Picture of the Day - "Progress" in Iraq / Update

A photo of a severed plastic head later emerged on the internet. It is still unclear whether the head belongs to the action figure taken hostage by the insurgents or to some other yet unknown action figure.
...To be continued...

Attached Image

More mindless America bashing over Irak :

"One election does not a democracy make. Iraq has not seen an open election since January 1953, when Faisal II assumed the throne five years before General Karim Kassem led a coup that destroyed the old order. Even the two remaining ballots scheduled this year--a referendum on the new constitution scheduled for October and election in December of a permanent government--will not guarantee democracy. Only the peaceful transition of power from one administration to another holds this promise.

-On the very day Iraq voted, a page one Washington Post headline reported that the Bush administration was sticking to its opposition to any timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq--this even as military commanders in the field were saying they hoped to cut back by 15,000 (to 135,000) "boots on the ground" by spring 2005.

- Iraqis, even as they voted, expressed doubt that the election would make any difference in the real--as opposed to the façade--distribution of power in their country. One individual who had been a government minister in the 1950s under Faisal II said: "We thank the Americans for destroying the regime of Saddam. But often, they were not careful for the people; they did many wrong things. Now, we know what they are looking for. They are looking for oil, and military bases, and domination of the new regime. They will have their military headquarters for the region in Iraq, and when they will leave, nobody knows" (New York Times).

-President Bush, known to many friends and opponents as "W," stated in his weekly radio address on January 29, that "As democracy takes hold in Iraq, America's mission there will continue"--which doesn't sound like withdrawal is even being considered in the White House.

Well, it's time for the Congress and the people of the United States to make it clear that "W" stands for "withdrawal."

-In Washington, Congress should state unambiguously that U.S. policy is to withdraw all forces and leave no bases in Iraq.

This would remove the motive of Iraqi nationalists, those who would rather fight and die than live in an occupied country, to attack U.S. forces.

-In Iraq, U.S. troops should withdraw from urban areas and let Iraqi security forces assume the main burden. Indeed, in the last weeks before January 30, neighborhood "militias" emerged to help protect polling places in a number of locations. U.S. troops would act initially as "cavalry" to assist Iraqi forces in the event of a sustained attack by remaining insurgents, help secure Iraq's border, and continue training Iraqis over the next few months.

-"Reconstruction" needs to be turned over to the transitional Iraqi government--with a parallel rethinking of what is intended to be accomplished in a pot-election Iraq. It is less a change in the society-what happened during the Union's occupation of the U.S. Confederacy after the Civil War- and more a rebuilding and modernization of infrastructure and the provision of jobs.

-Decrease the size and influence of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad so that the policies pursued by the transitional Iraqi government are in Iraq's best interests, not that of the U.S.

The only way the U.S. can extricate itself from Iraq is to leave the country completely. No half measures, no covert links, no false invitations."

Col. Daniel Smith, a West Point graduate and Vietnam veteran, is Senior Fellow on Military Affairs at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker lobby in the public interest.

Col Daniel Smith is not just another raving nutcase but also an America basher and a traitor to the King. He should be taken to Guantanamo by the home security and, perhaps, subjected to some method barely caracterizable as torture. Freedom is not free, for God's sake.

Should Col. Smith still be in active military service I'd say he infringed not one but several capital rules about military personnel publicly discussing, suggesting and criticizing political decisions of their government. But since he's more than likely to be retired from active duty he's nothing more than a civilian citizen using his right to free speech. Which, as it happens, includes the right to say utter partisan nonsense.

Mr. Smith, as do all others "disingaged" partisans of an immediate Coalition withdrawal from Iraq, seem to forget that stabile, pluralist democracies took decades to establish in W Germany, Japan, S Korea or Italy, and that governments there are not "US puppets", although massive amounts of american troops are obviously still stationed there.

They also seem to forget the fact that a similar premature withdrawal from Vietnam provoked political and humanitarian tragedies in Vietnam and Cambodia, with millions expropriated, driven out of their countries or downright killed. And that today's "iraqi insurgents" are nothing more than a muslim version of cambodia's khmer rouge, which says volumes about their supporters and apologizers. So, mein buddy Chandernagore, don't insult our intelligence with pieces of 60s vintage tiermondist "progressive" ideology, your colors show and by all means they're not pretty.

Could you explain, if you care so much of the iraqi people, where were on Sunday, Iraqi election days, your ideological comrades that two years ago posed as "human shields for the iraqi people against eevil american bombs"? The islamist bombs that OPENLY AND PURPOSEFULLY TARGET CIVILIANS are somehow passable for them?

To me, it's not news that you "progressive, multi-culturalist" people were since long ago waging war on democracy, pluralism and freedom, and rooting for the most despicable tyrants, but it's a surprise that you have chosen to come in the open so prematurely and in the support of such an unappealing faction! Although, what can one tell about them smart progressive intelligentsia people, they sure have a way with philosophies and doctrines. It's just a matter of bad luck that history never agrees with them.

I'm sure you are aware that there is a list of exceptions and orders which you are free to refuse, otherwise you could, say, whitewash even Himmler or ( the horror) validate torture.

Unlike you and me

Bullshit comparison. These countries surrendered after a world war. Irak never did and you have no right imposing a political regime of your choice on country which didn't declare war on you, didn't wage war on you and that your government has invaded on false pretenses. Compare the situation with the Soviets in Afghanistan, there is more than enough similarities in the method

You're kidding don't you ? Stay with us, Vallachus. The humanitarian tragedy in Vietnam was the result of 10 years of constant warfare coupled with lousy engament rules leading to utter disregard for civilian casualties. It didn't pop up suddenly after US withdrawal. However that was not really a US political choice, the heart & minds campaign was botched.

No risk I ever do that.

I don't care so much about the Iraki people.

Uh, well I'm now waging a war on democracy
In fact, I'm starting to detect a threat to democracy but not the one you believe.

Ok, enough joke. If you don't stop the drugs how can we talk further ?

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on February 02, 2005 05:53 pm

Valachus,let`s be serious,americans not invade Irak just to bring democracy and freedom for opressed people.All the wars was made for some gain,material gain,teritorial gain,political gain.This war start because Sadam threat the world with he`s mass destruction weapons(not only a word about democracy or poor irakians who crave for freedom).This weapons was not find(btw,US give this weapons to Sadam),sow the propaganda find another reason.The invaders is not invaders,but nice and good peoples who want to bring freedom and liberty .Ofcourse,they not want to control oil resources,or eliminate an "friendly" regim who was not receptive to "new world order" of globalization and democracy(made under US rull,ofcourse) .And not to view on the field how work the new weapons and eliminate the old stocks .The election is not free,because the country is under ocupation,and the winner will be just one who is desire by ocupation force.Is something similar with election to the beggining of post WW 2 period,when in East countries(under USSR ocupation) win comunists,and in West(under USA ocupation)win liberals.All the empires want the same thing,even if methods is sometimes different.US is,betwen others empires,like our words-<aceeasi Marie,dar cu alta palarie>.

As a plain fact: A lot of attention was offered by the mass-media to the fake soldier story (the plastic guy), but a much serious matter, the collapse of a huge Hercules C-130, with 10 British crewmen at board, while traveling in the middle of Iraq, went quiet away, almost not noticed.

Also: Supposing that invading Iraq was only to show how democracy works, how it can be explained the following: In Algeria, few years ago, after free elections won by the Islamists, there was a military coupe d'etait, with support from Western Europe. The first move of the military leadership was to ban the Islamists, who won the free elections few weeks before. What happened in Algeria could help the average Muslim to understand that free elections are the right way to win politic power?

This example is good because it happened in the Muslim world. Another one, but far away, was in Chile, in early 1970's. Salvador Alende was president of Chile after free elections. He nationalized the local assets, most of them belonging to American companies, and the result was a military coupe d'etait lead by Augusto Pinochet, who re-introduced Chile in the orbit around the U.S. In this moment Augusto Pinochet is going to be judged for crimes against its political opponents. Another example was the prime minister of Austria, and his government, few years ago. The guys were ultra right nationalists, or even Nazi, as was said in mass-media. They got the power after free elections. They were forced to resign not due to internal pressure, but due to the international pressure: American and European, combined.

So, to end, the idea of free elections is great. Obviously, who support free elections are the good guys. But if you do not like the results of free elections in certain countries, and you try to annihilate their results, you cannot claim anymore that you are the good guy, because it doesn't sound realistic.

This post has been edited by Florin on February 02, 2005 06:41 pm

Udar wrote:

No, of course not, Udar. I don't think anyone is claiming that America just wanted to exert its benevolence out of principle and bring democracy to Irak just for its sake.

There were vital, essential political reasons behind the effort, and all had US interests at stake. Saddam simply had to go (I won't go into the specific reasons).
But there isn't anything wrong with this. And it certainly doesn't take anything away from the end result - elections in Irak and the elimination of Saddam Hussein from power.


Getting back on topic, looks like even the always loquacious Michael Moore, George Soros, and Jimmy Carter ate their words when they saw all the Iraki voters dancing on the streets.

Their silence only goes to show what their real motive was: they don't give a rat's ass about how happy or unhappy the Irakis are, or whether they're free or not. They don't care about that. Their main motive all along was to criticize the US government and America as a nation. The Irak conflict was simply a vehicle for their accusations and attacks.

Read the short article below, taken from The Washington Times, a mainstream, fairly liberal newspaper:


From the Washington Times:

I am afraid that behind the closed doors, when people can freely behave without caring about mass-media, either side - pro-Bush or anti-Bush, "don't give a rat's ass about how happy or unhappy the Iraqis are, or whether they're free or not".

However, regardless the fact if we care or not, the matter affects the average American in the daily life, in various ways:
The billions spent in Iraq, incurring further deeper national debt (and indirectly, incurring over the average tax payer)... The young men and women of the armed forces returning home in coffins... The price of gasoline at the gas station next door...

If one day somebody will order the withdraw from Iraq before accomplishing all desired goals, the reason will have nothing to do with "how happy or unhappy the Iraqis are, or whether they're free or not". The reason will be "how happy or unhappy" will feel the average American about all this matter.

"Who cares about all that crap", answered to me somebody on a AOL topic, when I lamented and complained about how many archeological objects and texts (some 7000 years old) were destroyed or stolen in Iraq after the war of March-April 2003.

This post has been edited by Florin on February 02, 2005 11:17 pm

Nazi Germany's vital interests and essential political reasons mandated waging an agression war on Russia for territory and ressources. What the hell was wrong with that ?

"I refuse to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war for our position is that no grievance or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy "

- Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson Nuremberg 1945.

They're not? But Comrade Kim Jong Il told me they were!

Have I been deceived?

I find this interesting. It was written before the election.

A look at the religious stakes and other long range effects

This is a good chance to remember that after that aggressive invasion bogged down, and worse, turned into continuous retreat, the Nazi propaganda started claims like:

-Their duty to defend the European civilization against the Bolshevik threat
-How savage the enemy country is, no match for the refined German civilization
-The cruelty shown by the Red Army soldiers regarding prisoners
And so on.

It seems they missed that nobody asked them to defend the European civilization against the Bolshevik threat, and if Russia was savage or not, it was its internal problem, and the Red Army soldiers wouldn't get the chance to prove their cruelty if Soviet Union would not be attacked.

I don't know why remembering these things makes me also to remember what is going on today...

This post has been edited by Florin on February 03, 2005 01:28 am

1) The comparison between the Iraq campaign and the IIIrd Reich's militaristic adventure is so risible I won't waste time arguing about it right now. Perhaps some othe r time, though.
2) As for the idea of a Nurnberg-style prosecution case concerning the leaders of the states in the Iraq Coalition... well, the "international-law-concerned pacifist progressists" can always take the example of their ideological brethren in Iraq and put on a show-trial with plastic figurines of Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld and especially the eeevil neo-cons. You could even execute them and be safe from the law! Self-gratifying, self-righteous, legal, cheap fun!

And now some serious stuff: an "Iraqi suicidal insurgent" turns out to be a Saudi terrorist blown up by his own acolytes. A regular "Jihadi prank".

Newsweek online

Iraq Interrogation

Jan. 31 - INTRODUCTION: This is Rod Nordland in Baghdad for NEWSWEEK. It's the rare suicide bomber who lives to tell the tale. Ahmad Abdullah al-Shayea did, however.

This video was staged by Iraqi police officials at the end of a four or five hour long interrogation with this 21-year-old Saudi, who confessed to driving a fuel truck that blew up while he was in it--and killed 10 Iraqis last Christmas Day.

He admits that he came to Iraq to join Al Qaeda and become a martyr. But he didn't know this particular mission was to be his first and last--he says his confederates tricked him and blew the truck up by remote control. By some miracle he survived, and a few weeks later police found him in the hospital and realized he hadn't just been an innocent bystander. Kidnapped from his hospital bed by undercover agents, he was whisked straight to this interrogation room. In obvious agony from his extensive wounds, he answers his interrogators dutifully in words so faint they're almost a whisper.

We obtained the video that follows from the Iraqi Ministry of Interior.

INTERROGATOR: What is your name?
AL-SHAYEA: Ahmed Abdullah al-Shayea.

Q. From which country?
A. From Saudi Arabia.

Q. When did you leave Saudi Arabia?
A. I left Saudi Arabia to Syria at the end of Ramadan [Nov. 14]

Q. When did you enter Iraq?
A. Ten days after Ramadan.

Q. Which border crossing did you use from Syria?
A. From al Bukamal [Syria] to al Qaim [Iraq].

Q. Who was in charge of taking you into Iraq?
A. The smuggler Abu Mohammed.

Q. Who did he give you to in Iraq?
A. To people who said they belonged to the Tawhid wa Jihad group. [Zarqawi's organization, now renamed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia].

Q. Where did you go?
A. I was taken to Rawa, then to Ramadi.

Q. How long did you stay in Ramadi?
A. A month or a month and 20 days.

Q. Why did you come to Baghdad?
A. They told me to go to Baghdad.

Q. What did you do in Baghdad? What was your job in Baghdad?
A. They said to go to Baghdad and they left us in a house. And they gave us a car.

Q. Where did they give you the fuel tanker truck?
A. Near the roundabout near the Saddam Tower.

Q. What were your instructions? What did they tell you to do? What do you understand?
A. They said go from here and go straight ahead, then right and left, and then you will find the concrete blast barriers, our friends will come to take it. And once I stopped, the truck blew up.

Q. Are you regretful?
A. Yes.

Q. What do you want from Iraqis?
A. I want them to live in peace.

Q. The terrorist criminals that you met, in Rawa, Anna and Ramadi, what are their nationalities?
A. Arab nationalities, Tunisian, Moroccan, Saudi, Egyptians, Syrians, one from Macedonia. Mostly the majority are Iraqis. [n. ed. OF COURSE A ONE-MONTH TERRORIST CANNON-FODDER RECRUIT IN IRAQ HAS TO MEET PLENTY OF IRAQIS, ALTHOUGH NOT NECESSARILY PLENTY OF FOREIGNERS TOO!]

Q. What was the objective of the terrorists from what they told you?
A. They said we're against Americans, we killed the Americans and the police and Iraqi National Guard and civil defense because they collaborate with the Americans.

Q. What do you think of Osama bin Laden. Sheikh Osama bin Laden?
A. He's nothing to me. [n. ed. YEAH RIGHT]

Q. What does he represent to you?
A. He's nothing. He does not represent anything to me. He kills Muslims.

Q. How about Zarqawi? What do you think of him?
A. Zarqawi. If they are Muslims, all should take revenge on them for what they did to me.

Q. What do you mean, who should take revenge?
A. To take revenge on them for what they did to me.

Q. Now you suggest they are criminals, for the horrible thing they have done to you?
A. Yes. [n.ed. HEH, NOT FOR THE THINGS THEY DID TO THE IRAQIS, BUT ONLY FOR WHAT THEY DID TO HIM. NICE THINKING, THAT'LL HELP HIM]

This post has been edited by valachus on February 03, 2005 02:52 am

Attached Image

Yes, Chandernagore, whatever you say. The German invasions of WWII and USA's involvement in Irak both rest on the same reasons. Similar situations...

Way to gain credibility with your moderate views and analogies!!!

At least we now know how far to the extreme your position is.