The Iraqis have surrendered to Bush!

by Terry Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:04

According to the corporate press -if you read the fine print towards the end of their reports, the figures for the turnout of the election are only estimates based observations from only a few polling stations.

May there was or maybe there's wasn't a large turnout, but my guess is that these figures are grossly exaggerated. And why would that be, because it would apparently add to the legitimacey of the election.

by Also a socialist Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:22

I agree about the turnout figures being bogus but the analysis that the 'voters were herded to the polling stations at the point of a gun' is equally bogus.
The turnout was higher than thought in some areas. The Shias and Kurds wrongly in my opinion thought there was a lot to be gained from entering the process.
But to portray them as being herded to the polling station is just downright ignorant and simplistic and very much in line with the leading party in our own so called anti-war 'movement'.

by Confused! Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:23

If Saddam Hussein ran a legitimate government then why did he have to use a securiocracy similar to the stasi to stay in power?
The naivety of some of the posters on indymedia know no bounds - how exactly ,'socialist' , were the people of Iraq to change their government? By democratic elections? Under Saddam?
Face it, a huge majority of people turned out to vote in scenes reminiscent of the first free elections in South Africa, the people of Iraq are delighted to be rid of Hussein and are taking an active part in putting together a new constitution for their country.

by Noel Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:51

Ironically, this thread opens with a truly bogus statistic - 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed.

Yet 'Socialist' type posters have been falling over themselves to downgrade the turnout for this election.

by Also a Socialist Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:55

"Ironically, this thread opens with a truly bogus statistic - 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed."

It's well more than 100,000 now

by A10 Tue Feb 01, 2005 13:28

socialist Bullshit! "People were herded out to vote at gunpoint."What planet are you on??
So that they could be blown up by the glorious Iraqi" freedom fighters"[AKA murderous terrorist thugs] no doubt at the polling stations.Well at least in all fairness to them they assinated the Iraqi SOCIALIST party leader a few months ago as well.
If you are going to lie or try your hand at propaganda,at least try and make it somwhat beliveable.

by Akrasia Tue Feb 01, 2005 13:28

There are reports coming from Iraq that the local food aid distributers were threatening to refuse food rations to people who did not vote.
Anyone in Ireland should immediately associate this kind of behaviour wiht the Soup Kitchens during the Famine that forced people to change their religion just to survive and if the reports are true then it is sickening and disgusting behaviour

by Andrew Tue Feb 01, 2005 14:00

This post from 'socialist' is probably yet another right wing spoof post. Who on the left would say "the only people who truly represent the Iraqis are the insurgents" for instance. After all those parts of the left who do support the 'insurgents' would be careful to call them 'the resistance', insurgent being the Whitehouse term.

The elction - as usual - changes very little. A puppet government is switched for a national assembly which has very little power (because it will inevitably include significant anti-occupation Shia elements). As such it probably represents a very slight improvement over an administration that was simply picked by the Whitehouse. But the occupation goes on .

by Reality Check Tue Feb 01, 2005 14:02

According to the left-leaning IraqBodyCount.org, the maximum amount of civilian deaths is 17,830 with a minimum of 15,600.
The 100,000 figure is based on a study in the Lancet, which is now widely discredited. It was based on interviews with a random sampling of 1,000 people, asking them how many people they knew who had died. From this, the authors extrapolated a figure six times higher than IraqBodyCount.
The Lancet study group reported a total of 61 violent deaths, three shootings at the hand of coalition forces and the remainder by air strikes. There was not a single fatality linked to suicide bombings or the insurgency. Strange, No?

by reality check 2 Tue Feb 01, 2005 14:17

it has however been ignored by the us mainstream media.

the iraq body count figure is lower because it's sources for figures are deaths reported in the media in Iraq/elsewhere

the lancet is the more scientifically sound study and was peer reviewed

it however ignored fallujah in it's findings so it's estimate is if anything a conservative one

by The Devil and George Warmonger Bush - Black House Bullies For War In Iran Tue Feb 01, 2005 15:00 666 Black House Blvd, Exxon TX Black Op Box Iran or Bust 666-WMD-Iran Ext. Hell

While you watch the Dancing Spooks in Iraq, The Bush Cabal turns it's eyes East to Target Iran. They're already deciding which places to Bomb. Iran like Iraq is to become a Free Shoot Zone.

by socialist Tue Feb 01, 2005 15:14

The Iraqis are obviously cowed and unprepared to rise up and fight since 72 percent of them voted for "democracy" instead of listening to the resistance.
The Iraqis should realise that democracy will only result in a bourgeoise state and besides it is a Western construct with is alien to the traditional Islamic way of life. Obviously large numbers of them have fallen for the propaganda of the Americans.
Such an ungrateful lot are a lost cause for the Anti-war movement
Let us hope that war with Iran will lead to further devastating terrorist attacks so that more fat American office workers can leap to deaths they so richly deserve from New York skyscrapers.

by mise Tue Feb 01, 2005 15:30

That was the estimated percentage in one area where it was safe for the reporters to go - that is not a good estimate for the whole country. Some people voted for food, some were rounded up to vote, they didnt know who the candidates were till they got there, some voted because their imams were bribed -- al-Sadr allegedly was paid off.

I think as with everything else with this illegal war you will find the numbers being carefully "moulded" to fit in the coming weeks.

by Noel Tue Feb 01, 2005 15:47

Illegal war?
Who claims it's illegal?
Kofi Annan?

Bwahahahahahahahahah.

by Joe Tue Feb 01, 2005 16:09

"According to the left-leaning IraqBodyCount.org, the maximum amount of civilian deaths is 17,830 with a minimum of 15,600.
The 100,000 figure is based on a study in the Lancet, which is now widely discredited."

Not true on either count.

The Iraq body count site as pointed out counts only the deaths of named individuals reported in the media or from morgues and hospitals. They say themselves that this means their figure can only be an underestimate.

They also say themselves that their figure and that cited in the Lancet are not incompatable. They are measuring different things. The Lanced cited study is an estimate of total killed by the war, the Body Count is a definite minimum figure for civilians killed. The difference between the BC upper and lower figure is due to confusion as to whether individual deaths were military or civilian.

Incidentally the 'problem' with the Lancet study is mostly a problem of the way the Lancet headlined it. The study did not report 100,000 cililian deaths. It reported that there was a 95% probability that the war had caused between 9,888 and 198,000 additional deaths. Because of the methods used their study was if anything more likely to underestimate total deaths.

But of course the real reason why we have to have this debate is that the US and its puppet government not only do not count casualties, they have gone out if their way to prevent others doing so also.

---

And I guess after his second post we know for sure that 'socialist' is a right wing troll.

by jeff Tue Feb 01, 2005 16:17

Iraqis voted in this election because it is better to regret something you have done rather than something you have not. Besides, the Shias, disenfranchised under Saddam, are going to grasp whatever oppurtunity they can, as are the Kurds. What I think is that one should wait and see what way the results turnout like.

by Reality Check Tue Feb 01, 2005 16:20

Why is Socialist a right-wing 'Troll'?
Because he puts bluntly what many people here actually think?
After all, most of you Indymedia people would prefer if Saddam Hussein's regime were still in power.

by Libby Tue Feb 01, 2005 16:32

An election to anoint an occupation

Had it been held in Zimbabwe, the west would have denounced it

Salim Lone
Monday January 31, 2005
The Guardian

Tony Blair and George Bush were quick to characterise yesterday's election as a triumph of democracy over terror. Bush declared it a "resounding success", while Blair asserted that "The force of freedom was felt throughout Iraq". And yet the election fell so completely short of accepted electoral standards that had it been held in, say, Zimbabwe or Syria, Britain and America would have been the first to denounce it.
Draconian security measures left Iraq's cities looking like ghost towns. The ballot papers were so complicated that even Jalal Talabani, the Kurdish leader, needed a briefing on how to use one. Most candidates had been afraid to be seen in public, or to link their names to their faces in the media. The United Iraqi Alliance, identifying only 37 of their 225 candidates, explained: "We offer apologies for not mentioning the names of all the candidates ... We have to keep them alive."

Continues...

by Chekov Tue Feb 01, 2005 16:39

"Why is Socialist a right-wing 'Troll'?
Because he puts bluntly what many people here actually think?"

No, he's a right wing troll, because he's a right winger, pretending to be a socialist and presenting a seriously skewed version of what he imagines socialist's to think in order to discredit them.

You, on the other hand are a right wing troll (the same?) because you have absolutely no concern for truth and present all of your arguments based on ideology, irrespective of the evidence. For example, your opinion of the lancet study shows that you don't know the first thing about scientific method and that you are more than happy to put forward counter-factual arguments which have no basis in evidence.

The way that people respond to the Lancet study is a useful intellectual barometer. People who dismiss it as you do very clearly reveal themselves to a) not have the faintest idea of scientific method and/or b) not possess any intellectual honesty. It is a testament to the appalling intellectual standards in our world that so many are happy to parade their ignorance and dishonesty in public in an embarrassing display of a lack of ability to think analytically or rationally.

"After all, most of you Indymedia people would prefer if Saddam Hussein's regime were still in power."

Ah, yes, brilliant point. I suppose you can back that up with evidence? Or maybe you've just pulled it out of your arse?

by Person in the Real World Tue Feb 01, 2005 16:49

Of course the original poster is a socialist. It's socialists who side with the insurgents. Apart from members of the Baath party and Al Quaeda, who else supports the insurgents apart from socialists? Who else can think that an election is a bad thing?

And of course the election is a hugely significant event. Don't forget Iraqis did not liberate themselves from Saddam (they never would have), they were liberated. This is the first mass action that they have had to take themselves to show they supported the liberation. And the turnout was higher then expected. This proves Iraqis support being liberated and they want to live in a democracy.

Best news in a long time.

by Reality Check Tue Feb 01, 2005 16:56

"After all, [many] people would prefer if Saddam Hussein's regime were still in power."

Yes, I believe that to be the case. If you oppose the American and British intervention, ergo you would prefer if the Hussein regime were still in power because that's what would have happened.
You can not have it both ways.
Either you agree with the US/UK removal of the dictator or you don't.
Here's a sampling of quotes from this thread that would appear to back up my argument of opposition to the US/UK intervention in favour of leaving Saddam in situ:

"The occupation goes on."
"It would apparently add to the legitimacey of the election"
"The only people who truly represent the Iraqis are the insurgents who are fighting for freedom from Western capitalism and bourgeoise values."

by Checkered Reality Tue Feb 01, 2005 17:26

As a Socialist I welcome the Iraq "elections" because they're likely to be the final nail in the coffin for the US imperial strategy. With apparent boycotting of the election by the approximately 4.5 million Sunnis ( ethnically allied to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt ) the likelihood of a highly complicated situation emerging in the Middle East for the US is virtually guaranteed.

The Law of Unintended Consequences is in full effect.

by Amused Tue Feb 01, 2005 17:28

Perhaps in the same way that Bertie is one!!
Suddenly it's trendy for right wingers to call themselves socialist. Tis a mad world.

by Stephen Kelly Tue Feb 01, 2005 17:43

"Someone who does not know the difference between good and evil is worth nothing." -- Miecyslaw Kasprzyk, Polish rescuer of Jews during the Holocaust, New York Times, Jan. 30, 2005

It took a Polish rescuer of Jews in the Holocaust, cited this week 60 years after the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration and death camp, to best describe those people who cannot or refuse to know the difference between good and evil. They are "worth nothing."

Since I was an adolescent, I have been preoccupied with evil: specifically, why people engage in it and why other people refuse to acknowledge its existence. As I have gotten older, I often find the latter group more infuriating. Somehow, as much as I don't want to, I can understand why a Muslim raised in a world permeated with hate-filled lies about America and Israel, and taught from childhood that God loves death, will blow himself up and joyfully maim and murder children. As evil as the Muslim terrorist is, given the Islamic world in which he was raised, he has some excuse.

But the non-Muslims who fail to acknowledge and confront the evil of Muslim terror and the evil of those monsters who cut innocent people's throats and murder those trying to make a democracy -- these people are truly worth nothing. Unlike the Muslims raised in a religious totalitarian society, they have no excuse. And in my lifetime, these people have overwhelmingly congregated on the political Left.

Since the 1960s, with few exceptions, on the greatest questions of good and evil, the Left has either been neutral toward or actively supported evil. The Left could not identify communism as evil; has been neutral toward or actually supported the anti-democratic pro-terrorist Palestinians against the liberal democracy called Israel; and has found it impossible to support the war for democracy and against an Arab/Muslim enemy in Iraq as evil as any fascist the Left ever claimed to hate.

There were intellectually and morally honest arguments against going to war in Iraq. But once the war began, a moral person could not oppose it. No moral person could hope for, let alone act on behalf of, a victory for the Arab/Islamic fascists. Just ask yourself but two questions: If America wins, will there be an increase or decrease in goodness in Iraq and in the world? And then ask what would happen if the Al Qaeda/Zarqawi/Baathists win.

It brings me no pleasure to describe opponents of the Iraqi war as "worth nothing." I know otherwise fine, decent people who oppose the war. So I sincerely apologize for the insult.

But to the Left in general, as opposed to individually good people who side with the Left, I have no apologies. It is the Left -- in America, in Europe and around the world -- that should do all the apologizing: to the men, women and children of Iraq and elsewhere for not coming to their support against those who would crush them.

That most Democratic Party leaders, union leaders, gay leaders, feminists, professors, editorial writers and news reporters have called for an American withdrawal and labeled this most moral of wars "immoral" is a permanent stain on their reputations.

About 60 percent of the Iraqi people went to vote despite the fact that every Iraqi voter risked his or her life and the lives of their children, whose throats the Islamic fascists threatened to slit. Yet, the Left continues to label the war for Iraqi democracy "immoral" while praising the tyrant of Cuba.

Leftists do so for the same reason they admired Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse-tung and condemned American arms as the greatest threat to world peace during and after the Cold War. The Left "does not know the difference between good and evil." And that is why it is worth nothing

by * Tue Feb 01, 2005 17:53

and thus he got rid of them first

by R. Isible Tue Feb 01, 2005 18:01

"Someone who does not know the difference between good and evil is worth nothing." -- Miecyslaw Kasprzyk, Polish rescuer of Jews during the Holocaust, New York Times, Jan. 30, 2005

I shall ignore the implications of the words of the Polish rescuer of Jews in the Holocaust, cited above, 60 years after the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration and death camp, constructed by a regime that was aided and abetted in its initial stages by my very own government. I shall also completely ignore the near conviction of Prescott Bush (ancestor of my current President) for trading with the NAZI regime while my own country was at war with that regime and my own countrymen were dying.

More importantly I will repeat the utter inhumanity and depravity of the NAZI mindset by classifying some of my fellow human beings as: "worth nothing."

Since I was an adolescent, I have been evil. Specifically, I have engage in a banal, routine and quotidian construction of a blinkered, emotional and hysterical view of history. As an example of this I classify people into only two types: the "ones who do evil" and other people who refuse to acknowledge its existence. Ironically, as I have gotten older, I have become an infuriating member of the latter group but am unaware of it. It comes easily to me to repeat a hate-filled lie about how Muslims view the world because I'm ignorant and gullible and the government told me that it's true anyway. I was raised in a world permeated with hate-filled lies about America and Israel, and taught from childhood that God loves the USA. I will regretfully blow up and joyfully maim and murder children because the Muslim terrorists are evil and I am good. I have an excuse: I support the killing of children and men and women because I am good.

Leftists are the same as Muslims. Muslims are deluded. Deluded people kill for the wrong reasons. I kill for the right reasons. Right now I am killing Muslims. I have also killed Leftists in Latin America. I am good.

by Stephen Kelly Tue Feb 01, 2005 20:48

You simply cannot admit that George W. Bush liberated 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq from two of the most vile dictatorships on the planet and gave those 50 million people democracy and freedom.
Post 9/11 there could be no negotiation with religious maniacs who kept their people under lock and key while facilitating terrorists to train and plan attacks from their borders against democracy and civilisation.
The Taliban were removed and the terrorists killed captured or forced to flee.
In October Afghanistan went to the polls in their first ever democratic elections.
Meanwhile a fascist tyrant, his sons and henchmen used genocide against their own people to maintain their lifestyles of luxury and excess. They threatened their neighbours and the entire with a huge military machine and had designs on obtaining weapons of mass destruction with which to commit further genocide.
Since March 2003 Saddam has been gone yet this thugs remain in the shadows attacking the innocent.
Yet on Sunday the Iraqi people came out to vote for a democratic future.
What has the Left got to say about this?
Surely they should congratulate the Afghans and Iraqis that they have joined the community of civilised nations?
But no.
They have nothing to say except to transform victory into defeat, liberators into murderers, democrats into fascists and free people into slaves.
But they do that only with words.
And words count for nothing.
The Left have been proven wrong everytime and while they maintain their delusion about democracy in Iraq and everything else they will remain pathetic irrelevant and increasingly hated.
Heroic statesmen such as George W. Bush and Tony Blair will be remembered for great deeds of mercy to the poor and overburdened.
They are the ones who have lifted the yoke from the back of the slave.
They will be remembered.
Not you.

by Creidhne Tue Feb 01, 2005 21:50

"United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam." -- Peter Grose, 'U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote,' The New York Times, Sept 4, 1967, page 2.

by Balor Tue Feb 01, 2005 22:38

"They threatened their neighbours and the entire with a huge military machine and had designs on obtaining weapons of mass destruction with which to commit further genocide.
Since March 2003 Saddam has been gone yet this thugs remain in the shadows attacking the innocent.
Yet on Sunday the Iraqi people came out to vote for a democratic future.
What has the Left got to say about this?
Surely they should congratulate the Afghans and Iraqis that they have joined the community of civilised nations?
But no."

No doubt as a champion of America's love of democracy you were furious at their inteference in the democratic process in Venezuela. I bet you simply deny it happened.
Are you shocked at America's negotiations with the brutal North Korean dictator? Shouldn't they be freeing the North Korean people from the years of tyranny and opression? Silly me I forgot it's only dictators who don't have nukes and are not
sympathetic to American interests who get the chop.

ps: just as a footnote: the majority of Afghan women still feel compelled to wear their burqas in public.
They are still put in jail for disobeying their husbands.
How many women are in position of power?
Warlords effectively control most provinces outside of Kabul.
The poppy trade is rife again in Afghanistan.

Does this resemble a civilised nation to you?

by donagh Tue Feb 01, 2005 23:05

I find it disturbing to see from the above comments, and I've only scanned them, mind, that only a minority of the contributors seem to twig 'socialist' as a spoofer, albeit of a vile type. That one shouldn't be too hard to work out.

It's equally disturbing that 'Stephen Kelly' probably hasn't got an insincere notion going through his head when he spews out his shite - the product no doubt of a middle-class culture where rational analytical thought is discouraged in any area where the ideological framework of a Sunday Times worldview hangs in the balance. Hence adherence to myths about benevolent liberating superpowers, and democratic chums like Israel.

Funny but disturbing

by notbornyesterdayorthedaybeforeeither Tue Feb 01, 2005 23:36

.

by Akrasia Wed Feb 02, 2005 00:51

It's where you pretend that there are only two possible choices with only two possible outcomes when really there are lots of alternatives. Those who opposed the invasion of Iraq don't think that saddam should be in power, we just think there were lots of better ways of helping the Iraqi people get rid of him themselves. Or do you not believe that war should be a last resort?

by Stephen Kelly Wed Feb 02, 2005 10:33

In 1991 the Shia and Kurds rose up against Saddam in the wake of the Gulf War and failed. Saddam had the edge in firepower and he used it. More than 250,000 people were butchered as a result.
The US did just what you have suggested.
They stood back and left the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam.
Do you really think the Iraqis would have dared to overthrow Saddam again?
What happened to the Jews of Warsaw when they rose up against the Waffen SS and the Russians delayed crossing the Bug river to save them in 1944?
Do you think that the Jews of Aushwitz were in a position to hold peaceful protests against the SS camp guards?
The only way Saddam could have been removed was by military means.
It was the last resort as 12 years of deceit and impotent UN resolutions.
You people were opposed to the invasion in the first place. You protest in the streets and now that the Iraqis have democracy you call into question the turnout, when that doesn't work you call into question the fairness of the election and then like your friend "socialist" you call into question their intelligence.
You ARE worth nothing!

by Stephen Kelly Wed Feb 02, 2005 10:43

When 83% of the South Vietnamese voted for democracy the anti-war movement showed contempt for their democratic will and demanded American troops abandon South Vietnam to the VietCong.
In 1975 the VietCong rolled into Saigon and then the butchery began. Hundreds of thousands were slaughtered in concentration camps were they were supposedly "re-educated." Millions of others took to the seas in rickety boats only to be drowned in shipwrecks, killed by disease or murdered by pirates.
The Anit-War Movement declared victory.
When Pol Pot came to power on the back of the communist spread through South East Asia and began his genocide of millions of Cambodians nobody cared.
It is apparent that you people want a democratic Iraq to be abandoned to the Islamofascists of the Middle East.

by the teacher - "gave you the key to the door, will you now go through the fecking thing please" Wed Feb 02, 2005 10:56

Afghanistan is "en route" to democracy, the initial US strike which built on military activity during the Clinton presidency and followed long term commitment by the former Soviet Red Army, has now been taken over by the ISAF force.
to qoute Mr Jean Asselborn of Luxembourg (the currrent EU presidency) in his address to the Israeli-Palestinian inter-disciplinary institute on EU efforts for peace between Palestinians and Israelis
"Who knows that 90% of the military forces deployed in Afghanistan as part of the ISAF operations hold a European passport?"
http://www.eu2005.lu/en/actualites/discours/2005/01/20asselborn-po/index.html

Well you ought to. The opium crop is down in Afghanistan. You ought to know that too. Opium is a cash crop and a natural plant of the garden, but is also known in Urdu as "the devils crop". Because of what happens to it next it is transformed in to Heroin.
The other main global production zones of Opium are the bordering regions of ISAF controlled Afghanistan, being Pakistan, (ah go on get yourselves a map).
Now when you think about that, you can go back to shouting "No War for Oil!" and telling us all how the USA (is that Mr Bush or is that Condolence Rice or is that the US corporations?) have further taken control of the Oil resources of Iraq, and give us all exact figures and export data and projections. You might also explain to us how the newly elected government will deal with the contracts from the pre-Alawi era, the expropriation of billions of dollars, and their forthcoming agreements with Russia, China and India with EU money for pipelines from the British military supervised gas fields of Basra and the oil fields of central Iraq.

by Joe Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:32

"In 1991 the Shia and Kurds rose up against Saddam in the wake of the Gulf War and failed. Saddam had the edge in firepower and he used it. More than 250,000 people were butchered as a result.
The US did just what you have suggested.
They stood back and left the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam."

Of course Stephen as you well know it was a little more complex than the US standing back and what actually happened shows why the US and its allies cannot be trusted to forward the interests of the Iraqi people.

So here are the details you 'forgot'

The end of the 1991 war saw mutinies in the Iraqi army and large scale insurrections in southern and northern Iraq. These insurrections had been openly encouraged by the US as part of their war effort. Because of the Iraqi army mutinies the rebels were initally succesful, they had access to tanks as well as AK47's.

At the time the US was banning all Iraqi flights over the south. Saddam got on to them and said something along the lines of 'look if you don't let me use my helicopters I can't put down the insurrection'. Lo and behold the US announced that the 'no fly' zone only applied to 'fixed wing' planes. IE that Saddam could use his helicopters - which he did. Most of the mass graves the US has found actually date from this period, they are graves the US played a role in creating.

Pol Pot of course came to power on the back of the reaction to the US terror bombing of Cambodia - at the time a impoverished and neutral country. He was put out of power not by the US but by the Vietnamese (they invaded). Yes at the end of the civil war in Vietnam the losing side were treated badly but the major massacre in that region is surely the one million murderered in a US sponsored coup in Indonesia.

As for supporting Islamists surely this is what the Bush administration is doing in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and what they formely did in Afghanistan. But of course as with the support of other dictators that's OK because they are on 'your side'.

In Iraq the US has put some Islamists into power while fighting others. Women in the 'new democratic Iraq' have lost significant rights even in comparison with Saddams Iraq. Some of this is via Islamist terror but some is via new laws brought in under the occupation. But of course 'democracy' just means getting to pick some anonymous character off a US approved list of candidates.

I suspect you know all this already.

by Another Socialist Wed Feb 02, 2005 13:27

There is no inherent contradiction between opposing the war and being, in a general way, heartened by seeing the Iraqi people braving both the threats of the resistance and the ongoing threat of violence from occupation forces. And yes turnout figures are still very much up in the air, as are the quite conceivable claims that voter registration was connected with the supply of food rations.

63% of Shia and 83% of Sunni support an immediate or near immediate end to the occupation. The Shia did not merely vote because they were told to, although Al Sistani told them this was the surest way to end the occupation. The Shia voted to end the occupation. Whether this will happen remains to be seen. Most likely not.

The Kurds were voting for independence even though we know that the notion of an independent Kurdistan is a non starter due to the strategic interests of NATO and Turkey.

It is therefore disingenuous to suggest that this poll represents a resounding vindication of the invasion. A poll held soon after the fall of Saddam's regime would not have been faced with opposition from such an organised resistance, and an increasingly alienated population. This, as we know, was never going to happen. The Americans had too much to occupy them (no pun intended) by tinkering with the Iraqi economy and privatising most of it.

In case we all have very short memories I would remind everyone that these elections were only called because the occupation forces were faced with the prospect of the Shia linking up with the Sunni resistance. Whether Al Sadr was bribed or merely reigned in is a moot point.

As to the perception of the resistance on the left. Yes I support resistance to the occupation, but I do not support the kidnappings and deliberate targetting of civilians. The resistance is not a homogeneous mass, masterminded by Al Zarqawi. You can't oppose a war that has returned a modern country to the stone age and then condemn the resistance because they haven't read a copy of "Building Mass Movements For Dummies."

As for the murder of Iraqi socialists. It is insane to suggest that the ICP, or any other left wing organisation stands a better chance under an adminstration containing Cheney and Rumsfeld than among Islamist elements within the resistance. Genuine socialism has more of a chance through contact with the disaffected and disillusioned on the ground in Iraq than by throwing its lot in with the coterie of free marketeers and neo liberal economists likely to gain influence in the upcoming Iraqi administration. As reported through Dahr Jamail's blog, the current Iraqi Finance Minister, the Shiite Abdel Mahdi was recently in New York touting for private "investment" in all areas of the Iraqi oil industry. http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000193.php#more

Deja vu anyone?

by Reality Check Wed Feb 02, 2005 14:49

Just regarding Akrasia's brainless comment. I can see the left was making lots of movements on their plans to remove Saddam - a whole lot of progress had been made since the first Gulf War.
This is typical leftist double-think, whereby you welcome the major by-product of the invasion but don't approve of the means.
Then once the dictator has been dismantled, you say that this would have happened anyway despite no hint of this whatsoever in the years following Desert Storm in 1991.
This was the major failing of John Kerry's campaign in the US and even though I supported his election, I understand totally why America chose Bush.
You can not have it every way, which is what he tried to have.
If you oppose the invasion, you are basically saying it would be fine if Saddam was in situ and that the old status quo still stood.
A United Nations-backed invasion would have seen just as many civilian casualties.
These insurgents have shown themselves willing to kill charity workers, so it genuinely doesn't matter who the "occupier" is.
None of this is by way of an excuse for the very poor planning that the US/UK allies made for Iraq post major hostilities.

by righteous pragmatist Wed Feb 02, 2005 17:03

Terrorists used a disabled child as a suicide bomber on election day, Iraqi interior minister Falah al-Naqib said today.
In all, 44 people were killed in a total of 38 bomb attacks on polling stations. Police at the scene of one the Baghdad blasts said the bomber appeared to have Down's syndrome.
Mr Al-Naqib praised an Iraqi citizen who was killed while preventing one suicide bomber from reaching a crowd of people outside a polling station.

by Person in the Real World Wed Feb 02, 2005 17:35

Yesterday I said that I was sure that the poster of the original comments was a socialist because socialists support the Baath Party/Al Quaeda led insurgency.

Later a socialist poster said:
"You can't oppose a war that has returned a modern country to the stone age and then condemn the resistance because they haven't read a copy of "Building Mass Movements For Dummies.""

Ignoring the first part of his comment on the grounds that it is silly and focussing in on the second part. What a amazing trivialisation of the actions of this gang of murdering fascist thugs. My god, what would people have to do to earn your condemnation?

Out of the many reasons for condemning the Baath Party/Al Queda led insurgency is because they murder election workers, people who vote, Iraqi citizens and Iraqi policemen. (I believe they should be condemned for killing the US liberators as well but I know that would be beyond the pale for most readers of this website.) You can also condemn their aims which are either the resoration of a Baath Party dictatorship or the creation of an islamic fascist dictatorship, or an unholy (forgive pun) alliance of the two.

The choice for Iraqis is a democratic state, or a return to fascist dictatorship.

I think that says it all really. The original socialist supports the insurgents, and the later, more moderate socialist supports them but in a critical manner. Both of them would go for a return to fascist dictatorship ahead of democracy.

Here's a question for the socialists who write to this site.

Sinn Fein/IRA got caught out last week because they were asked was the murder of Jean McConville a crime. In their view it is not because the perpertrators were the IRA. They were shown in their true light.

Here is the equivalent test for socialists. For any of you socialists out there - do you think the attack on the twin towers was a crime? Yes or no?

by mise Wed Feb 02, 2005 17:47

hogwash - the israeli's pulled the same stunt a couple of months ago, and invited every camera crew in the Middle East to film his capture.

righteous bullshit

by Joe Wed Feb 02, 2005 18:03

"Do you think the attack on the twin towers was a crime"

Yes.

So I guess thats back to the drawing board for you!

by Reality Check Wed Feb 02, 2005 18:47

Which would you prefer?

The so-called "illegal" invasion of Iraq or Saddam Hussein still in power.

If you fence-sit and attempt to choose neither, explain to me exactly how you propose Mr Hussein would have been removed from power during the past two years, without recourse to military action.

by mise Wed Feb 02, 2005 19:06

yes it was a crime. have a wee look at these sites.

http://physics.911.net
http://911research.wtc7.net/
http://gallerize.com/
http://serendipity.li/wtc.htm
http://thewebfairy.com

by mise aris Wed Feb 02, 2005 19:14

http://physics911.net

by Socialist Wed Feb 02, 2005 19:30

"The choice for Iraqis is a democratic state, or a return to fascist dictatorship"

Even if Iraq becomes a "democracy" and has the support of the "majority" of Iraqis it will remain illegitimate because the invasion of Iraq did not have United Nations approval.
The people of Iraq decided to surrender to Bush and betrayed the Resistance.
You are not in the "real world" because everybody knows that the culture of the Middle East is Islamic and tribal. Those traditions have existed longer than Western democracy. Who are we to force them to be like us? Why do we complain when Ossama Bin Laden attacks us?
NO TO BUSH! NO TO THE AMERICAN OCCUPATION!

by . Wed Feb 02, 2005 20:05

.

by Noel Hogan - Labour Wed Feb 02, 2005 20:38

Amazing how right wing types call lefties pathetic when they are going around inventing fake socialists in order to have arguments with.

by Jedifart Wed Feb 02, 2005 21:26

it's "en- route" is it. ? let me know when the journey is over.

"Well you ought to. The opium crop is down in Afghanistan. You ought to know that too. Opium is a cash crop and a natural plant of the garden, but is also known in Urdu as "the devils crop". Because of what happens to it next it is transformed in to Heroin."


"Despite government efforts at a crackdown, Afghan opium output has surged to near-record levels since 2001, when U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban government. The U.N. says drug exports now account for more than 60 percent of Afghanistan's economy. "

As you see the opium production is in fact not down in Afghanistan and it is because of this there is a surge in the influx of heroin to Europe.
As regards your comments about locating Pakistan is on the map. A little maturity is not too much to ask of you.


"Now when you think about that, you can go back to shouting "No War for Oil!" and telling us all how the USA (is that Mr Bush or is that Condolence Rice or is that the US corporations?)

The Iraq war was was not about oil.

This war was prosecuted for Israel's benefit. http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html

bear in mind, as you read this site, the right- wing maxim: "if it's on the internet and the website is right- wing it's content is more likely to be true". Also that facts are but transient perceptions that can be reinterpreted when the need arises.

Now go back to shouting your slogans ad-Nauseam, about how the march of freedom of democracy is unstoppable and will transform middle- eastern politics.

by Mr Nice - and very patient Wed Feb 02, 2005 23:19

just like your society / state is en route as well.
Find the ISAF zone on the map, and then tell us how to get the essential cash crop of the poorest farmers of that zone converted into Heroin and into Europe.
Fact is you know very little about the global heroin trade. Opium is a cash crop, like Coca like Tobacco like Tea like Coffee it is grown by campesinos for money. If they dont grow it they dont get money and they starve. They need to grow it under the present system.
Heroin is a chemical drug the patent is japanese and it is generally an easy process which uses opium crops which are between two and five years old. The "surge in opium production" you refer to is only now entering street supply in your neck of the woods at between 10 and 5 % purity.
Heroin in Europe doesn't fall from the sky nor does it arrive in little boats on the west coast. So get your little patronising map out and look at the campesino cash crop zones of Mid Asia and the roads. They're easy to spot they're in red. The quality of Heroin in Europe has dropped consistently in the last four years a fact which has encouraged many problem users to adapt to heroin substitute strategies developed by the states of the EU. The latest to join the substitution strategy was Spain which is now issuing all problem uses with methodone. Methodone is one of four easily and cheaply produced substitutes and is favoured by health authorities for its ease of administration. When you know about smack from source to street dealer via campesino, war lord, smuggler and billionaire, you can write comments that make sense, and probably won't blame the Iraqi war on Israel.
= farty to you.
shitty smelly SBD farties.
with dollops of well earned patience on top.
You can help your state / society on route to democracy by developing a society based on tolerance, equality, fraternity (or sorority) and educated liberty of the person. And in the process you'll help those campesinos of the coca and opium production zones build a new world where they grow the crops they need to eat and ensure their free and unhindered self determination and development in a globalised context.
= we are all en route.
langers, hobbits, intelektshuals, chippers and the holy father in Rome, even old Silas with the rosary beads and nazi attitude may some day be found by his mate & be happy.
Oh and you can help out by not buying smack on your local street. But _do_ remember that the emirs and princes of smack dont go down your local street.

¿ now are you with the program or do we have to go through it again ?

by Ian Thu Feb 03, 2005 10:10

I thought liberals want the legalisation of heroin? So why are you complaining at Afghanistan is the biggest producer in the world?

by Paul Moloney Thu Feb 03, 2005 16:20 paul_moloney at hotmail dot com

I think they got their wish:

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4070337

"Insurgents used a handicapped child as one of their suicide bombers on election day, Iraq’s interior minister said today."

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/02/new-techniques-of-resistance.html

"Eye witnesses said (and I'm quoting one of my colleagues; a dentist who lives there) "the poor victim was so scared when ordered to walk to the searching point and began to walk back to the terrorists. In response the criminals pressed the button and blew up the poor victim almost half way between their position and the voting center's entrance".

I couldn't believe the news until I met another guy from that neighborhood who knows the family of the victim. The guy was reported missing 5 days prior to elections' day and the family were distributing posters that specified his descriptions and asking anyone who finds him to contact them."

P.

by Person in the Real World Thu Feb 03, 2005 17:26

Ok fair enough I now agree that the original poster does sound like a fake. Just a bit too rabid. Congrats to Andrew for spotting it first. I am an Indymedia virgin and not attuned to the little nuances yet.

It's a pity because socialists really do need to rethink their support for the Al Queda/Baath Party led insurgency. I guess that will come as Iraq moves more towards democracy in the coming years. Probably more as subtle revision of party lines rather than a big "we were wrong" confession.

I'm heading back to the real world now. Before I go, I accept that Joe thinks 9/11 was a crime. I was thinking more of socialists, then anarchists. Those people who are of the view that the US got their just desserts in the 9/11 attack and would prefer to see Iraq's attempts at democracy defeated because it will have been brought about by the US, and there are many of them. I might come back to this meme at another time.

Anyway, as I sign off, please join with me in a three cheers for the heroism of the brave Iraqi democrats ! Only joking, I know how offensive an idea like that would be for you.

by Dan Thu Feb 03, 2005 18:03

Iraq may become a democracy over the next few years, I hope it does, but it won't be thanks to the US. The elections would never have happened by now if Bush's original plan hadn't been scuppered by mass protests calling for a speedy vote.

And if the US is so dedicated to creating democracy in Iraq, perhaps you might care to explain why Paul Bremer revived the Ba'athist anti-union law to deal with opponents of privatisation - or maybe the right to go on strike isn't very important for your concept of "democracy"?

by James Sat Feb 05, 2005 17:38

Hi Dan
I too hope Iraqi democracy is a success but I find your post hilarious.
Up untill last week it was all - arab countries and democracies dont mix they dont work - everybody knows that, Bush, you war monger, but now this week we hear that Bush didnt want democracy at all!!!...listen to yourself man...a little friendly advice...open your mind

by Truth seeker - Liberal Sun Feb 06, 2005 01:36

Bush is so currupt that he rewards incompetence. Chelabi should be in jail not rewarded with power. You Bush supporters are not right wingers your Nazi's. The last person qualified for 'passing out democracy' would be Bush. Since our elections were stolen (privatized) here you can bet your *** they are there too. But then again, they don't need to be stolen since it is a Taliban regime in place anyway -just like the regime Bush is leading over here.

by Leon Tue Feb 08, 2005 14:59

Stephen Kelly is incorrect to say that the Russians were on the Bug river during the Jewish Uprising.

The Jewish Uprising was in 1943 and it was the AK (Polish Resistance) that did nothing to help; the AK provided less assistance to the Jews than they received (from the western allies) during the 1944 uprising.

by Dan Tue Feb 08, 2005 19:01

"Up untill last week it was all - arab countries and democracies dont mix they dont work - everybody knows that, Bush, you war monger, but now this week we hear that Bush didnt want democracy at all!!!...listen to yourself man...a little friendly advice...open your mind"


Your witless ravings are just embarassing, James. No anti-war left-winger I recognise has ever claimed that "arab countries and democracy don't mix". I certainly haven't. After all, Iran was a functioning democracy in the fifties before the CIA overthrew its government. What we have ACTUALLY said, loudly and clearly, since long before the war, is that Bush doesn't give a damn about democracy in the Middle East.

Before you make a fool of yourself in public again, please go off and do some research, so you can explain why Paul Bremer revived Saddam's anti-union law, and tell us how this is compatible with spreading democracy. Otherwise, don't waste my time.

by Devil Dog Tue Feb 08, 2005 19:55

Iran isn't an Arab country.

by Balor Tue Feb 08, 2005 22:32

Production of opium reached record levels in Afghanistan in 2004, the UN reports. According to the United Nations Information Service on Nov. 25, 2004 ( "Record Opium Cultivation In Afghanistan Is A Threat To Central Asia And CIS Countries" ), "According to the Afghanistan Opium Survey 2004 , just released by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) , opium cultivation in Afghanistan grew by 64 per cent in 2004, a statistic which promises increased trafficking and a steady supply of high-grade heroin for Central Asia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Announcing the Survey findings to the Permanent Council of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Antonio Maria Costa, Executive Director of UNODC, stated, 'With 131,000 hectares dedicated to opium farming, this year Afghanistan has established a double record -- the highest drug cultivation in the country’s history, and the largest in the world.'"

"According to the UN report '…opium cultivation has spread to all of Afghanistan’s 32 provinces, making narcotics the main engine of economic growth: valued at US$2.8 billion, the opium economy is now equivalent to over 60 per cent of Afghanistan’s 2003 GDP.' This increase in cultivation also represents a growing and significant health risk: 30 per cent of the heroin produced in Afghanistan leaves the country via Central Asia, a region where heroin addiction, the accompanying risk of HIV/AIDS, and drug-related deaths are on the rise."
The situation has gotten so out of hand that the newly-elected Afghan government is considering an amnesty offer to traffickers. The Financial Times reported on Jan. 10, 2005 ( "Afghanistan Considers Amnesty For Drug Traffickers" ) that "Afghan officials said the government needed to ponder unorthodox approaches to combat an industry that has ballooned over the past three years, awarding huge means to drug traffickers that overshadow those of the government that is trying to fight them. If you're in the UK and you have the luxury of state institutions, you dont have to do this. But in Afghanistan you have to be pragmatic and consider different solutions given the precarious security situation, said Hanif Atmar, minister of rural rehabilitation and development. One possibility was to offer to protect traffickers from prosecution if they put their ill-gotten gains to work in the countrys rehabilitation, he said."

How did alot of these poor people survive in the Taliban era considering opium production was banned by them?

I never intended to suggest they produced the heroin and trafficked it, merely that they grow the opium which can then be synthesised to make heroin

for example: opium poppy -----> extract morphine from opium sap --------> turn into heroin

Do you accept certain intelligence agencies as well as emirs, princes, peasants, junkies
billionaires, are all part of the drugs chain - however tenuous that link maybe.
Granted, as you say, you won't find the cia or the emir on the street where you live.

surely, if Afghanistan is en-route to democracy, as you claim it to be, an alternative and legal source of sustainable income will have to be found for the opium growers?
Women will have to be given equal rights.
At present women don't hold many positions of authority in the Afghan government.
The warlords will have to disappear.

as regards Israel: I can't prove the Iraq war was for her benefit. No doubt you can prove conclusively that it wasn't.


Mise, we have enough problems from legalised drugs to contend with. So i'm not for legalising heroin.

by Dan Wed Feb 09, 2005 16:31

I know perfectly well the Iranians aren't ethnically Arab, but it's part of the Middle East, has almost exactly the same political dynamic as other countries in the region, and always gets lumped in with the Arab states - the point stands.