Debate
Free World: The book
Latest
Commentary
Suggested Websites
Timothy Garton Ash
Iraq!
Iraq has become one of the defining subjects of our time, like Bosnia, Vietnam or Suez. There are two questions, really. Was it right to go in like that? And, quite separately, what should we do about it now? See TGA's Guardian columns on the subject. |
 |
Debate - Page 2/3
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> Well, Michel, there's no question that you are well-informed about
some things. But claiming that you "taught me the basics of my own
country's political system and constitution on this very much" is
assuming a bit too much credit on your part for something you didn't actually
do. I was and still am quite familiar with the US political system and
constitution. And contrary to one of your comments, the US Congress previously
has rewritten US Supreme Court decisions and likely will do so again,
too. I'd be happy to supply the evidence (something I think I generally
do), but a Google search turned up far too many hits for me to parse through
individually, so I'll have to get back to you on that.
Well, I´d be interested to see that. What might happen is that congress
amends or changes laws due to Supreme Court jurisprudence, or it might
even restrict the jurisdiction of the court in certain ways (which it
has done for the question of whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction
over appelate decisions, for example), but it definitely doesn´t
rewrite, amend or overrule supreme court decisions. On the contrary, the
Supreme Court has the power to strike down laws passed by congress if
those laws exceed congress´ constitutional powers (see Marbury vs
Madison, 1803; a Google search should turn up a transscript or an outline
of that decision). That, incidentally, is the reason for the political
importance of the president´s appointments to the supreme court
and for the fuss those appointments have been raising in the Senate (who
has to confirm the appointments by majority vote). Supreme Court judges
hold their office for life (well, during "good behaviour", as
the constitution states; effectively that means they´d have to be
impeached, just like a president would have to be, so you really have
to mess up badly to get ousted from the court; happened only once in the
House of Reps, afaik, and even then the senate failed to confirm the impeachment),
their jurisprudence has a huge impact on the american legal system and
more than once did they "make or break" a law passed by congress
or by state legislators through their jurisprudence. Small wonder the
appointments to the Supreme Court are such a hot topic in american politics.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
FOUNDER OF IRAQ ANTI-WAR GROUP CHANGES MIND
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1498194,00.html
FAMILIES' LIVES MEASURE PACE OF PROGRESS IN IRAQ
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-16-iraq-now-cover_x.htm
So much for the "Oh, you Americans gave Saddam Hussein
the chemical weapons , so it's 'your' fault for what he did with them"
rubbish.....
DUTCHMAN TRIED FOR SELLING SADDAM CHEMICALS
PROSECUTOR ARGUES HE KNEW THEY'D BE USED AGAINST PEOPLE
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7230658/
Mark W Staples, Montana, USA
I read these above comments and wonder where the humanity in a few of them has gone, especially those who claim to be American citizens. If another nation's people had attacked the United States even a dozen dead would have sent us into an outright rage. The point of the whole "attack" on Iraq is that Bush and his spineless followers beleive they have a right to oil whereever it comes from. We can list every violation of our constitution by "Mr" Bush, most all in my opinion would be impeachable offenses. But here in the States we have become numb to the lies our government leaders spew constantly. There has always been "A state of emergency" (as most of the presidents since Lincoln would have us beleive) that they say justifies their agendas. We all know this is horse cr__, Iraq could hardly be called an "emergency" even by the most paranoid point of view. We all know there was more to 9/11 than the government of the United States would have us know. So using that as an excuse for George III to stomp on another country and kill even one of it's people in "Zane Grey" fashion is just another set of lies perpetrated by George III's money grubbing, war mongering agenda. Democracy would be fine if only it was practiced by those who preach it, forcing the U.S.'s present, twisted version of "Democracy" on other nations by killing their people is nothing short of a lie. I am sure that those who support the "patriot Act" here in the states would consider me some sort of terrorist sympathiser, the fact is I have always been proud to be an American, but not when it means being associated with the Liars, theives and murderers we have representing our country these days. While Bush is trampling rights of those in other countries he also tramples those of the people whom he has sworn to defend. Not to worry too long, all dictators fall...eventually, history doesn't need a "body count" God sees it all.
Mark W Staples, Montana, USA
Having been an American citizen all my life, working hard
and having been taxed unresonably, having received the unjust treatment
of U.S. "authorities" destroy my family, having watched as so
many others' lives and rights are trampled for the benefit of a dishonest
government I can only respond to this question in one way, NO, it wasn't
right for Bush to send even one troop into Iraq, NO it wasn't right for
Bush to think he and his croneys can impose "Democracy on any people,
NO our people don't belong in other countries when there are so many injustices
commited here on our soil by the same administration. Democracy is not
something that can be forced on anyone, it is best encouraged by example.
but the example that has been shown by the U.S. Government and it's military
since the time of Abraham Lincoln is pathetic at best. Our original constitution
as it was written by the founding fathers of this country has been twisted
to suit those in power, influenced by greed and arrogance. King George
III was the reasom the declaratioon of independance was written, now we
have King George IV. We cannot rightfully backtrack and just pull our
people out of Iraq without leaving a mess, but it seems our administration
can only do so.
All we can do is learn from experiences, it is a shame though that those
who come to power in the U.S. fail to learn from our past. In this instance
I say big business needs to get it's paws out of our lives. It has ruined
this country, I hate to say it but look out all you other countries, the
Piper (U.S. Big Business) is coming to town and he surely demands to be
paid!! with blood or money.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mark W Staples in Montana, USA wrote: "I read these
above comments and wonder where the humanity in a few of them has gone,
especially those who claim to be American citizens."
|
Personally, I wonder where the humanity in you went when Saddam Hussein
and his minions were busily murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Or perhaps it's your view that "their lives don't count".
|
Mark W Staples in Montana, USA wrote: "We all know there was more
to 9/11 than the government of the United States would have us know."
|
Do we, now? What, pray tell, do we all supposedly "know" with
regard to 9/11 that is more than what the government of the United States
would have us "know"? What do you personally supposedly "know"?
And do you have any 'evidence' to present of this? What is the latest
paranoid nonsensical claim about "what really happened on 9/11 that
the U.S. government doesn't want us to know"? That there were supposedly
"bombs hidden in the WTC walls"? That Bin-Laden was supposedly
"following orders from the CIA"? That "3,000 Jews"
supposedly "left the WTC early that morning because they'knew' the
attack was coming"?
|
Sounds to me like more rubbish from the Michael Moore/Oliver Stone Socialist
Cadre. (In that case, it's "Moore" rubbish).
Mike, London
Phil-
Iraq was not invaded to end human rights abuses, it was (sold to us as
being) invaded over a supposed military threat (weapons of mass destruction).
To justify the invasion on the basis of saving the Iraqi people from their
dictator opens the obvious question of why the USA (and those who stood
with them) believed the lives of Iraqi Kurds, who chiefly suffered in
the 80's (that is, the much-quoted atrocities against them were committed
largely in the 80's), were more important than the lives of thousands
of people currently being murdered in other countries as you read this-
i.e. if we have developed an acute conscience over human rights abuses
in foreign countries, why was Iraq favoured for intervention over all
the other countries in which people are presently suffering worse abuses?
To justify the invasion of Iraq by portraying our governments as some
kind of white-knight saviours is to work backwards in our logic- to create
the justification for the action after it has already been taken. I'm
getting irritated by the assertion that anyone who disagreed with invading
Iraq must tacitly agree with the human rights abuses that were going on
there. Yes, there was a problem but just because bombing is the only solution
you can think of, it doesn't make it the right one. Sometimes the treatment
is worse than the disease.
THE REAL WORLD IS NOT MADE UP OF 'GOOD GUYS' AND 'BAD GUYS', much as the
rhetoric of the pro-war crew wants us to believe it is.
Please just come clean: the US government (in fact any government- don't
feel I'm just having a go at the Americans out of prejudice- it's just
the Americans are the main players in this) does not, and never has, have
such an altruistic interest in the welfare of people in other countries
to the extent that they are prepared to spend billions and billions of
dollars to protect them. For example, pumping in billions of dollars into
a famine-struck region in Africa is going to save far more lives and suffering
than invading a country like Iraq ever could, with much less violence,
suffering and political tension in store for the future. If saving the
lives of innocents is your business, invading Iraq was a spectacularly
innefficient way to go about it. Therefore, the argument from altruism
simply does not stand up.
[To pre-empt you Phil: PLEASE don't try and drag WWII into this- it was
60 years ago, and it's simply not relevant- except maybe to the extent
that Hitler justified invading the Czechoslovakia on the grounds it was
a threat]
John Phelan, United Kingdom
When the US was attacked on September 11th, I, like most
people, believed that something had to be done to tackle militant Islamic
terrorism. To this end I supported the war in Afghanistan, the toppling
of the Taliban and the offensive against Al Quaeda. This was the War Against
Terror which demanded our full support and attention.
Thus, it seemed stupid to me when it became clear that the US was going
to attack Iraq. The September 11th hijackers weren‚t Iraqi but mostly
Saudi. Also they were Islamic zealots who regarded Saddam Hussein‚s
secular Baath regime with only slightly less disgust than the ŒZionist/Crusader
alliance‚. To my mind, working on the old Kissingeresque cold war
idea of containment, I thought we should go back to the relationship we
had with Saddam in 1988, when he was our strong man in the area, a secular
bulwark against Saudi Arabia and Iran. Don‚t bomb him, get him on
side. I marched against the war.
But then I read Jason Burke‚s excellent book ŒAl Quaeda‚
and I thought again. Bin Laden, Atta and the rest of the hijackers were
educated men; indeed, the Hamburg Cell came together in a student community.
Furthermore, they were science students as was Ramzi Yousef who attacked
the World Trade Center in 1993. Why had these men turned their backs on
the scientific rationalism of their studies and slaughtered 3,000 strangers
in unimaginable horror?
What struck me this time was the parallels with the Bolsheviks in Tsarist
Russia. Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev were great minds, in Britain
they may have gone into the civil service and reformed a part of India.
Instead their intellects were stifled and twisted towards revolution.
Reading Burke‚s book I realised that people such as Bin Laden, Atta
and Yousef were similarly denied any prospect of advancement under the
stultifying despots who rule the Arab world. Yasser Arafat was an old
gangster, the House of Saud is sickeningly indulgent, the rotten Assad
government in Syria is a deadening hereditary dictatorship, the theocrats
of Iran summarily ban reformist candidates from sitting in elections and
Mubarak in Egypt makes only the faintest sops to democracy. These leaders,
from Assad to the Ayatollah and Egyptian to Emir dole out jobs as patronage,
rewards for toeing their line.
I have come to believe that without American intervention in the region,
the Arab world will continue to spew out disaffected young men, with so
little to live for that if they have to crash a jet into a skyscraper
to get their hands on 72 virgins, they‚ll do it. To recall Rumsfeld‚s
phrase, Œdraining the swamp‚. The Arab countries need to be
reformed on broadly liberal democratic, capitalistic principles which
will allow educated young men to become structural engineers rather than
suicide bombers. To that end, I now believe the Allied invasion of Iraq
was right.
But of the young stone throwers of Bethlehem and Ramallah, very few have
a Masters in Advanced Chemical Engineering. They are angry young men existing
without jobs or that most basic human right, the right to life. Much of
the blame can be laid at the door of Arab leaders; when Arafat was offered
the chance of a viable Palestinian state, he chose instead to churn out
fake money in his basement. But if America is to lance the boil of Arab
resentment, it must also do much work regarding Israel and Palestine,
but that‚s another discussion.
John Phelan, United Kingdom
Phil Karasick says that "what is happening to the
"hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza" is exactly what
those so-called "Palestinians" deserve". He also rhapshodises
about the 1,000 year struggle for the return to the Jewish homeland.
A lot can happen in 1,000 years. For example, my great grandmother swore
blind until the day she died that my family owned the land upon which
Stormont Castle in Ulster is built. Does that mean that I should go round
and tell Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley to pack up and ship out?
The Jewish homeland should have been Europe and wherever else the Jews
ended up. However, Europe failed in this duty with the unspeakable horror
of the gas chambers being the ultimate result.
But was it right that in 1947 the Arabs should be asked to pay the price
of Europe‚s bruised conscience? The plain fact is that the creation
of the modern state of Israel was unfair and immoral. Wouldn‚t it
have been fairer to clear Germans from their land rather than Arabs from
theirs?
But just as the Protestant descendants of the plantation in Ulster cannot
be asked move to create a Catholic utopia; neither should the Jews be
forced to move now. Israel‚s existence has to be accepted as a fact
that can‚t be changed. This does not, however, mean that the Palestinians
should be left to fester on the few slivers of land the Israeli‚s
decide to give them.
The imperative for Israel here is obvious. Like the western Europeans,
Israeli Jews do not breed enough, and like western Europeans, they will
soon find a labour shortage in their economy and welfare provision which
can only be made good by young, reproductive, tax paying immigrants. The
vast majority of Jews leaving the old Soviet Republics have chosen to
settle in Germany rather than Israel. Like the Ulster Protestants and
the native Dutch, demographics are against Israel.
So peace can only be achieved on an equitable basis. Like the crusader
kingdom of Outremer, Israel will only survive for as long as its overseas
benefactor is bothered to protect it. Thus, the United States has an unrivalled
opportunity. The Arabs can no longer play the US off against the Soviet
Union so the US should step in and say quite clearly to Israel, that they
should withdraw to the pre 1967 borders and dismantle all settlements
in Palestinian territory. But, like Taiwan, these borders should be red
lines with the US is prepared to defend at all costs. This should be made
explicitly clear to the Palestinians who should be rewarded for good behaviour
with the sort of reconstructive aid Iraq is currently receiving.
This may buy Israel time, but in the long run, if Israelis don‚t
suddenly get frisky, we can anticipate a future of old Jewish pensioners
being supported by young Palestinian taxpayers.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mike in London -
Whether Iraq was invaded to end human rights abuses, or for other reasons
(the direct threat, or the potential threat, of WMDs) is utterly irrelevent
as far as I am concerned. What matters to me are results. And the results
of our Liberation of Iraq is that a murderous tyrant, Saddam Hussein,
has been deposed and now sits in jail awaiting trial for his many crimes
against humanity. The saving of the Iraqi people -- ALL of them, Shi'ites,
Kurds, Turkmen, dissidents - from the dictator who terrorized and maurdered
them does justify the invasion in and of itself. It's a good-enough reason.
If anything, we should have done it 14 years ago, back in 1991 when our
troops were already "in the neighborhood". Had we done so, tens
of thoussands of Kurds and others would still be alive.
|
The lives of the Kurds were and are more important than than "the
lives of thousands of people currently being murdered in other countries
as you read this" (exactly who you're referring to isn't clear, and
you provided no examples) because we in the West already let down the
Kurds once already and stood back and allowed them to be slaughtered by
Saddam Hussein's forces when we should have helped them forcibly overthrow
Saddam Hussein. We owe the Kurds our assistance because of that. If you
believe that people in other countries "are presently suffering worse
abuses", a claim that is highly debatable (what could possibly be
a "worse abuse" than being tortured , murdered and thrown into
a mass grave? Once your life has been stolen from you, what could possibly
be worse or more heinous? What more could someone do that is worse?),
then post their names and their country. Perhaps they will be the next
to be Liberated by U.S. forces. Theb naivety of your argument rests on
the silly idea that we in America somehow "must" either simultaneously
liberate "all" countries where people are oppressed by dictatorships,
or else we are ":not allowed" to liberate "any" of
them because we are somehow "required" to be "morally consistent".
No, we're not. We can liberate one country at a time if we so choose.
Today it is Iraq that is being Liberated. Tomorrow it might be Myanmar.
But somebody clearly has to be First.
|
Mike in London, you wrote: "I'm getting irritated by the assertion
that anyone who disagreed with invading Iraq must tacitly agree with the
human rights abuses that were going on there.". I'm getting irritated
by the assertion that you can "disagree" with the human rights
abuses (mass murders) that took place in Iraq under Saddam Hussein without
actually "doing anything" to stop those same abuses. Your supposed
"disagreement" with Saddam's actions clearly did not and still
does not extend to actually "doing anything" to stop those horrific
abuses.
|
Mike in London, you also wrote: "Yes, there was a problem but just
because bombing is the only solution you can think of, it doesn't make
it the right one. Sometimes the treatment is worse than the disease."
So, that is how you refer to the spectacle of tens of thousands of Iraqi
Kurds and Shui'ites having been murdered and thrown into mass graves -
a "problem"? How would you describe the Holocaust and Hitler's
forces mass-murdering millions - a "disagreeable nuisance"?
If you can think of some other solution besides bombing and invasion,
I am very eager to hear what it is. Saddam needed to go. He wouldn't go
voluntarily. You were not willing to use force to "make" him
go. Therefore, he will not go. What exactly do you propose as an alternative
-- shouting "Scotty, lock onto Saddam's coordinates and beam him
to the brig"? Sometimes the treatment is horrific but is still better
than the disease.
|
THE REAL WORLD IS MADE UP OF 'GOOD GUYS' AND 'BAD GUYS'. Saddam was most
definitely a 'BAD GUY'. He needed to go. And any means that removed him
from power are fine with me.
|
As for your claim that "the US government does not, and never has,
have such an altruistic interest in the welfare of people in other countries
to the extent that they are prepared to spend billions and billions of
dollars to protect them" -- perhaps you will explain, then, why U.S.
taxpayers ponied up billions of dollars to fund the Marshall Plan which
was responsible for a major portion of the rebuilding of Western Europe
following the second devastating war on the European continent in one
century? And perhaps you will explain why U.S. servicemen stood guard
for 50+ years at posts in Western Europe to defend often-derisive and
hostile Western Europeans against a threatened Soviet invasion, an invasion
that was largely deterred by Western vigilance and thankfully never came?
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
IRAQI PAPERS DETAIL EFFORTS TO BUY FAVORS
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 13, 2005; Page A18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201854.html?nav%3Dhcmodule&sub=AR
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
John Phelan in the United Kingdom writes: "Phil Karasick
says that "what is happening to the "hundreds of thousands of
Palestinians in Gaza" is exactly what those so-called "Palestinians"
deserve". He also rhapshodises about the 1,000 year struggle for
the return to the Jewish homeland. A lot can happen in 1,000 years. For
example, my great grandmother swore blind until the day she died that
my family owned the land upon which Stormont Castle in Ulster is built.
Does that mean that I should go round and tell Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley
to pack up and ship out?"
|
Well, John, I see it this way: If members of your family originally came
from that land and that territory, if your family continuously occupied
the land upon which Stormont Castle in Ulster was built, if they never
voluntarily left or walked away from that land, if they never voluntarily
surrendered your family's claim on that land, then Yes, you certainly
should go round and tell Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley to pack up and ship
out.
|
Alternately, since your family no longer homesteads that land and no longer
has an ongoing claim on that land, and since you don't live there, then
I suggest that you sue to be fairly compensated for the value of the property
that was taken from you. That's the most appropriate way to address the
issue, in my view. It's no different, in my opinion, than suing a government
to force it to pay proper compensation in the event that the government
'takes'land using its power of eminent domain.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
John Phelan in the UK wrote the following:
|
"The Jewish homeland should have been Europe and wherever else the
Jews ended up. However, Europe failed in this duty with the unspeakable
horror of the gas chambers being the ultimate result. But was it right
that in 1947 the Arabs should be asked to pay the price of Europe∫s
bruised conscience? The plain fact is that the creation of the modern
state of Israel was unfair and immoral. Wouldn∫t it have been fairer
to clear Germans from their land rather than Arabs from theirs?"
|
I'd like to comment on the issues which you raised, Mr. Phelan. I have
some basic and fundamental disagreements with your interpretation of History,
and with the manner in which you describe my comments. To begin with,
you are misinterpreting my position and twisting my comments to suit your
own purposes, and I have a problem with that. You are claiming that my
belief is that because Jews had their own State of Israel 1,000 years
ago, that this somehow means that they should have that State again, in
complete ignorance of all that has happened in the last 1,000 years. In
fact, I said nothing of the sort.
|
The Jewish physical and spiritual homeland should have been, and again
is, exactly where it has always been -- in Jerusalem, in the Holy Land,
not "Europe and wherever else the Jews ended up". Jews are not
"recent newcomers" to the Middle East or the Holy Land. In fact,
Jews have lived in that part of the world for in excess of 2,000+ years.
Their presence there predates the very dawn of recorded History and civilization,
predates the existence of Christianity, predates the very existence of
Islam. In fact, the Jewish presence in the Holy Land was responsible for
the very birth of Christianity, in that Jesus of Nazareth himself is known
to have been born a practicing Jew who celebrated Passover before his
death.
|
Jews also are not "recent returnees" to the Holy Land after
a 1,000 year absence". Jews never left the Holy Land; they have always
been there. The Jewish presence in the Holy Land is a continual presence,
and has been continual for over 2,000 years. The size of that Jewish presence
has waxed and waned over the centuries, but that presence is a constant.
It has always been there. And they have a Right to be there.
|
John Phelan asks: "But was it right that in 1947 the Arabs should
be asked to pay the price of Europe's bruised conscience?" Mr. Phelan's
question is a rhetorical one, and one that seems designed not to Enlighten,
but rather to Deceive. Starting from a false premise, Mr. Phelan unsurprisingly
proceeds to reach a false conclusion.
|
In reality, Arabs were never asked to pay any such "price" in
the first place. This is because Israel's rebirth was never the result
of any kneejerk European reaction to having a "bruised conscience".
In fact, the rebirth of Israel in 1948 represented the fulfillment of
a deliberate and long-known and publicly stated British policy that had
publicly existed since 1917.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
I'm very concerned that John Phelan, deliberately or otherwise,
has misstated the historical facts and realities that led to the creation
and rebirth of the State of Israel. Therefore, I'd like to set the record
straight as to the true circumstances that led to today's Middle East
realities vis-a-vis the Arab/Israeli conflict. Please bear with my posts,
as I am attempting to cover a lot of ground and history, and to simultaneously
be succinct but thorough and accurate.
|
Britain, in possession of the Suez Canal and playing a dominant role in
India and Egypt on the eve of World War I, attached great strategic importance
to the region. British Middle East policy, however, espoused conflicting
objectives, and as a result London became involved in contradictory negotiations
concerning the fate of the region, making promises to both the Arabs and
to the Jews as well as entering into a secret arrangement (the Sykes-Picot
Agreement) with the French.
|
The British pledge that formally committed the British to the Zionist
cause, was the Balfour Declaration of November 1917, an instrument created
after the Husayn-McMahon Correspondence and the Sykes-Picot Agreement.
This document declared the British government's "sympathy with Jewish
Zionist aspirations," viewed with favor "the establishment in
Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish People," and announced
an intent to facilitate the achievement of this objective. The letter
added the provision of "it being clearly understood that nothing
shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing
non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status
enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
|
As a result of World War I the Arabs eventually got direct or indirect
control of every country in the Middle East and the southern rim of the
Mediterranean except for Israel, by far the smallest territory. The Jews
got a promise for the future, one they ultimately had to redeem themselves.
|
Following the end of World War I, representatives of Great Britain, France,
Italy, Japan, Greece, and Belgium met at San Remo, Italy, in April 1920,
to discuss methods of executing the Treaty of Versailles. Members of the
supreme council of the Allies took leading parts. The basic features of
a peace treaty with Turkey (the Treaty of Sèvres) were adopted,
and mandates in the Middle East were allotted.
|
In the case of Palestine, the administrative control, in the form of a
Mandate, was given to the British. By naming this territory the "British
Mandate for Palestine" the area that is today Israel and Jordan became
the first and only geographic division with the name Palestine since before
the Ottoman Empire controlled the area (beginning in 1517). In July 1920
the Mandate civil administration took over from the military. For the
first time since Crusader days Jerusalem was again a capital city.
|
The terms of the British Mandate incorporated the language of the Balfour
Declaration and were approved by the League of Nations Council on July
24, 1922, although they were technically not official until September
29, 1923. The United States was not a member of the League of Nations,
but a joint resolution of the United States Congress on June 30, 1922,
endorsed the concept of the Jewish National Home.
|
Like the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate recognized the "historical
connection of the Jewish people with Palestine," called upon the
mandatory power to "secure establishment of the Jewish National Home,"
with "an appropriate Jewish agency" to be set up for advice
and cooperation to that end. The World Zionist Organization, which was
specifically recognized as the appropriate vehicle, formally established
the Jewish Agency in 1929. Jewish immigration was to be facilitated, while
ensuring that the "rights and position of other sections of the population
are not prejudiced." English, Arabic, and Hebrew were all to be official
languages.
|
British commitment to the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine,
dating back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, was weakened over the course
of the British Mandate period and ruptured in 1939 by the MacDonald White
Paper. The 1939 White Paper had its intended effect, quieting Arab opinion,
but its provisions prevented the free settlement of Holocaust refugees,
a fact that enraged the Zionists. Still the menace of Hitler as the common
enemy, kept British-Jewish differences on the back burner.
|
During the Second World War, the Arabs took the side of the Axis, either
overtly like Iraq or indirectly by withholding support for the Allies.
Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini issued a fatwa- "summons to a holy
war against Britain" in May 1941. The Mufti's widely heralded proclamation
against Britain was declared in Iraq, where he was instrumental in "the
pro-Nazi" Iraqi revolt of 1941.
|
In the 1930s, the fascist regimes that arose in Italy and Germany sought
greater stakes in the Middle East, and began courting Arab leaders to
revolt against their British and French custodians. Among their many willing
accomplices was Jerusalem Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini, who fled Palestine
after agitating against the British during the Arab Revolt of 1936-39.
He found refuge in Iraq ˆ another British mandate ˆ where he
again topped the British most wanted list after helping pull the strings
behind the Iraqi coup of 1941. The revolt in Baghdad was orchestrated
by Hitler as part of a strategy to squeeze the region between the pincers
of Rommel's troops in North Africa, German forces in the Caucuses and
pro-Nazi forces in Iraq. However, in June 1941 British troops put down
the rebellion and the Mufti escaped via Tehran to Italy and eventually
to Berlin.
|
Once in Berlin, the Mufti received an enthusiastic reception by the "Islamische
Zentralinstitut" and the whole Islamic community of Germany, which
welcomed him as the "Führer of the Arabic world." In an
introductory speech, he called the Jews the "most fierce enemies
of the Muslims" and an "ever corruptive element" in the
world.
|
Husseini soon became an honored guest of the Nazi leadership and met on
several occasions with Hitler. He personally lobbied the Führer against
the plan to let Jews leave Hungary, fearing they would immigrate to Palestine.
He also strongly intervened when Adolf Eichman tried to cut a deal with
the British government to exchange German POWs for 5000 Jewish children
who also could have fled to Palestine. The Mufti's protests with the SS
were successful, as the children were sent to death camps in Poland instead.
One German officer noted in his journals that the Mufti would liked to
have seen the Jews "preferably all killed." On a visit to Auschwitz,
he reportedly admonished the guards running the gas chambers to work more
diligently. Throughout the war, he appeared regularly on German radio
broadcasts to the Middle East, preaching his pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic message
to the Arab masses back home.
|
With the end of World War II the British elected the Labour Party government
of Prime Minister Clement Atlee and his foreign minister, Ernest Bevin.
Caught between Arab and Jewish demands and short on funds, the Attlee
government of Great Britain in February 1947 declared its Mandate in Palestine
"unworkable" and referred the matter to the youthful UN. That
body, with a surprising show of agreement between blocs, created a special
committee of eleven member states to study the issues and report its recommendations.
The UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) was the first truly independent
tribunal to examine the Palestine question. UNSCOP's majority concluded
that the League of Nations pledge of a Jewish national home had never
been fulfilled, as Jewish immigration and land purchases had been artificially
restricted by the British Mandate authorities.
|
On November 29, 1947, the U.N. General Assembly by a two-thirds vote (33
to 13 with Britain and nine others abstaining) passed Resolution 181 partitioning
Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The Jewish community
of Palestine jubilantly accepted partition despite the small size and
strategic vulnerability of the proposed state. Not only were Judea, Samaria
and the Gaza Strip not included, but also Jerusalem, most of the Galilee
in the North and parts of the Negev desert in the South were excluded.
The Arab national movement in Palestine, as well as all the Arab states,
angrily rejected partition. They demanded the entire country for themselves
and threatened to resist partition by force. Had they accepted the U.N.
proposal in 1947, the independent Palestinian Arab state, covering an
area much larger than the West Bank and Gaza, would have been created
along with Israel. Instead, they launched a war to destroy the nascent
Jewish state.
|
On January 29, 1949, Britain recognized the State of Israel, a step that
also recognized the end of British efforts to affect the course of the
region‚s politics.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
John Phelan in the UK wrote: "The plain fact is that
the creation of the modern state of Israel was unfair and immoral. Wouldn't
it have been fairer to clear Germans from their land rather than Arabs
from theirs?".
|
With all due respect, very seldom have I ever seen or witnessed a statement
expressed that was so breathtaking in its ignorance.
|
To begin with, with a very few specific and tragic exceptions, Arabs were
never "cleared from their lands" to create the State of Israel.
As is made abundantly clear in "Why did Arabs leave the new State
of Israel?":
|
"The vexing question of the "Palestinian Refugees" is one
of the perennial open sores of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian
Arabs. The Palestinians left their homes in 1947-48 for a variety of reasons.
Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more
responded to Arab leaders' calls to get out of the way of the advancing
armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught
in the cross fire of a battle. Tragically, had the Arabs accepted the
1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee
and an independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel.
|
There are now claims from Arab sources that millions of Palestinians were
pushed off their land by the Zionists, then expelled by the new State
of Israel in the War of Independence in 1948, followed by similar Israeli
policies that continue today. What is the truth of these claims?
|
The Palestinian tragedy is primarily self-inflicted, a direct result of
the vehement Palestinian Arab rejection of the United Nations resolution
of November 29, 1947 calling for the establishment of two states in Palestine,
and the violent attempt by the Arab nations of the region to abort the
Jewish state at birth. Palestinian Arabs have tried to rewrite the history
of the 1948 war in a manner that stains Israel politically and morally.
Their objective is to 1) extract from Israel a confession of the allegedly
forcible dispossession of "native Palestinians" by "an
act of expulsion," and then 2) to ensure the return of refugees to
parts of the territory that is now Israel and/or to compensate the Palestinian
Arabs monetarily for their sufferings.
|
But this cannot actually happen, however fervently Arabs may believe in
it, because historical fact is not what they claim. Arabs left Israel
in 1948 in large numbers, it is true, but not for the reasons that Palestinian
Arabs put forth. Fortunately for history, during the past decade Israeli
and other state archives have declassified millions of records, including
invaluable contemporary Arab and Palestinian documents, relating to the
1948 war and the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. These make
it possible to establish the truth about what happened in Palestine."
|
Considering the undeniable Fact that Jews have lived in the Middle East,
and particularly in the area now known as Israel, for literally thousands
of years, I find it personally stupefying that Mr. Phelan could label
as "unfair" the official recognition of that which had always
been informally known and even publicly acknowleged within the Balfour
Declaration, the terms of the British Mandate and later the United Nations:
namely, that there exists a "historical connection of the Jewish
people with Palestine" and that this land is the Historical Homeland
Of The Jewish people.
|
I further find it stupefying that Mr. Phelan could label as being supposedly
"immoral", the idea that these Jewish residents of that land
could form and declare their own State, a nation in which they at long
last possess the sovereignty befitting a nation, the rights and priveleges
of Nationhood and the right to control their own destiny.
|
Given that there are already approximately 21 or 22 Middle Eastern nations
that are wholely or predominantly Muslim or Islamic, nations in which
religious minorities (Christians, as well as Jews and others) are frequently
and savagely persecuted and generally possess no guaranteed rights or
freedoms, why does Mr. Phelan choose to label as "immoral" and
"unfair" the existence of the one and only state in the Middle
East in which Jews exist as a democratic and self-governing majority?
|
I strongly urge Mr. Phelan to devote some time to learning the facts of
the historical basis of the Middle East conflict. Here is an excellent
source for him to study:
|
http://www.palestinefacts.org/index.php
Mike, London
Phil-
I said DON'T bring World War II into it, damn it. But anyway: Europe is,
and was, to America a massive economic resource (the same being true vice-versa).
The Marshall Plan/ Cold War military posts, whilst appreciated, were an
investment in America's future as much as Europe's. A bankrupted and ruined
or Communist Europe would have had a massive knock on effect on the American
economy- America acted as a natural step to economic security. Indeed,
failure to protect Europe could well have meant the loss of the Cold War
for the US. And by the way, you may not have noticed but the Cold War
also involved us too- watching James Bond films has taught me that.
Your ends-rather-than-means argument is a dangerous way to think. It gives
a government carte blanche to do as it pleases and think up an excuse
afterwards. International politics shouldn't be a slap-dash afair. Taking
an action causing the deaths of an estimated 100,000 people should be
properly justified beforehand- you can't take such an action, and afterwards
say 'Hey look, luckily it all probably turned out for the best'. The objectives
must be absolutely clear to begin with, otherwise the electorate is being
treated like fools. I believe in America you have the fantastic expression:
"don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining"- I believe
it is apt in the circumstance of the Iraq war- i.e. the logic of the invasion
is working in reverse.
Some examples of other places where human rights abuses are worse than
they were in Iraq- Sudan, Indonesia, Rwanda. Although perhaps since the
war this might not be the case.
You mention that you wish the US had deposed Saddam after the first Gulf
War- so do I, because the people of Iraq would have been a part of it
then. Again, with reference to the Iraqi people- don't piss down their
backs and tell them it's raining. Surely a people's revolution against
a dictator should have the support of the people? Please don't start talking
about those anti-Saddam demonstrations we saw on TV as the statue was
toppled: they have been widely discredited as staged shows for the press,
what generally wasn't seen was that round the corner the demonstrations
against the occupation dwarfed them in scale.
On the one hand you say the reasons for the invasion are irrelevant in
view of the results, thus tacitly accepting that the rational for the
invasion was not liberation, whilst on the other have the hope that Iraq
is the just the first of many of these wars of liberation. So what are
you saying? The American government has a secret agenda for liberating
the repressed of the world they just aren't telling us about?
Phil- I just want you to accept that the reason America invaded Iraq was
for America, not Iraq. The same reason wars have occured for thousands
of years. The overthrow of Saddam was just a selling point, and that is
why the whole business stinks. We could (adn do), at the moment, debate
all day about whether the situation has been improved or worsened by the
invasion- but the fact will always remain that the stated objective of
the invasion did not have the welfare of Iraqis in mind. I think that
is the nub of why the whole afair is so contraversial, and why this debate
is raging.
Mike, London
To John Phelan-
Just a couple of further points.
I'd like to give the view of some influential (coincidentally all German)
philosophers, being as I'm feeling so inclined today.
According to the Marxist view of history (I'm not talking about Communism-
Marx did other stuff too, just because communism didn't go down too well,
doesn't mean he didn't make some good points) which is arguably the prevalant
view amongst historians, history is about economics. If I can also drag
Nietsche or Hegel in too, history is also about dialectics- i.e. ideas
occur in opposition to each other (for example capitalist ideology spawned
communist ideology).
Therefore, as the world is so much 'smaller' now due to technological
advances, cultures now rub up against each other as never before. According
to Marx civilisation inextricably marches through epochs and, just as
the iron age replaces the bronze age, the industrialised society replaces
the feudal. Much of the political, social and economic structures of the
Middle-East can be identified with structures of feudal society- i.e.
the societies are presently going through rapid change as they become
industrialised societies.
It seems there is a certain amount of 'birth-trauma' associated with this,
as old ways lose their value and status in favour of new ones. I think
this is where much of the friction is being produced at present.
The 'West' forms a dialectic between the new ways, and the old ways- industrialised
and (for want of a better word) feudal- it becomes a symbol of what people
fear as their societies face the upheaval of fully fledged industrialisation.
Therefore, the greater the pressure from the West, the greater the reaction
against it. To be honest, I've no clear idea if intervention worsens the
impact of the reaction or lessens it. I do think, however, that an intense
policy of intervention will be a bloody and violent way of speeding up
the inevitable.
Muslim fundamentalism nowadays is a playful puppy compared to Christian
fundamentalism hundreds of years ago. Christian fundamentalism more or
less blew itself out as the societies became industrialised.
To sum up my point, which reading back on it may seem a little obscure,
I feel that the Muslim fundamentalism we see now is a symptom of industrialising
societies and a reaction in dialectical opposition to what it seems those
societies will eventually become- i.e. industrialised like the West. So
I don't think it is necessarily solely the repressive governments etc
of the region that causes fundamentalism(obviously these have a big part
to play, but I think they are symptomatic of the form of society and will
occur in any similar society), I think it is the friction of a changing
society and that the fundamentalists represent the heat generated by it.
So by tackling the repressive governments via intervention you are merely
severing one head of the hydra (was it the Hydra? I'm talking about the
Greek monster that kept growing heads, anyway) and attempting to force
dangerously rapid change.
I think when the future historians look back at these times, the above
points will be a main focus.
antti vainio, finnland
Hi Phil, check out what's going on in Uzbekistan. once again fancy words but you are supporting the bad guys
antto vainio, finnland
Batista, Hussein, Pinochet, Stalin, Galtieri, DeKlerck, Pahlavi and now Karimov, USA has supported these champions of Liberty. go on Phil, whatever you say, I believe you
Jake, US
Hey Phil, I gotta agree with you that Nebuchadnezzar needs to get his facts streight, but a bit too much convincing you have given us so far. In my opinion it was not mainily about oil (although it was probably part of it) but rather Bush wanted to finnish what "daddy didn't do." Honestly only Americans blinded by their zealous following-without-questioning of Bush would believe that Iraq was really a threat with "weapons of mass destruction." Now if we absolutely have to go into some country to tell em how to run it and get our brave young men and women killed, then why not one that was really a threat? Just one problem for whoever wants to do this: there is no such country! Now that we have gone in and done what cannot be undone, we must stay and clean up what we started. One in two's the chance that the country will just snap into civil war with all this religious unrest. I, however, think that Iraq will stabelize after a while just like the United States did itself not so long ago. My guess would be that they may even go through a civil war, we did. Finally, I do not think it was right to go to Iraq for one other reason; recruiters at schools. Here in the United States, my high school and all the others all have army recruiters seducing students with the myth that serving in the forces is couragous and cool and glorious. Driving over a roadside bomb and getting killed at age 18 is anything but glorious and cool! I really don't think that recruiters should be allowed to press such a decision on my peers... especially when many don't have the capability of making that decision. I personally think "screw you guys, I choose life." I'm glad we have sites like freeworldweb to allow us to express ourselves and be heard by a few people; and listen to others in return. Thanks.
antti vainio, finland
To Phol Parasitic; Seattle Washington
"Wrongs, though come in different shapes and sizes, and by coincidence
some far more serious and apparently systemic outrages by US servicemen
were also reported yesterday. The New York Times' account of the mistreatment
and killing of two Afghan prisoners at the Bagram airbase near Kabul is
a shocking addition to a grim catalogue that includes well-documented
abuses at Abu Ghraib jail and Guantánamo Bay."
Well said. Nobody believes anymore the official American turd (or your
weird rantings), start acting civilized
Susan Starke, USA
To Jake, US:
I don't agree with your assessment of your countrymen as people who "follow
without question,", and I'm not sure why US military recruiters shouldn't
be allowed to talk to 18-year-old adults just like any other potential
employer. Be glad you don't live in a country with mandatory military
service. However, I do agree that a lot of the real domestic reason behind
the current Iraq war is unfinished business: Gulf War I never really ended.
Saddam shot at American planes almost daily for a decade while the US
and Britain enforced the no-fly zones mandated by the UN. For many Americans,
when Saddam, as head of state, openly praised the 9-11 attacks, it was
really just the last straw. Non-Americans will condemn this popular reaction,
but I think it goes a long way towards explaining why a majority of Americans
initially supported war in Iraq and why Congress authorized it. The WMD
issue was more an argument to get the internationalists to go along with
the war, not the bulk of the American people. Furthermore, many Americans
thought the problem was Saddam, not the basic political culture of Iraq
and similar countries. I think Americans were truly surprised that Iraqis,
when freed from Saddam, didn't spontaneously organize themselves like
people in Peoria and Des Moines would. Now, the US has this custodial
responsiblity for Iraq that it doesn't really want. I think that when
the Bush presidency ends, America will become much more isolationist.
freedom fighter, USA
I'm joinin the Army and going to Iraq to shoot bad guys, then to syria, then iran, then North korea, then China, then come home to wipe out mexico and live happily ever after
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Jake in the US -
|
I honestly don't have a problem with Pres. George W. Bush finishing what
his father should have done in the first place. And honestly, it wasn't
"only Americans blinded by their zealous following-without-questioning
of Bush" who believed that Iraq was really a threat with weapons
of mass destruction. There were quite a few very intelligent people on
both sides of the Atlantic Ocean who believed quite reasonably that Saddam
Hussein's WMD programs posed an extremely serious threat. One of those
people was Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry, although he certainly
doesn't want to be reminded of "that" very often.
|
It is a massively-documented fact and a matter of public record that Iraq
under Saddam Hussein had embarked for years on a quest to make, buy or
steal components to be used in the making of weapons of mass destruction.
It is a fact and a matter of public record that in the twelve years between
the end of the first Gulf War (1990-1991) and the overthrow of Saddam
Hussein (2003), Saddam Hussein's regime was caught red-handed numerous
times in the act of violating U.N. resolutions requiring Iraq to fully
disclose its clandestine WMD programs. It is a fact that Saddam Hussein
himself has admitted under questioning that had sanctions against Iraq
been lifted, his regime would have gone right back to trying to acquire
weapons of mass destruction.
|
Jake in the U.S. wrote: "Now if we absolutely have to go into some
country to tell em how to run it and get our brave young men and women
killed, then why not one that was really a threat? Just one problem for
whoever wants to do this: there is no such country!". I find your
comment astounding; perhaps you have not been paying sufficient attention
to what is going on in North Korea, Jake -- the Stalinist regime there
has publicly announced that it possesses not only nuclear weapons but
furthermore the missile technology to carry those nuclear warheads across
the Pacific Ocean to hit targets in North America -- like, the town that
you live in, Jake. If you don't think that poses a threat to our safety
and security, then I think you have not been paying close enough attention
to what's happening in the world.
|
Jake in the U.S. also wrote: "Finally, I do not think it was right
to go to Iraq for one other reason; recruiters at schools. Here in the
United States, my high school and all the others all have army recruiters
seducing students with the myth that serving in the forces is couragous
and cool and glorious. Driving over a roadside bomb and getting killed
at age 18 is anything but glorious and cool! I really don't think that
recruiters should be allowed to press such a decision on my peers... especially
when many don't have the capability of making that decision."
|
"Seducing" students? The last time I looked at a military recruiter,
the recruiter certainly didn't look like anyone I'd ever want to sleep
with, Jake.
|
I think you are selling the intelligence of your fellow students short.
Nobody is suggesting that getting killed at age 18 is cool or glorious,
but I find it fairly ridiculous for someone to suggest, as you did, that
18-year olds are so naive and stupid that they have no clue what the purpose
of the military is or what the risks of wearing a military uniform are.
The F/A-18 Super Hornet wasn't built to deliver the mail, and the M1A2
Abrams tank wasn't built to deliver the milk. We don't have a military
draft in the U.S., and no one is being "forced" to join the
military. It's a voluntary choice, and one which I think that your peers
are capable of deciding on their own.
Michel Bastian, France
To susan Starke:
> I don't agree with your assessment of your countrymen as people who
"follow without question,", and I'm not sure why US military
recruiters shouldn't be allowed to talk to 18-year-old adults just like
any other potential employer. Be glad you don't live in a country with
mandatory military service.
Well, if Bush should start another war, that could change really quickly.
>However, I do agree that a lot of the real domestic reason behind
the current Iraq war is unfinished business: Gulf War I never really ended.
Saddam shot at American planes almost daily for a decade while the US
and Britain
... and France.. oh, sorry, I forgot, we´re the perfidious, cowardly
bad guys ....
> enforced the no-fly zones mandated by the UN. For many Americans,
when Saddam, as head of state, openly praised the 9-11 attacks, it was
really just the last straw. Non-Americans will condemn this popular reaction,
but I think it goes a long way towards explaining why a majority of Americans
initially supported war in Iraq and why Congress authorized it. The WMD
issue was more an argument to get the internationalists to go along with
the war, not the bulk of the American people. Furthermore, many Americans
thought the problem was Saddam, not the basic political culture of Iraq
and similar countries. I think Americans were truly surprised that Iraqis,
when freed from Saddam, didn't spontaneously organize themselves like
people in Peoria and Des Moines would.
Yes, quite true. That´s one of the main problems of the Iraq war:
the US, including its administration, just didn´t understand the
fact that they were dealing with a completely foreign culture. They still
have trouble understanding that.
> Now, the US has this custodial responsiblity for Iraq that it doesn't
really want. I think that when the Bush presidency ends, America will
become much more isolationist.
Possible, though I´m not sure whether that would be the right approach.
However, ultimately, that´s for the american people to decide.
Ash, UK
To Phil Karasick,
You are quick to demonised people that you feel offend the state of Israel
but your racism towards Palastinians appears to be quite sickening. Your
narrow minded view of Arab-Israeli history is factually incorrect. Israel
was actually built on land stolen from the indigenous Arab population.
As for democracy, America has always historically put self interest before
human rights. This is evident in Latin America, the Middle east and Asia.
As for your own claim to democracy, something that did not became reality
until the civil rights movements, for minority groups.I do wish you start
detaching myth from reality and stop indoctrinating us about your view
of Middle Eastern history.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mike in London wrote: "Taking an action causing the
deaths of an estimated 100,000 people should be properly justified beforehand-....".
To begin with, "100,000 people" did not die in Iraq (no matter
how dearly those opposed to the U.S. having Liberated Iraq wish it to
be so, in order to try to make the U.S. look bad). Even the Iraq Body
Count website, fatally and breathtakingly flawed though it is, only reports
a maximum of 21,000 dead, and that should be taken with an enormous grain
of salt. The actual death toll is undoubtedly far lower, and probably
no more than 10,000-13,000. A tragic number, to be sure, but several orders
of magnitude less devastating than the fictitious and imaginary "100,000
people" figure that has been batted around with no evidence to back
it up.
|
Mike in London wrote: "you can't take such an action, and afterwards
say 'Hey look, luckily it all probably turned out for the best'."
Sure we can. We just did exactly that. Who precisely are you to presume
to 'decide' what WE are "allowed" to do?
|
Mike in London wrote: "The objectives must be absolutely clear to
begin with, otherwise the electorate is being treated like fools."
|
The objectives were perfectly clear right from the beginning. Those objectives
were:
|
(a) Remove Saddam Hussein from power, by force.
|
(b) Introduce democracy to the Arab world, by helping and allowing the
Iraqi people to install their first democratically elected government
in at least 50 years.
|
(c) Defeat an insurgency by diehard Saddamists and Islamic terrorists.
|
Objecties (a) and (b) have been accomplished. Saddam Hussein is in jail
awaiting trial, and the Iraqi people braved terrorist threats and proudly
voted a government into office. Objective (c) is a work-in-progress.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mike in London wrote: "Some examples of other places
where human rights abuses are worse than they were in Iraq- Sudan, Indonesia,
Rwanda. Although perhaps since the war this might not be the case."
What human rights abuses in Indonesia? Suharto is gone from power, Indonesia
is out of East Timor. What human rights abuses in Rwanda? The genocide
there occurred in the early 1990s during a very different American President's
term -- namely, Bill Clinton. Rwanda is recovering nowadays.
|
As for the Sudan, that tragedy is continuing to unfold because the chief
producer of methane gas in the world, the U.N. General Assembly (principally
composed of Third World anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Jewish and anti-capitalist
"governments") overrode American objections and refused to enact
sanctions against the (Arab, Islamic) government of Sudan. (Wow, what
a "surprise").
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mike in London wrote: "Please don't start talking
about those anti-Saddam demonstrations we saw on TV as the statue was
toppled: they have been widely discredited as staged shows for the press,
what generally wasn't seen was that round the corner the demonstrations
against the occupation dwarfed them in scale."
|
Wrong. To begin with, the anti-Saddam demonstrations celebrating Saddam's
overthrow as the statue of Saddam was toppled were never 'discredited";
they're Truth. They're Reality. If you have any "evidence" to
the contrary, please bring it forth.
|
Furthermore, the reason that the so-called fictitious "demonstrations
against the occupation" weren't seen was: because they never existed
in the first place. Demonstrations against America didn't start until
many, many months later. There was utterly no "demonstration in favor
of keeping Saddam in power" whatsoever, nor did they ever "dwarf
anti-Saddam demonstrations" because, again, there was no "demonstration
against the occupation" whatsoever at the time that Saddam was (thank
God!!) removed from power. Again, kindly present evidence of your 'claim",
or else withdraw it.
|
Mike in London wrote: "On the one hand you say the reasons for the
invasion are irrelevant in view of the results, thus tacitly accepting
that the rational for the invasion was not liberation....". The rational
in the minds of whom? My personal rational for Liberating Iraq has always
been to remove Sadly Insane Hussein from power. If the government of the
United States (which I helped to elect) had its own, other reasons for
carrying out an action that I personally approve of, fine and dandy. They
have their reasons, I have mine. It's all good.
|
Mike in London wrote: "Phil- I just want you to accept that the reason
America invaded Iraq was for America, not Iraq.... The overthrow of Saddam
was just a selling point..." Again -- so freakin' what? America Liberated
Iraq on behalf of all those who believed Saddam Hussein posed a mortal
danger to other countries and governments in the region, on behalf of
an otherwise impotent U.N., and finally on behalf of the Iraqi people
themselves. If the overthrow of Saddam was a selling point, then that's
good enough for me. I'm sold on the idea.
|
Mike in London wrote: "The fact will always remain that the stated
objective of the invasion did not have the welfare of Iraqis in mind."
Again, the fact will always remain that stated objectives were and are
irrelevent, results are what matter.
|
The stated objectives of the invasion of Nazi Germany were to overthrow
Adolph Hitler and end the Second World War successfully on Allied terms
-- not save the remnants of Europe's Jews from the Holocaust. So what
-- they were saved from the Holocaust anyway.
|
Are you suggesting that European Jews and others "shouldn't be grateful"
to the Allies for liberating places like Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald
and saving the pitiful survivors from a Nazi crematorium, because "we
didn't do it specifically for the Jews"? Who cares why the Allies
did it -- THEY DID IT. And regardless of the reasons why they did it,
there are thousands of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, political prisoners
and others who survived the Holocaust, and who are alive today, and who
have families and descendants who are alive today, solely and only because
the Allied troops liberated those frightful places. And THAT is ALL that
matters. Results, NOT reasons, are what matter.
Antti Vainio, Finland
To freedom fighter:good luck. We Europeans often admire the American can do - attitude. Still I think your plan is rather ambitious. If you flunk the test to get into US army (I suppose they've loosened their demands considerably lately so even you have a fair chance) they are always in need of your kind of guys in Nigeria and Burma (and they are said to pay well)
