You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Fifth Column
Lefties Lie Again
2003-04-22
IRAQ: Iraqis demand: `Invaders out now!' BY ROHAN PEARCE
For those who expected the US-led invasion forces in Iraq to be welcomed with open arms, events on April 15 proved to be a shock. On that day in Nasiriya, some 20,000 Shiite Muslim Iraqis protested against the US occupation of Iraq, chanting: “Yes to freedom, yes to Islam! No to America, no to Saddam”. The protesters were opposed to plans by Washington to impose a pro-US puppet regime on their country. The Shia, who comprise 60-65% of Iraq's population, were oppressed under Saddam Hussein's regime. The overwhelming majority of them no doubt welcomed the end of the Hussein era. However many possess a strong distrust of the US — an opinion formed by Washington's support for the former Iraqi regime's war against predominantly Shiite Iran, plus Washington's enforcement for 13 years of brutal economic sanctions against the Iraqi nation.
snip pages of socialist ranting thinly disguised as objective journalism
An April 8 Associated Press report revealed that on April 7 “troops from the [US] Army's 3rd Infantry Division stormed one of Iraq's presidential palaces. They used Saddam's toilets, but also rifled through documents and helped themselves to ashtrays, pillows, gold-painted Arab glassware and other souvenirs.”
I'd like to see some evidence before these defamatory statements are made. So far they appear to be highly disciplined with crystal clear rules of engagement that certainly precluded letting the army loot. Not that the facts ever get in the way of the loony left!
The destruction unleashed by the US bombing campaign on many of the poorer, working-class districts in cities such as Baghdad
yass, carpet bombing just like Dresden...
will lead to a population much more easily dominated by an occupying army — more easily dominated because the population will be dependent on the occupation authorities for water, food and medical treatment. Amnesty International's April 15 press release noted: “There seems to have been more preparation to protect the oil wells than to protect hospitals, water systems or civilians.”
Ai Ai AIiiee it's colonialism oh it's a war for Oiiiil it's Jewwwws and Oiiiil and Capitalism oh Save us Marx, Save US!

feel free to email the perps of this article at:
glw@greenleft.org.au


Unlike us rapacious capitalist bastards, the people who write this stuff are pure and simple. Oil exists in a vacuum, unconnected with the rest of Iraq or the world economy. The fact that oil is the resource that will pay for water, food and medical treatment in Iraq isn't even a consideration — to the pure and simple, these things should all be free.
Posted by:Anon1

#3  The conventions on the laws of War permit soldiers to take portable state property, which is what the contents of Saddam's palaces were.
Posted by: Ptah   2003-04-22 12:28:55  

#2  You know, until they actually have a decent polling structure and government in place, I won't believe any of this crap signifies a majority consensus. Even here in the US, one would have had a hard time believing 80% of the populace supported the war effort based solely on the full-blown media coverage of the anti-war demonstrations.

Let them demonstrate and rant. They are free to do so, courtesy of the Coalition. I just hope they remember they couldn't do this one month ago.
Posted by: Dar   2003-04-22 08:29:02  

#1  gotta try to fill the hole left by Murat (sob)...
Posted by: anon1   2003-04-22 03:32:09  

00:00