Monday, December 12, 2005


The upcoming election in iraq is not going to to do anything but deepen the already exsiting war between the different groups of Iraqis. This elections is the fruit of presifent Bushs presistence on having the january elecion earlier this year, but where is it going? what problems its gonna solve? and what should we expect from the new goverment?
Analysits in the united states say that this elections should be posponded to gather more support to the action from the sunnies, and make further progress towords ending the military risistance.
One might argue that this agenda which the united states commited itself to, has been succesful. This agenda resulted in and interm goverment, an interm parliament, a constitution, and of course paving the way for a new 4-year goverment. All of that is correct, but this agenda failed to meet one important goal, which is national agreement.
In fact, this agenda was the casue of the soaring of the resistance, and icreasing both the quantity and the quality of the attacks against amercan and Iraqi troops.The New York Times says that insiders told the paper that this was not the best plan, there were other plans, but Mr. Bush had to choose this one because America was under a lot of pressure, especially from the Sistani.
The first elections resulted ,after 3 months of debate, in an interm goverment, a coalition between the Shiite and the Kurds. This goverment was not the an i deal one, even its most important supporter, the Sistani, expressed his disappiontment.
In the upcoming elections, the different groups of the Iraqi people will go to the boxes, but the discion of whom to vote to, is going to based on ethnic and religous bases.
This would nothing but deepen the division already exsisting. This elections would not offer a solution for the problems. And by problems, I dont mean the services like water and gas and so on, I mean the biggest problem that is facing the new Iraq.... Division and seperation.
Patrick Kukbern-sorry if I didnt get the spelling right- says that after president Saddam Hussien, there was building and there was distruction, the latter was the most successful till now, he says that Iraqis see seperation as the only was out of this situation. This situation is alrady exisisting in the north, where the Kurds have thier own goverment, police, and even an independent army.
The sunnies say that thier ok with that situation, but they are not saying that becasue the believe in it, they say it because there is nothing they can do about it. But the greatest danger in coming from the south, where Abd Al-Aziz Al-Hakeem wants to form a kind of federation that includes 9 provnices, which leaves the 5 to the central goverment. The Americans are afraid that this would make the new goverment just a bunch of buildings in the green zone. This fear is further deepened especially after the Kurdish goverment signed contract with a cpompany from Norway to look for oil in Zakho. The new constitution gives the provinces to excavate and invest oil in thats is found in thier terittory.
They hope, the Americans, that a new goverment will rise, and this goverment would include the 3 main branches, sunnies, shiite, and kurds. In theory that is the most plausible solution for the problem, but this is just why there is a problem. Because every minister is acting like he owns his office and everybody working in it.
When AL-Jafary came to office, everybody in his office was fired, and new employees were appointed, all from his party. The minister on interior, Bakir Solagh, made the ministry a castle for the memebers of the Islamic reveloution party, Al-Hakeems people. They say that he fired most of the officers appointed by his predecessor, and aappointed new ones, who are members of his party. Most of these new officers do not even speak arabic, not to mention that they still recieve thier paycheck from Tahran.
Mr. Kukbern further adds that the Americans are losing thier infleunce on the country on daily bases, thats situation led them to turn to arab countries like Egypt and Suadi Arabia, which the americans ignored untill till recently.
The new Iraq, Mr, Kukbern says, would be nothig but a name on the map.

Friday, December 02, 2005


There was nothing new in president Bush's speech to the troops in Anapolis, the same old speech over and over again.
Even the American newspapars said it was a repetion of old speeches. The American public wanted to know if the president learned from mistakes, appearently, he didn't.
Mr. Bush, who's as far as u can go form realizing reality, was saying the same things he said befor. We have seen this befor.
The public wanted to hear about his strategy in Iraq, they wanted to know when he is going to pull the troops out, they wanted to know what went wrong and how he is going to make it right.
But they didn't hear that, its like they give him the same speech every time to read in public, they maybe use the same papers on which the first speech was printed on.
By the way that's not my opnion, that's what the New York Times said, not to the word, but the gist is the same.
Now ill qoute. He said something about the Iraqi army taking control of some areas. The truth was these areas in the middle and the south are already controlled by the shiite milttias, they just chnged thier clothes.
I remembered Nixon's speech back in 1969, the tow speeches are very much similar. Just change the democratic procces in Iraq with the Paris confrence and and you will find them similar. Nixon, howevr, admitted that the Americans were losing and the war was a mistake. He had the luxury to say so because he didnt start that was in Vietnam, so he could said anything. Unfortunatly Bush didn't have that luxury.
President Bush is in quite a dilema, he can't pull out now, becasue that would be a disaster for him and for Iraq. But at the same time he can't sustain to remain in Iraq for indefenit time, add to that, the addminstration haven't reached a realastic strategy yet, and we must not forget that the Iraqis themselves are starting to feel that they should be left on thier own.
The democratic progress in Iraq, was shadoweed by reports saying that the American army paid some papers to publish articles in its benefit.
Even when he talked about progress in training the Iraqi troops, and they are now more ready and qualiffied to be on their own, a lot of poeple didn't approve.
Clearly he is the only who sees that progress. As a matter of fact i dont think he listend to his generals when they speaking to the congress. The truth is only a handful of troops can preform military actions without support from the American forces.
The rosy picutre he painted for Iraq, was not nearly close to the truth.
I suggest that u dont listen to me, I dont approve with the American policy, and i might not impartial, because I see the Americans as invaders. So dont listen to me, what do i know?
I suggest u read the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angles Times, The Independent, and The Guardian.
Read these papers and see for yourselves how far from reality Mr. Bush is.
Agian, this is not my opinion, its YOUR opinion.

iraq Posted by Picasa

Thursday, December 01, 2005

She Apologized !!!!

Madlene allbright, the former secretry of state, apologized for saying that the deaths of the iraqi children were worth it. So after all they weren't.
So what now? She admitted that she was worng, she admitted that the policy was worng, she even admitted that they were resposbile for these deaths.
They were not worth it, just as simple as that. try telling that to the children parents.
So what now? are they going to put her on trail? are they going to put her in prison for killing all those children? Well.... What do you think? Of course not. Why would they? She apologized, didn;t she?
She said she was sorry, that's it. I mean, what in god's name do you want more? Do u want like giving the families any compensation or reparation ?Do you want for the unites states to apologize for imposing that deadly embargo, which, according to the former secretry of state caused the deaths of no less than a million child, most of them infants? Naaaaah, she apologized.
So shut your mouths and forget about it, it's in the past. Let it go already. They were propably going to be pro-saddam, thats enough reason to kill them.
3 men were killed in faluja and the americans desrtyoed the city over the heads of the people living in it, militants and civilians. But a million innocent child died for no reason appearently, and nothing. Americans don't think of other poeple, they are crying got thier 2000 men, but dont know nothing aobut the 200,000 Iraqis killed.What do u call that? Arrogance or Stupidity?