Remember back in 2005, how George Bush and his acolytes provided us with a series of “purple finger moments”, using the record of the three successive nationwide polls that the US and UN had organized in Iraq as “proof” that the US invasion had led to democracy there?
I was reminded of that when Robert Mugabe produced his country’s own “purple finger moment” in recent days…
Elections on their own do not a democracy make.
In Iraq, the last of those three polls, in December 2005, cemented in place a very heavily sectarianized party system in the country. And because the US occupiers had previously demolished just about all of Iraq’s institutions of national administration and governance, the elected leaders had no levers through which they could even have hoped to govern their country. People should look at Roland Paris’s important work on post-conflict priorities, in which he concludes that the best approach is “institutionalization before liberalization.” What Bremer and Co did was quite a novel approach: “institution destruction before liberalization.” Almost enough to give the whole project of political (and economic) liberalization a bad name.
Like probably all other Quakers, I am strong adherent of democracy in all forms of decisionmaking. But here’s something worth thinking about: In our own internal governance, we never have votes at all! We decide everything by seeking “the unity of the meeting,” and in the event of differences we simply carry on discussing and deliberating together until we arrive at it. In the event of a lengthy stalemate, the holdouts may choose to “stand aside” and allow a decision they’re uncomfortable with to proceed. (Or they may not.) But our version of democracy is based on the idea that any individual, even if she is only one person in a large gathering, may be the one who has the right idea; and therefore everyone should be fully and respectfully listened to and engaged with.
Maybe in the broader world, that kind of lengthy deliberation is not often possible, and hence voting may– on some basis– be the best way to proceed. Though even then, you want to make very sure you don’t get a “dictatorship of the majority” that rides rough-shod over the concerns and needs of any minority.
In international diplomacy, consensus is nearly always a better way to proceed than through factionalism and voting.
So if voting– and all those purple finger moments– do not, actually, tell us anything particularly useful about whether a country is truly democratic or not, what does democracy actually consist of?
In my view, it rests on two core convictions:
- 1. The conviction that differences of opinion should always be resolved through non-violent and non-coercive means– through deliberation, discussion, and negotiation, rather than through violence or coercion. Voting may (or may not) be a part of this; but the party that “wins” any particular vote has to remain committed to not using violence or coercion against the “minority”; and
2. A deep conviction in the equal worth of every human person. As Jeremy Bentham put it: “Each one counts for one, and only one.” No-one should belong to any special class that is above the law. The views of even the humblest person in society should be sought out, included, and valued.
If we can promulgate adherence to these two principles in all the communities of which we are a part– including the community of all humankind– then surely our communities will flourish!
But the idea that “democracy” can be exported to other countries through violence and war is quite bizarre. War and invasion demonstrate that it is quite okay to resolve policy differences through violence and coercion.
I would add to your comment about ‘the equal worth of every human person’, by saying that democracy requires political equality, which in turn is impossible without social equality and approximate economic equality.
An interesting idea in Watson’s comment. Maybe that is why despots keep conditions as unequal as possible. Where people are too concerned with mere survival, they are not available for truly democratic debate. Using Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the deep self-conscious needs can only be considered after the basics like food and shelter. To take this further, that would explain why so many revolutions end in tyranny.
An interesting idea in Watson’s comment. Maybe that is why despots keep conditions as unequal as possible. Where people are too concerned with mere survival, they are not available for truly democratic debate. Using Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the deep self-conscious needs can only be considered after the basics like food and shelter. To take this further, that would explain why so many revolutions end in tyranny.
San Mateo Daily Journal
July 1,2008
Letters to the editor
The power of the Israeli lobby
Editor,
Some say that Jewish money speaks. Perhaps they donate more than others for political causes. But the myth about all-powerful Jewish money has an anti-Semitic ring. After all, other lobbies, and most decidedly the huge multinational corporations, have given considerable sums of money to Obama (as well as to his opponents). And Obama himself has proudly announced that hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens have sent him small donations, which have amounted to tens of millions.
True, it has been proven that the Jewish lobby can almost always block the election of a senator or a member of Congress who does not dance, with fervor, to the Israeli tune. In some exemplary cases (which were indeed meant to be seen as examples), the lobby has defeated popular politicians by lending its political and financial clout to the election campaign of a practically unknown rival.
But in a presidential race? The transparent fawning of Obama on the Israeli lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates. Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles.
And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles.
Ted Rudow III,MA
Menlo Park
Interesting comparison between the Iraqi elections in 05 and the recent Mugabi elections.
Did the UN supervise the Mugabi elections Helena?
Did the Iraqi government unleash wholesale violence against its opponents in Dec 05, forcing them out of the contest?
Did any of the leaders of politial parties in Iraq have to seek asylum in a western embassy?
Is the current Iraqi government a one party/one leader dictatorship?
What other similarities are there?
“So if voting– and all those purple finger moments– do not, actually, tell us anything particularly useful about whether a country is truly democratic or not, what does democracy actually consist of?
In my view, it rests on two core convictions:
1. The conviction that differences of opinion should always be resolved through non-violent and non-coercive means– through deliberation, discussion, and negotiation, rather than through violence or coercion. Voting may (or may not) be a part of this; but the party that “wins” any particular vote has to remain committed to not using violence or coercion against the “minority”; and
2. A deep conviction in the equal worth of every human person. As Jeremy Bentham put it: “Each one counts for one, and only one.” No-one should belong to any special class that is above the law. The views of even the humblest person in society should be sought out, included, and valued.”
How about:
3. A recognition by Helena Cobban and others of of the results of democratic, universal, one vote/one value elections even if they personally do not agree with the outome and even if they regret the transition from a previous totalitarian police state?
Having UN observers sitting in a hotel room in Amman watching on a TV screen while an election happens in Iraq does not constitute a UN supervised election, BB.
For what it’s worth, in response to BB, s/he has no reason whatsoever to suppose or suggest that I “regret” the ending of Saddam Hussein’s regime. What I consistently opposed was the fact it was ended by a forceful and quite unjustified invasion of Iraq. Throughout the Saddam era, I worked hard with colleagues at Human Rights Watch to publicize the many rights abuses Saddam committed and to try to support all efforts to hold him and his cohorts accountable for them. Prime among those abuses was the quite unjustified invasion of not one but two countries, each of which invasions– itself constituted a large-scale rights abuse, and led to occupations and wars in which a climate of brutality prevailed.
Regarding the results of the Iraqi elections, which were held under rules imposed by the occupying power, I have tended to give the Iraqi government the benefit of the doubt regarding its legitimacy. But we do need to recognize that so long as US troops control most strategic locations in the country, the Iraqi government (which in important respects is the captive of the US military) cannot negotiate entirely freely with Washington over such issues as longterm troop-basing rights or longterm oil contracts.
However, the political power situation in Iraq is subject to some flux, as I’ve noted elsewhere.
Meanwhile, the non-violent, anti-coercion core of democratic theory remains of central importance, and a guiding principle that hopefully can help guide all involved in Iraq’s stormy political situation navigate effectively through the shoals that remain ahead. (Just to mix a metaphor or three.)
‘I was reminded of that when Robert Mugabe produced his country’s own “purple finger moment” in recent days…’
If you are suggesting president Mugabe cheated, then youve been sitting too long in front of the TV.
You may recall he lost the first round due to the Makoni factor.
Helena, you may like to read Stephen Gowans latest article on Zimbabwe:
Zimbabwe at War:
http://gowans.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/zimbabwe-at-war/
And please remember that Democracy means rule by the people,not rule by foreign govt remote controlled parties, which the MDC is, tho you wont hear that on the MSM.
“What I consistently opposed was the fact it was ended by a forceful and quite unjustified invasion of Iraq.”
Not only that, but it was replaced by something much worse than Saddam’s regime. And bb does not have to take my word for it since that is also the view of the majority of Iraqis living in Iraq, and has been for some years now.
bb is most definitely a SHE.
Helena, have to say you are torturing logic in saying you do not regret the transition. If you could rewind history to pre April 2003, you would in an instant, would you not?
I’m glad you pay the Iraqi people, who turned out to vote in such numbers at those three elections, their due respect.
Shirin: you believe the Shia and Kurdish 80% majority in Iraq believe the current government, run mainly by them, is worse than living under Saddam’s regime?
I don’t think so, but whatever makes you happy.
bb is most definitely a SHE.
Helena, have to say you are torturing logic in saying you do not regret the transition. If you could rewind history to pre April 2003, you would in an instant, would you not?
I’m glad you pay the Iraqi people, who turned out to vote in such numbers at those three elections, their due respect.
Shirin: you believe the Shia and Kurdish 80% majority in Iraq believe the current government, run mainly by them, is worse than living under Saddam’s regime?
I don’t think so, but whatever makes you happy.
In Iraq, the last of those three polls, in December 2005, cemented in place a very heavily sectarianized party system in the country.
Helena its not really quite right saying that.
Paul Bremer CPA council was the first apparatus that cemented the sectarian scenario in Iraq.
The fact is those who chosen by Paul Bremer/US in fact chosen deliberately and divisively to preparing for future diversion in Iraq.
This was the keystone of sectarianized party system if you remember Paul Bremer were allowed only 50 Party to be promoted from those more than hundreds Iraqi parties that emerged after thrown old regime even so these parties also selected carefully as sectarianized parties which the following developed prove that clearly.
Any way the election in Iraq was far from very basic process but as we saw and most media and those specialists wrote and writing the regarded as legitimate and legal although there were vast frauds happened and reported (the 30 voting box in southern Iraq vanished and then appeared after two day or so).
As for Mogabi election here, its very similar to Mubarak / Egypt election and many other places like most African countries what make Robert Mugabe different its his noise and his attitude changed against his handler which the Britt’s. as we sow with Saddam when he turned back against his handler
“you believe the Shia and Kurdish 80% majority in Iraq believe the current government, run mainly by them, is worse than living under Saddam.
BB, the polls taken in Iraq very, very consistently show that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis living in Iraq say the situation is worse now than it was under Saddam. Breaking the results down along ethnic and sectarian lines shows that among each group the majority say the situation is worse now than under Saddam. That has consistently been the case for at least the last 2-3 years, except that the majority who think the situation is worse than under Saddam has grown with each successive poll.
But bb, if you want to believe that you know more about Iraqis’ situation than Iraqis know themselves, there is simply no way of helping you understand.
Shirin,
could you please provide a link to these polls “consistently showing the overwhelming majority of Iraqis say the situation is worse now” than under Saddam?
In the ABC/BBC polls, generally the most reported,
when asked if their lives were better or worse compared to before the war, an overwhelming majority said “better” in the 2004 and 2005 polls. Even in March 2007, after months of sectarian violence, the majority was still saying “better”.
After that, the ABC/BBC dropped the question. Perhaps they were not happy with the answers?
Anyway, Shirin, it’s really commonsense. Before the war the shia and Kurds had no political rights. Now Iraq is a democracy, they run the country. Since together they make up 80% of the population it is not surprising that they think their lives are better than under Saddam?
Shirin,
could you please provide a link to these polls “consistently showing the overwhelming majority of Iraqis say the situation is worse now” than under Saddam?
In the ABC/BBC polls, generally the most reported,
when asked if their lives were better or worse compared to before the war, an overwhelming majority said “better” in the 2004 and 2005 polls. Even in March 2007, after months of sectarian violence, the majority was still saying “better”.
After that, the ABC/BBC dropped the question. Perhaps they were not happy with the answers?
Anyway, Shirin, it’s really commonsense. Before the war the shia and Kurds had no political rights. Now Iraq is a democracy, they run the country. Since together they make up 80% of the population it is not surprising that they think their lives are better than under Saddam?
bb why this ill informed argument here, why not give a visit to Iraq and see by you eyes and your all senses the colourful Iraq is a democracy.
It’s really annoyed by people learn two or three world now Sunni, Shiites, and Kurds and trying to convincing us we Iraqi they can give better picture what happing in Iraq.
BB Saddam bad and criminal but what we Iraqi got after saddam also bad and worse than what lived under Saddam so both cases are bad and Iraqi suffer from daily killing horror life for five years.
I did told story recently from Inside Iraq by family members the household garbage for five years sit on the street and just days ago there are dust storm in Baghdad they don’t have electricity and the outside temperature 60-65C there is no water there is no petrol (just Iraqi oil mistier jumped in the news he will solve it in two days….rubbish talk) and they sit inside their homes no window cab be opened just like ovens.
I call on you what you doing if some one put you in same condition of democracy? Do you like it? Be honest please tell the truth
BB, I suppose it is easy for you to live in your pretty little fantasy bubble. After all, you have never set foot in Iraq. You have no real, concrete idea about it. Unfortunately, Iraqis have no such luxury. They are living the hell reality that you deny, and they know what it was like before as well. Furthermore, your concept of democracy is quite bizarre indeed.
“Before the war the shia and Kurds had no political rights.”
You see, bb, you have no real idea what the conditions were like in Iraq politically or otherwise before the 2003 invasion and you also have no idea what they have been like since.
In fact, Shi`as and Kurds did have political rights. Political rights were not granted and denied on the basis of religious or ethnic identity (as they are in Turkey, for example, where Kurds really ARE denied political and social rights). The Ba`th party is not a sectarian party whatsoever, nor was Saddam’s regime a sectarian regime. Sunnis as a group did not enjoy the great power and privilege the propagandists would have you believe. Power and privilege went to those who supported the regime, regardless of sect or ethnicity (certain opportunists, such as Jalal Talibani, used to take advantage of that when they felt it would benefit them). Saddam practiced nepotism heavily, so members of his family, who happened to be Sunni, tended to do very well, but they were also hardly immune from his wrath as quite a few of them discovered.
It would probably shock you to know that more than half of that stupid deck of cards the U.S. military distributed in 2003 were Shi`as. There were very few Sunnis in the government who did not have Shi`as or Christians (or whatever, fill in the blank) above them in higher positions, and Sunnis who opposed or did not support the regime suffered the same fate as Shi`as and Kurds who opposed it, as the people of Falluja found out during the numerous purges and other punishments they suffered at the hands of the regime.
“Now Iraq is a democracy, they run the country.”
Do you consider having government death squads and torture facilities democratic? Do you consider it democratic for the government (with the able assistance of the occupying power that keeps it in place) trying to eliminate an opposing (Shi`a) party that threatens to win big in the provincial elections by using overwhelming military force against its members and supporters, killing countless civilians, including women and children? Do you consider it democratic to make sectarian and ethnic identity the primary basis of a government? Do you consider an administration that puts more importance on following orders from the occupying power than on the will of the people democratic? If so, then I guess by YOUR standards, it IS a democracy.
And no, “they” do not run the country. Not even remotely. And their dissatisfaction with Maliki et al. shows that they have a far better understanding of that reality than you do. In fact, this assertion that “they” (by which you mean, of course, Shi`as and Kurds) run the country is outlandish on its face.
And furthermore, do you consider a country to be a democracy in which certain religious or ethnic groups “run the country” at the expense of other religious or ethnic groups? Is THAT how you think of a democracy?
“Since together they make up 80% of the population it is not surprising that they think their lives are better than under Saddam?”
They DON’T think their lives are better whatever you might claim the ABC polls are saying. And by all objective measures, their lives are far from better.
And estimated 2 million Iraqi men, women, and (mostly) children who had homes before March, 2003 are now internally displaced, homeless, and impoverished as a result of the invasion and occupation.
An estimated 2.5 million are living as refugees in other countries as a result of the invasion and occupation. Many of those refugees, now impoverished and desperate, are former members of Iraq’s middle class. Does that sound like a better life to you?
An estimated million and a quarter Iraqis are dead as a result of the invasion and occupation? Do they think they are better off now?
Iraqi women, whose rights and freedoms were for decades encoded into law, and who were at one time the most highly educated women in the Middle East are now among the most oppressed in the Middle East. Does that sound like a better life to you?
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of women and girls have been brutally murdered by for such offenses as not being dressed modestly enough, or for being seen talking to a man, or for some imaginary “moral” offense. Does that sound like a better life to you?
Unknown thousands of girls and women both inside and outside the country have turned to prostitution for survival and/or to help support their families. Does that sound like a better life to you?
Around 20-25% of the population of Iraq is either dead or internally or externally displaced as a result of the invasion and occupation of their country. Does that look like a better life to you?
Malnutrition and infant mortality rates are higher now than they were prior to the invasion and occupation. Does that look like a better life to you?
Medical care, medical facilities, medical personnel, medical equipment, and medicine are less available now than they were before the invasion and occupation (and they are far more desperately needed now than before). Does that sound like a better life to you?
More than half of Iraq’s doctors, teachers, university professors, scientists, and other professionals, artists, and intellectuals have either been murdered or have fled the country out of fear for their lives. Does that sound like a better life to you?
More Iraqis have no clean water than before the invasion and occupation. Does that look like a better life to you?
Electricity levels are below what they were before . Does that look like a better life to you?
Fewer children are attending school than before. Does that look like a better life to you?
Unemployment is much higher than before. Does that look like a better life to you?
It’s simple common sense, bb. Even a superficial look at the reality on the ground makes it obvious that life is not better than it was before, and the overwhelming majority of Iraqis know that in a very, very real way.
Here you go, bb:
ICRSS poll, November, 2006 (ICRSS is the organization that did most of the polling for the “Coalition Provisional Authority” during its existence):
– Do you think that Iraq Today is better off, about the same, or worse off than before the war? 89.9% said Iraq was worse off. 4.6% said it was better off.
– Do you think that the political situation is better, about the same, or worse than before the war? 89.4% said worse. 5.9% better.
– Do you think that economic situation is better, about the same, or worse than before the war? 79.3% said worse. 11.8% said better.
– Do you think that the security situation is better , about the same, or worse than before the war? 95.2% said worse. 1.8% said better.
By the way, there are other very interesting results in this survey. For example, an overwhelming majority rated the Iraqi government “Very Poor” in every category across the board.
Only 25.8% said if the elections were held again they would vote for the same party or entity.
“Unconfidence” was consistently higher than confidence for Maliki and every member of his government included in the survey.
A majority said the “Multi-National Forces” should leave immediately.
When asked what would happen if the Multi-National Forces withdrew from Iraq today, 65.7% said “the security situation will be improved and violence will be decreased.”
When asked “Which of the following do you consider the most important for giving you a sense of who you are (identity) as a person?” 69.5% said “being a citizen of Iraq”. Only 4.5% said being Sunni or Shi`a was important.
Consistent with the identity question above, 49.7% gave their religious identity as “Muslim” while 12.7% specified that they were Sunni, 34.4% specified Shi`a.
Here’s some more for you, bb:
Oxford Research International poll, March, 2004:
– More Iraqis polled said they were dissatisfied with their lives than those who said they were satisfied.
– A majority said it was wrong for the “Coalition” forces to invade Iraq in 2003.
Oxford Research International poll June, 2004:
– A majority said things in their lives were the same as or worse than before the invasion in March, 2003.
Salah,
Willful ignorance, and willful blindness are dangerous, and pretty pointless to try to address.
Shirin, don’t want to get into a “my poll is better than yours” debate because I think the ICRSS poll is fantastic. However I have to point out that it was confined to Baghdad, Anbar and Najaf with Baghdad having the lions share (82% of those polled) and therefore cannot be said to be representative of country. In a representative poll the Kurds would be included, for a start, and also, possibly, more shia.
It also has to be kept in mind that the poll was conducted in November 2006 when the Mahdi army retaliation on the Sunnis unleashed by the AlQI bombing of the Samarra mosque was at its height; the Iraqi army and the US had performed pathetically in Op Together Forward, which was supposed to secure Baghdad; and PM Maliki and the newly elected Iraqi govt had been paralysed for months.
That said, this ICRSS poll is the best, the very best, I have ever read on Iraqi issues, simply because the questions are framed by Iraqis themselves, and it is Iraqis interviewing other Iraqis on the issues that most concern the Iraqis. It has the absolute ring of authenticity missing from the western derived polls.
I particularly liked the following (remembering this is in the context of the time and place):
— the respondants scathing assessment of the Iraqi government’s performance.
— Their equally scathing assessments when asked to rate the performance of individual Ministers. Although it was surprising that PM Maliki came out comparatively well?
— nearly half of the respondants saying they would not vote for the party/entity they did in Dec 2005.
— Their commonsense belief that Iraqis volunteering for the army do so out of economic incentive/job motivations (77%) not for any high minded reasons.
— Their (again commonsense) assessment that the current events in Iraq at that time were being caused by “criminal groups working for internal or external agents” and/or internal political differences in Iraq.
— 85% per cent identifying Bush’s unsuccessful Iraq policy as being the cause of the Dems winning the mid terms (though I also liked very much the 40% who answered “I don’t care” to that question!)
— The 61% who were somewhat or entirely pessimistic that the Dems mid term win would result in a change in US policy (very realistic, and spot on, as it turns out).
And of course there were the responses to questions concerning the possible imminent execution of Saddam:
— 57% said they would be “overwhelmed with joy”
— 68% said they would NOT be “saddened and angry”
— 74% said they didn’t care if he was executed or not.
They were not asked if they would actually prefer a return to the Saddam era, but I figure that would have been because the question no lonmg had relevance to either the ICRSS framers or the respondants?
Thanks for drawing my attention to ICRSS, Shirin. Will they be publishing another one this year?
Salah:
The discussion between me and Shirin was about what public opinon polls had shown; not about the “reality” in Iraq, since I don’t know, not living there.
“BB Saddam bad and criminal but what we Iraqi got after saddam also bad and worse than what lived under Saddam so both cases are bad and Iraqi suffer from daily killing horror life for five years”
I understand this. But at the end of the day there is no more Saddam, no more Baath, and Iraq has a truly representative democratic electoral system and constitution. It also has the potential to grow into the most prosperous, forward-looking and modern country in the Arab Middle East. If it does, at least something will have come out of the horrors of the last 30 years.
And Shirin, earlier you posted a lengthy description of the halcyon days of Saddam and his regime. Not even Helena would try this on! Why were the Arab Iraqis polled by ICRSS therefore so apparently ungrateful for the benevolence and wisdom of his 3 decades as dictator and so indifferent as to the prospect of his execution?
“Iraq has a truly representative democratic electoral system and constitution.”
No bb it does not. It is worrying that anyone would call the “system” in Iraq as representative or democratic. The constitution is a dead letter, so far as I can see, the elections are thoroughly undemocratic, if they are held at all, and the PM seems to rule without Parliament meeting. Then there is the small matter that the US forces pauy not the slightest attention to the Iraqi authorities. Did I say ‘US forces”? Not even the mercenary contractors are ansserable to the Iraqi puppets. In what sense can this be called representative or democratic?
“t also has the potential to grow into the most prosperous, forward-looking and modern country in the Arab Middle East.”
Of course it does. So does any other nation in the Middle East. But the first step must be the withdrawal of the US forces followed by reparations, firstly for the immense damage caused by the attack on Iraq and secondly for the systematic looting which has been practised since the invasion. These are war crimes and those who committed them must be held to account- ask an Iraqi, they have been paying reparations to the Sheikh of Kuwait for more than fifteen years.
Happy July 4th. I wonder when Iraq will become independent?
bb
The discussion between me and Shirin was about what public opinon polls had shown; not about the “reality” in Iraq,
bb, I do no this, but these polls are taken from those people who are Iraqis who experiencing the hardship life for more than five years? Or those polls taken from people not in Iraq.
Anyway whatever polls saying its really shouldn’t all the time truthful as this all story of regime change to invasion of Iraq and spreading democracy and on and on turned be all lies, as Helena put very smartly and boatfully here post by saying:
BB what you things about those polls of Iraqi killed by this invasion which some telling almost ONE million Iraq killed do you believe them for you denial to these sort of polls?
If US invaded by china and 20% US population living as refugees outside the country and 5% of US population were dead do you think it would be important for china or invader to determine whether it was better or worse?
Iraq has a truly representative democratic electoral system and constitution. It also has the potential to grow into the most prosperous, forward-looking and modern country in the Arab Middle East.
I whish I can live in your dreams and enthusiasms, but what we saw from US for the last five years, there are more to come, is not give us what you believe in addition to that none of Iraq surrounding like to see what you saying and this the drama also.
bb
The discussion between me and Shirin was about what public opinon polls had shown; not about the “reality” in Iraq,
bb, I do no this, but these polls are taken from those people who are Iraqis who experiencing the hardship life for more than five years? Or those polls taken from people not in Iraq.
Anyway whatever polls saying its really shouldn’t all the time truthful as this all story of regime change to invasion of Iraq and spreading democracy and on and on turned be all lies, as Helena put very smartly and boatfully here post by saying:
BB what you things about those polls of Iraqi killed by this invasion which some telling almost ONE million Iraq killed do you believe them for you denial to these sort of polls?
If US invaded by china and 20% US population living as refugees outside the country and 5% of US population were dead do you think it would be important for china or invader to determine whether it was better or worse?
Iraq has a truly representative democratic electoral system and constitution. It also has the potential to grow into the most prosperous, forward-looking and modern country in the Arab Middle East.
I whish I can live in your dreams and enthusiasms, but what we saw from US for the last five years, there are more to come, is not give us what you believe in addition to that none of Iraq surrounding like to see what you saying and this the drama also.
bevin,
These are war crimes and those who committed them must be held to account- ask an Iraqi,
Not just Iraqis, these from General and academics who are US citizenry who were in responsible positions.
On this July 4, as we celebrate the freedoms that have long brought refugees and asylum seekers to our shores, it is all the more poignant to hear Dr. Crosby say:
it is tragic and ironic that these abuses were perpetrated by the United States, the very place to which many of my patients come to seek refuge from torture.
We are led by war criminals, says general
“This report tells the largely untold human story of what happened to detainees in our custody when the Commander-in-Chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture. This story is not only written in words: It is scrawled for the rest of these individuals’ lives on their bodies and minds. Our national honor is stained by the indignity and inhumane treatment these men received from their captors….
After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”
General Accuses WH of War Crimes
“The discussion between me and Shirin was about what public opinon polls had shown; not about the “reality” in Iraq”
No, bb, the discussion was about the reality in Iraq and your fantasies about it versus the reality. The discussion about polls grew out of the discussion about reality versus your fantasies.
“since I don’t know, not living there.”
Exactly. You don’t know. You don’t know the historical reality, nor do you know the present-day reality, although information about the latter is abundant and readily available from many different sources, official and non-official, subjective and objective, including many, many personal accounts by Iraqis themselves.
Salah: “BB Saddam bad and criminal but what we Iraqi got after saddam also bad and worse than what lived under Saddam so both cases are bad and Iraqi suffer from daily killing horror life for five years”
BB: “I understand this.”
Clearly you do NOT understand since you consistently insist that everything is better now. It isn’t. It’s much, much, much worse.
“But at the end of the day there is no more Saddam, no more Baath, and Iraq has a truly representative democratic electoral system and constitution.”
No, it does not. Not even remotely.
“It also has the potential to grow into the most prosperous, forward-looking and modern country in the Arab Middle East.”
Every country in the Arab Middle East has that potential. In the ’70’s and ’80’s Iraq was, the most prosperous, forward-looking and modern country in the Arab Middle East – and yes, that was under “the Ba`th”, and Saddam Hussein. During that period Iraq made tremendous advances in infrastructure, and civil and social services. The medical system was state-of-the art, and considered the best in the region, and programs were instituted to improve medical services in smaller cities and towns and in rural areas. The education system was also considered by many to be the best in the region. One of the programs instituted by the Ba`th-ruled government was a women’s literacy program intended to improve girls’ and women’s education, which was always excellent in the major cities, in the more remote and rural areas. Iraq was recognized by the UN during that period as the oil producing country that did the best at distributing its oil wealth to the population.
Women’s rights and freedoms were encoded in the laws of the country.
“If it does, at least something will have come out of the horrors of the last 30 years.”
BB, the horrors of the last 30 years are nothing compared to the horrors of the last five yeas.
“Shirin, earlier you posted a lengthy description of the halcyon days of Saddam and his regime.”
BB, this is a perfect example of one of the reasons I rarely even read your nonsense, let alone try to engage with you. If you want to have a reasonable and enlightening discussion with me, you will have to stop this dishonest tactic of blatant misrepresentation.
“Why were the Arab Iraqis polled by ICRSS therefore so apparently ungrateful for the benevolence and wisdom of his 3 decades as dictator and so indifferent as to the prospect of his execution?”
Once again, bb, cut it out or I will cut off this discussion, and go back to ignoring your comments. No one here, especially me, has suggested anything about Saddam having benevolence or wisdom. However, I do try to deal with reality, and the fact that by virtually every imaginable objective measure, Iraq and Iraqis are in a worse state than they were before March, 2003, is obvious and undeniable to anyone who is in possession of even the most tenuous grip on reality.
Bevin
” the elections are thoroughly undemocratic, if they are held at all,”
There were two general elections in 2005, conducted on the basis of universal suffrage, one vote one value, proportional representation. The parties are represented in the COR according to the proportion of the vote they received. The COR serves 4 year terms. The next general election is due by December 2009.
The provincial elections were held at the time of the first general election in January 2005. Again, the provincial councils serve 4 year terms, so the next provincial elections are due in Jan 09. It is possible they will be held, early, by the end of this year.
” and the PM seems to rule without Parliament meeting. ”
On the contrary Parliament meets regularly. The “opposition” parties have been using the power given them by the Constitution to block and delay key legislation, forcing the government to compromise. Far from being a dead letter, the constitution guarantees minority rights and ensures that none of the major parties can dominate the others.
Shirin
” … in the 1980s ..and yes, that was under … Saddam Hussein”
Between 1980 and 1988 Iraq was fighting a bitter war with Iran that Saddam had started. Millions were killed.
It was in the 1970s, before Saddam and the Tikritis took over the Baath, that Iraq led the arab middle east in the provision of services to its citizens.
“I think the ICRSS poll is fantastic.”
This is far from the only poll to come from ICRSS. This organization conducted a number of polls for the so-called “Coalition Provisional Authority” which did not come out quite the way the occupiers would have liked them to, and have conducted others since. .
“However I have to point out that it was confined to Baghdad, Anbar and Najaf with Baghdad having the lions share (82% of those polled) and therefore cannot be said to be representative of country.”
On the contrary, it is an excellent representation of the Iraqis who have been affected by the invasion and occupation of the country, including the religious and ethnic groups living in those areas most deeply affected. And by the way, it is the first such poll to include Anbar province at all.
“In a representative poll the Kurds would be included, for a start”
Not necessarily. Since Kurdistan had, up to them at least, been affected very little by the invasion and occupation, and has, for all practical purposes, a separate government. For those reasons it should be treated in a separate entity when evaluating the effect of the occupation on Iraqis. Including Kurdistan in a poll like this would have skewed the results in an unrealistic direction. But in fact, Kurds living in the affected areas of Iraq WERE represented more or less in proportion to their numbers in those areas.
Polls conducted before and after this one have shown, by the way, that a strong and increasing majority of Kurds are quite fed up with the Americans and would very much like them to leave.
“and also, possibly, more shia.”
Well, BB, almost three times as many of those polled described themselves as Shi`as as described themselves as Sunnis, so I don’t know why more Shi`as would need to be included given that they were already included out of proportion to their numbers in the population. One of the areas polled, Najaf, is almost exclusively Shi`a, and the polling in Baghdad took in predominantly Sunni and Shi`a areas as well as mixed areas.
Furthermore, though I know you have thoroughly drunk the Kool Aid on the “All Iraq is divisible into three parts” nonsense, surely you would want Shi`as to be OVER represented, would you?
“It also has to be kept in mind that the poll was conducted in November 2006 when the Mahdi army retaliation on the Sunnis unleashed by the AlQI bombing of the Samarra mosque was at its height;”
1. There is to date no actualy evidence that so-called Al Qa`eda was responsible for the bombing of of the Al Askari mosque, and some very good reasons to question the assumption that it was. Therefore, it is wrong to refer to it as
“the Al QI bombing”.
2. There is strong reason to doubt the assumption that the Mahdi Army was responsible for “unleashing” any retaliation on the Sunnis. In fact, this story is just a tad too convenient, and ignores the fact that the people in the top tiers of the Iraqi government have their own militia that includes sectarian death squads.
3. It is difficult to understand what the significance of this timing would be, particularly since the results of this poll are quite consistent with similar polls taken both before and since.
“the Iraqi army and the US had performed pathetically in Op Together Forward, which was supposed to secure Baghdad;”
So-called “Operation Together Forward” was, not surprisingly, typical of every effort on the part of the American occupation to use a surge of overwhelming violence and suppression to “pacify” or “secure” an area. There is no reason to believe that the timing of this poll skewed the results in any way. As a matter of fact, this poll reflects of a consistent pattern of deteriorating Iraqi confidence in both the government and the American occupiers, and discouragement with the increasingly horrific conditions under which they are being forced to live.
“PM Maliki and the newly elected Iraqi govt had been paralysed for months.”
PM Maliki and the Iraqi government have never for a single hour of a single day functioned as a government, nor were they ever intended to. Furthermore, the Iraqi public realized within six months of their installment that they were not going to function as a government, and that has been reflected consistently in the polls ever since.
“I particularly liked the following (remembering this is in the context of the time and place):”
The time being four years into a brutally violent, deadly, and destructive occupation, the place being a country devastated by the deliberate and systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure in 1991 followed by nearly 13 years of brutal, crippling sanctions and isolation, and an invasion and years of occupation during which what was left of the the infrastructure was destroyed, political, civil, social, cultural, and economic structures and institutions were systematically dismantled, conditions deteriorated in every measurable and non-measurable way and the society was systematically set against itself.
“— the respondants scathing assessment of the Iraqi government’s performance.”
The Iraqi government does not perform because it does not function as a government. It can’t. Nor does it in any way represent the people of Iraq or their interests, despite your insistence that the Iraqis have a representative government. It could not represent the interests of the Iraqi people even if the members of that government were so inclined, which they are not.
“— Their equally scathing assessments when asked to rate the performance of individual Ministers. Although it was surprising that PM Maliki came out comparatively well?”
You call that coming out well? Interesting.
“— nearly half of the respondants saying they would not vote for the party/entity they did in Dec 2005.”
What is even more telling is that only about one quarter said they WOULD vote for the same entity or party.
“Their commonsense belief that Iraqis volunteering for the army do so out of economic incentive/job motivations (77%) not for any high minded reasons.”
That is not news. It has been well known from the beginning. In a country where unemployment has been as high as 70%, and people are so desperate that thousands of women and girls are turning to prostitution to survive, clearly people will do just about anything to support themselves and their families, including serve as proxy forces for a despised foreign occupation.
The ramifications of this fact – that the majority of Iraqis are volunteering for the army out of desperation to find a means to earn an income – are many. It explains, in large measure, the “poor performance” of the Iraqi forces when called upon to attack and kill their fellow Iraqis on behalf of the United States.
“— Their (again commonsense) assessment that the current events in Iraq at that time were being caused by “criminal groups working for internal or external agents” and/or internal political differences in Iraq.”
Again, this is hardly news. This has been obvious all along to anyone who is paying attention.
“— The 61% who were somewhat or entirely pessimistic that the Dems mid term win would result in a change in US policy (very realistic, and spot on, as it turns out).”
That just shows that Iraqis are more politically astute and less naive than most Americans.
“And of course there were the responses to questions concerning the possible imminent execution of Saddam:
— 57% said they would be “overwhelmed with joy”
— 68% said they would NOT be “saddened and angry”
— 74% said they didn’t care if he was executed or not.”
There is nothing remarkable about this. Saddam has been over, history, not a major issue, for most Iraqis for some time now. They have much bigger things to worry about, including the fact that whereas before they had one Saddam to worry about, now they have thousands of Saddams threatening them. Only outsiders, mainly Americans and occupation supporters who are desperate for justifications have continued to dwell on Saddam.
“They were not asked if they would actually prefer a return to the Saddam era, but I figure that would have been because the question no lonmg had relevance to either the ICRSS framers or the respondants?”
The question has never had any relevance except to people who need to justify what the U.S. has done and continues to do in Iraq.
“Between 1980 and 1988 Iraq was fighting a bitter war with Iran that Saddam had started. Millions were killed.
“It was in the 1970s, before Saddam and the Tikritis took over the Baath, that Iraq led the arab middle east in the provision of services to its citizens.”
BB, I know the history of Iraq, and unlike you, I lived a good bit of it. Iraq continued to lead the Arab Middle East in provision of services to its citizens during the early years of the war with Iran. It was not until the war had dragged on long enough to deplete the financial resources that the situation began to deteriorate, just as it has done in the United States as a result of Bush’s seven years of military adventurism. Furthermore, Saddam was de facto very much in power in Iraq during the ’70’s, despite the fact that Bakr was the titular head of the government.
And without in any way absolving Saddam of his responsibility for initiating the war with Iran, and his part in its protraction, we should also hold Iran responsible for choosing to continue the war, and for the western powers’, particularly the United States’ part in encouraging, aiding, and abetting its continuance. In fact, without the financial and other assistance of the United States Saddam would not have been able to continue the war as long as he did.
And it was not until the systematic destruction by the United States in 1991, the ensuing sanctions, maintained solely at the insistance of the United States (with Britain tagging along), and the continued regular bombings by the United States that the situation in Iraq began to deteriorate to sub-third-world levels. And for this massive collective punishment of Iraqis present and future, the West, primarily the United States under Bill Clinton, is responsible.
Saddam Hussein is responsible for his own crimes and mistakes. He is not responsible for the fact that the United States chose to punish an entire country for his criminal actions.
Shirin.
Barely 3 years after the end of the Iraq/Iran war (which Saddam had started), Saddam then attacked the sovereign state of Kuwait and annexed it to Iraq. After a ceasefire had been agreed, Saddam/Iraq then broke the conditions they had signed up for. Saddam/Iraq’s actions led to the UN sanctions.
That is, the Iraq/Iran war was the result of Saddam/Iraq agression against a neighbour; the Kuwait war was the result of Saddam/Iraq aggression against a neighbour. And the UN sanctions were the direct results of Saddam/Iraq actions to break the conditions of the ceasefire.
Incidentally, the UN sanctions also applied to Kurdistan, and yet far from the people suffering there the Kurdistan economy grew and prospered.
Why did the people in Saddam’s Iraq suffer so much, in contrast to the Iraqis of Kurdistan? Because Saddam made a deliberate decision to ensure that they did, for propaganda purposes.
BB, as is often the case, you do not have your facts straight. In particular, you do not have your facts straight about the sanctions. Please come back with a correct set of facts in hand and perhaps we can have a discussion. On the other hand, if you have the correct facts, less discussion will be needed, I think.
In the meantime, granting for the sake of discussion that a war was necessary to get Saddam out of Kuwait (which is a questionable assumption), perhaps you could consider in your own mind whether the systematic destruction of Iraq’s electrical, communication, water purification and delivery, and sewage transportation and processing capabilities was necessary to getting Saddam to withdraw from Kuwait. You might ask yourself how robbing Iraqi children of clean, safe drinking water, of water to bathe and wash their clothes and cook their food, of food kept fresh by refrigeration, of basic sanitation, of light by which to do homework and study, and so on, and on and on was a necessary part of extricating Saddam from Kuwait.
You might also ask, as many Iraqis have, how destroying virtually every bridge in Iraq was needed to get Saddam to withdraw from Iraq.
And, once you have your facts straight about the sanctions, you might ask yourself how punishing the Iraqi people by depriving them of the most basic necessities of life – food, water, medical care, power, education, etc. etc. was necessary to do whatever it was the sanctions were supposed to do to Saddam. You might, in particular, ask yourself this question in light of the fact that the primary effect the sanctions had on Saddam was to strengthen him even as it weakened the Iraqi people.
And finally, I would suggest that you ask yourself – completely in private, of course – whether it might have been possible to get Saddam to withdraw from Kuwait without destroying Iraq’s vital civilian infrastructure, and whether it might also have been possible to do whatever it was to Saddam without creating conditions that caused such terrible suffering and death to the civilian population of Iraq. In fact, you might examine whether there might have even been more effective ways to deal with Saddam.
Oh yes, and if you have any time or brainpower left after all that contemplation, you might begin thinking about the ways in which the United States and other western powers encouraged, enabled, facilitated, and empowered Saddam in the very crimes for which the United States has so horribly punished the Iraqi people for so many, many years.
BB, as is often the case, you do not have your facts straight. In particular, you do not have your facts straight about the sanctions. Please come back with a correct set of facts in hand and perhaps we can have a discussion. On the other hand, if you have the correct facts, less discussion will be needed, I think.
In the meantime, granting for the sake of discussion that a war was necessary to get Saddam out of Kuwait (which is a questionable assumption), perhaps you could consider in your own mind whether the systematic destruction of Iraq’s electrical, communication, water purification and delivery, and sewage transportation and processing capabilities was necessary to getting Saddam to withdraw from Kuwait. You might ask yourself how robbing Iraqi children of clean, safe drinking water, of water to bathe and wash their clothes and cook their food, of food kept fresh by refrigeration, of basic sanitation, of light by which to do homework and study, and so on, and on and on was a necessary part of extricating Saddam from Kuwait.
You might also ask, as many Iraqis have, how destroying virtually every bridge in Iraq was needed to get Saddam to withdraw from Iraq.
And, once you have your facts straight about the sanctions, you might ask yourself how punishing the Iraqi people by depriving them of the most basic necessities of life – food, water, medical care, power, education, etc. etc. was necessary to do whatever it was the sanctions were supposed to do to Saddam. You might, in particular, ask yourself this question in light of the fact that the primary effect the sanctions had on Saddam was to strengthen him even as it weakened the Iraqi people.
And finally, I would suggest that you ask yourself – completely in private, of course – whether it might have been possible to get Saddam to withdraw from Kuwait without destroying Iraq’s vital civilian infrastructure, and whether it might also have been possible to do whatever it was to Saddam without creating conditions that caused such terrible suffering and death to the civilian population of Iraq. In fact, you might examine whether there might have even been more effective ways to deal with Saddam.
Oh yes, and if you have any time or brainpower left after all that contemplation, you might begin thinking about the ways in which the United States and other western powers encouraged, enabled, facilitated, and empowered Saddam in the very crimes for which the United States has so horribly punished the Iraqi people for so many, many years.
PS BB, while you are correcting your facts on the sanctions, and contemplating the above questions, you might also ponder the fact that the Clinton administration made it explicitly clear that for them, at least, the sanctions were not really about eliminating so-called weapons of mass destruction, but about regime change. They stated so explicitly more than once, making it crystal clear that no matter what Saddam did, no matter how well he cooperated with the inspections, no matter that the inspectors found Iraq clean of so-called weapons of mass destruction (which had, by the way, been accomplished by the mid-1990’s), the people of Iraq would continue to suffer under the sanctions as long as Saddam remained in power there.
BB, I know the history of Iraq, and unlike you, I lived a good bit of it.
Oh really? When and in what context? Considering how often you pull the ‘personal experience’ card we’re entitled to know why you (a non-Arab American living in the USA) feel entitled to speak for Iraqis quite so often as you do. It’s also remarkable since your lack of first hand knowledge of Israel hasn’t stopped you from making all kinds of ignorant representations of that country or its citizens.
So how is it that you happen to have enjoyed a close personal friendship with war criminal Tariq Aziz? Is this the sort of Iraqi friend whose post-war experiences you’re representing? Is it his ideas about sanctions you are representing?
Do tell Shirin. Your credibility as an “Iraqi expert” would really help the rest of us color your judgments.
The question has never had any relevance….
One wonders then, why you made this point in the first place (“bb does not have to take my word for it since that is also the view of the majority of Iraqis living in Iraq”)
Your curious interpretation of poll data aside, I think we all agree it’s a pretty pointless line of discussion (which at this point is more of a monologue.)
Vadim,
Do not resort to the cheap and dishonest tactic of misrepresenting what I have said. It will not work. As I am sure you realize, I did not even suggest, let alone make the point that Iraqis wished to return to the days of Saddam. The point I made was an entirely different one.
As for your pretense of knowledge about my personal situation, background, and history – ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
As for your pretense of knowledge about my personal situation, background, and history
I’m only recalling facts that you’ve posted here before. Am I wrong in any detail? I’d be happy to link to all relevant conversations (especially that one about Tariq Aziz sleeping on your couch after late-night dinner parties.)
You brought up your personal situation and history, not me. If you don’t want it discussed, why not keep it to yourself! If you’re really claiming privileged knowledge of Iraqis and their situation, you should really flesh out these personal details. For all we know all your Iraqi friends are deposed war criminals. PS: I’m sure they aren’t, but you haven’t told me much to allow me to think otherwise.
The point I made was an entirely different one
The point you made was the one I cut and pasted into the comments field. If you feel you expressed yourself poorly why not amend your earlier remark ?
If you can’t argue the substance effectively, get personal, eh, Vadim?
Vadim, as you know very well the point I made had nothing to do with Iraqis wishing to return to the days of Saddam. Please stop wasting everyone’s time with this kind of cheap, silly, dishonest attempt at diversion.
Now, have fun talking to yourself, because I am done.
If you can’t argue the substance effectively, get personal, eh, Vadim?
In case you hadn’t noticed, I’m not arguing the one with you. Your personal details are known to me because you made them known and because you thought to invoke them again in this discussion while trying to belittle bb.
have fun talking to yourself, because I am done.
I rather doubt that. The point you made claimed Iraqis had a longstanding and overwhelming preference for Saddam Hussein’s regime over the form of government they experience now, and that this preference was shared by all ethnic groups.
I don’t blame you for abandoning this dead end of an argument since it isn’t sustained by poll data or common sense.
bb, Saddam gone now Iraq occupy by US can you stop talking about old brutal regime to make justification for now days what Iraqi going through?
It’s really silly by saying Iraqis suffered under dictator to justify the myth after him.
The sick dictator and old regime gone for five years now, what changes happen after him good or bad, get out from your bubble give a visit to Iraq see by your own eyes just give it try don’t sit there and try feed us with your neo- theories.
Did you forgot those 100 US left behind, call its a democratic government where the ministers getting orders and directed by on of those 100 US left behind in each ministry and high places, while in each day “Iraqi” ministers going to their offices searched by sniffing doges stopping them each day checked in the front in the entrance of their ministry building?
Why this who worry from minister to enter the building?
Guess why this checks each day? Did US care about the death of Iraqis?
As some one put it about Iraq now he said:the neo-cons visions is becoming more and more a fragmented illegal place, where the black economy rules absolute and the idea of the nationstate as we like to think of it is just a mere notion. Where alliance to the local tribe, clan, and economic strata is far more important than alliance to ideas, be they state or ideological. And all this facilitates a black economy, where smuggling and trading in the black market beats the hell out of legitimate business. Donde est la dineros? Who profits from this development?
On March 19, 2003, as his shock-and-awe campaign against Iraq was being launched, George W. Bush addressed the nation. “My fellow citizens,” he began, “at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.” We were entering Iraq, he insisted, “with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.”
By Tom Engelhardt
“The point you made claimed Iraqis had a longstanding and overwhelming preference for Saddam Hussein’s regime over the form of government they experience now…”
Stop making stuff up, Vadim. And now you are augmenting and embroidering your original statement – what a pathetic tactic.
No, that was not the point I made at all, and you know that. My statement was that Saddam’s regime was not only “ended by a forceful and quite unjustified invasion of Iraq” (Helen’s comment), in addition it “was replaced by something much worse than Saddam’s regime”. I then pointed out that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis in Iraq shared that view. I said nothing at all about anyone, Iraqi or non-Iraqi wishing a return of Saddam’s regime, let alone anything about a “longstanding and overwhelming preference”.
Your attempts to discredit my substantive arguments by making personal allegations about background matters you have no knowledge of are transparent and sad. Further, they are a waste of time, and I will return to my usual habit of ignoring them.
And now, Vadim, I really am done. I am not going to let you waste any more of my time playing nonsense games.
Thank you, Shirin. Vadim and bb are still channeling “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.”
I said nothing at all about anyone, Iraqi or non-Iraqi wishing a return of Saddam’s regime
Well Shirin, this looks to me like sloppy reading on your part. I never claimed you did!
All you claimed (again!) was that they (Iraqis) shared a preference in overwhelming numbers for the previous regime versus the current one (in English: “worse”) Worse doesn’t mean you like and want one and hate the other. It means you think one is better than the other, ie one is preferable to the other… just what I said.
Subtleties like this also seem to be missed in reading and interpreting poll results, since none of the poll data shows that Iraqis on the whole consider their current station ‘worse’ then when your close friends ran the show.
Who knows where they get their nonsense, Kassandra? Not from anything in the real world, that’s for sure. What I do know is that I don’t have time for silly games.
ersonal allegations about background matters you have no knowledge of
The only personal allegations I’ve made come directly from your own testimony on this blog!
https://vintage.justworldnews.org/archives/002344.html
David, believe it or not Tariq `Aziz used to be a very decent and very idealist person. I know that well because he was a good friend of ours who slept many nights on our couch after late nights of eating, drinking, and talking together. We went very different ways, but he never forgot his friends.
If you’d rather things were kept impersonal, that’s fine too, just don’t go swatting us over the head with testimonials you intend to later deny.
What I do know is that I don’t have time for silly games.
This is your eighteenth post (and your third ‘last post’). I think you have the time.
HI kassandra. Since you asked (kind of?) I’m not convinced that the US can help the Iraqi people through the a military occupation. I would love to see the US pack it up in Iraq immediately. Best to confine our disucssion to what we’ve actually said, wouldn’t you agree?
On that score, Shirin’s generalizations about what Iraqis feel come from personal friends like war criminal Tariq Aziz and similarly dispossessed exiles. It frankly doesn’t surprise or bother me that they feel worse off than before.
For its part as bb notes the ICRSS poll isn’t nationwide & the sample size is much smaller than the others.
The Oxford Poll (and every other wide ranging poll) may show hostility to the US. But they don’t “consistently show the overwhelming majority of Iraqis say the situation is worse now” than under Hussein. I know Shirin has seen the dozens of polls attesting otherwise because I’ve already posted them here. Yes, they say all kinds of bad things about the US occupation as well which frankly lends them more credibility. Saying the US was wrong to invade Iraq doesn’t imply a preference for Hussein.
Any nationwide poll will show large numbers agreeing that Iraq without Saddam is better than before even considering its political disarray, a heightened threat of terrorism and an unwanted military occupation. The single largest poll of the Iraqi civilian population to date (of over 5,000 respondents) was published by ORB in March 2007. It showed that only 26% of respondents nationwide preferred life under Hussein, ie a clear minority. A large plurality of 49% claimed “things are better for us under the current system.”
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=67
Malnutrition and infant mortality rates are higher now than they were prior to the invasion and occupation.
According to whom? In 2006 the WHO estimated 2006 chronic malnutrition in Iraq at 20%. In 2002, the same agency estimated a malnutrition rate of 23.1% after peaking in 1996 at a whopping 32%.)
(see: http://www.who.int/features/2003/iraq_briefing_note/en/index1.html)
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/iraq_statistics.html
A clear and direct comparison across all categories by UNICEF, which for 2002 cited an Iraqi infant mortality rate of 102/1000 (http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=25&Country=IQ)
Here as anyone can see it is given as 37/1000.
Disclaimer: this should not be interpreted as a call for world domination by the Zionist Conspiracy.
“Subtleties like this also seem to be missed in reading and interpreting poll results, since none of the poll data shows that Iraqis on the whole consider their current station ‘worse’ then when your close friends ran the show”
Shirin doesn’t seem to understand that the ICRSS poll was not a nationwide reflection of Iraqi public opinion, simply a reflection of public opinion in three places, Baghdad, Anbar and Najaf in November 10.
Nor does she seem to think that the Kurdish population of Iraq is entitled to be included as part of the Iraq nation have its opinions polled?
As Shirin said: “BB, the horrors of the last 30 years are nothing compared to the horrors of the last five yeas.” But nationwide polls demonstrate that the Iraqis do not agree with her opinion, not that this inconvenient fact affects Shirin’s claim to be speaking on their behalf.
Ah well. Saddam no more. Baath no more. Iraq government, democratically elected, universal suffrage, one-vote one value, elected on proportional representation so all minority groups are fairly represented.
No wonder Shirin and Tariq have prolonged boozing sessions. Drowning their sorrows at the demise of the Ba’th?
“Subtleties like this also seem to be missed in reading and interpreting poll results, since none of the poll data shows that Iraqis on the whole consider their current station ‘worse’ then when your close friends ran the show”
Shirin doesn’t seem to understand that the ICRSS poll was not a nationwide reflection of Iraqi public opinion, simply a reflection of public opinion in three places, Baghdad, Anbar and Najaf in November 10.
Nor does she seem to think that the Kurdish population of Iraq is entitled to be included as part of the Iraq nation have its opinions polled?
As Shirin said: “BB, the horrors of the last 30 years are nothing compared to the horrors of the last five yeas.” But nationwide polls demonstrate that the Iraqis do not agree with her opinion, not that this inconvenient fact affects Shirin’s claim to be speaking on their behalf.
Ah well. Saddam no more. Baath no more. Iraq government, democratically elected, universal suffrage, one-vote one value, elected on proportional representation so all minority groups are fairly represented.
No wonder Shirin and Tariq have prolonged boozing sessions. Drowning their sorrows at the demise of the Ba’th?
bb and/or vadim, Following your “light onto the nations” zio logic, infant mortality has indeed declined. Consider the years of sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, add to it the war and the deprivations of occupation which caused the deaths of many more hundreds of thousands, there is no doubt that the surviving children (and mothers) must have robust constitutions which in turn are reflected in the statistics.
Hi kassandra,
I agree that sanctions were a very bad mistake on the part of the UN (an imperfect legal body made up of many selfish actors). But its a fair question whether Hussein or the UN is more responsible for deaths resulting from sanctions. Personally I think Hussein could have ended them pretty easily by stepping aside or complying with their directives.
A much more interesting question is how to prevent further deaths in Iraq and elsewhere, further lower the infant mortality & malnutrition rates, and going forward, how to best support Iraq’s economy and political institutions. Bemoaning the zionist conspiracy won’t accomplish any of those things.
Kass – it wasn’t me who was quibbling about the infant mortality rates in Iraq. I accept they are appalling, tragic. If there has been a recent improvement after the war, it is only marginal imo and not worth the argument.
But the entire reponsibility for the UN sanctions, in as much as it relates to the infant mortality rates and other deleterious effects on Iraqi civilians, lies with the late President Saddam Hussein and the late Baath regime, not with the UN. Just as those effects also laid with the (also late) Afrikaaner regime in South Africa when it was subject to rigorous sanctions. Again, not with the UN, Kass.
And unlike the (late)Afrikaaner example, the late President Saddam was able to extensively corrupt the UN program (!), thereby creaming off billions for the use of his own regime, which he did NOT put to alleviating the suffering of the people in Arab Iraq but to his own and his regime’s self interest and self preservation.
The Kurdish provinces of Iraq were subjected to the same sanctions, but managed to build their economy during that period because the no-fly zone protected them, so the (now) late Saddam and the (now) late Baath were unable to extend their callous exploitation of Iraqi citizens to Kurdistan.
But now Saddam is no more. Baath is no more. The Kurds are a major partner in a democratic, fully representative government. It is up to this government to restore the rule of law and security to the Iraqi people, which it seems it is in the process of doing.
After that, it is they who will have the responsibility for the Iraqi infant mortality rates and the good of the people.
as much as it relates to the infant mortality rates and other deleterious effects on Iraqi civilians, lies with the late President Saddam Hussein and the late Baath regime,
bb, I don’t really know what make you twisting the facts about Iraq, although you do not visit and been in Iraq, I doubt you had interest about Iraq before 2003 may be after 1991 I doubt it is serious at that time.
So back to sanction, according to the UN regulation Oil for Food program, Iraq allowed to export oil for ONE Billion USD, third of that money goes as compensations for Kuwait invasion war 1991, so the rest of the money in any measure can not be enough to for a state or nation had 25 Millions Iraqis include their food!!
The Iraqi sanction was well, cleverly and purposely designed to humiliate a nation not a regime. Moreover Madeline Albright personally admitted that the UN sections heart the Iraqis not the regime.
Yes, the regime used the sanction for his benefits but there is no much room that 700Millions enough to feed 25Millions of Iraqis.
As for the Kurds they got their share of money by UN also they got more support by aid agencies during that time which make them more capable pass the sanction although old regime was passing their share from food card also.
These info not fake you can ask Iraqis and they will confirm that, or go read about it just Google.
There were many incidents that US fighters thrown fire discs on north region of Iraq (Mussel and towns around) which represent the wheat basket of Iraq just before the harvest time during 13 years of scansion which caused huge looses of gropes due to fire burned deliberate caused by US aggression just to make the Iraqi crises deeper and affective with the inhuman sanction.
Please be truthful when you writing here, most what you said far from the truth, some how twisted in such way clearly its manipulation about Iraq and Iraqis suffered by old regime “AND” US and its alias.
Finally imposing the sanctions was part of big plane main goal to bring Iraqi nation (not regime) to its knees after 13 years when US came and invade Iraq and Iraqi were they lost their humanity and their personality was changed dramatically.
This my personal experience, I left Iraq in 1994, I went back in 1999 I can tell you, I was very shocked about how Iraqis personality / attitudes changed under five years of sanction that made me so sadden, I wished I did not went back in 1999 and kept the old image of 1994 in may memory which is far better that what I saw in 1999.
If you have causes to keep feed this post with untruthful views about Iraq which you never seen before and you do not knew what Iraq is, just tell us what you up to?
Iraq is not better than before in all measures from all aspects of life of the nation.