Ron Paul on Iraq: EVERYONE is worse off!

[Bman]

One of the best yet from the Great Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas
AWESOME.. read it beginning to end, then read it again

Bman


Who’s Better Off?

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD


Before the US House of Representatives, April 6, 2005.

Whenever the administration is challenged regarding the success of the Iraq war, or regarding the false information used to justify the war, the retort is: “Aren’t the people of Iraq better off?” The insinuation is that anyone who expresses any reservations about supporting the war is an apologist for Saddam Hussein and every ruthless act he ever committed. The short answer to the question of whether the Iraqis are better off is that it’s too early to declare, “Mission Accomplished.” But more importantly, we should be asking if the mission was ever justified or legitimate. Is it legitimate to justify an action that some claim yielded good results, if the means used to achieve them are illegitimate? Do the ends justify the means?

The information Congress was given prior to the war was false. There were no weapons of mass destruction; the Iraqis did not participate in the 9/11 attacks; Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies and did not conspire against the United States; our security was not threatened; we were not welcomed by cheering Iraqi crowds as we were told; and Iraqi oil has not paid any of the bills. Congress failed to declare war, but instead passed a wishy-washy resolution citing UN resolutions as justification for our invasion. After the fact we’re now told the real reason for the Iraq invasion was to spread democracy, and that the Iraqis are better off. Anyone who questions the war risks being accused of supporting Saddam Hussein, disapproving of democracy, or “supporting terrorists.” It’s implied that lack of enthusiasm for the war means one is not patriotic and doesn’t support the troops. In other words, one must march lock-step with the consensus or be ostracized.

However, conceding that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein is a far cry from endorsing the foreign policy of our own government that led to the regime change. In time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself. The interventionist policy should be scrutinized more carefully than the purported benefits of Saddam Hussein’s removal from power. The real question ought to be: “Are we better off with a foreign policy that promotes regime change while justifying war with false information?” Shifting the stated goals as events unravel should not satisfy those who believe war must be a last resort used only when our national security is threatened.

How much better off are the Iraqi people? Hundreds of thousands of former inhabitants of Fallajah are not better off with their city flattened and their homes destroyed. Hundreds of thousands are not better off living with foreign soldiers patrolling their street, curfews, and the loss of basic utilities. One hundred thousand dead Iraqis, as estimated by the Lancet Medical Journal, certainly are not better off. Better to be alive under Saddam Hussein than lying in some cold grave.

Praise for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many critics of the war. Yet the election was held under martial law implemented by a foreign power, mirroring conditions we rightfully condemned as a farce when carried out in the old Soviet system and more recently in Lebanon. Why is it that what is good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander?

Our government fails to recognize that legitimate elections are the consequence of freedom, and that an artificial election does not create freedom. In our own history we note that freedom was achieved first and elections followed – not the other way around.

One news report claimed that the Shiites actually received 56% of the vote, but such an outcome couldn’t be allowed for it would preclude a coalition of the Kurds and Shiites from controlling the Sunnis and preventing a theocracy from forming. This reminds us of the statement made months ago by Secretary Rumsfeld when asked about a Shiite theocracy emerging from a majority democratic vote, and he assured us that would not happen. Democracy, we know, is messy and needs tidying up a bit when we don’t like the results.

Some have described Baghdad and especially the green zone, as being surrounded by unmanageable territory. The highways in and out of Baghdad are not yet secured. Many anticipate a civil war will break out sometime soon in Iraq; some claim it’s already underway.

We have seen none of the promised oil production that was supposed to provide grateful Iraqis with the means to repay us for the hundreds of billions that American taxpayers have spent on the war. Some have justified our continuous presence in the Persian Gulf since 1990 because of a need to protect “our” oil. Yet now that Saddam Hussein is gone, and the occupation supposedly is a great success, gasoline at the pumps is reaching record highs approaching $3 per gallon.

Though the Iraqi election has come and gone, there still is no government in place and the next election – supposedly the real one – is not likely to take place on time. Do the American people have any idea who really won the dubious election at all?

The oil-for-food scandal under Saddam Hussein has been replaced by corruption in the distribution of U.S. funds to rebuild Iraq. Already there is an admitted $9 billion discrepancy in the accounting of these funds. The over-billing by Halliburton is no secret, but the process has not changed.

The whole process is corrupt. It just doesn’t make sense to most Americans to see their tax dollars used to fight an unnecessary and unjustified war. First they see American bombs destroying a country, and then American taxpayers are required to rebuild it. Today it’s easier to get funding to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq than to build a bridge in the United States. Indeed, we cut the Army Corps of Engineers’ budget and operate on the cheap with our veterans as the expenditures in Iraq skyrocket.

One question the war promoters don’t want to hear asked, because they don’t want to face up to the answer, is this: “Are Christian Iraqis better off today since we decided to build a new Iraq through force of arms?” The answer is plainly no.

Sure, there are only 800,000 Christians living in Iraq, but under Saddam Hussein they were free to practice their religion. Tariq Aziz, a Christian, served in Saddam Hussein’s cabinet as Foreign Minister – something that would never happen in Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other Middle Eastern country. Today, the Christian churches in Iraq are under attack and Christians are no longer safe. Many Christians have been forced to flee Iraq and migrate to Syria. It’s strange that the human rights advocates in the U.S. Congress have expressed no concern for the persecution now going on against Christians in Iraq. Both the Sunni and the Shiite Muslims support the attacks on Christians. In fact, persecuting Christians is one of the few areas in which they agree – the other being the removal of all foreign forces from Iraqi soil.

Considering the death, destruction, and continual chaos in Iraq, it’s difficult to accept the blanket statement that the Iraqis all feel much better off with the U.S. in control rather than Saddam Hussein. Security in the streets and criminal violence are not anywhere near being under control.

But there’s another question that is equally important: “Are the American people better off because of the Iraq war?”

One thing for sure, the 1,500 plus dead American soldiers aren’t better off. The nearly 20,000 severely injured or sickened American troops are not better off. The families, the wives, the husbands, children, parents, and friends of those who lost so much are not better off.

The families and the 40,000 troops who were forced to re-enlist against their will – a de facto draft – are not feeling better off. They believe they have been deceived by their enlistment agreements.

The American taxpayers are not better off having spent over 200 billion dollars to pursue this war, with billions yet to be spent. The victims of the inflation that always accompanies a guns-and-butter policy are already getting a dose of what will become much worse.

Are our relationships with the rest of the world better off? I’d say no. Because of the war, our alliances with the Europeans are weaker than ever. The anti-American hatred among a growing number of Muslims around the world is greater than ever. This makes terrorist attacks more likely than they were before the invasion. Al Qaeda recruiting has accelerated. Iraq is being used as a training ground for al Qaeda terrorists, which it never was under Hussein’s rule. So as our military recruitment efforts suffer, Osama bin Laden benefits by attracting more terrorist volunteers.

Oil was approximately $27 a barrel before the war, now it’s more than twice that. I wonder who benefits from this?

Because of the war, fewer dollars are available for real national security and defense of this country. Military spending is up, but the way the money is spent distracts from true national defense and further undermines our credibility around the world.

The ongoing war’s lack of success has played a key role in diminishing morale in our military services. Recruitment is sharply down, and most branches face shortages of troops. Many young Americans rightly fear a coming draft – which will be required if we do not reassess and change the unrealistic goals of our foreign policy.

The appropriations for the war are essentially off-budget and obscured, but contribute nonetheless to the runaway deficit and increase in the national debt. If these trends persist, inflation with economic stagnation will be the inevitable consequences of a misdirected policy.

One of the most significant consequences in times of war that we ought to be concerned about is the inevitable loss of personal liberty. Too often in the patriotic nationalism that accompanies armed conflict, regardless of the cause, there is a willingness to sacrifice personal freedoms in pursuit of victory. The real irony is that we are told we go hither and yon to fight for freedom and our Constitution, while carelessly sacrificing the very freedoms here at home we’re supposed to be fighting for. It makes no sense.

This willingness to give up hard-fought personal liberties has been especially noticeable in the atmosphere of the post-September 11th war on terrorism. Security has replaced liberty as our main political goal, damaging the American spirit. Sadly, the whole process is done in the name of patriotism and in a spirit of growing militant nationalism.

These attitudes and fears surrounding the 9-11 tragedy, and our eagerness to go to war in the Middle East against countries not responsible for the attacks, have allowed a callousness to develop in our national psyche that justifies torture and rejects due process of law for those who are suspects and not convicted criminals.

We have come to accept pre-emptive war as necessary, constitutional, and morally justifiable. Starting a war without a proper declaration is now of no concern to most Americans or the U.S. Congress. Let’s hope and pray the rumors of an attack on Iran in June by U.S. Armed Forces are wrong.

A large segment of the Christian community and its leadership think nothing of rationalizing war in the name of a religion that prides itself on the teachings of the Prince of Peace, who instructed us that blessed are the peacemakers – not the warmongers.

We casually accept our role as world policeman, and believe we have a moral obligation to practice nation building in our image regardless of the number of people who die in the process.

We have lost our way by rejecting the beliefs that made our country great. We no longer trust in trade, friendship, peace, the Constitution, and the principle of neutrality while avoiding entangling alliances with the rest of the world. Spreading the message of hope and freedom by setting an example for the world has been replaced by a belief that use of armed might is the only practical tool to influence the world – and we have accepted, as the only superpower, the principle of initiating war against others.

In the process, Congress and the people have endorsed a usurpation of their own authority, generously delivered to the executive and judicial branches – not to mention international government bodies. The concept of national sovereignty is now seen as an issue that concerns only the fringe in our society.

Protection of life and liberty must once again become the issue that drives political thought in this country. If this goal is replaced by an effort to promote world government, use force to plan the economy, regulate the people, and police the world, against the voluntary desires of the people, it can be done only with the establishment of a totalitarian state. There’s no need for that. It’s up to Congress and the American people to decide our fate, and there is still time to correct our mistakes.

April 7, 2005

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.


http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr040605.htm

[knightroar]

I wish that man would run for President

[Pispas]

One of the best yet from the Great Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas
AWESOME.. read it beginning to end, then read it again

Bman


Who’s Better Off?

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD


Before the US House of Representatives, April 6, 2005.

Whenever the administration is challenged regarding the success of the Iraq war, or regarding the false information used to justify the war, the retort is: “Aren’t the people of Iraq better off?” The insinuation is that anyone who expresses any reservations about supporting the war is an apologist for Saddam Hussein and every ruthless act he ever committed. The short answer to the question of whether the Iraqis are better off is that it’s too early to declare, “Mission Accomplished.” But more importantly, we should be asking if the mission was ever justified or legitimate. Is it legitimate to justify an action that some claim yielded good results, if the means used to achieve them are illegitimate? Do the ends justify the means?

The information Congress was given prior to the war was false. There were no weapons of mass destruction; the Iraqis did not participate in the 9/11 attacks; Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies and did not conspire against the United States; our security was not threatened; we were not welcomed by cheering Iraqi crowds as we were told; and Iraqi oil has not paid any of the bills. Congress failed to declare war, but instead passed a wishy-washy resolution citing UN resolutions as justification for our invasion. After the fact we’re now told the real reason for the Iraq invasion was to spread democracy, and that the Iraqis are better off. Anyone who questions the war risks being accused of supporting Saddam Hussein, disapproving of democracy, or “supporting terrorists.” It’s implied that lack of enthusiasm for the war means one is not patriotic and doesn’t support the troops. In other words, one must march lock-step with the consensus or be ostracized.

However, conceding that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein is a far cry from endorsing the foreign policy of our own government that led to the regime change. In time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself. The interventionist policy should be scrutinized more carefully than the purported benefits of Saddam Hussein’s removal from power. The real question ought to be: “Are we better off with a foreign policy that promotes regime change while justifying war with false information?” Shifting the stated goals as events unravel should not satisfy those who believe war must be a last resort used only when our national security is threatened.

How much better off are the Iraqi people? Hundreds of thousands of former inhabitants of Fallajah are not better off with their city flattened and their homes destroyed. Hundreds of thousands are not better off living with foreign soldiers patrolling their street, curfews, and the loss of basic utilities. One hundred thousand dead Iraqis, as estimated by the Lancet Medical Journal, certainly are not better off. Better to be alive under Saddam Hussein than lying in some cold grave.

Praise for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many critics of the war. Yet the election was held under martial law implemented by a foreign power, mirroring conditions we rightfully condemned as a farce when carried out in the old Soviet system and more recently in Lebanon. Why is it that what is good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander?

Our government fails to recognize that legitimate elections are the consequence of freedom, and that an artificial election does not create freedom. In our own history we note that freedom was achieved first and elections followed – not the other way around.

One news report claimed that the Shiites actually received 56% of the vote, but such an outcome couldn’t be allowed for it would preclude a coalition of the Kurds and Shiites from controlling the Sunnis and preventing a theocracy from forming. This reminds us of the statement made months ago by Secretary Rumsfeld when asked about a Shiite theocracy emerging from a majority democratic vote, and he assured us that would not happen. Democracy, we know, is messy and needs tidying up a bit when we don’t like the results.

Some have described Baghdad and especially the green zone, as being surrounded by unmanageable territory. The highways in and out of Baghdad are not yet secured. Many anticipate a civil war will break out sometime soon in Iraq; some claim it’s already underway.

We have seen none of the promised oil production that was supposed to provide grateful Iraqis with the means to repay us for the hundreds of billions that American taxpayers have spent on the war. Some have justified our continuous presence in the Persian Gulf since 1990 because of a need to protect “our” oil. Yet now that Saddam Hussein is gone, and the occupation supposedly is a great success, gasoline at the pumps is reaching record highs approaching $3 per gallon.

Though the Iraqi election has come and gone, there still is no government in place and the next election – supposedly the real one – is not likely to take place on time. Do the American people have any idea who really won the dubious election at all?

The oil-for-food scandal under Saddam Hussein has been replaced by corruption in the distribution of U.S. funds to rebuild Iraq. Already there is an admitted $9 billion discrepancy in the accounting of these funds. The over-billing by Halliburton is no secret, but the process has not changed.

The whole process is corrupt. It just doesn’t make sense to most Americans to see their tax dollars used to fight an unnecessary and unjustified war. First they see American bombs destroying a country, and then American taxpayers are required to rebuild it. Today it’s easier to get funding to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq than to build a bridge in the United States. Indeed, we cut the Army Corps of Engineers’ budget and operate on the cheap with our veterans as the expenditures in Iraq skyrocket.

One question the war promoters don’t want to hear asked, because they don’t want to face up to the answer, is this: “Are Christian Iraqis better off today since we decided to build a new Iraq through force of arms?” The answer is plainly no.

Sure, there are only 800,000 Christians living in Iraq, but under Saddam Hussein they were free to practice their religion. Tariq Aziz, a Christian, served in Saddam Hussein’s cabinet as Foreign Minister – something that would never happen in Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other Middle Eastern country. Today, the Christian churches in Iraq are under attack and Christians are no longer safe. Many Christians have been forced to flee Iraq and migrate to Syria. It’s strange that the human rights advocates in the U.S. Congress have expressed no concern for the persecution now going on against Christians in Iraq. Both the Sunni and the Shiite Muslims support the attacks on Christians. In fact, persecuting Christians is one of the few areas in which they agree – the other being the removal of all foreign forces from Iraqi soil.

Considering the death, destruction, and continual chaos in Iraq, it’s difficult to accept the blanket statement that the Iraqis all feel much better off with the U.S. in control rather than Saddam Hussein. Security in the streets and criminal violence are not anywhere near being under control.

But there’s another question that is equally important: “Are the American people better off because of the Iraq war?”

One thing for sure, the 1,500 plus dead American soldiers aren’t better off. The nearly 20,000 severely injured or sickened American troops are not better off. The families, the wives, the husbands, children, parents, and friends of those who lost so much are not better off.

The families and the 40,000 troops who were forced to re-enlist against their will – a de facto draft – are not feeling better off. They believe they have been deceived by their enlistment agreements.

The American taxpayers are not better off having spent over 200 billion dollars to pursue this war, with billions yet to be spent. The victims of the inflation that always accompanies a guns-and-butter policy are already getting a dose of what will become much worse.

Are our relationships with the rest of the world better off? I’d say no. Because of the war, our alliances with the Europeans are weaker than ever. The anti-American hatred among a growing number of Muslims around the world is greater than ever. This makes terrorist attacks more likely than they were before the invasion. Al Qaeda recruiting has accelerated. Iraq is being used as a training ground for al Qaeda terrorists, which it never was under Hussein’s rule. So as our military recruitment efforts suffer, Osama bin Laden benefits by attracting more terrorist volunteers.

Oil was approximately $27 a barrel before the war, now it’s more than twice that. I wonder who benefits from this?

Because of the war, fewer dollars are available for real national security and defense of this country. Military spending is up, but the way the money is spent distracts from true national defense and further undermines our credibility around the world.

The ongoing war’s lack of success has played a key role in diminishing morale in our military services. Recruitment is sharply down, and most branches face shortages of troops. Many young Americans rightly fear a coming draft – which will be required if we do not reassess and change the unrealistic goals of our foreign policy.

The appropriations for the war are essentially off-budget and obscured, but contribute nonetheless to the runaway deficit and increase in the national debt. If these trends persist, inflation with economic stagnation will be the inevitable consequences of a misdirected policy.

One of the most significant consequences in times of war that we ought to be concerned about is the inevitable loss of personal liberty. Too often in the patriotic nationalism that accompanies armed conflict, regardless of the cause, there is a willingness to sacrifice personal freedoms in pursuit of victory. The real irony is that we are told we go hither and yon to fight for freedom and our Constitution, while carelessly sacrificing the very freedoms here at home we’re supposed to be fighting for. It makes no sense.

This willingness to give up hard-fought personal liberties has been especially noticeable in the atmosphere of the post-September 11th war on terrorism. Security has replaced liberty as our main political goal, damaging the American spirit. Sadly, the whole process is done in the name of patriotism and in a spirit of growing militant nationalism.

These attitudes and fears surrounding the 9-11 tragedy, and our eagerness to go to war in the Middle East against countries not responsible for the attacks, have allowed a callousness to develop in our national psyche that justifies torture and rejects due process of law for those who are suspects and not convicted criminals.

We have come to accept pre-emptive war as necessary, constitutional, and morally justifiable. Starting a war without a proper declaration is now of no concern to most Americans or the U.S. Congress. Let’s hope and pray the rumors of an attack on Iran in June by U.S. Armed Forces are wrong.

A large segment of the Christian community and its leadership think nothing of rationalizing war in the name of a religion that prides itself on the teachings of the Prince of Peace, who instructed us that blessed are the peacemakers – not the warmongers.

We casually accept our role as world policeman, and believe we have a moral obligation to practice nation building in our image regardless of the number of people who die in the process.

We have lost our way by rejecting the beliefs that made our country great. We no longer trust in trade, friendship, peace, the Constitution, and the principle of neutrality while avoiding entangling alliances with the rest of the world. Spreading the message of hope and freedom by setting an example for the world has been replaced by a belief that use of armed might is the only practical tool to influence the world – and we have accepted, as the only superpower, the principle of initiating war against others.

In the process, Congress and the people have endorsed a usurpation of their own authority, generously delivered to the executive and judicial branches – not to mention international government bodies. The concept of national sovereignty is now seen as an issue that concerns only the fringe in our society.

Protection of life and liberty must once again become the issue that drives political thought in this country. If this goal is replaced by an effort to promote world government, use force to plan the economy, regulate the people, and police the world, against the voluntary desires of the people, it can be done only with the establishment of a totalitarian state. There’s no need for that. It’s up to Congress and the American people to decide our fate, and there is still time to correct our mistakes.

April 7, 2005

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.


http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr040605.htmI think I'll just bump this along a bit.

This may answer some concerned or angered minds why the Europeans aren't rushing in, now that Iraq is a 'democracy' and things are just wonderful.

A Republican wrote that? Bloody hell .... from TEXAS? I'll be damned!

[Leonidas]

Ron Paul's views - Wikipedia

Views
He believes in the complete abolition of income tax, most Cabinet departments, the Federal Reserve, the legalization of marijuana, and American withdrawal from the United Nations. Paul has referred to the Internal Revenue Service as the Gestapo.

His base of support has been among conservative Republicans, but after 9/11 he has gained some strong support from liberal Democrats in central Texas due to his opposition to the war in Iraq. As an example of this shift, the Austin Chronicle newspaper, a liberal, alternative weekly newspaper in Austin, Texas described his views as erratic in 2000, [2] (http://www.austinchronicle.com/issu...s_feature.html). However after 9/11, the Chronicle took a much more favorable view of Paul, praising him for his strong principled opposition on the war in Iraq and the war on terror.

Paul's supporters say he is willing to take unpopular positions in order to defend what he regards as constitutional limited government. He has been criticized at times for his voting record, being the only dissenting vote against giving Rosa Parks and Mother Theresa the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor; According to Texas Monthly, "When he was criticized for voting against the medal [for Parks], he chivied his colleagues by challenging them to personally contribute $100 to mint the medal. No one did, of course. At the time, Paul observed, 'It's easier to be generous with other people's money.'" Texas Monthly awarded him the "Bum Steer" award for voting against a congressional honor for cartoonist Charles Schulz.

Ron Paul's Legislative Director in 2004 described President Bush as a "domestic socialist" and "war-monger" and has accused the GOP congressional leadership of engaging in trickery and deceit.

Paul has also said that there are many within Government pushing an agenda that undermines liberty by increasing the powers of international agencies, such as the United Nations. At a meeting of Texas Patriots, he explained, "I think there are 25,000 individuals that have used offices of powers, and they are in our Universities and they are in our Congresses, and they believe in One World Government. And if you believe in One World Government, then you are talking about undermining National Sovereignty and you are talking about setting up something that you could well call a Dictatorship - and those plans are there!..."[3] (http://www.propagandamatrix.com/260903ronpaul.html)

[edit]
Controversial comments about race in newsletter
Paul has been accused of racism over an article in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report. The article, about the L.A. race riots and titled "Los Angeles Racial Terrorism," characterized African-Americans as "barbarians" and called the rioters "thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization".

Ron Paul's publication cited reports that 85 percent of African-American men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point. The article argued that "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

[knightroar]

I think I'll just bump this along a bit.

This may answer some concerned or angered minds why the Europeans aren't rushing in, now that Iraq is a 'democracy' and things are just wonderful.

A Republican wrote that? Bloody hell .... from TEXAS? I'll be damned!


He is a Republican in name only Pispas, he is a libertarian.

[Boomer]

Ron Paul's views - Wikipedia

Views
He believes in the complete abolition of income tax, most Cabinet departments, the Federal Reserve, the legalization of marijuana, and American withdrawal from the United Nations. Paul has referred to the Internal Revenue Service as the Gestapo.
A Repbulican.....from Texas?!?!? He sounds more like a Libertarian than a Republican. I'm a sucker for an iconoclast.

I'll bet he and DeLay don't go out for drinks.

And thanks for the post, Bman. Amazing!

[Pispas]

Ron Paul's views - Wikipedia

Views
He believes in the complete abolition of income tax, most Cabinet departments, the Federal Reserve, the legalization of marijuana, and American withdrawal from the United Nations. Paul has referred to the Internal Revenue Service as the Gestapo.<rest of irrelevancy snipped for brevity> What exactly does all this have to do with the realistic analysis this man has brought forward about the mess in Iraq and the forever-shifting reasons why this war was/is waged?

Could you address anything in this article you find to be incorrect or unjust? In fact, do you actually give a shit about all the people who lost their lives and livelihoods on both sides of the divide?

If my country had pulled this crap on me, I'd be seriously angered. In fact, I'm angered that this idiot country of mine sent a couple of soldiers ... just enough to stay on America's good side. So very typical. Opportunistic whores. There's no one in the entire fucking country here, who actually approved of that war before all the lies were uncovered.

I've said it before: we are extremely GRATEFUL to George that he has given our considerably large immigrant population, better put: some misguided youths a purpose and goal at which to direct their sexual overdrive. Signing on for Jihad in foreign parts and declaring fatwas on politicians and critics of Islam has become trendy. Thanks a lot, George!

[Leonidas]

The man is a racist lunatic. He is on the far far right.

Just as the KKK, the nazis and other far rightwing organizations hate George Bush.....so does Ron Paul.

[Spectre]

<rest of irrelevancy snipped for brevity> What exactly does all this have to do with the realistic analysis this man has brought forward about the mess in Iraq and the forever-shifting reasons why this war was/is waged?

Could you address anything in this article you find to be incorrect or unjust? In fact, do you actually give a shit about all the people who lost their lives and livelihoods on both sides of the divide?

If my country had pulled this crap on me, I'd be seriously angered. In fact, I'm angered that this idiot country of mine sent a couple of soldiers ... just enough to stay on America's good side. So very typical. Opportunistic whores. There's no one in the entire fucking country here, who actually approved of that war before all the lies were uncovered.

I've said it before: we are extremely GRATEFUL to George that he has given our considerably large immigrant population, better put: some misguided youths a purpose and goal at which to direct their sexual overdrive. Signing on for Jihad in foreign parts has become trendy. Thanks a lot, George!

Don't expect a valid response, Pispas. Leonidas is nothing but a troll. His idea of "debating" is either attack the poster or attack the source of the quote. The contents of the posts don't matter to him as he has a very hard time reading anything longer than 4 or 5 sentences.

[Spectre]

The mans a racist lunatic.

And that's relevant to the post how, exactly?

[knightroar]

Don't expect a valid response, Pispas. Leonidas is nothing but a troll. His idea of "debating" is either attack the poster or attack the source of the quote. The contents of the posts don't matter to him as he has a very hard time reading anything longer than 4 or 5 sentences.


very true.

[Pispas]

And that's relevant to the post how, exactly?Don't expect a valid response, Spectre. ;)

[Mr. Drags]

The man is a racist lunatic. He is on the far far right.

Just as the KKK, the nazis and other far rightwing organizations hate George Bush.....so does Ron Paul.
HAHAHA, that's a load of complete Bollocks. I'm a very conservative person and I see nothing conservative the man has done -- sure he started out good with the tax cuts, I was all over that, but then he continued spending like there was no tomorrow -- if you cut revenue you have to cut expenditures, he didn't

He's expanded the size of the federal government like a liberal, he's enacted legislation that furhters federal control over areas it has no business controlling -- ie education

Ron Paul holds far more reverence for Republican tenets than Bush does

[Spectre]

Don't expect a valid response, Spectre. ;)

LOL, I can't help being a troll troller sometimes.

[Pispas]

LOL, I can't help being a troll troller sometimes.I know the feeling, but have learned to contain and control myself. :)

[Pispas]

HAHAHA, that's a load of complete Bollocks. I'm a very conservative person and I see nothing conservative the man has done -- sure he started out good with the tax cuts, I was all over that, but then he continued spending like there was no tomorrow -- if you cut revenue you have to cut expenditures, he didn't

He's expanded the size of the federal government like a liberal, he's enacted legislation that furhters federal control over areas it has no business controlling -- ie education

Ron Paul holds far more reverence for Republican tenets than Bush doesI feel a sudden urge to slip into something more comfortable. :sex_01:

[Leonidas]

And that's relevant to the post how, exactly?

Excellent point...your superior intellect has once again shamed me. The fact Ron Paul is a lunatic is not relevant when considering him a legimitate source.

Lets all forget about valid sources such as the Wash Post, NYTimes, WS Journal, NPR, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and all follow like braindead idiots to everything that lunatic says.

Spectre, perhaps you should learn to think for yourself and quit the whole Bman sidekick gig. There is still hope for you. Unfortunately, I feel bman pispas, and Knightroar are all beyond any hope.

[Mr. Drags]

I feel a sudden urge to slip into something more comfortable. :sex_01:
ah darlin' you know the way to my heart dont ya :love_02:

[Boomer]

I feel a sudden urge to slip into something more comfortable. :sex_01:
You're free to smoke afterward.

(I miss your old AV, btw.)

[knightroar]

Excellent point...your superior intellect has once again shamed me. The fact Ron Paul is a lunatic is not relevant when considering him a legimitate source.

Lets all forget about valid sources such as the Wash Post, NYTimes, WS Journal, NPR, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and all follow like braindead idiots to everything that lunatic says.

Spectre, perhaps you should learn to think for yourself and quit the whole Bman sidekick gig. There is still hope for you. Unfortunately, I feel bman pispas, and Knightroar are all beyond any hope.


and you are beyond hope sucking the Bush nutsack. must get pretty crowded having to share such small spheres with Bag Sniper and Strike4ce.
I'm sure you get in a good lick every now and then.

[Mr. Drags]

Excellent point...your superior intellect has once again shamed me. The fact Ron Paul is a lunatic is not relevant when considering him a legimitate source.

explain to me please how Mr. Paul's comments aren't legitimate and how he is, as you described "a lunatic."

I'll look forward to reading them, but alas I have a class to teach. Thanks in advance.

Cheers all, and Pispas love, you know what to do :add06:

[Leonidas]

HAHAHA, that's a load of complete Bollocks. I'm a very conservative person and I see nothing conservative the man has done -- sure he started out good with the tax cuts, I was all over that, but then he continued spending like there was no tomorrow -- if you cut revenue you have to cut expenditures, he didn't

He's expanded the size of the federal government like a liberal, he's enacted legislation that furhters federal control over areas it has no business controlling -- ie education

Ron Paul holds far more reverence for Republican tenets than Bush does

Do you agree with Ron Paul that George Bush is a socialist?

I would like to see you inherit a recession, survive 9-11, pay for much needed security improvements, conduct an extremely important war, and at the same time limit your cuts to not destroy your reelection chances and at the same time - have tax cuts.

George Bush did it all and survived. He was reelected triumphantly. Didn't you see all the cuts he proposed AFTER he was reelected?

And so do you agree that Ron Paul is a legitimate source? Is George Bush a leftwing "socialist" as Paul accuses him to be?

[Spectre]

Excellent point...your superior intellect has once again shamed me. The fact Ron Paul is a lunatic is not relevant when considering him a legimitate source.

Lets all forget about valid sources such as the Wash Post, NYTimes, WS Journal, NPR, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and all follow like braindead idiots to everything that lunatic says.

Spectre, perhaps you should learn to think for yourself and quit the whole Bman sidekick gig. There is still hope for you. Unfortunately, I feel bman pispas, and Knightroar are all beyond any hope.

Well golly gee, you're right. Because you call him a lunatic, I should completely discard everything this article says regardless of the fact that thousands of people voted him into a public office. What was I thinking? From now on, I'll clear all of my sources through you.

[Leonidas]

Apparently I have to highlight the completely lunatic parts for some people.

Who here agrees with the text in bold?

Ron Paul's views - Wikipedia

Views
He believes in the complete abolition of income tax, most Cabinet departments, the Federal Reserve, the legalization of marijuana, and American withdrawal from the United Nations. Paul has referred to the Internal Revenue Service as the Gestapo.

His base of support has been among conservative Republicans, but after 9/11 he has gained some strong support from liberal Democrats in central Texas due to his opposition to the war in Iraq. As an example of this shift, the Austin Chronicle newspaper, a liberal, alternative weekly newspaper in Austin, Texas described his views as erratic in 2000, [2] (http://www.austinchronicle.com/issu...s_feature.html). However after 9/11, the Chronicle took a much more favorable view of Paul, praising him for his strong principled opposition on the war in Iraq and the war on terror.

Paul's supporters say he is willing to take unpopular positions in order to defend what he regards as constitutional limited government. He has been criticized at times for his voting record, being the only dissenting vote against giving Rosa Parks and Mother Theresa the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor; According to Texas Monthly, "When he was criticized for voting against the medal [for Parks], he chivied his colleagues by challenging them to personally contribute $100 to mint the medal. No one did, of course. At the time, Paul observed, 'It's easier to be generous with other people's money.'" Texas Monthly awarded him the "Bum Steer" award for voting against a congressional honor for cartoonist Charles Schulz.

Ron Paul's Legislative Director in 2004 described President Bush as a "domestic socialist" and "war-monger" and has accused the GOP congressional leadership of engaging in trickery and deceit.

Paul has also said that there are many within Government pushing an agenda that undermines liberty by increasing the powers of international agencies, such as the United Nations. At a meeting of Texas Patriots, he explained, "I think there are 25,000 individuals that have used offices of powers, and they are in our Universities and they are in our Congresses, and they believe in One World Government. And if you believe in One World Government, then you are talking about undermining National Sovereignty and you are talking about setting up something that you could well call a Dictatorship - and those plans are there!..."[3] (http://www.propagandamatrix.com/260903ronpaul.html)

[edit]
Controversial comments about race in newsletter
Paul has been accused of racism over an article in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report. The article, about the L.A. race riots and titled "Los Angeles Racial Terrorism," characterized African-Americans as "barbarians" and called the rioters "thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization".

Ron Paul's publication cited reports that 85 percent of African-American men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point. The article argued that "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

[knightroar]

Do you agree with Ron Paul that George Bush is a socialist?

I would like to see you inherit a recession, survive 9-11, pay for much needed security improvements, conduct an extremely important war, and at the same time limit your cuts to not destroy your reelection chances and at the same time - have tax cuts.

George Bush did it all and survived. He was reelected triumphantly. Didn't you see all the cuts he proposed AFTER he was reelected?

And so do you agree that Ron Paul is a legitimate source? Is George Bush a leftwing "socialist" as Paul accuses him to be?



he sure is spending like a left wing socialist. Not to mention the fact that his administration is over run with former Trotskyite communists.

[Spectre]

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Wow, great source.

[Leonidas]

Wow, great source.

So Wikipedias biased but Ron Paul isn't?

Right.

[Leonidas]

he sure is spending like a left wing socialist. Not to mention the fact that his administration is over run with former Trotskyite communists.

So is Bush too far left as Ron Paul propogates or too far right which 99% of your other sources say?

Also Ron Paul is vehemently Anti-Israel. I thought you liked Israel?

Some say Anti-Semite. And if there was ANY active congressman or senator that can be accurately described as Anti-Semite....its Ron Paul. Would you like me to pull up some quotes?

[Pispas]

Unfortunately, I feel bman pispas, and Knightroar are all beyond any hope.ROFL, tell me something about myself I don't already know. But hey, wait: I tell you something you may NOT already know:

http://www.jamesrmaclean.com/archives/000674.html


Hobson's Choice (http://www.jamesrmaclean.com/)

Comment and Analysis from a Passionate Amateur

January 2005


Update on the Iraq War-1


The stream of deaths from bombings in Iraq appears to be worsening, both for Iraqi civilians and for US troops in theater. Phil Carter (Intel Dump (http://www.intel-dump.com/archives/archive_2004_12_28.shtml#1104249089)) and Owen West (with Mr. Carter at Slate (http://slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2111432&)) have researched the experience of soldiers in the Iraqi conflict with that of US forces in the Vietnamese Civil War, with startling results:

The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, for example, last July (http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Archive/B.20040702.IraqViet/B.20040702.IraqViet.pdf) downplayed the intensity of the Iraq war on this basis, arguing that "it would take over 73 years for U.S. forces to incur the level of combat deaths suffered in the Vietnam war."* (http://www.jamesrmaclean.com/archives/000674.html#NT0)

But a comparative analysis of U.S. casualty statistics from Iraq tells a different story. After factoring in medical, doctrinal, and technological improvements, infantry duty in Iraq circa 2004 comes out just as intense as infantry duty in Vietnam circa 1966—and in some cases more lethal. Even discrete engagements, such as the battle of HueCity in 1968 and the battles for Fallujah in 2004, tell a similar tale: Today's grunts are patrolling a battlefield every bit as deadly as the crucible their fathers faced in Southeast Asia.


[for rest of analysis and background see above link]

But Leonidas, tell me one thing that guy said in the article Bman posted which is incorrect. I'd really love to broaden my horizon ... and who knows, if you enlighten me, maybe there's hope for me yet?!

[Spectre]

So Wikipedias biased but Ron Paul isn't?

Right.

Hey, just using your logic right back on you.

[Motley]

and you are beyond hope sucking the Bush nutsack. must get pretty crowded having to share such small spheres with Bag Sniper and Strike4ce.
I'm sure you get in a good lick every now and then.


Don't forget to leave some room for "Rod"
:happy_01: :add09: :happy_01:

[Pispas]

and you are beyond hope sucking the Bush nutsack. must get pretty crowded having to share such small spheres with [ed. Pispas: GENEVA CONVENTION CENSORED].
I'm sure you get in a good lick every now and then.Hmmmmm.... Tina Turner's song ''Nutbush City Limits" suddenly takes on an entirely different meaning.

[knightroar]

So is Bush too far left as Ron Paul propogates or too far right which 99% of your other sources say?

Also Ron Paul is vehemently Anti-Israel. I thought you liked Israel?

Some say Anti-Semite. And if there was ANY active congressman or senator that can be accurately described as Anti-Semite....its Ron Paul. Would you like me to pull up some quotes?


I am pro Israel, just anti-Sharon. big difference. of course, explaining that to someone that sees disagreeing with Bush akin to treason, is rather difficult.
Bush on the other hand is socialist in his spending and right wing in his other policies. simple really, even someone with limited abilities to grasp the obvious such as yourself, should be able to see that.

[knightroar]

Toto with you Dorothy? Click your heels together and repeat after me...

It just might happen :add09:


watching too much Wizard of Oz now Rod?

damn with the obsession you and Strike4ce have with me, you'd think I'd deserve a raise. That is if the two of you were as important to the scheme of things that you two imagine and if I were actually getting paid to post here. But delusions are not easily treatable. I'm finding that out by observation of the two of you.

[Pispas]

HEY, LEONIDAS, buddy! Where did ya go?
I assume you're still working hard on finding that flaw in Bman's article, yeah?

Trembling with anticipation,
Pispas

[knightroar]

HEY, LEONIDAS, buddy! Where did ya go?
I assume you're still working hard on finding that flaw in Bman's article, yeah?

Trembling with anticipation,
Pispas


damn this board hates you Pispas, I seem to be only able to green you once a day

[Boomer]

I am pro Israel, just anti-Sharon. big difference. of course, explaining that to someone that sees disagreeing with Bush akin to treason, is rather difficult.
Bush on the other hand is socialist in his spending and right wing in his other policies. simple really, even someone with limited abilities to grasp the obvious such as yourself, should be able to see that.
Yes, big spending, deficit tolerant, secrecy and surveillance-crazed Republicans who "hate big government" and call themselves conservatives. Definitely an as-yet-to-be-classified strain of DNA.

[Boomer]

damn this board hates you Pispas, I seem to be only able to green you once a day
Nuh un, I green Pispas regularly.

[knightroar]

Nuh un, I green Pispas regularly.


I used to be able to, until the last couple days. maybe the board hates me then. :add09:

[Hobbes]

You're the one on the payroll...not me.

Hey Rod, I think this ad hominem attack has been pretty much played out.

His motivation for posting is irrelevant. I've seen no reason to believe that he posts anything other than his mind. Judge the content, not the poster...

[knightroar]

Hey Rod, I think this ad hominem attack has been pretty much played out.

His motivation for posting is irrelevant. I've seen no reason to believe that he posts anything other than his mind. Judge the content, not the poster...


thank you.

You know, I've been posting on IH for close to 3 and a half years, my posting style was pretty much the same when I began posting as it is now. I met George Soros last spring, began working for him last summer, again, my posting style did not change. Yet to the jealous and the deluded, I am a paid hack on this site. Most of the time I laugh it all off and continue on my way. Other times I play psychiatrist and try to point out their delusions to them. Probably a mistake on my part. But oh well.

[knightroar]

One of the best yet from the Great Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas
AWESOME.. read it beginning to end, then read it again

Bman


Who’s Better Off?

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD


Before the US House of Representatives, April 6, 2005.

Whenever the administration is challenged regarding the success of the Iraq war, or regarding the false information used to justify the war, the retort is: “Aren’t the people of Iraq better off?” The insinuation is that anyone who expresses any reservations about supporting the war is an apologist for Saddam Hussein and every ruthless act he ever committed. The short answer to the question of whether the Iraqis are better off is that it’s too early to declare, “Mission Accomplished.” But more importantly, we should be asking if the mission was ever justified or legitimate. Is it legitimate to justify an action that some claim yielded good results, if the means used to achieve them are illegitimate? Do the ends justify the means?

The information Congress was given prior to the war was false. There were no weapons of mass destruction; the Iraqis did not participate in the 9/11 attacks; Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies and did not conspire against the United States; our security was not threatened; we were not welcomed by cheering Iraqi crowds as we were told; and Iraqi oil has not paid any of the bills. Congress failed to declare war, but instead passed a wishy-washy resolution citing UN resolutions as justification for our invasion. After the fact we’re now told the real reason for the Iraq invasion was to spread democracy, and that the Iraqis are better off. Anyone who questions the war risks being accused of supporting Saddam Hussein, disapproving of democracy, or “supporting terrorists.” It’s implied that lack of enthusiasm for the war means one is not patriotic and doesn’t support the troops. In other words, one must march lock-step with the consensus or be ostracized.

However, conceding that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein is a far cry from endorsing the foreign policy of our own government that led to the regime change. In time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself. The interventionist policy should be scrutinized more carefully than the purported benefits of Saddam Hussein’s removal from power. The real question ought to be: “Are we better off with a foreign policy that promotes regime change while justifying war with false information?” Shifting the stated goals as events unravel should not satisfy those who believe war must be a last resort used only when our national security is threatened.

How much better off are the Iraqi people? Hundreds of thousands of former inhabitants of Fallajah are not better off with their city flattened and their homes destroyed. Hundreds of thousands are not better off living with foreign soldiers patrolling their street, curfews, and the loss of basic utilities. One hundred thousand dead Iraqis, as estimated by the Lancet Medical Journal, certainly are not better off. Better to be alive under Saddam Hussein than lying in some cold grave.

Praise for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many critics of the war. Yet the election was held under martial law implemented by a foreign power, mirroring conditions we rightfully condemned as a farce when carried out in the old Soviet system and more recently in Lebanon. Why is it that what is good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander?

Our government fails to recognize that legitimate elections are the consequence of freedom, and that an artificial election does not create freedom. In our own history we note that freedom was achieved first and elections followed – not the other way around.

One news report claimed that the Shiites actually received 56% of the vote, but such an outcome couldn’t be allowed for it would preclude a coalition of the Kurds and Shiites from controlling the Sunnis and preventing a theocracy from forming. This reminds us of the statement made months ago by Secretary Rumsfeld when asked about a Shiite theocracy emerging from a majority democratic vote, and he assured us that would not happen. Democracy, we know, is messy and needs tidying up a bit when we don’t like the results.

Some have described Baghdad and especially the green zone, as being surrounded by unmanageable territory. The highways in and out of Baghdad are not yet secured. Many anticipate a civil war will break out sometime soon in Iraq; some claim it’s already underway.

We have seen none of the promised oil production that was supposed to provide grateful Iraqis with the means to repay us for the hundreds of billions that American taxpayers have spent on the war. Some have justified our continuous presence in the Persian Gulf since 1990 because of a need to protect “our” oil. Yet now that Saddam Hussein is gone, and the occupation supposedly is a great success, gasoline at the pumps is reaching record highs approaching $3 per gallon.

Though the Iraqi election has come and gone, there still is no government in place and the next election – supposedly the real one – is not likely to take place on time. Do the American people have any idea who really won the dubious election at all?

The oil-for-food scandal under Saddam Hussein has been replaced by corruption in the distribution of U.S. funds to rebuild Iraq. Already there is an admitted $9 billion discrepancy in the accounting of these funds. The over-billing by Halliburton is no secret, but the process has not changed.

The whole process is corrupt. It just doesn’t make sense to most Americans to see their tax dollars used to fight an unnecessary and unjustified war. First they see American bombs destroying a country, and then American taxpayers are required to rebuild it. Today it’s easier to get funding to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq than to build a bridge in the United States. Indeed, we cut the Army Corps of Engineers’ budget and operate on the cheap with our veterans as the expenditures in Iraq skyrocket.

One question the war promoters don’t want to hear asked, because they don’t want to face up to the answer, is this: “Are Christian Iraqis better off today since we decided to build a new Iraq through force of arms?” The answer is plainly no.

Sure, there are only 800,000 Christians living in Iraq, but under Saddam Hussein they were free to practice their religion. Tariq Aziz, a Christian, served in Saddam Hussein’s cabinet as Foreign Minister – something that would never happen in Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other Middle Eastern country. Today, the Christian churches in Iraq are under attack and Christians are no longer safe. Many Christians have been forced to flee Iraq and migrate to Syria. It’s strange that the human rights advocates in the U.S. Congress have expressed no concern for the persecution now going on against Christians in Iraq. Both the Sunni and the Shiite Muslims support the attacks on Christians. In fact, persecuting Christians is one of the few areas in which they agree – the other being the removal of all foreign forces from Iraqi soil.

Considering the death, destruction, and continual chaos in Iraq, it’s difficult to accept the blanket statement that the Iraqis all feel much better off with the U.S. in control rather than Saddam Hussein. Security in the streets and criminal violence are not anywhere near being under control.

But there’s another question that is equally important: “Are the American people better off because of the Iraq war?”

One thing for sure, the 1,500 plus dead American soldiers aren’t better off. The nearly 20,000 severely injured or sickened American troops are not better off. The families, the wives, the husbands, children, parents, and friends of those who lost so much are not better off.

The families and the 40,000 troops who were forced to re-enlist against their will – a de facto draft – are not feeling better off. They believe they have been deceived by their enlistment agreements.

The American taxpayers are not better off having spent over 200 billion dollars to pursue this war, with billions yet to be spent. The victims of the inflation that always accompanies a guns-and-butter policy are already getting a dose of what will become much worse.

Are our relationships with the rest of the world better off? I’d say no. Because of the war, our alliances with the Europeans are weaker than ever. The anti-American hatred among a growing number of Muslims around the world is greater than ever. This makes terrorist attacks more likely than they were before the invasion. Al Qaeda recruiting has accelerated. Iraq is being used as a training ground for al Qaeda terrorists, which it never was under Hussein’s rule. So as our military recruitment efforts suffer, Osama bin Laden benefits by attracting more terrorist volunteers.

Oil was approximately $27 a barrel before the war, now it’s more than twice that. I wonder who benefits from this?

Because of the war, fewer dollars are available for real national security and defense of this country. Military spending is up, but the way the money is spent distracts from true national defense and further undermines our credibility around the world.

The ongoing war’s lack of success has played a key role in diminishing morale in our military services. Recruitment is sharply down, and most branches face shortages of troops. Many young Americans rightly fear a coming draft – which will be required if we do not reassess and change the unrealistic goals of our foreign policy.

The appropriations for the war are essentially off-budget and obscured, but contribute nonetheless to the runaway deficit and increase in the national debt. If these trends persist, inflation with economic stagnation will be the inevitable consequences of a misdirected policy.

One of the most significant consequences in times of war that we ought to be concerned about is the inevitable loss of personal liberty. Too often in the patriotic nationalism that accompanies armed conflict, regardless of the cause, there is a willingness to sacrifice personal freedoms in pursuit of victory. The real irony is that we are told we go hither and yon to fight for freedom and our Constitution, while carelessly sacrificing the very freedoms here at home we’re supposed to be fighting for. It makes no sense.

This willingness to give up hard-fought personal liberties has been especially noticeable in the atmosphere of the post-September 11th war on terrorism. Security has replaced liberty as our main political goal, damaging the American spirit. Sadly, the whole process is done in the name of patriotism and in a spirit of growing militant nationalism.

These attitudes and fears surrounding the 9-11 tragedy, and our eagerness to go to war in the Middle East against countries not responsible for the attacks, have allowed a callousness to develop in our national psyche that justifies torture and rejects due process of law for those who are suspects and not convicted criminals.

We have come to accept pre-emptive war as necessary, constitutional, and morally justifiable. Starting a war without a proper declaration is now of no concern to most Americans or the U.S. Congress. Let’s hope and pray the rumors of an attack on Iran in June by U.S. Armed Forces are wrong.

A large segment of the Christian community and its leadership think nothing of rationalizing war in the name of a religion that prides itself on the teachings of the Prince of Peace, who instructed us that blessed are the peacemakers – not the warmongers.

We casually accept our role as world policeman, and believe we have a moral obligation to practice nation building in our image regardless of the number of people who die in the process.

We have lost our way by rejecting the beliefs that made our country great. We no longer trust in trade, friendship, peace, the Constitution, and the principle of neutrality while avoiding entangling alliances with the rest of the world. Spreading the message of hope and freedom by setting an example for the world has been replaced by a belief that use of armed might is the only practical tool to influence the world – and we have accepted, as the only superpower, the principle of initiating war against others.

In the process, Congress and the people have endorsed a usurpation of their own authority, generously delivered to the executive and judicial branches – not to mention international government bodies. The concept of national sovereignty is now seen as an issue that concerns only the fringe in our society.

Protection of life and liberty must once again become the issue that drives political thought in this country. If this goal is replaced by an effort to promote world government, use force to plan the economy, regulate the people, and police the world, against the voluntary desires of the people, it can be done only with the establishment of a totalitarian state. There’s no need for that. It’s up to Congress and the American people to decide our fate, and there is still time to correct our mistakes.

April 7, 2005

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.


http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr040605.htm

bump

[Leonidas]

HEY, LEONIDAS, buddy! Where did ya go?
I assume you're still working hard on finding that flaw in Bman's article, yeah?

Trembling with anticipation,
Pispas

Well Pispas, buddy. I could go back and spend a couple hours of my time tearing to shreds Mr. Pauls delusions, but honestly, it would fall on deaf ears.

Instead I will just advise you and your comrades to stick with legimitate sources. I don't expect you to listen to my advice, but honestly...I really don't care.

[Ponder]

Ron Paul doesn't think this country is any better off since the fall of Saddam. Nor, does it seem that he thinks Iraqis are either. My opinion, which seems to be supported by progress in Iraq, is that he is dead wrong.

The craziness coming out of the Middle East didn't start with Bush's administration. Policies that have created such backwards environments in which the jihadis thrive go back to colonial times. The discovery of oil in the region allowed that backwardness to continue, while other nations naturally progressed. Western nations supported dictators, tyrants, and monarchies to protect a resource we needed.

The current administration decided that the policies of the past could no longer be counted on to keep the peace. If you are going to begin to change Western policy, you've got to start somewhere. Iraqi people were suffering under sanctions, and it was clear they couldn't continue indefinitely. Saddam's ability to defend Iraq was low due to the sanctions, however it would be hard to find someone who would not agree that Saddam would resume acquiring WMD in any form he could. So, what to do? Obviously, the UN wasn't going to enforce any resolution it passed concerning Iraq. I can find quotes from many of the most vocal liberals opposed to this war, that state that an armed Hussein was a threat to this country. I suppose they'd have been much happier if we had waited until Iraq grew strong and rearmed itself.

I don't see how people can say Saddam was a threat before sanctions, yet not see him as a threat had they been lifted. Then, you've got the people who say he was "contained" by sanctions and inspections. I think everybody thinks the sanctions created a lot of suffering for ordinary Iraqis, while the leaders and the elite seemed as well off as ever. The sanctions couldn't have continued indefinitely. As for inspections, well Saddam learned what to do about them...just kick them out!

We will see the benefits of representative government in the region. It will lead to stability and moderation. The fringe radicals will be just that....fringe. Change like that is radical, and will take time, probably decades. I simply don't see how the world won't benefit from such change. It just sounds like craziness to me.

I expect to see articles in the Arab press that are similar to Ron Pauls. It seems like anything that shows the U.S. or Israel in a bad light is sure to please the editorial staff. So, I was pleasantly surprised when I came across the following article. It would be nice to see something similar in our own press....

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=61802&d=8&m=4&y=2005&pix=opinion.jpg&category=Opinion

From the Arab News

Friday, 8, April, 2005 (28, Safar, 1426)

Editorial: Toward a Multiethnic Future
8 April 2005 —

IT has taken a long time but the naming of a new Iraq prime minister and selection of a new president by the new Parliament represents a significant step on the country’s progress toward a new multiethnic future. While Shiite Ibrahim Jaafari was named as Iraq’s Kurdish leader, Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani becomes the first non-Arab to head an Arab state. That is a clear statement that sectarian nationalism cannot form the basis for sound politics and it will surely help keep Iraq together as a cohesive entity.

The convoluted constitutional process that has brought Iraqis thus far has been criticized for its unwieldiness. But most Iraqis are generally content with an arrangement that ensures that their country’s politicians work together on the basis of consensus. Extremists within the different communities have not found a way to exploit the delays caused by weeks of negotiations.

The men of violence have of course continued their campaign but their power to influence events has come ever weaker. Their problem is that while Iraqis have no love for the occupation forces, they are not prepared to go back to the days of Saddam Hussein when capricious violence and terror were meted out by the state on a daily basis. They see in their new interim government, however distant at this moment, a means to build a peaceful future.

Nor should it be overlooked that the long delay in agreeing on a head of state has been caused in large part, not by personality conflict but by differences over policy. The leaders of Iraq’s different communities have not stooped to personal attacks but have promoted their positions on the basis of compromise and consensus. This is a profoundly encouraging development. President Talabani has two deputies, one the former interim president Ghazi Yawar, a Sunni and the other the outgoing finance minister in the Allawi government, Adel Abdul Mahdi, a Shiite. So already Iraqi politicians are going out of their way to establish a political balance. The Sunni community ought in time to recognize that they are not being excluded from the new Iraq as they have been led to believe by the men of violence in their midst.

The debate in the next few days will shift to the allocation of portfolios within his government. Though the main role of the interim administration will be the preparation of a permanent new constitution and the organization of final elections in December, the psychological impact of a government that has been created entirely by Iraqis for Iraqis is likely to be equally important. The men of violence will naturally try and target members of the new administration. Even if they succeed in mounting an attack with horrible results, it will only redouble the determination of Iraqis to create a functioning political consensus. That is one of those cases of unintended consequences. Having lived through the worst the terrorists had to offer, Iraqis have learned that the best way to defeat terror is to get on with your life regardless. Talabani’s inauguration yesterday has proved that, as has the choice of the new prime minister.

[Ponder]

Another editorial from the Kuwaiti Arab Times...

http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/opinion/view.asp?msgID=705

The Iraqi sun of freedom is rising
Posted on 3/16/2005 9:52:18 PM
Ali Ahmad Al-Baghli
By Ali Al-Baghli
Former Minister of Oil

IN hindsight it is a good thing bin Laden awakened a sleeping tiger by foolishly attacking the United States on 9/11 because the US is clearing away the ignorance of the Arab and Islamic worlds to help them march on the path development and live in harmony with the rest of the world. In our opinion the Sun of freedom, which dawned in the skies of Iraq on April 9, 2003 completed its mission with the first free elections held in that country in February 2005. This Sun of freedom is responsible for the advent of democracy in the Arab world. Many Arab countries were against the plan of the United States to introduce democratic reforms in the Arab world saying such reforms should come from within.

In a sense this is correct because Japan and other South East Asian countries, which have a history of a well-developed civilisation, were ready when the democratic system was introduced. But this doesn’t hold good for Arab countries for the simple reason we haven’t had any democratic leaders for the past 50 years. Even when they were colonies 50 years ago some Arab countries, especially Egypt and Iraq, had civilized laws and constitutions. But all of them disappeared when “revolutionary leaders” appeared on the scene. This is why the United States and Britain exerted more pressure on Iraq to conduct elections although fundamentalists were against it.

The whole world saw eight million Iraqis going to vote. Everyone in the Arab world knew it as a fact and prepared to implement democratic reforms. As the Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh said “when they shave the beard of your friend put some water on your beard and prepare yourself for shaving.” This is why we saw the Lebanese raise their voices against the Syrian regime which ended with the assassination of Rafik Al-Hariri. The consequent uprising of the people brought down the Lebanese government. Syria had no option but to comply with UN Resolution 1559 after objecting to it for a long time.

Recently we saw Hosni Mubarak, who has been the President of Egypt for 24 years, accepting competition to his chair. We saw Municipal elections being held in Saudi Arabia for the first time in its history and the Kuwaiti government pulling all stops to grant full political rights to women. Above all we saw elections in more than one Arab country.

These democratic developments happened because the days of Saddam Hussein were consigned to the dustbin of history when the Sun of democracy dawned in Iraq. We should thank the person who took the decision which resulted in the rising of this Sun and pray for those who died for this freedom.

[Bman]

Ron Paul doesn't think this country is any better off since the fall of Saddam. Nor, does it seem that he thinks Iraqis are either. My opinion, which seems to be supported by progress in Iraq, is that he is dead wrong.


Based on WHAT?? What progress?? Do you even read the news?? What has improved in Iraq?? Honestly, what is this "progress" that you speak of?? Mr. Paul laid out the case... 10s of thousands dead, cities ruined.. .Violence and corruption running rampant. Its still not even safe to walk the streets.. The country is occupied by a foreign power and operates under martial law. Sure.. they had an election.. Guess what?? They had elections when Saddam was in power too.. The elections now have about as much validity as the elections did then.. How can a vote conducted under martial law be viewed as legitimate?? What about the comparison between Iraq and Lebanon??



The craziness coming out of the Middle East didn't start with Bush's administration. Policies that have created such backwards environments in which the jihadis thrive go back to colonial times. The discovery of oil in the region allowed that backwardness to continue, while other nations naturally progressed. Western nations supported dictators, tyrants, and monarchies to protect a resource we needed.


This is true.. and that hasn't changed ONE BIT.. If anything, the Bush administration has BOLSTERED its support for two or the worst's most oppressive dicatorships.. that in Saudi Arabia and that in Pakistan.. The flow of arms continues unabated, as the recent announcement regarding F-16s to Pakistan can attest to.



The current administration decided that the policies of the past could no longer be counted on to keep the peace. If you are going to begin to change Western policy, you've got to start somewhere. Iraqi people were suffering under sanctions, and it was clear they couldn't continue indefinitely. Saddam's ability to defend Iraq was low due to the sanctions, however it would be hard to find someone who would not agree that Saddam would resume acquiring WMD in any form he could. So, what to do? Obviously, the UN wasn't going to enforce any resolution it passed concerning Iraq. I can find quotes from many of the most vocal liberals opposed to this war, that state that an armed Hussein was a threat to this country. I suppose they'd have been much happier if we had waited until Iraq grew strong and rearmed itself.

Your assertions here do not at all match with the case laid out by the Administration as to why this war was necessary. This is something you've MADE UP in your mind to placate your own guilt. You make it sound like Bush started this war because "he had to start somewhere" and the Iraq people were suffering.. so hey.. Let's bomb the shit out of them... Totally illogical.. The war was started because of ENORMOUS MISTAKES (if not outright lies).. Once the mistakes were realized, the Administration did nothing to limit the damage, but like a man trying to pound a square peg into a round hole, they simply reached for a bigger hammer when things didnt' work out as they planned.




I don't see how people can say Saddam was a threat before sanctions, yet not see him as a threat had they been lifted. Then, you've got the people who say he was "contained" by sanctions and inspections. I think everybody thinks the sanctions created a lot of suffering for ordinary Iraqis, while the leaders and the elite seemed as well off as ever. The sanctions couldn't have continued indefinitely. As for inspections, well Saddam learned what to do about them...just kick them out!

Saddam kicked them out, but then let them back in.. They had to leave when the US told the UN there were about to start bombing. As far as a "threat", there is simply no evidence whatsoever this man was a threat.. Could he BECOME a threat to someone, some day?? Sure.. so could Canada.. Basing a war on that kind of rank speculation is a war crime.. Its not a new concept.. Many aggressor nations have used that same logic to launch illegal wars.




We will see the benefits of representative government in the region. It will lead to stability and moderation. The fringe radicals will be just that....fringe. Change like that is radical, and will take time, probably decades. I simply don't see how the world won't benefit from such change. It just sounds like craziness to me.

This is rank speculation. Its just as easy to say that the new forms of government will lead to increased sectarian warfare, theocracy, the institutionalization of military Islam and increased oppression... Its pure speculation as to what WILL HAPPEN..



I expect to see articles in the Arab press that are similar to Ron Pauls. It seems like anything that shows the U.S. or Israel in a bad light is sure to please the editorial staff. So, I was pleasantly surprised when I came across the following article. It would be nice to see something similar in our own press....


Maybe you should check the Iranian press as well. I doubt there was any nation that was happier to see Saddam removed and the elevation of the Shia majority in Iraq, than Iran... The Saudi dictatorship no doubt breathed a sign of relief as well..



You make it sound like "elections" are something new to the middle east.. they aren't.. Elections brought us Arafat... remember?? Where was all of this outcry and support of the Palestinian people, who are forced to vote under occupying forces... If the Palestinians had dipped their fingers in purple ink, would you tell us how their election of Arafat was the dawn of a new day in the Middle East???

[Ponder]

Damnit, I figured you had gone to bed, and I wouldn't have to answer to this until morning. :mad_09:


Based on WHAT?? What progress?? Do you even read the news?? What has improved in Iraq?? Honestly, what is this "progress" that you speak of?? Mr. Paul laid out the case... 10s of thousands dead, cities ruined.. .Violence and corruption running rampant. Its still not even safe to walk the streets.. The country is occupied by a foreign power and operates under martial law. Sure.. they had an election.. Guess what?? They had elections when Saddam was in power too.. The elections now have about as much validity as the elections did then.. How can a vote conducted under martial law be viewed as legitimate?? What about the comparison between Iraq and Lebanon??
There are plenty of reports about the progress being made. Most of them are being ignored. That doesn't mean it isn't happening. Good grief, some of us have family and friends there. They don't have any reason to lie to us.

Comparing conditions in Iraq and Lebanon is like comparing apples and oranges. The Iraqis elected their own representatives who through an interim period, will write their own constitution, paving the way for another, completely independent election in December. Syria controls every aspect of Lebanese politics. Very different situation.

Comparing the elections to the ones under Saddam really made me LOL. :)


This is true.. and that hasn't changed ONE BIT.. If anything, the Bush administration has BOLSTERED its support for two or the worst's most oppressive dicatorships.. that in Saudi Arabia and that in Pakistan.. The flow of arms continues unabated, as the recent announcement regarding F-16s to Pakistan can attest to.
Mushy is living on borrowed time. I don't think anyone really believes he's going to be around for the long haul. What exactly do you think he can do with those F-16s? He would be destroyed if he acted with aggression with just about any of his neighbors.

As for the House of Saud, I think the sun is setting on their reign as well. The Bush administrations policies haven't exactly made them happy campers, and they've been all too happy to let the world know it.


Your assertions here do not at all match with the case laid out by the Administration as to why this war was necessary. This is something you've MADE UP in your mind to placate your own guilt. You make it sound like Bush started this war because "he had to start somewhere" and the Iraq people were suffering.. so hey.. Let's bomb the shit out of them... Totally illogical.. The war was started because of ENORMOUS MISTAKES (if not outright lies).. Once the mistakes were realized, the Administration did nothing to limit the damage, but like a man trying to pound a square peg into a round hole, they simply reached for a bigger hammer when things didnt' work out as they planned.
I don't feel any guilt. I think they felt they had the perfect opportunity to implement change in the Middle East, and get rid of the Saddam headache at the same time. The WMD thing just provided the impetus needed to get the people to support the war, in my opinion. Now, I don't believe that Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Bush got together and made this up, but I do believe that the powers that be didn't vet the intelligence very well. Instead, they seized upon it because it supported their beliefs that Saddam was a menace. Based upon his past actions, I think Saddam was a menace to peace in the entire region, myself.



Saddam kicked them out, but then let them back in.. They had to leave when the US told the UN there were about to start bombing. As far as a "threat", there is simply no evidence whatsoever this man was a threat.. Could he BECOME a threat to someone, some day?? Sure.. so could Canada.. Basing a war on that kind of rank speculation is a war crime.. Its not a new concept.. Many aggressor nations have used that same logic to launch illegal wars.
Sure, Bman, Iraq would have been no more a threat than Canada. :happy_10:



This is rank speculation. Its just as easy to say that the new forms of government will lead to increased sectarian warfare, theocracy, the institutionalization of military Islam and increased oppression... Its pure speculation as to what WILL HAPPEN..
Ahhh....but it is MY speculation, and I am rather fond of it. This crap has been going on for over two years in Iraq now, and despite the best efforts of the insurgents and jihadis, Iraqis have pretty much kept their cool.



Maybe you should check the Iranian press as well. I doubt there was any nation that was happier to see Saddam removed and the elevation of the Shia majority in Iraq, than Iran... The Saudi dictatorship no doubt breathed a sign of relief as well..
Oh, I'm sure they are glad Saddam is gone, but they see an equal, if not greater threat, in a free Iraq. If they didn't, they wouldn't be financing covert operations in Iraq, themselves. The mullahs don't particularly want any pesky ideas of freedom polluting their beautiful theocracy.



You make it sound like "elections" are something new to the middle east.. they aren't.. Elections brought us Arafat... remember?? Where was all of this outcry and support of the Palestinian people, who are forced to vote under occupying forces... If the Palestinians had dipped their fingers in purple ink, would you tell us how their election of Arafat was the dawn of a new day in the Middle East???
Too bad they couldn't vote him out, isn't it?

Really, though, most nations of the Middle East don't have half their populations made up of badly educated teenagers. They won't put up with someone like Arafat. The information age is here, and corrupt leaders are finding there's no place to hide.

[Pispas]

Well Pispas, buddy. I could go back and spend a couple hours of my time tearing to shreds Mr. Pauls delusions, but honestly, it would fall on deaf ears.Your inability to address the content of the article is duly noted. You've herewith disqualified yourself in 'my' political arena. Try Babble?! ;)

[Pispas]

Ponder, none of the articles you posted bear relevancy to the simple question: did the invasion of Iraq make lives any better for the Iraqis or the Americans?

So far, we all are paying the price (yes, we in the West too) for George's Iraq extravaganza. Did you give a fuck about the Iraqi people before Hussein was lumped in with 9/11 and WMD's? I didn't.

Now it seems as though every bleeding heart goes out to the fate of not only the Iraqis, but all other Middle-Eastern countries who might be susceptible to having 'democracy' shoved down their throats. Democracy in name only. The forces who used to run these countries (and this applies to many places in Asia too) are still running the country through corruption and worse.

It takes more than a purple finger to affect change.

[Mr. Drags]

Do you agree with Ron Paul that George Bush is a socialist?

I would like to see you inherit a recession, survive 9-11, pay for much needed security improvements, conduct an extremely important war, and at the same time limit your cuts to not destroy your reelection chances and at the same time - have tax cuts.

George Bush did it all and survived. He was reelected triumphantly. Didn't you see all the cuts he proposed AFTER he was reelected?

And so do you agree that Ron Paul is a legitimate source? Is George Bush a leftwing "socialist" as Paul accuses him to be?
My problems with the president have nothing to do with Rep. Paul's article, my problems run more in lines with his domestic agenda -- As I said previsouly, I was all for the tax cuts when the president first took office. Here I was thinking that he was going to be a lightening rod for real governmental reform, yet that wasn't the case.

When he granted the tax relief, Bush didn't cut back on governmental expenditures -- meaning we spent more than we took in, something that I don't like government doing, I'm for zero-based budgeting, a pipe dream to be sure, but there you go.

And sadly, Bush has expanded the size and role of the federal government as well as continuing the violation of the 10th amendment with the passage of NCLB, which is nothing but an unfunded mandate on the backs of the state and local school systems.

The Medicare Refom package is also going to be far more expensivethan it's probably worth. The cost could easily reach the trillions of dollars over the next two decades and cause taxes to be increased nearly 40 prcent -- soemthing that a core of Republican members of the House raised when they voted against the measure, a measure which was supported by the President.

And let's not forget the president's border policy, or lack thereof. Thank God for the Minutemen.


Not to mention to creation of the Department of Homeland Security -- a move which was supposed to centralize (lord I hate that notion, sounds so communist) security measures and eliminate departments with similar roles, meaning two governmental organizations that performed a similar function would be mrrged and streamlined -- that's not happened, therefore government has gotten larger -- an anathema to conservative minded voters.

U.S. Rep. Walter Jones Jr, a NC. Republican, said this in an interview about the growth of the federal government under this administration ""Someday somebody is going to have to pay for all this spending," Jones said. "Anytime something gets too big it isn't as efficient as it could be. And with taxpayers' money we have to be as efficient as possible."

All of those above do not sound like the actions of a conservative leader. So yes, I say Bush betrayed the tenets of the GOP.

Now, I grant you we did have Sept. 11 and all the problems that's caused us, including war time expenditures. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and I'll be honest I was torn over Iraq -- part of me wanted to finish up in Afghanistan first instead of opening a new front, and part of me knew what an evil bastard Saddam is and well, as my dear old aunty says "some people just need killing." Knowing the poor intelligence we had going in doesn't make me feel good about it, but some people need killing. Anyway, we're there now and we are obligated to fix it.

However, the problems we had previously on Sept. 10 are still there.


Yet you also pointed out something that is a sad reality of what our electoral system has become when you said he could only do so much so he wouldn't have ruined his re-election chances. So which is more important, service to the American people or being re-elected? Sadly there are no more men the likes of Cincinnatus.

[Pispas]

Nee, zeg?! (Wow, really ....?)

This is Rule Britannia Blair, who fooled the Brits into going along with this fiasco. Wait for some job openings .....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1454998,00.html

We got it wrong on Iraq WMD, intelligence chiefs finally admit

Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday April 8, 2005
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)

Intelligence chiefs have admitted for the first time that claims they made about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were wrong and have not been substantiated.


The admission is revealed in the annual report of the parliamentary intelligence and security committee which also sharply criticises the lack of communication between ministers and the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6.

It discloses that late last year the joint intelligence committee (JIC) reviewed key judgments on Iraq's WMD capability and programmes behind the government's now discredited dossier published in September 2002.

· The JIC claimed in 2002: "Iraq is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme." It now admits this "was wrong, in that Iraq was not pursuing a nuclear weapons programme". It says the claim was "correct on Iraq's nuclear ambitions".

· The JIC judged in 2002: "Iraq retains up to 20 al-Hussein ballistic missiles." It now admits: "This has not been substantiated."

· In 2002, the JIC judged: "Iraq may retain some stocks of chemical agents ... Iraq could produce significant quantities of mustard [gas] within weeks, significant quantities of Sarin and VX within months, and, in the case of VX may already have done so." It now admits: "Although a capability to produce some agents probably existed, this judgment has not been substantiated." It adds that the Iraq Survey Group found that Saddam "intended to resume a CW [chemical weapons] effort once [UN] sanctions were lifted".

· The JIC in 2002 said: "Iraq currently has available ... a number of biological agents ... Iraq could produce more of these biological agents within days". It now says that the ISG found Iraq could resume production, "but not within the time frames judged ... and [it] found no evidence that production had been activated".

· In 2002, the JIC judged: "Saddam ... might use CBW [chemical and biological weapons] against coalition forces, neighbouring states and his own people. Israel could be the first target." Based on Saddam's past behaviour that "would have remained a reasonable judgment", says the JIC. However, it notes that the Iraqi agent who made the claims was subsequently dropped by MI6.

The parliamentary committee notes that three MI6 agents were "withdrawn" after the invasion of Iraq. They included one - mentioned in 2002 to Tony Blair by Sir Richard Dearlove, then MI6 head - who claimed that Iraq was still making chemical and biological weapons.

The committee also referred yesterday to the Butler inquiry which described the MI6 agent behind the claim that Iraq could deploy chemical weapons within 45 minutes as open to "serious doubts" and "seriously flawed".

The committee says: "We are concerned at the amount of intelligence on Iraqi WMD that has now had to be withdrawn." It says that Mr Blair was not informed until a year later about an MI6 decision to drop an Iraqi agent he had earlier been told was potentially important.

It also points out that the ministerial cabinet committee on the intelligence services has not met since December 2003, and that that meeting was the first in more than seven years. That is disappointing, it says, as regular meetings would "enable collective discussion by ministers of intelligence priorities and developments". At the moment, it adds, "ministers discuss intelligence only in the context of crisis or single-issues meetings".

Yesterday's report confirms that MI5 is setting up "regional stations" around Britain. The Guardian has learned they will be based in north-west England, the Midlands, Scotland, Wales and the west of England, eastern England and south-east England. It's officers will work closely with the police special branch. The intelligence and security committee, chaired by the former Labour cabinet minister Ann Taylor, raps the knuckles of the intelligence agencies for a three-year delay in installing a secure computer network, called Scope.

[Pispas]

And as for something more 'local':

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1453819,00.html

What they said about ...

... US intelligence on Iraq

William Cederwell
Thursday April 7, 2005
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)

"It's hard to imagine a more unsettling, scathingly critical assessment of the US intelligence community," the Miami Herald said after last week's publication of a report on US intelligence failures in the run-up to the Iraq war. The presidential panel that investigated the matter "called the exaggerated estimates of Iraq's various weapons programmes 'one of the most public - and most damaging - intelligence failures in recent American history'", said the paper.


The revelation that the CIA's key informant, who used the codename Curveball, was a "known liar" was "embarrassing" enough, said Robert Scheer in the Los Angeles Times. But "perhaps even more disturbing" was the report's allegation that the former CIA director George Tenet ignored warnings about "Curveball's unreliability" and deliberately withheld them from the then secretary of state, Colin Powell, "even as the administration was pushing [Mr Powell] out on to the world stage to trade his prodigious credibility for world support for the invasion".

The report has found "strong circumstantial evidence for intent to mislead, either by the intelligence agencies or by the policymakers who used the material gathered to justify war", said Florida's Palm Beach Post. Neither George Bush nor his vice president, Dick Cheney, were judged to have "overtly pressured" the CIA, but "overt pressure wasn't needed", the paper said. "Analysts who didn't agree that Iraq posed a threat were removed ... or reprimanded."

Maureen Dowd, in the New York Times, dismissed the inquiry as a "pantomime". This was the "fourth exhaustive investigation that has not answered the basic question: How did the White House and Pentagon spin the information and why has no one gotten into trouble for it?" Americans don't need to hear that "data on arms in Iraq was flawed", she wrote. "We know that. When we got over there we didn't find any." The Philadelphia Inquirer's Trudy Rubin was equally scathing. "Despite its frank detail", the commission "pulled its punches", she concluded. "It blames the intel community for poor analysis, but it lets the political appointees off the hook." And it leaves America with "the sick but inevitable feeling that it's bound to happen again".

-----------------

I cannot understand, for the life of me, why this administration was BEATEN out of office, let alone re-elected, when all these screw-ups became apparent.

Or let me ask you this: would all that have been possible without 9/11 and this administration's clever wiggling the blame into Hussein's direction? I still read that nearly half of the American populace thinks he was connected. Even today! Just how greatly is information in the information age valued or used?

[Spectre]

Hey Leo, see the last 5 or 6 posts?? That's called debating the points of the article. Ponder addressed Bman's post and Bman and Pispas responded in kind. See, this is how one engages in what we like to call debate. Notice how Ponder didn't respond to Bman's post with "You're a stupid ass." or "Ron Paul is a dickhead.". You should really try it some time.

[Aziraphael]

Hey Leo, see the last 5 or 6 posts?? That's called debating the points of the article. Ponder addressed Bman's post and Bman and Pispas responded in kind. See, this is how one engages in what we like to call debate. Notice how Ponder didn't respond to Bman's post with "You're a stupid ass." or "Ron Paul is a dickhead.". You should really try it some time.
You funny fuck. Hey are you an aussie?

[Spectre]

You funny fuck. Hey are you an aussie?

No sir, I'm a midwestern American. I do love the country down under though. My fiance and I have plans to visit sometime soon.

[Pispas]

You funny fuck. Hey are you an aussie?Hey, watch your language! :mad_08:

[Simon666]

Regardless of the man's political stance on other issues, on this one at least he seems to be pretty much spot on.

[Aziraphael]

Hey, watch your language! :mad_08:
Soz.... :add23:



No sir, I'm a midwestern American. I do love the country down under though. My fiance and I have plans to visit sometime soon.

Cool, please feel free to enjoy anything other than "Fosters" beer!

[Leonidas]

Regardless of the man's political stance on other issues, on this one at least he seems to be pretty much spot on.

So you think the election was fraudulent too?

But wait I'm confused....didn't you say in another thread - "it doesn't matter whether the Iraqi elections were fixed"?

Your conspiracy theories are contradicting each other again. You should really work on that.

[Simon666]

So you think the election was fraudulent too?
If you really want to know: I don't know but I wouldn't exclude it for sure. This also seems the position of the author, he seems to say there are hints this might be the case without actually saying they were fixed.



But wait I'm confused....didn't you say in another thread - "it doesn't matter whether the Iraqi elections were fixed"? Your conspiracy theories are contradicting each other again. You should really work on that.
If it doesn't matter whether they were fixed, that is not a statement whether they are or not. So it is a mistake from your part to assume this somehow contradicts with something I have said earlier. Try again.

[Bman]

This guy paints a grim picture in Iraq



Copyright 2005 Australian Associated Press Pty. Ltd.
April 22, 2005, Friday

Fed: Fellow contractor says Iraq is descending into violence
CANBERRA, April 22


Iraq is descending into more indiscriminate violence after a period of relative calm, according to a Australian private security contractor working in the country.

He was commenting on the latest deadly outbursts in Iraq that has claimed scores of victims, including an Australian security contractor, among three foreigners killed in a roadside ambush on Wednesday.

The 34-year-old NSW man was shot along with two other foreign nationals, believed to be an American and a Canadian, while travelling in a convoy on the main road near Baghdad International Airport.

Reuters have named the man as Chris Ahmelman.

The attack came ahead of a missile strike on a civilian Bulgarian helicopter, in which at least nine people died and the discovery of 60 bodies of possibly Shi'ite hostages in the Tigris River.

Another Australian contractor working in Iraq for security company AKE Asia Pacific said today the tempo of violence was on the rise again.

"It appears that it's now picking up again ... it's quite dangerous here," the contractor, identified only as Rodge, told ABC radio.

"You certainly wouldn't want to be on the ground without some kind of protection," he said.

"I would say that things are becoming more unstable here on the ground and every day you can just see people are a little more scared.

"There's a lot of things that are going on behind the scenes that people don't really have a lot of knowledge about."

Rodge said the stretch of road between Baghdad and the airport was a particularly dangerous place.

"I think because it's a main artery for all foreigners coming in and out of the country. That road is essentially pretty much the only way you can get into the country."

The dead Australian had been working as a security officer with British firm Edinburgh Risk and Security Management.

He was the fourth Australian to die in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003.

"It's one of those situations where you can be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That road out to the airport is notorious," Rodge said.

"I've narrowly missed car bombings myself. You can get lucky sometimes. I've been on the road and there's not an incident. Other times I've been there and there's been an incident beforehand and an incident after I've gone, so it's a real timing issue."

[Alli]

“How can we thank the Americans?

By Hashim Al-Sudani

Time may be passing and we may forget the calamity in which we were living. And this is what happened to us, we Iraqis. After two years since our delivery from the regime of Saddam the criminal, who was slaughtering us, torturing us and driving us like a herd of cattle to the arenas of his loosing battles, with execution squads behind us; we have forgotten how we used to live in constant terror and how we were afraid to say any word that might lead us to dark torture chambers in the “Department of General Security” or the “Governorate”, or the “Fifth Branch”. And how we have forgotten those who delivered us from the hell in which we were living and from which we did not even dare dream of getting out. Nay, but more than that; we see today Muqtada Al-Sadr and his followers coming out in demonstrations to demand the exit of what they call “occupation”, and burning images of President Bush; when they were meek and humiliated during Saddam time, not daring to utter a single word. And when Muqtada himself received a sum of money from Mohammed Hamza Al Zubaidi during the funeral reception of his father who was murdered by Saddam and his followers; and there was Muqtada receiving money from the killers of his father !!!!
What prompted me to write about this subject today is watching the film that was shown on the “Iraqiya” on the anniversary of the fall of Saddam, that showed the cutting of tongues and heads, the breaking of arms and other fearful tortures in the prisons of Saddam the “Haddam” [the wrecker-translator]. These things would have continued to our present day had the Americans not intervened to depose this savage animal and his criminal Baathist regime.

I asked myself there and then: How can I thank the American liberators who have avenged us and avenged all the victims of Saddam’s regime? How can I avoid being ungrateful like Muqtada and his followers, who are enjoying now the freedom that America brought while at the same time shouting insults at this same America ? I could find nothing in my possession to thank these liberating soldiers except these words:

Thank you, soldiers of the United States of America and soldiers of her allies. Thank you our true friends. Thanks to all your sacrifices that delivered us from the darkness of Saddam to the light of freedom, elections and democracy.

We shall never ever, forget what you have given us, liberators “

[Bman]

“How can we thank the Americans?

By Hashim Al-Sudani

Time may be passing and we may forget the calamity in which we were living. And this is what happened to us, we Iraqis. After two years since our delivery from the regime of Saddam the criminal, who was slaughtering us, torturing us and driving us like a herd of cattle to the arenas of his loosing battles, with execution squads behind us; we have forgotten how we used to live in constant terror and how we were afraid to say any word that might lead us to dark torture chambers in the “Department of General Security” or the “Governorate”, or the “Fifth Branch”. And how we have forgotten those who delivered us from the hell in which we were living and from which we did not even dare dream of getting out. Nay, but more than that; we see today Muqtada Al-Sadr and his followers coming out in demonstrations to demand the exit of what they call “occupation”, and burning images of President Bush; when they were meek and humiliated during Saddam time, not daring to utter a single word. And when Muqtada himself received a sum of money from Mohammed Hamza Al Zubaidi during the funeral reception of his father who was murdered by Saddam and his followers; and there was Muqtada receiving money from the killers of his father !!!!
What prompted me to write about this subject today is watching the film that was shown on the “Iraqiya” on the anniversary of the fall of Saddam, that showed the cutting of tongues and heads, the breaking of arms and other fearful tortures in the prisons of Saddam the “Haddam” [the wrecker-translator]. These things would have continued to our present day had the Americans not intervened to depose this savage animal and his criminal Baathist regime.

I asked myself there and then: How can I thank the American liberators who have avenged us and avenged all the victims of Saddam’s regime? How can I avoid being ungrateful like Muqtada and his followers, who are enjoying now the freedom that America brought while at the same time shouting insults at this same America ? I could find nothing in my possession to thank these liberating soldiers except these words:

Thank you, soldiers of the United States of America and soldiers of her allies. Thank you our true friends. Thanks to all your sacrifices that delivered us from the darkness of Saddam to the light of freedom, elections and democracy.

We shall never ever, forget what you have given us, liberators “


where did this come from?

[Alli]

where did this come from?
I'm sorry I forgot the link...that is a translation letter from this (http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/) site

[Bman]

I'm sorry I forgot the link...that is a translation letter from this (http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/) site


Thanks for sharing.. I have no doubt the Iraqi people (and Iranian people for that matter) are VERY glad to see Saddam go.. This man apparently feels the chaotic situation in Iraq now is worth it. I know there are many others that do not feel that way, including me.

Bman

[SEVIL DOG]

Thanks for sharing.. I have no doubt the Iraqi people (and Iranian people for that matter) are VERY glad to see Saddam go.. This man apparently feels the chaotic situation in Iraq now is worth it. I know there are many others that do not feel that way, including me.

Bman
Just better planing, just better planing, should of not got rid of everyone in the Baath party and all the military.

[Bman]

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1274&storyid=3116603


Little hope held for Iraq economy

By Omar Anwar

May 13, 2005

PLAGUED by relentless violence, Iraqis have little cause for hope economically and socially, having suffered a tragic plunge in living standards and high unemployment, a Planning Ministry survey has showed.


The situation in the oil power once regarded as an intellectual and economic hub of the Arab world is rapidly deteriorating, the survey showed.
"This survey shows a rather tragic situation of the quality of life in Iraq," Minister of Planning Barham Salih told a news conference.

"These statistics reflect the contrast between the wealth of this country and the deteriorating level of all vital sectors for Iraqis."

Iraq's new government, formed two weeks ago, faces the daunting task of restoring security and public services for an economy that has been battered by wars and trade sanctions.

The survey, conducted by the Iraqi Ministry of Planning and the United Nations Development Program with funding by the Norwegian government, was taken in the second half of last year in 18 provinces. Unemployment is running at an alarming 50 per cent, the survey said, raising questions over whether a growing number of young Iraqi men will join the insurgency.

It showed 33.4 per cent of youth were unemployed while 37.2 per cent of high school and university graduates were jobless.

Thirty three per cent of Iraqis are underemployed.

In contrast, unemployment stood at 3.6 per cent in the 1980s, when Iraq was locked in a costly war with Iran, and 13.6 per cent in the 1990s, when United Nations sanctions crippled the economy after Saddam Hussein's troops invaded Kuwait.

Iraqis were hoping that the fall of Saddam in 2003 would eliminate state control over industries and deliver prosperity.

But even basic services are not available for most people.

Eighty five per cent of households suffer from erratic electricity supply, the survey revealed. Only 54 per cent of Iraqi families have access to clean water, and 37 per cent of homes are connected to a sewage network, compared to 75 per cent in the 1980s.

Two decades ago, Iraq had one of the highest medical standards in the Middle East, but hospitals now overwhelmed by bombing and shooting victims suffer from a severe lack of equipment and medicine.

The number of mothers who die during labour has reached 93 in every 100,000 births in Iraq, compared to 14 in Jordan and 32 in Saudi Arabia, the survey said.

"It clearly shows the deteriorating health services in Iraq," said the survey.

After bickering for three months after January 30 elections, Iraq's new cabinet faces the challenge of rebuilding economic and social services in a country where suicide bombings, shootings and kidnappings have kept foreign investment away.

Twenty-five per cent of Iraqi families could not generate the equivalent of $US70 ($A90) in a week to cope with an emergency, the survey said.

"Every social economic indicator is considered a tragedy especially knowing the fact that Iraq is a very wealthy country," said Salih, who called for help from the international community.

"Iraqis need schools, health services and employment opportunities ... There has been progress over the last three years but a lot still needs to be done. I hope the priority is to get it done," he said.

Reuters

[Elli]

I would definitely vote for Ron Paul. I just finally saw the initial article, thanks Bman.

[involved]

It's like they threw a blanket over everyone, burn the thrown !! Quote: "Protection of life and liberty must once again become the issue that drives political thought in this country. If this goal is replaced by an effort to promote world government, use force to plan the economy, regulate the people, and police the world, against the voluntary desires of the people, it can be done only with the establishment of a totalitarian state. There’s no need for that. It’s up to Congress and the American people to decide our fate, and there is still time to correct our mistakes.

April 7, 2005

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.


http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/c...05/cr040605.htm

[Ponder]

Another version from a reporter who didn't begin his career last year as an IWPR trainee....

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/8494e7fa-c31f-11d9-abf1-00000e2511c8,dwp_uuid=c1a5b968-e1ed-11d7-81c6-0820abe49a01.html

New survey of Iraqis warns on jobs and nutrition
By Neil MacDonaldin Baghdad
Published: May 12 2005 21:08 | Last updated: May 12 2005 21:08

The first comprehensive survey of living conditions in Iraq since the US-led invasion shows a population suffering from unemployment, malnutrition, and lack of services, although officials blamed decades of past mismanagement rather than recent instability.


Norwegian researchers worked with the Planning Ministry to gather data for the Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2000, which surveyed more than 21,000 households across Iraq from April to August of last year.

Issued on Thursday by the ministry and the United Nations Development Programme, the report is the most extensive survey of Iraq's population since the last census in 1997. It suggests unemployment and malnutrition have changed little since the later years of international sanctions.

The electrical supply to 85 per cent of households is unreliable, 46 per cent lack access to clean water and only 37 per cent are connected to a sewage system, the survey said. Nationwide unemployment is near 20 per cent and the median household income is $144 (€113) last year, down from $255 in 2003.

The survey does not attempt to draw comparisons with the pre-invasion period, arguing that to do so would be nearly impossible thanks to unreliable data and different methodologies used by surveyors.

However, the report cites figures from earlier surveys into child malnutrition, suggesting a major leap in 1991 when sanctions went into effect, then a drop after the oil-for-food programme was implemented in 1996, followed by relative stability between 2000 and 2004.

The report suggests unemployment continues to be concentrated in poor rural provinces in the mostly Shia south, and is most prevalent among young men, whose rate of joblessness is nearly double the national average.

Barham Saleh, planning minister, said ousted president Saddam Hussein's foreign wars and internal repression had prompted the sharp deterioration of infrastructure, health and education since the 1980s. If anything, [the report] should vindicate the war, Mr Saleh said.

He took this view in spite of the report's estimate of about 24,000 Iraqi deaths, of which 12 per cent were children under 18, as a direct result of the US-led invasion two years ago. These figures are difficult to compare with other statistics for war deaths, as the report does not explain how deaths were counted.

UNDP resident representative Staffan de Mistura said that statistics would help to make reconstruction projects more effective.

[Bman]

One of the best yet from the Great Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas
AWESOME.. read it beginning to end, then read it again

Bman


Who’s Better Off?

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD


Before the US House of Representatives, April 6, 2005.

Whenever the administration is challenged regarding the success of the Iraq war, or regarding the false information used to justify the war, the retort is: “Aren’t the people of Iraq better off?” The insinuation is that anyone who expresses any reservations about supporting the war is an apologist for Saddam Hussein and every ruthless act he ever committed. The short answer to the question of whether the Iraqis are better off is that it’s too early to declare, “Mission Accomplished.” But more importantly, we should be asking if the mission was ever justified or legitimate. Is it legitimate to justify an action that some claim yielded good results, if the means used to achieve them are illegitimate? Do the ends justify the means?

The information Congress was given prior to the war was false. There were no weapons of mass destruction; the Iraqis did not participate in the 9/11 attacks; Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies and did not conspire against the United States; our security was not threatened; we were not welcomed by cheering Iraqi crowds as we were told; and Iraqi oil has not paid any of the bills. Congress failed to declare war, but instead passed a wishy-washy resolution citing UN resolutions as justification for our invasion. After the fact we’re now told the real reason for the Iraq invasion was to spread democracy, and that the Iraqis are better off. Anyone who questions the war risks being accused of supporting Saddam Hussein, disapproving of democracy, or “supporting terrorists.” It’s implied that lack of enthusiasm for the war means one is not patriotic and doesn’t support the troops. In other words, one must march lock-step with the consensus or be ostracized.

However, conceding that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein is a far cry from endorsing the foreign policy of our own government that led to the regime change. In time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself. The interventionist policy should be scrutinized more carefully than the purported benefits of Saddam Hussein’s removal from power. The real question ought to be: “Are we better off with a foreign policy that promotes regime change while justifying war with false information?” Shifting the stated goals as events unravel should not satisfy those who believe war must be a last resort used only when our national security is threatened.

How much better off are the Iraqi people? Hundreds of thousands of former inhabitants of Fallajah are not better off with their city flattened and their homes destroyed. Hundreds of thousands are not better off living with foreign soldiers patrolling their street, curfews, and the loss of basic utilities. One hundred thousand dead Iraqis, as estimated by the Lancet Medical Journal, certainly are not better off. Better to be alive under Saddam Hussein than lying in some cold grave.

Praise for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many critics of the war. Yet the election was held under martial law implemented by a foreign power, mirroring conditions we rightfully condemned as a farce when carried out in the old Soviet system and more recently in Lebanon. Why is it that what is good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander?

Our government fails to recognize that legitimate elections are the consequence of freedom, and that an artificial election does not create freedom. In our own history we note that freedom was achieved first and elections followed – not the other way around.

One news report claimed that the Shiites actually received 56% of the vote, but such an outcome couldn’t be allowed for it would preclude a coalition of the Kurds and Shiites from controlling the Sunnis and preventing a theocracy from forming. This reminds us of the statement made months ago by Secretary Rumsfeld when asked about a Shiite theocracy emerging from a majority democratic vote, and he assured us that would not happen. Democracy, we know, is messy and needs tidying up a bit when we don’t like the results.

Some have described Baghdad and especially the green zone, as being surrounded by unmanageable territory. The highways in and out of Baghdad are not yet secured. Many anticipate a civil war will break out sometime soon in Iraq; some claim it’s already underway.

We have seen none of the promised oil production that was supposed to provide grateful Iraqis with the means to repay us for the hundreds of billions that American taxpayers have spent on the war. Some have justified our continuous presence in the Persian Gulf since 1990 because of a need to protect “our” oil. Yet now that Saddam Hussein is gone, and the occupation supposedly is a great success, gasoline at the pumps is reaching record highs approaching $3 per gallon.

Though the Iraqi election has come and gone, there still is no government in place and the next election – supposedly the real one – is not likely to take place on time. Do the American people have any idea who really won the dubious election at all?

The oil-for-food scandal under Saddam Hussein has been replaced by corruption in the distribution of U.S. funds to rebuild Iraq. Already there is an admitted $9 billion discrepancy in the accounting of these funds. The over-billing by Halliburton is no secret, but the process has not changed.

The whole process is corrupt. It just doesn’t make sense to most Americans to see their tax dollars used to fight an unnecessary and unjustified war. First they see American bombs destroying a country, and then American taxpayers are required to rebuild it. Today it’s easier to get funding to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq than to build a bridge in the United States. Indeed, we cut the Army Corps of Engineers’ budget and operate on the cheap with our veterans as the expenditures in Iraq skyrocket.

One question the war promoters don’t want to hear asked, because they don’t want to face up to the answer, is this: “Are Christian Iraqis better off today since we decided to build a new Iraq through force of arms?” The answer is plainly no.

Sure, there are only 800,000 Christians living in Iraq, but under Saddam Hussein they were free to practice their religion. Tariq Aziz, a Christian, served in Saddam Hussein’s cabinet as Foreign Minister – something that would never happen in Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other Middle Eastern country. Today, the Christian churches in Iraq are under attack and Christians are no longer safe. Many Christians have been forced to flee Iraq and migrate to Syria. It’s strange that the human rights advocates in the U.S. Congress have expressed no concern for the persecution now going on against Christians in Iraq. Both the Sunni and the Shiite Muslims support the attacks on Christians. In fact, persecuting Christians is one of the few areas in which they agree – the other being the removal of all foreign forces from Iraqi soil.

Considering the death, destruction, and continual chaos in Iraq, it’s difficult to accept the blanket statement that the Iraqis all feel much better off with the U.S. in control rather than Saddam Hussein. Security in the streets and criminal violence are not anywhere near being under control.

But there’s another question that is equally important: “Are the American people better off because of the Iraq war?”

One thing for sure, the 1,500 plus dead American soldiers aren’t better off. The nearly 20,000 severely injured or sickened American troops are not better off. The families, the wives, the husbands, children, parents, and friends of those who lost so much are not better off.

The families and the 40,000 troops who were forced to re-enlist against their will – a de facto draft – are not feeling better off. They believe they have been deceived by their enlistment agreements.

The American taxpayers are not better off having spent over 200 billion dollars to pursue this war, with billions yet to be spent. The victims of the inflation that always accompanies a guns-and-butter policy are already getting a dose of what will become much worse.

Are our relationships with the rest of the world better off? I’d say no. Because of the war, our alliances with the Europeans are weaker than ever. The anti-American hatred among a growing number of Muslims around the world is greater than ever. This makes terrorist attacks more likely than they were before the invasion. Al Qaeda recruiting has accelerated. Iraq is being used as a training ground for al Qaeda terrorists, which it never was under Hussein’s rule. So as our military recruitment efforts suffer, Osama bin Laden benefits by attracting more terrorist volunteers.

Oil was approximately $27 a barrel before the war, now it’s more than twice that. I wonder who benefits from this?

Because of the war, fewer dollars are available for real national security and defense of this country. Military spending is up, but the way the money is spent distracts from true national defense and further undermines our credibility around the world.

The ongoing war’s lack of success has played a key role in diminishing morale in our military services. Recruitment is sharply down, and most branches face shortages of troops. Many young Americans rightly fear a coming draft – which will be required if we do not reassess and change the unrealistic goals of our foreign policy.

The appropriations for the war are essentially off-budget and obscured, but contribute nonetheless to the runaway deficit and increase in the national debt. If these trends persist, inflation with economic stagnation will be the inevitable consequences of a misdirected policy.

One of the most significant consequences in times of war that we ought to be concerned about is the inevitable loss of personal liberty. Too often in the patriotic nationalism that accompanies armed conflict, regardless of the cause, there is a willingness to sacrifice personal freedoms in pursuit of victory. The real irony is that we are told we go hither and yon to fight for freedom and our Constitution, while carelessly sacrificing the very freedoms here at home we’re supposed to be fighting for. It makes no sense.

This willingness to give up hard-fought personal liberties has been especially noticeable in the atmosphere of the post-September 11th war on terrorism. Security has replaced liberty as our main political goal, damaging the American spirit. Sadly, the whole process is done in the name of patriotism and in a spirit of growing militant nationalism.

These attitudes and fears surrounding the 9-11 tragedy, and our eagerness to go to war in the Middle East against countries not responsible for the attacks, have allowed a callousness to develop in our national psyche that justifies torture and rejects due process of law for those who are suspects and not convicted criminals.

We have come to accept pre-emptive war as necessary, constitutional, and morally justifiable. Starting a war without a proper declaration is now of no concern to most Americans or the U.S. Congress. Let’s hope and pray the rumors of an attack on Iran in June by U.S. Armed Forces are wrong.

A large segment of the Christian community and its leadership think nothing of rationalizing war in the name of a religion that prides itself on the teachings of the Prince of Peace, who instructed us that blessed are the peacemakers – not the warmongers.

We casually accept our role as world policeman, and believe we have a moral obligation to practice nation building in our image regardless of the number of people who die in the process.

We have lost our way by rejecting the beliefs that made our country great. We no longer trust in trade, friendship, peace, the Constitution, and the principle of neutrality while avoiding entangling alliances with the rest of the world. Spreading the message of hope and freedom by setting an example for the world has been replaced by a belief that use of armed might is the only practical tool to influence the world – and we have accepted, as the only superpower, the principle of initiating war against others.

In the process, Congress and the people have endorsed a usurpation of their own authority, generously delivered to the executive and judicial branches – not to mention international government bodies. The concept of national sovereignty is now seen as an issue that concerns only the fringe in our society.

Protection of life and liberty must once again become the issue that drives political thought in this country. If this goal is replaced by an effort to promote world government, use force to plan the economy, regulate the people, and police the world, against the voluntary desires of the people, it can be done only with the establishment of a totalitarian state. There’s no need for that. It’s up to Congress and the American people to decide our fate, and there is still time to correct our mistakes.

April 7, 2005

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.


http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr040605.htm


This needs to be posted again.

Done.

[Bman]

Long ass article for those interested in the topic. I would link it , but I think you have to sign up for a free trial or something to see it at the website

http://www.salon.com/?x

Salon.com

July 5, 2006 Wednesday



Did the invasion make things worse in Iraq?

Nir Rosen


http://images.salon.com/news/feature/2006/07/05/saddam/cover.jpg

A reporter who has watched the country unravel compares its hellish present to the nightmare it lived under Saddam.



Events in Iraq have long ceased to dominate the news. The trial of Saddam Hussein, which the media once seized on as yet another "defining moment," has been lost amid the daily repetition of car bombs, assassinations, the countless numbers of Iraqi and American dead. It is a sideshow for Iraqis, who are too busy trying to stay alive, and a bore for Americans, who have ceased to be interested in the war's many retroactive justifications. But the show in the Green Zone proceeds, and the well-groomed deposed dictator maintains his defiance, even hoping, it has been revealed, that the Americans will realize their mistake and reinstate him. He stands accused of bearing responsibility for 148 Shias killed in 1982, a paltry number compared to the cases to come, including a genocidal campaign against the Kurds. Safe from the chaos engulfing the rest of the country, the closest Saddam may come to experiencing the terror that now consumes Iraq is the murder of three of his lawyers.

Outside the Green Zone, any hopes for a better future in post-Saddam Iraq were dashed a long time ago. As early as the summer of 2003, Sunnis had been sufficiently alienated to long for their halcyon days under the Baathists, and since then the situation has deteriorated catastrophically. With Shia death squads torturing and executing Sunnis, Sunni insurgents killing Shia, criminal gangs running rampant and a vicious civil war raging, people frequently ask me: Are things worse for Iraqis now than they were under the man who now stands in the dock?

I don't know the answer to that question. But the very fact that it can legitimately be asked is horrifying. For Saddam's Iraq deserved the name given it by the exiled writer Kanan Makiya: "Republic of Fear." I began to learn why soon after I arrived in the country in April 2003.

He picked me up in his taxi on a busy street, that first spring in Baghdad. In Iraq you never know who will stop for you when you hail a cab. Most taxis were orange and white "Brazili" Volkswagens made in Brazil. When you asked them what the fare was they would disingenuously insist, "No, it's on me." When you insisted on paying and asked for a price they would say, "As you wish," knowing you would be too uncomfortable to pay them what you really wished, and in case you did, they would say, "No, that's too little." Taxi drivers were my oracles in Iraq. They knew all the rumors, more often false than true, they were my spies, they knew what explosion had happened in what neighborhood, what neighborhood was off limits thanks to the resistance, the Americans or some other militia. And like their colleagues throughout the world, they were always eager to talk.

My driver was a thin middle-aged man, olive-toned, wiry, bony and angular. The thick hair on his arms was gray, as were his grizzled cheeks and bushy mustache. He had large eyes, sunken and hidden beneath the shadow of his brows. I felt like striking a conversation. "How are things in Baghdad?" Driving, he hung his arm straight out of the window and gazed at it silently as I waited for an answer. Without uttering a word or demonstrating that he had even heard the question, he stared ahead expressionless. Worried, I realized his jaws were tightly clenched and his eyes were glazing. Anxiously I watched a tear swell and burst off his eyelashes, slowly making its way down his cheek. I resisted the urge to reach over and wipe it for him. "I'm sorry," I said, "did somebody from your family die?"

He struggled to answer me. In a controlled whisper, he said, "We all died."

In those first weeks, I began to learn what he meant. I was present when family members exhumed the corpses of loved ones killed by Saddam. I even stumbled upon my own treasure trove of documents in an abandoned police station, papers that revealed the reality of life under the dictator. But then new horrors took center stage, pushing the old ones aside.

When I arrived, Iraq's walls were already covered with leaflets and banners announcing the deaths of "martyrs." At first, the walls bore the names of those killed by the liberating American military, but soon there were new martyrs, victims of the nihilistic anarchy spreading in the country -- the faudha, or chaos, as Iraqis called it. These Iraqis were killed by the criminal violence that sprang up in the power vacuum, and then by the insurgents -- Sunni men seeking to kill the "Crusaders and Jews" who were occupying Iraq. Others were killed by the aggressive U.S. military that was now occupying them.

I spent nearly three years writing about the new victims, those killed under the occupation or during the civil wars being fought in Iraq. In my focus on Iraq's newest victims, I forgot about Saddam's victims.

The trial of Saddam reminded me of the files I looted from that security station, and of my notes from those first few weeks, which I had forgotten. And as the people of Iraq endure yet another nightmare -- one the United States unlocked -- it seems important to remember them.

Abdel Satar al Musawi's dark brown decomposed remains lay on the ground above his former grave. His older brothers sat beside them, holding them and crying. Although he was arrested in 1998 and killed in 2001, they had only learned of his death three days before. They had come to claim his body. "His crime was loving freedom," said his friend Abdel Karim, who had come to find his own brother.

I had only been in Iraq a few weeks, beginning my career as a journalist. I had opposed the war, not because of illusions I had about Saddam's brutality, but because I knew that helping the Iraqi people was not on the Bush administration's agenda, and nothing good would come of war. It was simple to me: A war predicated on lies was wrong, and would subvert democracy at home as well as international law. In the early days of the war, the magazine that sent me asked me if I wanted a gas mask or a suit to protect me from chemical weapons. I scoffed at the need, explaining that I did not believe Iraq had those weapons anymore. I had come to Iraq to give a voice to Iraqis, and this meant restraining my views, and listening to Iraqis. As Iraqis rubbed their eyes and awoke to the new reality in a mix of shock, depression and euphoria, I was as confused as they were, and nothing seemed black-and-white.

With the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of thousands of political prisoners were finally being revealed to their families. Iraqi families could find the files on their loved ones and discover their fate. More often than not, the news was not good.

Several dozen members of the al Musawi family had come to claim four of their brethren from the Karkh cemetery in Haswa, outside of Baghdad and near the Abu Ghraib prison, where many of Saddam's political prisoners were murdered. All four were cousins: Abdel Sattar al Musawi, born in 1966, from the Dora neighborhood of Baghdad, married with two children; Salah Hadi al Musawi, born in 1974, from Baghdad's Thawra neighborhood; Salah Hasan al Musawi, born in 1971 and also from Thawra; and Saad Qasim al Musawi, born in 1967, from Thawra, married with six children. A family friend, Qasim Ahmad al Maliki, born in 1966 and also from Thawra, married with no children, was also buried in the cemetery. All were killed in 2001.

"They were political prisoners," a friend of the al Musawis explained, "killed for no reason. There was no justice, no court, no defense." The men had come on a bus and in a pickup truck. They carried with them flimsy wooden coffins made of boards and a black flag of mourning. At 7 in the morning, they were the first family in the cemetery that day.

The dafan, or grave digger, Muhammad Muslim Muhammad, was a small man in sweat pants with a buttoned shirt tucked in. He assisted with an obsequious eagerness and I suspected that he was compensating for an unconfessed complicity in the crimes he helped bury.

The Karkh cemetery was the size of a football field, surrounded by a brick wall the height of a man. Eucalyptus trees lined the edges by the wall. The ground was a sandy gray, with mounds marking the shallow graves containing the bodies. Some of the mounds had holes burrowed into them, where animals had fed on the corpses. On a stick in the mound was a card with a number on it. The al Musawi family had the plot numbers for their dead, and Muhammad led them to the first one, striding over other graves. It belonged to Abdel Satar. When they found the grave, the previously silent men collapsed in loud sobs, kneeling on the ground or clinging to one another. They quieted down as the gravedigger undid his work, watching in apprehensive and lachrymose silence, as if still hoping the grave would be empty. The digging slowed as the earth being removed turned to a wet dark red, as if stained with blood. The gravedigger abandoned his shovel and used his hands. The body was the color of the earth, thin and dry. Amid wails of "my brother!" the body was placed on a plastic sheet and wrapped in a kiffin, or white cloth. It was then placed in the wooden coffin, to await the trip to Najaf, where it would be buried in the City of Peace, the biggest cemetery in the world outside of China, and the preferred burial site for all Shias.

As Abdel Sattar's brothers and a handful of others remained by his coffin, the rest of the family moved on to dig up Saad's body. It emerged in separate pieces; the bones were placed together by the skull. Saad's father was present. By 9 in the morning six families had arrived to reclaim their loved ones and their wailing cries could be heard from all corners of the cemetery. I was crying too. Abdel Sattar's former employer was also present. "He was a lovely boy," he said of him. I asked if this had happened to many people he knew. Gesturing behind him to the hundreds of graves, he said, "See for yourself."

I felt ashamed intruding on the pain of the al Musawi family, and I sobbed with them. It was my first month as a journalist and I was not yet able to watch other people's pain without participating in it. In 1991 Sattar's relative Daghir Jasim al Musawi tried to escape to Iran following the failed Shia uprising against Saddam, which George Bush the elder encouraged and which was brutally suppressed by Saddam after Bush failed to support it. Daghir visited Sattar before escaping, and this caused all the suffering that befell their family. Eleven men from the al Musawi family were arrested, suspected of taking part in the uprising.

I spoke with one of the men, 29-year-old Husayn Sayer Naama al Musawi from Thawra. He was arrested in the summer of 2001 because he was a relative and Saddam's secret police thought he might know something. He was held for 70 days in the Saddam City security prison with the four al Musawi cousins who were killed.

In prison they tied Husayn's hands behind his back and hung him from them, dislocating his shoulders. They tortured him with electricity and beat him with cables and metal rods until he was drenched in his own blood. They wanted to know why Daghir had come to visit him, but he could tell them nothing, since Daghir had only come to visit Sattar.

He would still be able to recognize the faces of the security officers who did this to them, he told me. The prison was run by someone named Saad al Ithawi. There was an officer called Abbas who was drunk during the interrogation and beat Husayn brutally. Executions were carried out by an officer called Hamid. Husayn said, "If I saw them I would seek revenge, I would eat them."

Before they left, several of the men from the al Musawi family blasted the Arab media for their failure to speak out. "The Arab press failed," said one. "They were a part of these crimes. They covered it up. They always said Saddam was a hero and they took his money." Another exhorted me, "Don't be like Arabs, tell the whole world."

Some graves had no numbers, meaning that some families never found their loved ones. The al Musawis themselves had not known whether their lost sons were dead or alive until three days before they dug up their bodies. They received the information from a remarkable organization called the Association of Free Prisoners.

Located in the confiscated riverside villa of a former security official in the Kadhimiya neighborhood of Baghdad, the association was formed three weeks before, just when the war ended. Muhamad Jamal Abdel Amir, a 28-year-old engineer, volunteered along with 50 or so others. He explained that the organization was created by four former prisoners. It was an entirely Iraqi project; they received no help from outside and had not coordinated their activities with anyone foreign. When Iraqis looted the headquarters of the many security organizations that had terrorized them for so long, people began handing over the files to the association, and its director Ibrahim al Idris. Abdel Amir explained that he had volunteered in order to help Iraq.

On the outside walls of the association's villa hung many sheets of paper with alphabetical listings of prisoners' names. Hundreds of desperate relatives ran their fingers down the lists taped to the walls, hoping to learn their fate. A steady stream of men and women visited the wall, reading the names. Inside, past two boys with machine guns who guarded the association, the atmosphere was bustling, as workers rushed back and forth, their faces blocked by the immense piles of documents they carried to different rooms of the house, organizing them by subject. They were entering all the information onto a database, but for now, the dozens of rooms were full of thousands of files going back to the 1960s, stacked on top of each other, stored in sacks, or still in their original file cabinets, marked Da'wa (for the banned Islamic party), Communist, and other labels that testified to Saddam's ruthless repression of all independent political activity. New files continued to come in by the thousands from all over Iraq; the association was planning on moving to the former military intelligence headquarters.

A random file revealed that Sadiq Hamudi Salih, born in 1960, was a soldier accused of joining the Da'wa party in 1981 and criticizing the regime. In 1984 he was sentenced to five years in prison. Another file revealed that when authorities could not find Madhkur Salim Mishish they executed his relatives in 1984. Yet another file documented the mass execution of 16 people.

Saad Muhammad was a 39-year-old volunteer at the association responsible for gathering information. He was imprisoned for four years for criticizing Saddam. He showed me a Procrustean British-made traction couch that they found in the general security headquarters, and demonstrated its use during interrogations: to stretch victims until their bodies broke and tore. He also showed me a meat grinder for humans that they had found. I came upon my own trove of records one day, as I was walking through Baghdad's streets. In the poor neighborhood of Betawin, I stumbled into an abandoned police station, housing the Saadun general security directory office on its second floor. It was clear that a systematic attempt had been made to destroy the documents on the second floor, presumably by the minor intelligence officials who had worked in it. I found two overturned document shredders, and the thin strings that had borne the bureaucratic record of various horrors were strewn about the floor along with broken glass and ashes. Most file cabinets and their contents had been thrown into a few rooms that were torched, and all that remained in the file drawers were ashes. A local Christian boy, 12 years old and illiterate, brought sacks for me to load files into. Those documents that were salvageable bore witness to the mundane daily operations of a dictatorship's local security station over the previous years, right up to the final days in March 2003 before the war.

They included:

The 2001 duties of security officers, files recording people changing their locations of residence, information from a snitch about a stolen antique sword and drug deals, inquiries from family members about disappeared or arrested people and the responses that no information was available about them, lists of people belonging to enemy or sectarian organizations, lists of people who had criticized Saddam, a report about a Da'wa party member who had killed a Baath party official, lists of Shias making, importing or selling religious tapes, lists of people under surveillance, reports on people observing religious ceremonies, a file about a rich man arrested in the company of several young girls, information on participants in the 1991 Shia uprising, weekly orders to spread pro-regime rumors and combat anti-regime rumors, lists of executed political prisoners and the reasons why they were executed, information on bank employees in Baghdad, a report about the Pakistani minister of health visiting a mosque in Baghdad, lists of security monitors in schools, surveillance orders for political and religious suspects, lists of local barbers, list of collaborators, lists of all the Friday sermons from Baghdad mosques in organized charts, each chart bearing the name of the mosque, the date of the prayer, the name of the cleric, the subject of the speech, the numbers and ages of the attendees, the number of women praying, whether it was a Sunni or Shia mosque, whether the cleric praised Saddam, and the name of the spy, lists of spies in mosques and churches, names of applicants to study in the Islamic university, reports on people who had tried to leave Iraq illegally, orders for the families of executed prisoners to come pick up the corpses, a report about a Wahhabi Muslim arrested for placing a bomb in a liquor store, names of men who had walked in the pilgrimage to Karbala (some of whom were accused of murder as a result), a report about a man accused of impersonating an intelligence officer, orders to spread rumors that Iraq could defeat the U.S. and would attack Israel and liberate Palestine, that the Iraqi gifts to Palestinians raised their morale and caused the Israeli prime minister's government to fall, that POWs from Iran were returning, that supermarkets would soon be open, that the government would let people retain the temporary homes they were assigned, that the euro would become the international currency and not the dollar, a report on a woman arrested because her son had deserted the military, a list of people accused of belonging to a group seeking to avenge the murder of Shia leader Muhammad Sadiq Sadr, a report about a man accused of breaking a picture of Saddam Hussein, an order to use the term "American administration" instead of "American government," and a memo to all branches about the U.S. information war against Iraq.

One dense folder contained numerous official security service memos about the arrest of Abad Ali Safai Ahmad, who was accused of insulting Saddam and the Baath Party. According to the files Ahmad was a taxi driver, born in 1975, who lived in the Shia slums then known as Saddam City (now Sadr City). He was a veteran of the war against Iran, and one of his brothers had been killed in that war.

On July 4, 2002, the leadership of the Batal al Tahrir, or "Heroes of Liberation," section of the Al Aqsa group office of the Baath Party, ordered the arrest of Ahmad for his "assault on the person of the master and leader the President, may Allah bless and protect him," and his detention for "a reasonable period" according to section 225q.aa.

Basher Aziz al Tamimi, Ahmad's neighbor, a Baath Party member from the al Aqsa branch and also a taxi driver, testified against him. Tamimi encountered a very drunk Ahmad on the night of July 3. According to Tamimi, Ahmad suggested to him that they sell a privately owned car but Tamimi reminded him that there was a law against this proposed activity because it was a 1978 model. Al Tamimi then testified that Ahmad cursed Saddam, saying, "Saddam's sister's pussy over this law!" In Arabic referring to the vagina of a man's female relatives is a terrible insult. Tamimi asked Ahmad why he was attacking the president when he knew that Tamimi was a member of the Baath Party. "Your sister's pussy and the Baath Party's sister's pussy!" Ahmad replied, according to Tamimi. Tamimi then testified that "We had a fist fight and I reported the case to my supervisor Saad Khalaf and he requested I file a written report and then we went to Shahab because he is responsible for the branch security."

The men organized a group to go to Ahmad's house. Tamimi testified that when they arrived Ahmad hit him and threatened him, saying, "I will shave your mustache and the Baath Party's mustache." In Iraq a mustache is considered a symbol of manhood and honor, and threatening to shave a man's mustache is an insult. A man can also take an oath, swearing by his mustache, and if he has been humiliated, or if his sister has, for example, he can shave his mustache and refuse to grow it until his honor has been restored and he is once more "a man."

Another witness testifying at the security investigation court against Ahmad was Shehab Hamad Jabar al Shebli, a retired officer born in 1952 and also living in Saddam City. "I am a Baathi with the rank of section leader and a member of the Al Aqsa branch," he began, continuing that on the night in question, at 1:30 a.m., he was met by Tamimi and another Baath Party member, who informed him that the accused had "assaulted the president the master and leader himself, Allah bless him and protect him." They formed a committee and went to Ahmad's house, where he angrily hit Tamimi and threatened to shave Tamimi's mustache and that of the Baath Party. "Which caused me to hit him and bring him to committee center and I did not hear him attack the personality of the master leader the president, Allah bless him and protect him, and should I have heard him assault him I would have killed him and this is my testimony." Other witnesses also testified in support of Ahmad's accusers.

In his testimony Ahmad explained that "I had consumed alcoholic drink and I did not assault the person of the master and the leader president, Allah bless him and keep him." Ahmad claimed he had witnesses who supported his side of the story. He admitted that "the same night an individual party committee came to my house to arrest me" including Tamimi, "and as I was in a bad temper I hit him and as he does not have a mustache I said to him I shave yours and the party's mustache and I did not mean to direct the assault on the party in my words and as I mentioned I was under the influence of alcohol and was drunk and in a bad temper for I had a brother who was martyred in the great battle of Qadisyat Saddam his name was Abad al Radha and he died in 1986 and I seek the forgiveness and this is my testimony." Ahmad claimed that Tamimi owed him 10,000 dinars and when he had asked for it back they got into an argument. Ahmad was jailed but released in an amnesty granted two months later.

Another file I found documented the arrest of a traditional healer who was accused of being a witch. I tracked down the accused witch, Aliya Jasem, who lived in the village of Huseiniya, north of Baghdad. Huseiniya's own inhabitants did not know the names of their own streets. Amid sewage- and waste-filled unpaved roads, where half-naked toddlers played, I finally found Aliya's modest house. Her husband, Sadiq Naji Muhamad, was a tailor in Baghdad. They had four children. Sadiq had been a prisoner of war in Iran for nine years. He told me that Shia prisoners were singled out for special punishment by the Iranian guards who viewed them as traitors fighting for Sunnis. He was held in the Hashmetiya prison in Tehran where he saw many fellow prisoners killed or tortured.

As an unrelated male I could not meet Aliya; I could only catch a glimpse of her silhouette or the end of her dress, hear her voice as she spoke with her husband and hear her moving about in the kitchen. Sadiq related their shared story. She was a fortuneteller, psychic and traditional healer. Many Iraqi Shias believe that descendents of the prophet Muhammad, such as Aliya, can treat the spirit using the Quran. Aliya was one such descendant. She treated spiritual ailments such as depression. If a woman is expelled from her husband's family's home Aliya could treat her and she would be taken back. If a dog attacked a child she opened and closed the Quran three times in the child's face in order to cure it. She could cure women who were not wanted as wives. She placed special stones in front of the afflicted woman's house and washed her, reading from the Quran and the sayings of Imam Ali, Muhamad's nephew and a key figure for Shias; this helped the woman find a husband. Sadiq proudly related that Aliya could not read or write but despite that she could know everything about a person by looking at their face.

When she was a child Aliya's legs were paralyzed. Her family took her to a Shia shrine near Hilla since no doctor could treat her. Sadiq explained that at the shrine she was able to stand on her own feet and walk and since then she had special powers. "There are two types of magic," Sadiq said, "the devil's magic, practiced by some sects in Iraq, but which is against the Quran, and merciful magic, which can combat the devil's magic and which she practiced. The book on magic is called the talasim."

Aliya was paid for her services, but it was very little. This traditional healing is very common in Iraq and since every woman in the neighborhood knew about her (she only treated women), her abilities spread through word of mouth. Sadiq maintained that most women in his wife's field were also security agents or collaborators. The security service wanted Aliya to work with them because she had access to every woman in the city and could discover the secrets of each home, such as who was against Saddam and who was involved in illegal political activity. She refused to be an agent, so they accused her of having an anti-Saddam political group in her home. Sadiq said that the mayor was a security agent and Baath Party official.

On Aug. 10, 2002, Aliya was arrested by the Iraqi security forces led by an officer named Bahar. She was found guilty of witchcraft and spent two months in jail. The order to arrest her came from the national security directorate. The documents said she was released due to her husband's request. He wrote a letter to the security service that she had only been using special spiritual techniques to cure ailments of the soul, and only for women, using the Quran and only in the neighborhood or to female relatives. He asked for another chance, promising that she would never do it again. He also mentioned that he was a POW in Iran and he chose to return to Iraq, unlike other Shias who joined Iranian-sponsored anti-Saddam militias.

Although Aliya was sentenced to six months she was released after 70 days from the Rashas women's prison (she was transferred from the al Rusufa prison) in a general amnesty. When she was arrested Sadiq followed the police to inquire why but they pushed him away and ordered him to leave. Aliya was beaten in the police station.

Sadiq was still bitter. "She is a good wife and they put her in the same prison with prostitutes," he said. "She was so traumatized she has ceased performing her magic since."

After her release Aliya went to the tomb of Abbas, an important Shia shrine, and said, "If I am really your relative prove it by destroying Saddam and all his men within a year." Six months later his government fell. Sadiq explained that "God answered the prayers of those who had suffered."

Thinking back on these notes, which remained in my notebooks for years, takes me back to the question I started with. Was it all worth it? Was it better to leave Saddam in power? Are Iraqis better or worse off than they were before the American war?

I never know what to say when asked this question. How do you compare different kinds of terror?

Those spared Saddam's prisons and executioners may be better off, though they have not been spared the American prisons, or attacks, or the resistance's bombs, or the death squads of the civil war. The Kurds are certainly better off, on their way to independence, benefiting from their relative stability and improved economy. The rest of Iraq? In many ways, things are worse. Under Saddam the violence came from one source, the regime. Now it has been democratically distributed. Death can come from anywhere, at all times, no matter who you are. You can be killed for crossing the street, for going to the market, for driving your car, for having the wrong name, for being in your house, for being a Sunni, for being a Shia, for being a woman. The American military can kill you in an operation, you can be arrested by militias and disappear in Iraq's new secret prisons, now run by Shias, or you can be kidnapped by the resistance, or by criminal gangs.

Americans cannot simply observe the horror of Iraq and shake their heads in wonder, as if it were Rwanda and they had no role. America is responsible for the new chaos in Iraq, which began following the invasion and the botched and brutal occupation. Iraq's people continue to suffer under the American occupation and civil war, just as they did under the American-imposed sanctions and bombings before the war, and just as they did under the years of dictatorship. Once more they are mere victims of powers they cannot control. Saddam is out and the Americans are in, but Iraq is still a republic of fear.

[Bman]

The Guardian (London)

January 4, 2007 Thursday

A drop into the abyss: Saddam jailed me but his hanging was a crime. Iraq's misery is now far worse than under his rule

Haifa Zangana



At 3.30am last Saturday, I was abruptly woken by the phone ringing. My heart sank. By the time I reached the phone, I was already imagining bodies of relatives and friends, killed and mutilated.

It was 6.30am in Baghdad and I thought of the last time I spoke to my sister. She was on the roof of her house trying to get a better signal on her mobile phone, but had to end the call as an American helicopter started hovering above. Iraqis know it is within the US "rules of engagement" to shoot at them when using mobiles, and that US troops enjoy impunity whatever they do. But the call was from a Turkish TV station asking for comments on Saddam's execution. I drew a deep sigh of relief, not for the execution, but because I did not know personally anyone killed that day.

Death is now so commonplace in Iraq that we end up ranking it in these personal terms. Last month, I attended the a'azas (remembrance events) of three people whose work I highly respected. One was for Dr Essam al-Rawi, head of the university professors' union who documented the assassination of academics. A week before his killing his office at Baghdad University had been ransacked and documents confiscated by US troops. The others were for Dr Ali Hussain Mukhif, an academic and literary critic, and Saad Shlash, professor of journalism in Baghdad University and editor of the weekly journal Rayet Al Arab, who insisted on resisting occupation peacefully - offering writers, including myself, a space to criticise the occupation and its crimes, despite all the risks involved.

About 500 academics and 92 journalists have been murdered since the invasion of Iraq. Hundreds more have been kidnapped, and many others have fled the country after receiving threats against their lives. The human costs are so high that many Iraqis believe that had there been a competition between Saddam's regime and the Bush-Blair occupation over the killing of Iraqi minds and culture, the latter would win by far. Sadly, I am becoming one of them.

I am speaking as one who has been, from the start, a politically active opponent of the Ba'ath regime's ideology and Saddam Hussain's dictatorship. At times that was at the high personal cost of prison and torture. In 1984, during the Iran-Iraq war, my family had to pay for the bullets used to execute my cousin Fouad Al Azzawi before being allowed to collect his body. But I find myself agreeing with many Iraqis, that life now is not just the continuity of misery and death under new guises. It is much, much worse - even without the extra dimensions of pillage, corruption and the total ruin of the infrastructure.

Every day brings with it, due to the presence of occupation troops to protect US citizens' safety and security, less safety and security for Iraqis.

The timing and method of the execution of Saddam Hussein proves that the US administration is still criminally high on the cocktail of power, arrogance, and ignorance. But above all racism: what is good for us is not good for you. We are patriots but you are terrorists.

The US and their Iraqi puppets in the green zone chose to execute Saddam on the first day of Eid al-Adha, the feast of the sacrifice. This is the most joyous day in the Muslim calendar when more than 2 million pilgrims in Mecca start their ancient rituals, with hundreds of millions of others around the world focused on the events. They then further humiliated Muslims by releasing the official video of the execution, with the 69-year-old having a noose placed around his neck and being led to the drop. The unofficial recording shows Saddam looking calm and composed, and even managing a sarcastic smile, asking the thugs who taunted him " hiya hiy al marjala? " ("is this your manliness?"), a powerful phrase in Arabic popular culture connecting manliness to acts of courage, pride and chivalry. He also managed to repeatedly say the Muslim creed as he was dying, thus attaching himself in the last few seconds of his life to one billion Muslims. Saddam had literally the final say. From now on, no Eid will pass without people remembering his execution.

This was the climax of a colonial farce with the court proceedings' blatant sectarian overtones welcomed by Bush and the British government as a "fair trial". The occupation also welcomed the grotesque public execution as "justice being done". Contrast this with the end of our hopes, as Iraqis in opposition, of persuading our people of the humanity of democracy and how it would, unlike Saddam's brutality, put an end to all abuses of human rights, to execution in public, and to the death penalty.

It is no good the deputy prime minister John Prescott now condemning the manner of Saddam's execution as "deplorable" when, as a representative of one of the two main occupying powers, his government is both legally and morally responsible for what took place.

It is hell in Iraq by all standards, and there is no end in sight to the plight of Iraqi people. The resistance to occupation is a basic human right as well as a moral responsibility. That was the case during the Algerian war of independence, the Vietnamese war of independence, and it is the case in Iraq now.

Haifa Zangana is an Iraqi-born novelist and former prisoner of Saddam's regime haifa-zangana@yahoo.co.uk