Related Information to Post War Iraq

Post War Iraq - Page 73

How interesting that one of the world's leading newspapers, the Guardian, can only point out the bad things that happen in Iraq. While reporting the deplorable state of mental health services in Iraq is most laudable, in that the rest of the world needs to know about it so that help can be provided, I find it interesting that only the American presence is mentioned.

Which "good old days" are they referring to here? The time under Hussein, when there was no such thing as liberty? Or the time before Hussein? Or is it a "fantasy" time, where all the difficulties are buried in the hard times of today?

So, according to this article, I must assume that everybodies' problems, including the growing violence against individual Iraqis, is all the fault of the American military presence. After all, if Hussein and/or his sons were in charge, the murderous foreign terrorists (aka insurgents) wouldn't be there bombing mosques, setting off car bombs in markets, etc. Nor would the judges be shot who are getting ready to try the (former) oppressive dictator.

No, that former oppressive dictator and his sons would still be raping and murdering their own people. The judge, if he had ever thought of trying the dictator would have been tortured to death. The dentist who dared write about real current conditions in the country would have disappeared. Maybe his family would have been charged for the bullet used to kill him - after the torture.

No, there was no mental health problems before the American's invaded. That seems to be the Guardian's thesis. The Americans have caused the Baathists to kill the judges, to bomb the mosques, etc, etc.

Let's make sure that we never discuss how American doctors are helping Iraqis, nor may we ever discuss how American groups, American soldiers, American companies are sacrificing to help the Iraqi people improve their lives. After all, Americans are just cowboys, with no respect for the way the world works. They just think that they can make the world work a little better - and that is not the way Europe wants the world to work.

Iraq War Post

I had a really difficult time trying to figure out where best to post this information, as it deals with the whole movement towards democratization in the Middle East. However, since I believe that this democratization is primarily a result of what has happened in Iraq, I will put it here.

Thanks to OpinionJournal, I was led to a wonderful blog here. This particular post is about how Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya have contributed to the democratization of the Middle East, because of their efforts to stop it.

I found the whole commentary to be very nice. Perhaps I can give Al-Jazeera a little slack..

Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics

The US government called it "a horrible accident" but the Italian journalist who was freed from her captors in Iraq said otherwise...
The US soldiers killed an spy Italian agent that freed the Italian journalist. Her captors, just before she left, told her to be careful because "the US soldiers do not want her alive". The Italian government payed a ransom for her freedom. The problem is that the version of the US soldiers is very different from the version of the victim. She says that they were deliberately targeted by U.S. troops and promised to the agent's widow to find out the reason why. Very sad story.

Hundreds at Italy agent's funeral

ROME, Italy (CNN) -- Hundreds of mourners have attended a full state funeral for an Italian secret service agent shot dead by U.S. gunfire after helping to free an Italian journalist held hostage in Iraq.

The funeral of Nicola Calipari in the Santa Maria degli Angeli Church in Rome was attended by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi and other top officials, including U.S. Ambassador Mel Sembler and Rome Mayor Walter Veltroni.

Calipari, 50, has been hailed as a national hero for using his own body to shield the journalist, Giuliana Sgrena, when a U.S. patrol near Baghdad opened fire on the convoy taking her to safety...

https://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/0...rena/index.html

Page 73 Iraq War Post

Night hawk I'm a little puzzled at your understanding of Iraqi history. I think when discussing the current situation in Iraq it is important to get historical facts correct.

Before 1991, Iraq was one of the most affluent countries in the world. It had a higher literacy rate, average wage and standard of living that the US. And, believe it or not, this was all under Saddam.

While there is no denying he was a tyrant, he ran a secular regime and on the back of vast amounts of oil, had created a very wealthy society. Saddam definitely looked after his own, but even others who played by the rules benefitted from Iraq's economic success.

There was no freedom of speech, nor was their any opposition. Political opponents or anyone seen as a threat were quickly eliminated and certain minorites were murdered. You might remember that Saddam gassed thousands of Kurds with biological technology gained from the US and British. Of course he was a western ally then so none of his atrocities to his own people really bothered Bush Snr. You are right in saying that Iraqis generally didn't have the sort of liberty under Saddam you or I enjoy today. But it is simply untrue to imply that Iraq is in a better state right now than it was back then.

What crippled Iraq wasn't Saddam, it was the inhumane Oil for Food programme, designed and implemented through the UN. This programme which really amounts to genocide only ever affected the poor and weak. It was responsible for killing an estimated 1 million civillians including half a million children. You might remember then US Secretary Madeline Albreight famously said in the late 90s that the "collateral damage" was worth it despite no evidence of WMDs. People died because they were denied simple medicines that had been blocked or delayed at UN HQ in New York. Medicines like aspirin, penicilin etc were foolishy prevented from reaching Iraq because lunatics in the UN Security Council felt they could be manufactured into weapons of mass destruction. This programme was largely backed by the US and British who had continued bombing Iraq throughout the 90s in their illegaly drafted No-Fly zones. Of course the programme also crippled Iraq's economy and living standards plummeted. Saddam strangely wasn't affected.

Since the last Gulf War Iraq has descended into chaos. It is even worse than before because the "coalition" shock and awed every ministry in Iraq except the Oil ministry. They also bombed hospitals, vital infrastructure and many other buildings of national importance. Also, the Weapons of Mass Destruction used by the US and British forces, Depleted Uranium, has turned large parts of Baghdad into a nuclear waste dump. Cancer rates have already soared 10-fold in some hospitals. This is an epidemic tragically gripping other parts of Iraq.

Most of these so called foreign "insurgents" are actually disgruntled civillians uprising against the invading power. There are of course Saddam loyalists but a lot of the impetus is from angry Iraqis trying to remove coalition forces. They could very well be backed by external terror groups, it would make sense for Islamic fundamentalists to cash in on the Iraqi quagmire. But regardless, all this violence is from a minority of people. Most people you would assume to be happy the tyrant is gone but the reality is they still live in terrible conditions.

I think you are right in highlighting that US doctors are making a difference on the ground. But if you are going to say US companies are doing the same, it is well worth pointing out that Iraqi oil is paying for US companies to clean up the mess that the US/British governments made. And Iraq is still paying repatriations to US companies for Gulf War 1 despite the cause of that war, Saddam, having been eliminated.

So while it is good to highlight the 'good' of this illegal invasion, it is also important to balance it with the truth. After all, truth was the first casualty of this war, and it's blatant disregard by the US media seems to have worked well for Bush and his propaganda machine.

Iraq War Post

Arvhic -- you've made several points in your post that I would like more information about. Can you provide links or source information for us, please? These in particular have me curious:

In addition, if some of your points are made based on your own opinion, please state that in your posts.

Thanks so much.
Roz

Edited: FarSeer on 12th Mar, 2005 - 5:29am

Post War Iraq

Documentation, please.

During the Cold War, a lot of bad things happened. And the use of WMDs such as chemical (not biological) weapons used against the Kurds is strong evidence that Iraq under Hussein was willing to used WMDs against other people - including his own.

You are absolutely right. This is the same UN that mismanaged the Oil for Food program, took kickbacks from Hussein for the program, and turned a blind eye to his use of the program to develop and purchase more devastating weapons. Of course all of these things were done in such a way as to HIDE them from the US, and enrich such paragons of moral virtue as France, Germany, and Russia.

BTW, you may notice that most of this damage was done by the ever wonderful friend of all things Socialist, Bill Clinton - not by either GHWB or GWB.

You may find it interesting that there were many, many people in the US who never liked the Oil for Food program. It may also interest you to know that the restrictions would have been lifted as soon as Hussein complied with the UN resolutions.

Please give evidence of this claim.

Please give evidence of this. All of the reports I have read have shown that the vast majority of the "inisurgents" are brought in from other countries such as Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. They are imported terrorists. Even the Iraqi people are turning against them. One of the best evidences of this happened on Election Day, when the "insurgents" entered a town near Fallujah to punish the people for voting. The people turned against them, drove them out, and killed several of them.

Why do you say it was an illegal invasion? Upon what standards do you make this claim?

What "truth" was the first casualty of this war?

What blatant disregard by the US media, which has only been surpassed by the Guardian and other Socialist/Communist newspapers in distorting the facts on the ground?

If the "illegal invasion" was so bad, and all of the problems were caused by the US, why were there so very many Iraqi people thrilled by the fact that the US did invade. You indicate that everything the US did in regards to Iraq was wrong. My question is, who, in the entire world, did anything right regarding Iraq?

Post War Iraq - Page 73

Saddam's Capture: Just Another Bush Lie?

The account of American troops capturing Saddam and pulling him from his subterranean hovel has turned out to be just another Bush lie.

By Mike Whitney

Sergeant Nadim Abou Rabeh, who participated in the operation that netted Saddam, was quoted in the Saudi newspaper "Al-Medina" saying that the Iraqi leader was actually captured the day before and that "the public version of his capture was fabricated." The entire event was apparently choreographed by a Pentagon public relations team.
Ref. https://207.44.245.159/article8248.htm

Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 73

Actually, this particular news report seems to be completely fabricated, in order to try to cast stones at President Bush.

https://theneocon.blogspot.com/2005/03/ex-m...-story-was.html
Take a look at this blog entry for a good analysis of the story.

The major points are:
1. There were no Marine units in Iraq at the time Saddam Hussein was captured.
2. There is no public record of a man by the name of Abou Rabeh being in the Marines.
3. There is no record, anywhere, of any marines being killed in Iraq anywhere near that time. There is no record of a Sudanese Marine being killed in Iraq anywhere near that time.

The whole story is bogus.