| Submit your comments on this article |
| Arabia |
| Yemen Times Editor: "DIALOGUE WITH ME." |
| 2003-11-20 |
| Walid al-Saqqaf, Editor, Yemen Times editorial@yementimes.com Looking at what is going on in Iraq right now makes me want to start a dialogue to clarify to those who still support the war, my point of view, which I am sure matches many who are opposed to this war. Okay Walid, letâs talk. I will be glad to publish feedback and comments in our âletters to the editorâ pages. I have been encouraged to start this initiative because I receive so many letters and emails from readers all over the world focusing on this particular issue. I will start this exciting new initiative with a series of editorials, starting this week. I will first of all argue why any occupation, no matter where it is, cannot bring democracy. My second piece will be on why the USA is expected to fail in Iraq. Well, right off the bat, I have to remind you of upshot of the nice-guy occupations of Japan and Germany, after World War 2. My third editorial would be focused on the consequences for the American people and on the USA in general. I donât suppose that enhanced US security might be one of your choices. The fourth and final editorial would be an attempt to conclude and learn a lesson from all that happened since 911 and until the USA withdraws from Iraq, if it ever will. Hopefully, the Iraqis will have a lesson in Western liberty, secularism and democracy, before the withdrawl. Occupation canât bring democracy Let us take it from the very basics. No one wants to be occupied. There are no âgoodâ or âbadâ occupiers. For the occupied, all occupiers are damn bad. Well, whatâs your position on the Syrian occupation of much of Lebanon? Even if occupiers think they are doing good, they will always be bad in the eyes of the people of the occupied territory. Hence, it is obvious that Iraqis will not like Americans. Having hated Saddam does not necessarily mean they like the USA. They both can be hated, particularly when people realize that just before 1990, the brutal Iraqi regime was a close ally of the USA. Most Iraqis support the liberation/occupation, as a stepping stone to independence. Even the Arab League recognizes the Iraq Governing Council, on that basis. You wouldnât want to go against the League, would you, Walid? Another thing we need to realize is that no matter how âFox Newsâ or any other so called âpatrioticâ channel tries to convince Americans and the world that Americaâs main cause was for librating Iraqis, it will prove to be nonsense to all who differentiate between normal and abnormal. The USA has its interests and it should not send troops and invade another country unless there is absolutely need to do so. Saddam Husseinâs Iraq was a rogue country, that needed to be taken down. Just ask the Kurds, Christians, Assyrians, Shias, Turks, etc, if you donât agree with that. I think that the CPA should place more emphasis on de-Baathization. And, Walid, you havenât been adverse to lecturing against the tribal culture that leads to daily murders of Yemenis. The first justification that proved to be absolutely rubbish is that Iraq was a threat to the world, and in particular to the USA because of his âWMDsâ. After this failed to be the case, the US administration shifted to âliberationâ and bringing freedom and democracy from the âfree worldâ to the oppressed people of Iraq. This is also nonsense because the USA is not an angel, and cannot go on freeing any country just because it is living in a dictatorship. The "Enduring Freedom" willing, operated on the assumption, founded by UN fact-finding organizations, that massive amounts of inventoried Iraqi WMD are missing. I still believe that they are out there. Then we come to the question: Why go all this way and lose so many people and money? I donât want to give an exact answer, because I may be unjust in my conclusions if I say it was just for oil, or to divert attention of the American public from the internal US economic scandals and problems. All I would say is that the real reason needs to be investigated, and if taxpayers who paid for this war with their money and lives are not interested to know, who will be? The commitment is based on implemention of US foreign policy. Numerous countries and peoples believe that removal of the Baathist tyranny accomplished both unilateral and bilateral objectives. US losses will drop during "Operation Iron Hammer." Even Fallujahis will get sick of the shaheeds, al-Muhajirounis, Baathist pimps, and mercenary whores who are destroying their city. Then we come to the optimistic Bush scenario of things in Iraq: Iraqis will be happy and a democratic government will be elected. This government, unlike the earlier ones, will not be hostile to the USA, and hence will enable it to gain all the money spent on Iraq back in terms of oil or contracts to rebuild the country. I strongly oppose any concession that would undermine a secular constitution for Iraq. Neither Kurds nor Shias, etc will accept an Islamofascist constitution that would advance Iraqi equivalents of Pakistanâs nation wreckers like Qazi Hussein and Khurshid Ahmad, and the rest of the MMA clowns. Well, if this assumption is right, then that assumes that Iraqis love the USA and would elect a government that is friendly to the USA. Let me cut this sentence here by just quoting a story from UK-based international news network Reuters, which is just one of so many similar news items broadcast even on CNN: âIraqi teenagers cheer as American blood flows: If Washington doubts there is Iraqi public support for guerrillas killing its troops, it should consider the teenagers who happily watched American blood spill on Wednesday⊠ââThis is good. If they ask me, I will join the resistance. The Americans have to die,ââ said Ali Qais, 15.ââAt Reuters, if you are suspected of objectivity, you are fired. They are low-grade panderers, and subversives. CNN is just biased and not depraved like the Reutersâ lefties. So, as can be seen, Iraqis want Americans slaughtered and not just wounded. âTeenage boys were irritated to hear that two American soldiers were just wounded, not killed.â So this means that in truly democratic elections, any puppet government cannot be brought to power against the Iraqi peopleâs will. If you had enough common sense to subject media poisoners like al-Jazeera, to the BS meter, you might learn that the above is subjective reporting at its worst. To be continued next week: Why the US Will Fail in Iraq Canât wait for your next piece of Arab self-pity, Walid. Try the modern world for a change. Al-Saqqaf is Arabic for crybaby. |
| Posted by:Anonon |
| #10 meh. not news. thought this was news only site.. |
| Posted by: A 2003-11-20 6:43:15 PM |
| #9 JB how's the Rantburg education coming along? I've noted a certain reasonableness... :) |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-11-20 4:27:06 PM |
| #8 See "Polls" section of the Coalition Provisional Authority website: http://www.cpa-iraq.org/ |
| Posted by: Vlad the Muslim Impaler 2003-11-20 12:25:41 PM |
| #7 JoeyBananas - great name, you hit it dead on! You reference to tech and satellites is very flawed, technology isn't everything. The United States, contrary to what people like you try and make us out to be, the US is not perfect. The weapons in question are not nukes in hardened silos, but something that can be created in most high school chem labs. Very easily hidden and destroyed with cleaning chemicals. Plus there was activity, prior and during the war, detected by our TECHNOLOGY of convoys of trucks heading for Syria and Lebannon. But bottom line - if Saddam did not have these weapons he should not of acted (threatened) like he did. History does prove he did have these type of weapons and that his military knew how to use them. Do you need an history lesson (very recent history) as to when and how he used them? And if you cannot be bothered why post? As for the uneducated you should go back to grammar school, last I knew 'em' is not a word. |
| Posted by: Dan 2003-11-20 11:33:47 AM |
| #6 Pardon - he does LATER cite one quote expressing hostility to the occupation - but its clear that he's made his determination based on the deductive argument, the quote is just to add punch. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-11-20 9:09:58 AM |
| #5 "Even if occupiers think they are doing good, they will always be bad in the eyes of the people of the occupied territory. Hence, it is obvious that Iraqis will not like Americans. " This is a nice tight expression of perhaps the key anti-war meme around. Note that there is NO - repeat NO - citation of ANY info from within Iraq to support the notion that Iraqis oppose the occupation (and lets not be naive, they could find SOME) This is an a priori, deductive line of reasoning, not an empirical one. All occupations are hated by the occupied, ERGO the Iraqis MUST hate the occupation - no need to get confused by facts on the ground - the deductive argument is considered so powerful that any contradictory observations from Iraq must be incorrect. That is why to a considerable extent the antiwar and prowar points of view on Iraq simply talk past each other - one is arguing from inductive reasoning, one from deductive reasoning. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-11-20 9:08:09 AM |
| #4 there are clearly no weapons of WMD What was that Kay said the other day about "Alpha" and "Charlie"? If the US military with all it satellites and technology can't find em, they ain't there. By that standard, none of the following exist: o Osama bin Laden o Saddam Hussein o Marijuana plants in California Then there's the assumption that "satellites and technology" make you omniscient... |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-11-20 8:09:37 AM |
| #3 Awwww, that hurt Joey. Have a cookie. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-11-20 7:40:07 AM |
| #2 you make a very poor argument, there are clearly no weapons of WMD despite what you "believe". If the US military with all it satellites and technology can't find em, they ain't there. Can't be bothered to argue the rest of your uneducated, insular carping |
| Posted by: JoeyBananas 2003-11-20 5:50:54 AM |
| #1 I don't think the rest of the world understands SNAFU... except the Brits and Aussies. "The Americans have problems! Hold the presses!" Bah. American history is a continuous story of things being screwed up. What sets us apart is that we admit it. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2003-11-20 5:08:44 AM |