Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe government of Iran swiftly kicked the machinery of repression into high gear over the last several days in response to the largest anti-government demonstrations since 1979, when millions protested the tyrannical Shah.
One day after eight protesters were shot dead during a huge demonstration against President Ahmadinejad's disputed re-election, the regime barred all foreign journalists from the streets of Tehran in a move that gives the security forces much more freedom to crush dissent with overwhelming force.
The regime also blocked an attempt to repeat Monday's massive rally in support of Mir Hossein Mousavi, the former Prime Minister, who claims that he was cheated of victory last Friday by widespread vote-rigging.
Authorities have also detained 170 people since June 12, including the brother of former President Mohammad Khatami.
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said in an unprecedented announcement yesterday that an investigation into alleged election fraud would be carried out. Public protests are likely to continue as Iranian authorities attempt to resolve the hotly contested results. And many fear that Iranian authorities will continue to respond with attempts to stamp out the demonstrations.
In response Amnesty International has issued a call to ensure that those in power in Iran are aware that, despite their best efforts at concealing their bloody crackdown, the global community is monitoring their every move.
Help us send the vital message today to Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that we refuse to remain silent when authorities use violence to crush dissent and deny Iranian citizens their freedom of speech and association.
PS: If you have extra time on your hands and want to follow me on Twitter -- a micro-blog -- click here. You'll find (slightly) more personal posts, basketball and breaking news and lots of links.
Share this article
Peter Rothberg
Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Haven't you heard, PETER?
According to one of our resident pure progressives, B_KOOL, the election was fair and Ahmadinejad ain't as bad as we think!
Posted by Mask at 06/16/2009 @ 6:54pm
Very interesting how nobody demands letters and signatures when Israel jails journalists (as it did this week) or when the US-backed regime in Peru massacres indigenous protesters as happened last week.
Posted by Communard115 at 06/16/2009 @ 8:08pm
Is it those hanging chads again? Send in the Florida expert politicians.
Posted by GETREAL1 at 06/16/2009 @ 8:45pm
Help us send the vital message today to Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that we refuse to remain silent when authorities use violence to crush dissent and deny Iranian citizens their freedom of speech and association.
Peter, I'm sure the Ayatollah will immediately change his actions based upon the demands of infidels.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/16/2009 @ 10:31pm
Didn't our own `Dear Leader' just made a speech that Iranians are to settle their own affairs?
Doesn't expressing support for one faction piss off the other faction? How does that help `restore' their love of America?
Peter, oh, Peter......don't ya like to follow our very own Dear Leader.....he who is both God and father of our nation (per Michelle O. & Melissa H-L)?
Posted by Happy at 06/16/2009 @ 11:36pm
"In response Amnesty International has issued a call to ensure that those in power in Iran are aware that, despite their best efforts at concealing their bloody crackdown, the global community is monitoring their every move."
Yep, just like AI did in Iraq (for about 20 years). Sure got Saddam quaking in his boots. Perhaps releasing a flock or two of white doves will do the trick this time. If that doesn't work Obama could give GW a call for advice on how to handle bloody autocratic regimes. Sort of here today, gone in three weeks.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/16/2009 @ 11:49pm
Perhaps releasing a flock or two of white doves will do the trick this time....
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/16/2009 @ 11:49pm
Better make them doves black or gray....`white' is now a dirty color.....& dumber than brown.
Best line I read all day....:)
Posted by Happy at 06/16/2009 @ 11:59pm
This is one for the Roberts court ... go ahead, USA, show 'em the truth, the light & the way. Follow the leader, Iran, the US is best, ignore the rest.
Posted by sloper at 06/17/2009 @ 01:06am
Um...messages from Americans denouncing suppression of dissent in Iran...wouldn't that be...not so helpful? That's the point Obama's been trying to make.
Posted by scottbp at 06/17/2009 @ 01:25am
thoughts and prayers to those brave young men and women. Nothing more needed
Posted by small1ldy at 06/17/2009 @ 04:07am
Let's just keep in mind in the PREVIOUS election...
Dubya made a "strong, forceful speech" against Ahmadinejad...
and he won easily.
Posted by Mask at 06/17/2009 @ 08:17am
Um...messages from Americans denouncing suppression of dissent in Iran...wouldn't that be...not so helpful? That's the point Obama's been trying to make.
Posted by scottbp at 06/17/2009 @ 01:25am
Correct. The main argument that the existing politicians are making in Iran is that all the protests are the result of outside influence from western countries. This of course is false. But would'nt it only support their case to try and have influence now?
Posted by Extraneous at 06/17/2009 @ 1:10pm
posted by PETER ROTHBERG on 06/16/2009 @ 6:35pm
As an interesting and off-topic aside, I'd like to point out that the fact that the Iranian regime is forcing journalists (most of whom are Iranian) out of operation is a sign that, apparently, journalists in Iran are doing the right thing - reporting on the bad things the Iranian regime is doing. Compare this with American mass media, which is not just invited to wrongful American wars like the Iraq war, but formally used by military as a propaganda instrument. Media is complacent here, alright. Maybe "twitter" is better than CNN, in reality.
Posted by syfriendly at 06/17/2009 @ 1:48pm
Interesting response from our right wingers against Amnesty International.
I understand that AI goes against every neo-con bone in your bodies, but seriously, what hurt would it be to have an international recognized human rights group put out an official statement condemning the violence against peaceful protesters?
Will it stop the protests? No. Will the Ayatollah change his mind? No. However, it will give a lot of people, including millions of Americans, a sense that we are all outraged at what's happening, while acknowledging our powerlessness to do anything about it a world away.
As I stated before, any successful revolution must come from within a country. If Iran is meant to be a free nation, the people of Iran will have to collectively decide that their blood needs to be spilled in that cause. In an Islamic revolution martyrdom is truly necessary, if it is to be successful. It is a VERY unfortunate situation, but there will be more blood spilled before this is over, one way or the other...and that is the tragedy. We can only hope that the people of Iran get what they want.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/17/2009 @ 2:16pm
libration - we refuse to remain silent when authorities use violence to crush dissent and deny Iranian citizens their freedom of speech and association.
Posted by fastedgs at 06/17/2009 @ 2:18pm
I live in the U.S. and I had believed (wrongly) that Iran had moved up to, at least, the 20th century (even though we are now in the 21st century!). But I was WRONG. It is AGAINST HUMANITY that the government of Iran has MURDERED protestors! It's actions like this that give Iran a BAD APPEARANCE in the rest of the world. NO ONE has HURT Iran's image more than Ahmadinejad---and this election IS NOT TO BE BELIEVED! I've worked in an Election Dept. for 10 years, and there is NO WAY 40 million hand-written ballots can be counted in less than 12 hours! Two hours after the election in Iran, Ahmadinejad's government announced he was the "winner". IMPOSSIBLE!
Posted by DixT3 at 06/17/2009 @ 2:22pm
Um...messages from Americans denouncing suppression of dissent in Iran...wouldn't that be...not so helpful? That's the point Obama's been trying to make.
Posted by scottbp at 06/17/2009 @ 01:25am
Correct. The main argument that the existing politicians are making in Iran is that all the protests are the result of outside influence from western countries. This of course is false. But would'nt it only support their case to try and have influence now?
Posted by Extraneous at 06/17/2009 @ 1:10pm
Not unless Obama is seen by protesting Iranians as sucking up to their oppressors.
Other countries showing support is called solidarity with the oppressed rather than turning one's back on them.
Only political babes in the woods would suggest that silence is the way to change the mind of the present Iran ruling regime. Plenty of pressure beginning with Obama plus European leaders at least indicates they have some concern. Let's see if Obama does a Clinton like Rwanda or stands up like a man with convictions.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/17/2009 @ 5:52pm
...and that is the tragedy. We can only hope that the people of Iran get what they want.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/17/2009 @ 2:16pm
Nice bit of useless hand wringing. AI played a tremendous part in telling the world what was happening andthat information formed part of the moral basis for removing the Saddam regime.
Iran is no where near the closed society that Iraq was nor are its human rights abuses as serious, barbarous and capricious. AI doesn't have to tell us about what is happening in Iran. We already know. It is the futility of expecting AI and other human rights organisations to make one iota of difference, particularly with do nothing hand wringers like yourself.
I'm not suggesting that Obama should take military action against Iran but rather show a bit of moral courage and get the loud speakers going in the direction of Iran's present leadership. Appeasing dictators not only is counter productive but demeans those who practice it.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/17/2009 @ 6:12pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/17/2009 @ 6:12pm
OK, so instead of leftist handwringing, Obama should just point the Presidential loudspeakers in the right direction?
What's your point? I already acknowledged that any statement Amnesty International would come out with would be essentially (politically) useless. The primary cause of its uselessness is the fact that their (and others') previous statements against violence are usually (like now) considered "naive and useless" by people of your political beliefs.
However, I believe that no statement against violence is completely useless. As Ghandi and MLK and numerous others (including Jesus) have proven time and again, non-violent protest can change the world much more effectively than violence.
As to your statement about appeasing dictators, I wholeheartedly agree!! (Imagine that!)
But I wonder if you would agree to this statement: "Setting up dictatorships not only is counterproductive, but demeans those who would practice it, including Americans." I ask because this has been a basis of foreign policy of every single Republican President since at least Eisenhower (a man for whom I have great respect, and who would probably be a Democrat now). It is the basest form of interventionist politics and has gotten America into far worse situations (on most occasions) than if we had left well enough alone and dealt with the people there. Can one say Saddam Hussein?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/17/2009 @ 6:46pm
However, I believe that no statement against violence is completely useless. As Ghandi and MLK and numerous others (including Jesus) have proven time and again, non-violent protest can change the world much more effectively than violence.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/17/2009 @ 6:46pm
Care to cite when Jesus engaged in nonviolent protest?
When He saw the greed and lack of respect by the money-changers, I believe He got pretty physical.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/17/2009 @ 7:49pm
But I wonder if you would agree to this statement: "Setting up dictatorships not only is counterproductive, but demeans those who would practice it, including Americans." I ask because this has been a basis of foreign policy of every single Republican President since at least Eisenhower (a man for whom I have great respect, and who would probably be a Democrat now). It is the basest form of interventionist politics and has gotten America into far worse situations (on most occasions) than if we had left well enough alone and dealt with the people there. Can one say Saddam Hussein?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/17/2009 @ 6:46pm
Apart from not wanting to vilify any of your presidents, (I think it was more to do with US policy of FP realism than individuals) I couldn't have written it better myself.
However the US did not get Saddam the top job in Iraq he got that himself through murder and assassination but later on it was prepared to back him against Iran only as far as ensuring neither side came out of that war a clear winner. That's a-moral USFP realism.
It was not until later that the US political leadership realised that backing Saddam was wrong because of his human rights record and decided that the only policy that it could in conscience back was the removal of that monster and replace that autocracy with a democratic system of government. No doubt it was still interfering but in a way which made up for the wrongs of previously implemented policy.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/17/2009 @ 9:58pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/17/2009 @ 9:58pm
I've heard you guys in Australia are into spectator sports in a passionate way, but this takes the cake.
Obviously, taking your illustration of Iraq as a "learning experience", you advocate an unequivocal declaration of support from the US for the "right side" in regard to Iran. This will leave wiggle room in case of any slide by a non-dictator into terra incognita. We all know how important American endorsement is for any candidacy in that part of the world. So much for AFP realism, if you're a typical spokesman.
Thanks for your always unalloyed & pin point analysis.
Posted by Sorelish at 06/18/2009 @ 02:02am
I love it, asocialist, that you are asking for verification of Jesus' 'participation in nonviolent protest'.
It's as if you have never even heard of the Sermon on the Mount.
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
But never fear, I am sure you will find some way to explain that this was, in fact, a metaphor for clusterbombing, and that the above quote is somehow misinterpreted by all the peaceniks, and that actually Jesus endorsed blowing all of his enemies to Kingdom Come.
Posted by canaro71 at 06/18/2009 @ 02:30am
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 06/18/2009 @ 05:24am
So how did "Israel" get those pics of 10000s marching in the streets?
PhotoShop or some LucasArts CGI?
Posted by Mask at 06/18/2009 @ 08:17am
"Thanks for your always unalloyed & pin point analysis."
Posted by Sorelish at 06/18/2009 @ 02:02am
Like a bit of sarcasm myself, though some narks consider it the lowest form of wit, so I'll score you not too bad, but not sure unalloyed is what I'm about. I like to think of myself as a disciple of eclecticism. Which sometimes may involve tossing a coin.
You may have noticed that I thought Ahmadinejad was on an election winner with a large socially and religiously conservative peasant and working class demographic.
I was a little more concerned that Obama may have missed the milder (than Saddam's Iraq) human rights abuses of Iran's ruling clique in his desire to fraternise, politically of course, with Iran's petty autocracy.
A little familiarity with various HR reports on Ahmadinejad's Iraq indicate that he is not quite a clean skin. And of course the way some of the present dissent has been handled is a confirmation that he, or the ruling group, leaves a lot to be desired in that area. Mousavi may not have a much better record but some of his supporters think HR are more likely to have been advanced under him than the alternative.
Iran's is a democracy of the narrowest sort and not even on the road to being a liberal one. Obama by his silence, which is unlikely to impress either side, is telling us that underneath he may belong to the old school of US foreign policy realism. Which means he doesn't give a practical stuff about HR in Iran.
Thus Obama could miss out on the chance to give added impetus to the democratisation movement that is steadily progressing in the ME. It's just possible FP realists are not only ill equipped to smash down the walls of autocracy, as in Iraq, but also are unable to advance the cause of democracy after the heavy lifting is done.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/18/2009 @ 09:16am
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/18/2009 @ 09:16am
LR, seems the LAST time a US President inserted himself in an Iranian election, issueing "strong denunuciations", etc....
Ahmadinejad won even BIGGER and it completely back-fired?
Posted by Mask at 06/18/2009 @ 09:19am
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/17/2009 @ 6:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
apropos Eisenhower: he could have just as easily run as a democrat, as the dems beseeched him too.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/18/2009 @ 09:19am
LR
I'm sure your heart is in the right place regarding your hopes for a just & stable world.
The place where you & I differ is that I would prefer that the hearts of the indigenous in countries targeted by the "free" world's desire for democracy, be allowed to keep their hearts intact, that is, inside their chest cavities.
Compare the number of victims in Saddam's regime to that of post-invasion Iraq. And the toll is still mounting.
Then we come to prospects for the occupation's aftermath- fright compounded.
Posted by Sorelish at 06/18/2009 @ 10:17am
Compare the number of victims in Saddam's regime to that of post-invasion Iraq. And the toll is still mounting.
Posted by Sorelish at 06/18/2009 @ 10:17am
You lose every which way of counting!
More lost their lives under Saddam!
Surely more would have lost their lives had Saddam continued to rule!
That there are still people dying in Iraq due to our invasion, says nothing about how much worse it would've been w/out invasion.
Practicing ObamaSpeak, are ya? Success is measured in uncountable number of jobs `saved and how many words in speeches!
Posted by Happy at 06/18/2009 @ 10:25am
LR, seems the LAST time a US President inserted himself in an Iranian election, issueing "strong denunuciations", etc....
Ahmadinejad won even BIGGER and it completely back-fired?
Posted by Mask at 06/18/2009 @ 09:19am
You'll have to fill me in on that because the report below seems to be saying it was a run off election which means Ahmadinejad got less than 50% in the first round (in fact 19%- there must have been a few candidates). Don't think that really matters though.
There seems to be a more important issue about whether or not promoting a healthy democracy in Iran is not only the best way to ensure a better society for Iranians but also the better way to avert the threat of WMD to surrounding nations. Thus the issue is not so much about the size of Ahmadinejad's victory 2005 v 2009 but trying to change Iran's political culture.
"Tehran Mayor Ahmadinejad wins Iran's 9th presidential election"
Iran's ultra-conservative Tehran Mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has won the country's 9th presidential election, the Interior Ministry announced here Saturday.
Ahmadinejad has won a landslide victory according to the results of the counted votes from Friday's run-off and his victory is irreversible with a great margin, said spokesman of the Ministry of Interior Jahanbakhsh Khanjani.
Ahmadinejad has been taking a strong lead over his moderate presidential run-off rival Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in the vote count, winning over 60 percent of the counted votes according to several partial results announced.
The mayor entered the runoff with 5,710,354 votes garnered from the first round of voting on June 17, which accounted for 19 percent of the total eligible votes.
In the first round, his rival Rafsanjani collected 21 percent of the votes, standing ahead of him.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/18/2009 @ 10:48am
Posted by Happy at 06/18/2009 @ 10:25am
Civilian casualties were never counted, Slaps. I believe most, grudgingly admitted to under scrutiny from the few impartial observers allowed access, were labeled "collateral damage."
The" belligerents" responsible simply wouldn't fight fair, used human shields, were AQ or allied with, etc. You're full of it, Slaps.
Posted by Sorelish at 06/18/2009 @ 11:03am
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 06/18/2009 @ 09:48am
I see. So the 100,000 in the streets of Teheran were all "elitists" and all this stuff we're hearing about Iranians "upset" about the election is all a plot by Israel.
Ah...ha. What's next? Iranian "elitists" planted thermite at the World Trade Center? Or Mousavi isn't a "natural born Iranian citizen since he can't produce his REAL birth certificate"??
Posted by Mask at 06/18/2009 @ 11:33am
"Ahmadinejad has won a landslide victory according to the results of the counted votes from Friday's run-off and his victory is irreversible with a great margin, said spokesman of the Ministry of Interior Jahanbakhsh Khanjani.....
Ahmadinejad has been taking a strong lead over his moderate presidential run-off rival Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in the vote count, winning over 60 percent of the counted votes according to several partial results announced."----------Posted by lrjones4 at 06/18/2009 @ 10:48am
Right...and just BEFORE that...
"Bush criticises Iran's election
US President George W Bush has criticised the presidential election taking place in Iran on Friday as ignoring the demands of democracy. "Iran is ruled by men who suppress liberty at home and spread terror across the world," he said in a statement released by the White House.
The front-runner is former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.
However, he faces a tough challenge from two rivals, meaning a run-off vote may be needed for the first time.
Mr Bush criticised Iran for blocking hundreds of reformist candidates from running."
bbc.co.uk
Posted by Mask at 06/18/2009 @ 11:37am
BTW, this sound FAMILIAR to anybody???
"And really, how hard is it to get a bunch of elitists together for a "protest" in a country of 70 million?"-----Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 06/18/2009 @ 09:48am
Doesn't that sound like what the RIGHT used to say about ....anti-Iraq war protests?!?!??!??
Posted by Mask at 06/18/2009 @ 11:44am
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 06/18/2009 @ 12:50pm
Okay, so obviously that analogy hit home.
And you are so far out there that you conflate "The Nation" with "The Weekly Standard".
What's next? Ralph Nader was a "neo-con" and Bernie Sanders a "Reaganite"?
Posted by Mask at 06/18/2009 @ 1:25pm
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 06/18/2009 @ 12:50pm
I can send you a fresh copy of 'Imperium' by Francis Parker Yockey if you've worn yours out.
There is a mildly acidic content to spittle. In the future try covering the book with saran wrap.
I do enjoy your posts, though. My subscription to 'Cracked' just expired.
By the way, how did the Iranians count millions of non-computerized ballots in three or four hours? Inquiring minds wanna know, you master spy, you.
Posted by ficheye at 06/18/2009 @ 1:28pm
...where does georgy get off talking about elections and democracy when he worked so hard against it in america? one knowing iraqi told me, regime change/chemin range after a year they're all the same. if the moose won, he would have been more thoroughly corrupt and charming, having already been down that road. as for absentminded bejad, it warms my heart that his is a real american story, rags to riches, why hasn't the yellow press picked up on that? demonizing is not democracy. and meanwhile israel is holding hands with putin, their real ally in the mideast. let that be a lesson to our addled american millionaires yearning after holocaust.
Posted by clascoutx at 06/18/2009 @ 1:38pm
Posted by ficheye at 06/18/2009 @ 1:28pm
I think we know what we're dealing with here with Ilya.
"AIPAC mind control lasers" should be next.
Posted by Mask at 06/18/2009 @ 2:23pm
...now, now, ilya, wipe the slobber off your lips with the vodka bottle and tell me if you think absinthe bejad will learn to use a knife and fork his second term instead of tearing the flesh off the lamb's leg with his snaggled teeth. i have no objection to a traffic cop becoming the leader of a powerful nation at the mideast crossroads, at least he knows what a red light is, and that knowledge, hard won i am sure, will serve him well in the next few years of his term, which i am also sure he will try to extend into president for life as all peasants take the long view. is there something we can do about his appearance, perhaps a bouffant hairdo, and bringing his eyes out of those forbidding caves, god forbid that he should be an aristocrat, but i'd settle for something along the lines of bobby darin, and can we get him a wife, does it have to be a blond, how about naomi campbell? she's got to have something if chavez is nuts about her. think it over and let me know, between our 2 nations i think we can convince her to take a chance on a popular guy who really needs a woman to smooth his rough edges, a woman of the world, who, if need be, can slap him around until he's either silly or stops being so. waiting to hear from you, carlos.
Posted by clascoutx at 06/18/2009 @ 5:35pm
Posted by canaro71 at 06/18/2009 @ 02:30am
Canaro71: Well done! Thanks...I am sure I would have posted something similar. :)
to antisocialist: Do you equate Jesus' "getting pretty physical" with an endorsement of "violent protest?"
Just curious.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/18/2009 @ 6:18pm
Then we come to prospects for the occupation's aftermath- fright compounded.
Posted by Sorelish at 06/18/2009 @ 10:17am |
Off to work now but what you need to do is check out the number of Iraqis who were killed by the state apparatus under Saddam. Up to 180,000 in the Anfal campaign then there are those killed and displaced after the Kuwait war, including the Marsh Arabs. They are some of the major killing exercises but if you can't find them, and there are many others that bring the average killing under Saddam way beyond anything that has occurred on average since March 03, I'll do that for you.
Then the question to be asked is who has been killing Iraqis whilst the Americans have been there. Look up a credible record like Iraq Body count and you will find it was the same sort of goons who were killing Iraqis under the Saddam regime but then with the approval of the state. So it was/is not the Americans who have been doing the significant killing in terms of numbers.
The myth some swallow is that this violence we are seeing now started from March 2003. Nothing is farther from the truth. An even greater scale of state sanctioned killing was in operation over significant periods of Saddam's rule.
Don't know what your arithmetic is like but I've noted the numbers of Iraqis killed per month over the 6 years and my suggestion is that it averages out at about 1500 per month. For 75 months that gives us about 112,000. Iraqi Body Count is about 100,000 which is a credible figure for those who can count. That is less than the high figure for about 2 years of the Anfal campaign, alone, in Northern Iraq. The ludicrous figures of up to 1 million are for those who can't count or have not been making a mental note of the monthly killing figures, post 03, given in the media.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/18/2009 @ 6:19pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/17/2009 @ 9:58pm
First of all, I am not sure why you state we did not help Saddam into power. I am sure you have about as much evidence to back up that statement as I do to refute it: none.
However, let's look at it this way: Iran had just kicked our butts (oil embargo, hostages, Iranian revolution, etc.). Iraq sat on the world's second largest oil reserves (we knew that). From a foreign policy perspective, strong men are easier to control, since you don't have to deal with silly "elections" and "the people" of a particular country ("It'd be a lot easier if we were a dictatorship...as long as I was the dictator." Out of the mouths of babes...sigh).
So who really knows whether the CIA helped set Saddam up or not?
From a realpolitik POV, having someone we could control just across the border from our worst nightmare, in a region controlled by oil (just as we're REALLY getting thirsty for it), was a good thing for the US, so we used him.
However, if you truly believe that Saddam's human rights record is what stopped us from being his friend, well...no. It's naive to think that. It was his EGO that changed the relationship: he got greedy. He was a dream for us; he was a secularist in a region of religious fanatics. He didn't overtly threaten Israel at first (except perhaps in his words...but those were to gain Islamic street cred, I'm sure). Saddam's ego got in his way; if he hadn't invaded Kuwait, we'd STILL be doing business with him. If not him, simply replace him with some OTHER strong man (i.e. the war in Iraq). The US always takes down strong men when they get too big for their britches (Noriega).
And let's not even mention the numerous other petty dictators the US has set up or supported since the end of WWII...
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/18/2009 @ 6:41pm
Posted by canaro71 at 06/18/2009 @ 02:30am
Canaro71: Well done! Thanks...I am sure I would have posted something similar. :)
to antisocialist: Do you equate Jesus' "getting pretty physical" with an endorsement of "violent protest?"
Just curious.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/18/2009 @ 6:18pm
What is fully evident is that certain segments of society have created a mythical Jesus who was a supposed pacifist. Jesus was not and is not a pacifist against evil and corrupt behavior.
The many attempts to somehow portray both Jesus and subsequently Christians as called to live a pacifist life because of the Sermon on the Mount is lacking on several counts.
1. The Sermon on the Mount was about personal behavior, and not about the role of govts. Jesus never advocated the abolishment of wars or the death penalty.
2. He made it quite clear that He Himself would take action when necessary to counter both corruption and evil with appropriate force.
3. Those who promote the mythical pacifist Jesus always ignore that He spoke more on Hell and Judgment than He did love. Not because love isn't extremely important; but because a loving G-d also cannot overlook sin and evil.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/18/2009 @ 6:50pm
Saddam was sucker punched on Kuwait. the american ambassador gave him the green light. Bush1 did nothing until the clamor got so loud that he had to do something. the pressure came from Saudi big time.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/18/2009 @ 7:59pm
However, if you truly believe that Saddam's human rights record is what stopped us from being his friend, well...no. It's naive to think that. It was his EGO that changed the relationship: he got greedy. He was a dream for us; he was a secularist in a region of religious fanatics. He didn't overtly threaten Israel at first (except perhaps in his words...but those were to gain Islamic street cred, I'm sure). Saddam's ego got in his way; if he hadn't invaded Kuwait, we'd STILL be doing business with him. If not him, simply replace him with some OTHER strong man (i.e. the war in Iraq). The US always takes down strong men when they get too big for their britches (Noriega).
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/18/2009 @ 6:41pm
Look I'm not an expert on neo-conservatism but it seems to me that when some on the Left defected to the GOP they brought with them the idea that America should not only be interested in furthering its own security, in some of the ways you mention, but also be interested in promoting democracy or something like it. Now I'm prepared to accept that that desire came, in part at least, from their Leftist convictions about making the world a better place. I guess where they differed from the traditional position was their willingness to accept the use of American force, as in Iraq, to achieve that goal. The question remains, why did conservatives who did not share that altruistic vision take neo-conservatism on board?
My suggestion is that they probably saw the possibility of achieving the same security and economic advantages that FP realism aimed at achieving but by the route of democratisation so that the US could enjoy the same sort of security and economic benefits it enjoyed with say democratic Europe. That idea seems to make some sort of sense.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/18/2009 @ 8:04pm
we stood bye and watched the nazis kill millions of jews. we stood bye and watched pol pot kill millions of cambodians; what would make you'd think that we would say peep about a people who threw us out of their country 20 years ago?
Posted by SHUNK at 06/18/2009 @ 8:19pm
we stood bye and watched the nazis kill millions of jews. we stood bye and watched pol pot kill millions of cambodians; what would make you'd think that we would say peep about a people who threw us out of their country 20 years ago?
Posted by SHUNK at 06/18/2009 @ 8:19pm |
You fellas are slow learners. I happen to believe that you Americans are not rotten to the core in FP, as even Triple6 is telling us but when the chips are down you are morally better than the rest.
The six million Jews were part of the motivation to give Hitter and his ghastly crew the flick. Also I like to think Japan's butchery in China and elsewhere in SE Asia, with a bit of help from Pearl Harbour, got you off your collective bum.
Then your gift of a decent democracy to Germany and Japan wasn't all that bad. No one else could have lead those exercises in a way that has seen no relapses from either in sixty years or so. As far as I know there have been no further threats to your security from either, in any way. The stuff S_C tells us about is what happens when you get the policy buffs blowing down the ear of successive administrations with tales of empire that includes bugger the natives aka realist policy.
That's why you have no reason to blush and go all coy about bringing democracy to little countries like Iraq. You do it better than anyone else is likely to .
Empire is OK by me if you leave states in the position you left Germany and Japan and even at this early stage the nascent democracy that is Iraq today.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/18/2009 @ 10:17pm
but because a loving G-d also cannot overlook sin and evil.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/18/2009 @ 6:50pm
Mythical Jesus? Now there's a tautology!!
Your version of Jesus reflects your need to distort his teachings to square with your own ideology.
Please explain to us where in the 10 Commandments did God mention condone war and the death penalty. God and Jesus said that the price of sin is death, but that only God had the right to sit in judgment and punch those sins.
You yourself said that "He Himself would take action", not his proxies here on earth.
When did Jesus say that men had the right to judge other men and take their lived?
I seem to recall something about he who has never sinned casting the first stone.
When did he mention Israel being linked to his return?
Posted by Shingo at 06/18/2009 @ 10:24pm
Shingo,really want to know?
Question: "Why is God so different in the Old Testament than He is in the New Testament?"
Answer: At the very heart of this question lies a fundamental misunderstanding of what both the Old and New Testaments reveal about the nature of God. Another way of expressing this same basic thought is when people say, "The God of the Old Testament is a God of wrath while the God of the New Testament is a God of love." The fact that the Bible is God's progressive revelation of Himself to us through historical events and through His relationship with people throughout history might contribute to misconceptions about what God is like in the Old Testament as compared to the New Testament. However, when one reads both the Old and the New Testaments, it becomes evident that God is not different from one testament to another and that God's wrath and His love are revealed in both testaments.
For example, throughout the Old Testament, God is declared to be a "compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness," (Exodus 34:6; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 4:31; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 86:5, 15; 108:4; 145:8; Joel 2:13). Yet in the New Testament, God's loving-kindness and mercy are manifested even more fully through the fact that "God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). Throughout the Old Testament, we also see God dealing with Israel the same way a loving father deals with a child. When they willfully sinned against Him and began to worship idols, God would punish them. Yet, each time He would deliver them once they had repented of their idolatry. This is much the same way God deals with Christians in the New Testament.
Posted by BigPasture at 06/18/2009 @ 11:10pm
For example, Hebrews 12:6 tells us that "the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son."
In a similar way, throughout the Old Testament we see God's judgment and wrath poured out on sin. Likewise, in the New Testament we see that the wrath of God is still "being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness" (Romans 1:18). So, clearly, God is no different in the Old Testament than He is in the New Testament. God by His very nature is immutable (unchanging). While we might see one aspect of His nature revealed in certain passages of Scripture more than other aspects, God Himself does not change.
As we read and study the Bible, it becomes clear that God is the same in the Old and New Testaments. Even though the Bible is 66 individual books written on two (or possibly three) continents, in three different languages, over a period of approximately 1500 years by more than 40 authors, it remains one unified book from beginning to end without contradiction. In it we see how a loving, merciful, and just God deals with sinful men in all kinds of situations. Truly, the Bible is God's love letter to mankind. God's love for His creation, especially for mankind, is evident all through Scripture. Throughout the Bible we see God lovingly and mercifully calling people into a special relationship with Himself, not because they deserve it, but because He is a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness and truth. Yet we also see a holy and righteous God who is the Judge of all those who disobey His Word and refuse to worship Him, turning instead to worship gods of their own creation (Romans chapter 1).
Posted by BigPasture at 06/18/2009 @ 11:12pm
Because of God's righteous and holy character, all sin--past, present, and future--must be judged. Yet God in His infinite love has provided a payment for sin and a way of reconciliation so that sinful man can escape His wrath. We see this wonderful truth in verses like 1 John 4:10: "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." In the Old Testament, God provided a sacrificial system whereby atonement could be made for sin. However, this sacrificial system was only temporary and merely looked forward to the coming of Jesus Christ who would die on the cross to make a complete substitutionary atonement for sin. The Savior who was promised in the Old Testament is fully revealed in the New Testament. Only envisioned in the Old Testament, the ultimate expression of God's love, the sending of His Son Jesus Christ, is revealed in all its glory in the New Testament. Both the Old and the New Testaments were given "to make us wise unto salvation" (2 Timothy 3:15). When we study the Testaments closely, it is evident that God "does not change like shifting shadows" (James 1:17).
Posted by BigPasture at 06/18/2009 @ 11:13pm
Bush1 did nothing until the clamor got so loud that he had to do something. the pressure came from Saudi big time.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/18/2009 @ 7:59pm
Sorry but that's not how it happened.
Yes, Glasby gave Saddam the green light, care of James Baker, but the chorus for action care after the Kuwaiti ambassadors daughter put on the acting performance of her life in front of Congress and fed them the BS story about babies in incubators etc.
The Saudis weren't interested in getting involved until Cheney showed them doctored satellite photographs showing Iraqi tank battalions amassed on the Iraq/Saudi border.
Posted by Shingo at 06/18/2009 @ 11:14pm
With 18 million plus references concerning Gods charactor, relationship, and plans for mankind just on line it is not difficult to find out!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/18/2009 @ 11:15pm
Posted by BigPasture at 06/18/2009 @ 11:13pm
I'm sure God loves me, but I'd still make him wear a condom.
Posted by Shingo at 06/18/2009 @ 11:17pm
With 18 million plus references concerning Gods charactor, relationship, and plans for mankind just on line it is not difficult to find out!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/18/2009 @ 11:15pm
None of which come from any historical reference of course.
Posted by Shingo at 06/18/2009 @ 11:35pm
Clearly, you really have no real questions nor want any real answers. But, that is nothing new under the Sun!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/19/2009 @ 12:10am
Clearly, you really have no real questions nor want any real answers.
Posted by BigPasture at 06/19/2009 @ 12:10am
You didn't answer my question. You just spewed forth a stream of dogmatic and self contradictory drivel, as you do with most subjects you address.
After the Bush administration, it is clear why the Evangelicals were so drawn to his Orwellian ideology. War was peace, death was liberation, much like your macabre and perverse interpretation of the Bible.
Posted by Shingo at 06/19/2009 @ 12:37am
Posted by antisocialist at 06/18/2009 @ 6:50pm
So, would you call Jesus pro or anti war? If you HAD to make a choice?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/19/2009 @ 01:13am
The question remains, why did conservatives who did not share that altruistic vision take neo-conservatism on board?
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/18/2009 @ 8:04pm
They were conned.
As for Europe and what the US did there, vs. "bringing democracy" to Iraq...as an American, I am so incredibly proud of the way we turned bitter enemies into friends with Germany, Italy and Japan. With Germany and Italy, one could say it was relatively easy because Americans are very similar to Europeans in our world view. Japan was a little more difficult because we didn't share a culture, but they had experienced the horror of the atomic bomb, and I think their culture simply demanded a drastic change from their Empire. We offered help, they accepted. The Japanese are an amazing people.
Unfortunately, Iraq is such a different scenario, starting with the fact that it is a "created" country...created by the Europeans, not the people of the fertile crescent, and ending with the fact it is an illegal war, pure and simple and was started, in my opinion, because we are still thirsty for oil. The politics of that area of the world are based in tribalism, and that's amazingly difficult to negotiate with, since tribe loyalties can change very quickly.
But another Iranian revolution, started and encouraged by students (students also ran the Islamic revolution 30 years ago), is am amazing thing. Whether it will be successful, we'll see. But I really don't think Iran's election protests are in any way related to "democracy coming to Iraq" as some have suggested. That's just loony.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/19/2009 @ 01:29am
As for Mr. Carver's assertions, I think the strongmen bring it upon themselves when they realize that the strings tied to them are attached to the hands of puppetmasters.
Posted by snowball666 at 06/18/2009 @ 8:12pm
It's probably a little of both... but in Saddam's case, I'd bet money it was his ego...that and the fact that he got pissed off at us when he found out we were supporting Iran against him, while at the same time we were actively supporting him.
If I was the head of a country and found out my allies were playing both sides against each other...well, I'd be pissed, too. Don't get me wrong, Saddam was an ass who did horrible things to his people and I am sure he got what he deserved. HOWEVER, there were other ways to take him out without spending a trillion dollars, killings hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans. And the fact that Bush and the bastards lied to everyone to take him out and get boots on the ground over those oil fields, simply disgusts me and is so UN-American...I becomes almost speechless with anger and sadness.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/19/2009 @ 01:38am
ut I really don't think Iran's election protests are in any way related to "democracy coming to Iraq" as some have suggested. That's just loony.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/19/2009 @ 01:29am
Too right. The Iraq invasion actually handed Iraq to Iran on a plate, so that it now controls the Iraqi government.
Posted by Shingo at 06/19/2009 @ 01:39am
I was wondering where Peter has been in past two decades when the Israelis ransacked and demolished the homes in Gaza, killed the Palestinians in thousands, and defied the UN sanction against food blockades to the innocent people? Or maybe Peter woudn't consider the Palestinians "innocents", because there's no such thing asan innocent Arab/Palestinian?
The fact that the outcome of the recent Presidential election in Iran has been disputed by some of Moussavi followers doesn't mean that it's the end of the Islamic Republic of Iran like Peter and his ilks hope. It is one of the proofs that democracy in Iran is evolving and therefore no one should have given the kind of judgement that Peter has done. Let the Iranian people clean up their mess and please do not intervere with such an attitude as if he/she knows about democracy better than the Iranian people!
For Peter, why don't you write about Ramallah, Bir Zeit, and other suffering lands in the Palestine. You will redeem yourself from your sense of guilt.
Posted by jakartaman at 06/19/2009 @ 02:06am
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/19/2009 @ 01:38am
If you read the following concise, easy to scroll down by date, history of Saddam Hussein you will see that the US had little to do with his rise to power or arms supply until the US went cap in hand in 1981. The CIA may have had something to do with the Baath Party earlier than Saddam, as a bulwark against Communism. There can be little doubt that Saddam's love affair with the Soviet and their arms certainly would have cheesed off the CIA and the US.
Here's some juicy little bits:
1979 - The Shah of Iran is overthrown in an 'Islamic Revolution' in February. The new Islamic Republic of Iran is headed by the Shia cleric Ayatollah Sayyid Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini, who Saddam had expelled from Iraq in October 1978.
On 11 July the Revolutionary Command Council transfers Iraq's presidential powers from Bakr to Saddam. When Bakr officially resigns on 16 July, Saddam initiates steps to secure the presidency without having to face a vote within the party. Bakr is placed under house arrest. When he dies in 1982 he is still in custody.
1981 - The US Government begins to court Iraq, holding official talks on matters such as trade and regional security.
The US is still smarting from the seizure of its embassy in Tehran and the taking of American diplomats as hostages in November 1979 following the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Attempts by Iran to export the revolution to other regions in the Middle East are also of concern. Iraq is seen as a bulwark against the spread of Iran's militant Shia extremism.
1983 - In December the US sends a special Middle East envoy to Iraq to hold talks with Saddam. The envoy Donald Rumsfeld..
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/19/2009 @ 03:17am
...the future US secretary of defence under the administration of George W. Bush, is the highest-ranking American official to visit Baghdad in more than 16 years.
At their meeting on 20 December Rumsfeld tells Saddam that the US is ready to resume full diplomatic relations.
1984 - Rumsfeld returns to Baghdad for meetings with the Iraqi foreign minister on 24 March, the same day that the United Nations (UN) releases a report finding that Iraq is using mustard gas and the nerve agent tabun against Iranian troops.
The US State Department also acknowledges Iraq's actions, releasing a statement on 5 March saying that "available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons."
Nevertheless, full diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US are restored in November, allowing the US to provide Iraq with further aid, including battle-planning assistance, to fight the war.
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/19/2009 @ 03:17am
To my knowledge, Iran did not intervene in the fixed and disputed election of 2000 in the United States, and I think the United States ought to reciprocate by not intervening in the Iranian election of 2009.
Posted by jrm22437 at 06/19/2009 @ 06:51am
So, would you call Jesus pro or anti war? If you HAD to make a choice? Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/19/2009 @ 01:13am | ignore this person | warn this person
there was a time when Chezis was called "the prince of napalm".
Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 08:17am
BTW, keep in mind...
Jesus...didn't "say anything" in the Bible.
He was supposedly quoted.
Posted by Mask at 06/19/2009 @ 08:25am
Regarding ILYA's post:
Note that her own analysis makes very few credible links to Israel. Even if the Twitterers were a relatively small group of people...that's not proof that they were linked to Israel. A small number of interested individuals will likely have that same effect.
And no, the 2004 election wasn't stolen.
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 06/18/2009 @ 6:50pm </i>
Is God incapable of forgiving sin and evil? The Prodigal Son story appears to strongly suggest otherwise. Moreover, if the Atonement is supposed to have covered all past, present and future sin (i.e. taken the penalty for all of it), what's left to pay? And why is it that judgment is more important than love? A father doesn't punish wrong because it intrinsically need to be punished, he only punishes it to teach a lesson; is your argument that God is actually harsher than a good earthly father would be?
On the force question, your SOLE relevant response is the move on the money-changers. Note that even there, not a single person was hurt. Not one. At no point did Jesus take violent action against another human being, and perhaps the clearest example of this is his clear decision not to violently resist the clearly oppressive power of Rome.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/19/2009 @ 11:19am
By making it clear that he wants to negotiate with Iran without any preconditions, Obama has left the protesters vulnerable to M-Jad's abuses. It seems that in his desire to negotiate with him, Obama has more or less given M-Jad free license to do whatever he wants.
Posted by stickyshift at 06/19/2009 @ 1:11pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=stickyshift
oh please. whattaloadofcrap.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 1:56pm
At no point did Jesus take violent action against another human being, and perhaps the clearest example of this is his clear decision not to violently resist the clearly oppressive power of Rome. Posted by Thrawn at 06/19/2009 @ 11:19am
Thank you Thrawn. I had to erase my post this morning because Larry's post just ticked me off with a lot of strange retranslations of the bible. Anti seeks to find some solace or forgiveness for his love affair with cluster bombs. He won't find it here, or at home either is my guess. Why else would he post so voluminously? There's a slight smell of desperation in his writings.
Shingo makes some good points as well. I think Larry wants to be forgiven and the only way he can get that forgiveness without admitting that he screwed up for years is to attempt to create a philosophy based on the old 'baffle 'em with bullshit' template.
Posted by ficheye at 06/19/2009 @ 4:26pm
<i>Posted by ficheye at 06/19/2009 @ 4:26pm </i>
It's my pleasure; I have great difficulty seeking the Gospels as anything other than an affirmation of a divine grace which exceeds the petty boundaries we attempt to create around it, and it frustrates me when people try to make it into an authorization for division, demonization, condemnation and fear.
Though I think Shingo overlooks some verses that say some of the things he says no verse does, I think he makes some valid points in suggesting that religion is not a divine license for condemning those who think differently from ourselves.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/20/2009 @ 12:30am
"They were conned."
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/19/2009 @ 01:29am
I missed this post but posted the political history of Saddam to indicate that he was not one of your government's creatures though the old a-moral FP realism doctrine came into play later via Rumsfeld. And the subsequent history shows what an abject failure that approach was.
Whereas the neo-con approach, or something like it, is what has allowed, in six short years, a multi-party Iraq parliament, freely elected by the Iraqi people, to be formed and harmoniously govern their country.
Far from being conned on this issue the conservatives, who took that idea on board, have by the mounting evidence backed a winner. ILA 1998 tells us that a lot of closet Dems also took on the basic neo-con idea. Even if giving it no teeth.
The idea that Iraq was a hopeless cobbling together of disparate religious and ethnic groups was suggested, even before the invasion, as the main rationale for the impossibility of forming a democratic Iraq.
The Iraqi politicians are functioning at least with as much civility and effectiveness as your Congress. That may not be saying much but it is a start. In fact the new Iraq system is streets ahead of your limited two party monopoly as the following indicates. These are just a few of the lesser parties, apart from the main Shia and Sunni grouping:
SECULAR PARTIES
Communist Party of Iraq
Worker-Communist Party of Iraq
Leftist Worker-Communist Party of Iraq
Alliance of Independent Democrats - led by Adnan Pachachi
National Democratic Party - Naseer al-Chaderchi
Green Party of Iraq
Iraqi Scientific Humanitarian Committee
Iraqi Democratic Union
Federal Democratic Iraqi Nation Party
Iraqi National Accord
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_Iraq
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/20/2009 @ 04:53am
This is but one indication that ethnicity and religion and no religion at all, are not barriers to a sense of Iraqi national identity any more than religion and ethnicity is a divisive and dividing issue in say America or any other Western country. It is the way it is handled and Iraq seems to be on the right track in their most important political institution. That has a didactic of its own. Another name for it is leadership. Or top down education in Iraqi nationalism.
As far as Japan was concerned MacArthur forced the new constitution on it, with the power inherent in an occupying force:
"The Matsumoto Commission's recommendations, made public in February 1946, were quite conservative. MacArthur rejected them outright and ordered his staff to draft a completely new document"
"Much of it was drafted by two senior army officers with law degrees: Milo Rowell and Courtney Whitney. The articles about equality between men and women are reported to be written by Beate Sirota. (wiki)
So Japan was a lot more difficult situation than Iraq in terms of cultural differences.
You really are out of touch with Iraq and its pre-Saddam history. Many of its elites were educated in the West, particularly Britain and hence share, more than the Japanese did, our Western values. Saddam to his credit gave Iraq the best education system in the ME, at the time, so Iraqis aren't as you portray them; almost a bunch of tribal hicks. The Baathist Arab Socialist Party and particularly Saddam sidetracked the country which probably would have evolved from a monarchy to a democratic state under its own intellectual and political influences.
I like the idea that Iraq's blossoming democracy are sure to be looked upon with envy by Iranians under the insidious bondage of a state religion.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/20/2009 @ 04:54am
..democracy is...
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/20/2009 @ 04:59am