Wednesday, May 02, 2007

The Answer

Pro-Withdrawal are people who are either:
1. Baathists remembering the good old days,
2. al-Qaeda lusting for a new state,
3. Common Arab and Iraqi people who simply follow Islamic Rule of Thumb regarding the matter: America Bad, America Go Away
4. sectarain Sunnis who hate to see Shia in power and consider them worse than Jews,
5. Sectarain Shiite who wants to have it all
6. or hopeless pessimists who see no use in them staying and just wanting them to leave and get the civil war out in the open, their theory is as this:

As you all know, the occupation is the source of all problems, their existence attracts violence and complicates matters, when America goes away, al-Qaeda will follow, because al-Qaeda is an alien product and it follows America wherever it is, there might be a civil war but it will not last as those who came with the Americans will go out with them and the Iraqi people can choose a true patriotic hero.

I really cannot follow the logic behind this. Yes the occupation MIGHT be problematic, but this is simply mere excuses for wanting to restore things back to where they were. If USA leaves, al-Qaeda will never leave because it has the Shia to kill and it has a very lovely Islamic State of Iraq. The Resistance (lol) will step up their efforts to reclaim what is rightfully theirs, and with the great possibility of all-out proxy war, it just can take years and years as I know very well that Iraqis on their own won't accept compromise. This will take years to solve until everybody realizes how much deep in blood we're swimming. Most likely outcome is a very artificial state that is all but divided in the real sense. Bloggers like this are Riverbend, who was already against the occupation from the beginning but was trying hard all the way to look without prejudice, Jarrar family, who are Palestinians and therefore instantly worship Saddam.


Anti-Withdrawal are

1. Normal Iraqis who are afraid of possible worsening of the condition
2. People who still believe in freedom and democracy, those are a very tiny minority

Things can go much, much worse. As I outlined above, this theory has more common sense, but all in all it's also laborious and slow and I don't think the US public can stomach it any longer, it's getting a lot like Vietnam and we all know what that means in US consciousness.

All in all, it's a very confusing scene. People, both Iraqi and American, are growing extremely pessimistic, whatever happens, there is a huge possibility that we will be back to zero and more than that, a tyrannical regime(s) firmly in place and feeding on sectarain sentiments on either side, I don't miss Saddam's times, as there was no color to life then and nobody was happy, even though they do not admit it right now, and I will not fix wrong by wrong no matter what, don't you wish it were just like the movies, where the bad guys could be identified just by a look, it is not like this all. Whatever happens, Iraq's chance of recovery is incredibly slim, maybe it's just best to let the troops out and let the war begins, cuz we're all so very tired.

46 comments:

Hakbar said...

I doubt whether democracy is good for Iraq because it is a soft form of communism. Democracy is not good for human liberty, think of Sweden with its high tax rates or Iran where democracy and sharia are both implemented. Bin Laden would win elections in Saudi Arabia hands off if it becomes a democracy.

A large population without federalism leads to little self-rule. Iraq is not a true democracy (no country is). The Kurds would opt for independence if they could do so. Unfortunately they can’t. Iraq, just like the Soviet Union, should of course fall into pieces. Many Iraqis however still believe in fascism, nationalism socialism, baathism and the likes which makes them to keep having a lot of troubles. Iraqis see every day that the state fails, but they fail to draw the proper conclusion.

This paper concluded that the costs of the Iraq war are between $1026 billion and $2239 billion if the US would start withdrawing from Iraq in 2006. http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/cost_of_war_in_iraq.pdf The Onion has a good alternative. “U.S. To Give Every Iraqi $3,544.91, Let Free-Market Capitalism Do The Rest.” Source: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30234 A free market would be more efficient and effective against fighting terrorists. For a 8 billion you can put a bounty of $100000,- on 80000 heads of Mahdi army. This would ensure a cheap defeat of this militia, for little costs, few American lives, little collateral damage and they Iraqis would benefit from this financially.

Anonymous said...

A soft form of communism? lol.

Communism and democracy could go hand in hand, if people truly voted in communism (rather than some elite taking over and imposing it)...but in those cases their freedoms are only as restricted as they are willing to give up those freedoms. Sweden may have a high tax rate, but its people chose that tax rate.

Hakbar said...

@ Anonymous

It is a soft form of communism because history shows (speaking about Europe) that when states become more democratic the collective sector of the economy tends to grow.

The people of Sweden have not chosen for a high tax rate. It is imposed upon them and they cannot refuse to pay taxes. No legislation is needed if it is truly chosen by the public. The government should than just open an account and the public would make their voluntary donation. Furthermore, the Swedes have not chosen the high tax rate, the bureaucrats have done it for them.

Anonymous said...

and who selected the bureaucrats? You're telling me that the Swedes really don't want to pay such a high tax rate, and can't seem to get any leaders willing to campaign on a lower tax rate...and are therefore not in a free society.

BlogIraqi said...

I agree with you kid that everyone is so tired. I feel like I have many wounds that it would not hurt to have few more.
I also agree with you that an all-out civil war would not end in few years, if started.
But I disagree with you in one thing. I do miss Saddam time. Not for the sake of the Saddam himself, for he is a major cause of what is happening now. But for the sake of the quiet nights and calm neighborhoods we used to have.
The way I see it, no one's life in Iraq got any better after the occupation. But withdrawal now would make it only worse.

Treasure of Baghdad said...

I agree with you 100%. Although I am not a huge fan of the US troops, but I think their withdrawal means giving Iraq in a plate to the extremists. I can even imagine seeing Iraq officially looking like Afghanistan under Taliban where women were taken to the stadium to be stoned or men shot dead just because they looked at them.

Good post.

Hakbar said...

@ anonymous

Some bureaucrats get their jobs just through applying for them. Others get power through elections and so on. Many people often don’t participate in these elections, not every vote exercises power, bureaucrats don’t always do what they have promised and organisations have a tendency of becoming oligarchic.

Proofing that Sweden is not a free society is easy. All it takes is to find one Swede who pays more taxes than he wants.

About Iraq. Fukuyama has written an interesting article about the withdrawal and the civil war.

“And what if the weak Iraqi government we leave behind falls or other political crises occur when we have fewer U.S. troops to respond? Can we work with proxies, resources or arms supplies to shape outcomes?

An intensifying civil war will be a tragedy for Iraq, but it is not the worst outcome from a U.S. standpoint to have a number of bitterly anti-American groups duking it out among themselves.

Civil wars eventually come to an end when one side wins (unlikely, in this case) or when the parties exhaust themselves and drop their maximalist aims.”

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-fukuyama5may05,0,1006197.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

Anonymous said...

I don't understand your sentiments, possibly because they seem contradictory. On the one hand you state "maybe it's just best to let the troops out and let the war begins" while also stating that you "cannot really follow the logic" behind the anti-occupation crowd. I GUARANTEE you, the civilized world wants to help Iraq stand as a civilized country, but NO ONE wants to see Bush benefit politically by being seen as having allies. If the U.S. leaves, the rest of the world will get involved and help you help yourselves. I swear to God.

Konfused Kid said...

This post was much edited, so much so that in the end it left hanging there with some loose ends. What I meant to say more or less is that while rationally withdrawal is against Iraq 's interests, it's a long shot and the soldiers aren't seeming to do anything (we have been promised on several milestones and conferences earlier), and the morale in general is very bad. if you're pushing off some bad end which will come down sooner or later, why wait? at least it could end much sooner. hopefully.,

onix said...

Kid i see many problems with your post.

The major one is that you dont trust iraki's to organise themselves. That is where my own confusion kicks in to. Why do people regard irak as a certain disaster? Occupation is disaster, but why is not occupying then also a disaster? Is not that terribly pessimist?

However, the situation in Irak cannot be solved like a single question:

We do such and such to irak or irakis and everything gets better.


Obviously in the blame giving and taking, the Navo is pointing fingers, or trying to do that, to iran and syria.

For months alredi, and now they announce the spreading of violence through the region. This pessimist approach is then an official one...

(and surprisingly often just what the western media predict appears to happen since the public got finally prepared for it.)

Why would not Irakis find a consensus towards this (the worlds) attitude?

Perhaps it's futuristic or farfetched, but personally i don't regard Baath as sunni, and it has an answer to this.

However like with all optimist politics, you should regard the baath ideas as limited in their impact.

They are all just theorys, it is up to the people to be tolerant.
The tolerance of the people is on a level with the freedom and human rights a state can guarantee.

Just like in baath socialism, in reality it is hard to imagine a solution that does not respect islam cultures.

I would say that these times are disturbed times is also a thing that has little if anything to do with irak.

The underlying problems of climatechange and developing of less industrialised nations,
(not to mention emancipation of these) has as much of an influence on the outcomes as anything inside irak. (especially concerns: the west relating to islam and the other way around.)

Lynnette In Minnesota said...

Kid,

You've said exactly what I have been thinking. Except for the last part about withdraw and get if over with. Whatever "it" is. I think Zeyad has mentioned that too. I want the troops home, but I don't want to see a complete implosion of Iraq, or the region, if we leave. If only I could foretell the future...

nadia n said...

not that my opinion really matters, but personally i see the debate about whether americans should leave or not in this day and age as kind of a moot point these days, because they will be. whether it's tomorrow or in 2008 i doubt will make that big a difference.

but even if you think that the united states is responsible for every bad thing that's happening in iraq i think there's more constructive things that can be done besides marching with cindy sheehan. i think america owes iraq quite a bit, starting maybe with an attempt at getting back the billions american contractors stole from the government for work they didn't do. i'd like to see that debate start. i'd like to see a democrat talk about that, but i'm not holding my breath.

Fatima said...

Really good summary/anaylsis. I think many ppl realize we need the Americans there, though it doesn't seem like they are doing much. But once they leave, real hell will break loose. Allah yustur.

perry1961 said...

Look how far Anbar has come in the last few months. Intelligence reports had declared it completely in the hands of Al Qaida. Now Ramadi,of all places,is almost tranquil,and Al Qaida is hunkering down for a last stand in Diyala Province. Things are looking up for Iraq. Success has a way of snowballing. Keep your chin up Kid.

M . H . Z said...

I don't think that it's a matter of opinions and unfortunately nor a matter of compromises, If the US troops left, as said a real hell will break open, of they didn't, so it is for the last years, so what we're doing, is listening to the promises we're hearing, once from the government, once from the US, althought they seem like blinded trembling, but they are our hope right now, and I believe, that if somehow, the doors were completely opened for a civil war, everyone will be surprised by it's volume and brutality, a lot other sides will come in, and it may never end in the current generation's lifetime, and for a compromise to be done and acheived between the opposing sides nowadays, apparantely there's nothing in the way, so may be there is something that we can't see, may be an outside stimulation, or an inside core, whatever it is, it takes more than democracy and people aggreeing on peace to find.

Thank you

Anonymous said...

Ha! You WISH things could go back the way they were.

dancewater said...

Faiza, of the Jarrar family, is an Iraqi Shi'a.

dancewater said...

I am of the opinion that when US troops withdraw, it will get worse for some time. But it will never get better until sometime after they do leave.

To argue that having US troops in Iraq will make the place better flies in the face of logic, history, common sense, and the trajectory of the last four years.

And while I feel that there are US troops who are doing the best they can there in Iraq, the overall leadership that got them there (who are still in charge) do not give a shit if any Iraqis survive this. They just don't care at all, from what I can see.

Dave said...

"To argue that having US troops in Iraq will make the place better flies in the face of logic, history, common sense,"

Japan, Germany, South Korea are all jewels of prosperity and freedom. They've all had about 50 years of U.S. occupation.

Mark said...

but NO ONE wants to see Bush benefit politically by being seen as having allies. If the U.S. leaves, the rest of the world will get involved and help you help yourselves. I swear to God.

An extremely petty reason given to not help prevent the deaths of thousands, followed by an empty promise.

How delightful.

Nadia said...

Dave wrote “Japan, Germany, South Korea are all jewels of prosperity and freedom. They've all had about 50 years of U.S. occupation.”

Dave you can never ever compare to these countries. Since these countries did not have rulers that the US gave money and political support to when he was killing his own people. Also remember that these countries where taken over after they lost a world war which is not the case in Iraq at all. So stop the comparison because there is really none to be made here.


As for you kid, I am for withdrawal and replacement of troops and many other steps too. My solutions are on my site and I fit into your:

1. Normal Iraqis who are afraid of possible worsening of the condition
2. People who still believe in freedom and democracy, those are a very tiny minority

3eeraqimedic said...

And so as Iraqis all ponder the answer, and debate and argue the merits, and occasionally kill each other for disagreeing about the answer…….
But hang on a minute, did we ever get asked in the first place?

Anonymous said...

I don't remember the priest telling me when I went to Confession when I was a kid, "Well, Lance, it was wrong of you to disobey your mom and talk back to her like that, but since you set the table every night and do your homework and sent your aunt a birthday card, what the heck! You're a good kid. Your sins are forgiven automatically. No need for you to do any penance." 文秘 心脑血管 糖尿病 高血压 糖尿病 高血脂 冠心病 心律失常 心肌病 心肌炎 中风 低血糖 胰岛素 血糖仪 胰岛素泵 And maybe it's happened a few times and I haven't heard about it but I can't recall a judge ever letting somebody walk on the grounds the crook was a good guy and his friends really like him.

Anastasia said...

It's like the calm before the storm.

I don't know, kid. I was one of those who thought we should just get the hell out, it's none of our buisiness anyway... but I'm starting to change my mind. Like, I guess it's knowing that it's people like YOU over there dealing with this shit. And if it ddn't seem real to me before- you are real.

But on the other hand we've got American soldiers deploying three or four times. Its a tough call. But you're right. Every one is sick and tired. And this really sucks.

onix said...

its extremely naive to talk about democracy and freedom. The past 20 years social circumstance and security of justice in my country has been broken down to a point where authoritys regardless applie non existing rules to deprive people from income, leaving them to chew their teeth for months in a row.

When you are the victim you can't stand up, u can't pay the lawyer, and the rules only count for you.
(goverment and authorities dont stick to the law)

Is that what you want for all your future, sneaking in prejudices and ever more extreme penalisation? Being a victim of frauds excerted by banks and social institutes in cooperaton? Getting fine on fine on an injustice u can never counter?

Then keep believing in this socalled democracy and freedom of the west. All that is good in my country is only still there becus the "democrats" have not yet found a way to eliminate it.

No i don't think you should look at the cretology ("freedom" ,"democracy"), be realist we are as powerless as you.

And its getting worse and worse. This democracy is nothing else then having all poor mouthless and rightless.
It's up to you if u want to believe in fairytales.
You remember "democracy" is the thing that steals the iraki oil and rebuild money??

Its just a propagandist fraud, and a typical lie like all propagandist frauds.

Anonymous said...

I once was for our forces staying and doing our best to bolster the Iraqi government. I naively believed we could help reduce the violence while the government got back on its feet and the Iraqi people learned to stand up for themselves, supported their government, became part of it in fact. I believed we could turn the mess into something positive. Even while my own friends died there, even while they constantly came back to base thankful that another near miss did in fact miss them, even while my own country traded its civil liberties for a sense of safety and belief that we were going to help Iraq become strong again. I now believe differently. It doesn't matter what the US government wants to see happen if Iraq doesn't make it happen it never will, and people of power see this and have dissolved into money-hungry sharks who come to the blood regardless of whose blood it is. I want my friends and my lover home, NOW, and I want to never have to step foot in Iraq ever again while bombs are blowing everything to smithereens. I want to not read of one more bomb, one more death, one more day of the spilling of American blood. That innocent Iraqis are being killed by their own people/outsiders with their own agenda - this makes my heart hurt for your people, but I no longer believe our blood is worth it. I'm sorry, but I'm like many others who have seen it simply not evolve into a stable enough situation to think it ever will. I'm done.

May the Gods forgive us.

bruno said...

[Iraqimedic] "But hang on a minute, did we ever get asked in the first place?"

EXACTLY.

Iraqis were and are always the last to be consulted on what is right for their country. Look at the attitude of this powerful American, when confronted with the possibility of being legislated out of iraq:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/McCain_Iraqi_government_cant_order_U.S._0513.html

Jaguar b. p. said...

Actually, the situation is wonderful: the Crusaders are trapped and bleeding to death,
and the collaborators will face the sword of justice

nadia n said...

where do you live, jaguar?

annie said...

kid, your post makes many many assumptions. the anti withdrawl people are 'normal' and the wothdrawl people aren't. how many millions would die before you might think this occupation has not been beneficial. you make the assumption the US did not come for profit. that is a huge leap because the the administration cronies have made a fortune off this war. you make the assumption they did not invade to control the vast majority of iraqs oil. there is plenty of evidence for this (like that oil law they keep pressing) yet you don't see how there is no way this could be accomplished w/out a war. no sane iraqi is going to want their resources sent outside the country. foreign control over the vast majority of the $$$ that will be iraqs future? so it makes a lot of sense to divide iraq into more easily managed segments. with enough bribes and offers of prosperity one segment of society can maybe come out ahead.

for this you call us 'pessimists?"
i call it very realistic. apparently you are more comfortable thinking "Yes the occupation MIGHT be problematic". gee, ya think?

you would like to think that all the cpa plans that were failures were simply a result of 'mistakes'. why don't you explain to me exactly how the US was going to get iraq to agree to this oil draft as one big strong unified country? the US had plans to have these bases in the middle east. how exactly were they going to get iraqis to hand over the middle of baghdad for the largest embassy in the world and numerous big bases after the calm peaceful turnover to an iraqi government. if the war had lasted 2 months you think everyone would just open their arms for an occupation?

their was a civil war by design. there were lists made up, psyops campaigns death squads, that is the way the US makes regime change. look at vietnam, south america.

if someone comes in and violates your home do you think of yourself as a pessimist for not turning over your life savings?

if, IF, america were all the things their propaganda says they are, things would be different. they aren't. there are criminals in the white house. if saddam invaded the US and all hell broke loose do you really think their would be millions of people wondering if things might get better if he left? no, no amount of propaganda would convince us we were pessimists if we don't agree to letting him stay a decade or two until things settled down.

5 years it has gotten worse and worse. what about 15 years. i wish you had more faith in your people. i sure do.

Anonymous said...

This is a very good analysis
of the current state in Iraq ...

The safest path forward
(the one with the least risk)
is to continue as is and hope
that the former regime elements
can some way some how reconcile
with the Shia masses now
represented by the new government.

I am hoping something huge and unexpectedly good happens but it
is most probable that a slow improvement with a handoff to Iraqi
forces over time will lead to the least overall destruction and death
for Iraqi civilains ... true
patrotic Iraqi should realize this ... the overall picture of the entire country must be looked at for the true patriot the true Iraqi would want the least new destruction ... the least loss of life for the country as a whole.

This notion of a fast civil war ...
I mean thats a bit risky ... why not just continue as is and hope
Iraqi can work it out ??

I personally would like to see
the following to advance things more quickly


1) Parliament voting on and
finally getting agreement on
a)constitutional changes
b)re-Baathification
for bringing back the former
government workers
c)Oil revenue sharing
d)settle the role of foreighn troops at least for another six months then vote again

2) Sistani and or Maliki and or
al - hakim visiting
Anbar at least twice amonth
getting some re-con in Falluja
and Ramadi ... Sistani
and a band of his people can meet with the Sunni clerics etc

3) Sharistani the oil Minister
also going to Anbar and going out into the areas where new drilling may take place ...
be pro-active forward thinking even
in this bad situation the people of Anbar can see real work on improvimg their lives from the new government ... hiring and training
say 1000 men from Anbar to guard
the new oil exploration projects
in their province may help
alleviate concerns.

Iraq needs to be knitted together
by the oil and Islam NOT driven apart ... it is one of the most absurd horrible quirks in History
that Iraq is a poor country fighting itself ... The leaders
must recognize this ... end all the BS and conspiracy theories
about Americans and Israelis they are all false ...

USA simply can not wait for Iraq
to be pumping out 4 million barrels
of oil per day ... Our medical equipment manufactures would love
to sell Iraqi clinics and Hospitals
the most advance life-saving equipment possible ... on and on
this notion that Americans benefit from Iraqi being poor is Absurd

Anonymous said...

The Democracy must be based on a constitution and division of powers
and involve a military which
backs the constitutionally elected government ...

So in Saudi Arabia Bin-Laden
may get elected but his powers
would be limited by the constitution and he would need
to hold regular elections as well
Therefore limiting his powers.

Even though the Saudis seem not to
share there enourmous wealth
throughout the country they
do have quite a high standard of living ... The Saudis would grow tired of Bin-Laden very quickly
thats why he left ...

The same goes for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt ... in times of turmoil Iraq/Lebanon/Palestine

There will always be an anti_Western group which seems
popular ... but once the burden of governance falls on this group ...
and the people want clean water
electricity modern Hospitals etc ... things change ....

The US provides Egypt with
one billion dollars in aid per year ... Jordan also gets quite a bit ... and in fact the Palestinians were earmarked
for 400 million but then Hamas
stood form on NOT recognizing Israel ... they did not moderate
after winning election ....

The poin being very easy to be the opposition ... much harder to be
the actual government ...
(Just ask Maliki)

Anonymous said...

The cost of the war can be
calculated many ways ... but simply
giving each Iraqi a load of cash
is a cute analysis but does not bear scrutiny

A big cost of the war is replacing
American Military equipment
and designing new equipment ...

This money gets taxed at so many levels The US treasury probably gets half of that money back

In addition the extra combat pay for our soldiers is also a fairly large amount ... but soldiers and their families will spend this money in the USA so again a portion of this money comes back
to the treasury.

There is no guarantee these bounties will work ... people will take the money and turn in perfect
strangers and the Mahdi army would still exist if not grow

Anonymous said...

Iraq has had a horrible violence
ridden History ... But all the political figures and the people of Iraq must realize this ...

If Iraq can get through this period fairly soon and unify
it will in all probability never
face an occupation or a brutal
dictator for centuries again ...

This brutal period of violence
could very well be the last
for Iraqi so lets get that
Parliament moving already !!!

Sang J. Moon said...

The USA has occupied other countries and performed far more grievous mistakes than the Iraq occupation. They are an easy scapegoat for the violence in Iraq, but the violence, kidnappings and deaths of Iraqis on Iraqis are just too numerous and general for the USA to be the source. Simpletons paint the fights in Iraq as a civil war, but too many deaths occur even between groups within the Sunnis and Shiites, and then you have independent groups like the Iraqi Communist insurgents killing for their own separate reasons. What may be the true source of all this violence may be something more fundamental. Iraqis ate and drank Saddam for such a long time. Saddam was the model of success through overpowering violence and savagery. His shadow lives on in his people who took his example either consciously or subconsciously. Too many Iraqis try to emulate his methods seeking similar success instead of through peaceful nonviolent methods. These "children of Saddam" are a minority in Iraq, but it doesn't take many to terrorize the entire country. It only took 2 snipers to paralyze Washington DC.

annie said...

The USA has occupied other countries and performed far more grievous mistakes than the Iraq occupation.

can you give us an example of a 'far more grievous mistake' please.

Sang J. Moon said...

I can tell you with a country I am very familiar with: South Korea. The USA created a security force and left it under the control of a dictator who used it to kill about 100,000 people accused of being communists without trial and suppressed political opposition (e.g., Kwangju massacre). The USA killed South Koreans themselves of which the Bridge at No Gun Ri is the most famous of such incidents. The USA constantly gets in trouble as its soldiers kill South Korean civilians. The most recently crisis involved a US military truck running over two South Korean schoolgirls. It took 30 years for South Korea to finally get a real functional democratic civilian government. The reason why there was no outcry in the US public like there is now over Iraq is because the media pretty much ignored the Korean War and the occupation. It wasn't until the Vietnam War that the media put war into the living rooms of the American people making that war unsustainable because the negativity overcame the patience and will of the American people. From that point on, the battleground for the patience and will of the American people became as important as the battleground on the actual ground. A loss in either is a loss in both. The enemy has it easy. They could fail hundreds or thousands of times as they do in Iraq for each successful attack that makes the news, but only a relatively few successes is enough to deteriorate the fickle American public's will significantly. In addition, those who use such attacks for their own political agenda, mostly on the left in the USA, multiply the power of such successful attacks on the American will. This is why Iraq will not have the 30 years that South Korea had relatively free of external interference except for the USA to get its act together. Good luck Iraq. I mean it.

John D Infidel said...

No, al Qaeda is not in Iraq today solely because of American presence. Al Qaeda is the militant wing of Islamist whose sole purpose in life is the re-establishment of the Caliphate. Iraq is a great spot to begin the Caliphate's reincarnation. It has abundant oil for revenue to expand the new Islamic Empire and its population is relatively educated which also is useful when building the new empire.

It should be understood that the national boundaries in the Middle East were drawn by those western countries who were victorious after World War I. Why? The Ottoman Empire was difficult to deal with because, being an Islamic Caliphate it did not recognize an treaties or even general agreements with non-Islamic countries. So the western countries divided up the Middle East with artificial borders and placed certain families (who would become so-called monarchs)who were not descendants of Mohammad (as I understand it the leader of the Caliphate must be a descendant of Mohammad charge of each new country. These new rulers in the Middle East were easier to deal with, they kept their word and the western countries got the oil they craved.

Anyhow, I believe the primary purpose of America's invasion of your country was to deny the Islamists their new Caliphate. Also it provides an excellent opportunity to kill off as many suicidal fools who wish to die for Allah on their turf and not ours. I like to think of it as the "flies on shit" strategy. Sorry it had to be your country.

commentor said...

"The Ottoman Empire was difficult to deal with because, being an Islamic Caliphate it did not recognize an treaties or even general agreements with non-Islamic countries. So the western countries divided up the Middle East with artificial borders and placed certain families (who would become so-called monarchs)who were not descendants of Mohammad (as I understand it the leader of the Caliphate must be a descendant of Mohammad charge of each new country."

Wow! I've gotta hand it to you; I've read quite a few dumb things about the Middle East over the years, but that was probably the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Totally blown away.

John D Infidel said...

Glad to be of service Mr. Commentator!
I believe it is time for you to crack open an objective history book and leave the propaganda behind.

annie said...

and leave the propaganda behind.

cat calls kettle black!

lol

John D Infidel said...

The truth is NOT relative.

Anonymous said...

You stupid, warmongering, bastard! Iraq is not our problem. This "defending freedom" is a load of horseshit. If Iraq was anywhere else in the world, we would never look twice at it. Unfortunately, it is sitting on top of an ocean of oil. Who were the first people bush let into Iraq? His oil buddies! This was never America's fight. Iraq is a muslim country. Muslims will never accept democracy because it contradicts their religion. And they rather die than leave Islam. This is a lost cause. People who say so are not pessimists, they are right. As for supporting the troops, they are dying for a man who has no backing from the rest of the country, therefore they are acting outside the country's interests. I have nothing against the soldiers. I simply pity the current dilemna they are in: follow the orders of a lying, draft-dodging coward, or disobey their duty and honor. They shouldn't need to make that choice. Bring them home now!!! As for you buddy, go back to watching right-wing liars on FoxNews.

Anonymous said...

You are a fanatical piece of shit Jaguar. Are you a muslim who beats his veiled wife? Huh? Go fuck yourself.

John D Infidel said...

Iraq is our problem now. It is also a good place to kill off al Qaeda types one at a time. Having Americans in Iraq attracts al Qaeda types like flies on shit.

GW Bush did not dodge the draft he served in the National Guard during a time of war, much to the chagrin of that useful idiot Dan Rather. Now Clinton, he was a draft dodger.

Notice I didn't call anonymous names or attack it personally. Hate is eating away at the self-victimized socialist left in America. It is quite entertaining to witness.

Jaguar b. p. said...

Dead American aggressors in Iraq by month:

May 2003 - 37
May 2007 - 93