Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Faris-Al-Hujjat

Invasion Of Iraq

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Do not be so sure invading Iraq was immoral

By Nigel Biggar

Published: March 11 2010 02:00 | Last updated: March 11 2010 02:00

The Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war has run about half its course. Judging by the dominant reaction of the British press, its sole function is to prove what we all know to be true: that the invasion was immoral and Tony Blair is to blame. The surfeit of moral certainty among the commentators is suspect; the zealous clarity of their moral waters needs muddying.

For sure, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was morally flawed. The US administration's motivation was hubristic and preparation for postwar reconstruction was woefully inadequate. Yet most just wars are flawed. Take the war against Nazi Germany. The RAF's indiscriminate bombing of German cities was largely driven by "Bomber" Harris's vengeful hatred. While the destruction of Hitler's hegemony was very good, the entrenchment of Stalin's was very bad. Any complex human enterprise will involve moral flaws. What needs determining is whether and how these undermine its justice as a whole.

As proof of the Iraq invasion's wickedness, critics invoke the civilian death toll, soberly reckoned at 100,000-150,000. But Europe's liberation from Nazi domination cost the lives of 70,000 French civilians and 500,000 German ones through bombing; and, whereas this was the direct responsibility of the British and Americans, most Iraqi civilians were killed by foreign or native insurgents. Yes, the occupying powers were obliged to maintain law and order, and failed initially. But the insurgents were obliged not to send suicide bombers into crowded market places, and they have failed persistently.

Arguments about a war's disproportion are often intractable. If one assumes the Iraq war was unjust, then no civilian deaths were worth it. Yet in affirming the justice of the war against Hitler we imply it was worth the deaths of 30m civilians. The loss of 150,000 civilians therefore does not, of itself, make the Iraq war unjust. The invasion would be harder to defend were the country's new regime to fail. But that has not happened yet, and those critics who care more for Iraqis than they hate the former US and UK leaders George W. Bush and Mr Blair will hope it never does.

If determining the Iraq war's proportionality is difficult, maybe determining its legality is easier. It would seem so, given the assurance with which some lawyers have damned it before Chilcot. But such condemnations can only be opinions, since international law can be variously interpreted. However, even if we grant that the invasion was illegal, we still have to grapple with the fact that so was Nato's 1999 intervention in Kosovo, which is now widely regarded as legitimate. The implication? That legality is not the final word.

Current international law is morally problematic. It denies the right of states to use military force unilaterally except in self-defence, while reserving the enforcement of international law for the United Nations Security Council, whose capacity to act is hamstrung by the right of veto in the service of national interests.

The decisive issue in evaluating the Iraq invasion is not whether it was morally flawed or disproportionate or illegal, but whether it was really necessary to stop or prevent a sufficiently great evil.

No one disputes that Saddam Hussein's regime was grossly atrocious. In 1988 it used chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians in what, according to Human Rights Watch, amounted to genocide; and from 1988 to 2003 it murdered at least 400,000 of its own people. Critics of the invasion would presumably not tolerate such a regime in their own backyard; and an effective international policing authority would have changed it. Is the coalition to be condemned for filling the vacuum? Yes, there have been similar vacuums that it (and others) have failed to fill - Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Darfur. But is it not better to be inconsistently responsible than consistently irresponsible?

Now add the concern about weapons of mass destruction. This was sufficiently grave to rouse the UN to litter the period 1991-2003 with 17 resolutions calling on Saddam to disarm permanently. Given the shocking discovery in the mid-1990s of Iraq's success in enriching uranium and coming within 24 months of nuclear armament, and given the regime's persistent flouting of the UN's will, there was good reason to withhold benefit of doubt and to suppose that it was developing WMDs. It was not just Messrs Bush and Blair who supposed this. So did Jacques Chirac, then French president, and Hans Blix, the UN's chief weapons inspector.

We now know this reasonable supposition was mistaken and that the problem was less urgent than it appeared. But it was still urgent. Saddam was intent on acquiring nuclear weapons and support for containment was dissolving. David Kelly, Britain's chief expert on Iraqi WMDs, famous for being driven to commit suicide, is less famous for being convinced that the problem's only lasting solution was regime-change.

Maybe critics of the war view with equanimity what might have happened without the 2003 invasion, trusting that the secular rationality of Realpolitik would have prevented the rivalry between Iraq's atrocious Saddam and Iran's millenarian Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad from turning catastrophically nuclear. In this age of suicide bombers, however, such faith is hard to credit. The writer is regius professor of moral and pastoral theology at the University of Oxford. He is currently writing a book on the ethics of war

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article. I agree, the ''invasion'' was the best thing that happened to us. Thank God we are free now and thank God we are ruling our country by ourselves.

Edited by Iraqiah_Shia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have had mixed emotions about the war, but then again i wasn't there. i find it is easier to think critically about it now that Bush is gone.  at the time he needed to be restrained because he (Bush) was on the verge of lighting the whole region on fire.  if bush would have had more domestic support for his warrior ways he would have been emboldened and who knows what damage he would have done.   Iraqi Shia, your comment is interesting to say the least.  

One thing I always think back to is the horrible sanctions regime that was imposed on the Iraqi people.  Saddam was in his late sixties when he lost power, and at that point he looked pretty healthy  How many more years would he have been in control?  10? 20? more?  and even then, how many more years of ba'athist rule?  Those sanctions weren't going away anytime soon, how many more civilian casualties would that have caused?  Barring a successful internal revolt, without the war the sanctions would have continued to hold Iraq back for decades to come.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now the president of the americans has announced they are pulling out of Iraq by the end August..

can someone get a report here about Obama's statement or something...

they seem to be talking on the lines of 100,000 soldiers to be pulled out and about 40,000 to stay in Iraq till further notice ...

a big joyful relief to the 100k who are coming back ...congrats to the families who will be reunited...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now the president of the americans has announced they are pulling out of Iraq by the end August..

can someone get a report here about Obama's statement or something...

they seem to be talking on the lines of 100,000 soldiers to be pulled out and about 40,000 to stay in Iraq till further notice ...

a big joyful relief to the 100k who are coming back ...congrats to the families who will be reunited...

Here you go:

Withdrawal 'on schedule' There is concern here that al-Qaeda in Iraq have recovered some of the ground they lost to the American "surge" last year - and if they are making a comeback, this would be worrying less than a month before all US combat troops leave the country.

The decision to withdraw US combat troops from Iraq by the end of next month was agreed in November 2008, when the US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari signed a security pact requiring them all to go within three years.

Soon after his inauguration in 2009, President Barack Obama re-affirmed his commitment to the pact: "Let me say this as plainly as I can - by 31 August 2010 our combat mission in Iraq will end."

Under the security pact, it is not negotiable.

US troops are already confined to their bases here, unless the Iraqi Security Forces ask for their help.

The 50,000 that will remain until the end of next year will help train Iraqi forces and support counter-insurgency operations.

Mr Obama made all this very clear in his speech about the withdrawal in Atlanta on Monday.

He said progress towards the end of their combat mission by 31 August was "on schedule".

He said hundreds of bases had already been closed or handed over to the Iraqi security forces and that "millions of pieces of equipment" had been moved out in what he called "one of the largest logistics operations that we've seen in decades".

Source and for more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10846573

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jazaak ILLAH ...dear sis,

Thank you...i had heard it on the radio and just wanted an article in black...anyways thx ..

I would like to collect anything and everything about the invasion so far here and would like to post all related articles here so this becomes the base of a little storage of material regarding the invasion and Insha Allah eventually the americans can be thumped from there on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jazaak ILLAH ...dear sis,

Thank you...i had heard it on the radio and just wanted an article in black...anyways thx ..

I would like to collect anything and everything about the invasion so far here and would like to post all related articles here so this becomes the base of a little storage of material regarding the invasion and Insha Allah eventually the americans can be thumped from there on...

You're welcome brother. So when will you share this info with us InshAllah? Im looking forward to it :)

By the way, are you Iraqi?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

So they suppourt and bring saddam to power in 1979 when the situation suited them! Then they gave him chemicals to kill at will, then they offered to protect him i

if he privitised iraqs oil and when he refused he became an enemy so they got rid of him? While at the same time killing 1000000 iraqis and 750000 iranians many millions more still suffering and even more little girls fatherless and wifes husband less (some turning into prostituations) more displaced and poverty! All does not come to americas attention or those with them? And you try justify the war through saddam? Just ask your self, if iraqs oil was privitised will america see the need to invade?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salam.gif

So they suppourt and bring saddam to power in 1979 when the situation suited them! Then they gave him chemicals to kill at will, then they offered to protect him i

if he privitised iraqs oil and when he refused he became an enemy so they got rid of him? While at the same time killing 1000000 iraqis and 750000 iranians many millions more still suffering and even more little girls fatherless and wifes husband less (some turning into prostituations) more displaced and poverty! All does not come to americas attention or those with them? And you try justify the war through saddam? Just ask your self, if iraqs oil was privitised will america see the need to invade?

All your concern is agreed bro...Saddam laeen is only the starting point and we can go back to all that history that you just summarized...

Invasion is for Oil this fact is clear as good as daylight ...or should i say sunlight...

what i'm trying to do is to collect that history in the shape of articles from available sources and post them here to make this a database...

you can help me and be appreciated...

Salaam Ala Man Ittab'a Al Huda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article. I agree, the ''invasion'' was the best thing that happened to us. Thank God we are free now and thank God we are ruling our country by ourselves.

Are you blind ???

The American invasion and occupation caused more Muslim deaths than the rule of Sadam Hussein. Sure he wasn't a good leader and he did some bad, but there was NO civil war under his rule, there were no car bombings and no high death of civilians.

Do not be Nationalistic and think of a better Iraq because of Saddam. Be a Muslim, and say Iraq is going to become better because Muslims won't kill each other and we will remain strong and Shia and Sunni and Kurds won't fight between each other.

This is what Iraq should be.

If you wanted to see Saddam removed from power, than revolt.

What do you think Hussein ibn Ali (peace upon him) did against Yazid ? Do you think he would go and ask help from the Kuffar ? No way. It is a holy struggle. Muslims should not ask help from the West, they should refuse it. Because the Kuffar Nationsseek the destruction of Islam. There might be some good disbelievers, but the truth is far away from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you blind ???

The American invasion and occupation caused more Muslim deaths than the rule of Sadam Hussein. Sure he wasn't a good leader and he did some bad, but there was NO civil war under his rule, there were no car bombings and no high death of civilians.

Do not be Nationalistic and think of a better Iraq because of Saddam. Be a Muslim, and say Iraq is going to become better because Muslims won't kill each other and we will remain strong and Shia and Sunni and Kurds won't fight between each other.

This is what Iraq should be.

If you wanted to see Saddam removed from power, than revolt.

What do you think Hussein ibn Ali (peace upon him) did against Yazid ? Do you think he would go and ask help from the Kuffar ? No way. It is a holy struggle. Muslims should not ask help from the West, they should refuse it. Because the Kuffar Nationsseek the destruction of Islam. There might be some good disbelievers, but the truth is far away from that.

Roughly under Saddam 35 000 Iraqi' died under US occupation 1.3 million....apparantly that's better too some :huh:

:wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article. I agree, the ''invasion'' was the best thing that happened to us. Thank God we are free now and thank God we are ruling our country by ourselves.

I wouldn't disagree in that there were some good consequences to the invasion, namely the removal of Saddam. But it's definitely not the best thing that happened to us. Don't forget that there are often two faces to the same coin. The same America that invaded us helped Saddam rise to power when it suited them. I wouldn't say we are ruling our country by ourselves either. There are many many other factors involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The invasion of Iraq was a bad thing. An error on part of the Bush Administration,

Saddam was necessary to keep the balance in the Middle East between the Sunnis/Shias/Seculars.

He was a necessary evil.

Now Iraq will probably endure a decades long civil war just as Lebanon has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

THIS Is one article about the Devil ... himself..

I visited Iraq in 2001 and Alhamdu Lillah it was quite safe then, the only worries directions,,

but lately the OIL mad US has made Iraq into a place of slaughtering...

the good thing is that now we dont have a Saddam to fear ... The Yazid of the modern time is no more .. already rotting in hell for his attrocities...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard both opinions from Iraqis, ranging from thank God Saddam is gone to at least there was stability, electricity, etc. under Saddam. This is from both Sunni and Shia.

The invasion of Iraq was a bad thing. An error on part of the Bush Administration,

The Jews who clamored for the Iraq war did it to satisfy their blood lust for the goyim. They did it for their god, the Holocaust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article. I agree, the ''invasion'' was the best thing that happened to us. Thank God we are free now and thank God we are ruling our country by ourselves.

Are you blind ???

I agree with SlaveoftheMostMerciful.

If you look at the people who *backed* the war, the good of the Iraqis was never part of the calculation. In fact there is clear evidence for this, because every enquiry into the war has shown that there was NO planning for the aftermath! Chaos WAS the plan. It was the plan because there needed to be an excuse to stay on and interfere.

Just as he lied to get his war against Iraq, Blair used his testimony at the Chilcott enquiry to push for action against Iran. Who thinks he has the interests of Iranians at heart when he says this? I read a number of bulletin boards and one thing is clear to me, the people who were MOST in favour of the war, were the most ardent Zionists. Just as they are the people who are most anxious for action against Iran.

I am not Iraqi and I am not Iranian, but it is very difficult for an outsider to have any sympathy for Iraqi suffering when people from that country take part in an unjust war against Iran and then go on to voice support for the kafir-led invasion of your country. Quite frankly if that is your attitude you deserve all pain and misery you get. You guys are siding with genocidal maniacs of the worst description, I hope you spend your time in eternity alongside them.

Sure Allah is the best of the planners and Inshallah the evil designs of the kuffar will come to nothing and the invasion will not go according to their plans, but that won't be the result of the kuffars' intentions and those who supported them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard both opinions from Iraqis, ranging from thank God Saddam is gone to at least there was stability, electricity, etc. under Saddam. This is from both Sunni and Shia.

The Jews who clamored for the Iraq war did it to satisfy their blood lust for the goyim. They did it for their god, the Holocaust

The Jews had nothing to do with the Iraq War. It was the Americans. You seem to have a lot of hatred toward the Jews. You must have been snubbed by a jewish girl that you asked out for a date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My little ignorant shabbath goy. Did your rabbi give it to you good this morning?

Jews themselves admit to being involved in the Iraq war. I have met Wolfowitz personally and he admitted this to me. Are you going to call these Jews liars?

Paul Wolfowitz?. You met with the former "U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense" for a chat and he admitted to this?. Was G W Bush present also, did he let slip any useful information also? :!!!:

Edited by Irishman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Jews had nothing to do with the Iraq War. It was the Americans.

Zionists had a stake in the invasion of Iraq. Removal of Saddam meant one enemy less. You shouldn't also underestimate the importance of strategic placement of Israel's mentors next to another hostile country. You guessed it right: Iran.

It would be a different equation, however, if we had seen some Zionists in or outside Israel, or simply pro-Israel elements, who had explicitly condemned the invasion of Iraq in principle. Show me some white ravens.

Edited by Marbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Great artical

The "New" Iraq ( 0) Print This ShareThis

By Ghali Hassan, Axis of Logic

Axis of Logic exclusive

Monday, May 3, 2010

Seven years after the illegal invasion of Iraq by the Anglo-American fascist armies, it is clear today that the deliberate and systematic destruction of the Iraqi nation was premeditated and unprovoked act of naked aggression aimed at expanding U.S.-Israel Zionist power. These barbaric crimes ‘should never be forgotten and never be forgiven’.

“By violating international laws and conventions in 2003 in order to attack a defenceless nation for no reason [other than serving Israel’s Zionist-fascist ideology], George W. Bush [and Tony Blair were] reclaiming those most primal instincts that had led the Mongol barbarians Hulagu and Turko-Tamerlane to destroy Baghdad in 1258 and 1401 respectively. And by going back to the law of the jungle, Bush [and Blair] did not just destroy Baghdad and the whole of Iraq, but [they] also instigated a treacherous plan against the precious legal and institutional heritage that mankind has been laboriously building since the Treaty of Westphalia of October 24, 1648, generally considered the founding document of the nation-state and the first attempt at outlawing the right of might”, writes Tunisian journalist Hmida Ben Romdhane (La Presse  de Tunisie, April 11, 2010). Unlike the destruction of Baghdad by the barbarian Mongols, the destruction of the Iraqi society by the West’s most recent militarised religio-fascist alliance of George Bush and Tony Blair is an act of terrorism that will live in infamy.

Unprovoked Aggression

There is no doubt that the barbaric attack on Baghdad in March 2003 will remain one of the most violent acts of terrorism in history of mankind. According to U.S. officials, “Shock and Awe” was aimed at terrorising the entire Iraqi population and intimidating Iraq’s neighbours, particularly Syria and Iran. After 13 years of genocidal sanctions, that deprived Iraqi children and the population as a whole of essential medical supplies and nutrition, Iraqis are virtually defenceless in the face of overwhelming violence.

It is estimated that the 13-year long U.S.-Britain imposed sanctions – coated with the United Nations despicable colour – caused the death of more than 2 million innocent Iraqi civilians, including the death of more than 600,000 infants under the age of 5 years. The sanctions were accurately described as the real weapons of mass destruction (WMD). According to John Mueller and Karl Mueller, the brutal and inhumane sanctions against the Iraqi people have caused far more deaths over time than the combined use of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in the two world wars (Foreign Affairs, May/June 1999).

Unsatisfied by the enormous atrocity and resilience of the Iraqi people and their government, the U.S. and Britain concocted a pretext (WMD and link to terrorism) to justify an illegal act of aggression to occupy Iraq. After the pretext was exposed as a lie, the U.S. and U.S. accomplices concocted new pretext to justify the illegal aggression, the West “moral responsibility” and concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people. The so-called “Responsibility to Protect” or R2P – not applicable to the Palestinians – was the same concept used by the German Nazis to justify Nazi terror. The difference was that the Nazis were allegedly “protecting ethnic Germans” in Poland and Russia.

Not since the Fascist army of Adolf Hitler invaded and occupied parts of Europe has the world witnessed such barbaric violence and destruction as that being perpetrated by the Anglo-American fascist armies. For most Iraqis today, living under U.S. military Occupation is no less brutal than Poles or Russians were living under the brutal Nazi occupation that most Westerners considered barbaric.

Prior to the invasion, Iraq was subjected to a massive and vicious propaganda campaign. The country was portrayed as a pariah state by mainstream-Zionist media and their despicable journalists distorting facts and promoting aggression. Iraq’s late president Saddam Hussein was demonised and used as a moral compass to justify Anglo-American aggression and war crimes.

Western opportunists and America’s apologists who pretended to be “against” the Anglo-American aggression and hide behind the “No War for Oil” Zionist deception have long fallen in line. The so-called “liberal class” and “progressives” have often described the murderous Occupation as a “failure” and “incompetence”, praised the U.S.-staged fraudulent elections and attacked the legitimate Iraqi Resistance as “violent insurgency” and “bigoted Sunnis”. Their criticism of the Occupation and U.S. imperialism has always been an intellectual cowardice. If the U.S. failed to impose its Zionist-imperialist agenda on Iraq, credit must go to the Iraqi Resistance. It shatters the myth of invincibility of the ‘world only superpower’.

From time to time the “liberal class” and “progressives” criticise Barack Obama’s policies and calling him ‘worse than Bush’, as if Obama has the power to make changes to U.S. criminal policies. The motive is to manipulate the public and deflect attention away from the anti-Muslim Zionist ruling class that control the centres of power and finance in America. We all know that Obama has no real power to make changes. He is just another product, a tool, of the Zionist ruling class. Indeed, the Obama Administration is the most Zionist administration in U.S. history.

After seven years of hibernation, the “liberal class” and “progressives”, including Israel’s apologists are back to show their loyalty (backflipping), attacking Iran and condemning Iran’s alleged “rigged” elections. It is important to remember that Iran doesn’t pose threat to any nation, but Israel with its fascist ideology and an arsenal of nuclear weapon posed a threat not only to entire region but to the world. The same Zionist propaganda that led to the aggression against Iraq is being recycled.

The Zionists’ (the architects of the war) murderous strategy in Iraq was to destroy the fabric of the Iraqi society, and turn Iraq into a colonial dictatorship subservient to U.S.-Israel Zionist power. There was no “failure” or “incompetence” on the part of the U.S. government, as suggested by the loyal “opposition”. The destruction of Iraq was planned at least two years before the aggression in 2003. It was driven by the neo-conservative and neo-liberal ideologues (in lay terms, Zion-fascists) with strong ties to Israel’s fascist regime. “They openly stated that their top priority was to advance Israel’s agenda, which, in this case, was a U.S. war against Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, occupy the country, physically divide Iraq, destroy its military and industrial capability and impose a pro-Israel/pro-U.S. puppet regime”, writes American sociologist James Petras.

As a result of the illegal invasion and seven years of murderous Occupation, an estimated 1.5 million defenceless Iraqi civilians, mostly women, children and young men, have been murdered, with the majority by the invading Anglo-American armies. It is the most premeditated and barbaric mass murder of innocent civilians in the history of human civilisation. The “new” Iraq is a nation of orphans and widows.

Furthermore, many American official and international organisation have quietly acknowledged that the destruction of Iraq’s cultural heritage was deliberate and premeditated. It was designed to remove Iraq’s history as the birthplace of civilisation. Even Adolf Hitler never thought of committing such heinous crimes during the Nazi occupation of Europe. Priceless cultural artefacts may have been stolen by Nazi officials but never destroyed. In Iraq, Museums and galleries holding the history of world civilisation were trashed and looted. Libraries were ransacked and books were burned in masses. It was all performed under the watchful eyes of the invading armies. As James Petras noted: “[T]he destruction of the scientific, academic, cultural and legal foundations of an independent state means increasing reliance on the Western (and Chinese) multinational corporations and their technical infrastructure – facilitating imperial economic penetration and exploitation”.

In the “new” Iraq, Iraqis are living in a climate of fear and terror today. From the outset, the Occupation fomented violence in order to destroy the Iraqi society. Before the invasion, Iraqis lived side-by-side in every city and town regardless of ethno-religious backgrounds. They intermarriage and live in a cultural and mosaic society. To encourage anarchy and insecurity, the occupying army disbanded the Iraqi Army, police and security forces and replaced them with Kurdish warlords, political gangsters, imported death squads, and religious militias. “The ‘war of all against all’ served the interests of the U.S. Occupation forces”, writes James Petras. From the outset of the Occupation, the U.S. sought to control Iraq through violence and the colonial policy of ‘divide and rule’ by handing out political positions to expatriates along strictly ethno-religious lines. The so-called “political process” was designed to achieve this division of Iraq.

By propping up corrupt criminals, religious fundamentalists and terrorists who were parachuted into Iraq by the invading armies, the American and to a lesser extent the British governments were able to hide behind a facade of corrupt expatriate stooges and blaming them for the Occupation-generated violence and crimes. Corruption is one of the most effective colonial tools, brought into Iraq to deflect attention away from the Occupation. Transparency International has ranked (the ‘new’) Iraq as the fourth most-corrupt nation in the world in its annual survey. Indeed, the creation of a corrupt and illegitimate puppet government inside the Occupation Headquarter (known as the ‘Green Zone’) aimed at transforming Iraq into a “failed state” that needs Western interference and “help”.

Expatriate stooges were appointed and encouraged to compete against each other for the title of Iraq’s “strongman”. The more violent and corrupt the “strongman” the more accepted by the U.S. administration. Hundreds of young men are disappearing every month (if not every week) into “secret” prisons, where they are routinely tortured, raped, humiliated and many of them later murdered. Amnesty International (AI) and Human Rights Watch (HRW) were the first to blame  the puppet government for crimes committed under the radar screen of the occupying forces while they remain silent when Iraqis are tortured, raped and massacred by U.S.-British invading armies. Both, AI and HRW reports on Iraq were consciously prepared to exonerate the occupying armies and depict Iraq as a “sovereign” nation marred by violence and violation of human right law.

Violence will continue to engulf Iraq’s major cities; just enough to justify the ongoing murderous Occupation, serves U.S.-Israel Zionist interests and diverts public attention away from the Occupation. Furthermore, to enforce colonial divisions and facilitate the liquidation of anti-Occupation Resistance leaders, the U.S. occupying army used Nazi-like methods to separate populations along ethno-religious lines by erecting walls around neighbourhoods in Baghdad and other cities. For example, the Capital Baghdad with its marked ghettoes and perpetual violence is a mirror image of Warsaw under Nazi occupation under wretched living conditions.

Deterioration of Living Conditions

Since 2003, living conditions in Iraq continue to deteriorate. Once a middle-class nation, Iraq has been deliberately reduced to a state of abject destitution. In the “new” Iraq, nearly half the population live in extreme poverty. A report by the British charity organisation, Oxfam, shows that 43 percent of Iraqis lives in absolute poverty and some 8 to 10 million Iraqis need emergency aid. The country is still under the genocidal sanctions. The official unemployment rate is more than 50 percent of the Iraqi active population. The illegitimate puppet government’s own statistics revealed that 45 percent of Iraqis live in absolute poverty lacking the necessities to survive. Nearly 62 percent (15.8 million) of Iraqis ‘completely depend’ on the food rationing system to survive from month to month. The system was created by President Saddam Hussein to confront the genocidal sanctions and avert mass starvation. Despite the reduction in the number of food and non-food items by the illegitimate puppet government, many Iraqis still depend on the system to survive.

After seven years of murderous Occupation and deteriorating living conditions, Iraq is suffering the worst refugee crisis in history. “Iraq would be the world’s second-worst crisis, as the report points out, second only to Afghanistan, and ahead of Sudan. So the strain on Iraq’s neighbours, particularly Jordan and Syria, and to a lesser extent on Lebanon is immense”, said Jessica Mathews, President of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a U.S. propaganda think-tank known  for its pro-Israel Zionist bias.  At least 2.7 million Iraqis are internally displaced (by violence) and living in conditions of extreme poverty, enduring constant attacks and eviction from temporary shelters. An estimated 3 million able Iraqis have fled Iraq into exile in neighbouring countries. Only a small number of Iraqi refugees were allowed into those Western nations who pretend to have “liberated” Iraq. The majority of Iraqi refugees have found a safe haven in Syria and Jordan. Most of Iraqi refugees are in ‘legal limbo’, unable to work and with no hope of returning to their country. The primary causes for Iraqi refugees’ flight are violence, lack of access to water, sanitation, electricity, health care and education.

Targeting Iraq’s Education

Iraq’s education, once the best in the region, has been the target of the Occupation. Iraq’s education has been dismantled by the invading armies and their collaborators. The Iraqi curriculum has been changed to distort history and depicts the U.S. and Israel as democratic and civilised societies by covering up their war crimes, flagrant violations of international law human rights, violent ideology, corruption, growing inequalities, gross injustices and racist policies at home and abroad. It is estimated that only 30 percent of the 3.5 million students were attending schools. The majority of the dropouts are female. According to a report by UNESCO, school attendance prior to the Anglo-American aggression was nearly 100 percent. The crisis is exacerbated by the increase number of orphaned children. There are at least 5 million Iraqi orphans, many of them live on the streets.

Iraqi universities and colleges have been besieged by U.S.-created extremists and criminals. Tens of thousands of prominent Iraqis, including academics, doctors, teachers and political personalities have been murdered in cold blood in a U.S-Israel orchestrated assassination campaign dubbed “DeBa’athification”. Many had to leave Iraq for safety reasons, which contributed to brain drain. 

The planned campaign was designed not only to kill Iraq as a nation by destroying Iraq’s human resources and independence, but also removing the base of the Iraqi Resistance to the Occupation. Professional Iraqis who survived the murderous campaign have left the country, leaving an education system in a state of collapse. Students are being graduated in masse without the necessary professional knowledge, especially those who work in the health care services. “There is really a huge difference between now and the times of Saddam Hussein, when medical graduates left college with competence to treat any patient”, said Professor Fua’ad Abdel-Razak of Baghdad university (IRIN, 16 May, 2007). Before the invasion, education and healthcare with modern health facilities were universal.

Deterioration of Iraq’s Healthcare

Iraq’s healthcare system has deteriorated at an alarming rate with a devastating impact on the health of the Iraqi people. The deterioration of the healthcare services has seen a marked increase in mortality. According to UNICEF, under the Occupation, Iraqi children are now dying faster than before invasion. One in four children under five years of age is chronically malnourished. One in eight Iraqi children die before the age of five, and millions of Iraqi children are affected by post traumatic disorder. “Healthcare in Iraq since 2003 is worse than during the sanctions. At that time we had little equipment and medicine, but in the last three years we have lost almost all the specialists”, said Dr Majeed al-Naomi in a Baghdad clinic. It is estimated that at least, 25 percent of Iraq's 18,000 physicians had left the country since the invasion in 2003 which is devastating the healthcare system.

Furthermore, Thousands of tons of white phosphorous shells, ‘depleted’ uranium (DU), napalm, cluster bombs, and neutron bombs were dropped on Iraqi population centres, including Baghdad Basrah and Fallujah. The Anglo-American armies used more than 1700 tons of DU during the 2003 invasion on top of more than 320 tons of DU used in 1991 attacks on Iraq. In the natural environment, these weapons-grade particles have extremely long half-lives and there is strong evidence of their detrimental effects on the health of the Iraqi people.

Iraqi officials are reporting incidences of cancer, deformed babies and other health problems have risen sharply since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Many suspect the causes are contamination from weapons used in years of Anglo-American criminal wars and unchecked pollution. In Fallujah, Iraqi children are suffering from brain damage, deformity and cancer. An Iraqi doctor said that the rate of deformity and cancer among children in Fallujah is extremely high when compared with the rate of cancer ad deformity of that in 2003. A spike in the number of births of stillborn, deformed and paralyzed babies there has alarmed doctors. Fallujah was the target of two massive assaults by the U.S. military. In Basra, Doctor Jawad al-Ali said: “We have seen new kinds of cancer that were not recorded in Iraq before the 2003 war, types of fibrous (soft tissue) cancer and bone cancer. These refer clearly to radiation as a cause.” In Basra, Leukaemia cases were up by 600 percent since 1990.

Access to clean water remains inadequate in many parts of the Iraq. According to the World Bank survey, 87.5 percent of the population have no adequate water supply, and 20 percent proper sewage disposal. In many parts of Iraq, including Baghdad and Basra, the water, soil and air are contaminated with radio-active particles caused by DU shells without adequate healthcare services the situation is rapidly worsening for the most vulnerable Iraqis, including women and children.

The Status of women

According to UNICEF, before the Anglo-American invasion, “Rarely do women in the Arab world enjoy as much power and support as they do in Iraq”. After seven years of U.S. Occupation, the status of Iraqi women has deteriorated beyond belief. The U.S.-imposed constitution has stripped Iraqi women of all the civil and basic rights that they enjoyed before the invasion and condemning them to statutory second-class citizens. Unemployment among Iraqi women is nearly 80 percent.  A report by the Organisation for Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI) released on the fourth anniversary of the Anglo-American invasion stated that: “women of Iraq have gradually lost most of their 20th century gains and privileges in the last 4 years of occupation”. You would think European Islamophobes who pretend to support Muslim women “liberation” in Europe would be concerned about Iraqi women’ rights under Occupation. Instead, they are engaged in a fascist campaign of anti-Muslim hatred to justify Western war on Muslims.

According to Professor Maha Sabria of Al-Nahrain University in Baghdad, "The status of women here is linked to the general situation. The violation of women's rights was part of the violation of the rights of all Iraqis. [...] At the same time women do not have freedom of movement because of the deteriorated security conditions and because of abductions of women and children by criminal gangs”. (Inter Press Service, 12 March 2010).

Furthermore, as a result of the U.S. Occupation and its violence, there are 2.5 million widows in Iraq, the highest in the world. According to the United Nations, in 2006, 90 to 100 women were widowed each day by the Occupation and its collaborators. Many of these widows do not know what happened to their spouses and most of them receive no assistance from the puppet government.

Throughout Iraq, women are living in fear of their lives and dignity. Kidnapping and rape are the common crimes under the Occupation. Over 10,000 women have suffered detention at the hands of U.S. forces and their Iraqi collaborators. The majority of detainees remain without charges. They are tortured and abused on regular basis. (See my: Iraq: A cluster of torture prisons, Online Journal, March 08, 2006). The situation for Iraqi women reflects the country’s situation under U.S. military Occupation.

Elections and Colonial Dictatorship

The recent U.S.-staged illegitimate elections were conducted in an atmosphere of terror and execution perpetrated by the Occupation forces and their collaborators. The final outcome of fraudulent elections was ensured. Like the 2005 elections, the 2010 elections were widely regarded, both in Iraq and outside Iraq, as rigged and fraudulent elections. The elections designed to legitimise the Occupation and validate a corrupt U.S.-imposed colonial dictatorship led by U.S. stooges. With a puppet government in place, the U.S. can claim that Iraq is sovereign and that U.S. Occupation of Iraq is legitimate (See my: Iraq's Fraudulent Elections, New Matilda, January 19, 2005; Iraq: A Colonial Dictatorship, Global Research, April 29, 2005).

Unlike Iran recent free elections that have been condemned as “rigged” by the Zionist media and Western opportunists, Iraq’s fraudulent elections – under murderous foreign military Occupation – were promoted and praised as “democratic”. While Iyad Allawi, the U.S.-created thug claimed “victory”, prolonged post-elections’ wrangling is the norm. He has called for the privatisation of Iraq's industries and Iraq’s oil and gas resources. Before he was parachuted into Iraq, Allawi was a Western-paid terrorist based in Europe. He still is a paid terrorist. In Iraq, Allawi and his associates were involved in terrorism, including the bombing buses used by schoolchildren. Whatever, there is no evidence that a puppet government will demand an end to the Occupation. Meanwhile, Nori al-Maliki, the Iranian quisling has not giving-up his chance to continue serving U.S. and Iran interests from his office in the ‘Green Zone’.

Meanwhile, Obama’s “commitment” to troops’ withdrawal by the end of 2011 is flawed. It is a propaganda designed to manipulate the public and promote the perception that Iraq is a free and sovereign nation. The Occupation continues, but it is “invisible occupation”, as Priya Satia of Stanford University rightly called it. “In reality, most of the ‘withdrawing’ forces are merely relocating to forward operating bases where they appear to be hunkering down for a long entr’acte [pause] offstage in expensive, built-to-last [military bases]” (Financial Times, July 01, 2009). “But Iraqis are too shrewd to fall for invisible occupation again: indeed they never fall for it the first time ... in 1932”, added Satia. Moreover, the so-called “Status of Forces Agreement” between the U.S. military and the puppet government is a fraud, because it was never ratified by the Iraqi people. It is a deal between an occupier and a puppet government.

American military bases are being built (against the wishes of the Iraqi people) to enforce a permanent colonial occupation and to serve U.S.-Israel Zionist interests. Since 1991, “the U.S. has not just been building bases to wage wars, but has been waging wars to leave behind the bases. The effect has been to create a new U.S. military sphere of influence wedged in the strategic region between the E.U., Russia and China. The Pentagon has not been building these sprawling, permanent bases just to hand them to client governments”, writes Professor Zoltan Grossman of Evergreen State College. There are nearly 300 U.S. military bases in Iraq; many of them are the size of small towns. American advisors (at least 1,400 CIA agents) will remain stationed in the largest embassy in the world in the centre of Baghdad as a symbol of U.S. imperialism. In addition, there are at least 100,000 mercenaries (‘private war contractors’) fanning violence throughout Iraq.

Finally, the impacts of the murderous Occupation on the lives of the Iraqi people are reflected in numerous Western polls that revealed a significant majority of Iraqis despise the presence of U.S. troops and mercenaries and want an end to the murderous Occupation. Hence, without armed resistance, it is unlikely the U.S. will end its illegal colonial Occupation of Iraq. The legitimate Iraqi Resistance to the Occupation will continue until Iraq is liberated.

The premeditated and deliberate destruction of Iraq in pursuit of U.S.-Israel Zionist expansion constitutes a war of aggression that resulted in genocide. The ultimate responsibility of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Anglo-American fascist armies in Iraq rests with those who deliberately planned and executed an act of unprovoked aggression. George Bush, Tony Blair and their accomplices are guilty of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. Their crimes are reminiscent of the crimes committed by Nazi leaders. In civilised societies they would be hanged for their crimes.

The Iraqi people have the right to live in a sovereign nation free of repression, torture and terrorism; to enjoy justice and respect for human rights, and prosperity.  The only condition to build a new Iraq for all Iraqis, proud of its history and Arab identity, is the liberation of the Iraqi people from U.S. colonial Occupation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Wolfowitz?. You met with the former "U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense" for a chat and he admitted to this?

Yes, at a conference. My work sponsored the conference and he was one of the speakers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article. I agree, the ''invasion'' was the best thing that happened to us. Thank God we are free now and thank God we are ruling our country by ourselves.

Salamu alaikum you certainly should not back the unjust American imperialist invasion of Iraq, and you definitely should not thank the US government and military as they are just interested in setting up a neo-colony in Iraq and exerting US imperialism over the proud nation of Iraq. Remember these same American government people were the ones who armed, funded, and completely backed Saddam al-Baathi(la) in the 1980s (their good 'ole buddy back in those days).

saddam-rumsfeld.jpg

Saddam(la) is gone and that is good, but that doesn't excuse America's crimes and true aims of their invasion and genocide of Iraq which is again clearly American neo-colonialism (see the clear neo-colonial "Green Zone") and imperialism over the proud nation and people of Iraq.

Edited by Basra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think invasion was a good thing for Iraq at all.. number of Iraqis slaughtered in US war and occupation of Iraq is "1,421,933", how is that good? not mention how many injures.. and and, for now Iraqis should stick to protesting against foreigner troops, they must leave Iraq.

the US didn't invade Iraq to bring liberation, It invaded Iraq to steal oil's money (which is done), protect Israel and push pressure on Iran, but today the US is not capable of unleashing an attack on Iran, but the US was supposed to attack Iran from Iraq and Afghanistan.

'US liable for DU birth defects in Iraq' The US must be accountable for the rising number of cancer rates and birth defects reportedly linked with America's use of depleted uranium in the Iraq war, analysts say.

Archaeologists have begun restoring parts of Iraq's ancient city-state of Babylon following trails of destructions caused by the US-led invasion of the country.

Edited by Shervin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this article is a good answer for many posts here.

A record worse than Saddam’s? Think again.

October 28, 2010 Hayder al-Khoei Bad girl Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. Like many others who have been trawling through the secret military records leaked on Friday, I was shocked at the candid indifference and complicity of the US military towards human rights violations in Iraq, but also the incompetence of the Iraqi government. The leaked documents though, in many respects, did not reveal a lot that many didn’t know already – abuse and torture by Iraqi security forces, foreign interference from both sides of the border, a cat-and-mouse game with terrorists and death, destruction and suffering on an epic scale. The difference now being that this information was never intended to be publicly available – and has embarrassed both American and Iraqi officials alike.

However, Ms Alibhai-Brown, in an opinion piece published in the Independent on Monday, insults the Iraqi people by callously claiming that “the sanctions and war killed, maimed and destroyed more civilians than Saddam did.” Ms Alibhai-Brown’s crass comments were, clearly, more about scoring some cheap political point than it was about giving facts.

Her fundamental mistake is that she somehow looks at Iraq in an epochal vacuum void of any historical context. She ignores the fact that the sanctions were manipulated by Saddam to score political points (a past-time Ms Alibhai-Brown appreciates). During the last year of Saddam’s disastrous rule, he allocated just US$16m for the Ministry of Health to spend for the year, amounting to around 60 cents per Iraqi, meanwhile, in the last decade of his rule (a decade in which Iraq was heavily sanctioned), Saddam spent an estimated US$2.2b on constructing palaces for himself and the coterie of despots he surrounded himself with. Saddam lived a life of luxury while his people starved through the economic sanctions and he, more than anybody else, should be held responsible for the suffering of millions upon millions of people under his regime. What followed cannot be “a worse record than Saddam’s” because the butcher of Baghdad was a big part of it.

Many in the west are obsessed with WMDs and the lies that were told to secure support for the Iraq war, but to many Iraqis, the matter is inconsequential. Saddam was the weapon of mass destruction.

Since Ms Alibhai-Brown matter-of-factly states that it was better during Saddam’s era “even during the most diabolical periods of his rule”, let us look specifically at the incidents that occurred.

Could she be referring to the eight-year war of attrition with Iran that claimed the lives of over one million human beings?

Could she be referring to the campaign of genocide in the north against the Kurds in the late 80s when over one hundred and eighty thousand civilians were systemically ethnically cleansed?

Could she be referring to the First Gulf War when Kuwait was plundered and seventy-five thousand people were killed?

Could she be referring to the mass-killings of those who rebelled against Saddam’s tyranny in ’91?

Could she be referring to the political opponents and religious scholars brutally tortured and executed by his regime that number in excess of one hundred thousand?

Could she be referring to the campaign of genocide in the southern marshes when the Ba’ath regime deliberately dried up the lifeline of a five thousand year-old community who once lived there?

Obviously, she can’t be referring to the plethora of Saddam’s crimes in their entirety because it would make her comment on breaking “records” seem slightly misinformed.

Another mistake Ms Alibhai-Brown makes is to assume the death toll would somehow have magically kept static had Saddam remained in power. I wonder then, has Ms Alibhai-Brown ever heard of two brothers by the names of Uday and Qusay? Even if Saddam had dropped dead before the invasion his sadistic sons would have ruled in his stead unchallenged and they would have carried on with the same campaign of hatred, fear and death that their father masterminded.

Ms Alibhai-Brown then goes on to say that hundreds of “savvy, smart, keenly aware” Muslims throughout various Muslim states send her e-mails because they are baffled at the foreign policy of western governments and their double standards. To an extent, they have a very valid point.

The hypocrisy of western foreign policy must be exposed whenever and wherever possible. Western support for dictatorships across the world is blatant and it is done in the interest of securing vital resources that fuel their economies or serves their foreign interests. But that does not mean the Arab and Muslim world should be let off the hook, or that their role should be downplayed.

The west should indeed be blamed for many of the catastrophic events that unfolded in Iraq throughout its history, but it would be both naïve and insincere to try to pin all the blame on Bush and Blair. If anything, these leaks confirm previous suspicions that terrorists came ten a penny from neighbouring Syria and Iran.

To Iraqis like me, who have lost immediate family-members both pre and post 2003, the sudden burst of conscience from a public that was silent during three decades of the harshest, most despotic regime the Middle East has seen in the last few centuries is abhorrent in itself, and leads me to question the motivation behind the sudden faux-concern for the plight of the millions of suffering Iraqis. Here in London, Iraqis campaigned for years against Saddam, and tried desperately to convince people like Ms Alibhai-Brown to support their worthy cause. Very few heeded the calls; apparently stories of Iraqis dying are not all too interesting. Unless of course the West is somehow culpable in the killing.

It is such a shame that commentary on Iraq has been reduced by many to an industry focused at selling news with little regard for history and context. Much of the suffering in Iraq today is a direct result of Saddam’s legacy. It is the failure to understand and appreciate historical context that has led to the crass, shallow, superficiality that has become a feature of much of the news coverage in Iraq.

It is cruel to count victims as statistics who perished in the recent war, but if we want to be soulless and academic, then the civilian victims that are identified in the latest documents make up only one-third of those who vanished during the Anfal campaign under Saddam. More to the point, Ms Alibhai-Brown seems to paper over the fact that tens of thousands of the post 2003 war victims were in fact targeted by a ruthless insurgency in Iraq, and insurgency that relies on remnants of Saddam’s regime for funding, logistics and indeed recruits. Saddam may have been arrested, tried, and executed, but his men are still in Iraq committing the same crimes they have always been committing. The legacy of Saddam is still claiming lives and it is still destroying the country.

But this story isn’t just about Iraq, Muslims should have a better understanding of what other Muslims are doing to them and those smart and savvy Muslim youths should be looking closer to home when it comes to figuring out why so much has gone wrong in that part of the world. Perhaps they should realise when they point a finger across the Atlantic, three fingers are pointing straight back at them.

I wonder if Ms Alibhai-Brown even knows that two hundred years before the US invasion of Iraq – during Thomas Jefferson’s Presidency in 1802 – fanatic Muslims attacked Iraq and indiscriminately slaughtered the men, women and children they saw. This was all done in the name of Islam to purify the religion. The people who committed that heinous crime are the ideological ancestors of modern-day terrorists that are responsible for many of the deaths Ms Alibhai-Brown is apparently concerned about and they were slaughtering innocent Muslims centuries before the neo-con mandarins planned the Iraq war.

One thing Iraq now has, that it never had under Saddam, is hope. The situation on the ground is messy, and it is important to condemn first and foremost the Iraqi government for failing to secure the country or provide basic services to its people, but at least now Iraq has a chance for a better future. Its people have a say in the running of the country and they exercise democratic rights many other Middle Easterners can only dream of.

-Hayder al Khoei

http://britishiraqiforum.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/a-record-worse-than-saddam%E2%80%99s-think-again/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...