The Stupidity of the Anti-War Movement

Its nice that there are so many facts in Wikipedia, showing that the iranian Grand Ajatollah Sistani is maybe not following the orders from Teheran or to be more precise from Ghom.

But if that would be true then why he has "adviced" the shi ´ite alliance after the election in Iraq that Mr. Al Dschafari to Prime Minister?
he did this AFTER the mullahs in Iran suggested that this iraqi politician who lived many years in iranian exile should become Prime Minister of Iraq.

And so - surprise surprise - he really became the new Prime Minister of Iraq.
His political party - the SCIRI is extremely supported by Iran. With money and also with logistical help of the Pasdaran, the iranian revolutionary guard. Around 30000 iranians are already operating in the shi ´ite territories in Iraq, officially for "humanitarian help". But if you just see the fact how the University of Basra - the 2nd largest city of Iraq and the biggest shi ´ite city in Iraq - has changed, then you can see how big the iranian influence is:
Disregarding the new liberal constitution of Iraq the female students are not allowed to study in the Basra-University when they dont wear the chador.

Also the iraqi Shi ´ites are well organised in the Shi´ite Alliance parties and they vote exactly as Sistani or Al Hakim (or the mullahs from Ghom) tells them.

That could be already seen in the first election. While the so called western experts in middle east questions and iraqi exiles said that Mr. Allawi - the liberal puppet and pro-Western candidate - would get the majority of the votes, the Shi ´ite Alliance get the majority. Together with the Kurds they had 2/3 of all votes, which allowed them to build a constitution which favorized their ethnical and religious group.
Mr. Allawi got around 13% of the votes.

Dont misunderstand me: I am not glad that the people in Iraq have this behavior and didnt took the chance to vote free. Instead they followed the orders of their religious leaders (shi´ites) or ethnical leaders (kurds) or their political leaders (sunnites, who refused to take part in the first free election of iraq).
But only because I dont like what happened I cant ignore the facts or build a fantasy world where I put my hopes and dreams - supported by nice articles from Wikipedia or exiles or other sources.

Just try to watch the results in Iraq.

For example the bombings of the terrorists.
Ask yourself, WHO are the targets?

You see: Iraqi military, iraqi police and iraqi mosques or religious ceremony.

Then ask yourself: Who are the victims? The answer is: They are shi´ites and kurds.
Attacked by the sunnites forces of Al Sarkawi/BinLaden/Al Kaida who are representing the frustated former ruler-caste of Iraq: The sunnite minority which has been washed out from power by the US-occupation forces.

And the shi´ites of Iraq are also not innocent. Now they are the policemen and soldiers and so there are reports of tortured iraqis found in iraqi prisons.
Again you should ask "Who are these victims?" They are iraqi sunnites tortured by s´hi´ite policemen and soldiers.

Thats the reality in Iraq. Iran has indeed control over the holy sites and teh shi´ite regions. Their 5th column - tenthousands of iraqi shi´ites whose parents were exiled during the Saddam terror and were born in Iran and indoctrinated by the Pasdaran are now operating in Iraq. They protect high leaders like Sistani.

And some words about Iran:
The actual president is a fanatic. Just have a look in his life: He studied in Iran, became a member against Shah-terrorism, was captured and tortured, took part in the revolution. Then, when Saddam invaded Iran he joined the Basidji - a volunteer group with extreme high losses because of their fanatic human wave attacks, became a member and then a commander of the Pasdaran guard. Then he became vice-gouverneur and gouverner of an iranian province, later major of Teheran and finally president of Iran.
In all this time he was a follower of the words of Ajatollah Khomeini, presenting himself as a kind of Robin Hood, helping the poor people in Iran and fighting corruption and the middle and upper class. That was also the reason why he won the election, because he was able to get the votes from the poor people.

And his proaganda actions are not done to impress or shock the western world or the middle or higher class of Iran. he also dont thinks that he can avoid that young iranians hear western music. He wants to manipulate his base of power: The poor majority of iran.

Nevertheless this soes not change anything about the iranian-iraqi policy. The orders for the iraqi shi ´ite leaders come from the iranian Council of the Guardians. If they want to replace Ahmadinedjad then the iranian president would die in a "tracig accident" a few minutes later.

Now some words about Bush and the effects of his political decisions:
There was indeed a reformist movement in Iran, which had great successes in pushing back the power of the Mullahs. It was severely damaged after the idiotic speach of Bush, when he defined Iran as a member of teh Axis of evil. Iranians always support their regime when they are threatened by a possible attack from foreigners. And exactly this happened after these words of Bush.
So the mullahs could regain their power.
They made clever manipulations of the iranian people. And it was easy because they got much popaganda ammunition from Bush:

- The pictures from the Abu Ghraib prison, where helpless prisoners were tortured by soldiers in US-Uniforms. Escpecially the pictures where the prisoners were forces to pose in pervert sexual poses or homosexual poses shocked and disgustes all iranians.

- The fact that the US-government supports the terrorist organisation MEK (which is ironicly defined as terrorists by the USA) who perform bomb attacks in Iran, killing innocent civilians.

- The pictures from Israel/Palestine

- and especially the pictures from Iraq.

While the western nations consider the iranian president as an religious fanatic and mad man who is spreading terror the very same propaganda is used when Bush is shown in iranian TV: A religious fanatic who thinks that he gets orders directly from God and who is spreading terror in the world.

You see - its one thing what you see in Wikipedia and nice articles from exiles and another what the people in the countries think about each other after being manipulated by their specific propaganda.

Its not an easy Good and Evil world we are living in.

And ignoring this fact directly results in the desaster we have now in Iraq.

 

It is a Good and Evil world. I'm good, everyone else is evil.

 

Had a similar case in my neighborhood (where I was raised). Quite a few, really. I got knocked down on my first day of Kindergarten, and I was always getting the hell kicked out of me until I got taller than the tormentors. I can't breathe properly through my nose because of those little bastiges

Hmmm. Yeah, people who don't get into good fights when they're kids lack a certain perspective. I'm glad I got knocked down, generally thrown around and bloodied a lot.

Actually I have a point here. May be or not. But we also had Quaker kids -- a very cool and diverse neighborhood. Quaker kids would take direct punches, get knocked down, and never fight back. I respected that but didn't want to follow their crazy ways. The look on a Quaker's face when he got punched to the ground was really something.

America's challenge is to be the fair policeman on the block. I would prefer that we just give warnings to bullies, and that they realize on their own that we have damned big night sticks and stuff. Don't want to go off beating folks without reason. Really it's a crappy position to be in.

Honestly, I doubt the US is going to remain in the World Cop position for long -- other realities are seeing to that. The world as a system tends to balance itself, and we all know the players.

Yeah, history is no mystery, and the future can usually be predicted with a reasonable accuracy. So I'm going on vacation to live my humble life

 

Babek, do you have any opinions about what will happen before the Summer of 2006? I'm serious. Between the nuclear stuff, the recent statements from the reactionary elements of the Iranian government, Israeli interests, Russian sales of defensive systems, etc. Even Sharon's sickness and Likud. Eesh. Gives me a headache worse than 1979.

What a mess.

 

In my family we had many discussions because of the recent developments in Iran. All of us feel angry and ashamed about the arrogant behaviour of Ahmadinedjad who makes his propaganda statements. But my family is not from the poor caste in Iran - so we were not the target of Ahmadinedjads propaganda.

So - what is the goal of Ahmadinedjad? I think he wants to mobilize the iranians in a second revolution.
He was already succesful in his election to president.
While the iranian exiles and the Bush government asked the iranians not to vote and protest in this way Ahmadinedjad was able to mobilize the voters. There was a new record of voters in Iran - much a dissapointment for the Bush regime and the iranian exiles and also for my family and me.
Not that the corrupt other candidate would have been better but the fact that one man like Ahmadinedjad could mobilze the masses again shows that the mullah propaganda is still very effective. And no matter if i like him or not he has the charisma to impress especially the poor people.

Also the reports from Iraq showing the failure of US-liberation and democracy have frustrated many iranians who dont want to be "liberated" in the same way by foreigners. So the democratic reform must come from iranians in iran. But today its very difficult because the mullahs are quite succesful. Nevertheless there are also successes of the liberal iranians in Iran.

And maybe here lies the answer for Ahmadinedjads actions:
He is already failing to give the people what he has promised. So the poor people remain poor and sooner or later they will turn against him.
Unless... he could fanatize them because of something.
The iranians would support unconditionally their government if there is a foreign attack. Or foreign threats endangering Iran or iranian pride.

The mullahs know that an invasion against Iran is highly unlikely. Not after the desasters in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even years after the so called victories against Terrorism in these countries there is no peace and the war is going on. And Iran is much larger than these small countries.

So there remains the danger of attacks against iranian targets. But unlike the single and small Osirak nuclear plant in iraq which was severely damaged by the famous israeli attack Iran has more than 16 ( other sources say 30 ) installations in whole Iran.

So damage done by these attacks could be repaired easily - especially with russian and chinese help.
China already has blocked UN-resolutions against Iran - maybe the Mullahs got some promises from Peking for the future. China and Russia are the most important economical partner of Iran. So while an embargo from Europe would have only a minor effect an embargo from Russia and China would be devastating.

But the first thing Russia did, after Netanjahu talked about bombing iranian nuclear sites, it was to sell modern anti-air missiles to iran - disregarding protests from the USA.

And China needs iranian oil.

So maybe Ahmadinedjad wants to be attacked - either by useless embargos, or some useless attacks against iranian targets or threats - in order to raise the power of his regime.

 

Thanks. All of the things you say make sense to me. I almost forgot about the Chinese factor. I just keep hoping that the next war(s) see a true and honest alliance of Russia (and certain ex-USSR places) and the US. They're still the big boys in my opinion.

Keep an eye out also for things going on in South America

There's not enough aspirin to solve these headaches...

 

Why would a Holy Government, that is to say, an Ayatolagarchy, use nuclear weapons?
I mean, they are God's people, right?:
The same god Jews and Christians pray to - which is something quite under-emphasized...

[sarcasm]
Oh, that's right, I forgot, the answer is obvious, these just ain't ANY God's people, these guys are MUSLIMS.... Which means they are bad guys.
[/sarcasm]

 

Germany following the first world war and the severe depression brought onto the country by the allied goverments votes in an extremist dictator - Hitler.

Italy follows Germany's lead in electing a Fascist dictator.

Japan - I don't understand the oriental mind but belief in the emperor as the son of heaven kinda brings it's own level of extremism.

Bad examples Red.

Mal

 

Well, after their defeat in WWII those 3 countries seem like pretty stable democracies to me. Sure, not without flaws, but democracies nonetheless.

 

If you think SCIRI is Grand Ayatollah Sistani or the Prime Minister's political party, you are mistaken.

Al-Qaeda does not represent the former Sunni regime. Osama Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda members frequently called Saddam Hussein and the Baathists "infidels" due to their secular government in Iraq. Osama Bin Laden wants a pan-Islamic caliphate, ruled by Islamic law. A secular government, such as the one set up by Saddam Hussein, would be a target of Osama Bin Laden, not an ally. Al-Qaeda operations in Iraq may be due to any number of reasons, but the attacks might actually represent Al-Qaeda's disdain for a Shiite secular government movement.

 

He's talking post World War Two, dude.

 

Mussolini began his gig way before Hitler, though. "Big head" took control in 1922, and "Mustache" consolidated control much later, in 1933.

Those are the nicknames my great friend Enzo uses

 

Hummmm........Moose and Squirl........

 

Even worse than expected:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world...ticle334476.ece

Iraq's election result: a divided nation
By Patrick Cockburn
Published: 21 December 2005
Iraq is disintegrating. The first results from the parliamentary election last week show the country is dividing between Shia, Sunni and Kurdish regions.

Religious fundamentalists now have the upper hand. The secular and nationalist candidate backed by the US and Britain was humiliatingly defeated.

The Shia religious coalition has won a total victory in Baghdad and the south of Iraq. The Sunni Arab parties who openly or covertly support armed resistance to the US are likely to win large majorities in Sunni provinces. The Kurds have already achieved quasi-independence and their voting reflected that.

The election marks the final shipwreck of American and British hopes of establishing a pro-Western secular democracy in a united Iraq.

Islamic fundamentalist movements are ever more powerful in both the Sunni and Shia communities. Ghassan Attiyah, an Iraqi commentator, said: "In two and a half years Bush has succeeded in creating two new Talibans in Iraq."

The success of the United Iraqi Alliance, the coalition of Shia religious parties, has been far greater than expected according to preliminary results. It won 58 per cent of the vote in Baghdad, while Iyad Allawi, the former prime minister strongly supported by Tony Blair, got only 14 per cent of the vote. In Basra, Iraq's second city, 77 per cent of voters supported the Alliance and only 11 per cent Mr Allawi.

The election was portrayed by President George Bush as a sign of success for US policies in Iraq but, in fact, means the triumph of America's enemies inside and outside the country.

Iran will be pleased that the Shia religious parties which it has supported, have become the strongest political force.

Ironically, Mr Bush is increasingly dependent within Iraq on the co-operation and restraint of the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has repeatedly called for the eradication of Israel. It is the allies of the Iranian theocracy who are growing in influence by the day and have triumphed in the election. The US will fear that development greatly as it constantly reminds the world of Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Iran may be happier with a weakened Iraq in which it is a predominant influence rather than see the country entirely break up.

Another victor in the election is the fiery nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mehdi Army militia fought fierce battles with US troops last year. The US military said at the time it intended "to kill or capture him".

Mr Bush cited the recapture of the holy city of Najaf from the Mehdi Army in August 2004 as an important success for the US Army. Mr Sadr will now be one of the most influential leaders within the coalition.

All the parties which did well in the election have strength only within their own community. The Shia coalition succeeded because the Shia make up 60 per cent of Iraqis but won almost no votes among the Kurds or Sunni, each of whom is about 20 per cent of the population. The Sunni and the Kurdish parties won no support outside their own communities.

The US ambassador in Baghdad, Zilmay Khalilzad, sounded almost despairing yesterday as he reviewed the results of the election. "It looks as if people have preferred to vote for their ethnic or sectarian identities," he said. "But for Iraq to succeed there has to be cross-ethnic and cross-sectarian co-operation."

The election also means a decisive switch from a secular Iraq to a country in which, outside Kurdistan, religious law will be paramount. Mr Allawi, who ran a well-financed campaign, was the main secular hope but that did not translate into votes. The other main non-religious candidate, Ahmed Chalabi, won less than 1 per cent of the vote in Baghdad and will be lucky to win a single seat in the new 275-member Council of Representatives.

"People underestimate how religious Iraq has become," said one Iraqi observer. "Iran is really a secular society with a religious leadership, but Iraq will be a religious society with a religious leadership." Already most girls leaving schools in Baghdad wear headscarves. Women's rights in cases of divorce and inheritance are being eroded.

Sunni Arab leaders were aghast at the electoral triumph of the Shia, claiming fraud. Adnan al-Dulaimi, the head of the Sunni Arab alliance, the Iraqi Accordance Front, said that if the electoral commission did not respond to their complaints they would "demand the elections be held again in Baghdad".

Mr Allawi's Iraqi National List also protested. Ibrahim al-Janabi, a party official, said: "The elections commission is not independent. It is influenced by political parties and by the government." But while there was probably some fraud and intimidation, the results of the election mirror the way in which the Shia majority in Iraq is systematically taking over the levers of power. Shia already control the ministry of the interior with 110,000 police and paramilitary units and most of the troops in the 80,000-strong army being trained by the US are Shia.

Mr Khalilzad said yesterday: "You can't have someone who is regarded as sectarian, for example, as Minister of the Interior." This is a not so-veiled criticism of the present minister, Bayan Jabr, a leading member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the largest Shia party. He is accused of running death squads and torture centres whose victims are Sunni Arabs.

It is unlikely that the Shia religious parties and militias will tolerate any rollback in their power. "They feel their day has come," said Mr Attiyah.

For six months the Shia have ruled Iraq in alliance with the Kurds. Kurdish leaders are not happy with the way this government has worked. The Kurds, supported by the US, will now try to dilute Shia control of government by bringing in Sunni ministers and Mr Allawi. But one Kurdish leader said: "We have a strategic alliance with the Shia religious parties we would be unwise to break."

The elections are also unlikely to see a diminution in armed resistance to the US by the Sunni community. Insurgent groups have made clear that they see winning seats in parliament as the opening of another front.

The break-up of Iraq has been brought closer by the election. The great majority of people who went to the polls voted as Shia, Sunni or Kurds - and not as Iraqis. The forces pulling Iraq apart are stronger than those holding it together. The election, billed by Mr Bush and Mr Blair as the birth of a new Iraqi state may in fact prove to be its funeral.

Iraq is disintegrating. The first results from the parliamentary election last week show the country is dividing between Shia, Sunni and Kurdish regions.

Religious fundamentalists now have the upper hand. The secular and nationalist candidate backed by the US and Britain was humiliatingly defeated.

The Shia religious coalition has won a total victory in Baghdad and the south of Iraq. The Sunni Arab parties who openly or covertly support armed resistance to the US are likely to win large majorities in Sunni provinces. The Kurds have already achieved quasi-independence and their voting reflected that.

The election marks the final shipwreck of American and British hopes of establishing a pro-Western secular democracy in a united Iraq.

Islamic fundamentalist movements are ever more powerful in both the Sunni and Shia communities. Ghassan Attiyah, an Iraqi commentator, said: "In two and a half years Bush has succeeded in creating two new Talibans in Iraq."

The success of the United Iraqi Alliance, the coalition of Shia religious parties, has been far greater than expected according to preliminary results. It won 58 per cent of the vote in Baghdad, while Iyad Allawi, the former prime minister strongly supported by Tony Blair, got only 14 per cent of the vote. In Basra, Iraq's second city, 77 per cent of voters supported the Alliance and only 11 per cent Mr Allawi.

The election was portrayed by President George Bush as a sign of success for US policies in Iraq but, in fact, means the triumph of America's enemies inside and outside the country.

Iran will be pleased that the Shia religious parties which it has supported, have become the strongest political force.

Ironically, Mr Bush is increasingly dependent within Iraq on the co-operation and restraint of the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has repeatedly called for the eradication of Israel. It is the allies of the Iranian theocracy who are growing in influence by the day and have triumphed in the election. The US will fear that development greatly as it constantly reminds the world of Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Iran may be happier with a weakened Iraq in which it is a predominant influence rather than see the country entirely break up.

Another victor in the election is the fiery nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mehdi Army militia fought fierce battles with US troops last year. The US military said at the time it intended "to kill or capture him".

Mr Bush cited the recapture of the holy city of Najaf from the Mehdi Army in August 2004 as an important success for the US Army. Mr Sadr will now be one of the most influential leaders within the coalition.

All the parties which did well in the election have strength only within their own community. The Shia coalition succeeded because the Shia make up 60 per cent of Iraqis but won almost no votes among the Kurds or Sunni, each of whom is about 20 per cent of the population. The Sunni and the Kurdish parties won no support outside their own communities.

The US ambassador in Baghdad, Zilmay Khalilzad, sounded almost despairing yesterday as he reviewed the results of the election. "It looks as if people have preferred to vote for their ethnic or sectarian identities," he said. "But for Iraq to succeed there has to be cross-ethnic and cross-sectarian co-operation."
The election also means a decisive switch from a secular Iraq to a country in which, outside Kurdistan, religious law will be paramount. Mr Allawi, who ran a well-financed campaign, was the main secular hope but that did not translate into votes. The other main non-religious candidate, Ahmed Chalabi, won less than 1 per cent of the vote in Baghdad and will be lucky to win a single seat in the new 275-member Council of Representatives.

"People underestimate how religious Iraq has become," said one Iraqi observer. "Iran is really a secular society with a religious leadership, but Iraq will be a religious society with a religious leadership." Already most girls leaving schools in Baghdad wear headscarves. Women's rights in cases of divorce and inheritance are being eroded.

Sunni Arab leaders were aghast at the electoral triumph of the Shia, claiming fraud. Adnan al-Dulaimi, the head of the Sunni Arab alliance, the Iraqi Accordance Front, said that if the electoral commission did not respond to their complaints they would "demand the elections be held again in Baghdad".

Mr Allawi's Iraqi National List also protested. Ibrahim al-Janabi, a party official, said: "The elections commission is not independent. It is influenced by political parties and by the government." But while there was probably some fraud and intimidation, the results of the election mirror the way in which the Shia majority in Iraq is systematically taking over the levers of power. Shia already control the ministry of the interior with 110,000 police and paramilitary units and most of the troops in the 80,000-strong army being trained by the US are Shia.

Mr Khalilzad said yesterday: "You can't have someone who is regarded as sectarian, for example, as Minister of the Interior." This is a not so-veiled criticism of the present minister, Bayan Jabr, a leading member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the largest Shia party. He is accused of running death squads and torture centres whose victims are Sunni Arabs.

It is unlikely that the Shia religious parties and militias will tolerate any rollback in their power. "They feel their day has come," said Mr Attiyah.

For six months the Shia have ruled Iraq in alliance with the Kurds. Kurdish leaders are not happy with the way this government has worked. The Kurds, supported by the US, will now try to dilute Shia control of government by bringing in Sunni ministers and Mr Allawi. But one Kurdish leader said: "We have a strategic alliance with the Shia religious parties we would be unwise to break."

The elections are also unlikely to see a diminution in armed resistance to the US by the Sunni community. Insurgent groups have made clear that they see winning seats in parliament as the opening of another front.

The break-up of Iraq has been brought closer by the election. The great majority of people who went to the polls voted as Shia, Sunni or Kurds - and not as Iraqis. The forces pulling Iraq apart are stronger than those holding it together. The election, billed by Mr Bush and Mr Blair as the birth of a new Iraqi state may in fact prove to be its funeral.

 

I remember well you predicting exactly this some time ago babek.

Im ashamed that I ever felt any support for this occupation.

 

I was wrong but yoiu get the idea


Mal

 

If they'd wanted to introduce a democracy then they'd have had to do the same as was done in WWII.

Totally anihilate the country in question.

Or as in Vietnam and as will probably happen the country will explode into civil war. Drop off the face of the world for a while then 40 years later re-emerge as an almost democracy.

Mal

 

So you've finally admited a fact... that there were no Al-Kaida (better spelling for some lexical reasons, but the Americans prefer Al-Qaeda) members, nor supporters in Iraq, prior to US invasion... now the Country has turned into some sort of ">I want to be a jihad warrior<'s promised land" with some thousands of terrorist queing to kill everything that is not so islamic-straight-forward-orthodox... what Mr.Bush&Co. did, was overthrowing a secular regime, in order to give the country free in hands of Orthodox-Islam forces... WTG.

BTW- please check the two year old topic about the War in Iraq I once wrote in... I wrongly assumed there, that the price of a barell of crude oil will skyrocket to $30... I was wrong, badly wrong (It was $22/barell when I wrote that words... )

 

i am a shamed fur ur ocupation:



glas's"s house ---- 'ocupied'

 

I'll believe it when I see it. At any rate, even if we assume that everything the article claims is true, so?? If none of the Iraqis actually want there to be a united Iraq, what's the point in crying about it. If the various ethnic groups would rather have their own states, so be it. Can't hold democratic elections and then bitch if they don't turn out the way you wanted them to.