thousands demonstrate in the streets of baghdad.

Former Member

good to see the people getting to grips with democracy.
they were protesting about american presence in their country. ... and demanding a religous, islamic leadership. great stuff.

Former Member

The yankees never cease to amaze me. Is it not ironic how a war supposedly being fought against the terrorism of Islamic fanatics ends up with Islamic fanatics coming out the biggest victors?

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html

Gee, what happened to all those cheering, grateful Iraqis who were going to rise up and make an invasion practically superfluous? They're rising up, alright – against us!

A line in the sand, so to speak, was crossed when, the next day, U.S. troops fired directly into a crowd of demonstrators in the northern city of Mosul, killing at least 10. As the unrest continues, the casualties are mounting by the hour. The majority Arab population of the city rose up against the prospect of having Mashaan Juburi – a former commander of Saddam Hussein's personal bodyguards – ensconced by the occupation forces as regional overlord. His Excellency, Lord Juburi, also led the Iraqi military units that crushed a 1991 uprising in the predominantly Shi'a southern portion of the country.

Yes, it was the same rebellion that the U.S. encouraged, and then abandoned at the last minute. Worse than the Bay of Pigs. Thousands were slaughtered, most of them civilians, and a good number of the armed rebels fled to Iran, where they were housed and trained by the Iranians. Today, now that the Ba'athist monolith has been shattered at the top ,the Teheran-backed Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) is by far the largest cohesive political-military formation in the country.

Now, they're back….

Making a clear bid for power on Wednesday morning, the son of SCIRI's ayatollah-in-chief, Abdelaziz Hakim, made a grand entry into in the southern Iraqi city of Kut to the cheers of thousands. Meanwhile, back in Teheran, the Ayatollah Muhammad Baqr-al-Hakin, the aspiring Iraqi Khomeini, announced that his followers and supporters should gather in Karbala for the anniversary of Imam Hussein's death, in 680 A.D., that sundered the Shi'a from the Sunni and began an endless factional blood feud.

That should be some wing-ding.

The other major Islamic party in Iraq is the Da'wa group, which has several thousand men under arms and was responsible for almost killing Saddam's son, Uday, and was viciously repressed under the Ba'athist regime. They are supposed to be the moderates, but their espousal of an Islamic republic ruled by clerics hardly fits the announced U.S. intention to make Iraq into a model of democracy in the region. Hassan al-Jabri, a member of Da'wa's political office, is cited by the Financial Times as declaring that they'd had quite enough of enforced secularism under the Ba'athists, thank you:

"Under Saddam Hussein we experienced the purest form of secularism and we do not want to see it again."

The Times goes on to note that "such views, if substantiated by the leaders in Baghdad, put Da'wa at variance with the US vision for Iraq under which religious leaders would remain outside politics." Yeah, boys, tell it to Pat Robertson, why don't you?. . .

Former Member

The Iraqi people get to choose their government and their leaders, Heydrich. Not you.

Former Member

Indeed Greeny, and not Mr. Bush nor Rumsfeld nor Perle nor any of the exiles theyve flown in expecting to set up as their puppets.

Unfortunately it wont be the case. Bush and co can ill afford to allow any real universal sufferage when our vital business interests are so close to being sealed.

Former Member

Nice on Clandestine, use this as an opprtunity to bash the Yanks again, instead of seeing this as a victory for them.

Would such a protest against the country's governors been allowed six months ago?

Former Member

Originally posted by Man Of Kent

Would such a protest against the country's governors been allowed six months ago?

no it wouldn't have been alowed. niether will a religous islamic leadership be allowed. that was the point of the thread. thats what is hilariously tragic about some of you believing all through this and still believing that america will alow the iraqi people to run their own country.

Former Member

The Iraqi people actually want Mashaan Juburi, the same man who CRUSHED the Shi'ite rebellion in Iraq years ago? ROFL some liberation. Anyway I for one am all for free elections in Iraq, with no interference whatsoever from the United States. Let the Shi'ite Islamic fanatics, the Iraqi Taliban, come to power there. Serves you right. We all know the truth however. There is not a snowball's chance in hell America would ever allow a REAL free and democratic election to take place in Iraq, much less Saudi Arabia or Egypt.

Former Member

MoK, you seem to take great pleasure in chiding me for responding appropriately to the oversights continuously made by those who respnd to me. I was perfectly in keeping with the tone of the point put to me. If you don't like it, too bad for you.

The American public has been continually gulled into believing this whole affair is one endless demonstration of goodness and mercy when it is patently obvious to international political analysts as well as those who can do more than wave a flag and bleat in unison to the tune of the spin doctors, that the fundamental prerogative of the Bush admin is economic and geo-political domination of the Middle East.

When i see Bush putting the screws on Israel in the same fashion for its threatening posture to its neighbours then the selfless benefactor argument might have a shade more credibility. But that won't happen and we all know it.

Former Member

God Bless America!



We love the UK! Yes to Sharon! Down with Saddam!

:rolleyes:

Former Member

Originally posted by Clandestine
MoK, you seem to take great pleasure in chiding me for responding appropriately to the oversights continuously made by those who respnd to me. I was perfectly in keeping with the tone of the point put to me.

A. Unless you are Heydrich, Greenie's comment wasn't a response to you.

B. I chide you for contantly slagging the US regradless of the thread. In this case it appears that the Iraqi are revelling in their freedom. So much so that they do not fear the US soldiers.

The American public has been continually gulled into believing this whole affair ...

The rest of that quote just proving my point again, infact this one brings Israel into the equation too. And absolutely no comment about the fact that Iraqis are allowed to demonstrate freely for the first time in over a quater of a century.

Thank you.

Former Member

Originally posted by Man Of Kent



fact that Iraqis are allowed to demonstrate freely for the first time in over a quater of a century.

there is little or no law and order. we can't stop them. you ok with them voting in an extreme islamic government if thats what they wish? the americans will simply not allow it. but they may not be able to stop it. if that happens it will have been a very expensive war with no returns. now that would be interesting.

Former Member

With Chalabi and his INC fully backed by the DIA and the Bush Whitehouse, you can bet that what the public is told is fair and free elections will be little more than a front for the installation of those already earmarked for the jobs.

Former Member

". . . I have never yet heard it said, that a man who had his purse demanded of him by a superior power, acted freely, tho' he delivered it with his own hand, instead of waiting for it to be taken from him by force: His will and consent certainly cannot be at all concerned in the manner. . . "

-- Samuel Adams, January 9, 1769

Former Member

Originally posted by morrocan roll
there is little or no law and order. we can't stop them. you ok with them voting in an extreme islamic government if thats what they wish? the americans will simply not allow it. but they may not be able to stop it. if that happens it will have been a very expensive war with no returns. now that would be interesting.

We can stop them. We choose not to.

If you really believe that 5 Divisions of Coalition soldiers are unable to stop a few demonstrators after watching 4 Divisions overrun all of Iraq in 26 days, you are delusional.

No returns? Saddam is out of power. There will be NO WMDs in that country when we leave. There will be NO conceivable manner in which Iraq will be able to threaten its neighbors regardless of who is elected.

Despite what some on this board think, the United States has been fairly successful at encouraging countries to adopt democracy. The UN on the other hand has been a total and complete failure.

Why don't we just wait and see?

Oh, and Clandestine, Aladdin, etc?

I know you'll keep spinning because you refuse to admit you are wrong, but you've been proven wrong in the last 30 days, and you'll be proven wrong again and again over the next few years.

Former Member

I dont know what planet youve been living on or where youve been keeping your head in the sand, but if anything has been progressively surfacing over the past 30 days, and more importantly in the past week, it's indications that it is those like myself and Aladdin who were indeed correct. As time passes I suspect youll be shown to be even more of a willful expert of denial in defense of the elitest powermongering Bush agenda you support with such unquestioning ardour.

Bush and co have spent too much of our tax dollars on this gamble to allow for any true democracy to emerge. By or hook or by crook they will get their puppets in so they oil rights can be duly snatched up by those who will back their reelection campaigns. Increasing numbers of Iraqis themselves are recognising this and are not being silent on the matter.

I only pray they find a way of denying Washington the pie it already thinks is carved up and ready to serve. Now that would be justice!

And as for Washington's record on democracy... please! What history shows quite clearly is that we have been effective at overturning the democratic will of foreign populations when their elected leaders bore the wrong political affiliations, whilst supporting many regimes which were/are either dictatorial/autocratic, or of dubious democratic legitimacy.

Former Member

Originally posted by Greenhat
We can stop them. We choose not to.

If you really believe that 5 Divisions of Coalition soldiers are unable to stop a few demonstrators after watching 4 Divisions overrun all of Iraq in 26 days, you are delusional.

No returns? Saddam is out of power. There will be NO WMDs in that country when we leave. There will be NO conceivable manner in which Iraq will be able to threaten its neighbors regardless of who is elected.

.

yes you could fucking mow them down in the streets but you couldn't get away with that surely? or are some of you yanks now that fucking perverted and twisted, that, that would be ok as well!
there doesn't seem to have been any wmd when you arrived never mind when you leave. if there had been we wouldn't have had to witness forged documents, lies lies and lies and even a students work being lifted off the fucking internet you ...you ...
saddam was in no position to threaten anyone with satafuckinglights and inspectors and sanctions you ... you ...fucking ...
lets get something staight here ...i'm supposed to be the uneducated guy round here ok!

Former Member

LOL. Greeny isnt suffering from lack of education, just willful ignorance and delusion.

Former Member

Originally posted by morrocan roll
yes you could fucking mow them down in the streets but you couldn't get away with that surely?

Why not? What's to stop us?

Worldwide opinion? Oh, yeah...that worked...

The militaries of Germany, France, Russia?

Russia is shitting their pants and the Generals are screaming. Iraq's military was a clone of theirs, and advised by Russian military personnel. And it got creamed. Slaughtered like a Turkey at Thanksgiving. Germany can't move its own troops and France is busy doing its own unilateral action in the Ivory Coast.

So what is stopping us from stopping those demonstrations? From imposing the rule that you and Clandestine seem so sure is intended?

Come on, start thinking. If you were correct, the US/UK forces wouldn't have taken embedded reporters. They wouldn't have let anyone see or report anything. They would have simply conquered, occupied and the Iraqi people would have liked it. Period.

But that isn't what happened, is it? Nor will it. Because those forces are actually there to do what they say. There will be an Iraqi government chosen by free elections. And American forces will leave. And it will be open to the world to see how the government is chosen, and that the choice is the Iraqis, not the Americans or the British.

You are delusional because you have no idea what the range of possibilities are, and you have never seen them implemented. Some of us have, in places like Vietnam after 1975, Cambodia, Laos, Cuba, Nicaragua under Daniel Ortega...

Just a reminder. Germany, Japan, South Korea, the Phillipines, Thailand, Turkey..

Those are the democracies that the US has helped establish. They aren't perfect...but they are better than what the UN has accomplished.

Former Member

Obviously you have little comprhension for how plausible deniability operates in the political sphere.

To do what you suggest would be tantamount to PR suicide Greeny and any lacky in Washington could tell you the same thing.

Why let them protest? Because the machinery carries on despite the protests and getting Chalabi into power has to be given at least a modicum of believability which opposition affords to the sham.

Similarly embedding reporters was and is the best way of keeping the military oversight on what they are and are not allowed to show. Some of the most revealing information came from those who were not embedded and how surprising that many of them met with a fatal end by coalition fire. Oops, they were caught in the crossfire...

Yes the Pentagon are the undisputed masters of lying to the public about their activities, and your protestations to the contrary are hardly credible when one looks back to other conflicts and other lies and coverups that have subsequently emerged.

As for your roster of supposed countries that owe their democratic legacy to the US, you are indeed either woefully ignorant or patently false. Germany for one had a its own legacy of democracy (not to mention being a developed western nation in its own right already) long before WWII. Perhaps you forget that the US was still an isolationist country when the League of Nations exhisted. Despite all its failings its foundation of multilateralism was rooted in democratic processes.

Turkey owes its somewhat questionable democratic development to Ataturk, not the US. Best go back and read the non military issued history books.

If our Foreign policy demonstrates anything with certain clarity its how often Washington has undermined democracies in order to ensure that the great red menace was kept at bay. The bush doctrine will simply exchange "terrorist" for "communist" and the geo-political manipulation policy will carry on apace.