simple: Get them to sign off their natural wealth over to our companies. Everyone knows this, so let's cut the charade. We are there for their oil. We attacked Iraq because they had NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and because we were in the business of weakening that country for over a decade. We found a bunch of scoundrels to cooperate. They were will to sell their people and their country for political influence (including the religious clerics formerly in Iran). They will sign off their future soon and any Iraqi fighting for the sanctity and integrity of his homeland will be crushed because of our collective greed. If you think we were there to liberate you are either brainwashed or delusional. We bought this election. I feel sorry for those Iraqis who think they are gaining back their country when we know who will have the power. We are now in the business of buying it like elections are bought in this country.
No one comes to America to become a spiritual person. If you think that America is about freedom keep that deluded view because I cannot help you. We live in a material world and America has perfected capitalism. Everything is bought and sold. That grant we will supposedly give to the people of Iraq comes with strings attached (very long strings).
Posted by: Dr. Henry Stone, retired professor of near eastern studies at February 4, 2005 12:40 AM
I am discusted to hear people say that the majority of Americans voted for bush. I do not believe it and after you see the evidence, neither will you. http://www.bushstole04.com, http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or
that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public." -- Theodore Roosevelt
Posted by: Sabrina at February 5, 2005 09:58 AM
Dave,
In your original post you quoted the following:
They allowed Saddam to rule them for the last few decades and he killed between 1 million - 6 million of his own people.
I have heard varying figures of the total killed until the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein, but never in the range of these figures. Could you please advise your source of this information?
Posted by: Robyn at February 8, 2005 04:57 AM
Robyn,
I was part of an inspection team representing the US Military for the UN. I am currently stationed in the Gulf Region and frequently travel to Iraq for similar inspection teams.
Doing the arithmetic on dead bodies can be an imprecise venture. The largest number of deaths attributable to Saddam resulted from Iraq and Iran war. Iraq says its own toll was 500,000.
Casualties from Iraq's prisons are harder to estimate. Accounts collected by Western human rights groups from Iraqi émigrés and defectors have suggested that the number of those who have "disappeared" into the hands of the secret police, never to be heard from again, could be 200,000.
More recently, according to Iraqis who fled to Jordan and other neighboring countries said, "scores" of women were executed in a "return to faith" campaign proclaimed by Saddam aimed at bolstering his support across the Islamic world, the campaign led early on to a ban on drinking alcohol in public. Then, some time between 2000-2002, it widened to include the public killing of accused prostitutes. The executions were carried out by the Fedayeen Saddam, headed by Uday. Many of the killings were beheadings with swords. I personally saw over 5000 women's bodies without heads. I apologize for not being able to define "scores".
The best guess of the deaths of Kurdish citizens killed using gas in 1988 is approx 5,000.
I also had the privilege of seeing for myself 41 mass graves containing 400,000 corpses. I saw as many as 50 other sites that were mass graves but the bodies had been burned using gasoline. The estimate for these sites was between 400,000-600,000 bodies.
To be on the conservative side I would stick to 1 million corpses. I personally saw between 500,000 and 550,000 bodies. The 6 million comes from an accounting of personal interviews the UN did, but I feel there was double counting. I hope this qualifies as a valid source. If you have any other questions please feel free to email me.
Posted by: Dave Tikk at February 8, 2005 11:46 AM
Dave,
I'm having difficulty believing you.
I can't understand how anybody can take what the US is doing in Iraq as a mistake. Look - there were hundreds of people in Washington running computer models of possible outcomes in Iraq a decade before the recent invasion...there had to be. These are smart, well funded people...not idiots.
What is happening simply is not the result of a mistake. It was calculated. It wasn't like our leadership was saying "whoops we thought we'd be welcomed in Iraq with open arms" and "exit strategy? I never thought of that..." My hope is that the real mistake made by our government was underestimating people's ability to see through their lies....My hope is that the US gov doesn't really understand how many people watched Colin Powell present the case for invading Iraq to the UN while their jaws dropped, absolutely floored that the US would be so insulting to think that people would buy that load. If he had pictures of the Loch Ness Monster it would have been more compelling. It was so insulting.
It is obvious deceit. And those fooled should be furious....especially if their friends are dead and they themselves are putting themselves at risk.
The US gambled with its credibility and lost in front of the entire world as well as with its own citizens.
Now if I am asked if I believe if the US is systematically using torture, using napalm, using cluster bombs on civilians, disregarding Geneva Conventions, targeting ambulances, bombing hospitals, killing Iraqis citizens in brutal and violent ways such as reported by Dahr today, I have to sadly say yes.
Yes the US is doing this and I am so ashamed.
Yes I am proud to be American, but these people running the country are not American.
Posted by: James at February 8, 2005 11:29 PM
Immoral decisions cannot be explained away as "mistakes".
How can Bush not be held accountable even though he refuses to hear bad news (willful ignorance leading to delusion), even though he's dedicated himself to removing our Constitutional rights & protections, even though he steals from the poor & gives to the rich via his tax & budget policies? The man has never had to experience a consequence in his life. He's a dry drunk who finds it impossible to be honest about anything. And Cheney's even worse.
Bush did not "win" the 2004 election, he stole it (& Kerry lost it). There is no way to verify that the vote counts were accurately tallied with these Black Box machines manufactured by Bush supporters who promised to "deliver" the votes for him. Even in Texas, where I vote, under a certain set of circumstances, Kerry votes were changed in the machine to Bush votes. I don't know ANYONE who planned to vote for Bush, even church-going people. I rarely saw Bush stickers (before the election).
I love my country. I come from a military family, and I respect & value our military forces. I truly do believe in liberty and justice for all. But we have had a coup, albeit a slow hidden one. All the values of our country are being subverted, wiped out, turned on their heads. We have evil, greedy people running things, confusing ordinary folks with their Big Lies & deceit.
My entire heart aches for the people suffering in Iraq and for those we abandoned in Afganistan and for whatever country he's going to attack next. I feel so ashamed that my country is doing such terrible things to the world. My heart also aches for our soldiers, so many of whom think that they are going over there to do good and who arrive to find themselves ill-equipped & hated, soldiers who can look forward to coming back home mangled & sleeping on the streets & neglected by the men who sent them there. I pray for every one of us.
Peace
Posted by: Burnet at February 9, 2005 07:27 PM
Burnet,
"My entire heart aches for the people suffering in Iraq and for those we abandoned in Afganistan...."
In your quote above, who did we abandon in Afghanistan? Last time I checked thousands of military, contractors, and DOD civilians are there. Oh, did I mention the first free elections in decades were held a few months ago? There is also a new cabinet being elected as we speak.
"I feel so ashamed that my country is doing such terrible things to the world."
Were you more or less ashamed when the Taliban was chopping heads off or Saddam and his sons were raping and pillaging an entire country? Wake up man....Who did you want to go into stop that and how do you propose we do it?
"My heart also aches for our soldiers, so many of whom think that they are going over there to do good and who arrive to find themselves ill-equipped & hated, soldiers......"
Save your heart ache for someone who needs it. I don't nor do the other 200,000 + of us over here. We are the best and trained equipped force in the world and I can tell you 99.9% of the Iraqis I meet every day don't hate me.
Burnet,
I say these things to you not as an insult of your intelligence but as a wake up call. Before you make comments like those above, please ask those of us who are informed first hand about such matters. I don't like people telling the world on websites I am ill-equipped, hated, and I abandon my mission. Not true, none of it.
You read and saw those ideas in the media. I am here to tell you they tell half truths, partial stories and are looking to make a buck off you by showing you all the bad things that happen over here rather then all the unexciting good that is going on. If you have any other doubts, questions, or ideas you want to run by me, feel free or ask any informed military person.
Signed,
U.S. Marine
Posted by: Dave tikk at February 10, 2005 06:55 AM
True again but you have to start somewhere and occupation is where we are now and we will continue it until Iraq can stand on it's own two feet. They are getting there, but they are not ready yet. Another news flash…..A few car bombs, although they are noisy and do kill people are not a war and the country of Iraq is working toward peace while being occupied. Iraq has pockets of an insurgency, not a complete lack of peace. Again I fear you are watching CNN and Fox News.
Why did you say the above statement?
How can you expect an Iraqi security force, trained by the US and UK to defeat an enemy that you cannot defeat yourselves?
Here comes another Chile?
Here comes another Salvador?
What purpose does the 'School of the Americas' serve?
I will give you a clue.
If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents," George Bush announced on the day he began bombing Afghanistan, "they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril." I'm glad he said "any government", as there's one which, though it has yet to be identified as a sponsor of terrorism, requires his urgent attention.
For the past 55 years it has been running a terrorist training camp, whose victims massively outnumber the people killed by the attack on New York, the embassy bombings and the other atrocities laid, rightly or wrongly, at al-Qaida's door. The camp is called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or Whisc. It is based in Fort Benning, Georgia, and it is funded by Mr Bush's government.
Until January this year, Whisc was called the "School of the Americas", or SOA. Since 1946, SOA has trained more than 60,000 Latin American soldiers and policemen. Among its graduates are many of the continent's most notorious torturers, mass murderers, dictators and state terrorists. As hundreds of pages of documentation compiled by the pressure group SOA Watch show, Latin America has been ripped apart by its alumni.
In June this year, Colonel Byron Lima Estrada, once a student at the school, was convicted in Guatemala City of murdering Bishop Juan Gerardi in 1998. Gerardi was killed because he had helped to write a report on the atrocities committed by Guatemala's D-2, the military intelligence agency run by Lima Estrada with the help of two other SOA graduates. D-2 coordinated the "anti-insurgency" campaign which obliterated 448 Mayan Indian villages, and murdered tens of thousands of their people. Forty per cent of the cabinet ministers who served the genocidal regimes of Lucas Garcia, Rios Montt and Mejia Victores studied at the School of the Americas.
In 1993, the United Nations truth commission on El Salvador named the army officers who had committed the worst atrocities of the civil war. Two-thirds of them had been trained at the School of the Americas. Among them were Roberto D'Aubuisson, the leader of El Salvador's death squads; the men who killed Archbishop Oscar Romero; and 19 of the 26 soldiers who murdered the Jesuit priests in 1989. In Chile, the school's graduates ran both Augusto Pinochet's secret police and his three principal concentration camps. One of them helped to murder Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffit in Washington DC in 1976.
Argentina's dictators Roberto Viola and Leopoldo Galtieri, Panama's Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos, Peru's Juan Velasco Alvarado and Ecuador's Guillermo Rodriguez all benefited from the school's instruction. So did the leader of the Grupo Colina death squad in Fujimori's Peru; four of the five officers who ran the infamous Battalion 3-16 in Honduras (which controlled the death squads there in the 1980s) and the commander responsible for the 1994 Ocosingo massacre in Mexico.
All this, the school's defenders insist, is ancient history. But SOA graduates are also involved in the dirty war now being waged, with US support, in Colombia. In 1999 the US State Department's report on human rights named two SOA graduates as the murderers of the peace commissioner, Alex Lopera. Last year, Human Rights Watch revealed that seven former pupils are running paramilitary groups there and have commissioned kidnappings, disappearances, murders and massacres. In February this year an SOA graduate in Colombia was convicted of complicity in the torture and killing of 30 peasants by paramilitaries. The school is now drawing more of its students from Colombia than from any other country.
The FBI defines terrorism as "violent acts... intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government, or affect the conduct of a government", which is a precise description of the activities of SOA's graduates. But how can we be sure that their alma mater has had any part in this? Well, in 1996, the US government was forced to release seven of the school's training manuals. Among other top tips for terrorists, they recommended blackmail, torture, execution and the arrest of witnesses' relatives.
Last year, partly as a result of the campaign run by SOA Watch, several US congressmen tried to shut the school down. They were defeated by 10 votes. Instead, the House of Representatives voted to close it and then immediately reopen it under a different name. So, just as Windscale turned into Sellafield in the hope of parrying public memory, the School of the Americas washed its hands of the past by renaming itself Whisc. As the school's Colonel Mark Morgan informed the Department of Defense just before the vote in Congress: "Some of your bosses have told us that they can't support anything with the name 'School of the Americas' on it. Our proposal addresses this concern. It changes the name." Paul Coverdell, the Georgia senator who had fought to save the school, told the papers that the changes were "basically cosmetic".
But visit Whisc's website and you'll see that the School of the Americas has been all but excised from the record. Even the page marked "History" fails to mention it. Whisc's courses, it tells us, "cover a broad spectrum of relevant areas, such as operational planning for peace operations; disaster relief; civil-military operations; tactical planning and execution of counter drug operations".
Several pages describe its human rights initiatives. But, though they account for almost the entire training programme, combat and commando techniques, counter-insurgency and interrogation aren't mentioned. Nor is the fact that Whisc's "peace" and "human rights" options were also offered by SOA in the hope of appeasing Congress and preserving its budget: but hardly any of the students chose to take them.
We can't expect this terrorist training camp to reform itself: after all, it refuses even to acknowledge that it has a past, let alone to learn from it. So, given that the evidence linking the school to continuing atrocities in Latin America is rather stronger than the evidence linking the al-Qaida training camps to the attack on New York, what should we do about the "evil-doers" in Fort Benning, Georgia?
Well, we could urge our governments to apply full diplomatic pressure, and to seek the extradition of the school's commanders for trial on charges of complicity in crimes against humanity. Alternatively, we could demand that our governments attack the United States, bombing its military installations, cities and airports in the hope of overthrowing its unelected government and replacing it with a new administration overseen by the UN. In case this proposal proves unpopular with the American people, we could win their hearts and minds by dropping naan bread and dried curry in plastic bags stamped with the Afghan flag.
You object that this prescription is ridiculous, and I agree. But try as I might, I cannot see the moral difference between this course of action and the war now being waged in Afghanistan.
www.monbiot.com
Posted by: Doug Holland at February 11, 2005 02:18 PM
Hello,
I'm french (so, please, forgive my english) and I wanted to respond to Dave Tikk.
He said : "How many people tried to defect to Iran, France, North Korea, China, Iraq, Cuba, or any African Country in the last 50 years because they were seeking freedom ?"
I'm very surprised to find France between Iran and North Korea in his list. Nevertheless, i forgive him, because of his ignorance. And i'm going to answer his question : 4,310,000 immigrants were resident in France in March 1999, among them around 165,000 political refugees. You can learn more about this here : http://www.ambafrance-us.org/atoz/immigration.asp. It's always better to know the subject before talking.
Dave is talking about the cost of liberty... But WHO has asked iraqi people if they wanted to pay that price ? And americans have made the price so huge...
Only naive people (it's a euphemism) can think that Bush, Cheney and Rummy acted for the good of iraqis. The neoconservatives only wanted to have a pro-american governement in Iraq, for geostrategic reasons. And i think they are succeeding...
Posted by: Vincent at February 11, 2005 07:24 PM
Vincent,
Thank you for the information. I stand corrected concerning French immigrations. I did not intentionally put the Country of France between Iran and North Korea. Your comments are a refreshing change on here for two reasons. One is that you actually corrected me with facts that are objective and two, you separate the Country of France from Countries like Iran and North Korea. Thanks, Dave.
Posted by: Dave Tikk at February 12, 2005 07:22 AM
I forgive the unintelligent, can't think for himself, doesn't know his American history, marine who has posted above. Think about his situation. Who would want to believe that their commander and theif sent him to kill or be killed for oil profits, or worse? That is a hard pill to swallow.
But continuing to believe the lies when all of the evidence proves different is unforgivable and a crime to humanity. One is entitle to their own opinion, not their own facts.
Did you find any weapons of mass destruction yet?
Oh, I forgot, that lie doesn't matter anymore does it? Wake up Jarhead! And please do not kill anymore people in my name. I do not believe death is the kind of liberation the people of Iraq had in mind.
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliences with none."
Thomas Jefferson- First Inagural Address
Posted by: Sabrina at February 13, 2005 02:37 AM
Peace, of course, I'd like that. I do.
After September the 11th I know that there are people ready to kill me only because I'm an american. And that's a fact. Now I know.
But not only that: they're ready to kill me and as many americans they can, right away and without questions. And that was before Iraq. Including americans pro-war and amercicans anti-war. It doesn't make any difference. There is an italian journalist reporting for a communist newspaper and all she did was telling how bad the americans are and she was kidnapped as well. It looks like they don't like anybody. The fact that she's a woman makes me think about how they actually see a woman (away from her husband) working. I have the feeling that they don't like that. So here we have this (strange) situation: they don't allow their women to show their face in public (right?) and that says a lot but i'm wondering how a "liberated" woman can possibly allow that failing to report it. I know that the people of Iraq do deserve freedom just like we do. They have the gift of the oil and they could benefit from it, not only the dictators and their families. It looks to me that a good government will benefit the people just like we do. After all what's the difference between us and them if not the fact that our leaders allow us to live in dignity and our women don't have to be beaten on the streets just because they're women. What kind of government the terrorists can possibly think for the people of Iraq if not going back to an unfair tyranny where only few (the terrorists I believe) will benefit of the sales of the oil and the people will remain poor? Of course they don't like any change. it's always the same old story.
[Despite that this comment in no way addresses the substance of the piece to which it is addressed, it instantiates an apparently prevalent feeling in the United States, so has a place on this site.]
Posted by: mark at February 13, 2005 08:49 AM
Dear Mark,
I am wondering how you got the idea that Muslims beat their women just because they are women? I do not believe that this is true. I was married to a Muslim man for seven years and not only was I never beaten but, I was never even called a bad name by him. This is more than I can say for the majority of American boyfriends I have had. Muslim men have Mothers and Sisters that they love and respect just like us, and do not beat them just because they are women. You have not described a Muslim man but a very disturbed individual, and they reside everywhere.
As far as women's rights in the Muslim world, they are very different from the west. Wearing a burka is related to their religious practices and part of the culture. Who are we to judge or impose our views as to what is right or wrong with this? And certainly this is not a reason to declare or continue war on a country. Even if it was a reason, Iraq never had the strictest rules regarding the rights of women. That would be more like our allies and we do not seem to have a problem with it when our allies practice this custom. Do we? I do not believe that it should be required of women to wear one, and in some(not all) Muslim countries this choice is left up to the women. I would like nothing more than to see women gain equal rights in the Muslim culture but I know enough to understand that this may take a very long time, if it is ever achieved.
Regarding the comment about the journalist, be very careful that you are not a pot calling the kettle black! It looks like we are guilty of the same.
"During one of the discussions about the number of journalists killed in the Iraq War, Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted."
http://www.forumblog.org/blog/2005/01/do_us_troops_ta.html
You my google search this and come up with hundreds of resources to back this up. A high up employee of CNN just "quit" his job over letting it slip during a speech too. I know this may be hard to believe but it is all true.
Who is really profiting from the oil in Iraq? Have you heard of the "oil for food" scam yet? You may google search that too.
The irony of it all is that as people die in Iraq for "democracy" we neglect to maintain it here. We are now ruled by a President that was not elected for two terms now. I do not feel dignity in this.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" --Gandhi
Posted by: sabrina at February 14, 2005 01:19 AM
First I want to thank the moderator and host of this site to allow my previous post to be published. Now, Dear Sabrina, I always say what I believe is right (you don't know me but try to trust me on that). I undersatand that you live in the U.S. and therefore you did show your face even when you were married to a muslim. That culture and dress code does apply only to women (it's a question). But living in the U.S. doesn't necessarely mean that you know how the women are treaten over there: you should show more respect (or at least the benefit of the doubt, and maybe push for more investigations -like amnesty international did in kabul- in my opinion) more respect for them because if it's true (again IF it's true) that women there don't have the same opportunities then if it was me I could't care less of a western woman (like you) saying.. "it's ok, they are fine" (if it was me).
About the italian journalist I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say: as far as I know she appeard on a video and her (communist) newspaper (il manifesto, rome, italy) looks very concerned about this contraddiction to see one of their own kidnapped and harmed by the same people they used to consider as "friends" . Sorry but that's how it is. I understand italian (almost fluent) and french (there is also a french female journalist kidnapped) and I do read their colums.
The oil belongs to the people of Iraq (no questions). The point is for them how to prevent that only few will share the money leaving the people poor and in fear. A democratic government is the only hope (for the people, not for 'the terrorists': I believe that we agree on this).
I didn't vote for Bush but: we do have democratic elections here, and Bush won. He was elected by the majority of the americans, and now he's my president. That's how it works. I understand that you don't like him (and neither do I) but what exactly you want to do about it? new elections because we (me and you) didn't like the results? It doesn't sound "democratic" to me. We have the right to disagree but we can't say that he was not elected. And please consider that I'll be the first to oppose any try to disrespect my democracy. Even if I don't like what the majority decides. I hope the same for Iraq, and all the humanity.
Posted by: MArk at February 17, 2005 09:44 AM
Dear Mark,
I would like to thankyou for responding to my post and even if I do not agree with your opinion, I will respect it.
I do not understand what point you are trying to make in regards to women’s rights in the Muslim religion. I in no way meant any disrespect to anyone and believe I am not guilty of that. All I know is this is not Washington's issue. If any change is to come, it will have to be from Muslims, not forced on them. I think what you and I can find common ground in, is that this is not a reason to wage war on a nation. Do you agree?
Regarding the Italian journalist, Giuliana Sgrena, it is worse than I thought. According to an article I have read recently, “The Kidnapping of Giuliana Sgrena: Defaming the Iraqi Resistance is the Name of the Game”:
“Giuliana Sgrena, an unembedded Italian journalist, was not kidnapped by the Iraqi resistance. If you read her stories, you will immediately realize the Iraqi resistance had absolutely no reason to abduct her.”
“It really is a no-brainer: the Pentagon is kidnapping and murdering journalists because they do not want the world to know about the war crimes they are committing in Iraq. “[Sgrena] had an appointment in a Baghdad Sunni mosque with refugees from Fallujah. A few minutes after the phone call, she was abducted,” writes Luciana Bohne. “That is all that is known at this time. However, it is noted, at least by many in Italy, that every independent journalist who attempts to investigate what happened in Fallujah is kidnapped—some, like [Enzo] Baldoni, are killed.” Baldoni and his interpreter were killed in late August of 2004, allegedly by the Islamic Army in Iraq, the same “resistance” organization that threatened to “give American civilians a taste of what civilians in our country go through,” in other words attack the United States directly, a stupid remark for a supposed resistance organization, suspect because even a dimwit realizes attacking the United States and killing U.S. citizens would shift even more support behind Bush and the Strausscons. The Islamic Army in Iraq is said to be connected to Ansar al-Sunnah, a “resistance” organization in competition with al-Zarqawi’s al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad to see who can upload more disgusting beheading videos on the internet.”
“Giuliana Sgrena was kidnapped because the Pentagon does not want you to know what it did in Fallujah.”
http://kurtnimmo.com/blog/index.php?p=560
I do not know if this is true or not, but one thing I do know is the constant lies being feed to the American people void any credibility or integrity in my government. As you cited in your post, “that’s how it is.”
Another thing you may want to keep in mind is that democracy is an impossibility in a country that is being occupied. That is just how that is too.
Peace,
Sabrina
Posted by: sabrina at February 20, 2005 05:41 AM
Dave,
I don't mean to offend you, but I must admit to being very anti-US military. Our military has not defended the rights of the people, the people have. The military have been used time and again to go into other countries and rob them of their resources, over throw governments and instill puppet governments to control them, which by the way, is what you are being used for in Iraq. Look at South America and what the west, mainly the US, has done to them. These people are living in utter poverty, starving to death because of US capitalist aggression to control the distribution of their resources, namely oil. The Venezualan (Bolvarian) Revolution is a perfect example of the power of the people to govern and protect their own interest, take care of their own people, without foreign occupations meddling in their affairs. For the first time in Venezuelan history there are massive social programs, a constitution for the people by the people, national health care and education for ALL people, and much more...and NEWSFLASH, they did it without foreign occupation, that's what made it possible. THEIR military actually took the side of the PEOPLE, not the elite and the greedy government, to put the people back in power with Chavez as their leader after the coup that abducted him with US backing. I will say it again, the Venezuelan military helped the people against a corrupt government! Not you guys, you go against the people in support of a corrupt government. When will you defend us? When will you stop letting yourselves be used by rich white men who have never known battle or a hard days work to further their greedy and endless quest for power and resources at the expense of the people? Can't you see by doing this you are enraging the world, causing us to become targets for attacks? YOU ARE HARMING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DEFENDING! Are you seriously that propagandized, a manchurian candidate for endless war?
This statement that you made sickened me: "I don't know about you but I'm not ready to give up my SUV just yet. I am also not willing to have nuclear power plants springing up in my back yard to supply my power needs. On this note I will say America (If you haven’t guessed, I'm an American) needs to cut back on it's consumption and find alternative resources. We will do this but in the mean time I'm glad that my timeline is not tied to Saddam's requirements." In itself that statement was very contradictory, you don't want to give up your gas guzzling SUV but you tell us to cut back on consumption? huh? It's OK with you to kill innocent people for oil? Or starve 500 thousand Iraqi children through US/UN sanctions, hence, oil for food program? That's not unacceptable to you? If so, you are inhuman.
Iraqi oil was for sale by the way, but that's not good enough for the US, they must OWN it. US supported every single atrocity Saddam committed complete with weapons. Saddam would not give into US pressure to relinquish control of his country, he wouldn't "play nice" with the US imperialists so they used you to invade and overthrow him, period. It has nothing to do with him killing his own people and you KNOW IT!
I say US GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW! Let them make or break their own country. They eventually would have gotten rid of Saddam on their own, or not, but it's their country to do with as they will and they are every bit as strong as the Venezuelans, God knows they have been colonized by the west as many times as the V. have.
Where in the oath for office of President of the United States, or in the oath you take as a soldier does it say that it is US responsibility to instill our type of democracy (imperialistic capitalism where 5% of the population controls 80% of the wealth and resources) all over the world? I am having a hard time finding that part of it...maybe because it doesn't exist! Another newsflash: THE REST OF THE WORLD DOES NOT WANT OUR FORM OF DEMOCRACY WITH GOOD REASON!
Hopefully, some day soon, you will awaken from your propaganda slumber and start doing your job, protect us here at home, protect our rights, our jobs, our healthcare, our education, OUR FREEDOM instead of promoting hatred that now exists around the world for America!
If they send you to Venezuela to hurt those people who are finally free and happy, or to assassinate Chavez, I may have to take up arms against you MYSELF! grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
Power to the people, speaking truth to power!
Viva la Chavez, viva la Bolvarian revolution!
Power to the Iraqi People, let the revolution of the people begin to oust US occupation and end US aggression!
More people than you can imagine stand in solidarity with all occupied people, especially the Iraqis.
Posted by: jamieK at February 21, 2005 09:37 PM
Dave will you please show me in the constitution, federalist papers, or any other writings of our founding fathers where it implies or states that it is the job of America to export democracy to other countries using military force. If anyone actually read the debates on the constitution one would find that a major issue of contention was whether our fledgling country should have a standing army. Here is James Madison on the subject:
"The veteran legions of Rome were an overmatch for the undisciplined valour of of all other nations, and rendered her mistress of the world. Not less true is it, that the liberties of Rome proved the final victim to her military triumphs, and that the liberties of Europe, as far as they ever existed, have with few exceptions been the price of her military establishments. A standing force therefore is dangerous. On the smallest scale it has its inconveniences. On an extensive scale, its consequences may be fatal."
Nowadays we have a mercenary army brainwashed into thinking they are fighting for freedom which is in reality a thinly veiled metaphor for the police state. We also just happen to have the largest arsenal of atomic weapons capable of literally destroying all human life on this planet. I wonder what our founding fathers would think about this fact.
Your lack of critical thought pertaining to why anyone would want to attack the U.S. is staggering and all to common among the american mob. Why in your opinion do terrorists or rouge states want to destroy the U.S.? Is it because they are evil? Or is it possible that, while their actions are immoral and destructive, they may actually have a valid complaint?
As a military man you show much pride in protecting my right to say what I want to say. Please explain to me how you do that. You claim to fight for Americans freedoms. My only response would be again to check the constitution and find me the passage that delegates to the military the job of protecting its citizen's freedoms. Again if you actually do some reading you will find that our founding fathers placed that reponsibility directly on the backs of the citizen's themselves.
So please quit trying to defend my freedom as you and your mindless friends seem to be killing a large number of innocent people in the process. My knowledge of the last 50 years of our history has not made me proud of our military rather the opposite. My opinion of militarism in general is most eloquently stated by one Albert Einstein:
"This topic brings me to that worst outcrop of the herd nature, the military system, which I abhor. That a man can take pleasure in marching in formation to the strains of a band is enough to make me despise him. He has only been given his big brain by mistake; a backbone was all he needed. This plague-spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism by order, senseless violence, and all the pestilent nonsense that does by the name of patriotism--how I hate them! War seems to me a mean, contemptible thing: I would rather be hacked in pieces than take part in such an abominable business."
Now please Dave use the large brain that you've been given and stop killing for some abstraction conjured by the mass media.
AElfwine Nerevar
Posted by: AElfwine at February 21, 2005 09:51 PM
Aelfwine Nerevar,
Good comment, and thanks for the Einstien quote, I'd never read that before.
I am glad to hear more and more people coming out against supporting the troops. I actually pulled one of those magnets off someone's car, I'm ashamed to say, because it is not something I would normally do, that's just how tired I am of this illegal war and the blind patriotism of those who support it! They symbolize the same sort of fake patriotism that the citizens of fascist Germany fell victim to under Hitler, it's frightening to see that happening here.
When I say I don't support the troops that's not entirely true. I do support the soldiers who have filed for conscientous objector status, and the soldiers in Iraq who are intelligent enough to know that they were lied to by their commander in chief and are writing letters home asking for our support. They are asking us to do whatever it takes to bring them home NOW. They are encouraging the protests within the anti-war movement. You can read their letters on the Traveling Soldier website. According to them, 75% of the military are against this war and against their fellow soldiers who tow the party line and display false pride to cover up their fear. I will support them by opposing this war for as long as I can walk and talk. I will go to jail over the right to protest, I am not afraid to do what's right. I wish more people felt this way, if they did we could end this war. Never underestimate the power of the people.
I also believe Dave and the other guy who claims to be a marine are freepers or another plant by the Bush/Rove led propaganda machine to try and discredit the honest journalism on Dahr's site.
If that is in fact the case, they are wasting their time. I have been reading Dahr's journal for a long time now and his news is always backed up in another news source eventually. I trust him.
Posted by: jamieK at February 22, 2005 06:55 AM
Greetings Omar,
I would like to update my post and ask that you edit as needed please.
UPDATE:
I do not know who kidnapped this journalists, but I do know who shot her and tried to kill her. I hope that she lives long enough to tell the world the truth.
"Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena was freed by her captors on Friday but U.S. forces in Iraq (news - web sites) 'mistakenly' opened fire on the convoy taking her to safety, wounding her and killing an Italian secret service agent."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/nm/20050304/ts_nm/iraq_dc
Posted by: Sabrina at March 4, 2005 09:53 PM
Thank you for enligntening my Saturday. What you say is true, we are only allowed to view what's happening through the eyes of our government, etc. President Bush protrays Americans as passionate about their freedom. Let's be honest, we are more concerned about our "bottom line", image, and possessions. This is what takes up the majority of our time. I work for one of the defense contractors mentioned. They too only allow the "acceptable images". It would be an outrage to publicize what the weapons they produce are actually doing to citizens around the world. Bear with me as I allow my conservative Christian beliefs to catch up with what you are reporting. I believe that Christ died for us, all of us. The United States is not even mentioned in Revelations... I often wonder what happened to us?
Posted by: Kathy at May 21, 2005 05:07 PM
All images, photos, pictures, photography and text are protected by United States and international copyright law. Any use including, but not limited to, reproduction, use on another website, copying and printing requires the permission of Dahr Jamail.
Website developed by Jeff Pflueger Photo Media
Site maintained by WebRoot Solutions
Find a Problem? Contact the Webmaster.